Eugene council approves University of Oregon East Campus rezoning over neighborhood objections, 5‑3

The Eugene City Council voted 5‑3 to approve an ordinance amending the Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Area Study, updating Eugene Code sections and rezoning a parcel in the East Campus area to align with the University of Oregon's next‑generation housing plan.

City Manager staff introduced a package of land‑use applications from the university that included a refinement plan amendment, a code amendment, and a zone change. Councilor Evans declared an ex parte contact with a U of O representative but, after city attorney guidance and an on‑the‑record response period, indicated he could proceed and did not recuse himself.

Councilor Zelenka, who moved to deny the application, argued the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof required in this quasi‑judicial proceeding and raised neighborhood compatibility concerns. He said the amendments would raise allowable building heights (noting the proposal could increase heights from 45 feet to 85 feet adjacent to homes) and permit the addition of roughly 800 beds in a new dorm without adequate mitigation for traffic, parking, and service impacts. "The amendments would allow the height of new potential dorms and other institutional facilities to go from 45 feet to 85 feet adjacent to neighbors' backyards," Zelenka said, and asked the council to direct staff to bring back a written decision supporting a denial.

Councilor Kaczynski opposed denial on legal and evidentiary grounds, arguing the application met the approval criteria and warning that either decision was likely to be appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Councilor Leach expressed support for Zelenka's motion on policy and neighborhood‑planning principles. After roll call, the motion to deny failed (3 in favor, 5 opposed). A subsequent motion to approve the ordinance passed 5‑3.

Planning staff had recommended approval in the council packet. Council members and the city attorney noted the quasi‑judicial nature of the hearing constrained options (approve, modify, or deny) and emphasized the need to base the decision on the record and applicable criteria. Several councilors warned the decision could prompt an appeal to LUBA; no appeal was filed during the meeting.

What happens next: the ordinance was adopted at the council meeting; the record indicates the decision could be appealed to LUBA and the city manager was directed (as applicable) to bring back any written decisions requested by the council. Implementation details such as effective dates and specific code amendments are recorded in the adopted ordinance and attachment B of the council packet.