East Campus University of Oregon (CA 25-02, RA 25-01, Z 25-03) <br />Findings Page 4 of 36February 2026 <br /> <br /> <br />law and are not appropriate given the need to develop housing and the cost, delay and <br />uncertainty created by discretionary land use process. <br />The Council views this current proceeding and the Matthew Knight Arena conditional use <br />permit as examples of processes that should be avoided for housing development proposals, <br />and therefore Council does not wish to create a process that would repeat these experiences <br />when the University applies for development permits for the housing it plans in the East <br />Campus area. <br />The Council also declines to modify the University’s proposal to impose the City’s clear and <br />objective site plan review of conditional use permit criteria on the housing that would be <br />allowed by the University’s proposal. The Council finds that these processes are unnecessary <br />and undesirable in this situation given the transition standards that the University has proposed <br />and the City’s applicable general development standards. <br /> <br />Procedural Findings <br />1. Type IV quasi-judicial process <br />The City has processed the University’s proposal as a consolidated land use application under <br />the City’s Type IV quasi-judicial procedures. The specific procedural steps are described below <br />in the Council’s Goal 1 findings. <br />FNA argues that the University’s proposal is “legislative” in nature and therefore must be <br />processed under the City’s Type V procedures. Some opponents, including FNA Member Steve <br />Gab, Mary Jaqua, and Sue Jakabosky argue that the Type IV procedure wrongly interferes with <br />their communications with Council members. <br />FNA and other opponents also argue against the Type IV process in order to delay a decision in <br />this case. The City’s Type IV procedure requires that the Council make a decision within 30 days <br />of the close the record pursuant to EC 9.7450. The City’s Type V process, by contrast, does not <br />impose a deadline on Council decision-making. <br />Council finds that the Type IV process is appropriate in this case because of the site-specific <br />nature of the University’s proposal and the combination of land use decisions requested. <br />Council acknowledges that EC 9.8060 states the Code Amendments are subject to Type V <br />procedure. Other provisions of the Eugene Code however state that a code amendment may be <br />processed as a Type IV decision if the code amendment is site-specific and combined with a <br />site-specific plan amendment and zone change. See EC Table 9.7055 (stating that refinement <br />plan amendments are Type IV or V and that zone changes combined with code and refinement <br />plan amendments follow the applicable refinement plan amendment procedure); EC 9.8423 <br />(stating that refinement plan amendments are Type IV if site-specific); and 9.8855(5) (stating <br />that zone changes are Type IV if concurrent with a code amendment or refinement plan <br />amendment). The Council therefore interprets its code to allow the University’s proposed Code <br />Amendments to be considered under the City’s Type IV procedure.