Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the October 14th, 2025 planning commission meeting. I'd like to call this meeting to order. My name is Jason Leer and I'm chair of the Eugene Planning Commission. To begin this evening, I'd like to call on Commissioner Edwards for the city's land acknowledgement statement.

Right. Good evening everybody. Since time immemorial, the Calapouia people have been the indigenous stewards to our region, building dynamic communities, maintaining balance with wildlife, and enacting sustainable land practices. This land acknowledgement is a way of resisting the eraser of indigenous histories, and to honor our native communities by inviting truth and reconciliation. Following treaties between 1851 and 1855, Calapouia people were dispossessed of their indigenous homeland by the United States government and forcibly removed to the coast reservation in western Oregon. As we consider the impacts of colonization, we also acknowledge the strength and resiliency of displaced indigenous people. The city of Eugene is built within the traditional homelands known as the Calapouya Ilhi. The Calapouia descendants are citizens of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ron community of Oregon and the Confederate Confederated Tribes of the Cellet Indians of Oregon. They continue to make contributions in our communities here and across the lands. We express our respect for the inherent political sovereignty of all federally recognized tribal nations and indigenous people who live in the state of Oregon and across the nation. Therefore, the planning commission recognizes that what we do here today will affect many generations who will come after us.

Thank you, Commissioner Edwards. And thanks to everyone for joining us in this virtual meeting format. Tonight we're holding a public hearing for the public health standards of proposed land use code amendment to improve coordination between the issuance of building permits by the city of Eugene and permitting done by public health regulatory entities for new development and the E2 mixeduse employment I2 light medium industrial and I3 heavy industrial zones. Anyone wishing to access and participate in the public hearing can do so by following the access instructions listed on the agenda for this meeting. Uh planning commission meetings can also be viewed by watching the live stream available on our website or the broadcast on Comcast channel 21. If you wish to speak and provide testimony tonight, please know that we'll begin the testimony portion of tonight's meeting after a brief presentation from staff. When we reach that point, staff will provide instructions about the virtual hearing format and how to participate. Before we start, I want to let you know a bit about the planning commission and our role in the process. First, we're unpaid volunteers appointed by the Eugene City Council who all live and work in Eugene like many of you. For these proposed public health standards code amendments, we're not the decision makers. Rather, we will review the proposal, testimony, and other relevant materials and make a recommendation to the city council. The city council will hold their own public hearing before making the final decision on the proposal. We're at large members, which means we have to consider the needs of the community as a whole, as well as the needs of all groups and neighborhoods. We're also human beings, which means each one of us has personal views that make us who we are. But as planning commissioners, we're committed to balancing all of our needs as a community and to making the best recommendations we possibly can based on our policies and our laws for us and for future generations. That can be pretty tough to do and we know that not everyone will agree with every recommendation we make. So, as we proceed this evening, we want you to know upfront that we're listening and that we care deeply about you and our community. We recognize how important these changes are and encourage everyone

speaking tonight to do so in a respectful and productive way. Now, I'd like to invite our moderator, Crystal, to provide some information for tonight's hearing. Thank you, Chair Lear. Uh hello everyone. I am Crystal Fischer and I'll be the moderator for tonight's meeting. I'm going to cover a few items before we begin with regular proceedings. Uh firstly, I want to thank everyone for joining us in this virtual hearing and note that tonight's uh hearing is being recorded. Uh since we're meeting virtually, I'm going to provide specific instructions on how to request to speak before we begin the public testimony section after the staff's uh presentation on tonight's topic. So with that, it's great to have everyone here tonight and I'll hand it back to you chair.

Thank you, Crystal. As she said, we'll begin with the brief presentation from Reed Verer and then move on to open the public hearing. Reed, please begin.

All right, just going to share my screen here. Good evening. My name is Reed Verer and I'm the land use supervisor with building and permit services. I'm here to discuss I'm going to start by providing some project. I'll then discuss some of the challenges and opportunities that emerged throughout the initial work on the project.

Reed, I find you're quite you're breaking up quite a bit. Okay. I don't know if you can reduce your bandwidth or anything. Screen is not shared yet either. Yeah, you're kind of uh freezing on us. Well, we can give Reed a second to see if he can rejoin. I'm gonna I'm gonna work with Reed to get him rejoined here. Let me see what I can do to help facilitate that. Jeff, do you have access to the presentation in case somebody else needs to give it?

Yeah, absolutely. That's not a problem. and every's actually in the same building. So, if all else fails, I can you can come sit in my seat. Apologies everybody. We'll give it just a minute or two to try to work out these technical issues. Jeff, you might be able to just share the the presentation and still have Reed give it. Maybe his computer is I'm not sure what's going on.

That's exactly what I was wondering as well. Let me just make sure I've got the updated version. I'm hoping we will jump on here momentarily. Our apologies everyone.

Looks like he's rejoining there. Reed, am I back in? Yeah. Okay. I probably need to share again here. Sorry everybody. My laptop died this morning and I'm on a loner and it's been uh quite a day uh adjusting. So, I'm hoping that I don't get another crash. Okay. Can everyone hear me? All right. And see my screen on the agenda. Yes. Yes. Okay. Did I get through the agenda or was I already breaking up? All right. I didn't hear much of anything.

Okay. All right. All right. Let's start uh back at the beginning here. So, here's our agenda for tonight's presentation. I'm going to start by providing some background information and an overview on the public health standards project. I'll then discuss some of the challenges and opportunities that emerged throughout the initial work on the project. I'll then highlight the direction provided by the city council on the future work on this project and then we'll focus on today's item, the proposed land use code amendments related to the improved coordination with our regulatory partners. Please note that we have submitted two versions of the proposed land use code amendments and I'll get into the differences uh later in this presentation. So, for some background, in October of 2023, the city council voted to initiate the work on an update to the land use code to address community concerns related to industrial development located in close proximity to residential uses. The goal of the project was to rely on technical assistance from a hazard and risk analysis study that the city's public works sustainability team was working on initiating throughout all of 2024. While that team was working through some challenges in getting responses to their requests for proposals, earlier this year, we started moving ahead with the community engagement process and started researching the existing regulatory framework for industrial development. On June 18th, 2025, staff presented an update of the public health standards work to the city council and the council passed two motions. First, the council moved to direct staff to draft land use code amendments requiring an applicant to demonstrate that they have been issued a all required permits from pollution control agencies like Lane Regional Air Protection Agency or ALRAPA and the Department of Environmental Quality or DEEQ as the applicant that the applicant has applied for the permits or or alternatively they could show that they applied for the permits and that the permits were likely to be issued and this is the code amendment that is the subject of tonight's hearing. Second, the city council also moved to direct city manager that upon completion of the hazard and risk

analysis study to draft land use code amendments informed by the results of the analysis. So, I'd like to take a moment to highlight that there is some public testimony that's been focused on moving forward with additional changes to the land use code and any work on those potential changes would be slated for after we receive the results from the Eugene specific hazard and risk analysis. So, here's an overview on the project work. So far, we completed the initial public engagement stage of the project earlier this summer. We've also been assessing uh the regulatory scheme at the local, state, and federal level in an effort to identify any potential gaps in the regulation. The goal is to comm community uh incorporate the community feedback with understanding of those existing regulations to determine if there are any land use code regulations that could appropriately address those community concerns. Community engagement efforts focused on better understanding community views and perceptions of the issue and whether the land use code is the right tool to help address those concerns. Staff reached out to a broad spectrum of community members including affected neighborhood groups, businesses, and environmental and community groups. The project team received feedback from a wide range of interested parties and the views and perceptions shared with the staff were contrasting. The community engagement survey and full survey or community engagement summary and full survey results are linked to in the AIS and they are also included in the record materials for these code amendments. As the project team worked through the initial public engagement process and research the existing regulations impacting industrial developments, some challenges and opportunities emerged. While there was agreement on some concepts and themes, there's typically a lack of agreement in the community on whether land use code changes are the appropriate tool to address concerns with public health. Additionally, land use code changes won't stop bad actors like JH Baxter that violated local, state, and federal laws. Another concern is that making changes to the land use

code could create non-conforming situations. This could limit the ability of existing businesses to make improvements, including technological updates that could decrease impacts. One of the main challenges, the broad nature of the land use categories in the land use code. The use categories don't necessarily represent the potential impact from a use. For instance, a carpenter whose business was cabinet making would be considered the same use as a large cabinet manufacturer. Therefore, it would be a challenge to implement changes to the specific uses without a better understanding of the hazards and risks associated with those uses on a local level. One set of opportunities that emerged as we worked on this project is better coordination with our regulatory partners, including the DEEQ and Elra. There is currently nothing in the Eugene code that requires an applicant to pursue the necessary regulatory permits prior to receiving a development permit such as a building permit or a grading permit from the city. The proposed code changes that we'll discuss in a couple of slides are focused on addressing this uh specific potential regulatory gap. In addition to these land use code amendments related to improved coordination with our regulatory partners, the city council directed staff to continue the work on the public health standards projects once the hazard and risk analysis work has concluded and we have that Eugene specific data to help inform any potential um proposed changes. And now that we've provided some background information and an overview of the public health standards project, we'll turn to the topic at hand for this public hearing, the proposed land use code amendments. As I mentioned previously, staff has provided two versions of the code amendments for your consideration. Version one was submitted in early September and we received feedback from regulatory partners, interested parties, and city staff that highlighted an issue with language related to likely to obtain. Therefore, staff pivoted and provided a responsive draft code update

that was included in the AIS for this hearing. However, before jumping in uh to get a better understanding of where these code amendments would apply, here's a map highlighting the locations of the subject zones within the city. Now, I know this map can be hard to see. We have a large version of it that's very high resolution available on our web page. Um, so if you want to look into it uh closer, you can actually zoom into a tax lot specific um level. So, so take a look at that if you want to get a better look. E2 is in fuchsia, I2 is in pink, and I3 is in purple. The shaded areas indicate that those properties are inside the city's urban growth boundaries, but have not yet been annexed, so they are under Lane County's jurisdiction. You'll notice that the industrial areas in the city are typically located along major transportation corridors. As the city expanded, residential areas filled in around these transportation corridors with subdivisions replacing much of the outlying historic agricultural areas in Bethl, River Road, and Santa Clara in particular. These historic zoning patterns have led us to the current situation where we have residential uses located in close proximity to industrial lands. While future steps in this project may consider changes to the land uses and development standards, this code amendment is specifically focus focused on improving the coordination with our regulatory partners. Version one of the proposed code amendments provides two ways to meet the coordination requirement before city approval of a development permit. First, an applicant could show that they have obtained all required air, land, and water permits and or licenses. Alternatively, an applicant could show that they had applied for all required permits and licenses and that the permits and licenses were likely to be obtained. It was the concerns with this likely to be obtained language that resulted in moving towards a second version of the proposed co proposed code amendments. Version two focuses specifically on air, land, and water permits required by the

Oregon DEEQ and Elraa and provides three different options for applicants. The first option is the same. They can provide documentation that the permits have been obtained. The second option would be to submit documentation that the applicant has applied for all required permits. And the third option would be to submit documentation that no permits or licenses are required by those agencies. This change helps create a more clear and objective standard. As well as both Oregon DEQ and LRAP have had discussions about the potential for providing umformational meetings to applicants prior to permit submittal in order to determine what type of permits are required. Therefore, the city would be able to ensure that applicants are working through all required air, water, and land permits prior to issuing development permits. Now I do want to clarify that while either that with either version there would not be a delay in the timing of the city signing off on land use compatibility statements from our partnering agencies as those are required to start their specific permitting process. So we would still be able to sign off on Luxes um depending on the land use table um prior to any uh city permitting. Due to the pivot to version two, staff is recommending that the planning commission keep the record for written testimony open for two additional weeks to give the community an opportunity to respond to proposed changes. And we provided some motion language for your convenience. Staff will continue to batch testimony and send it to planning commission up to the deadline. Any testimony received after that deadline would not be under the review for the planning commission deliberation scheduled for November 18th, 2025. However, it will be included in the record and considered by city council. The city council public hearing on this item is tentatively scheduled for January 20th, 2026. And here's the contact information for submitting written testimony for these code amendments. Please note if you are submitting testimony by email to if you would like to be added as an interested party to get written notifications in

the future to include your mailing address in your email. That's it for me. So back to you right Crystal or maybe Jason.

Thank you Reed. Appreciate that. Uh before we open the public hearing I've got a few more details to share regarding our order of operations. Um, commissioners have asked for more clarity on when it's appropriate to ask questions and staff has suggested that they have questions about someone's testimony. You should ask those questions following that individual's testimony. So, if you want to pop your hand up if you if you've got a follow-up question to ask after someone speaks, please feel free. Following the conclusion of public testimony, staff will have a chance to respond to the public testimony presented, and commissioners will have the opportunity to ask additional questions of staff. Just as a reminder, the planning commission will not make a final decision on this matter. Uh we'll make a recommendation to the city council who will hold their own public hearing before making a final decision. As always, feel free to contact staff if there's testimony you were not able to provide in this hearing or testimony that you wish to provide to the planning commission in writing. Before we open the public hearing, Crystal's got some further instructions for us for providing testimony. Crystal.

Thank you, Chair Lear. Uh so, hi again, everyone. Uh it's now time to sign up to speak if wish if you wish to provide testimony tonight. Uh you can get into the queue by raising your virtual hand. Uh to do this, please click the raise hand button in the menu if you're joining us from a computer or smart device. Doesn't look like we have anyone by phone, but in the future, you can dial star9 if you're on a phone. Um and you can start raising your hands now as I continue to provide instructions. At the start of your testimony, please start by clearly stating your name and your address. I will announce whose turn it is to provide public testimony as well as announcing who is up next. When you are called to provide testimony, you will be promoted to a Zoom panelist which will allow you to unmute and turn on your video if you choose. Please do not unmute or turn on your video until it's your turn for public testimony. When your public testimony is concluded, you'll be will be returned to the Zoom attendee status. Regular practice of the planning commission limits testimony to 2 to 3 minutes depending on the number of speakers. I will notify you when there are 30 seconds remaining in your allotted time. When public testimony is concluded, you will be muted. So, please be mindful of your time. If there are any technical difficulties encountered during your turn, we'll move on to the next person in the queue and try again after that person's comment. All that said, I will now hand it back to you, Chairlier.

Thank you, Crystal. So, now I'd like to open the public hearing. The purpose of the hearing is to receive relevant testimony on the proposed public health standards code amendments before us. Uh Crystal, how many speakers do we have currently in Q? Uh we currently have four in Q. Okay. So let's give folks three minutes um based on the number of speakers who wish to comment here. Should be plenty of time for everyone to share their views. We encourage people to submit any written testimony as well. Written testimony may be submitted via email, by mail, or in person. More detailed instructions on how to submit written testimony are included in the materials for this meeting and are available on the application notices. We'll now begin public testimony beginning with the applicant. So Crystal, I'll hand it back to you to begin.

Oh, it's sorry that's an error in our our script. There's no applicant. Um but again, I want to uh yeah, I do want to remind everyone to raise your hand. It looks like we have five now. Uh if you wish to speak tonight, at the start of your testimony, um begin by clearly stating your name and address. You'll have three minutes to speak. U we're going to begin tonight with Joe. I'm going to go ahead and promote you now. Uh who will be followed by Jim. You're also going to receive um a request to be promoted to a panelist. Um and let's see, we got everybody in there. All right, Joe, you are up first. Uh you may begin.

Hello. Can everyone hear me? We sure can. Yeah.

Good. Okay. Um, my name is Joe Liieber and uh my address is 1401 Wamut Street in Eugene and um here we go. So, thank you for uh allowing me a chance to speak uh chair leader and all the members of the planning commission. Um I'm Joe Leverbach and I am the director of business advocacy at the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce and on behalf of the chamber um I want to thank you for the opportunity to submit comments regarding the proposed public health standards. Um, the chamber fully supports the city's commitment to protecting public health and ensuring a coordinated permitting environment. However, we do have significant concerns that the current draft introduces uncertainty, subjectivity, and redundancy into a system that Oregon law requires to remain clear, and objective under statewide planning goal 9. Our concerns with the proposed amendments are as follows. Lack of clear and objective standards. The proposal introduces ambiguity and discretion where clear measurable standards are required. Rather than improving coordination, it risks creating conflicting processes and timelines between the city and state regulatory agencies leading to avoidable bottlenecks. Mislication of land use law. Oregon's land use system is not a tool for criminal deterrence. It was designed to provide fair, transparent, and objective review for lawful development. Attempting to assess likely compliance or the likelihood of a permit being issued turns the zoning code into a predictive enforcement mechanism, an approach inconsistent with state law. Overreach beyond coordination requirements under OS 197.180 and OS97.173 local governments must coordinate with state agencies such as DEEQ and LRAPA but each maintains independent authority. The proposed language crosses that line and risks entangling jurisdictions rather than aligning them. The likely to be issued standard is

unworkable. No entity, the city applicant or agency can objectively determine that a permit is likely to be issued before completion of the public process. The subjective standard is legally indefensible, unpredictable, and exposes both applicants and the city to appeals. Inconsistencies between draft and notice language. The staff explanatory letter refers to actions quote prior to issuance of a building permit, while the draft code language says quote prior to issuance of any development permit. These terms are not interchangeable under Oregon law. Existing oversight mechanisms already ensure compliance.

Environmental permit permitting and enforcement responsibilities already rest with DEEQ, LRAPA, and other regulatory agencies. Economic competitiveness and community impact. Eugene's industrial employment lands are essential to the city's economic diversification, innovation, and living wage job creation. Businesses already navigate a complex environment and compliance systems. The Eugene Chamber respectfully urges the planning commission to reconsider or substantially revise the proposed amendments to ensure they comply with Oregon's clear and objective land use standards and preserve the balance between regulatory oversight and economic vitality.

And that is time. Thank you, Joe. I'm going to change you back to an attendee. Jim, before you begin, I'm going to go ahead and announce the next person who is on deck after, and that's Argerie, promoting you to panelist. Now Jim, uh, you are ready to go. Your time begins when you begin speaking.

Great. Thank you, commissioners. I thank you for the opportunity to comment tonight. The proposed land use code changes requiring developers in E2, I2, and I3 building occupancies is a step in the right direction for public health standards, but should address more specific challenges the city is facing. Foremost, land use code amendments should take into consideration the goals of the climate recovery ordinance in relation to transportation and building use efficiencies when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions and carbon emissions. The goals set by the city to reduce communitywide emissions are not being met in these sectors and land use amendments could correct these inefficiencies. Renewable energy requirements based on building square footage and vehicle trips could address goals 12 and 13 in attachment C. Equally important is to make owner developers responsible for health and safety to the community in the event of hazardous materials leaks, explosions, and fires as a result of an on-site event or a natural disaster. Risk bond assurances should be in place and sufficient to meet financial costs to make keep the public from being saddled with these costs. It is important that self-bonding would not be allowed as a financial assurance mechanism to cover financial risks. Baxter industry super fund site is a prime example as well as the existing and seismically vulnerable Kinder Morgan tank farm on Prairie Road. Fossil fuel risk bonds would address goal seven in the attachment C. Maintaining the air, water, and land resources quality, including preserving farmland and wetlands provides a quality of life for the local community. Documentation of air, land, and water permits for licenses should be required and submitted to the appropriate agencies before project considerations. Thank you again for your time.

Thank you, Jim. Give me one moment here. All righty, Arjie, before you begin, I'm going to announce the next person, Travis. gonna be sending you um an invite to be promoted to panelist here. Okay, Arjorie, you are ready to go. Your time begins when you begin speaking. And don't forget to give us your address as well.

Great. Good evening. Um my name is Arjorie Arbury Barabbo and I um Oh, my name is Arjie Arberry Barabbo and my my address is 5608 Southeast Woodhaven Street in Portland, Oregon. and I submitted written testimony, but I'm also happy to have this opportunity to speak here as well. Many of you um I see your faces and recognize them and you know me as a community organizer for Beyond Toxics. That is true, but this issue is personal to me as well. At the inception of this concept, protecting families impacted by industrial pollution was the goal. The Bethl community worked tirelessly meeting with elected officials, community leaders, and neighborhood organizations to share this vision of a healthier neighborhood. I've spoken many times about being the mother of a childhood cancer survivor. I've heard the heartbreaking stories of my Bethl friends and grew more and more frustrated and angry by how the community's health and livelihoods have been disregarded generationally. I've I'm speaking today as a community member. Having codes in place to protect public health seems like a no-brainer to me. Don't put industry near people where they live, work, and raise their families. My family is blessed to have come out on the other side of cancer. Many families have not had the same experience. Loved ones have loved ones have lost their lives by sharing the neighborhood with polluters like JH Baxter. Had there been a code like the public health standards in place before her illness in 2018, I believe my child would not have gone through what I believe that what my child went through could have been avoided. My lived experience and my seat at the table have brought the voices of the community into decision-making spaces, bringing the focus of humanity into a conversation

too often only discussed in statistics. I've made it my life's work to fight for the rights of families like my own and families who have not h families who may not know the dangers that surround them, but who deserve like everyone else in the city clean air, clean water, and safe soil in their neighborhoods. I'm grateful that the city has taken steps towards protecting the community, but I'm also waiting to see what comes next. Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak this evening. Thank you, Arjerie.

Okay, Travis, before you begin, I'm going to go ahead and promote the next person, which is Lynn.

All right, Travis, you may begin.

All right. Thank you. Um, good evening, chair and commissioners. My name is Travis Kudson. I'm a Eugene resident at 2965 Timberline Drive in Eugene and I'm also the executive director of the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency. Alapa appreciates the city's efforts to strengthen public health protections through improved coordination. We support this goalheartedly and are grateful to be correctly identified as a collaborator on this challenge. I commend Arapa's interest and engagement on this issue. However, we do have substantive concerns about the procedural workability of the proposed ordinance. concerns I've detailed in our written comments submitted to the commission. The core issue is essentially on version two which creates a procedural loop. The state requires OAPA to receive a land use compatibility statement from the city before we as an organization can process our air permit applications. But the language of the proposed ordinance would require developers to show they've obtained or applied for all wrap permits before the city issues its permit. Neither agency can act first under this framework. We worked collaboratively with the city staff since the summer to find solutions and uh thank you to Reed Verer for his engagement, interest, and collaboration. I get the sense that this is um important and he wants to do very well and I'm grateful for that. Um uh but our city uh written comments proposes some specific alternative language that we believe will achieve the city's public health objectives while maintaining legally compliant procedures which essentially boils down to instead of requiring permit determinations, we recommend language that requires pre-application consultation with environmental agencies. This approach ensures early coordination, identifies those potential air quality issues upfront, and avoids creating speculative liability for either agency, all while protecting public health, which is the goal. Arapa is ready to implement enhanced coordination procedures immediately upon adoption of a workable framework, and we remain committed to finding a path forward together. Thank you for your consideration. I'm happy to answer any questions the commission may have.

Thank you, Travis. So, I'm going to change you back to an attendee here. Lynn, before you begin, let me go ahead and get Jen promoted to a panelist. You'll be up next. Okay, Lynn, you uh can begin when you're ready. Okay. My name's Lynn Woodridge. I'm the active BETHL community co-chair. I've lived in the Bethl area over 30 years. I live at 4917 Cone Avenue in Eugene. How is this going to prevent businesses like the bofuels transfer station and the fuel tank farm from locating in a residential area? It's critical that the public health standards with teeth be finalized soon so that the community is able to benefit and public health will not be harmed prior to Georgia Baxter selling the JH Baxter site to another poller. EPA says even city zoning laws make a big difference in what is allowed in reuse. Councelor Leech suggested to narrow the descriptions of the zone designations. The city council could accomplish this right away. The narrower zone verification requests would give the planners a way to deny the most hazardous businesses. Then maybe we could have had the legal basis to deny the fuel tank farm in the train song neighborhood. Putting protective zoning in place would have helped strengthen the city's position regarding the bofuels trained to truck distribution center before the company took the city to the land use board of appeals. Thank you.

Thank you, Lynn.

All righty. And Jen, if you are ready, you may begin. Yes. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Jennifer Davis. I live at 25112 Terry Court in Bonita. I work at 120 Shelton Mc Murphy Boulevard in Eugene. Um, I also serve as the executive director of Beyond Toxics, a Eugene-based nonprofit dedicated to environmental justice. Tonight, I wanted to thank you for taking the first steps toward establishing public health standards in our land use code. This work is long overdue and absolutely vital. Right now, our city has no clear meaningful protections for residents who live, work, and raise families near industrial facilities. Without enforceable standards, we have seen neighborhoods continuously bear the brunt of toxic emissions, weak zoning laws, and slow responses to contamination. The human costs are real. Families in West Eugene have faced higher rates of cancer, asthma, and other chronic illnesses. Parents have watched their children suffer with preventable health um problems. Community members have lost trust in their government because their voices have often um gone unheard. These are real lived experiences of people in these communities. This greatly impacts our neighbors lives and the wishes and concerns u their wishes and concerns sorry deserve to be heard throughout this entire process. This is why the commission must ensure that the next phase of this project deliver protections, clear health overlay zones, buffer requirements to separate polluters from homes and schools, and robust review processes that put public health above industrial convenience. You have an extraordinary opportunity and responsibility to ensure that no community in Eugene is left to carry the burden of toxic exposure. By adopting comprehensive, enforcable public health standards, you can set a statewide precedent for fairness, equity, environmental justice, and land use planning. On behalf of Beyond Toxics and the many residents who have lived these impacts, I urge you all to be bold, adopt standards that will safeguard

future generations that demonstrate that Eugene values human health and thriving neighborhoods over industrial profits. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Jen. Okay, giving one last opportunity if anybody would like to raise their hand and provide testimony tonight. Seeing none, I'll hand it back to you, Chair Leier.

Thank you, Crystal, and thank you everyone for taking the time out of your evening to share your thoughts and your ideas with us. Uh, the public hearing is now closed. Before we move on to staff response and commissioner questions, we have a procedural topic to discuss. Staff has recommended that the planning commission continue to accept written testimony until 5:00 p.m. October 28th, 2025. Written testimony received after the date the record is closed will not be considered by the planning commission, but will be provided to the city council for their consideration. And staff has also noted that we may close the testimony now and move on to deliberations immediately. So, I wanted to see if anybody had a view to share about whether to uh propose a continuation of holding the record open until October 28th or if anyone has thoughts on closing the record. Now, Commissioner Edwards,

I would I would um Thank you so much, Commissioner Leair. Um, I think that I think in in response to some of the changes that were made relatively recently, I think that holding the record open for an additional um duration of time would be recommended. So, I would support that and I'd be willing to make that motion. You want to go ahead and make that? I would love to. So, yes, I move that we hold the record open until um October is it 28th? Yep. 5:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. Yeah.

All right. All right. So, we've got a motion to hold the record open for planning commission's consideration until 5:00 p.m. on October 28th, 2025. Is there a Lauren? Thank you, Commissioner. Can I just clarify um I I believe the staff recommendation was to hold the record open for the twoe period that Commissioner Edwards mentioned for submission specifically of written testimony. So, it would be written testimony only. Um, if that is okay. So, Commissioner Edwards, I see you're nodding. That's okay to be part of your motion. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I'll second it.

Okay. So, just to clarify, we've got for written uh testimony only, holding the record open till 5:00 p.m. October 28th, 2025. The motion has been made and seconded. All in favor, please raise your hands. And anyone opposed? Looks like we have a unanimous adoption of that motion. Um, so we can move on now then. Is there a staff response to the testimony offered this evening before we go on and have commissioners ask any questions?

Sure. I I did um Thank Thank you, Chair Leer, for the opportunity to respond. I did want to talk about the um land use compatibility statement that um the LRAPA representative Travis Kusen brought up. Um there's a little bit of commu confusion about uh we call it lux for short. When um an applicant starts their permitting process through Elra or DEEQ or other regulatory agencies, the first part of that is for them to check with the local government to confirm that the land use that is proposed is allowed within our use table. So that occurs prior to any permitting, city permitting process, whether it be site development permits or building permits. Um we do that check by checking the land use code table to see if it's permitted use. If it is then we sign off on it um and give it to the applicant to take back to the regulatory agency. So these changes are would impact when a building permit or a development permit which can include grading or other site um activities that don't actually rise the level of a building permit. They are all included in development permit. That is a separate process than the signing off on the lux process. So, this proposal would not change the timing of Lux's um under currently under the either proposal. If anyone else had anything else to add, um Jeff or Lissa,

I'll just I'll just jump on really quick. Uh good evening everyone. My name is Jeff Ger, principal planner um with the planning division. Here to uh really just also thank everyone for providing their testimony this evening um and anyone who submitted written testimony. Um in particular, I wanted to call attention to um believe it was Joe's testimony. Uh he spoke about the requirement for uh things to be clear and objective. Uh this is a requirement at the time of building permit. you we need to have any of our standards be clear and objective in order for them to be applicable. Um it was exactly for this reason actually that uh it it was kind of flagged that the version one uh and the use of the term likely I think that's you know everybody's like well your version of likely is different than mine. Um and so in recognition of that that is why version two was introduced. Um, and so version two, you know, in in so much as being clear and objective, it just sets a bar for somebody to demonstrate that they have a permit, they've applied for a permit, or documentation that they don't need a permit. Um, and in that way, we can say, did we receive that, yes or no, which is a clear and objective standard. Um, and so the goal of that is really to provide just some transparency for uh interested parties who maybe they see a building permit come into the city of Eugene, they might they might be not be as familiar with the regulatory framework and so they might see oh well they also to get an LRAPA or DEEQ permit um and then they can go seek that out. It doesn't require city staff to be the ones um analyzing and reviewing permits that are not ours. You know, we don't we don't want to pretend to be the experts in air quality or or some of the work that DEEQ does. So, um just you know, like that's what version two is really targeted at uh

making things transparent and also being clear and objective. So, uh thanks again, Commissioner Edwards.

Hey, thanks you guys. I just um I just had a couple questions, just technical questions, and I'm I'm not sure if Reed or Jeff would be the person, maybe even Lauren, but I am curious about a couple of things specifically. Um do we know do we have any sort of idea or sense as to how many businesses are operating without permits, having obtained permits? I mean are there businesses do do we know has has DEEQ or LRAPA or EPA or anybody reported back that there is a problem because while this process would ask for coordination are there do we know that there are folks operating without the proper air land and water permits?

I can speak to that one. Um there's no specific um quantitative evidence res regarding this but there is anecdotal evidence in our talks with LRAP and DEQ that there have been instances where applicants come to the city obtain building permits start development of the site and then are later um complained about and then they find out that oh they didn't start the LRAP or DEQ permitting process that was required. So anecdotally it does happen but I don't have any quantitative evidence about that. Okay. Um, my other question, and I'm I'm sorry, and then I'll let Commissioner Bon go move on. Um, oh, shoot. Uh, you know what? Let him go. I'll come back to it because I wrote something. So, I'll get I'll get in the queue again.

Okay. Um, couple of questions. Uh, well, first off, thank you to everyone who provided testimony. Um, appreciate it very much. Thanks Reed for all of the work on this. I know we've talked about this a few times and I know there's a lot involved and it gets fairly complex. Um I also I guess briefly want I as I was going through the community survey summary, community engagement summary, it struck me uh it's I want to say two things. one, it's very well organized and uh I think all of the material in there, it's very helpful. I appreciate that, Reed. And to whoever the other staff that put all that together, whoever it was, it's very it's very good and and kind of extend an appreciation to all of the people who you met with who I I don't think of it so much, I guess, as testimony, but they provided a great deal of input for us, and it's a very worthwhile document. I found it to be um so a couple of questions. Um you uh referenced in the material the hazard and risk assessment that was talked about at some length at the June council meeting at that time that was kind of a approximate estimate for completion on that that was out about a year. Can you tell us the status of that and maybe an update on when that work might be expected to be done?

And thank you for the question, Commissioner Bon and yeah, for the comments about the public engagement. That was yeah, very eyeopening to speak with the community about um this project. Um when it comes to that risk and hazard analysis, we're still working off of the indications from the uh public works sustainability team that those results would be estimated in 2026. um and have not received any specific update of of different timelines for that.

So, we might I we don't need to go too far down this road, but I I uh I mean, we have a recommended code amendment here in front of us. We've had the hearing about we're going to deliberate about and so on. And I I'm kind of assuming that once that work is completed, at some point in the f future, there may be additional land use code amendments brought forward by staff. Yes, that's correct. So once we do get the results of the hazard and risk analysis, the direction from council is to take another look at the land use code standards and determine whether there's information, any potential regulatory gaps. Um that's part of the analysis is going to be a gap analysis, too. other gaps that we have not found with um the research we've done at this point and that those results will hopefully um drive the the next steps in the project to take another look at the land use code and see if the results of that study warrant any um or inform any additional changes to be proposed.

Okay, thanks. Uh, one other question then let me uh I'm I'm a little lost on why we even have to have two versions. I mean, as I followed it through the material and as I've listened to the discussion tonight, it's like you put out a version and then there were people who said, "Well, that's a little ambiguous or that might not be the best way to do it." So, you came up with a second version, which to me is much clearer. I It feels a little confusing. Can't we just go with the most recent iteration? That's the consensus of staff that ought to be the version.

Um I maybe Lauren could speak to that one. I I know we included the first version in the notice to the DLCD and the required notices and there wasn't enough time to pivot at that point. Maybe Lauren can speak to what options are going forward um for choosing one version or the other.

Thanks, Commissioner Bon. I realized that I should have introduced myself the first time I spoke. Lauren Summers, assistant city attorney. Um, yes, Reed is correct. The reason that you're seeing two versions in your public hearing packet is because the original version was what was provided to the Department of Land Conservation and Development as part of the formal land use uh adoption process. And so that is the version that was noticed to the department and to they they also maintain a list of folks who they notice uh for land use actions within the city of Eugene. So that was the version that they sent out to their list. Um, and that is what we essentially told everyone the public hearing would be held on. But then kind of between that time and the time of the public hearing based on input from folks in the community, based on staff reevaluation, it became clear that the initial version is no long had some had some issues. um is no longer the staff recommended version, but we still needed to kind of keep that initial version in play for the public hearing because of those original notices. Moving forward, the planning commission has all kinds of authority to make whatever recommendation you want. So, you could recommend that the city council adopt version two or you could recommend that the city council adopt some other version that you like better. Um, so you have you have lots of flexibility. Um, but we wanted to make sure knowing too that staff was no longer recommending version one, staff wanted to make sure that version two was kind of out in the community prior to the public hearing to give interested parties some notice that there would be a second version to give them some opportunity if they wanted to to comment on it at the public hearing. And then also as you've decided to leave

the record open, they have an additional opportunity now to comment on it in writing following the public hearing. So we were we were trying to kind of do the best we could to make sure that we hit all the um legal requirements and also we're as transparent as possible. So I guess we can we can kind of just we'll as we go into deliberations we can kind of sort that out. Okay. Um that's that's good for now. Thank you. Okay, Commissioner Bailing.

Thank you, Commissioner Leer. Um, I I was looking for some clarification. Um, Jim New made reference to climate recovery and several other issues that did not sound to me like they were particularly related to what we're dealing with, what we're considering right now. And I wonder and I didn't understand all of it. I I wonder if any of you can explain to me if uh what he was referencing is relevant to these code amendments.

I'm not sure if anyone else on the team is familiar with what he was discussing, but yeah, that's that not in my wheelhouse as someone that works with the land use code. I I'll just take a quick um response at that and just say that you know the land use code is one tool for you know implementing the city's vision and and things of that nature but there's a whole set of other teams you know whether that's our public works team who's doing the hazard risk analysis work and then there's also there's our whole then that includes our sustainability team and as well as the work of the sustainability commission and so um you know while our work is focused purely in the lane of like what can the land use code do? There are many other city documents that help guide policy relative to you know uh climate change the impacts of pollution things of that nature such as the climate action plan um and other such documents. So I think I think that was probably it's it's a lot about the larger picture coordination was kind of the the notes that I was taking away from that. Um but really focusing on the land use code amendments today and and Jim is more than welcome to submit clarifying testimony if that's helpful. Um and this meeting is also recorded so we can go back and watch that as well. But um you know this the amendments today are more about that initial step of coordination um and letting the next set of research and analysis kind of help drive where we go from here. if that's helpful. Hopefully,

Commissioner Bringing, any other questions? And uh Commissioner Edwards, if you don't mind, maybe we'll give Commissioner Yang a a go and then you can be the next up. Commissioner Yang, if you're ready.

Yes. Thank you for the opportunity. I have just two brief questions because the uh purpose of this amendment is to improve coordination and part of the coordination is coordination in terms of timing I guess for these uh projects or requests. So specifically for the category 2 where the applicants have you know have to prove that they have submitted application. What's the turnover time for uh these individual agencies to return with their proof or documentation? Um can someone address that?

Um yeah thank you for the question. Um, so the whole permitting process can take a different number of days depending on what level of permit they're requiring and whether they actually need to go to like a public hearing for the level of permits. But what um the version two is offering is if they are slowing slowly going through that process, they can submit evidence that they've applied for the permits and then while the permits um through LRAP or DQ are being processed, they could also apply for building permits and that would be sufficient to go forward. Alternatively, um they can have a a prescoping um meeting with those agencies and find out if they don't need any of these permits and then they will get that indication and they'll be be able to submit that with their permit or their building permit applications with the city and then we wouldn't have to require any additional action. So, so the goal with the second version is to streamline it and not delay any development. Um, because they could either show that they have the permits, that they've submitted for the permits, or they don't need the permits. And all of that should be able to be handled um early on in the process.

I see. That's why you were I heard a couple times they reassure that uh there shouldn't be any delay in the process by doing this. That's okay. Great. Thanks. My second question is that um there's a uh there's a definition uh where it says prior to city approval of any development permit. So my understanding is that this serve as a hard stop. A hard stop meaning that any application is there any threshold or trigger that does not require uh getting the ARPA or DEQ approval or any development like literally any. So, so yeah, the the code standards would if that third option in version two says that if they don't need a development permit, they could submit uh demon or evidence that demonstrates that at the beginning. So, both the EQ and LRAPA have pre um meeting or pre um information pre-applicationformational meetings where they look at the scope of whatever the proposed use is and determine if it does rise to the level of triggering a permit requirement. So some uses wouldn't trigger that requirement and so it really is dependent on what the specific use is being proposed there, what um size it is, what type of impact it's going to have and then Elrao and the DQ would be able to get report back to the applicant and say yes this does require this level of permit or no it doesn't require any permit at all.

That's great. So that itself is the threshold. Got it. Thanks

uh Commissioner Edwards. Thank you again. Uh, okay. So, I just Rita, I think it's probably a question for you. Um, I'm referencing like your slide number seven where you bas, you know, basically lays out that the concerns brought up with JH Baxter and I mean, we all know folks weren't following the rules and the rules are there and doesn't matter what we put into the code when people aren't following it. Um, I'm curious. I am still kind of curious about the problem we're trying to solve. That that is that I maintain that. I still don't understand where we're why we're trying to use land use to somehow support the coordination approach and whatnot. But I I have a question about why uh whether or not there is is a reason that we are not wanting to look at the risk and hazards analysis and that work and go into a more complete package of an changes. We know how hard it is to go up in and open the code and have PL planning commission public hearings and then council public hearings. And I'm just wondering if there was a reason why because doesn't sound like there's this major sense of urgency given that it's not going to avoid situations like that and it really is just codifying things that are already happening because the coordination is already happening with all these agencies. And so I'm just curious as to is there a reason we why we couldn't wait for that the results of that to to move something more comprehensive forward?

Uh thank you for the question Edwards. Um ultimately that is up to the planning commission's discretion on um how they want to provide guidance to the city council moving forward. I I my understanding is that there was um some interest in the community to move quicker while we were waiting on the results of the hazards and risk analysis. We conducted a lot of feedback and talked to a lot of different community groups. this was the one component um that did receive somewhat broad support because it's like you said it's things that people that know what the rules are they're doing anyway. What this is trying to catch is people that don't really understand that there is DQ and ARPAP permit requirements for their proposed use and this would give the city a a trigger to get the applicant to do those pre-application meetings to determine whether they do need those permits. So for a lot of the businesses that have money to spend on environmental compliance officers, it's not going to change that. They're they already know what they're supposed to do. This is more getting at the people that don't understand what all of the permitting requirements are. And also that it's giving staff an ability to understand what permits are being required by other regulatory agencies because currently we don't even know what the process is going on at other agencies. And we'll get questions about it, but not even have really an understanding of what's going on with those other permits. Okay. And just as a really quick followup, I think for me it would be helpful to know if we could quantify that like how how many people are we talking about? What businesses are we talking about? What folks are, you know, trying to go through a process and not knowing there's require that there's that there's rules that they're supposed to follow. I haven't heard that explained or even, you know, that's never come out as a a problem that we need to solve. just like, "Oh, there's all these people over here without permits and they didn't even know they needed them." That's what I'm hearing from you. And I'm just kind of curious

like, can we quantify that? Can we hear from all of the regulatory agencies or folks that that do actually do the you know, they they're the ones who um police that that you know, they're the ones that that u enforce that. Where are the problems that this could then I I just think it would really be helpful for me at least and to understand if there's a a problem out there that the city can intervene and say, "Oh gosh, you didn't know that you needed air quality permits because now you're trying to get a a land use permit and we can head that off, but is that a problem?" And so I to me I just it would just be helpful if we had that kind of feedback or maybe in your you know in your in all your um work that you've done and I know you've done a tremendous amount and I I really appreciate you've you've done a lot of work. So

no I appreciate that and um I could definitely follow up with some of our regulatory partners and find out if there is any sort of ability to track those situations so that we can provide that information um down the line. And just for just for some additional context too, I mean this the code amendments before you are a reflection of city council's direction to staff. Um and so I just don't want to let that get lost uh in the conversation too that that's um and then it's you know it's before the commission to to do exactly the work that you're doing today which is to ask questions, deliberate, think about how this moves forward.

U let me jump in for a second commissioner B and then I'll pass it over to you uh Rita. What would be your response to the the testimony from uh Mr. Nudson?

Um I think most of the testimony I got from um Mr. Kudson with Elraa is the concerns about the timing and um I think that's just um misunderstanding and maybe we weren't clear enough in um an explanation of the code, but that's the timing regarding signing off on those land use compatibility statements. So in order to get an LRAP or DEEQ permit um when applicants go to them there is a um local approval that is required that gets kicked back to the city and that's something that we sign off on irrespective of the building permit or development permit process. We just check the land use code table to determine if it's a permitted use or not. Um and none of these changes are going to impact our ability to sign off on those um land use compatibility statements. So, um I don't believe that it does um create that loop. Um but that I that's something we can um we're going to continue to have further discussions from our partners too. And I see um Lauren has her hands up. She must have something to add.

And can I ask one clarification on that first, which is just if the representative from LRAP is concerned that it's creating a loop and that's supposed to be the partner, I mean, is there any thought about pausing and maybe digging a little bit deeper into this before we move forward onto deliberation? um we haven't discussed that, but we are still actively working with um LRAP and DEQ and getting feedback and working out the logistics of this. So, those are definitely conversations we're going to have going forward with them. Sorry to cut you off, Lauren.

Oh, yeah. I I would offer a couple things. One is that your deliberations aren't scheduled for a month, so there's some time to have continued conversation. Um and again, planning commission has determined to leave the planning commission record open for two more weeks. Um, so there's opportunity for discussion and also for Alraa to clarify their comments in writing if that's something that they would like to do. Um I I will say that um one one piece of the puzzle may be that um development permit is we we use it colloquially sometimes but it is actually a defined term in the land use code and it is specific to a permit authorized or required by the Oregon structural specialty code and Oregon one or one and two family dwelling code. So the the building codes um including but not limited to permits for new buildings, additional square footage, building demolition, foundations, grading and fill, site improvements. So there's a there's a list of the types of permits that we're talking about when we talk about development permits and it is a specific list and it is permits that are required by the building codes. And to my knowledge, and I'm I would be very interested to hear from El Rapa if they understand differently, but to my knowledge, that would not include alux, the land use compatibility statement that the city sends back to Elra saying this use, this, you know, this coffee shop, this industrial use, whatever is allowed by the land use code in this zone on this particular site. Those are kind of two different pieces. Um, so I would agree with Reed that I don't I don't think currently based on my current knowledge that there's a timing issue that this would create. But that said, I would be very interested in hearing more from ALRPA for exactly the reason that you

point out that they are a a government partner and b are the ones who are um tasked with enforcing many of these regulations. And so I I don't think we want to make life harder for them. Um, so, so, um, but I do think there's time to continue to have those conversations and for them to submit further written testimony prior to your deliberations.

I had just one more question. I'll pass over Commissioner Bon, which is, uh, how much additional time and effort do you think that either version of this would, uh, create for planning staff? Um it's hard to tell exactly um but it's basically with with version two we're looking at um checking a box basically. So the devel the applicant can either show that they have already obtained their permits. So, that's going to be a pretty easy to provide that or they can demonstrate that they've applied for the permits and that could be done um by having that pre-application um informational meetings to determine which permit are required and then they show that they have actually applied for those required permits. Or the third option would be showing that they've had that pre-application uh informationational meeting and that no permits are required for their scope. So it would be mostly on the applicant of doing those checks ahead of time to make sure that they're off on the right track with any of their permitting that is required through DQ and LRAPA. So it's something that should be they should be doing at the beginning of the process anyway to determine what permits are needed because sometimes some of what is needed for those permits actually does come back around in building code or other requirements that would be a part of the the development permit. So, so it really should be a a introductory check the box right at the beginning of the permit review process.

So, just to understand then, so I'm I'm assuming that these permit applications are very beefy documents. So, they're going to send over a copy of the permit application and then will the this the planning department go through to determine whether or not that application has been reasonably completed or will you be looking for another form, another verification from El Rapa and from DEEQ. what are the next steps and how do they show that they've met this this requirement?

Well, under version two of the code, they would be submitting that um information from each of the agencies about which permits are required and then they would submit proof that they have applied for those permits. So, um yeah, it would be um those two components as far as to meet version two or they would be submitting the or um um uh the second option of version two, excuse me. Or they'd be submitting that information that no permits are required or if they have done all their permitting ahead of time, which some applicants do get everything squared away, they would just submit that they have obtained their permits. So, so that would

it's like an incomplete submission though. Is there someone making a judgment call about, you know, 300page permit and whether or not it's sufficiently complete to have been applied for or if they're turning in just the first page in order to say that they want to get the permit process started. Has that process been thought through at all?

We haven't um dug into that specifically, but yeah, thank you for the question there. I see your point that it could be circumvented by having a less than full application to those regulatory partners. Um that would be interesting to um have those discussions with um those agencies and find out um how that might look um if if that were to happen and and whether we want to look into pivoting on the code language. That's something we can discuss and and be happy to uh discuss further as we move forward with that.

Lauren, are you trying to jump in? I know we've got Commissioner Bon, Commissioner Edwards, and Commissioner Yang as well. I think well I see that Jeff unmuted himself as well and I think he might be waiting to say the same thing that I am waiting to say which is it's a great question commissioner earlier but um like all of our approval criteria in the land use code the burden is on the applicant to provide the city staff with enough evidence to show that they have met the approval criterion and we don't articulate what exactly that evidence is in the land use code they have to provide evidence sufficient to convince the decision maker that they've met the approval criterion. So in this case, one way of doing that would to be to submit the completed application and say, "Yep, see, we submitted it and it has a received stamp from ELRAP and it, you know, is the full application." Um, there may be other ways of providing evidence that um, an application has been submitted, including maybe an email from agency staff saying, "Yes, we have received your application or something else." Um, but we don't typically get into that level of detail in the code.

Uh, Jeff, did you want to add to that as well before we go back to the commissioners? Lauren and I are on the same page there. I mean, uh, I kind of mentioned it a little bit earlier, but it's like th this isn't our code or our applications to vet. You know, our our standard is did they submit documentation for that? Um, and so, uh, we don't know what a complete application looks like for ALRPA. We just want to know that there is one if they submitted it. And that gives somebody interested in that application to go be the ability to go ask LRAP like, hey, did they finish that permit? Um, is that done? you know, this is uh the coordination piece and doesn't put um their review process in our hands. It's not the intent.

Appreciate that. And maybe for our next meeting and if there's any changes, just some more clarity about whether this is like a quick process or they're going to need a letter back from the other agency or a form back. I think that's really a lot of the beef that I'd like to wrap my head around. Uh Commissioner Bon,

thanks. I have two questions. our our as I went through the material you're there we we we talk in there about uh being sure uh permits are in place or else applied for and then it's it at times it references agencies like LRAPA and DEEQ and I I guess my question I just want to clarify um in terms of uh regulations that have to be complied with by a business um that is going into operation where that where there are these where LRAP or DEQ are involved. Are there any other agencies at all that issue regulatory permits that might are they the only two?

Thank you for the question, Commissioner Bon. Um and it's a tricky question. Uh those are the primary agencies in um our local community that issue air, water, and land quality and pollution permits. We found um and that's one of the reasons why when we transferred over to version of two, we did close in um the book ends there just to have those two agencies. So we're not sending people on a potential wild goose chase to consider any other agencies. um those are going to be the primary agencies that regulate those um impacts on our local um businesses. So um that's why we um narrowed it down to their u those specific agencies.

Just to clarify, uh Commissioner Pson, in in version two of the proposed ordinance, the definition of air, land, and water permits and licenses is limited to permits and licenses issued by Elra and DEEQ. Those are the only two agencies we're looking at. Oh, okay. Okay. Okay. Um, that so my my other one's a little bit related. As I listened, we have two versions. We talked about that a bit. I'm hearing a lot of discussion about the version two and this whether permits are likely to be and so on. I can understand there's a lot of kind of nuance there to plow through. Um, I saw a reference to this in some of the material that was in the community summary and I it also kind of occurred to me as I was going through it. Um, why can't we and Lauren I'm not deliberating here. I'm trying very carefully not to deliberate. So I this is I guess and I don't mean to to suggest or write one tonight but what about uh having a requirement that um any anybody who's um um starting some business or operation that all required permits are in place before they begin operation. and you would tie that to the occupancy permit and then you'd sort of avoid all of this discussion on the front end. It seems like, and I'm putting a premise on that for myself, that we'd want to be sure anyone uh in the industry operating inside our community

had uh obtained and was complying with any necessary permit. And assuming that statement is generally true, isn't it possible we could just tie it uh on the other end? They just can't go into operation until they have the permits. That is a good question. Just a hypothetical, a question.

Yeah. Um I am not so much on the enforcement side of things. So that would create an enforcement situation. Um and I know like I think Lauren's looked into this a little bit with um coming at the end of a building permit process to try to hold up occupancy or operations um due to this requirement. um could potentially pose some challenges, but um yeah. Okay. Yeah, it it just seems like, you know, it could be pretty significant if they didn't actually have a permit to op to do whatever they were going to do. But I'll I'll just leave it at that. Maybe I can think about it some more and we can Okay, I'll I'll jump in. Come

Edwards. Thanks. I don't know the answer, but I'm gonna I know I know this that oftentimes the permits are acquired when a business is expanding. So, they're already operating, but they maybe are building onto their warehouse. And now all of a sudden, they have doubled the size of their distribution and now they've got a new set of permitting requirements by DEEQ because of the trips that are going to be generated by freight and things like that. So, I I'm not don't don't count that as an answer, but I'm just saying that sometimes like it's not it's not um the operational, but anyhow, just I I just thought I would attempt to clarify at least what I've learned about this process.

No, that's good. That's Yeah, that's good. I know these things always the more we get into them, the more complicated they become, which is always fascinating. All right.

My question is around um assuming that I think we're assuming that permits are always known ahead of time and I think that just understanding I would imagine it's not outside the realm of possibility that often time an applicant because the regulatory environment is based on something that they're doing in their processing. It's not the the fact that they're a cabinet maker. It's a fact that they are using lacquers that need to be permitted because of the way that they have to um you know uh dispose of those things or store them or all kinds of different things. And I'm just curious if if it's possible that they don't always know upon at the point in time that they're looking to acquire their land use permits to move forward and build out a site and whatnot. and maybe they're not determining how exactly they're manufacturing their product or how they're disposing of things at that time. I'm just it's just a question is whether or not it's always going to be the case that you're going to know what exactly what permits you need before you even break ground because to me that doesn't sound like that would be known all the time. So it it would it would seem problematic if that's not the case. Well, I can't speak directly to um our regulatory partners, but they did indicate to me that they both offer um pre-application informational scoping meetings. So, what the applicant would do is they'd explain what their build out um for even if they're doing in phases, they'd explain which what's components of the each phase are and then the regulatory agency would look into that and determine what level if any of permit is required for that specific development. And then we would be as staff when those development permits come in checking to make sure that whatever scope that they applied for for the regulatory agency permit

matches up what the scope of the development permit that we've received um in the city. Okay, that was my question. Thank you, Commissioner Yang.

Thank you. I just have a I have a quick comment and then a question. The quick comment is that you know earlier Commissioner Edwards mentioned that it's good to have some kind of number quantitative you know factor about the scope of things and I kind of agree with that. I think it's one thing that our goal is to you know incorporate this improve coordination set standard you know become a protocol between different agencies going forward that's totally fine. Uh but it's good to have certain context so we don't think that there's an epidemic of um businesses you know getting permits and operating without permits. Um and I could I could sense that could be a impression and so I think that that's important to have some context. Uh my question is coming back to the executive director uh Travis of Alraa uh where he was talking about the um suggestion of alternative languages and the loop and all that and and he mentioned something that's called the application consultation which is what they do and then re you talk about there's a pre-application information meeting and it sounds to me that they're actually the same kind of purpose same kind of meeting but just held by different agencies or entities and I could be totally wrong and I felt that if I'm one of the applicants I would really benefit from some kind of navigation process that's coordinated. So I wonder if the um the person you know who give the pre-application information meeting you know can could be a joint appointment with the applicant and the uh uh person who runs the application consultation fra ora and kind of figure out what the applicant need to proceed forward and I think that would be really beneficial and so it won't be really a loop you know no you

go first without you I can't go forward no you go first you It seems like it's a similar purpose kind of meeting. It's all Thank you.

And thank you, Commissioner Yang. Um that I that the terminology I use is different than what um Travis Kusen used, but I think we're talking about the same meeting. This would be um I think his sele um suggestion was to add code language that requires applicants to have this specific um pre-application meeting that um they discussed where our thought where the code is is that the code requires them to show that they've submitted the permit or that they don't need a permit. So that would we'd be providing guidance that here's the meeting that you go have with LRAP or DQ so that you can get this information. But just the difference here is whether we actually put that language to require the meeting in the code or require it to show that they've submitted for the permits or don't need a permit. So I think they both kind of get to the same um end result just we aren't specifically requiring that meeting um just because and also if we were to put some sort of language in the code that this specific meeting has changed and then they changed the name of the meeting later on then all of a sudden the code wouldn't apply and require that meeting again. um which is the same situation we saw in the Clear Lake overlay zone. There's actually a code requirement to get a pre or LRAP pre-clarance letter prior to getting a development permit in the Clear Lake overlay zone, but our understanding is is that um LRAP doesn't offer a pre-clarance letter anymore. They have substituted it with these informational meetings prior to application. So, so we're just um thinking that that would alleviate going back and having to change the code every time the partners change the the name of this meeting. Uh, Commissioner Brerling.

Yes. Thank you. Commissioner Edwards got me thinking about um her questions about businesses operating without permit. And I I think we're talking about apples and oranges because for land use, we're talking about building permits, right? The developer could say he wants to build a an industrial park and apply for the building permits and the Elraa and the DEQ, etc., but that does not address the occupants that will later come along to do business in that industrial park. And I assume those businesses have to go through a process of getting their businesses licensed. And it would be very important and probably comes after the hazard and risk analysis that some other entity wherever those building those business permits get issued that they're also addressing these concerns for air and water and land uh uh quality. So I I think it's a different entity and we're not dealing with that at this point. Do I understand correctly?

Uh thank you for the the question. So um so I think what you're just so we call it basically it would be a shell permit. So so if a industrial developer wanted to come and and build out an industrial site without knowledge of which each individual tenant is going to be they could do so. So then we would be looking at um what are they proposing as far as the structure, parking, any other um features that they're proposing as far as not specific to each tenants space that would then we would require that they show us that they've had conversations with LRAB and DEEQ that whatever that proposal is complies or that they've applied for any permits that are needed for that specific use. when it gets time to actually have a business occupant moving into one of these sites, they'll get um what's called a tenant infill permit, which is a different type of a development permit, but they're specifically looking at what that use is, what occupancy rating is required for that use. And then it's another set of review that would come into play at that point. And then we would be checking to make sure that they also have had those meetings with Elabin DQ and that they are working on any permits that are required for that specific use. Great. Thank you. My other question is in our option for having uh proof that permits have been applied for. What would happen if Elra or DEEQ denies the permit?

They denied a permit. Um that would be something they wouldn't be able to open up um with whatever the proposed use was. Um it uh again that would be Elraa or DQ's call to make that um it would be outside of the development permit process that the city would be reviewing, but they would be prohibited from opening under those other requirements that are enforced by those other agencies. But in version two, if they've proved that they applied for the permits, that would be enough for the city to proceed with issuing a building permit or a development permit.

I mean, ultimately it it would be if they met those standards. Um, but those other regulatory agencies have actually pretty strong enforcement um capabilities uh that are kind of go above and beyond what the city has. So the thought would be that they would be risking enforcement action from those other agencies if they took any action to violate um their denial of that um permit and that information would come back to the city. Yes.

Well, that that's the the whole goal is this is to have an understanding of what permits are needed and that we can be tracking to make sure that they are going through that process. Um just because prior to this we don't really have a lot of comm coordination between the other agencies. So, we've been under the assumption that applicants know what they're supposed to apply for and that they are doing it. This is just that additional check and helps create that transparency that we are up on board about what all the other requirements uh that they're going through with our regulatory partners. Great. Thank you.

Just to put a finer point on that, I want to make sure that everybody is clear that we are not the regulatory agencies for these air and water and uh land permits that we're talking about. It's not part of our tracking measure. Like I kind of brought in earlier. It's this is a transparency and coordination piece, but we don't have the authority to like not to unissue a building permit or take that back. It's really just making sure that people understand the scope and the world of permits that are being applied for. Um, and so it's like that development can move forward so long as they meet our land use code. Um, but as Reed mentioned, it's it's their operations and those characteristics that that would be up to the agency that has the regulatory authority to to to stop them. it' be their measure. It's not our intent to track these things over time through this code through this specific code measure. I've got a question there and then we'll pass it off to Commissioner Bon. Um so I'm just trying to kind of understand the sequence as of now. Uh someone may move into one of these industrial zones. they're applying for permits and normally they would, you know, choose the timing of their application to LRAPA and DEEQ. Um, potentially later in the process, maybe they start the design process, maybe they even start the construction process, which can be several years. So, is is there any concern about and and maybe you could summarize if there was some feedback from community folks about taking away that decision on timing from, you know, from the developer for the the one who's seeking the permit and and and I guess I just asked that because I'm I'm still kind of a little struggling to understand the the why on on this one since, you know, as it's been noted, there's no real enforcement mechanism or teeth. Um, but it definitely will potentially cause some flexibility. So, I guess I'm just trying to understand if if there was a decent amount of feedback or any feedback shared about concerns there or

if it's something that's not a concern. So, um, yeah, the the feedback related to this. Um, originally we had discussed requiring the permits be obtained prior to getting a building permit submitt. And the feedback from that was that that would potentially slow down the permitting process in certain circumstances when they wanted to or potential applicants wanted to do some work on the site, but not work that was going to rise to the level of triggering the need to have these um air permits or land or water quality permits in hand, but they do need to be starting the process of obtaining the permits. And so so that's why um the original instruction was to add the likely to obtain process in there to give that flexibility so that we weren't holding up applicants. Um but then as as we've discussed the feedback was that that was not a very clear objective standard. It did not allow um the specificity that applicants would need. So the thought with this pivot is that they should be having those conversations with DQ ahead of time to understand what the full permitting requirement is. Those are services that a rapid DEQ offer prior to um permit submittal on their end. Um so then we'd have a better understanding um right when they want to come in for building permits what other permits are required um by those other agencies.

And and just a quick question if you got it. Um do you have any sense of how long it might typically take to put together one of those permit applications? I do not have information on that now. Okay. Commissioner Bon.

Yeah. One last uh uh question. I guess I'm I'm kind of trying to get a handle on the sort of the universe of possible land use code amendments in this arena that might be available or might be options to look at. There was reference in some of the material of uh back a few years ago we were looking at gas stations and uh maybe this is a question for Jeff. I saw that I staff was uh going to be maybe coming back to council and talking about um um I guess options in the land use code for how we might regulate gas stations. Is that was that ever done? Uh is that work been done? Do we have anyway? That's kind of my question. Is that available? I I will just say um one that this response is a little bit outside of the realm and scope of of the public hearing kind of before us, but just forformational purposes. Um the gas stations conversation um we we are going to go back to council at some point for a work session on that. I believe that's been a request to us. However, that that question's kind of been rolled up in with the hazard risk analysis because that same work that's kind of the bigger picture here,

you know, it's like staff like as much as I loved presenting on gas stations, um I'm not an expert and uh we really wanted to roll that into that full analysis. So, um that's likely outside of the scope of kind of what we're after today. Um but will likely come back to us through that process. No, thanks. I I I it does feel like it would fit better under the risk and hazard analysis. It uh anyway, thank you. I muted commissioner chair.

Thanks, Jeff. Appreciate that. Uh any other commissioners have comments you wish to share or questions you want to ask? Got a few minutes left. Looks like none. Um, so thank you all for joining us and uh speaking tonight. We'll be back on November 18th to begin our deliberations on this item. Is that still the the date that we're we're slotted for? That's correct. Perfect. As mentioned, any written testimony provided by 5:00 p.m. on October 28th will be given to us and any written testimony submitted after that time will be provided directly to city council. Um, this meeting of the planning commission is now adjourned. Good to see everyone.