Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

2026 Eugene 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 Bon for the city's land acknowledgement statement. Since time immemorial, the Calapouya people have been the indigenous stewards to our region, building dynamic communities, maintaining balance of wildlife, and enacting sustainable land practices. This land acknowledgement is a way of resisting the eraser of indigenous histories and to honor native communities by inviting truth and reconciliation. Following treaties between 1851 and 1855, Calapouya people were dispossessed of their indigenous homeland by the United States government, forcibly removed to the coast reservation in western Oregon. As we consider the impacts of colonization, we also acknowledge the strength resiliency of displaced indigenous people. The city of Eugene is built within the traditional homelands known as the Calapouya Ilhi. Calapouya descendants are citizens of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ron community of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of the Seleletes Indians of Oregon, and 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 what we do today will affect the many generations who will come after us.

Thank you, Commissioner Bon, and thank you to everyone joining us in this virtual meeting format. Today, our meeting will consist of deliberations for the proposed public health standards code amendment application city file number CA2503. Anyone wishing to join the meeting online can do so by following the instructions listed on the agenda for this meeting. Planning Commission meetings can also be viewed by watching the live stream available on our website or the broadcast on Comcast channel 21. I'd like to turn it over to Reed Verer for a brief introduction before getting into deliberations. Happy New Year, Reed.

Thanks, Chair Lear, and happy new year to everybody on the planning commission. 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 tonight to discuss the public health standards land use code amendments. I'll start with a quick reminder on the background of the project focus focusing on the direction that the city council provided back in June. I'll then review the most recent version of the proposed land use code amendments version four which implements the direction provided by the planning commission back in December. I'll close with an outline of next steps and we'll be available to answer any questions. At the June 2025 work session, the city council passed two motions. The first was to move forward with the LAN code amendments related to improving coordination with our public health regulatory partners. These code amendments are the first step in the public health standards code amendments and the topic of tonight's deliberations. The second motion passed by the council directed staff that upon completion of a Eugene specific hazard and risk analysis to use those results to inform potential future code changes to the land use code. These proposed code amendments were developed based on planning commission direction from the December 16th, 2025 meeting. Version four removes any requirements for applicants submitting development permits to identify and attest to needed regulatory permits, but retains the noticing requirement for the city that was included in version three. Under version four, once an applicant submits a development permit for any lot within the city limits zoned E2 mixeduse employment, I2 light medium industrial, or I3 heavy industrial, the city will send notice of the development to the Environmental Protection Agency, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and the Lane Regional Air

Protection Agency. The notices will include or the location information, information about the development permits, including the scope of work and information about the proposed use as provided by the applicant. Following these deliberations, the planning commission will provide a recommendation to the city council. The options provided in the code include recommending approval, approval with modifications, or denial of the application. Staff is recommending that the planning commission recommend that the city council adopt version three of the code amendments. However, based on the planning commission's votes at the December meeting, draft motion language to recommend version four was also included in the AIS. And I have also a slide uh prepared for tonight with the language. Then following these deliberations and the planning commission recommendation, the city council will hold a public hearing on the proposed code amendments tenatively scheduled for February 17, 2026. Um, that's all I have for tonight. So, I'll turn it back over to you, Chair Leer.

Okay. Thank you so much, Reed, for the information. We'll now open deliberations on this topic. We can [clears throat] begin with any questions commissioners have for staff. And also, staff provided a recommended motion in tonight's AIS. If anyone would like to put that motion on the table, you can do so at any time. Um, Commissioner Edwards, I am I am happy to put the motion on the table for discussion. I'm just looking for it. I have the AIS printed out, so just give me one second. Um, you want to put it on the screen if somebody could.

Oh. Oh, that would be helpful if we can do that. Okay. Uh, I move to recommend that the Eugene City Council adopt version four of the proposed public health standards land use code amendments included as attachment A to the planning commission's January 13, 2026 agenda item summary. All right. Uh, do we have a second for that motion? Also second it. Uh, Commissioner Isacson. Um, so maybe we'll begin discussion on it at this point and give everyone a chance to ask questions or make comments. Commissioner Remy.

Oh, thank you, Commissioner Lair. I'm gonna ask the obvious question for someone on on the staff team. Why does the staff recommend three over four? I think mostly um because we think that it implements the city council direction a little more fully. Um when we brought this um code or the the project to city council back in June, we uh presented on the public um engagement process and feedback we had received and got the direction to um bring forth a land use code amendment that provided coordination um with our public health regulatory agencies. And we feel that coordination includes um necessarily includes the applicant um for a building permit. Um they typically would need to know what sort of regulatory permits are needed for their use. So bringing them into a part of the pro process so that they're doing the due diligence and finding out what permits are needed. So then we can have that information and then send it back to the regulatory agencies so we can close the feedback loop we feel like prevents a better actual coordination code amendment rather than just the noticing code amendment.

Thank you.

Yeah, maybe I could follow up on that a little bit. Um, so it seems like maybe that recommendation, and just correct me if I'm off base at all, is because city staff sees it as their job, which of course I think it is, to implement city council's direction, and you think that version three better implements that direction. I I guess I'm kind of curious about how and and then maybe this is a question for Lauren or for Alyssa or someone else, but the planning commission is charged with fulfilling the city council's directive or is there kind of an obligation or an understanding that planning commission is supposed to be working to implement that policy as city council sees it? It it I'm just trying to understand because then we're kind of recommending it back to city council even though this is sort of an idea that came from them. I' I'd like to better understand this.

I don't see Alyssa unmuting, so I will [laughter] take a first crack. Um, Lauren Summers, assistant city attorney. Uh, Commissioner Lear, I think I'm going to kind of take a 10,000 foot view to respond to your question, which is that the um the city council has entrusted the planning commission with doing in a lot of cases, including this one, a a lot of sort of detailed leg work for the council. IL. Um, a lot of listening to information provided by staff and provided by the public and also um, you know, digging into the nitty-gritty of the land use code in a way that, um, council may not have the bandwidth to do because they have to consider so many pieces of the city. and the planning commission has kind of a more narrow focus. Um, so it [clears throat] I believe it is within the planning commission's perview to receive a proposed in in particular in the case of a code amendment where you don't have um or where the approval criteria are kind of broad enough to allow for some flexibility. It would be a potentially a different issue if we were talking about a land use application where there were specific approval criteria that you needed to um consider and abide by. In the case of a code amendment where the criteria are relatively broad, um I think it is within the purview of the

planning commission to look at the information and the recommendation provided by staff and to say we understand what council was asking for. We think the thing that staff provided us with either, you know, does what council was asking for or doesn't do what council was asking for. But even if it does what council is asking for, we don't think it that is the correct solution for whatever reason or that's not our recommended solution for whatever reason. And to make a recommendation to council that is different. Um council's not bound by that recommendation as you they could do something different and staff is also allowed to make their own recommendation to council that is different than what the planning commission makes. Um, so all of those are kind offormational points that the council as the final decision maker can then take and think about and weigh and um work into their decision-m process.

Yeah. No, I appreciate you elucidating that a little bit. That's helpful. Thank you. Um, Commissioner Edwards. Thanks, Chair Lair. I just had a question um maybe maybe for Lauren or Alyssa or even Reed. Um, currently the applicant is who has to initiate the process. Correct. Like there's a there the there's there is someone who initiates a land use process, right? So, they're not completely uninvolved. I think but in this ca in this code amendment the council initiated the code amendment because it's a it's oh

I'm sorry I meant when when a business or when an entity is applying to which would trigger all of this to have have to happen what the thing that triggers it is actually some a a an entity a business a developer whoever is in charge of the I I'm asking because I heard that the part of the reason that staff is recommending version three has to do with wanting the applicant to be involved and the applicant I would assume is has to be involved because they're the one that that initiates the application. Is that correct or am I wrong?

Yes, that's correct. Um so this is covering when a uh a development permit is submitted. So development permit is defined as a building permit, a site development permit, a number of other um types of permits. they would apply for that permit specifically to the city and then the city would then be tasked with giving notice to the regulatory agencies that this permit has been applied for. Okay. So, it is triggered by something that happens from the applicant. So, it is not just like they're out of the loop completely.

Well, they wouldn't need to be checking in with those regulatory agencies before applying for a permit with the city. that that permit would just come in um and then we would send a notice to the regulatory agencies under version four. Under version three, the idea would be that they would do the check ahead of time and find out what permits are needed and then they would include that um attestation and identification of what permits are needed with their application and then we would be sending that to the regulatory agencies. So that's the difference between three and four.

Okay. I just I'll just make a general comment. I think that um I've read the motion from council and I think that improving the coordination is definitely met by you know this version of the recommendation and in fact potentially more efficiently because I think that and and my other question was h and and I didn't expect you guys to know this but was like how many permits do we see in in a year? Are we're talking 500 or are we talking less than a hundred? And the only reason I ask is because 500 businesses or even a hundred businesses that are off, you know, you know, whatever process that this is, this would be a new process to them regardless. And so having a centralized place where this coordination is happening, albeit the city, to be the one to to trigger that communication to me seems far more efficient as a means of coordinating than having a business have to reach out to all these regulatory agencies that may or may not ever interface with them because if they are a, you know, like I said, a martial arts studio, why would they know anything about EPA? So to me, not only do I think it improves coordination, but I think it it it adds tremendous efficiencies by just centralizing it into a process that already involves the city. So that's it. I'll I'll mute. Thank you.

Um, Commissioner Bon,

you're muted there, too. Haven't been doing that too much recently, but I still do. Um, Commissioner Bailing, when are you leaving the call? Did you say 6:15 or 10 minutes to 7? Is that 6:30? Commissioner Bailey, 6:30, I think it was 6:30.

All right. All right. Well, all right. Whatever. I was just kind of curious when she's going to jump off. Um I I've got a couple of comments to make and in there I've got some answer uh to Commissioner Edward's question on number of permits that I'll toss out. I did a pretty deep dive into the permit process in the last couple of weeks. I I'm I'm pretty strongly in favor of us recommending version three. I I think version four is really not uh doesn't quite get there. I don't I don't really think it's responsive to the city council. Uh a couple of comments and I'm I'm really going to kind of try to be brief. I went back and looked at the material that has we've uh generated it the kind of the history of this going back. Uh, I I think it's important to look back when this all got started back in 2022. The council was considering public health standards and they were, if you go back and really get into it, they were driven in large part by residents who lived in areas out there adjacent to those industrial areas in Eugene. They were asking for increased protection from potential industrial pollution. Uh we got in then to a public engagement process that got into 2024 and grant there were pretty mixed results from that but I think the residents continued to want regulation. They wanted protection. Local business was thinking regulation wasn't needed and it would be harmful to the economy. There was this pivotal I think an important council meeting in June of 2025. The motion was put forward. The motion from the council was quite clear and uh it basically

directed staff to develop code amendments that require the issuance of regulatory permits prior to issuance of a city building permit. It was pretty clear. And not only that, I think it's good to note it was it was approved by the council on an 8 to zero vote and it directed staff to go forward and put those amendments together. There was work then over the next several months, kind of the last half of 2025 where we were involved and there were like three different iterations of this thing that went through public hearing and so on and a version three emerged in November and incorporated I think business and residential input and uh and and at at that point this the permit under version three the permit applicant would be providing documentation attesting to the permits that would be required. I think Reed has been clear. He's talked about it. It's been in the written material that the city was to implement this. The city was going to develop a form for applicants to use to determine the requirements for their proposed use back from the agencies. They they talked to the agencies. They bring the form back to the city. They would participate in this. It's a one thing that emerged as I was looking at it. There are less than 10 building permits of the type we are talking about issued in a given year in the city of Eugene. There are not 500. There are not a hundred. There are there are less than 10. And I think I can say pretty assuredly these are fairly substantial developments. Now, it's not to say there won't be a martial arts studio in there, but they're there may be. They're typically going to be larger kinds of developments. They're probably going to employ engineers. They're going to have design. They're going to And another

thing that kind of emerges when you get into the permit process, they're required to fill out a fourpage information sheet for the city of Eugene that that goes into substantial detail about what it is they're going to build, what their process is going to be, and so on. Um I I think it most of these are going to be pretty clear whether they need a permit. They're going to be pretty clear on it before they get very far into the process. They will have been doing some planning. Um so I'm I've you know it um so you know so then we voted against it uh back in December. Um, and now we've got this version 4. Um, you know, and when they I I guess I'm also want to note here as I'm as I go along, the the city council I I'm being a little repetitive here, but I thought they were very clear. I've watched their June 25th meeting. The city council didn't ask uh for city staff to send a list of permit applications to agencies. They they didn't ask for that at all. And um that's it's that's about I I mean I'm not even sure why you would make a code amendment to do that. Um I but I so I think version three I I'm I'm going to suggest a couple of reasons why I'm supporting it here and I'll go quick as I get as I get into it and I look at it. I think it's pretty uh it provides uh uh for provision of information about a project on a timely basis into a public per record permit system and stakeholders and people who are interested would be able to access that and know what's going on. Um and it's

important I think to note and staff has noted this a couple of times in the multiple sessions we've had. There is nothing in our code today that requires a new facility applicant to obtain regulatory permits before they receive a city development permit. And I think part of what we're trying to kind of close the loop on here is to be sure we're trying, you know, to end up that we're not going to have some sort of uh facility developed that would use some kind of a process like this come through without the proper permits. Um, couple of last things here. We've heard around the table here, we've heard in testimony that applicants might not be know what permits they might need. Uh, you get into it and start kind of looking at it. I've talked about the commercial permit checklist. All applicants are going to have to fill that four page. They have to fill it out today. Uh, and it's it's it's something that's valuable to read. I don't know if commissioners have looked at it, but there's a lot of information required. Um, and so I'm I there were a lot of reasons put forward in some of the opposition to this over the last several months that I don't really think stand up to scrutiny. Um, there's not anything that about what version three has, there's not anything in there that conflicts with state planning goal nine. There's nothing about this amendment that's going to result in less industrial land being developed in the city of Eugene. Um, and I I I guess my own well kind of and I don't I don't I just don't think these uh the requirements we're talking about are that ownorous particularly for the kind of applicants we're talking about which are going to be fairly sophisticated

uh you know uh buildings or facilities that are going to be uh fairly substantial. I believe the process that we've landed on is pretty straightforward. I think applicants when they come in, they're going to know what they want to build. They're going to be able to confirm the regulatory permits they require. And I got two last points and then I'll I feel like I'm going on here a bit. I I um I I looked at chapter five of the draft of the commun draft community health uh chapter in comprehensive plan all the work we're doing in urban growth strategies. There's draft policies for healthy natural and built environment. And if you look at the policies, they call out right in there that we're looking to develop new regulatory tools, new air and water quality standards, and we're looking to support coordination with regulatory agencies. My last point, I'm I as I was out today kind of running some errands, I I was thinking about I've been thinking about this a bit. Um, you know, in all of our urban growth strategy work that we've all been involved in for the last couple of years, uh, we constantly are trying to center the voices of those members of our community that aren't normally heard. We talk about that a lot. It's I I believe it's a value that the city has. I don't think I'm being, you know, too hyperbolic to express it that way. I think it's something that we we believe um and uh we try to center voices that aren't normally heard. I think the business community in this particular

project has been well represented. It's well represented. It's a representative right around our table as we talk about it. Um I I I and I think their voices, you could say, are centered in this particular work. I believe and I believe it, you might tell here from my tone, I'm a little I believe it pretty strongly. Part of what we ought to be doing here is trying to see that the residents in these areas out there that are most affected by industrial development are also centered and also heard. My recommendation, if I was able to do it, is to send this version three to the council and let them put it into their process. let them talk about it. Let them take public input, have a public hearing and deliberate. And this that this this version three is the most responsive to what they clearly asked for on June 25th. Thanks.

Thanks, Commissioner Bon. Uh, Commissioner Balin. First of all, thank you, Commissioner Bon, for your due diligence and all of your research and all of that useful information. Um, I definitely agree with many of the points that you have raised, especially the need for some centering of the residential voices and not just the business voices. and the fact that applicants already have to fill out long detailed forms and perhaps Reed or Jeff could also address that Luke's form I've been asking about that they have to fill out for uh DEEQ and El Rapa already. Um, I don't think filling out a form is an issue at all. And I am in favor of version three. If I have to leave before we take a vote, I don't know if my uh in absentia vote for version three could stand, but I feel very strongly about it also. And if I understood what Lauren said earlier, planning commission can make its recommendation, but staff will also make their recommendation. And um because they said in the AIS, it sounds like staff is recommending version three. So I agree. Thank you. Thanks again, Commissioner Bon.

Thanks, Commissioner Bailing. Uh, Commissioner Yang.

Hi. I um I I'm the newest one on the commission, so I do not have the institutional memory that many of you share. Um but my concern about the version four is that I don't think they meet the requirement of what's asked of us from the um council because when I read it, you know, it was very specific that they would like to see co- amendment to require that an applicant demonstrate XYZ, which we can go into details. Um and I think this version 4 does not require the applicants to demonstrate anything except by simply submit the application. It's my understanding. Um it also shift the responsibility from the applicant to you know research or even simply sign attestation that they are looking into it or they submitted it to the city. So you know in this new version is the city that basically sending out the notice to these agencies um to say this is the application, this is the address, this is the um intent use of the property. So I felt that it's a big shift. I I just don't think that's what's as of us. And I think that the version four I as I read it I felt that it's in response to the commissioner's feedback this last meeting where you know um many of us felt that there is um burden on small business that's trying to get

through these applications and I think that this is a response to that but if that's the case maybe we should just go back to the council and said, you know, to make a co- amendment that really required the applicant to demonstrate these things cause, you know, uh unfortunate extra stress and burden to get them through and we we recommend not to do that. But I just felt that this city sending this notice does not really meet what's being asked. My take on that. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Isacson, and if it's okay, Commissioner Edwards, I might jump in after that before you go again. Commissioner Isacson.

Yeah, I was just wondering who ensures the agencies provide what the city is requiring. I mean, what what mechanism is out there that the city has to require another agency, whether especially if it's federal, respond and provide the data that the city is now asking for and requiring. Well, um [clears throat] there would be no compulsory um language in this code amendments. What it does is it puts um the onus on the applicant to do that check. Um if they don't hear back from the agency, they can put that information in the form and submit it. Um then they wouldn't know. We would go move forward. We would provide the notice as this next step does. I'm assuming we're talking about version three here. So I I kind of moved past that person. So, so they would fill out the form, send it in. If they can say, "Well, I didn't hear back. I don't know what I need here." They would have still met their obligations of submitting the form. We would then send the notice to the agencies and um they would have their obligation completed at that point.

And as far as the the permitting goes, I I know this is this is in in my area as well. A lot of the the permitting that that happens, you can't get until after you get a land use permit because a lot of it's on the equipment itself. So, I'm wondering how this this squares in. It seems like a kind of cart before the horse kind of thing. We're asking people to get a land use permit before they get to find out whether the equipment that they want to buy or or installed meets the qualifications, but they can't get that permit until they get the land use permit. So, it it it seems to be a little bit of a paradox here. Well, that's one of the main reasons why we pivoted from some of the first versions because um that was the original direction was to make the application show that they had either received the permits already or were likely to obtain the permits but that was problematic and we did find out when we did get feedback from the regulatory agencies that some permitting doesn't actually uh occur till down the line. So that was why the pivot to they do a pre um application conference with LRAP or DEQ where they explain what use they're proposing. RA and DEQ give them a list of what permits are required for that use. Then they would be able to put that on the form, submit the form showing that they have done their due diligence to check what permits are needed. Then they submit that with the building permit. We send the notice to those agencies and their obligations are completed. They don't actually have to show that they have satisfied um obtaining that permit because that's not always a possibility which is why we pivoted to version three with the identification and attestation requirement rather than actually the requirement to have the permit in hand. Thank you.

Yeah. So, I was going to jump in and just say I'd asked the question at the beginning of u of Lauren and thanks for [clears throat] answering that again because depending on how you view our responsibility in this moment. I think you might vote differently on which recommendation you send to city council. If we see our responsibility as looking at this issue, um it's not a a quasi judicial issue. studying the policy, hearing from those who've got feedback, listening to staff, and then recommending the best policy decision, then I think I'd probably still recommend version four, which is the version before us. If you see our role as um taking the direction of the city council and assessing whether staff has correctly applied it, then I would probably vote for for version three or support version three because I do think in some ways that seems to better follow the path that set city council laid out. But I do think there's reason to respect an independent deliberation and to discount just the idea of trying for planning commission to meet the goal set by city council for staff because that that seems a little bit extrapolated to me and having you know listened really carefully over the course of now four meetings to this I do think you know in a lot of ways we've fulfilled that role of engaging this really seriously listening to a lot of passionate views on different sides of the issue and trying to sculpt a policy that we thought struck the right balance. You know, ultimately I think the biggest concern that I still have is just what this new rule and burden actually does to prevent and protect public health because I certainly support the goal of protecting and public health and preventing exposure to pollution. But I I guess I had never really had the question answered well for me that this

particular action through version three does that or in the case that we're looking at tonight that version three does that better than version 4 does. On the one hand, we're kind of being told, okay, we're we're protecting public health by requiring this collaboration upfront, but Commissioner Bon made a really eloquent point that if there's maybe only 10 applications per year and these are all big industrial players, it's tough for me to see how this targets those folks who are already really sophisticated and probably well informed about what's required in terms and generally seem like they're not going to make multi-million dollar investments in order to try to skirt permits and then potentially be shut down and face massive fines or even criminal prosecutions. when we talked about in the previous meetings about one example of where this policy might have resonated in in real life in Eugene. I think the the one example that I heard was about kind of a small sounded like vape company um and not necessarily you know a major threat to public health in the area. So that's always the struggle that I have and everybody sort of sees it differently from their own philosophical viewpoint and to me it's just if we're going to impose a burden and one that could have some unforeseen consequences um is it really going to accomplish the aim that it seeks to accomplish? And I guess that's where I still struggle with recommending version three over version 4 as a matter of public policy having heard everything that I have. Um, if the goal is to protect the community, then I do think version 4 does that because it relays to these um, regulators that folks are moving forward on projects and they can ensure that those uh, permits are required or that if they aren't that those folks are shut down, it seems to fulfill that public health without

making a little bit more extra work for the applicants themselves. But again, if the goal of our deliberation is to fulfill what city council directed staff to look into, um, you know, then again, I agree that that version 3 does a better job of that. You know, I'm still a little bit torn though as to where our responsibility lies and how we're best spending our efforts. So, that's just wanted to say that. Uh, Commissioner Edwards.

Thanks, Commissioner Lear. And I appreciate uh you the mention of that. I think um I wanted to just I wanted to say something in response and I think it was kind of Reed touched on this um when Commissioner Isacson posed this question, but you know this is what I discovered in talking to literally dozens of businesses who are regulated and and h would be subject to this that is that their environmental permits are not always possible to be issued prior to development permits. That's very common in fact because a lot of things that are permitted it has nothing to do with the building or even it it's it's like it's whatever them it oftenimes it's it's the equipment the equipment that they're using that's producing you know that's producing sawdust or something that it becomes air quality and so it isn't something you can permit the site before you can permit the equipment. So it is a cart before the horse thing and it's a far more you know it was more common than than I I think council realized and coun the counselors I've talked to are well aware that you know they were just putting this out there and so there was a lot of things that they were not aware of but the the other thing that I think that main concern is the fact that there is nobody to enforce the agencies to say you need to provide this and in Reed's own words he said that there were you know we would move forward anyway. So then it this kind of goes back to then why are we doing this if it's sort of intended to be you know something that increases our coordination but then we're just going to let slide anyway because well we can't really make EPA do anything so we're just going to you know that at the crux of it is where all of these unintended consequences just start to surface and so I feel like like I said you know version four is on the table. We have a motion. We have a second. It's

what we're talking about at the this very moment. I, you know, in strong support of it, but I just think that that um for us as a planning commission who is tasked with doing the deep dive and looking at all the the the testimony and everything else that we've heard, I think it's it would be irresponsible for us to not acknowledge that this is riddled with holes and that there are so many unintended consequences. And to Commissioner, I think it was Lear's point about, you know, the big the the big uh industrial operations, they have they they hire people to help them navigate this process. They aren't the ones who are going to be subject to all of these new regulations and that they know nothing to do with. It's going to be the little guys. It's the martial arts studios and the libraries and the the little guys that will be like, "Wait a minute. I have to do all these other things all of a sudden." And so I do I do agree that I just don't think that this um this this does anything if in fact that is what we're trying to do. And for this body to recommend something that's basically saying yeah we're our stamp of approval on this is this is the way that we're going to accomplish this to me I can't support that. So that's why I'm I'm going to go with version four. And uh Commissioner Isacson, I think you had your hand up a split second earlier, but I don't think we've heard from Commissioner Ramy yet. So, if that's okay, Commissioner Ramy.

Well, thank you. Excuse me. Um let's see. So, I was one of I worked with one of the big people who had to go out and get these kinds of permits from time to time. Uh so I'm I'm relatively familiar with both the permitting process and the interf interface that happens with agencies that are outside of the city beg permitting process. Um and so sort of from the beginning I could see right away that the council's direct very um their exact words to us uh were not workable. And indeed that's what we found out by by going out and listening to the public and talking to the staff that literally what the council told us word for word simply wasn't workable. So then then we're back to okay what is the best practice within within the direction that they've given us. And I think that we've really come upon the difference between uh requiring something that's so complicated it's going to chase off business and requiring something that is going to be not as complicated. put put it back to the agencies who are supposed to be regulating this stuff by raising our hands and saying, "Hey, we have an applicant here who may need your help and we're telling you who they are, where they are, and what they're doing." And it's up to you to come and and uh oversee them. And so we don't entangle ourselves in that process as a city. And I think that's that's really pretty pretty important. Uh but to to me the sort of overall making of the code is about balancing how do we protect the health of the public? What's the most efficient way to do that? How do we do it at the same time? We're not sort of overburdening the process so so the businesses are disadvantaged and we're trying to find that balance point. And to me in this case it's about sharing the information, putting the responsibility back on the agencies that

that have the responsibility and telling them to do their jobs. Um, I think the finally I I did in the back of my mind and and Commissioner Bon, thank you so much for doing your research and your due diligence. It's it's so like you and I love it. I love that's what you do and it's very helpful to us as a group. Um, but having said that, uh, it's not the number of permits that are issued. It's the number of applicants that are in these zones that's the problem. So, let's say you had a hundred applicants in this zone. Only 10 actually needed these outside permits. And I think those are the 10 you were referring to, unless I under misunderstood. Every applicant in this zoning code is going to have to go through in the version three that that extra process um whether they need the permits or not. And so, I think that's and I'd never I didn't ask the question because I don't think it's relevant particularly as a community. we need to understand what we do and how it affects applicants. Um, and so to me, if it was one or five, um, that would still be too many. I mean, we just need to come up with a process that's right and that works. And so, I'll be supporting, um, version four, and I'm sure the staff will be carrying forward this great conversation uh, and and this council can have it. But I personally, if it's, you know, it's it's version four for me. Thanks, Commissioner Ramy. Uh, Commissioner Isacson.

Yeah, I just I want to echo what some of my colleagues have said and and touch on a little bit. I I I see our role as not necessarily confined to just simply what the council gives us, but more of an open field because they don't have the time to go into the weeds as much as we do. And if we take their direction and find out that turns out we should probably going a different route then we have a duty to go to them and say you know with respect we've gone a different route here's our analysis for it and if they say we don't agree with you we do want you to stick to that then they have the ability to come back to us and give us that direction but um I I think that we've done that diligently here I think that we've heard from from both sides pretty in depthly I think that both three and four get you to the same destination it just the process along the way. And I think that on balance, without having an answer to my previous question, which is some sort of enforcement action that that would have the city have the ability to force these agencies to respond. That would be the the the trigger for me to support version three. Um otherwise, we're we're we're again leaving everyone, big business, small business, everybody in the lurch to then do the jobs of agencies who that is their that is their charge. And yet some of them don't do that charge. And so while to Commissioner Edward's point, and I think I brought it up last time, the notion that bigger businesses have the ability and the means and the time and the legal um uh resources to do the applications in in such a manner that they know that will get it get it passed. Small businesses don't. Um, I can tell you with experience that uh I had to sell one of my cars in the very early uh entrance of of my business to afford the the technical adviserss to make sure that we passed all of our inspections that I didn't have the $15,000 to do it and I was new to the

industry. So there aren't people who always have those means and so I'm I'm fortunate enough to have been able to do that, but there are people who don't. And so I look at them and say, what value did they could they have brought to our our our community through hiring people or providing a good a good service or being a steward of our community that now we're denying simply because an agency in DC or in Salem or in Seattle doesn't want to respond. That doesn't seem fair to me. Um if I think that the burden should be placed to them, the city's still informed as to what agencies we're we're reaching out to. the public is still informed that they're planning to do this at all and that they have been reached out to. Everyone has the opportunity to to provide input. Everything is still a check mark that just the balance of responsibility shifts from the individual person submitting the application to the agencies who that's their charge. And that's my closing.

Thanks, Commissioner Isacson. Commissioner Bson. Well, I don't I don't think I'm going to shift anyone who's on the version four side. Um, two things quick. Um, I don't want to be painted, for what it's worth, I don't want to be painted into a box of wanting to be sure that we always do exactly what the council says. I think we have latitude and I think that we have responsibility to come back to them wi with um what we think. And I I I actually think um and and I appreciate Commissioner Ramy's comment. I do sometimes kind of wade into it a little bit. It's kind of fascinating to me. I I really feel this one has been interesting in a way that we've we've kind of exactly done that if you think about it. Uh we they gave us the motion and it and apparently in hindsight it's not really workable. that emerged in version one and in version two review and we came up with version three which was a result of a substantial amount of input from business and from residents. So I you know I'll just toss that out. I I I think it's a little more nuanced. Um the other one I have I guess is just a quick kind of a clarification. I I did some looking, as I said, at the at went into the permit system and looked at permits issued in 2024 in some of these are in some of these areas. I couldn't see it by zone because I don't know how to use the system very well at all, but it appeared to me that it was about 10 or so applications. Does that sound right to I'm not talking about uh permits that were approved.

Yes. So I I think what you're referring [clears throat] to is um development permits that were applied for from the city of Eugene that were in these E2, I2, and I3 zones. And yeah, that's that's around 10 um some years a five to seven um projects in each one of these zones a year is is about what the average is.

Yeah. And these are these are applications. And if you get into it, and it gets pretty boring pretty fast, is that when you're doing substantial development like we're really talking about here, there are quite a number of permits that any single development will apply for and they all show up. So, you've got to kind of Anyway, I'm just I'm just saying I wanted to sort of clarify that. Again, I'm not looking to sway any of you who are set on version four, but I really do think version three is more responsive. Um, and I'm I I think at the end of the day that the part of it for me that emerged after all of this was just the trying to align myself with what I think we've done as a city and as a the planning department and as a planning commission where we've looked to try to be sure we're considering people who are not normally heard. And I I'm uh you know that gets a little subjective I guess but that's that's just me. So, thanks.

Hey, thanks, Commissioner Bon. Um, probably one of our most discussed items, at least since I've been on planning commission. And thanks everyone again for a really spirited and uh passionate discussion and I think everybody's heart's definitely in the right place and trying to do what they see as the best policy and recommend the best policy to city council. Um, at this point, we've got a motion and a second. Um, we've definitely all aired our views uh quite a few times on this, so seems like it would be appropriate. Did you have something, Commissioner Bon? I do. I do. I have one more thing, please.

Just to be sure we keep it spirited. I want to I want to make a motion, which I believe I can do. So, where Lauren will help me out here. I want to make a motion to amend the motion that Commissioner Edwards made. and I want to substitute version three for version four. If uh there's a second on that, I'll consider what I've already said to be my discussion of it. And I if I understand our rules uh correctly, if I can do that, then we'll have to vote on the amendment and then we'll go vote on the regular motion. So, I'd like to move that we substitute version three for version four in the motion. Parliamentarian Summers.

Yes. So, that is something that you can do, Commissioner Von. Um, if you get a second, and it looks like Commissioner Bailing was trying to indicate that she would second. Uh, the first motion would be a motion to substitute. So the vote on the motion to substitute is whether or not the planning commission wants to substitute the term version three for version four in the main motion and then there would be a second vote. If if that motion passes then there will be a second vote on the main motion which will now say move to recommend version three and that will be the vote on the main motion. So,

thank you. So, you have a motion to substitute and Commissioner Bailing, can you um indicate by speaking that you would like to second that motion to substitute? Yes, I second the motion to substitute version three for version 4 in the main motion. Okay.

Yeah. So, we have a motion to amend um the proposal essentially uh from version 4 to version three. There [clears throat] has been a second. Um little bit confused on the parliamentary procedure on here, but I don't think it hurts to just go ahead and vote on it since it's been seconded. All those in favor of the amendment proposed by Commissioner Bon, please raise your hand. Okay. Okay. And all those opposed. Okay. So, the by vote of 3 to four, uh, that motion fails to make the amendment. Um, we'll proceed, I guess, with our vote on the motion on the table. Then, since it's un amended, this would be to recommend version four to the city council. Although,

Commissioner Yang had her hand up. I wasn't sure if that meant, did he have something you wanted to add? No, I that's how I raise my hands using the uh raise hands symbol. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. So, yes, I'm the three V4.

Okay. Um so, yeah, we'll proceed with voting on motion four un amended uh as proposed in the AIS. All those in favor, please raise your hands. All those opposed and Commissioner Yang as well. Um, so by a vote of 4 to three, planning commission is recommending version 4 as prepared by staff and noted in the AIS. Well, thank you. Um, I know this was a contentious discussion, so again, thanks everybody. Um, I'm going to hand it back to staff for a quick explanation of the next steps, but looks like Commissioner Isacson, you had a question or comment. Yeah, the only other vote that we have ever taken in that's been this close I think was actually on um some aspect of I can't remember it was part during the middle housing process and we we drafted a letter I think commissioner I think you were the one that did it if I'm not mistaken where because it was close we we explained our rationale for why we did what we did and I don't know if based on that presence if staff just wants to wing it themselves that they think that they have enough to be able to have that conversation themselves or whether that's the president and want to go down that road. I just wanted to put it out there for discussion. Maybe you're about to cover that and I'm jumping the gun.

We have Alyssa or someone want to chime in on that.

Yeah. At this point, um the city council public hearing is tenatively scheduled for the 17th. So, there's a couple options if the planning commission does want to do a letter. Typically, what we would do in the agenda item summary is provide a summary of this discussion. and it's been a really robust discussion, but we've got notes, we've got, you know, we can go back and listen on the Metro TV. So, typically what we would do is is is do a brief summary. If you are interested in um a letter, um that is absolutely an option. Um there's a couple different ways we could do that. We could come back at a different meeting with a letter. So, that's one option that will kick out the the council's hearing honestly until April because they don't hold a hearing in March. So, if we come back, you know, sometime in the next month or so, again, that will just kick out the the the council's hearing, but that is an option. Um, you could also um delegate that to um a couple of you to to write that letter. Um, and that could be through a motion. If I remember correctly, Lauren and I did talk about this previously on what your what the options are. So, that's another option is that you could rather than coming back for a meeting, you could um delegate that to um to the two chairs and or to a couple of members. And honestly, we typically write the letter, we draft it, and then provide it to um whoever's going to be reviewing it to to to make any revisions that to capture the conversation. So, Lauren, did I get that straight?

Yep. And I think um Commissioner Edwards, maybe you can help me remember, but I I think when we did it before, that's how we did it, that the planning commission decided to delegate authority to one or more members. And um in this case because you know it was a a relatively even split my my suggested recommendation would be to identify one person who is in the majority and one person who is in the minority and then they could both look at and you know say yay or nay to the um or work on the letter together and if they were feeling good about it then it could go into the packet and need not come back to the entire planning commission for approval if that's something the commission is comfortable with.

Um I know we've got some other hands up, but I had a question which is just and I I guess I was reading you Alyssa as maybe saying that it doesn't seem like it's as helpful, but do staff see it as helpful for us to write a letter for additional context? Now you're saying all this

I'm not saying I mean I think that the the council has always appreciated hearing from you in your own words and this could be one of those instances where it makes sense considering you have had three deliberation meetings. I think they probably would appreciate that. Um however if that's not an option you want to go just I wanted to let you know that we do summarize the the deliberations in the agenda item summary. And just to be clear, are you saying that you think that any letter would therefore kind of kick this off to April or just the letter have to be prepared very quickly?

Uh, I think the letter would have to be prepared quickly. I think if you if the commission delegates it to, you know, one person in the minority and one person in the majority of the vote, I think that would keep us on track. Um, I don't want that to sway you, though. if the whole commission wants the opportunity to review the letter. I just want to make sure that every you know everybody understands that where that what that does to the schedule which you know we this isn't a mandated project but um I do know that council's interested also in keeping it moving. Okay. Uh Commissioner Bon.

Yeah. I just wanted to add at back at the when this kind of started and there there um there have been a couple of letters that I recall since I've been on here. Um and one in particular that was most recent was River Road Plan. Um well, let me back up. I don't think there was a letter. I recall a 4 to3 vote on the river road plan when there was the a code amendment to reduce the building height in C3 which became near and dear to my heart and I was on the three side of the vote. Uh my recollection is and what I was going to toss into the discussion I don't think we did a letter. I think staff when they put everything together to go to the council had sort of a minority opinion that they I'd have to go back and check this, but a minority opinion which I thought was really well done which was in the material of the council. So, but I'm I'm also open to the idea of a letter. I think that would be good too.

Uh, Commissioner Edwards.

Thanks, Chair. Um I'm just going to recall how this has been handled because we've done it multiple times now and it's that when the planning commission um votes on and and there and there's a majority that becomes the official position and so we have had usually it's the chair um speak at the public hearing to relay that and you can include the context and caveats and and whatever else that typically the commission um reviews staff will kind of take it taken all of you know everything and then kind of puts it out there for um you know but it is intended to represent what the majority um voted to to support and then as I always do um people can individually represent themselves and their own opinions in the in the testimony so long as they're not representing the planning commission because the only the only official position from the planning commission is the majority position. And so if anybody wants to say, I serve on the planning commission, I didn't support this and here's why. It just can't be the official position of the planning commission. And so that's kind of how um and I'm one of those people that frequently just has my own um two cents that I I will chime in at council and I often uh it's my job to do on behalf of businesses as well. So, um, but that's usually what it's done and it's the chair that kind of just cap captures the conversation and, um, it relays to council why we landed where we landed. So, that's my recollection.

Commissioner Ramy,

um, thank you. I can I can recall um early early participation in the commission, I was always a little um concerned that the minority position was not represented uh at at the city council. And so as as Commissioner Edwards has said, we sort of developed this process by [clears throat] which people like me who are seemingly always on the end of the 4-3 vote uh could have their ideas and um opinions put forward. At this point, I would like to make a motion that um the chair and the vice chair work with staff to create a letter from the commission that supports both the majority and the minority uh points on this uh issue.

Okay. Um is there a second? Can I ask a clarifying question to Commissioner Ramy before I give the second? I know that there was a time concern that we we had so by them drafting it as opposed to having staff draft it to have them review it. Yeah. So the intention the uh my intention is that the staff basically does all the work which is appropriate and the chair and this and the vice chair read what they have done and make sure it's okay. That's

and Lauren, did you have something that you wanted to add before we kind of voted on this or Okay, Commissioner Isacson, do you want a second or is there a second? I do and apologies to staff. [laughter]

Okay. So the recommendation is uh essentially that myself as chair and commissioner bailing as vice chair will review a staff prepared letter which probably doesn't have to be super long but uh reviews the majority position and the minority position and then to kind of act as representatives of those various positions suggest any edits or um does this seem like something that we can accomplish here in the next couple of days to staff? Yeah, we can reach out to you and Commissioner Bailing with a timeline when we think we'll be able to get you the letter and a good time to review that in time for it to either make it into the packet or ensure that it's in the city council's hands before they

Okay. Sorry to the staff. [laughter] All those in literally our job. All those in favor, please raise your hands. Um, looks like we had everyone but me. I'm just going to go ahead and abstain on that one. So, it was 6. Uh, I'm sorry. Did you have a vote, Commissioner Edwards? Were you in a opposition there? I'll I'll just make sure. I I want to abstain. I'm I'm not in opposition, but I'm I'm just

Let me redo this since I misread there. All those in favor, please raise your hands. One, two, three, four, five. And then um all those opposed zero and all those abstaining. Okay. Um so at the direction and I'm certainly willing to do it. I just uh wanted to abstain since I'm the one who's asked to review the letter. Um, we'll work with staff to the best of our ability to work with the time frame to get this in front of city council and to try to faithfully represent the positions of uh the folks who voted in favor and against version 4 tonight. Any other comments from commissioners at this point? Um, any items from staff? Just have a

I need to hang off.

Okay. Goodbye, Commissioner Bailing. Uh, first I just want to say I really appreciate your conversations on this and um I know Commissioner Leer said it was contentious, but you all are so civil about this and have such great points. It's actually it's very uh it's enjoyable to to watch you uh have your deliberations. So, thank you and I you know I appreciate where you land on these and your rationale and we will do our best to uh make sure that that letter represents that for you. um just a couple of um dates for you. So, we've got um three upcoming meetings on urban growth strategy. So, one on uh January 27th, one on February 10th, and then February 24th, and those will all be in person here in the atrium building. And obviously if you are for whatever reason at a hotel or wherever visiting family um you are you are able to join those um uh remotely as well. But we hope that as many of you as possible can make it in person. And then um this uh the month of January is the city's uh recruitment for boards and commission vacancies. We do have two uh terms of planning commissioners who are expiring. Um, so Commissioner Lear and Commissioner Edwards, um, I believe you were both, uh, eligible to reapply. And, um, they're also there are also a lot of other openings. So, police commission, Vision Eugene Technical Advisory Committee, you can check on the city's website, but um, please encourage your networks, um, to take a look at those. um you are often our best recruiters for the planning commission and all of the other cities boards and commissions. So uh really appreciate you. I can also send out a link so we'll make that easier for you. Um so and that is all that I have.

Well, thank you and thank you to everyone. Um uh this meeting of the planning commission is now adjourned. Thanks everybody.