Planning commission keeps record open on code changes to require DEQ and LRAPA coordination for industrial permits

The Eugene Planning Commission on Oct. 14 kept the public record open and requested written comments through 5 p.m. Oct. 28 on proposed land use code amendments intended to improve coordination between city development permits and environmental permitting by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency.

The vote came after a staff presentation and public testimony that drew business, regulatory and environmental-justice perspectives during a virtual public hearing. Planning staff presented two draft versions: an original draft that would have required applicants to show permits were “likely to be obtained,” and a revised, staff-preferred Version 2 that would require applicants to submit either documentation that required DEQ or LRAPA permits have been obtained, that those permit applications have been submitted, or documentation from the agencies that no such permits are required.

The revision was aimed at creating a clearer, more objective standard. Reid Verner, land use supervisor in the city’s Building and Permit Services, summarized the change: “Version 2 focuses specifically on air, land, and water permits required by the Oregon DEQ and LRAPA and provides three different options for applicants,” he said.

Why it matters: city council directed staff in June 2025 to draft code amendments after community concern about industrial development near homes; staff stressed the proposed change targets a coordination gap and is not the final set of public health standards. A city-commissioned hazard and risk analysis remains underway and is expected to inform any larger or different code changes; staff and the council have said additional amendments could follow once that analysis is complete.

What staff said: Verner told commissioners the code change would not alter the city’s practice of issuing land use compatibility statements (LUCs) — the check the city provides to other agencies about whether a proposed use is allowed by the land use code. “This proposal would not change the timing of LUCs,” he said, and emphasized Version 2 was intended to be an objective, easy-to-verify set of options for applicants.

What speakers said: Testimony reflected sharply different priorities. Joe Liebersbach, director of business advocacy at the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, urged caution and legal compliance, warning the draft risked “introduc[ing] ambiguity and discretion where clear, measurable standards are required.” He cited statewide planning law, naming ORS 197.18 and ORS 197.173, and said the “likely to be issued” standard in the earlier draft was “unworkable.”

Travis Knutson, executive director of LRAPA, told the commission his agency supports improved coordination but raised a procedural concern: he said the former draft could create a “procedural loop” because LRAPA must receive a LUC before it can process an air permit, while the draft could require applicants to show permits or permit applications before the city issues a development permit. Knutson said LRAPA has offered alternative language focused on required pre-application consultation with environmental agencies to achieve early coordination without creating speculative liability.

Environmental and neighborhood advocates urged stronger protections than the version before the commission. Jennifer Davis, executive director of Beyond Toxics, said, “This work is long overdue and absolutely vital,” and called for “clear health overlay zones, buffer requirements to separate polluters from homes and schools, and robust review processes that put public health above industrial convenience.” Audrey Arbery Baraboe, a Beyond Toxics community organizer, recounted family health impacts linked to nearby industry and said, “Don’t put industry near people where they live, work, and raise their families.” Lynn Woodridge, Bethel community co-chair, asked why the city could not adopt narrower zone descriptions now to deny hazardous uses.

Staff and legal clarifications: Assistant City Attorney Lauren Summers and principal planner Jeff Gupper explained why two versions appear in the hearing packet: Version 1 had already been distributed under required notice procedures to the Department of Land Conservation and Development and its list; staff later introduced Version 2 in response to stakeholder feedback. Summers noted the planning commission may recommend any version to the city council.

Commission action and next steps: Commissioner Edwards moved to keep the public record open for written testimony until 5 p.m. Oct. 28, 2025; the motion was seconded and adopted unanimously. The planning commission will begin deliberations on the item at its Nov. 18 meeting; city council is tentatively scheduled to hold its public hearing Jan. 20, 2026. Staff said the city’s hazard and risk analysis is expected to be completed in 2026 and would inform further code changes if warranted.

What the amendment would do and what it would not: Under Version 2 the city would require applicants in E-2 (mixed use employment), I-2 (light–medium industrial) and I-3 (heavy industrial) zones to either (1) show required LRAPA/DEQ permits have been obtained, (2) show LRAPA/DEQ permit applications have been submitted, or (3) provide documentation that LRAPA or DEQ determined no permits are required. Staff and LRAPA said the intention is to encourage early coordination and transparency; enforcement of permit conditions and denials would remain with the state and regional agencies.

Information gaps and outstanding questions: Commissioners asked several operational questions staff could not yet quantify: staff said there is anecdotal evidence applicants sometimes begin work before other agencies’ permitting is started, but they did not provide firm counts of such cases. Several commissioners asked staff to try to collect more quantitative information from partner agencies about how often applicants proceed without required DEQ or LRAPA permits and about typical timelines for permit application review.

Ending: The planning commission kept the record open to allow community review of the revised draft; commissioners will consider written comments received by Oct. 28 at their Nov. 18 deliberations before forwarding a recommendation to city council. The city’s hazard and risk analysis, expected in 2026, remains the planned next step to inform any broader public health standards or additional land-use changes.