The Eugene Planning Commission on Dec. 16 considered proposed amendments to the city's land-use code designed to improve coordination with state and federal public health regulatory agencies. Reid Berner, land-use supervisor for Building and Permit Services, presented Version 3 of the draft amendment, which would require applicants for development permits in E2/I2/I3 zones to either provide documentation identifying required air, land and water permits from the Environmental Protection Agency, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality or Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA), or to provide documentation that such permits are not required. Under Version 3 the city would also send notice to those agencies after permit submission so regulators could review and intervene earlier if necessary.

Commissioners debated the proposal at length. Commissioner Edwards said she was not prepared to support Version 3 and warned it could create a burdensome process for small businesses, noting that federal and state agencies do not answer to the city and that the city would have no enforcement mechanism over those agencies. "None of those agencies answer to the city," Edwards said, adding that requiring documentation could stall otherwise routine projects.

Supporters of forwarding Version 3 to City Council argued the measure improves transparency and provides an important feedback loop with regulators. Commissioner Beeson, who moved to recommend City Council adopt Version 3, said the proposal clarified responsibilities and would not by itself block building permits or occupancy; the city's role would be to transmit an applicant's attestation and let the regulatory agencies follow up if necessary.

Staff clarified several implementation points: the attestation is tied to a development permit (new buildings, change of use or tenant improvements) and the city's role after receiving the applicant's form would be to notify the three named agencies. Reid Berner emphasized the city would not delay occupancy or act as the enforcement arm for state or federal rules; rather, the notice is intended to give regulators a chance to respond earlier in the process.

When Beeson's motion to recommend Version 3 moved to a vote, the commission did not adopt it (the motion failed). Following that outcome, Commissioner Edwards moved — and Commissioner Ramey seconded — a motion directing staff to prepare and return with an alternative that keeps the city's notification role but removes the applicant's attestation step (a staff-notification-only option sometimes described in the meeting as "version 3a"). That motion carried with six in favor and one abstention.

Next steps: staff will draft and return a revised proposal (staff-notification alternative) for the commission's consideration at a future meeting and the commission will forward a refined recommendation to City Council after further deliberation.