Eugene council calls for new public comment on Baxter-inspired land use change

In a divisive Eugene City Council meeting Monday, March 9, councilors discussed a proposal intended to strengthen oversight of how new industrial development — and its subsequent activity — may affect the health of residents in nearby neighborhoods.

The policy’s roots are more than five years in the making and stem from chronic pollution at J.H. Baxter & Co., which sickened people in west Eugene for decades. Over the last year, the city launched its Public Health Standards Project, which informed the development of the proposed land-use code, based on surveys with residents.

Monday night, city staff presented councilors with the fourth version of code. Councilor Eliza Kashinsky introduced a motion directing staff to schedule another public hearing on a previous version of the ordinance, a version that has environmental advocates and the business community in disagreement. The motion passed unanimously, 8-0.

In a June vote, councilors directed the city manager, with support of Land Use Supervisor Reid Verner, to draft a code amendment requiring business applicants in industrial zones to demonstrate they have obtained or applied for necessary permits from pollution control agencies. That includes the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Revisions to the code have been underway since October, when Verner started presenting the draft to the Eugene Planning Commission. Each time, code was revised in response to public comment and discussion among the commissioners.

At the center of those revisions is who should coordinate pollution-control permits — the business applicant or the city — and the tradeoffs between the two approaches. The ordinance would not add another permit requirement to the development process.

Councilors took public comment Feb. 17, focusing largely on version 4, which would require the city to coordinate permits. 

Kashinsky’s motion on Monday created opportunity for public comment centered on version 3, which would require businesses to coordinate the permits. The motion also directed Interim City Manager Matt Rodrigues to make minor wording adjustments to version 3.

The discussion leading up to the vote showed split support between councilors, despite a recommendation from Rodrigues and the Eugene Planning Commission to adopt version 4 into the land use code.

“I believe version 3 that was presented to the Planning Commission better captures the intent of this change, which is not just to increase coordination between the city and regulatory agencies, but increase coordination between the city, the regulator agencies, and the applicant,” Kashinsky said. 

Councilor Alan Zelenka agreed in part, saying the change could shift work businesses should handle onto city employees.

“I think option 3 is pretty darn clear it’s not a burdensome thing to the applicants, because if they’re doing doing it [coordinating permits], or if they’re not doing it, this will probably save a heck of a lot of time, effort, money, because it’s making them do something they would end up doing later.” 

Councilors Mike Clark and Randy Groves raised concerns about creating additional barriers to business and questioned whether land use code was the appropriate tool. 

“I want to protect the people that live in west Eugene … specifically who have endured the nightmare of J.H. Baxter, and they were a very bad actor. I don’t believe that was a land use planning failure. I believe it was a regulatory failure,” Clark said.

Kashinsky followed: “I’ve heard this topic a lot as a response to J.H. Baxter as a bad actor, and I think that J.H. Baxter as a bad actor was what made us start talking about this a lot more.” 

“I actually think the problem we’re trying to solve is that in 1959 Eugene participated in drawing a comprehensive land use map, which put heavy industrial [near residential areas],” she said. “And that’s not an easy problem to solve, because the people in residential areas are justifiably saying, ‘Hey, we don’t want heavy industrial mix in our homes.’”