The 40-foot-long metal shipping container lies in the front yard at 1620 Valley Ave., less than a block east of the Powder River.

The container, which is partly covered with barn siding and has a bright blue door, is about 18 feet north of the sidewalk on the north side of Valley.

On the opposite side of the street and a couple houses to the east, at the corner of Valley and East, Michael Russell sees the container, which is 8 feet wide, 9 feet high and has 320 square feet of space, as an eyesore that can also reduce his and his neighbors’ property values.

He also considers its presence, which was approved by the Baker City/County Planning Department in August 2021, as a conspicuous blot on the city’s development code.

“The site was a beautiful, grassy, wide-open building lot,” Russell said in a recent interview. “Bottom-line, Baker City code states that any structure that causes negative economic property value decline and/or de-beautification, like a 40-foot ocean container, requires at least a Type II approval.”

Instead, when the planning department received an application on Aug. 20, 2021, from Kim Lethlean, who owns 1620 Valley, a 128- by 100-foot lot in the high-density residential zone, and the adjacent lot, 1640 Valley, planners designated it a Type I request.

They approved Lethlean’s application.

According to the city’s development code, Type I decisions involve “clear and objective approval criteria, and applying City standards and criteria requires limited discretion.” In such cases, planning department officials can approve the application without public notice or a public hearing.

The Type II procedure, which Russell contends the department should have used with Lethlean’s application, also allows a planning department official to make a decision, but the department sends a public notice to nearby residents prior to approving or rejecting the application. In addition, Type II decisions can be appealed to the city planning commission, which is not an option with Type I decisions.

In an email in August 2021, Eva Henes, a senior planner, suggested that Russell bring his concerns about the development code to the city planning commission.

Russell wrote a series of emails to the planning department in August and September 2021.

In an Aug. 26, 2021, email, Russell wrote: “Frankly, it’s dishearteningly to witness Baker City considering yet allowing this historic (downtown) gateway neighborhood to diminish like it is. Many families use Valley as their daily walk and/or commute downtown. Unfortunately, Valley Ave. is looking pretty poorly these days. … broken weeded sidewalks, unkept rentals, and now Port of Long Beach out my front porch. Not what I envisioned when I bought my property.”

Russell also claimed that Lethlean, who is a former city employee, had “bragged” about his relationship with the city, and cited it as a reason his application was handled as a Type I decision.

Holly Kerns, the city/county planning director, refuted that contention in a Sept. 7, 2021, email to Russell.

Kerns wrote, in part: “In Mr. Lethlean’s case, many of the staff here have spoken with him in the past at the department. While I understand the concern, the decision for Mr. Lethlean’s property was based solely on the application meeting the criteria included in the Development Code, and no other factors were involved.”

Russell again cited the shipping container in emails to the city on March 9 and May 14 of this year.

In the March 9 email he included photos of Lethlean’s property, writing: “I thought you might like to see an update resulting from your poor judgment in allowing (Lethlean) to drop a 40 (foot) ocean shipping container one block from historic downtown. This IS NOT beautifying our neighborhood. The reason for a Type II approval process. Since you allowed him to skirt your Type II approval process he has polluted what was once a nice open building lot — and turned it into a junk yard!”

In the May 14 email, Russell cited the proximity of Lethlean’s property to the city’s Central Park, which is the new site for the Baker City Farmers Market, and the city’s downtown district.

Russell cited the “homeowner/City financial impact and/or improper zoning practice Baker City allowing this Junkyard.”

Lethlean, who declined to comment, noted that he had gone through the required process, submitting an application and receiving approval from the planning department to place the shipping container.

According to Kerns, “When an accessory building is less than 20 feet tall and less than 1,200 square feet, or less than 1.5 times the size of the primary structure, whichever is greater — these structures are permitted through a Type I decision. No accessory structure or combinations of such structures shall have a footprint any larger than 1.5 times the primary structure.”

Based on those criteria, the owner of a residential parcel similar to Lethlean’s could place multiple shipping containers through the Type I process.

Russell and a couple of his neighbors have also suggested that the city at least require Lethlean to place the shipping container at the back of his property rather than in the front.

He noted that planning department officials suggested last year that he file a complaint with the Baker City Police Department if he believes Lethlean, who also has trailers, machinery and other items on his property, is violating the city’s property maintenance ordinance.

Russell considers that idea “passing the buck.”

“Baker City should do what they should have done in the first place — perform a Type II approval process,” Russell said. “Type II also includes economic and environmental assessments and a forum for debate.”