HomeMy WebLinkAboutdraft 5-5-25 minutesv4 - no draft stamp
PagePlanning Commission Meeting Minutes|May 5, 2025 1 of 6
MINUTES – May 5, 2025
Location: Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd. - Hybrid Meeting
CALL TO ORDER
President Jackson called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
ROLL CALL
Present: President Jackson, Commissioner Bowerman, Commissioner Sabbe, Commissioner Schuck,
Commissioner Tiruvallur, and Commissioner Murphy, Alternate Commissioner Sprague, Commissioner
Brandt (remote), Commissioner Choudhury (remote). Council President Wolf (remote), Councilor Schlack.
Excused: Vice-President Miranda
Staff Present: Assistant Director of Community Development Schuyler Warren, Senior Planner Agnes
Lindor, Planning Commission Secretary Joanne Bengtson.
COMMUNICATIONS
President Jackson asked if there were any external communications to share. Seeing none, he mentioned that
City Council would be considering food carts on May 6, a subject that came to the Planning Commission in
previous meetings. On March 4, Council discussed closing the loophole on SDCs in cases of temporary
Certificates of Occupancy.
APPROVE DRAFT MINUTES
President Jackson asked for changes or corrections to the draft minutes of February 3, 2025. Seeing none,
Commissioner Schuck motioned to approve the minutes as written. Commissioner Bowerman seconded the
motion. The minutes were approved unanimously.
LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING: FEMA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA)
COMPLIANCE CODE AMENDMENTS: DCA2025-00001 Senior Planner Agnes Lindor
President Jackson read a brief description of the hearing process, order of presentations and comments.
He then opened the public hearing and introduced Senior Planner Agnes Lindor to present the staff report.
STAFF REPORT/APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Community Development’s Senior Planner Agnes Lindor provided a brief review of the FEMA flood
Insurance Program, national flood maps and how they’re used to determine local regulations and determine
flood insurance need and rates. Because the proposed amendments in this case are Legislative in nature, they
are reviewed under the Legislative procedure. This process requires public hearings by the Planning
Commission (tonight’s hearing) and City Council (scheduled for June 10, 2025).
In July 2024, Oregon jurisdictions received a letter from FEMA stating that all NFIP participating
communities must select one of three pre-implementation compliance measures and notify FEMA of the
choice by December 1, 2024, and start implementing it. Tigard chose number one:
1. Adopt a model ordinance that considers impacts to species and their habitat and requires
mitigation to a “no net loss” standard;
2. Require a habitat assessment and mitigation plan for development on a permit-by-permit basis; or
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes|May 5, 2025 Page 2 of 6
3. Prohibit all development in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA).
We notified FEMA we’d begin working toward adoption of the model ordinance to the city’s Municipal
Code and Community Development Code.
Sr. Planner Lindor stated DCA2025-00001 contains no changes to FEMA’s flood maps, only proposed
updates to the development and municipal codes necessary to incorporate regulatory changes required for
Tigard’s continued participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The proposed amendments include updates to Municipal Code Chapter 9.10 that add new definitions and
“no net loss” standards; Chapter 18.510, Sensitive Lands, to require a “no net loss” analysis with a sensitive
lands review for development within areas of special flood hazard; and general reorganization and clean-up
of Chapter 18.510, Sensitive Lands.
Sr. Planner Lindor stated she received three additional public comments following publication of the staff
report, which she shared with the commission:
• 5/5/25, a phone call from Mr. Mike Westfall, curious to learn more about the regulations were about
the hearing process, the meaning of “no net loss”, and when these changes would be effective.
• 5/5/25, an e-mail from Mr. Pascal Pascuzzi asking about these regulations and how they would
impact wetlands and any associated buffers. Sr. Planner Lindor stated for the Commission – there’s no
impact to wetlands with these regulations.
• 5/5/25, a written comment from Mr. Robert Ruedy forwarded to Planning Commission late this
afternoon requesting a continuance and stating economic concerns for taxpayers.
Commissioner Jackson submitted comments to Sr. Planner Lindor with scrivener errors, which will be
incorporated into the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Sr. Planner Lindor recommends that the Planning Commission find in favor of the proposed development
code and municipal code text amendments and make a final recommendation to Tigard City Council for its
approval.
QUESTIONS
President Jackson asked if there was a map. Ms. Lindor said no because there are no changes to the map.
While waiting for one to be pulled up to display, she estimated 400 parcels citywide could be affected, with
perhaps 120 of those being owned by the city. The Special Flood Hazard area runs along Fanno Creek,
Summer Creek, Ash Creek around Oak St., most of Cook Park and along the Tualatin River.
Commissioner Schuck asked if the three options were the only ones available to us and why did we choose
the first one? Sr. Planner Lindor said yes, those were the choices, and the city had to choose an option or we
could be dropped from the Flood Insurance Program.
Option #2 didn’t consider Oregon’s requirement for notices and the legislative process that must be
followed. FEMA didn’t expected Option #2 to require any kind of code amendment to process a permit-by-
permit basis. FEMA also stated that Option #2 would not be an option for long-term implementation
measures. Option #3 would prohibit all development and could result in litigation and loss for the city.
This is why staff went with Option #1.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes|May 5, 2025 Page 3 of 6
President Jackson asked if staff knew of any existing non-conforming developments that could be affected.
Planner Lindor said she didn’t, but parcels that are non-conforming today will remain that way. It’s likely that
dwellings on such a parcel were built above flood level, while a yard, garden bed or shed might be in the
special flood area. However, if the resident is in the floodplain and they remove more than 50% of the
structure, they would need to comply with all NFIP national requirements to rebuild.
President Jackson moved to the public testimony portion and provided instructions for in-person and remote
testimony in support, neutral and against, in that order. However, many attendees didn’t indicate or weren’t
sure of their position, so the President called in order of sign-up.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
- Randy Killion, 11825 SW Katherine Street, had questions about whether these regulations apply when
flood insurance is not required and if existing structures can remain.
- Robert Ruedy, 14185 SW 100th Avenue, spoke about land takings, property value and loss of tax
revenues, and compliance with the NFIP. Mr. Ruedy also submitted written comments for the
Commissioners to consider. He outlined his concerns about diminished property values, increasing
taxpayer burdens and density even though his property isn’t in a floodplain.
- Paula Beck, 11765 SW Katherine Street, has questions about existing structures and how these
regulations impact her property (specifically what is permissible and prohibited).
- Mark Gunderson, 10765 SW Ponderosa Place, expressed opposition and concerns about how these
regulations would limit use of property and change his property value.
- Shelly McCargar, 11895 SW Katherine Street, expressed opposition and stated her concerns about
significant erosion occurring along Summer Creek as well as a lot of wildlife activity.
- Michael Westfall, 12180 SW Merestone Court, feels like he doesn’t have enough information to know if
he is against or for these regulations. He would like to know if these regulations will diminish property
values or incur more costs for property owners with the code changes.
- Robert Clapham, 10900 SW 76
th Place, received notice, but his property is not within the floodplain and
feels like he doesn’t have enough information and asked what determines when a property is within the
flood zone.
- Liz Jodeway, 11048 SW Greenburg Road, has concerns about compensation and property values.
- Mike Stevenson, 9400 SW Burnham Street, stated he doesn’t understand what is being proposed and
how this affects his property values.
- Kenny Neal, 10705 SW Ponderosa Place, stated he would like to see some actionable items on what is
proposed and how it will impact properties. He wants clarity on whether these changes will require him
to get flood insurance.
STAFF RESPONSE & QUESTIONS
Asst. Director Warren projected an area map and looked at some of the properties that were the subject of
the evening’s testimony. Sr. Planner Lindor clarified that new regulations aren't going to affect existing
structures, it’s only if there is new ground disturbance proposed on a parcel within the area of special flood
hazard. Mr. Killian’s property has some floodplain, but his dwelling is completely outside the floodplain, so
he probably wasn't required to have flood insurance.
There were questions about the requirement to obtain insurance. Planner Lindor stated that obtaining flood
insurance isn’t a city requirement, it's required by mortgage lenders. There's no requirement on the city's part
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes|May 5, 2025 Page 4 of 6
to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program.
Asst. Director Warren reiterated that these proposed amendments are not changing the FEMA flood
insurance maps. Property owners who question whether their property is truly in a floodplain can contact
FEMA and go through their review process to remove the floodplain designation from their dwelling or their
entire property.
Assistant Director Warren said some residents were confused about why they got notice of this action. Staff
sent a notice to every landowner with even a tiny sliver of floodplain on their property, as well as anyone
who signed up to the ‘Interested Parties’ list which would deliver notice to property owners outside the
floodplain.
Regarding the question of taking, the city is already required by FEMA to have certain regulations that apply
to the floodplain. This package of proposed amendments changes the way those regulations are implemented
– with a tightening of some regulations and loosening other regulations. The current development code
prohibits all development in the floodplain in residential zones. The proposed amendments would create a
process for development opportunities in residential zones that is more streamlined and less expensive.
Applications would be reviewed and decided by professional staff instead of the Hearings Officer, reducing
time and expense.
Sr. Planner Lindor said all materials have her contact information, and she urged people to contact by phone,
email or in person with the Planner On Duty at Tigard Permit Center. Staff will help property owners find
out if/how their properties are affected and answer questions.
President Jackson asked staff to define “No Net Loss”, a recurring question in much of the evening’s
testimony. Sr. Planner Lindor said it focuses on three functions of the floodplain: Floodplain Storage, Water
Quality and Vegetation – primarily trees. If you remove trees from the floodplain, you must mitigate at a
higher rate to replace those trees. If you add impervious surface, you’re required to either take impervious
surface away or treat it per approved stormwater standards. The same applies to adding fill into the
floodplain. If you fill the floodplain, you would be required to remove fill somewhere else within the special
Flood Hazard area on your property. This is the balance of three floodplain functions.
Commissioner K7 asked staff to address the impact of regulations on property value. Sr. Planner Lindor
stated there are too many factors to apply one answer that fits all properties. Asst. Director Warren stated
properties that might be most impacted are owned by the city or an HOA (open space) and considered non-
developable. Staff has looked at this closely and even with properties entirely within the floodplain, it does
not completely remove all economic value from the property.
Asst. Director Warren stated that the federal government functions as an insurer of last resort and the
National Flood Insurance program has helped replace homes in communities impacted by flood, hurricanes,
and serious weather events. Protecting the economic value of a property is supported by Tigard’s
participation in the National Flood Insurance Program - an important economic factor for the livability of
our city and the sustainability of residences within flood hazard areas.
Commissioner Bowerman asked about garden beds, fire pits, things that are not structural and how these
amendments would affect those property amenities. Sr. Planner Lindor said removable features like fire pits
are not within the purview of this regulation.
Commissioner Schuck pointed out the city doesn't draw the floodplain map, and it’s not changing with this
amendment so the speaker who might remodel his house, if he came to the city today with plans to extend
into the floodplain, would be rejected? Sr. Planner Lindor said yes, if he’s located in a residential zone.
He asked if the amendment is approved, would the resident have a chance to remodel if it went into the
floodplain? Sr. Planner Lindor confirmed that if the no net loss standards are met, yes.
PagePlanning Commission Meeting Minutes|May 5, 2025 5 of 6
The last question was about public concerns about water flow and impact of wildlife. Sr. Planner Lindor
stated that these amendments have no connection to that issue. If the public is concerned about
maintenance, or erosion issues please contact Planning or Public Works.
The language used in the public notice is required by the State Statute, but staff is happy to answer questions.
Please contact Sr. Planner Lindor or the Planner on Duty at the front counter in the Permit Center.
President Jackson then closed the public portion of the hearing and thanked staff.
Before moving to deliberation, he mentioned Mr. Ruedy’s request for a continuance. In cases of quasi-
judicial hearings, the Planning Commission would be obliged to honor his request for either continuance or
seven days public comment but since this is legislative hearing, we’ll proceed without granting the
continuance. The public will have more opportunities to comment when it goes to City Council for a final
decision in June.
DELIBERATION
Commissioner Bowerman said none of the three choices are optimal and she understands why staff
recommend #1. She said her main concern is knowing that people who may need this coverage won’t have
access to government funded flood insurance if a decision isn’t made. Therefore, Commissioner Bowerman
supports staff’s recommendation as written.
Commissioner Murphy said he’s 100% in support.
President Jackson and Alt. Commissioner Sprague said they’d like to see more outreach to educate the
community about this subject. With so many members of the public asking questions tonight, staff should
take more opportunities to share information to reduce confusion.
Commissioner K7 thanked residents for giving feedback.
MOTION | DCA2025-00001 FEMA Endangered Species Act (ESA) Compliance Amendments
Commissioner Murphy motioned, “for the Planning Commission to forward a recommendation of approval
for DCA 2025-00001 to the City Council and that we adopt the findings and recommendations of the staff.”
Commissioner Bowerman seconded the motion. President Jackson asked if there were any motions to
amend and none were raised so he moved to the vote.
VOTE
President Jackson asked those in favor of the motion to say ‘Aye’ and Commissioners Bowerman, Sabbe,
Schuck, Tiruvallur, Murphy, Brandt, Choudhury and President Jackson responded that way. Although
everyone voted with an ‘aye’, he asked if there were any “Nays”, and hearing none stated the motion’s
unanimous passage. The hearing date for City Council is June 10, 2025, and urged everyone to stay involved.
Other Business:
Asst. Director Warren recapped the city’s food cart open house on April 24 in Town Hall. We talked
with prospective and current food cart owners to answer questions about regulations and gather feedback
about their concerns. Staff briefed City Council with results on April 25.
Schuyler announced the addition of Senior Planner Brittany Gada to the CD team. She comes to us from
Beaverton and will be Tigard’s project manager for River Terrace 2.0. She worked on the Cooper
Mountain plan and her experience with land use, development, code writing, and more makes her a great
addition to our team. She’ll give the Commission a progress report on the RT2.0 Housing plan on June 2,
2025. Because the Housing piece is funded by a grant from the Department of Land Conservation and
Development we must complete work by June 30.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes|May 5, 2025 Page 6 of 6
On June 16, we’ll be back with RT2.0 consultants to present the Transportation plan, including a
preliminary report on Tile Flat Road options.
On June 2, our Associate Planner Trin Miller will share a briefing on Tigard HOME. She’s completed the
scoping work and will give you a briefing on work to be accomplished.
Commissioner K7 asked if anything is happening with the Washington Square Mall. Schuyler said there’s
not much to share, just that we’ve had conversations with the mall owners, and they don’t have an
application submitted for consideration. The redevelopment application approved by the Planning
Commission a few years ago is the most recent action.
Asst. Director Warren gave a brief update on SB1537, the Governor's marquee housing bill. The last
legislative session approved changes to mixed-use requirements (residential over retail development and
mid-rise, 4-6 story buildings). One of the mandatory adjustments: if we have a zone that has a mixed-use
ground floor commercial requirement, we're now required to allow someone to develop without that
ground floor commercial. It’s somewhat disappointing, but mixed-use as a rule will continue and
developers will likely see the benefit in it.
MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Tiruvallur made a motion for adjournment; seconded simultaneously by Commissioner
Schuck and Commissioner Sabbe and unanimously approved, concluding the meeting at 8:39 PM.
Joanne Bengtson, Planning Commission Secretary
ATTEST: President Nathan C. Jackson