Loading...
09/17/2007 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes September 17, 2007 1. CALL TO ORDER President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center,Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Inman; Commissioners Anderson, Caffall, Doherty,Fishel, Hasman, Muldoon, and Vermilyea Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Walsh Staff Present: Ron Bunch,Long Range Planning Manager; Marissa Daniels,Assistant Planner; Jerree Lewis,Planning Commission Secretary 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Caffall reported that the CAC met with ODOT. Theft final report is ready and they will go to City Council in October. Ron Bunch advised that the meeting with Council will be November 20th. Council will be asked to direct staff to amend the Transportation System Plan. This will allow the City to be in line for grants and other kinds of assistance to implement the Hwy. 99W Plan. 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Muldoon seconded by Commissioner Caffall to approve the August 6, 2007 meeting minutes as submitted. The motion was approved as follows: AYES: Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Hasman, Inman, Muldoon,Vermilyea NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None EXCUSED: Walsh Motion by Commissioner Muldoon seconded by Commissioner Hasman to approve the August 20, 2007 meeting minutes as submitted. The motion was approved as follows: AYES: Anderson, Caffall,Doherty, Fishel, Hasman, Inman, Muldoon,Vermilyea NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—September 17,2007—Page 1 EXCUSED: Walsh 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2007-00002 Tigard Comprehensive Plan Update of Statewide Planning Goal 7: Natural Hazards REQUEST: Amendments to the current Comprehensive Plan Topic 3: Natural Features and Open Space by updating the goals, policies and recommended action measures to reflect current community conditions and values. The complete text of the proposed Amendment can be viewed on the City's website at http://www.tigard-or.gov/code_ amendments. LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: All City zones. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 2, 3 & 7; Metro Functional Plan Title 3 and 13; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2,7, 9 and 11. STAFF REPORT Assistant Planner Marissa Daniels presented the staff report on behalf of the City. She reported that Hazards (Goal 7) is the second Comprehensive Plan Amendment to update the current Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission held a workshop on August 20th to discuss the draft goals, policies, and recommended action measures that were formulated based on the,input from the policy interest and department review teams. At the workshop, the Planning Commission requested subheadings be added to the introductory text. The following subheadings have been added to the text: Earthquake, Wildfire, Landslides, Flooding, and Other Hazards. The Planning Commission also recommended that "native plant species" be replaced with "non-invasive species" throughout the Comprehensive Plan. Goal 7.1 Policy #13 has been updated to reflect this change: 1. The City shall retain and restore existing vegetation with native plant non-invasive species in areas with landslide potential to the greatest extent possible. Planning Commissioners recommended adding an action measure under Goal 7.1 to research and implement standards to prevent inappropriate land uses in high hazard areas. This action measure reads as follows: i. Research and implement standards to ensure only appropriate land uses are allowed in high hazard areas. Daniels advised that suggestions received from DOGAMI and CWS have been incorporated. In addition to changes in the text, Daniels forwarded 2 suggestions to the Policy Interest Team for the Public Safety Section (undergrounding of utilities and emergency notification of severe weather conditions and consequences). PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—September 17,2007—Page 2 Daniels advised that she received comments from resident John Frewing. His comments and staff responses are shown in Exhibit A. Daniels stated that staff finds the proposed changes comply with the applicable criteria and recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the amendment to the City Council. Staff was asked if there are any areas that are at risk, but outside of the 100-year floodplain at this time. Are there high-risk areas on another stream bed? Staff answered no. If it were determined later that there were areas that needed to be added, the City could go through the FEMA process for updating. PUBLIC TESTIMONY John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard 97223 testified that he would like to add substance to the words regarding hazards. His comment is the same comment that CWS provided to the City. He feels there isn't enough guidance for City staff or citizens as to what is meant by these various terms. Frewing said he was told by staff that vague terms are intended to trigger engineering site studies. It's his experience that such studies are either not done or are done with no standards at all. Perhaps we should detail what an engineering site study should be. With regard to his second comment (Exhibit A), he believes the words "promote non- structural approaches when appropriate" are words that say nothing. Tigard should be more clear on what they want to do about non-structural approaches. We could say we "prefer" non-structural approaches to avoiding hazards of floods, etc. With regard to the 100-year floodplain, Frewing testified that 80% of Tigard's perennial streams are not covered by the Corps of Engineers FEMA study that defines the 100-year floodplain level. He gave Ash Creek and Pinebrook Creek as examples. Staff advised that the City has undertaken an analysis of flood hazard areas. The Tigard Resource Report shows Ash Creek, Fanno Creek, Summer Creek, Red Rock Creek, and the Tualatin River Basin in the floodplain. In order to apply FEMA regulations, flood areas have to be on the FEMA maps. Map revisions have to be part of a FEMA-approved process in order to be regulated. The City participates in the National Flood Insurance Program. In order to participate in the program,we have to comply with all FEMA standards. The City has undertaken a drainage master plan that looks at water flows. We've also worked with the Army Corps of Engineers to update the maps. The most recent maps were updated in 2005. The City can ask FEMA to undertake additional studies or to undertake site-specific problems of areas of localized flooding. President Inman noted that it's a very PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—September 17,2007—Page 3 extensive, expensive process to update FEMA maps. Also, if any of the floodplain maps touch your property, you're required to have additional flood insurance or you have to have an engineer certify that you are outside of the floodplain. When it comes to a property that's not FEMA-mapped, but does have a drainageway through it and is in the process of developing, there are many code standards that CWS addresses to look at the impact of the development. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Staff confirmed that FEMA is the bare minimum that the City has to do in terms of regulating floodplain. The 100-year floodplain is the basis for the flood insurance program. The Natural Hazards section in the Comp Plan is where we acknowledge that we will comply with FEMA requirements. Statewide Planning Goal #7 obligates the City to comply with FEMA flood regulations. Commissioner Vermilyea believes it's redundant to put a policy in the Comp Plan when we're already obligated by State law to do it. Ron Bunch said it's important in terms of overall applicability to the Federal Flood Insurance Program. It's an affirmation that we will comply with the law. President Inman disagreed. She believes in goal setting, but she's not sure this is something that needs a higher goal set. Is there a fundamental need to set a higher standard? Commissioner Muldoon noted that, typically, state & federal regulations are looking for demonstration of due diligence and intent to comply. Its absence poses a negative for the City. When we talk about redundancy,we're talking about eliminating evidence of willingness to comply. Ron Bunch advised that there is some leeway as to what extent jurisdictions have to comply with FEMA regulations. Some communities allow much more development in the floodplain than is possible in Tigard or other Metro communities. Tigard has adopted a strict standard in which there is 0' rise allowed in the floodway. Commissioner Muldoon asked about action measures for pre-positioning any kind of floodflow devices (e.g., sandbags or barriers). Staff said that sort of thing would be more appropriate in a hazard mitigation plan. Mitigation plans contain tactics to address this kind of thing. To keep the language from being confusing and vague in both Policy 7.1.1(Natural Hazards) and Policy 3.1.1 (Natural Features and Open Space), the following change was suggested for both policies: "The City shall not allow development in areas having the following development limitations except where it can be shown that established and proven the developer demonstrates that generally accepted engineering techniques related to a specific site plan will make the area suitable for the proposed development:..." PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—September 17,2007—Page 4 Discussion was held about the use of non-structural approaches to hazard mitigation. Staff said this could mean: • don't develop in floodplains, there is a 0'rise • less density on steep slopes; roads could be graded along the contours only in those areas that don't require extensive structural modification • in areas subject to wildfires, defensible space type techniques could be used • earthquakes would require a structural approach Staff advised that with Policy #7.1.2, the onus would be on the City to utilize non-structural approaches to hazard mitigation. Some of the action measures would have to be incorporated into the Development Code. Currently, the Development Code is very structurally oriented. After further discussion,it was decided to change the language for Policy 7.1.2 to read: "The City shall promote favor the use of non-structural approaches to hazard mitigation when appropriate. Motion by Commissioner Doherty seconded by Commissioner Muldoon for a recommendation of approval by City Council of the staff report for CPA 2007-00002 with the following changes: • Under Policy #1, it would read, "The City shall not allow development in areas having the following development limitations except where the developer demonstrates that generally accepted engineering techniques related to a specific site plan will make the area suitable for the proposed development." The rest (A, B ,C, D) would be the same. • Policy #2 would read, "The City shall favor the use of non-structural approaches to hazard mitigation." • Policy 3.1.1 would read, "The City shall not allow development in areas having the following development limitations except where the developer demonstrates that generally accepted engineering techniques related to a specific site plan will make the area suitable for the proposed development." The motion was approved as follows: AYES: Anderson, Doherty, Fishel, Hasman, Inman, Muldoon NAYS: Vermilyea ABSTENTIONS: Caffall EXCUSED: Walsh 6. OTHER BUSINESS None 7. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—September 17,2007—Page 5 The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. and then reopened to allow for clarification of the vote. Commissioner Vermilyea stated that he voted against the motion, not because of the amended language with respect to 7.1, but rather with the fact that we are putting in our Plan statements that we will comply with existing law that we already have obligations to comply with. There are 2 separate incidents in this proposal. He thinks it's bad policy to do that because it clogs up the statute and makes it unclear. He also believes we didn't do enough to address the issue of the 100-year floodplain. It should have been addressed in more detail. Commissioner Caffall advised that he abstained from voting on the motion primarily because of the 100-year floodplain issue and that we did not address the secondary stream issues. He's also a little confused on where the overall language is going to end up. The meeting adjourned at 9:03 p.m. \k/9/....te ....., ,____„,,i,41-1----- Jerree Les, Planning Commission Secretary ( .,. __). ATTEST: President Jodie Inman PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES-September 17,2007-Page 6 Marissa Daniels - Comments for Hazards Section, Tigard Comp Plan Page 1 iit- From: "John Frewing" <jfrewing©teleport.com> To: "Marissa Daniels" <Marissa©tigard-or.gov> Date: 9/17/2007 3:10:21 PM Subject: Comments for Hazards Section, Tigard Comp Plan Marissa, Below are John Frewing comments on your draft Hazards section of the new Tigard Comp Plan. The gist of these comments is that we in Tigard can do better than proposed in your policies to prevent and manage hazards. Please give to the Planning Commission at the start of this evening's hearing. 1 In at least several instances, the avoidance of definitions or the use of very narrow definitions reduce the effectiveness of policies. For example, reference to 'established and proven engineering techniques' and reference to 'severe soil erosion', 'subject to slumping, earthslides or movement', 'slopes in excess of 25%' and 'severe weak foundation soils' in draft Policy 1 of Goal 1 do not state a clear policy. The record of developing this policy give no guidance to staff or citizens on the degree of protection which the city intends. In other discussion, findings and policies, (ie for other issues), reference is made to codes or texts which define important terms, but not for Policy 1. For example, the measurement of slopes in excess of 25% is a much debated item and exists with great precision in CWS materials, For example, should one measure from one edge of the property to another and see if 25% is exceeded? Should one use 2-foot, 10-foot or 50-foot segments to measure slope? Where should one start to measure slope? I urge the Planning Commission to direct staff to provide definitions of the operative terms in the policies proposed before Planning Commission approval. 2 The wording of Policy 2 of Goal 1 is 'weak kneed' at best. Tigard should do more than 'promote' non- structural approaches to avoiding hazards, whatever'promote' might mean. Tigard should identify, regulate and enforce the use of non-structural approaches. The use of the 'when appropriate' term basically says nothing, giving no guidance to staff as to appropriate conditions for use of non-structural measures. This 'when appropriate' term also allows dangerous developers to argue that a given situation is not 'appropriate'. I urge the Planning Commission to direct staff to make Policy 2 meaningful. 3 Policies 7, 8 and 9 of Goal 1 refer to a 100-year flood, a very important concept in avoiding hazards in any community. However, as used in these policies, it refers only to the locations defined as being subject to a 100-year flood in documents issued by FEMA. The 100-year flood exists on every stretch of every stream, whereas FEMA only maps the 100-year flood on Fanno Creek and the very lowest portions of tributaries. Tigard should eliminate hazards associated with floods by applying its setbacks, floodproofing and development limits to all portions of all streams and their associated 100-year flood levels and flows. I urge the Planning Commission to direct staff to clarify that reference to 100-year floods and streamflows apply to all portions of all streams. 4 Policy 2 of Goal 2 should be strengthened. Certainly communication among agencies is a mandatory function of city government regarding things like pest infestations and communicable diseases. However, Tigard citizens deserve more than that. Other cities have workable regulations regarding standing water (west nile virus, mosquito breeding) and bird-transmitted diseases. I urge the Planning Commission to direct staff to research and draft policies that will ensure later staff development of regulations to manage such hazards. Manssa Daniels- Comments for Hazards Section, Tigard Comp Plan Page 2 Thank you, John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223 Staff Response to Comments submitted by John Frewing on September 17, 2007: 1. Suggested definitions: The degree of protection a. `established and proven engineering techniques' b. `severe soil erosion' c. `subject to slumping, earthslides, or movement' d. `slopes in excess of 25%' e. `severe weak foundation soils' Staff Response: Staff recommends against writing specific definitions for these terms. Policy 1 reads almost identically to Policy 3.1.1 of the current Comprehensive Plan. Presently, definitions of these terms are not included in the Comprehensive Plan as the degree of protection is determined by an engineer's site-specific analysis. The bottom line is that established and proven engineering techniques can change over time, and the other definitions are best left to an engineering geologist. General definitions may be appropriate for a future code update, but are best left out of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Policy 2 of Goal 7.1: Suggested policy language Identify, regulate, and enforce the use of non-structural approaches to hazard mitigation. Staff Response: This policy was amended to reflect the comments of the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI). While non-structural approaches to hazard mitigation are appropriate for protection against landslides and flooding, structural approaches to earthquake mitigation are more appropriate. For wildfire, both structural (i.e. roof composition) and non-structural (i.e. the creation and maintenance of defensible space) are important. Thus, this policy has been revised to read, "The City shall promote the use of non-structural approaches to hazard mitigation when appropriate." 3. Policies 7, 8, and 9: The definition of the 100-year floodplain Staff Response: Staff recommends against revising the definition of the 100-year floodplain to include all streams and areas that might be within their respective 100-year floodplains. It is the intent of this suggestion that Tigard should eliminate all hazards associated with floods. This is not possible. This suggestion was also brought up at the first Policy Interest Team meeting (PIT). Other members of the PIT discussed that the City could spend its entire budget on hazards mitigation and still be vulnerable to the unimaginable. FEMA and The Army Corps of Engineers are really the experts in this field. Furthermore, FEMA standards allow for study and designation of additional flood areas if done according to approved criteria and certified by the Corps. This would result in a map change, not a definition change. 4. Policy 2 of goal 7.2: Research and draft policies to manage hazards such as pest infestations and communicable diseases. Staff Response: Again, this section of the Comprehensive Plan goes above and beyond Statewide Planning Goal 7. The number of possibilities for inclusion in this section is limitless. This policy is intended to be specifically about communication. The mitigation plan is a more appropriate place to include hazard specific risk assessments and mitigation action items. Staff recommends against revising this policy to include all possible scenarios.