Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[Laughter] Yeah. Are we Are we not going to have a quorum? We should be okay. Oh, okay. All right. Okay. Well, and Cody I think will be here for a minute and then I don't know if that I guess that's true. I don't know. Yeah, four should be right. So, we're just missing Maria. Maria, Nick. Oh, yeah. John's done, right? No, I'm No. Um other Oh, Mark. Mark. Oh, there you go.

I wish Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Good. How are you? Good. Hello. Hey, buddy. Did uh you talk to those guys about everything? Okay. Yep. If I get out of line, Jonathan will be there to help you. Um I have to recuse myself. I'll be depart. Okay. So, as long as Oh, sweet. Addie's online. Perfect. All right. So, you guys will have a quorum. Just good. Um, yeah. So, I'm going to do I'm going to do all this. Approval agenda, approval, amendments, public comment, and when I get here, I'm going to say um item seven, legislative public hearing. Then I'm going to say I'm excusing myself. And then you'll just start here. Um

Usually there's a pen down there. Here it is. Um, they kind of have it highlighted pretty well here, but like I could I could say it here, but I'm just like not even getting into it. Um, Gabble, if you want to. these notes here. Oh, do they have this timer for us or do you use your phone? I just use my phone. Yeah. Um, with this with the way it's set up, like figuring out who's kind of in favor of the application and who's not might be kind of uh Yeah. So it doesn't have like an in favor opposition. It's just does publish offer relevant testimony up to three minutes or ask questions up to three minutes. If so, blah blah blah. And then opportunity for staff to respond to any public testimony. We can ask questions. User discretion. Um and yeah. Do you have enough information? Deliberate. Yeah. And I'm like I said on the phone, I would try not to have this be kicked down the road because a I don't want to have to excuse myself again. Yeah. I mean, we're Hey, Paula. Yes. Sorry, the just want to let everybody know the mics are on on the DES.

Okay, you guys ready? Ready. Ready. Cool. Um, okay. Planning Commission, June 5th, 2025. It's 5:30 p.m. We have a quorum. I'm calling this meeting to order. Paul, may I please have the roll call? Addie Case present. Cody Cornet here. John Grant here. Steve White present. Maria Pena is absent. Carrie Pippenich present. Nick Portella is absent. Thank you. The pledge of allegiance, please. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. All right. Next is the approval of the agenda. If all commissioners have had a moment to review the agenda, may I please have a motion to approve the agenda with a second? Motion to approve the agenda. We'll second. A motion has been made to approve the agenda with a second. All in favor of approving today's agenda, raise your right hand, say I. I. I. Thank you. Approval of the minutes from the April 17th meeting and the May 15th meeting. I think everyone. Two separate motions. So, if I could please have a motion to approve the April 17th meeting and a second. Motion to approve the April 17th. Yep. 17th uh meeting as recorded. Second. Excellent. All in favor to approve the minutes from the April 17th meeting, raise your right hand, say I. I. I. Thank you. And the May 15th meeting, if we could have approval of those minutes. I'd move to approve them May 15th

meeting minutes. Second. Thank you. A motion has been made to approve the May 15th meeting with a second. All in favor of approving those minutes, raise your right hand, say I. I. I. I. unanimous. Again, next is the time for public comment. During this portion of the meeting, anyone may speak on any subject that does not later appear on the agenda. Five minutes per person will be allowed. Uh so this will be the time if you're here to talk about FEMA flood plane stuff. You don't want to talk about that now. This is other things. Okay. Excellent. Well, we'll move on then. Next is item seven. It's legislative public hearing. The request is a recommendation to city council for adoption of amendments to the comprehensive plan and title 10 of the doi municipal code to comply with FEMA's 2024 pre-implement pre-implementation compliance measures mandate and updated flood plane development standards. I'm going to be recusing myself from this portion of the meeting. I'll be leaving. Um, there's just a conflict of interest that I am a potential conflict of interest that I'm disclosing and I'm recusing myself in the decision-m process. Carrie Pippenich will be taking over. So, she's your new leader and it's going to be just great. All right. Thank you all. Thanks, Cody. Okay. See you guys later. Thank you. See you. Hey, Chair Cornette. Yes. Before you go, can you just um can you share what the nature of the conflict is? Sure. Sure. Um, okay. So, I'm Cody Cornet. I am a realtor. My license is hung with a brokerage, Copper West Real Estate, which has a fairly significant amount of property down there for sale. Um, we have the brokerage itself, not me, myself, has a land listing. Um, there's a home listed that's in mid construction, one that's pre-construction. There are a handful of um commercial lots there to be

developed. I'm in the middle of a transaction not in Lone Pine but also in the Columbia Shores. I don't really Columbia Shores HOA. I don't know if that's applicable, but given some of the recent public comment and just the proximity to the brokerage that I have my license at, it's just a little too close for comfort. So, I'm just recusing myself and having it just be not an issue. Is that adequate? Oh, yeah. I was just curious. Thank you. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Jonathan. Thank you, Cody. Okay. Um, so now is the time specified for the commission to conduct a legislative public hearing to consider the following matter. Consideration of zoning ordinance amendment application number 110-25 and comprehensive plan amendment application number 56-25 for the city of the Dallas. Uh recommendation to city council for adoption of amendments to the comprehensive plan and title 10 of the Dallas municipal code to comply with FEMA's 2024 pre-implementation compliance measures mandate and updated fund plane development ordinances. Uh this hearing requires the commission to consider explanation of the relevant criteria, standards, policies, and laws. A statement of basic facts relied upon and rendering the decision and the evidence in the record. The criteria on which the commission will base its consideration of this matter are found in the city's comprehensive plan uh TDMC title 10 and the staff report. Anyone who wishes to testify must be recognized by me before testifying. And when I recognize you, please proceed to the microphone and state your name and mailing address for the record. The hearing will also um is also required to be recorded. Uh generally the public

hearing procedure will go as follows. Uh prior to the public hearing will begin with the staff report and any questions from the commission um to staff. Uh, next I'll ask for testimony from anyone who wishes to offer relevant testimony or ask relevant questions on this matter limited to no more than three minutes per testifier. After all public testimony, staff will have an opportunity to respond. Uh, when this process has been concluded, I will close public testimony and the commission will deliberate toward the decision. To expedite the hearing, commissioners may ask questions of persons as they testify and they may exclude or limit cumulative repetitious or immaterial testimony consistent with the planning commission's bylaws. Uh during the hearing, some important standards apply. First, if you testify, please address your testimony to the applicable criteria or other criteria which the person believes applies to the decision from the comprehensive plan or the Dallas Municipal Municipal Code Title 10. Second, failure to raise an issue with enough detail to allow the commissioners and the parties an opportunity to respond to that issue prohibits an appeal to the land use board of appeals on that issue. And third, failure to participate in this public hearing either orally or in writing precludes appeal to the land use board of appeals. Um this is the process tonight. Um are there any questions? Okay. Uh I do want to pause um for any other um ethics disclosures. So, do any other members of the commission wish to make any conflict of interest disclosures or abstain from participating or voting on this matter because of possible financial gain resulting from the legislative action? No. No. Addie, you good? Okay. Thank

you. So, we will open the public hearing now. Um, can I we please have the staff give their report? Good evening, commissioners. Joshua Chandler, Community Development Department. Give me one second here as I get everything going on my end. All right. So, as mentioned, uh, this hearing tonight is, uh, for consideration, um, of zoning ordinance amendment 1110-25 and comprehensive plan amendment 5625. Um, the applicant is the city of the Dallas. Um, this is an amendment that impacts all properties within the urban growth boundary, which are located within a special hazard flood area. So, the request tonight is a recommendation to city council for the adoption of these amendments um the comprehensive plan and title 10 um to comply with FEMA's pickum mandate and updated flood plane development standards. So, these proposed amendments are going to update local flood plane regulations to federal standards. Um the main point of why we're having it this evening is to um comply with FEMA's 2024 pickum and it's to ensure continued participation in the national flood insurance program. So the Pickham mandate to give a little bit of history on it in July 2024 so not even a year ago Pickham uh excuse me FEMA region 10 issued a mandate for compliance of a no net loss standard and this was to be implemented by all communities uh impacted or all communities within this area by July 31st u of 2025. uh it was intended to

ensure compliance with the endangered species act and this mandate applies to over uh 239 Oregon communities. Uh communities are were required to choose one of three uh pick them paths by December 1st. Uh this is the affected area. So as you can see basically every portion of Oregon that has water running through it is impacted by these standards. So, some background on why the pickum came to be. In 2009, FEMA was sued for failing to consult the National Marine Fisheries Service on how the NFIP is impacted or the NFIP impacts um endangered species. uh 2016 FEMA settled this lawsuit and they issued there was a biological opinion that was issued that identified the NFIP's threat to ESA listed species and recommending mitigation. Um really there was no action done by FEMA in that period of time. So in 2023 FEMA was sued again for delayed response to implementing the buup. So then in 2024 to bridge the gap um FEMA sprung these requirements on all those communities that I just referenced announcing that these requirements are here to bridge the gap until full implementation. So ultimately um as you can see this really kind of sum summarizes it up that we are uh communities are responsible for carrying the burden of a lawsuit at the hands of of FEMA and some environmental groups. So there's pick them options there's three there's a model ordinance which is adopting an ordinance that integrates the ESA requirements into local land use code. There's a permit by

permit which was a requirement that each property submit a habitat assessment and mitigation plan demonstrating no net loss and then the prohibition and that was an option that it was a ban for all development in the flood plane. Um all these three were discussed with city council before that December 1st timeline. We really didn't go into any detail on the prohibition whatsoever. staff's opinion thought that this was completely um out of the question from the very beginning. Um but city council chose to move forward with the model ordinance uh November 25th. So we did meet that December 1st uh deadline that FEMA had. Uh so this model ordinance is FEMA's regulatory template for flood plane standards. So in 2020, FEMA issued a model ordinance that provided guidance for community regulations. The city of the Dallas at that time did not adopt the model ordinance. So the model the ordinance that the Dallas has for flood code uh provisions is is quite old. So then in 2024 they issued a revised model ordinance which added section six which is your no net loss standards. So per FEMA, the ordinance was revised to ensure that the implementation of the NFIP ESA integration, no net loss standards, avoids or offsets adverse impacts on threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat. So we're going to be using a lot of acronyms throughout this evening. Um feel free ask me any questions, clarify. There's there's uh acronyms all through the staff report. So that's um don't hesitate to reach out if you have questions or reminders along the way. So the firm updates are flood insurance rate maps. Um we currently have a 1984 map that's still in effect.

So there's two things. I don't mean to throw out a pun, but there's kind of a perfect storm that the city's in right now with FEMA. There's the adoption of the flood code ordinance which we're discussing this evening and then there's the adoption of the maps. These are two totally different processes but they integrate together because the map shows you where you're located in a flood plane and then that is the requirement that you have to follow when it comes to the flood ordinance. So FEMA began the work on this on the firm update in TW in you know uh 2014 the and it took it took nine years to issue preliminary maps and those were issued in 2023 with a 90day comment and appeal period. Uh we did receive a few comments during that time. the city actually submitted comments on the on behalf of you know some of our impacted areas downtown that then resulted in um some revisions once again to those maps. So then the maps are currently being worked on again um we do think that they're pretty much finalized as far as the modeling is concerned. Those new prelim maps are to be uh reissued to the public. Well, they're actually available now on the city's website. Um, they just haven't, you know, necessarily, it's kind of been a soft launch on those at this point, but the official launch of these maps will trigger another 90day appeal period. This is really going to only impact the prop the changes that occurred on Mil Creek and Chennowith Creek. All the rest of the floodplane areas, specifically Lone Pine, those are going to be the same as they were in 2023. So the modeling changed on Mill and Chennowith Creek impacting different

property owners. So therefore those property owners now have the opportunity for this appeal. Um the final firm map is expected in 2026. This will be another notification process that we go through like we did in 2023. I imagine anybody who's sitting behind me that that is here this evening because they re you know they received notification of impacts to the for these standards they would have received notifications in 2023 they will receive some again when these when we go into this 90-day appeal period. Um so one thing to keep in mind though is um we have to continue to use our 1984 maps. They remain in effect until new maps are finalized. So, we know that the 1984 maps were done um with limited technology at the time. The new maps are are far more advanced. They can really accurately depict um flood plane. Um 1984 maps are are not they they're not the best. They're not the most accurate. And um but we have to continue to use those until um these new maps are adopted. And so you can see from all this um FEMA had us turn around these pick them requirements in a year but they've taken they'll be about 12 years in before they adopt these new maps. So kind of a you know different scenario between what the Fed's doing compared to local governments. So for the firm updates um just people following along I thought this would be helpful. Um, if you go to the city's website, this is a screenshot. Step one, a screenshot on the lefth hand side, that arrow. You can't read the text, but hopefully you can you can cruise to it after this meeting. Take a look. It's the flood insurance rate map update. You can click on that. It takes you to the page on the right, and then you can click that um the link there, and that will take you

to this page right here. Uh, this page was created and just recently updated by FEMA Region 10. The other thing with the pick them, you know, I talked about the differences between the map update and the the map update and the flood con up code update. Those are two separate divisions within FEMA. Even the staffing is different. The those that are responsible for pickum, um I have heard in all of region 10, which supports uh four different states, there's only two people left. Compared to on the flood map update side, they are starting to dwindle. the numbers of employees as the federal government continues to slash the the program or the the agency. Um, however, they have been really great to work with. They're um we asked for brief little updates on this. They get right on it. They answer the phone. They answer the emails. On the Pickham side of things, it's it's been crickets since January. That's been a struggle that all of us communities have really been dealing with when we're going through these updates is I don't even know if the lights are on at this point. So, we do not get responses from FEMA when it comes to these updates. So, just wanted to take you there. You can navigate and then this is um something here. This is a map comparison tool. I like maps. I think this is kind of a neat tool. Um you can slide it from one side to the next to show the impact. I just kept it in the center here. On the left hand side, you see the 1984 map. On the right hand side is the 2026. You can then zoom in and get closer information um on your property specifically. But, you know, I just took you to this and I kind of showed you that on the bottom there's some options. This is a really great tool here. This is something called a story map that was put together, like I said, by FEMA region 10 staff. This is something that you can scroll through here and learn maybe more information than you ever wanted to know about flood planes and these map updates. So, it's a

really it's I I steer people to this all the time. Um, but you can go in here and this is where you're going to find the map and you're just going to find a whole bunch of information, contact information for different people at the state, different people at different agencies. Unfortunately, in the shift uh in in the federal government, we have seen we used to have on this listed a really great resource who provided individual um information to to property owners on insurance. He has since left the organization with some of the cut, you know, with some of the um reductions in staff. So, there is still information on here regarding insurance. And like I said, anybody that's impacted by floodplane mapping, I would take a look at this. It's a very beneficial website. So, noticing for this process, uh May 1st, staff submitted draft uh the draft um code updates to DLCD. This is required. It's something called a PPA. It's required 35 days before the first evidentiary hearing. This is that meeting. So, we had to submit it by May 1st to make this meeting. uh May 15th, we then reached out to FEMA region 10 on the um technical advisory email that they provided to us back in, you know, July of last year, August of last year. Um at this point, not a single comment was received from either agency on moving forward. Um we have learned that DLCD is a little handsoff when it comes to the pickum. Honestly, this pickum requirement is really a hot potato. Nobody really wants to touch it, but we are required to implement it. uh May 16th, a ballot measure 56 was sent out. So the state requires that impacts to u properties through zoning ordinance amendments, comprehensive plan amendments, those are things that are sent out to impacted property owners. So what we did is we doubled up the

noticing. As I mentioned, 1984 is the map we have to use. So, we were required to send it to all property owners who are currently mapped in the 1984 map, but we also decided to send it to those individuals who are in the 2026 mapped area. We wanted to make sure that we have this gap in the period of time between the map update. We want to make sure that people now know what their requirements are and also what their requirements may be. So, some individuals did receive two notices that basically says you're mapped now and you're going to be mapped. Some only received one or the other. Um, we have received multiple general inquiries. Um, following these notices, we were able to provide some information. I, you know, full transparency did receive a comment from an individual today. We have provided to you on the deis. Um, we apologize if we weren't able to to um, follow expectations and getting that information out. Um, complete. Yeah. complete transparency. We were contacted for the information and we just didn't readily get that information to this individual in time. So, um, my fault on that. Um, so this, uh, May 21st, it was issued in the Columbia Gorge News and then May 29th, the packet was distributed. Uh, so this is, you know, as we start to get into the code or the these updates, I'm not really going to touch a lot on the comprehensive plan. Comprehensive plan, as we know, these are aspirational. These are things that really model the municipal code, but I do want to show kind of a side-by-side comparison, the changes of the different sections that are impacted in both. So, you can see on the left hand side the different goals and implementation measures of the comprehensive plan that added to added some language to um with these uh proposed amendments. On the right hand side, these are the updates to the municipal code itself. And I think probably for the discussion this evening, this is what we really were going to discuss. This is

probably why people are here. This is what this is what is going to define, you know, your new definitions, requirements for variances. When you look at chapter 10.5, 10.6, and 10.12, those were very very minor changes. Basically, what those were were replacing the words 100year flood plane with special hazard flood area. So going forward, that terminology is changing all the way through. We will no longer be using the term 100year flood plane or 500year flood plane. So an overview of the proposed amendments. Um I would say the biggest change is the length of the text. We are going from a a flood code, I don't know, couple pages long to something that's probably 10 pages long. So, there's a lot more to chew on in there. Um, but that is probably the most significant change um that you will the most noticeable change without digging into the text. Um, these changes will repeal all outdoor uh outdated provisions. So, you can see that we provided exhibits exhibits D and E. What we always do with this code amendment process is we always provide you with the clean version, the version that we would be moving forward and adopting. We also want to provide you with that red line version to show you exactly what was removed. And if you look at exhibits um specifically exhibit D, I believe is what it is, you're going to see a lot of red because this code has been completely ripped apart and rewritten. Um so the some of the changes um establish new permitting requirements. Um, there's also a requirement for a mitigation plan for no net loss. I will get into that here a little bit. That needs to be conducted by a qualified professional for all development within a flood plane. Uh, there's also some updates to the enforcement and review

criteria. As I mentioned, updated terminology. One of the examples is here 100 year flood plane to a special hazard flood area. Um, I have the that acronym incorrect there on the screen. Uh, quite a few additions to the definition section. There's a new variance requirement and also there's going to be elevation certificate requirements as well as clear determinations of base flood elevations. Ultimately, when you're developing a property, we need to know what the base flood elevation is and that determines where you can build your building. So, no net loss, this is probably the um most contentious section um of the entire code. Um this is the section that has received the most push back throughout the state. Um part of this update is um this is included yeah as section six and um like I said there was the 2020 model ordinance and then the only difference with the 2020 and the 2024 is the addition of section six. Section six is the pick them um it is it is the um the no net loss standard excuse me. Um this this was uh you know produced by a federal agency with very limited coordination with Oregon agencies. This was an immediate red flag to so many of my colleagues around the state. Um I think we're all familiar with clear and objective standards housing requirements that get shoved down our throats by the state of Oregon. But we need to make sure that what we are doing are clear objective standards and only applying clear and objective standards especially to residential development. So key concerns with the no net loss standards is there's a risk of a regulatory takings claim effectively making it so that an individual can't do something on their property that they could do before. Um the key the other is the impact on housing production as

you'll see and we'll get into it more. There's a there's basically a mitigation plan that has to be implemented with new development that will result in increased cost for development and it's also an unfunded mandate burdening local governments and it's also something that FEMA has been very clear if we go through a process of any kind of litigation through this FEMA is not there to protect us. So every community has to go through and fight on their own to ensure that we meet these requirements because one of the biggest things hanging over our heads whether it's an idle threat or not from the federal government is if we do not adopt no net loss standards we lose our elig we could potentially lose our eligibility in the national flood insurance program. Meaning every person in this community impacted by a flood could not gain that insurance. We do not want to put the community at risk of this and are complying and moving forward as directed. Um, so I talked about a couple options for the pickum. You know, one through three, forget about those numbers. We're going to talk about something called option two. Option two was something that we worked with our outside council on. So, the city worked with Barry Ellner and Hammond uh for legal consultation on no law standards. We're joined this evening by Josh Soaper, one of the individuals at Barry Ellner. Barry Ellner helps us quite a bit. Chris Crane is our legal counsel in many cases, um, who also works at the firm. Uh, the goal with option two is to maintain FEMA compliance while upholding Oregon land use law. So, the Barry Ellner team created a a regulatory path that they referred to as option two. So in your staff report, we're going to talk about it as as option two throughout. What this does is this shifts the compliance burden from the city to the applicants.

So that is the the burden that is the cost to an applicant that I want to be upfront about. Um this now requires that the applicant demonstrates that ESA that the ESA and BIOP compliance um occurs through four defined pathways. Um ultimately the city verifies that that work has been done but we are not responsible for environmental analysis and this is a similar process in a way in the Dallas municipal code. We discussed this recently on a subdivision appeal uh regarding steeply slope plot a steeply sloped property. Um so we require a geologic hazard study whenever a property is developing in in these zones and this is similar to that basically requiring that an individual get this habitat assessment on their property. So the biggest difference here is although we are complying with the model code moving forward with what FEMA has directed this option two replaces section six that I had talked about. Section six is basically the layout and the requirements for the city to ensure that we are reviewing these habitat assessments. We are shifting this to basically telling the applicant, the property owner they need to contact a professional to get this done and submit it to us for compliance. Shifts the burden. And we understand, you know, we're here to assist. We are public servants. It's our job to assist the public as we can, but we are shifting that to the applicant, which I'd say is similar to a geologic hazard study. We never pay for a geologic hazard study on an individual property. So, there is some similarities in that. So, have to point out the the pros and the cons of this um of option two. Um, this is, like I said, this is

something that was submitted to DLCD and FEMA. Um, but we haven't received a we haven't received a response from either. Um, what the advantages is, uh, advantages of option two are is that it's align with Oregon legal standards. It minimizes the city's financial and administrative burden. So because we won't be reviewing doing a full environmental review, um it maintains FEMA's conservation goals. So what we believe is by them by the applicant going out and obtaining this study, you still are going to follow the information laid out in the BIOP from 2016 and it also reduces uh overall luba appeal risk. Some of these challenges is that FEMA has, as I mentioned, FEMA has not formally approved this. So we are taking a step in a direction that's a little bit of unchartered under unchartered waters here. Um we believe that option two follows the intent of section six but it has not been formally accepted by FEMA. Like I said we were advised to reach out to FEMA with this information. Still have not heard back. So, um we will be moving forward this and um would keep you posted if anything changes along the way. The other challenge is there's a future um there's some federal rule changes. We understand that you know these our flood code uh is going to change again in 2027. That is something that's coming down the pipeline. As I mentioned, what PICUM stands for is a pre-implementation compliance measure. So effectively, we are bridging the gap until FEMA comes into compliance in 2027. So there's a good chance that we may be having discussions not only next year for our flood map update and how that's going to impact the code 2027 we might back be back in front of you with additional flood code

changes. Um the other challenge is increased applicant cost which could impact I think there will be an impact on housing affordability. Uh so the next steps uh over this month as we prepare for the official adoption process. So this is the first step in the adoption process. As you know you're recommending this to city council if you choose to do so tonight. City council formally adopts code amendments. So in that period of time we're prepping up getting some how-tos ready. This is a big shift especially for a lot of developers. I think there's some behind me people that have developed out in Lone Pine. We had one system. We're flipping it on its head. It's a totally different system. So there is going to be big changes in how things are developed going forward in the flood plane. Um so uh July 14th that is the scheduled city council hearing to consider this. Um in the event we need to extend that to July 28th. That would be the next city council meeting. Um and then July 23rd as I said that's the day where FEMA requires that all communities implement these standards. So we are squeezing in just in time. Um and then in 2026 as I mentioned the the firm map updates um these maps will impact the requirements for various uh special flood hazard area uh properties and uh depending on their location. So like I that's why I said we did the over what we consider to be overnoticing because we want people to be be prepared whether or not they're there now and they're going to be in there in the future. Um so after all that um commission alternatives here staff does recommend that um the planning commission move move to recommend uh to city council the approval of comprehensive plan amendment 56-25 and

zoning ordinance amendment 1110-25 adopting amendments and finding and findings attached here and here in referencing the staff report. There are two additional options there. The second would be if there's any changes that need to be made or recommended to be made by planning commission this evening. And the third is declining option and providing additional direction. And as I noted, we are on a timeline with FEMA. Um we do have a holiday on um June 19th. So we um that is the next planning commission meeting. So we do um if we go with option three here, planning commission goes with option three, it really does kind of put a bind into the overall timeline for adoption and compliance of the federal government. Um with that, I am more than happy to answer any questions. Commissioners, any questions? Yeah, I have one. Um Josh, what agency approves and reviews applications regarding the mitigation for the ESA and BIOP requirement in option two? If option two is accepted by FEMA, that would be something that's handled um you know, specifically if there's an audit done by FEMA, that would be something handled by FEMA. Um what option two does is it would be shifting that that review from the city to a separate agency if it were to occur. Essentially, it's submitted to us. We uh I'll be blunt. We check the box that it's been submitted to us and then uh we move forward. Okay. Thank you. Yep. How many um permit processes do we go through on like a typical year in the flood plane? Like how often are you seeing properties? I think yeah, I think

overall, unfortunately, we've seen a a total reduction in housing. Um, but I think probably one of our hottest areas is Lone Pine. Um, so there are, if you base it off the 1984 map, um, there are the majority of houses built out there are technically in the 1984 map. Um, we do know that there has been a there's a LOMA, it's a letter of map amendment that is on file, so some of them are outside. We know that. Um, long story short though, I'd say two to four a year maybe in recent years. But, um, I think there was I think the the peak that we were seeing with housing production was very consistent with with Lone Pine. So, we've we've seen a reduction as we are with with housing all over. Annie, did you have anything? Okay. And also um we do have two um very bright attorneys on online with us as well. So, if there's any more uh legal questions that you may have, you know, feel free to ask them as well if I can't answer them for you. I guess I I have a sort of logistical question in thinking about how this hits the ground for folks as they're developing. are the types of professionals that are needed to develop these reports readily accessible um to to people looking to develop their property. So, we will I think what well what what

we'll do for this how-to process is is we'll do the research. Um you know, there's a qualified biologist basically a licensed biologist that that's one of them on the list, I think. Um, you know, Josh, correct me if I'm wrong here. You could probably speak to it more. Um, he Josh's team is the one that helped put it together, but um, you know, just I think it would be who of us to put together a list maybe of some agencies. We do that at times. Um when it comes to um when people are looking for uh geohhazard studies, we always try to whenever we provide recommendations, we always try to do at least three or more so we're not showing any kind of favoritism to one or the other. But um yeah, as far as Yeah. And there's Josh right there. Yeah. Ju just timing quickly here. There's there's two categories of people who are qualified professionals. One is the one that um Josh was referring to there where there's an educational experience requirement. The other is a list that's already maintained by ODOT. And so if they're on that list then they are automatically considered a qualified professional. So there's a existing list that people could refer to for that. Great. Thank you. And it sounds like this approach is one that we've seen other communities in the state exploring taking as they're trying to comply with FEMA's requirements. Um I think there has been a a wide array of how different communities are tackling these mandates. Um, I think that the community of um, I think it was Tieuk County decided to take zero action whatsoever. They didn't select an

implementation path. They didn't do anything. Um, and I think for us it, you know, looking at that, they're they're far more inundated by water, floodways, and things of that nature. of course being on the coast. Um this path we do know that some communities are moving forward with the the typical section six which is included in the model code. Um but the more you know really what it came down to is it just it didn't after seeking out legal advice I know that Barry Eller has been working with quite a few communities to put this together and they've basically put this option together consulting with attorneys around the state to find the best path forward. So, I can't exactly speak to it entirely. Um, I do know there's been kind of a mad rush to get this this adopted and it's really kind of um I do know that there are communities that just will not meet this deadline, but um I think I would have to say, you know, we we could stand our ground and not do anything, but I think the threat of losing uh flood insurance in this community, I think, is far too great. I guess I can chime in on that one too if you want. Um I I'm trying to recall where everyone is at. I think I think there may be one other client of ours that has already adopted it. I'm not positive on that. There are uh several others that are in roughly the same position that you all are in where they're in the process of going through the adoption. Thank you. Meet that deadline. All right. I'm going to pause real quick. If there are no other questions from the commissioners, we will move on. Okay. Um, so now is the

time we have um for uh any public wishing to offer relevant testimony or ask relevant questions on this matter. Um, we'll have three minutes per person. I'm going to start a timer since there are a lot of folks in the room. We want to make sure we can be respectful of everybody's time and give everybody some space um to participate. Um, so if we could have um is it just a have have folks approach the mic um uh and state your name and your address for the record and we'll give you three minutes um for questions or comments um and then keep moving and appreciate if folks um we'll start in the room and then we can hop to those online if there's anybody online that wants to do to provide any comment as well. I don't think it's not name and property location. Hello. Name name and address. Yeah. Brad Nicholson, 3705 Clint Drive. Um, so couple things. My biggest question is is um how might this affect properties in areas that have already been developed? I hear much about going to be developed. I can see where FEMA would be obviously very interested in that. But for properties that are developed, if you want to say remodel something and you're not going to really change your footprint of your property or your landscape of your property, are we going to be expected to go through the full requirement for getting a geo involvement and environmental impact report? Because that seems kind of crazy. Yeah. Without changing the imp, you know, without changing your footprint. So any kind of TI going on

inside the building that wouldn't really impact this. Um the other impact that it would have though is any federally backed mortgage that you may have on the property. But it's really when you're talking about expanding anything re really any footprint you're expanding. But yeah, existing development this doesn't necessarily have as much impact on at least these new flood code provisions. But the flood map changes, those are going to be what is is impacting any kind of flood insurance that you may have on the property. Sure. Uh I guess my second point would be I didn't really hear why the permit by permit option was discarded. Uh because it would appear that you know we have a a community with some developed areas, some not developed areas. um it would seem more appropriate to allow the city to make the decision on a case- by case basis whether these new um policies are going to need to be implemented uh or not. Um and so plus the additional fact that we're working on maps that haven't even been improved yet. So we don't even really know all properties that are going to be affected in the updated maps. So it would make sense to me to go on a per by permanent basis now until at least you see what number of properties are going to be actually involved in total. Yeah. Yeah. I mean that's that's a good question. Um there was already the intent to update the code. Um we were already planning on updating the code and I think to your point the update to the code was going to occur when those maps came out. We were really intending on doing it last year because we were thinking the maps were going to be updated at that point. But this is basically what it is is it's kind of um the permit by permit would effectively been the same thing that's already in the model code. Um so basically the

model code is effectively your your flood code standards but then you're adding in that permit by permit assessment to it which makes the 2024 model code if that makes any sense. So yeah, so we were already intending on adopting the 2020 and then these new requirements came in for the no net loss which the no net loss that's your habitat assessment. So the habitat assessment was then bundled into the model code making the 2024 code. So effectively no we didn't uh we we chose not to do them separately. We could have done them separately, but we would have done a permit by permit and then just next year we would be adopting the flood code as it is. So, well, I guess I only ask that there be I I don't know what the ordinance states, but that there be exclusions for already developed areas that are not going to be affecting the um net loss where there will be no net loss. that there's that there will be a an out for that or at least consideration for that. Yeah. So, do you mean if it's um like to your previous example of any kind Exactly. Exactly. remodel, an interior model or even an exterior remodel but not changing the the footprint of the building. Yeah. I think I mean the argument would be that if you are changing your footprint there could be a potential to impact the flood the flood plane. That's all he say. Please state your name and address for the record. Ann Anderson, 143 Southshore, um, Lom Pine. Um, my husband and I, uh, own a

home on the river and I'm a civil and structural engineer. I'm very famili familiar with um flood plans and I'm familiar with FEMA's um flood requirements for designing buildings. What I don't understand is um FEMA, Federal Emergency Management Agency, they exist in to my knowledge to protect people from hazards, protect people and property from hazards. I'm not understanding how they can mandate compliance to um an endangered species act, mandate um habitat assessments, no net loss. What does that have to do with h how they can tie that to uh insurance programs? Because we're supposed to build a house to protect it from the flood. So we built it to one foot above base flood elevation or we protect the crawl space flood proof it and therefore we can get our flood insurance. Um this has nothing to do with habitat. H how can they make that mandate? I it doesn't make sense. It doesn't have to do anything to do with um protection of buildings and safety of people. Yeah. So, um I hope I don't come across as just trying to dismiss some of the questions. Um a lot of this is I I can't speak to a lot of the structure of FEMA. the um what what pushed them to the point of um you know these I it was an inaction on FEMA's end of these lawsuits and they settled on this lawsuit of saying they were sued by environmental groups for not um you know um addressing endangered species. Um that all happened um many

years ago and I can't I I can't speak to the entire framework behind it. Um, I can say that 95% of the code that we're adopting is something that is FEMA's model code. And I hate to just just say that of, you know, our hands are tied behind our back and this is just something that we're doing blindly. You know, unfortunately, it's uh I can't I can't I can't speak to the entire background behind it. I'd like to have somebody do a deep dive and I would take the stand of Tielement County and just say no because uh the go most of the guidelines I've read them it's just about the flood proofing and the elevating the house and all that that makes total sense but for them to tie pick them to firm my opinion is is no go and then they're just kind of seems like they're scaring you with this lawsuit business. So that my opinion is is no go. Yeah. Yeah. And I um I I can't speak on behalf of the entire city um as far as being scared. Um I don't know if either of our our attorneys want to speak to that, but I think it's a pretty um it it it is a pretty significant threat if they decide to go through with it. Um, so you know, the city and the city's best interest, we move forward with the action to to be in compliance to to avoid the loss of any flood insurance. And Jonathan, do you want to speak any more to anything I missed on that? Maybe not. Hey Josh, would you like to to speak to this if I didn't cover it enough? I mean, I think you largely covered it. Um

there's the the connection is that the al the allegation made by the environmental groups was that FEMA's flood plane program did not comply with the ESA and the endangered species act and it was found that that is in fact the case that it does not comply with the endangered species act and they needed to have additional regulations in order to comply the you know I'm not part of the tieuk county lawsuit. Um my understanding is that that lawsuit is more about the mechanism and timing of FEMA's authority uh with the Pickham program and not ultimately about whether there's authority to connect uh endangered species act compliance with the flood plane program. More of a procedural uh issue is my understanding. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um, can you can you all hear me? Okay. Yep. Sorry, I couldn't unmute my mic fast enough. I was having a Zoom issue. Um, but I was just going to echo what Josh Soer just so eloquently put. Um, and it is it is a bit of a it is a bit of a reach and there's pending litigation sort of questioning FEMA's ability to do some of these things, but um, for now it certainly does appear that they have the authority to make these requirements and tie them to the NFIP. And so, um, there's a there's a great deal of legal literature on this issue, and it's it's certainly taken law firms like Barry Ellner, um, who have a deep bench of municipal expertise and, uh, land use issues to, to sort of sift through. And so, we're all sort of on this journey

together. What is clear now though is um absent our implementation of these measures by by the end of the month uh next month um it seems that we would certainly have some federal liability here. So I think everybody's on this journey together and uh we're going a day at a time. But I think if you know in the future if if a federal court comes out and says that FEMA doesn't have this authority then I think we would always have the option of re-evaluating some of these positions that we've been taking. But for now it seems pretty clear. Hopefully that's a little helpful. Thank you Jonathan and Josh. If you can go ahead and state your name and address for the record. Yes. I'm Debbie Hendris. Uh, and I own the building that's 37 uh,13 Clint Drive. Yeah. Next to Brads. Um, my question is for existing buildings that are commercial use because it's mixed use there. Will this affect use or certain, you know, commercial use is going to be changed? Yeah, it would not. It's for the development standard only. So, it's it's not a use standard. Yeah. Okay. That's good. Thank you. Do we have any other comments from the audience in the room? Come on up. Again, please state your name and address for the record. Uh, Alex Hatenhower, 122 West 17th Street. Um, couple questions. Um, we have some commercial property along First Street between the railroad tracks and

um have some challenges ahead of us. It's pre-existing. Some of the stuff's been there since the 30s. Um, I first question is does it solid surface improvements? Is that tie in? For example, if we want to pave 5,000 square feet of land, does that need to go through the same process? What I mean, it's the same as displacing that same square footage with a, you know, four walls and a roof. Uh, yeah, I think you're correct on that. It does. Uh so coincidentally the city was down here paving the last couple days. I don't know if they can do with it but um so there's seems to be like a hurry up and get stuff done. Um and so I guess the question there from on behalf of my interest is I mean is there a condemnation avenue? I mean, uh, property becomes unusable, gets to its end of its useful life, there's there's no step off for the next um, re, you know, uh, regrowth. Um, and so it's a concern of mine and some other property owners in the same proximity. Um, the old Mil Creek tunnel goes under our property. Of course, Mil Creek's gone. The old the original flood plane still shows Mil Creek and the going through our property, which doesn't exist. But anyway, definitely needs an update. Um Um, so I think that answered my first question. Um but I I'm not sure about uh yeah the condemnation piece if if um you know if the land's burdened so much

um I guess what do you what do you do with it? Does city want to buy it? FEMA want to buy it? I mean it's you know it's rocks and poison oak and tumble weeds. So I I don't see any endangered species down there. [Laughter] Um, yeah, I can have uh maybe our legal team take a stab at the condemnation question. I'm going to defer to Josh for now. The other Josh. Okay, that's all. Thank you. Oh, he's got a question or he's going to answer for you. Yeah, I thought he was Yep. Thanks, Josh. Yes. Okay. I I guess I'm not sure I'm understanding the question. Is the question whether the city would in the future condemn these properties because they're not useful for any other purpose? Is that what you're asking? Well, as any business evolves, the infrastructure needs to, you know, either come up to modern compliance with code. I have a uh we're in the fuel and loops business. So, we have a uh SPCC plan, spill for prevention, control, countermeasure. And next time they come out, they're going to say, "Well, Mr. Hatner, you're in a flood plane. Can't be here. So, what do I do?" That's the question. Yeah. So, does the city city or somebody want to relocate me to higher ground? Uh, that's my livelihood. So, it's a concern. So my understanding of the the regulations and other Josh please help me out here you might be more familiar with some of the other aspects of this but also in relation to the question that was asked previously this isn't a you can't be here this is a if you want to expand your

operation expand your footprint expand your imperous surface etc there may be requirements related to mitigation Yeah, I get that. It's a necessary evil to do those kind of things as we evolve. Um, so in in my case, I walk the grounds and, you know, run the camps off and etc. So, we've we've got, you know, 5 acres of rocks and gravel. So, I mean, I can hire an engineer all day long to come down there and count grasshoppers and look for endangered snakes, I guess. But, I mean, it's going to cost some money. That seems pretty stupid to me. Yeah. I I feel like maybe we're we're not um not talking about the same thing here. So if if if you needed to come in for an applica application for approval to alter structurally development on your property, then you would under these proposals, you would need to hire a qualified individual, engineer, generally speaking, um who's going to review what it is you're trying to do and the various ways to mitigate that impact on endangered species within the flood plane. and develop a plan to ensure that there is no net loss of endangered species habitat within your property. So, it's it's not a you can't you definitely can't do this. It's a uh taking steps to ensure that the way that it's done is addressing those endangered species habitat issues. Yeah, I understand that. It just those those things aren't cheap to do. Sure. Yeah, thank you. Thank

you. Can you please state your name and address for the record? Kristen Stilton, 131 Southshore Lane. Thank you. I'm just going to kind of piggy back on top of Ann's um our community right now. If this applies to the current 1984 flood map, it it doesn't even leave any room for the 50 foot from the highest water level where there is riparian habitat by which you have to do this no net loss assessment. The lots that are available on Southshore Lane that just went on the market are 100% in a flood plane. So you would be telling them that to build a house of any size there, you have to give back that 2,000 square ft or whatever in some way, shape, or form so that your house doesn't create any loss of the 100% flooded plane habitat that the 1984 map says that you sit in. And I know talking to Josh, you know, I have an opportunity to go do a Loma, do a letter of map amendment, which some of the houses in our neighborhood have done. I guess theoretically that whole neighborhood, Lone Pine, should have had a Loma at the get-go because the 1984 map doesn't even reflect the field dirt that's in the middle of our street. My house would not be be able to be built. I don't believe Ann's house could be built. So, with $600,000 price tag on the two lots that just went on the market after your notice went out, who's going to buy that lot if based on the new ordinance, they can do nothing on it. Yeah, I think there's the option for the LMA on that property. Would the city consider putting all of Lone Pine under

Alma to reflect what we all have seen is going to be the better map that comes out in 2026? I mean, I I don't think the city would consider that. Um, I would, you know, have to speak to to higherup management on that one. Um, I think when it comes to the development of Lone Pine, there there was a process that developer could have taken to do a Loma for the entire subdivision. doesn't help those of us that came in after the fact, right? Yeah. So, regarding these houses, even looking at the new map, it puts a flood, it puts our delineation up such that there's a little bit of an envelope. But now, even in following that now smaller envelope, they can't build within 50 ft of that line, which makes them have an even smaller envelope that they have to do. I mean, even with the new map, they can't get around that. no net loss. And and I I encourage you guys to look at that site online, which is awesome. I love the back and forth. And specifically look at those lots on Southshore Avenue and Southshore Lane that are 100% flood zone right now. That the house across the street from me that's being built right now that's not even on the water side, it's in a flood zone. It could not be built. The entire house would have to show that they were built and they provided zero net loss of their habitat. You'd mentioned a 50 foot back where I saw that in one of the documents and also actually I saw different I saw one that was 200 feet back. I saw one that was 50 ft back and it depended on the size of the stream or the waterway how far back you had to um you had in order to consider it a riparian zone. So and and and for clarification cuz I just I searched it today after you mentioned it

and I just searched it now. There's a requirement when you are in a um a stream corridor zone that there's a 50ft set back there. What what is the delineation like in the new flood map for the lots you know that I'm talking about? Where is that line and how far away is it? Just the high water mark. Yeah, it's not in Lone Pine. So the stream corridor is something. I I'm I'm You're misunderstanding. Take away the stream corridor. Take away the 50 ft. Okay. If I have a lot in Lone Pine, if I want to buy those $600,000 lots, is it just the high water mark? Is it the base flip? What is the the elevation by which I walk out and now put a little flag and say, "Hey, from here and some distance in, I can have zero net loss." What's the marker? The marker is the flood plane line. Period. Yes. So, so if it is out of the flood plane, you can build right up to that flood plane line and that's okay. Correct. Okay. So, it's out of the flood plane line and then it's also based on your base flood elevation. So, For the lots that aren't built right now, we're going to be looking at empty lots theoretically for a couple years and let until the new flood map comes out because right now they are 100% in the flood plane. Correct. Or they could get a loma. We're in our three minutes. I want to be respectful. I just I I am with her. I I feel like there's a lot of holes and it needs to not pass until some of these steps for various situations are outlined and delineated. Thank you. Anybody else in the

room? All right. Um it looks like Mr. Peters, you're online. Did you want to provide any comment soon as I get unmuted here? Uh, please state your name and address for the record as well. Uh, Tom Peters and uh I own the uh effectively called the Rose Building, the uh 115 East 2nd Street. Um, so I have a lot of experience with these flood planes and all of this new stuff going on because I do HUD financing on multif family projects nationwide and it is a major mess. HUD adopted what you're looking at as a model uh plan back about four years ago and apply it to all HUD financed uh multif family properties. And I can tell you for a 200 unit project, it's anywhere from $400 to $600,000 additional cost to get the reports and to get them approved. And at the same time, uh, what's going on with HUD in discussions in DC, in discussions with FEMA and with EPA on the endangered species is a major roll back happening hopefully within the next year because it's restricted the construction of multif family so bad that uh, you know, the housing crisis is only getting worse. So, I would say don't do anything until they get the maps and everybody can tell what we're dealing with. And uh and and then the uh regulation creep that will occur as soon as we go to a net loss,

then they're going to want to put push net loss out of flood planes on up to other ground. So it it's just like we're just creating a situation for lots of creep uh from the environmental side on the endangered species. That's all I had to say. Thank you. Uh I will pause in case anybody in the room has changed their mind. Uh and if not uh we will move on. Um, as staff, do you have anything else you'd like to add before we move on to commission deliberation? I do not. Yes, Jonathan, please. I just um Excuse me. Um, I don't I don't usually like to ask questions during public meetings generally because I like to know what's going to be said, but I I do have a question for our special counsel, Mr. Sober at Barry Ellner. And I just I it seems like some of the consensus in the room from some property owners that are implicated by some of these potential decisions here tonight, at least again reminding everybody, especially the commission, that the decision here tonight is to um refer this matter to the city council. Um what I you know I just wanted to get Josh's take as as a certainly bonafide expert here um on the implications of doing nothing here tonight and and what that might mean for the city and and I don't just mean capital C city. I guess I just mean lowercase C city in our community when it comes to the NFIP, the National Flood Insurance Program. Um, which is to say that if this planning commission does not make a recommendation here tonight and does not refer this matter to the city council, what might all these property owners

have to face with respect to NFIP? And again, that's a question geared towards our special counsel. Thanks, Jonathan. Uh, that's a really difficult question to answer. So, thank you for your one question being so difficult. You're so welcome. Um I mean certainly the the the threat from FEMA is that failure to meet the July 31st deadline will result in cons uh you know evaluation and possible revocation of eligibility to participate in the national flood insurance program. So if they were to carry through on that threat, the ultimate result would be that uh folks who are within that impacted area would be unable to obtain flood insurance. I think there's a lot of questions out there about, you know, will they make good on that threat? Um do they have the authority to make good on that threat that the other communities are asking, the ones that are uh taking different approaches. But that is the um you know the the sword from a thread hanging over uh local government's heads is that there's the risk of losing that um flood insurance eligibility which of course is a a really bad position to be in for property owners within the city. Jonathan, does that answer your question for you? I think that it does. All right. Thank you. Um well, I will move us along then to commission deliberation. Um uh do the commissioners feel like they have enough information to make a decision? Are there any other questions that have come up during this

conversation that you want staff to to address before we move along? I'm not sure I have any questions, but I'm also not sure I'm ready to make a decision. So, I don't know about how that goes. Sorry. Yeah, I kind of agree with Addie. There's so many questions that are unanswered at this point. Um, I'd find it really challenging to fully commit to any decision moving forward at this point. I'm I'm in agreeance with uh Commissioner Casease and Commissioner Light. [Music] Um as a question to staff some of the conversation about developability of some of the parcels that are being discussed. Um the cost potential cost burden on some of the folks that would be looking to develop. Um, are those things you can provide clarity, better clarity for us either tonight or if we decide to have a further conversation about this? Um, essentially next week is our option. Um, or do you feel like I mean I that just do you feel like there's there will be some more clarity with additional time to do some digging or do you think that the situation we're in inherently because of the question marks with FEMA um is just one of uncertainty at this point. Well, I think long story short, the FEMA pro the pickum process has been one of uncertainty since July of last year. um our team as well as teams around the state have you know we've worked through the League of Oregon Cities DLCD we've attended the seminars we've we've

consulted legal councils around the state we've done everything that we can uh we've get provided some information from FEMA and then like I said I mean they're they're dwindling staff um has has been made it very difficult to get any additional questions answered um as far as the impacts to property I will say I I can just say without doing research it's going to cost more to build in the flood plane period no questions asked because you have to get this additional assessment. Also, if you you know want to develop now your properties in the 1984 flood area, you want to develop now instead of wait a year, that's that's totally up to any individual. um until that map is updated, there's the cost of obtaining a loma, a letter of lap of letter of map amendment. Um there is the information out there. FEMA does have the models available. So I think if you were to submit a letter of rap map amendment for a property and it aligns with those 2026 maps, then I think there's a fairly good chance that you'll get the letter of map letter map amendment approved and you can move forward. But I'm guessing I just did a random search while we were chatting here. Um I'm guessing it's5 to$10,000 for Aloma. I could be a little high on that, but I always like to give people high numbers and if the numbers lower then they might be, you know, um might be a better situation. Um thankfully Josh Soer pointed out this list of consultants. your your previous question. Um, looking at the list, there are uh consultants and experts all over the state. Just about, you know, um I would say 20 to 30 different firms that are listed throughout the state. Um, you know, Tennyson Engineering, which is a local engineering firm, was purchased by AKS some years ago. I'm not giving any recommendations, but I can't say AKS Engineering is listed on that list. I'm

not sure if it's an individual from the Dallas office or not, but you know, there are definitely at least in our field, the typical the the typical names that we see with proposals and projects, they're on the list. So, um I think when you have um you know, we run into the high cost of geo impact studies, geo impact studies, I've heard from some people they can be about $5,000 to build a home in a geohhazard zone. So there is the additional cost to building a geohhazard zone just like there will be in the flood plane. Um the thing with the geohhazard zone is I always tell people I try to provide that list of three. There's very few people in the area that conduct those types of reports. You know, if you could look at an overall supply and demand of things, this list of um qualified consultants here, maybe it would mean that the cost for a habitat assessment is uh a bit more competitive or at least you could shop it around. But yeah, I think there's there's no way to deny it's going to increase the cost of development. So, I guess I would um for consideration by the commission remind us that this is a recommendation to council for them to consider adopting that that approach. Um, I I guess I lean towards um a concern that if that flood insurance tool becomes inaccessible to folks, they're not going to be able to develop period. You can't get commercial financing without flood insurance on a property.

Um, so I would worry that not moving this forward is going to have a significant impact potentially on folks looking to develop. So, I would tend to want us to kind of grapple with it um and perhaps um provide staff some feedback to bring to council about some of the challenges that we see um with moving forward and acknowledging that it's it is a a tough one to swallow, but that the city's also in a pretty hard spot. Um and and our property owners are in a hard spot either way. Um, it's it's a good reminder. I mean, this is um not to make your decision easier if it's something that you disagree with. Um, this is a recommendation to council. Council effectively adopts. Um, there's still five weeks between now and the July 14th meeting. If you do have additional information you want us to look into, questions to be answered, um, additional comments can be received by any additional, you know, any individual in the room, any affected property owner, those can be, uh, submitted to our office. We can include those in the record, provide to our city council as they make the decision. But um you know I I to the point you know we're we're all fortunately kind of in this together and this is an unfortunate situation that um we're moving forward but it was council's direction to um move forward with the model ordinance and they understand the concern but um you know we're here we we work for you and um we want to hear what those concerns are. We definitely do. I think with that in mind, um I said ask my fellow commissioners if you have some specific questions we could provide to

staff to do some additional research on if you want to hold off um and schedule another hearing or another meeting to continue the hearing um or ask if that conversation has an impact on your interest in moving forward tonight. Yeah, we could do that as an option effectively. Um and then and Josh and Jonathan correct me on the procedure here, but we could effectively um pause the meeting, pause, you know, kind of go to a recess um to next Thursday. uh we would just want to commit, you know, if that's decision to be made, we would just want to get a commitment from our commissioners that we can, you know, follow through on a quorum if we were to push it to another meeting. I don't know how schedules conflict and in your all lives. Yeah. So, I can I can weigh in um by Sher Pippenich. So uh it's a legislative hearing tonight which is uh very different than the typical hearings that we have here at planning commission at least lately which have all been quasi judicial. The main difference is is that the commission is not required by the nature of the hearing to make a decision here tonight. Um whereas in a quasi judicial public hearing like a like a conditional use permit or a land use appeal, it's basically like a a yes or a no. In this case, the if the commission would like to uh kick the can down the road, the appropriate way would be to um just, you know, at the close of all the public testimony and and you know, at the end of staff's comments here, I don't believe um Vice Chair Pippenish, did you did you ban the gavl indicating the close of the public hearing portion of this? I did not. You did not. Okay. So, I I would you might want to consider keeping it open if you'd like to accept

additional public testimony at the next meeting if there is a next meeting. Um, it would be very appropriate to uh announce for the record the the time, place, and location, right? It'll be C city council chambers on the day that you know if the commission wants to go this way and the time that the commission would like to have the continued hearing it would be a special meeting and staff would notice that you know in the usual way. I will say though that again ju just to sort of underscore um if the commission is is not intending on u making a decision here tonight um that the implication of that as uh Mr. Sober mentioned just a few minutes ago in response to my not so straightforward question. Uh the implication of that is running the risk of not having implementation measures in place by July 31st which jeopardizes each one of the property owners in the room and all of the other property owners who are not in the room but who are otherwise implicated by these maps jeopardizes their ability to secure uh flood flood insurance through the NFIP. And so I if the commission is aware of that and is making their informed decision despite that risk then um yeah the way to do it would be to continue the hearing. But if the commission I mean realistically I would I would you know if I was a commissioner which I'm not I would just want to make it really you know clear to my commission members that if you don't make a decision here tonight you're just effectively kicking the can down the road. It would be helpful for staff to know what else we might be able to prepare for that meeting if there is another meeting um to help inform this decision because it it's not at all clear to me what else um what other information the commission would like

before it renders a decision. Hopefully this has been helpful. Thank you, Jonathan. I I guess to reiterate the question I asked prior, what are what are the questions if we would like to move forward that we'd like staff to be doing some diligence on so that we can come back to this in a timely fashion. Like I said earlier, I don't know if I personally have any other questions. I just don't know. I mean, I yes, I just don't know if I'm ready to make a decision. And I think that's my issue and I don't want to kick the can down the road either. So, I mean, I feel like that's and that's a that's a dilemma for all of us, but there's that's Yeah, we can. It's fine, but I just like I said, I I don't know. Can can we um I mean we could have a motion to bring this up to city council without making any type of recommendation from the the planning commission correct of you know Jonathan. Yeah I'll verify I'll do some tracking. I do not think that is the typical process or process laid out. Um Jonathan, maybe we'll see who's quicker to get to that section of the code, but um definitely has never happened that way I could think of, but I I man, this city never fails to amaze me with the creative ways that we go about doing business. Um no, I I've never heard of that ever. Um, the planning commission's job as as a committee of this city of the city council, frankly, is to make recommendations. If your recommendation is to not have a recommendation, I don't know what to say. It sort of questions the purpose of your position on our commission. Just being honest with you, I think the city

council is expecting our planning commission to deal with these more nuanced details to make a larger recommendation to them um in consideration of the policy issues and the subject matter. Um I'm not so sure it would be appropriate to to bring this forward regardless of whether our code allows it, which it's not clear to me that it does, um without a commission recommendation one way or the other. Um, I hope that's been helpful. And currently I'm in the process of looking at our code to quadruple check that, but the planning commission exists to make recommendations. So, thank thank you, Jonathan. I think you bet. If you find it in the code, please let us know. But yeah, as stated in Oh, you have it there, Joshua. Yeah. 103 2060 B1. The commission shall hold at least one legislative public hearing to review applications for legislative actions and by duly appointed resolution make a recommendation to the council to approve approve with conditions or deny the request and then it follows through. The next step is the council shall hold a legislative hearing. It kind of takes you through that process. So it does lay it out that the adoption of a resolution to move forward is the first step in a legislative action for the city. I just there seems like there is so many different um you know variables in this whole entire process and just putting us right up against this timeline is makes it extremely difficult because you know uh we adopt this and then something changes from FEMA and in litigation and then we have to change something again. It just um this is going to affect you know quite a few people.

Um it just there just doesn't seem like uh there's there's a good answer in this whole process especially being rushed. You know, I think that's one of those things where perhaps that's it's a double-edged sword. as there is additional legislation, we can cross our fingers that it actually helps loosen this up a little bit for folks and that that what we're doing is adopting the thing that we would need to adopt to remain compliant right now and be encouraging staff to continue to keep an eye on potential legislation as it moves through the courts so that we can continue to update the code to make it compliant um in a way that supports development and development as affordably as possible um to meet our really critical housing needs in particular as we move forward. Um I mean I as I said before I have a lot of concern about whether or not folks will be able to access financing for any development in the flood plane without access to the insurance program. Um, so not moving forward I feel like has a the same implication as as moving forward. Mhm. Yeah. Either way, it's a tough situation which Joshua has already mentioned a number of times, but yeah. Yeah. We're not even sure if option two is even going to be um accepted by FEMA. Um and we're not even really sure what the map is going to look like. We have an idea. It's really challenging. I guess I would um if there if there are not specific questions we have for staff

um or requests of them to bring something additional back to us. I think I would say kicking the can down the road another week and pulling everybody back together again is not going to get us a different product to take forward. Um, so I would encourage us if folks are comfortable to I'm trying to give us some space to have those recommendations if we'd like. Um, but if we can't come up with anything, I think I would strongly encourage us to consider that motion to move forward. Um um do you have a a question? Um it was great point that uh Commissioner Light brought up about option two and not being you know possibly not being compliant uh with FEMA. If it wasn't compliant with FEMA, will we still have the same impact uh for the flood insurance that you know being buted up against the the timeline? Would that still impact us not having, you know, flood insurance? So, the um the the difference is that the map updates the spec the ones specific to flood insurance. Uh what we're discussing tonight, they're kind of the development standards that go into developing within the flood plane. Um I'm not I don't think it's necessarily a question of of insurance whether or not the one is um approved or not by FEMA. Um we do know that it's um it's a significant that you know uh we don't

believe that section six that is FEMA's initial language of of the no net loss standards is clear and objective at all. Um so for us that puts us in a bind for any kind of residential development that may come through and opens up the door for uh various luba cases you know moving forward. So apologies that doesn't really answer the question on the insurance but the real when we're talking about the insurance and the changes that's that's when we're talking about the flood map update. Oh yeah. If I may, uh, commissioners, uh, for the record, Sandy Fin, city of the Dallas planning department. Yeah, it's a little confusing because there's two things running parallel here. The map updates, which is happening no matter what, and the option for folks to submit a LOMA and see if FEMA approves it as they compare it with their updating maps that they're working on. And then there's the code amendments of the flood provisions. The choice is very tough. Um, I was just thinking perhaps you've thought of this or not. Any comments you have on your decision and what you decide tonight, your recommendation to council, they're going to see that in the minutes and they're going to see what your concerns are and hopefully they take it to the next step and address it accordingly. Um, cuz the burden does lie on them as to what action they decide to take. And I was just telling Josh, we're pretty much in a Hopson's choice situation here. and um no matter what's decided, it affects the community. So to what degree? Um you know that Thank you. Yeah, thank you Sandy. I appreciate that.

Um in the discussion of as you were developing alternative to and the route that the city decided to take um having the property owner contract for the study and have the checkbox. Um, was there any discussion of of doing that in a way that shares some of that cost burden [Music] um, with the community and the city? [Music] Um, and I don't think I mean like like literally splitting the cost of it with somebody that's going out to get a private consultant, but have have other communities decided to take that on internally or with a contractor to have that capacity to do some of that work? And I know it's already something that you know the the approach that's recommended is following sort of the approach that the city takes with the geotech. So I wonder you know some of the rationale behind that and keeping consistent with that sort of thing. But I wonder if that might help at least understanding the conversation and what opportunity there might be there might be something that could help this conversation. Um I don't and I don't even I don't think I have a comprehension too of what kind of cost that would burden that would put on the city either. So yeah, I mean I think you know um they taking an approach like that, you know, it would probably be an RFP process that we would go through um to select some type of you know qualified professional

that works for the city um on a case- by case basis. Um I am not entirely sure. uh we we we we hadn't considered that um because I think it has the parallel with the um with the geohhazard study. Um, I'm also, you know, I I understand this has an impact and this may not be an entirely popular thing to say, but I sometimes have a difficult time with taxpayers, the entire tax base group, incentivizing a development. Um, and I think that's what this comes down to. And incentivizing is probably not even like, you know, an in it's probably an insensitive thing to say when we're talking in this scenario, but you'd basically be talking about us entering into a contract with a consultant to assist a private developer build their house. Whether that house is being built for themselves or whether it's a multif family development or whatever the case is going to be, that is still one of those things where it is the overall tax base paying for um an individual. That is just my opinion on it, but it's not something that we looked into um in too deeply into it because we just paralleled it with the geohhazard study and there's no assistance that the city provides for a geohhazard study, right? Yeah. But we would be happy to look into it if that is something you want us to look into before we go to council. It's just one of those things. It would be something it's not currently budgeted. Um, I'm sure that's something, you know, we could consider going through the process. There's a process. Obviously, there's, you know, supplemental budgets and things to change. Um, if that is something, um, that that you all consider, that could also be something that, you know, here we are. We're talking about it. It is included. Um, maybe as a consideration, we could, if

you'd like, we can bring it up to council as a potential consideration. Not too entirely sure, though. I'd happy to do either way. No, I appreciate that. And in some ways it seems uh for lack of a more eloquent eloquent way to put it not quite fair to do it for this but not the geo the geo Yeah. Right. Yeah. I think if you were to look at um I could be wrong but if you were to look at the amount of properties impacted by a geohhazard zone in the city uh they far outweigh those impacted by floodplane properties. I mean flood plane properties I think we noticed uh 350 something like that. Um I think in one of our geohhazard zones which is our zone one which is a zone one and zone 4 those are the requirements that any development that you do whatsoever requires a geohhazard study. Um I would say in just one of those zones you're probably looking at 300 properties. So, do you have a sense of how how many properties as this moves forward would not be developable anymore? Yeah, that's a good question. Yeah. um or is it just a matter of how much you want to spend the ladder? I think that's a discussion that we had with that appeal. Most recently, there was, you know, some of the arguments was um were based around the fact that the lots that were being created were not developable. Um, I think in this field of what we do and the crazy plans and things that we see, um, it really comes down to money and

how much you can put into it. Um, I say that I think there's, um, with geohhazard, you know, there's obviously hundreds of thousands that individuals now are dumping into foundations to build in the gorge because we're running out of space. We're running out of flat lots. So, that is just like status quo. now, if you will. Um, but I think, yeah, when you're dealing with the FEMA requirements, there's um there's a lot of restrictions that are going to be placed on these properties. There's there's no doubt about it. Um, so I I I don't think I could speak to exactly how many are developable or not, but I think we kind of touched on that a little bit earlier. I think there is possibly, you know, potential someone to to to build on these. Um, but I can't speak. It'd be all on a case- by case basis to truly determine that commissioners, how are we feeling about Sorry, sorry, Paula. Commissioners, how are we feeling about moving forward tonight? Well, it doesn't seem like there's a lot of implications on our end if we do move this forward to city council. Um, I mean, it's it's unfortunate that we just don't have enough qualified information because of the lack of contact that FEMA has had with the city of the Dallas. We're going into this completely blind. Um, and it's very disturbing. I know and I understand that the cost of development is continuing to escalate, but um as Commissioner Pippenish brought up, uh there could potentially be property that would be completely

undevelopable undevelopable because of this and um that's a huge unknown. [Music] Commissioner Grant, I rocking a hard place. We can Yeah. Yeah. We could call it a question. Mhm. I mean, I don't think it would have much of an impact if we pushed it down. You know, we're still going to have the same questions. It's still going to have the same, you know, it's it's not that we don't have the staff report. There's nothing that we can ask more of the staff. It's more of more asking from FEMA and what's going to happen of those types of things. So, I don't think it would change anything from deciding tonight versus next week. Commissioner Casease, are you in agreement? Absolutely. Okay. [Music] Well, I think um if we are all in agreement that we're ready to consider um any final deliberations in a motion, I would um close the public testimony portion of the hearing so that we can do that. Um, I I mean I I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Ber. I can't hear anybody if they're speaking in the room. They're not using a microphone. I can't hear.

The an audience member asked if public testimony was done or if she could ask one more question. And I guess technically I just closed public testimony. It's it's it's your prerogative, vice chair. You didn't gavvel. Yeah, I was You didn't pound the gavvel. I think it's fine. I think if you have um as as long as council is okay, I think it's okay to come up and ask one more question. I know this is a hard one for all of us. That was closed when you went into deliberation. So sorry. Okay. Ann Anderson and um the commentary of comparing this to a geohhazard keeps coming up. Well, a geohhazard is a true hazard to building for and this comparison is just a requirement to do habitat assessment and and and mitigation. It has nothing to do with how hazard the site is. So, I just wanted to make that point. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. And I think the parallel to that is is a process. It's an application process. Of course, this is a habitat assessment. That is one aspect of the model ordinance. We're also talking about the development requirements and we're also specifically talking about yes this requirement to get this assessment. So the parallel yeah I just understand flood plane a geohhazard it's it's different. I'm basically um par the parallel is the application procedure process. So sorry if I was not more clear about that. Yeah. Got it. Thank you. Thank you. Um well I think I will open it up for any final deliberations or a motion if someone feels comfortable making one.

I have and the resolution language is on the agenda. [Laughter] So, oh yeah, the meeting is the meeting uh excuse me, public hearing closed. Yeah. So, just for the record, the the public hearing is still open, but the public testimony portion of the public hearing is closed. Sorry, that's a bit of a nuance. Sorry. Thank you, Jonathan. You're luck. Nope. appreciate you keeping me in line. No, it's all good. The public hearing closes when a motion is made. Well, when a motion is made, seconded and approved or continued. I'll move to recommend to the city council the approval of a modified comprehensive plan amendment 56-25 and zoning ordinance amendment 110-25 after adopting any changed amendments or findings discussed at the regular June 5th 2025 planning commission meeting. Do I have a second? And I guess I want to clarify, we're not asking for any modifications to the the actual right. That that option would be if you wanted us to make any changes to the ordinance themselves. Oh yeah. As presented. Yeah. So option one if you if it's as

presented I can't find the language in the the language on the agenda right no would be and oh go for it Jonathan if you have the page in the packet yeah it's one we usually we usually do have a page of the packet it's usually listed in the script but in this case I understood this is more towards um more geared towards Josh I think we have a a planning commission resolution that um they could simply just move to adopt um which same thing. Okay. Well, in that case, the language is right here. Uh then I will move to adopt resolution number PC629-25 as presented or amended. As presented. As presented. Sorry. Thank you, Steve. Um, can I get a second? I'll second. Thank you, Commissioner Casease. Uh, all those in favor, um, raise your hand and say I. I. I. I. Chair says I. Thank you. The motion passes. Um uh and I I would just please encourage um staff as you're bringing this forward to the city council to acknowledge some of the discussion and some of the current concerns from the community that are coming to the table here. I know you all are trying to find the best path forward [Music] um and stuck stuck between uh the federal conversation and this uncertainty that we have about what's coming down the pipeline. So just appreciate you all working in that space and trying to move this forward in the

best way possible for our community. Thank you. And with that, I think we will close the hearing unless Jonathan tells me otherwise. It's closed already. We're good. Thank you. Awesome. Um uh we will move on to the next item on the agenda, which is uh any other staff comments or project updates? Um I think just some scheduling of our next meeting and regularly scheduled um will be cancelled um public holiday. Um um kind of a recap of our last discussion. I think um we had the appeal for that subdivision. Um I think it has passed the timeline. We did not receive any notice from Luba on that one. So I do believe that that subdivision is going to be moving forward. Um, and just keep it short and sweet tonight. Thank you for your presentation or your uh participation this evening. Thank you. Thank you so much, Josh. Um, so are we looking at our next meeting would be the 3rd of July currently? Yeah, it would be July 3rd. Yeah. All right. Thank you all. I think we will adjour any any other comments from our commissioners talked [Laughter] out. Awesome. Thank you all so much. I know this was a hard one. Um and with that we will adjourn. Thank