HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2002-04-11FLOODPLAIN STANDARDS WORK GROUP
LU 00-0024
APRIL 11, 2002 4:00-6:20 PM
Meeting Notes
ATTENDEES:
Members:
Frank Groznik, Planning Commission (fgroznik@limno.com)
Mike Holmes, Blue Heron Corp (e-mail via Hageman)
Jim Mreen, Willamette River/Foothills (jr@toklat.com)
Jonathan Snell, Member-At-Large (jsnell3299@aol.com)
Mark Eves, Lake Oswego Corp. (Eveswade@aol.com)
Larry Magura, Tualatin River Rep. (did not sign in, but was at meeting)
Staff:
Denny Egner, LO Planning (degner@ci.oswego.or.us)
Stephan Lashbrook, LO Planning
Sid Sin, LO Planning (ssin@ci.oswego.or.us)
Anne Beier, DLCD
Guests:
Elizabeth Buchanan, Alt. Blue Heron Corp.
Malcolm McIver, Bay Rock Apt. Rep. (mmciver@commerceinv.com)
Linda Kerl
Kelley Eshelman
Dennis Hageman
Meeting began at 4:10 pm.
Objectives And Progress:
Denny noted that the committee discussed a wide range of issues at the first meeting.
Building Code:
The committee discussed the State building code requirement that finished floor levels be located
one foot above the base flood elevation. Mark asked whether the City had any flexibility in
adopting the code. Staff agreed to ask the City attorney.
Title 3 Map:
The committee discussed Title 3 requirements of the Metro functional plan. Discussion focused
on section 3.07.330 D. on page 22 of the plan. Committee want to know if Metro has placed the
lake in or out of the Title 3 requirements. Discussion addressed whether we should get a formal
legal opinion or just stay with the informal opinion. Previous discussions indicated that an
informal opinion is that the lake is not mapped on the Title 3 map.
The Committee needs to know if the lake is in or not because certain assumption then must be
made to direct the group discussions. Mark indicated that he thinks that the Lake Corp’s
discussion with Metro was the reason why the lake was not included on the map.
Stephan indicated that his discussions with Metro, lead him to believe that the lake is not
included in the Title 3 mapping.
Floodplain Work Group Page 1
Meeting Notes - April 11, 2002
Group consensus was that we need to proceed with discussion as though the lake is not part of
the Title 3 maps.
Flood management performance standards:
Metro has reviewed our current ordinance and said we are out of compliance in two areas: 1)
with uncontained hazards and 2) balanced cut and fill.
The committee discussed section 3.07.040 A.3.b. which states that levees shall not be used to
create buildable lands. This means you can have a levee to protect existing buildable lands, but
not to create new land. Jim Mreen had concern about including the levee clause in the
ordinance. Refer to page 22 section A of the draft code language.
Anne was updated on the City’s process to develop a comprehensive plan for the Foothills areas.
A consideration of this committee is that anything that results should not negatively affect the
development of the foothills area without just cause.
Variance criteria is located on page 28 of Title 3. We can refer to this are when the committee
address variance criteria.
Stephan clarified that Metro’s model ordinance would only apply if a Comprehensive Plan/Zone
Change Amendment were approved in the City. There was a pre-app for such an application
today, which would make this apply.
Statewide Planning Goal 7.
Anne indicated that if the City adopted the minimum FEMA standards, then the City would
comply with Goal 7. If the City does not, then the City must develop an alternative program that
shows that structures in the floodplain will be protected. Ann indicated that most alternatives
that she has seen are even stricter than FEMA standards.
Anne was asked about the flexibility of the state program and whether Lake Oswego can be
excepted from some requirements given the unique situation of the sea wall and the ability to
regulate the lake level because of the dam. Anne said the intent of Goal 7 is to protect life and
property. The FIRM program says that if it takes people to intervene in flood protection, then its
not a good enough system to be excluded. As it applies to Goal 7, the City’s unique situation
might apply. This also takes into consideration that there is some lead time to take action to
protect the properties around the lake. She stated that to address Goal 7, the City would have to
show and document that it can protect new development from shallow and extensive flooding.
Drainage master plan done by Otak 10 yrs ago ran the 100 flood event over the city. This report
may have information in there that we can use.
Larry said the two biggest flood threats are the Tualatin River and the Willamette River.
Ann indicated that the firm maps could be redrawn in a request called a “letter of map revision”.
However, the City still has to go through an extensive process one way or another. This is an
option to get the lake and other parts of the City out of the FIRM.
Staff clarified that there are two parts to the Title 3 issues; 1) Floodplains 2) Natural Resources.
We are just focusing on floodplains at this time.
Floodplain Work Group Page 2
Meeting Notes - April 11, 2002
Federal Regulations and Flood Insurance:
Anne was asked how other jurisdictions apply the 50% substantial improvement language. Anne
indicated that each jurisdiction can apply its own option. Some base it on a yearly assessment,
some do it as a cumulative total of substantial improvement. It can be done on a calendar year or
fiscal year if a cumulative total is kept. Generally each jurisdiction can develop their own
approach for what ever is more convenient. Anne noted that Marion County triggers it if the
damages are greater than 25% of the assessed value.
The committee discussed flood insurance rates and the caps for compensation. It was noted there
is a $250K payout cap for residential and $500k payout for commercial. That is the most you
can get from the Federal Government. Anne noted that sometimes additional federal funds are
provided as disaster relief.
Denny discussed his findings from discussions with three insurance contacts:
- Flood insurance generally costs between $250-$750 a year?
- Structure in existence before development of the FIRM map are given a subsidized
reduced rate of insurance.
- There were no other places to purchase flood insurance on the open market other than
from Lloyds of London.
- There was a comment that if insurance companies did not have access to FEMA
subsidized policies then we would all be in trouble. The insurance companies fully
supported it.
Denny referred to the handout describing different rates for different structures. There was
discussion on clarifying what it all meant.
Anne indicated that Leslie Melville out of FEMA Region 10 office, can provide real numbers on
coverages. Anne Further indicated that 200-300 policies are in affect in Lake Oswego, this
however also includes some people that are out of the floodplain.
98% of mortages are federally backed. Because most mortgage companies require flood or some
other type of insurance, we should continue to participate in the NFIP.
Anne indicated that she would get this get the two page description of coverages from Leslie for
the next meeting.
Oswego Canal - Boathouse Discussion:
The 1987 FIRM map took into consideration all of the boathouses and other obstructions in the
floodplain. Those in essence were grand fathered in. A new flood map along the canal would
allow us to do the same now with all of the obstructions since 1987.
Ann noted that if a structure in pre-1987 FIRM burned down, then you should be able to rebuild
it because all of the floodplain engineering calculation took into account those structure. The
new structure could have the same footprint but would need to meet new elevation standards.
The new Tualatin River study might in essence grandfather those structures that have been built
since 1987.
Floodplain Work Group Page 3
Meeting Notes - April 11, 2002
Floodplain Work Group Page 4
Meeting Notes - April 11, 2002
Anne commented on the number of structures damaged due to flooding. Anne said there were
60 loses in the 1996 flood that NFIP paid claims on. Anne said that she can’t give out specific
address, but she can get us a map with area which highlights areas of losses. Anne’s list would
also show property value and amount paid.
The committee expressed interest in knowing how many properties on the lake are below the
102-foot elevation.
Floodplain Study:
Larry noted the development of new datum, will change the elevation on a lot of engineering
maps. Larry thinks that with the new floodplain study, elevations will go up.
The committee discussed whether the City should participate in the Tualatin River study. In
response to a question, Anne said that if Tualatin and Clackamas County agree the City may
have success in going back to FEMA and getting the area remapped after raising the headgate.
Denny noted that staff’s recommendation is to participate in the Tualatin study. He noted the
new study will give us better maps that will show what houses are in and what are out of the
floodplain.
The committee chose to take a position on the Tualatin study. There was concern that the study
would get a false conclusion we were to participate in the study because it does not consider the
outflow valve in the lake. As proposed, participation in the study only included the Tualatin as it
ties into the canal. If that is the case then there will be a false conclusion because it does not
consider the dam valve which has the capacity to lessen flood elevations in the lake.
Denny noted that there are cost savings of doing the study now because the other work in
underway.
A motion was made that the committee should recommend to the council to postpone the
decision to participate in the study until it can be determined that the study will consider lake
outflow improvements. All voted in favor, no opposed. Stephan said he will communicate the
results to the council.
Wrap-up:
In two weeks, the committee will discuss:
• Boathouses and docks along canal
• Is Blue Heron in or out the FIRM
• Definition of water dependant uses
• Get more insurance information with a map that shows a range of who flooded, total
paid, losses, etc.
• 1996 info of what was insured back then compared to today?
Next meeting on April 25.
Meeting adjourned 6:07 pm