Seaside pauses final action on floodplain ordinance as FEMA rule and litigation remain unsettled

Seaside city officials on July 7 opened a public hearing on an updated floodplain ordinance and approved the ordinance’s first and second readings by title, while postponing a final decision on new federal requirements tied to a FEMA program known as PICM (pre‑implementation compliance measures).

City staff described two related needs: bring Seaside’s floodplain code up to current state model language, and decide whether to adopt additional PICM provisions FEMA has proposed. FEMA’s PICM guidance would require habitat assessments, no‑net‑loss mitigation for floodplain development, limits on impervious surface and tree replacement schedules, and verification by a qualified habitat professional. Staff told council that other Oregon jurisdictions are still awaiting guidance and that qualified consultants have been difficult to identify.

Staff outlined three options: adopt the FEMA‑recommended model language requiring mitigation and professional certification; require habitat assessment and mitigation on a permit‑by‑permit basis; or prohibit development in the Special Flood Hazard Area. The city manager said staff recommend moving now on the state model code update and holding the PICM discussion until litigation and federal guidance stabilize.

The city noted ongoing litigation in which a group identified in staff materials as Oregonians for Floodplain Protection sought a stay of the PICM implementation and asked for more study of economic impacts on affected communities. FEMA has, according to staff, requested a stay as well to allow the parties to negotiate. Staff recommended the council complete two readings of the ordinance now (to preserve options) and defer a third reading and final adoption until July’s next meeting, when staff expects more clarity on the legal and technical issues and when the city’s floodplain manager, Jeff (staff), will be present.

At the meeting the council approved a motion for a first reading and then a second reading by title only; the council did not adopt the PICM requirements. Staff said if the council prefers, it will return with an ordinance that excludes the PICM components or will propose PICM language after further study. No binding local PICM obligations were adopted at the July 7 meeting.

Ending: Council members directed staff to monitor the federal litigation and to return with a recommendation at the next council meeting; the staff said they would request additional analysis of economic impacts and identify qualified consultants before asking the council to adopt any PICM requirements.