McMinnville updates natural‑resources and natural‑hazards planning as FEMA rules tighten floodplain approvals

Heather Richards, McMinnville Community Development director, told a joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission that staff has completed inventories and draft code chapters intended to implement Oregon land‑use Goal 5 (scenic, historic and natural resources) and Goal 7 (natural hazards) and will seek public hearings and adoption next year.

The update described where the city is in the multiyear “McMinnville Mindfully” planning program: inventories and draft policies are complete, Winterbrook Planning prepared hazard and resource maps in 2021, and staff drafted a new comprehensive‑plan natural‑features chapter and proposed code amendments including a Natural Resources Overlay (proposed Chapter 17.47), a Natural Hazards Overlay (proposed Chapter 17.49) and tree‑code changes to Chapter 17.58.

Why it matters: the package would change where development is allowed in riparian corridors, how the city treats significant and landmark trees on private property, and what applicants must submit to get permits in flood plains subject to new federal and state requirements.

What staff presented

- Inventory and consultants: Winterbrook Planning completed data collection and mapping of floodplains, steep slopes/landslide risk, liquefaction soils, wildfire exposure and seismic risk; staff also inventoried riparian corridors, tree groves and scenic viewpoints.

- Riparian setbacks and the safe harbor: Richards said the city followed the statute’s safe harbor for riparian corridors and recommended setbacks of 75 feet from top of bank on the South Yamhill River and 50 feet from bank for other fish‑bearing streams. "We were told to use that safe harbor, so we do not have to do an easy analysis to protect those elements," Richards said. Because those corridors largely overlap the city’s floodplain, staff concluded the city will not need an ESEE analysis to adopt riparian protections under Goal 5.

- FEMA / Endangered Species Act impact on floodplain work: Richards told councilors that a recent Endangered Species Act (ESA) enforcement action involving FEMA requires Oregon cities to adopt standards that prevent most development in floodplains unless applicants complete a habitat assessment demonstrating mitigation. Staff summarized the FEMA compliance approach as requiring no net loss of undeveloped area, no net loss of pervious surface and no net loss of trees 6 inches DBH or greater for most activities beyond routine maintenance or emergency repairs.

- Tree groves and individual landmark trees: consultants identified 30 tree groves across the urban growth boundary; 27 were ranked "significant" based on a field scoring system. The proposed protections would treat groves of roughly 1 acre contiguous canopy as candidates for a tree‑grove overlay. Richards also described a proposed inventory and designation for individual landmark and significant trees: "landmark" trees would be trees 36 inches DBH or greater (and Oregon white oak trees at 12 inches DBH or more); "significant" trees would be 12–36 inches DBH. For groves outside floodplains, staff said an ESEE analysis would be required before the city could adopt protections.

- Mitigation, variances and enforcement: the draft program would allow permitted, conditional and prohibited uses in protected corridors; mitigation for permanent removal is proposed at either a 1:1 or 1.5:1 replacement ratio depending on impact. The draft would permit variances for economic hardship through a conditional‑use public hearing; staff suggested tools such as transfer of residential density to mitigate hardship. Exemptions would include public emergencies, routine maintenance and projects already approved in adopted public master plans. Richards said existing authority allows the city to assess monetary penalties for unauthorized removal of protected trees and cited past appraisals in McMinnville that resulted in fines of roughly "20‑some‑thousand dollars" for downtown trees removed without approval.

Council and commission concerns

Elected officials and commissioners repeatedly raised private‑property concerns. Several asked whether the proposed landmark and significant‑tree program would apply to all private residential lots; Richards confirmed the draft would apply citywide unless council gives different direction. Councilors and commissioners urged clear hardship standards and flexibility for situations such as diseased or hazardous trees, impacts to utilities or sidewalks, and for pest outbreaks such as emerald ash borer. Councilor Peralta suggested considering exceptions or early replanting strategies for species likely to die from pests.

Process, deadlines and next steps

Richards said the draft natural‑resources work was put on hold while the parks and open‑space (PROS) plan was completed because ESEE analyses will rely on park/master‑plan decisions. She told the council that consultant funding for the required ESEE analysis is included in the proposed FY 2025–26 budget and that staff plans to run natural‑hazards and natural‑resources work concurrently, return to the Planning Commission this fall, and target final adoption in March 2026 to meet the five‑year timing triggered by the city’s recent urban‑growth‑boundary work.

Staff requested direction on a few policy choices: whether the same regulations should apply to public and private lands; whether to conduct ESEE analyses in advance for scenic view protections or to require them as part of project master plans for developments of 10 acres or more; and how to coordinate protections for lands in the UGB that remain outside city jurisdiction.

What’s next: Richards said staff will continue outreach with affected property owners, finalize scope and contract for the ESEE analysis if the FY 25–26 budget is approved, hold an internal joint work session with the Planning Commission in October and return to public hearings through the Planning Commission and City Council in late 2025 or early 2026.

Sources and attribution

All quotes and attributions come from the meeting transcript of the joint City Council and Planning Commission work session. Heather Richards is identified in the record as Community Development Director.