Springfield Planning Commission closes floodplain code hearing to allow more analysis after hospital and health-system testimony

The Springfield Planning Commission closed the public hearing on proposed floodplain code amendments to give staff time to complete analysis and respond to public comment, commissioners announced during the meeting.

Staff said the record and technical findings for the legislative proposal are not yet complete, citing a required buildable-lands analysis of roughly 50 to 70 parcels and ongoing federal litigation and regulatory developments that could affect the city’s options. "We are asking to close the public hearing and reopen the hearing once we've completed our analysis," said Haley (planning staff), who presented the item and described the outstanding work.

The action follows public testimony from local hospital and health-system representatives who warned that the proposed changes could sharply reduce the amount of developable land on and around major medical campuses. Alicia Beamer, chief administrative officer for Sacred Heart Riverbend, said Riverbend is “out of space” and asked the commission to preserve room for future expansion. Grady Layman, director of planning, design and construction for PeaceHealth, told commissioners that much of PeaceHealth’s land holdings that could accommodate expansion or housing sit within mapped floodplain/floodway areas and that stricter rules would raise development costs and reduce usable acreage.

Tamara Miller, system director of property management for PeaceHealth, read written testimony from Michael M. Reeder urging the commission to delay any recommendation to the City Council. The written statement argued that the proposed amendments "would place an enormous burden" on property owners, could remove economically beneficial uses of land, and might expose the city to compensation claims. Miller said the proposed changes were advanced to comply with FEMA direction tied to endangered-species litigation and that those federal policies may themselves be the subject of legal challenge.

Haley told the commission staff and the city attorney’s office are working on responses to prior public comment, including issues raised about clear-and-objective standards, Measure 49 claims, the buildable lands inventory, cost recovery, and the Department of Land Conservation and Development’s involvement. Staff estimated the inventory work would require parcel-level analysis for roughly 50–70 properties to determine how floodplain designations would affect redevelopment opportunities.

Assistant City Attorney Christina (assistant city attorney) explained how the record will be handled if the hearing is reopened or kept closed. She said the matter will remain active and that staff could bring new information either in a work session or by scheduling a reopened hearing; written comments submitted while the hearing is closed may be held for City Council or returned to the commission depending on staff recommendations. Christina also said closing the hearing does not preclude staff from re-noticing a reopened hearing and that staff intends to notify those who previously submitted comments.

Commissioners asked few substantive questions before closing the hearing. One commissioner, identified in the record as Pat (Commissioner, last name not specified), asked whether postponement could jeopardize federally backed flood insurance for property owners. Christina replied that removal from the National Flood Insurance Program would require a separate escalation and a community-assistance process involving FEMA and that there would likely be time to take corrective action if that process began.

Planning staff also noted outside advocacy and regulatory activity affecting timelines: the League of Oregon Cities had urged FEMA to revert to an earlier environmental-impact statement and to provide technical assistance and funding for local implementation; the federal litigation by Oregonians for Floodplain Protection is being transferred to Oregon, which staff said will likely delay any injunction timeline.

The commission closed the hearing at staff’s request and said it may reopen the hearing after staff completes its analysis and updates the record. Staff said any future hearing will be announced on the project’s Springfield Oregon Speaks page and by direct notice to commenters when practical.

The commission’s action was procedural; staff will return with completed findings, an updated buildable-lands analysis and recommendations on how to proceed toward any code amendment recommendation to the City Council.