2020-09-09 Planning Board PacketC)p E 04
� O
Planning Board
Remote Zoom Meeting
Agenda
121 5th Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
www.edmondswa.gov
Michelle Martin
425-771-0220
Wednesday, September 9, 2020 7:00 PM Virtual Online Meeting
Remote Meeting Information
Join Zoom Meeting: https://zoom.us/j/94929270967
Meeting ID: 949 2927 0967.
Call into the meeting by dialing: 253-215-8782
Land Acknowledgement for Indigenous Peoples
We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their
successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken
care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their
sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.
1. Call to Order
Attendee Name Present Absent Late Arrived
2. Approval of Minutes
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 4893)
Approval of Minutes
Background/History
Minutes from August 12th have been approved
Staff Recommendation
Request approval of August 26th, 2020 meeting minutes
ATTACHMENTS:
• PB200826d (PDF)
Planning Board Page 1 Printed 91412020
Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda September 9, 2020
3. Announcement of Agenda
4. Audience Comments
5. Administrative Reports
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 4884)
Director Report
Background/History
Director Report is reviewed at each meeting
Staff Recommendation
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
• Director. Report.09.09.2020.draft.sh.edits.accepted.final.doc (PDF)
6. Public Hearings
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 4886)
Public Hearing on Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance - New Chapter 19.07 ECDC
Background/History
A new Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) became effective June
19, 2020. The City of Edmonds was required revise and adopt compliant regulations prior to
this date. Failure to adopt the FIS and FIRM through revision of local regulations would have
resulted in immediate suspension from the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). FEMA has
stated it did not have the authority to postpone the effective dates of the maps in response to
the COVID-19 outbreak. These dates are set by legislation and federal regulation that require a
community to adopt the new FIS and accompanying FIRM within six (6) months of the issuance
of the Letter of Final Determination. FEMA encouraged communities to find whatever flexibility
is available in their process to ensure that the FIS and FIRM are adopted on time to avoid the
difficulties of suspension.
Early this year, restrictions to the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) prevented the City of
Edmonds from following the normal process for code updates. In order to remain in the NFIP,
the City adopted Interim Ordinance No. 4188 which contained a flood damage prevention
ordinance that satisfied FEMA's requirements for the City of Edmonds to remain in the NFIP.
Now that some restrictions to OPMA have been lifted, the updated flood damage prevention
ordinance is being reviewed for adoption as a permanent ordinance.
Staff Recommendation
Provide a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the new Flood Damage Prevention
Chapter 19.07 ECDC as provided in Attachment 1, and an updated reference to the new
floodplain maps in ECDC 23.70.010 as provided in Attachment 2.
Planning Board Page 2 Printed 91412 02 0
Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda September 9, 2020
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment 1: DRAFT Chapter 19.07 ECDC Flood Damage Prevention (PDF)
• Attachment 2: ECDC 23.70.010 (PDF)
• Attachment 3: Old FIRM Maps (PDF)
• Attachment 4: New FIRM Maps (PDF)
• Attachment 5: Model Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (PDF)
• Attachment 6: Interim Ordinance No. 4188 (PDF)
• Attachment 7: Planing Board May 27, 2020 Minutes Excerpt (PDF)
• Attachment 8: City Council June 2, 2020 Minutes Excerpt (PDF)
• Attachment 9: August 12, 2020 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (PDF)
• Attachment 10: Boyd Public Comment (PDF)
7. Unfinished Business
8. New Business
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 4887)
Tree Regulations Code Process Update
Background/History
See narrative.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment 1: Edmonds Tree Regulations Update Topic Matrix (PDF)
9. Planning Board Extended Agenda
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 4891)
Extended Agenda
Background/History
The Extended agenda is reviewed at each meeting.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment 1: 09-09-2020 PB Extended Agenda (PDF)
10. Planning Board Chair Comments
11. Planning Board Member Comments
12. Adjournment
Planning Board Page 3 Printed 91412 02 0
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/9/2020
Approval of Minutes
Staff Lead: Michelle Martin
Department: Development Services
Prepared By: Michelle Martin
Background/History
Minutes from August 12th have been approved
Staff Recommendation
Request approval of August 26th, 2020 meeting minutes
Narrative
Draft meeting minutes attached
Attachments:
PB200826d
Packet Pg. 4
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Virtual Meeting
Via Zoom
August 26, 2020
Chair Robles called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip
Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their
sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Daniel Robles, Chair
Mike Rosen, Vice Chair
Matthew Cheung
Todd Cloutier
Alicia Crank
Nathan Monroe
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig
Roger Pence
Conner Bryan, Student Representative
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Brad Shipley, Planner
Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Manager
Z
BOARD MEMBER PENCE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 12, 2020 BE APPROVED AS
PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There were no general audience comments.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Robles referred the Board to the Development Services Director's Report that was provided in the packet. There were
no comments or questions from the Board.
Packet Pg. 5
2.A.a
PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION
FROM "SINGLE FAMILY — RESOURCE" TO "SINGLE FAMILY — URBAN 1" FOR 21 PROPERTIES
LOCATED BETWEEN 9TH AVE. N, CAROL WAY, 10TH AVE. N AND AN UNOPENED ALLEY BETWEEN
GLEN AND DALEY STREETS (FILE NUMBER 4868)
Mr. Shipley advised that this amendment was publicly -initiated, and tonight's hearing is the first of two. Following the
Planning Board's public hearing, they will be asked to make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will
hold another public and then final action will occur simultaneously with the entire batch of 2020 Comprehensive Plan
Amendments towards the end of the year.
Mr. Shipley explained that the proposed amendment seeks to change the existing Comprehensive Plan Map designation for
21 properties (7.2 acres) located between 9th Ave. N (west), Carol Way (north), loth Ave. N (east) and the unopened alley
between Glen and Daley Streets (south). Currently, the properties are designated as "Single Family — Resource" (RS-R) and
the applicants are proposing to change the designation to "Single Family — Urban 1" (RS-U1). The property is currently
developed with single-family homes and is located about one mile from the downtown core.
Mr. Shipley emphasized that the current proposal before the Board is not a rezone request. However, if the amendment is
approved, it would allow the owners of the affected properties to apply for a subsequent rezone of their properties form
Single -Family (RS-12) to either RS-8 or RS-6. All 21 properties were included in the proposal to create a cohesive block.
He explained that the RS-U designation allows RS-12 and RS-20 zoning, and the property is currently zoned RS-12. The
applicants want to rezone their property to RS-8, which requires a different Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation. He
shared maps showing the existing Comprehensive Plan Map designation and zoning of the subject parcels and surrounding
properties. He pointed out that the current zoning results in a large lot designation next to the City's most dense single-
family zone. He explained that the RS-R zone is intended to protect critical areas, but there are very few within the subject
parcels. The property is located outside of creek buffers and steep slopes. >
0
L
Mr. Shipley reviewed the four criteria that must be met before a Comprehensive Plan amendment can be approved: a
Q
1. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest? The proposed M
to
amendment is compatible with the surrounding area, and the allowed land uses would not change. However, the w
amendment would allow for smaller lot sizes. The proposal would result in only limited benefit to the public c
interest. N
2. Is the proposed amendment detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City? The proposed
amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare. However, quite a few public
comments have been received voicing concern about the negative impacts the amendment would have to the
surrounding area.
3. Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land sues within the City? Both of the land
use designations allow for single-family development so the types of land uses allowed would not change.
4. Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designated and the anticipated land use
development, including, but not limited to, access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses
and absence of physical constraints? There are access constraints for any property owner seeking to short plat the
property in a manner that increases the number of lots requiring access from Glen Street, which is primarily used as
a private street serving a number of single-family homes. The City's street standards require a minimum right-of-
way width of 40 feet and a paved width of 22 feet for streets that provide access to between 10 and 15 lots. At the
widest point, Glen Street has about 22 feet of easement, and the pavement width ranges between 14 and 16 feet. It
would be very difficult for the street to be widened, and the City doesn't have a lot of interest in doing so. It would
be incumbent upon the property owners to join together to grant back property, create a larger easement, and pave a
22-foot roadway. In addition, there are concerns that fire truck apparatus would be unable to turn around in the area.
Engineering would require Glen Street to be punched through and brought up to standard if the entire area were to
be redeveloped.
Planning Board Minutes
August 26, 2020 Page 2
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
An image of Glen Street was provided to illustrate the existing conditions, which is a fairly narrow privately -
maintained street. However, there is a potential short -plat option for the applicants' properties. The review team
identified two parcels (522 and 530 9'h Ave. N), one of which is owned by the applicant, where access could be
provided via 9'h Ave. N and not be subject to the constraints that limit development along Glen Street.
Mr. Shipley summarized that, staff is recommending that the Planning Board recommend denial a change in designation from
RS-R to RS-U1 for the 21 parcels included in the proposal and recommend approval of a designation change from RS-R to
RS-U1 for the two parcels (522 and 530 91 Ave. N) that can provide access via 9" Ave. N.
At the request of Board Member Monroe, Mr. Shipley explained that the applicant is seeking to subdivide an existing lot that
is only 17,500 square feet. The current RS-12 zoning requires a minimum lot size of 12,000, so the applicant was unable to
achieve the second lot. Board Member Monroe reviewed that the City initially determined it would be more appropriate to
consider the land use designation change for the entire block rather than a single lot, but then later decided to recommend
denial. He asked why the City encouraged the applicant to go through the process if the smaller lots sizes are unfeasible. Mr.
Shipley said he has been working with the applicant for a long time, but he did not initially notice the access issues on Glen
Street. Sometimes you have to go through more extensive review to identify the issues. The idea was to maintain a cohesive
block. Board Member Monroe summarized that staff's current recommendation is to deny the majority of the request, but
approve the designation change for the two parcels that have access via 91h Ave. N.
Board Member Monroe asked what would prevent another owner of property in the northwest corner from requesting a
m
designation change to RS-U1. He asked if applying the change to just the two lots near the existing RS-U1 designation could
be considered a form of spot zoning. Mr. Shipley responded that, because the two lots are adjacent to properties zoned RS-
U1, he would not consider it spot zoning. Mr. Chave suggested that the Board discuss this issue further with staff following
the public portion of the hearing. From staff s point of view, this case is unusual and not clear cut. The two parcels are in
>
proximity to the RS-8 zoning, but they also edge into an area that is zoned RS-10. The decision will come down to
a
judgement. Board Member Monroe said that, as an engineer, he likes straight lines, and staffs recommendation would seem
Q.
to create a jagged tooth.
Q
Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that it might be appropriate for staff to address redevelopment proposals by first
determining whether there is sufficient capacity on the streets to provide adequate access.
Commissioner Chang pointed out that staff is recommending approval of the land use designation change for the two
properties in the southwest corner of the block, which seems to be a small area. He asked if this would be setting precedence
for other property owners who border denser zones to request the same. Mr. Chave answered not necessarily. He explained
that there are other situations in Edmonds where portions of the same block are zoned differently. Board Member Cloutier
pointed out that there is a graduated change of zoning in the neighborhood centers. While entire blocks may not have the
same zone, the corner of the block closest to the Neighborhood Business zone, for example, might have a different lot size.
While he doesn't think that zoning needs to be done in squares, it should be contiguous rather than spot zoning. In this case,
the change would simply extend the RS-U1 zoning to the two adjacent lots.
Carolyn Mangelsdorf, Edmonds, said she and Robert Grimm are the applicants and they live at 530 — 9`h Ave. N.
Robert Grimm, Edmonds, said he fully understands the concerns about Glen Street, but these concerns would be more
appropriately addressed as part of future rezone application rather than at the Comprehensive Plan amendment stage. While
the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation would allow the rezone, it would not necessarily guarantee approval of a
rezone.
Ms. Mangelsdorf pointed out there are already four properties within the 21-property area that fall below the required size of
12,000 square feet. Therefore, they are out of compliance with the current RS-R designation.
Barbara Chessler, Edmonds, pointed out that, even if the land -use designation is changed for the entire 21-property area, it
wouldn't impact property owners on Glen Street. The street isn't big enough and you would need a zoning change for each
lot anyway. Mr. Shipley concurred.
Planning Board Minutes
August 26, 2020 Page 3
Packet Pg. 7
Aaron Dean, Edmonds, said he opposes the proposed amendment. There is more than one parcel that would meet the same
criteria as 530 — 9' Ave. N. He voiced concern that homeowners could be forced to revise the street over their objections
because some parcel holders want to subdivide and redevelop. He pointed out that the lot at 530 — 9' Ave. N actually
accesses off of Glen Street even though it has a 9'k' Ave. address. Although subdividing the lot would result in a type of flag
lot, the ingress and egress would end up being off of Glen Street.
Anne -Marie Laporte, Edmonds, agreed with the comments made previously around spot zoning. She commented that
changing the land use for just the two properties seems arbitrary. She said she grew up on Daley Street, moved away, but
came back with her family because she liked the walkability and character of the neighborhood. She is very concerned that
the City is considering arbitrary changes. When reviewing the proposal, she asked the Board to keep in mind what is best for
the community and specifically the neighborhood. She said she is opposed to the change for all of the lots, and not just most
of them.
Bob Schied, Edmonds, asked how the written comments would contribute to the Board's decision. Mr. Chave said the
Planning Board considers both written and oral comments when making a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Schied
asked about the process for Comprehensive Plan amendments. Mr. Chave said that, typically, the Planning Board makes a
recommendation to the City Council following the public hearing, but that is dependent on their discussions after the public
portion of the hearing is closed.
m
Mr. Schied said that even though rezoning is an entirely different process, approving the Comprehensive Plan Map
Designation as proposed would enable all 21 property owners to apply for a rezone in the future. Mr. Chave agreed that, if
the Planning Board recommends and the City Council concurs that the amendment should apply to all 21 lots, any and all of
the lots could request a zoning change. Mr. Schied said he has spoken with a number of property owners in the area who are
concerned about the propagation of further density throughout the neighborhood if all 21 properties are included in the map
change. He asked the Board to consider the broader general perspectives that have been voiced in both oral and written 0-
comments. Beyond the density increase, Mr. Schied said he also has traffic safety concerns. Due to high traffic volumes Q.
and speed at the crest of the hill, it is difficult to enter 9'h Ave. N from Daley Street. This problem will only get worse if Q
more people park on 9' Ave. N. If the zoning is changed, perhaps some parking restrictions will also be needed to avoid M
safety issues and concerns. cN
Jerry Capretta, Edmonds, said he lives three houses behind the subject parcels to the east. He asked if the majority of
written comments received to date were against the proposed amendment to change the land use designation for 21
properties. Mr. Shipley confirmed that all of the comments indicated opposition. Mr. Capretta said he joins with others to
oppose the amendment for the same reasons mentioned by the previous three speakers. He asked the Board to deny the
proposed amendment.
Theresa Ford, Edmonds, observed that Edmonds offers a wonderful sense of openness, greenspace, gardens, etc. The
subject properties are located in a very protected and quiet space, even with 9' Ave. N. She pointed out that 9' Ave. N is a
steep hill, and she has had several close calls trying to cross it. Site distance is a problem for cars turning into or out of Glen
Street. The streets in the neighborhood are not designed to have a lot of cars coming in and out, and the proposed land use
designation change could result in serious problems. More cars parking on 9' Ave. N would make the situation significantly
worse. She summarized that she is opposed to the rezone and the negative impact it would have on the character of the
neighborhood. She asked that the Board recognize that neighborhoods, such as hers, are treasures that need to be protected.
Jericho Manahan, Edmonds, said he, too, is opposed to changing the land use designation for all 21 lots, as it could
potentially change the neighborhood environment. He said he was pleased to hear the Planning Board Members raise
concerns about spot zoning and setting a precedent for other property owners to request changes, too. He concluded that the
proposed amendment would be detrimental to the character of Edmonds, and he asked that the Board recommend denial.
Laurena Laporte, Edmonds, said she has lived in her neighborhood for 41 years, and she loves it. It is not overcrowded,
and the neighbors all know each other. They also have privacy, greenspace and beauty. She is concerned that this will be
lost, and it won't come back. She encouraged the Board to oppose the proposed amendment.
Planning Board Minutes
August 26, 2020 Page 4
Packet Pg. 8
Mark Demaray, Edmonds, said he also lives in the neighborhood where the subject parcels are located and he supports the
comments that have been provided thus far. He asked if the proposed amendment would have any other impact other than an
increase in density. Mr. Shipley said that density is the primary difference between the two designations (RS-R and RS-U1).
The height and lot coverage requirements would be the same, but the setbacks would change. Mr. Demaray asked if the
applicant is proposing RS-6 or RS-8 zoning. Mr. Shipley reminded them that the rezone would be a separate process, but
either zone would be allowed in the RS-U1 designation. Mr. Chave cautioned that the zoning would not automatically
change if the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is approved.
Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds, agreed that approving the amendment for all 21 properties would set a precedent and have a
significant impact on the neighborhood. She noted that, while the properties along Daley Street are designated as RS-U1, the
properties further north were likely protected because the topography slopes to the northwest. She asked if all of the emails
the City received regarding the subject of the hearing were included in the Board's packet. Mr. Shipley said many were
received after the packet was prepared, but they are all part of the public record. They will not be read into the record as part
of the public hearing, but they were forwarded to the Board Members prior to the meeting. Ms. Dotsch voiced concern that
the Zoom meeting format restricts the public's ability to provide and listen to public comments. She asked that, in the future,
written public comments should be read into the record if public hearings are conducted via Zoom. Mr. Chave said that
would be extremely difficult to do. Oftentimes, they are quite long. All of the public comments are included in the material
that goes before the Planning Board and City Council. People who want to participate at the City Council hearing will have
an opportunity to review all of the comments made at the Planning Board hearing, both written and oral. Ms. Dotsch
suggested that the public comments should be posted in one location.
Ms. Dotsch reminded them that the City's Housing Commission is currently reviewing density in Edmonds, and there is a
push to increase density in single-family neighborhoods. Those who value the current neighborhoods in Edmonds may want
to listen to and participate in that process.
Elena Sucio, Edmonds, said she agrees with all of the other public comments and is opposed to the proposed amendment.
Charles Laporte, Seattle, said his mother lives in Edmonds, and he knows the area extremely well. He said he is also
opposed to the proposed amendment. He echoed Board Member Monroe's concern that approval of the amendment would
be considered spot zoning. Even if all 21 properties are included, the City has acknowledged that only the two lots would be
candidates for subdividing since they are the only ones that could be accessed from 91h Ave. N. The other lots would have to
be accessed via Glen Street, which doesn't have the capacity to accommodate the additional trips. The proposed amendment
appears to be a favor for just one property owner, which seems unjust and very arbitrary.
The public portion of the meeting was closed, and the Board started its deliberation.
Board Member Crank said she read all of the written comments that were forwarded to the Board prior to the meeting. She
echoed the concerns raised by both the Board Members and the public that it does not seem feasible to approve this
application. She emphasized that she appreciates that anyone can apply for a change, even if it ends up being denied. She
expressed her belief that the proposed amendment would result in spot zoning and create more issues than problem solve.
Her recommendation is to deny the application.
Board Member Monroe asked Mr. Shipley to explain how the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan (Criteria 1). Mr. Shipley said that, in this case, the proposed amendment would not change the uses that are allowed on
the site. That being said, there is not a lot of information that would support a finding that the proposed amendment is
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Board Member Monroe voiced his opinion that being contiguous to another zone is not enough to warrant a change. More
planning and forethought are needed. The City has a good Comprehensive Plan, and he cautioned against arbitrary changes.
He is concerned that it could set a precedent for other property owners making similar requests down the road. In the interest
of being equitable to everyone, he recommended denial of the proposed amendment.
Q
Planning Board Minutes
August 26, 2020 Page 5
Packet Pg. 9
2.A.a
Board Member Cheung pointed out that all of the emails received to date regarding the subject of the hearing would be
attached to the record and available to the public, which is no different than an in -person public hearing. They do not read all
of the written correspondence during the public hearing.
Board Member Cheung clarified that the staff recommendation is to deny the proposed amendment for all 21 properties.
Instead, staff is recommending approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map change for just the two parcels (522 and
530 — 9'h Ave. N). Mr. Shipley explained that Criteria 4 requires that the subject parcels be physically suited for the
requested land use designation, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the change makes sense in a larger context. It is
possible for the Board to recommend approval of the change for just those two properties.
Board Member Cheung summarized that most of the comments were based on the proposal that all 21 parcels would change
to RS-U1, but that is not actually what staff is recommending the Commission consider. He is interested in knowing if there
is strong public opposition to just those two parcels being changed. He said he is not sure the public clearly understands the
staff s recommendation. He voiced concern about changing the land use designation for just two parcels just because they
are adjacent to RS-U1 zoning. This could set a precedent for anyone else in the City to do the same. Again, he said staff is
not recommending that all 21 parcels be changed, but just the two at 522 and 530 — 9'h Ave. N.
Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that the applicants approached the Board a few months ago to discuss their hopes for
their single-family lot. At that time, staff suggested that the proposal should include a larger area. She understands that
Daley Street supports the properties that are designated as RS-U1 to the south of the subject parcels. She also understands
staffs desire to consider the entire block as part of the proposal. However, she asked why staff didn't change the proposal
once it was determined that Glen Street could not adequately accommodate a greater density. She also asked if staff
considered changing the proposal to just include the properties that front on 91 Ave. N, Carol Way, and 10'h Ave. N. Mr.
�
Shipley said that, based on the review criteria, all of the middle properties would need to be excluded, and only a few
properties on Carol Way and 101 Ave. N would be potential candidates for the denser zoning. He suggested this would raise
�
concerns about spot zoning. He noted that most of the residents in the area voiced opposition to the amendment, so it didn't
a
make sense to include the other properties.
Q.
Q
Board Member Rubenkonig summarized that the only properties that could potentially be redeveloped at the greater density
M
allowed by the RS-U1 designation would be those on 9'h Ave. N, 10`h Ave. N. and Carol Way. However, the City doesn't
to
w
encourage land use and/or zoning changes that apply to just small areas. Mr. Chave agreed that the City tries to avoid
c
discontinuous areas. Board Member Rubenkonig summarized that the applicant's properties are adjacent to other properties
m
that are designated RS-U1, and the City no longer has an interest in expanding the amendment to include the additional 19
a
properties. She said that, oftentimes, adjacency is what starts the pattern of redevelopment. She asked staff to explain how
changing the designation for just the two properties would be a reasonable approach. Mr. Shipley said the City reviewed the
criteria and discussed options that would allow the applicants to succeed in what they were trying to accomplish. Changing
E
t
the land use for just a few properties is not how the City typically approaches change, but providing the recommendation has
created some good talking points, and it is up to the Board to decide the appropriate recommendation to forward to the City
Q
Council.
Board Member Rubenkonig emphasized that, if the proposed amendment is approved for just the two properties, any
subsequent rezone would require access from 9'h Ave. N. She also clarified that if the change is approved for the two
properties, the applicants could submit a subsequent rezone application that would potentially allow the two lots to be
subdivided into three lots. There would be one additional single-family home adding traffic to 9'h Ave. N. She asked if a
traffic study would be required as part of a subsequent rezone application, and Mr. Shipley answered that a traffic study
would not be required if the rezone only included the two properties. The property at 522 — 9'h Ave. N is about 13,000 square
feet. Even if it is rezoned to RS-8, it couldn't be subdivided. As per the staffs recommendation, the net potential gain would
be one additional lot.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the two lots have access from 91h Ave. N, and Mr. Shipley said the applicant currently
accesses the property from Glen Street, but the lot is wide enough to create a flag lot and gain access from 9'h Ave. N along
the southern border of the property. Board Member Rubenkonig noted that Glen Street would no longer be used to access the
subject parcels. She said she supports the staff s recommendation to change the Comprehensive Plan Map designation to RS-
U1 for the two properties located at 522 and 530 — 9'h Ave. N.
Planning Board Minutes
August 26, 2020 Page 6
Packet Pg. 10
Student Representative Bryan said it is important to review the application through the lens of the four review criteria. It
only seems logical to deny the application for either the two parcels or all 21. Clearly, the change is not in the public interest
and people have voiced a number of safety concerns. Therefore, the application fails to meet Criterion 1 and 2.
Board Member Pence said he read and considered all of the written public comments that were submitted prior to the
meeting. He also visited the site, driving around the entire block and down Glen Street. With the exception of one parcel
under construction on Glen Street, the entire block appears to be developed with very substantial single-family homes. In the
event that the amendment is approved for all 21 properties, it wouldn't impact existing development since people would not
likely tear down the larger houses to build slightly smaller ones. He said he supports the staff recommendation to deny the
request to re -designate all 21 parcels to RS-U1 for all the reasons stated. He also supports the staff recommendation to
approve the change for the two parcels at 530 and 522 — 91 Ave. N. for the reasons outlined in the Staff Report. However, as
the alternate member of the Planning Board, he would not be eligible to vote on the matter since all of the Board Members
were present.
Vice Chair Rosen said he leans towards recommending denial of the proposed amendment, for either all 21 parcels or just the
2 parcels discussed. He expressed his belief that the change would compromise the integrity of the City's zoning process, as
well as the integrity of the neighborhood. It would also create an undesirable precedent.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT, BASED ON THE FINDIGNS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND
ATTACHMENTS TO THE STAFF REPORT, THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THE CITY COUNCIL
DENY A CHANGE IN DESIGNATION FROM SINGLE FAMILY -RESOURCE TO SINGLE-FAMILY URBAN 1
FOR THE 21 PARCELS INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSAL. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE
MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
O
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND
0-
ATTACHMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THE CITY COUNCIL
Q.
DENY A CHANGE IN DESIGNATION FROM SINGLE -FAMILY -RESOURCE TO SINGLE FAMILY URBAN 1
Q
FOR THE TWO PARCELS (522 AND 530 — 9TH AVE. N) THAT CAN PROVIDE ACCESS VIA 9TH AVE. N.
BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION.
w
0
Board Member Cloutier explained that his motion to deny was based on the review criteria. While staff explained how the
m
amendment meets Criteria 2, 3 and 4 to his satisfaction, he is still unclear as to how it meets Criteria 1. He said he does not
a
believe the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or in the public interest, and none of the public
comments were in support of the proposal.
Board Member Rubenkonig said her interpretation of the term "public interest" is that it is meant to express the interest of all
t
citizens of Edmonds. Property owners in the neighborhood have clearly presented their concerns and requests, but she
Q
cautioned against interpreting these comments to be all public interest.
Chair Robles said he anticipates more requests of this type in the future, and the action the Board takes may have a basis in a
lot of future decision. There are a number of complexities to the issue, including the safety, health and welfare of citizens, as
well as the somewhat exotic terrain and public comments. If they were dealing with a flat piece of land, they could set a clear
precedent, but that is not the case in this situation. It is important to consider every nuance of the discussion so it can benefit
future discussions as the trend continues throughout the City.
Board Member Monroe commented that it is up to the applicant to show how the amendment is in the public interest, and this
was not done. In this case, the public interest is the surrounding community because it doesn't have a bearing on the rest of
the City. The people who care about the proposal do not support it.
Chair Robles noted that, in the future, there will be other opportunities for people to capitalize on their land, such as an ADU.
These discussions are currently taking place at the Housing Commission level.
Planning Board Minutes
August 26, 2020 Page 7
Packet Pg. 11
2.A.a
Board Member Cheung agreed that the amendment is inconsistent with Criteria 1. Changing the Comprehensive Plan for just
two properties is for a private interest rather than the public interest. He is also worried about setting a precedent for changes
in other areas of the City.
THE CARRIED 6-1, WITH BOARD MEMBERS ROBLES, ROSEN, CLOUTIER, MONROE, CHEUNG AND
CRANK VOTING IN FAVOR AND BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
Board Member Rubenkonig said she agrees with the explanation provided in the Staff Report to support staff's
recommendation.
Mr. Chave said the Planning Board's recommendation will be presented to the City Council for a public hearing (date to be
determined), and notices will be sent out to all parties of record.
PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP
DESIGNATION FROM "NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL" TO "MULTI -FAMILY — MEDIUM DENSITY"
FOR TWO VACANT PARCELS IN THE PERRINVILLE AREA (TAX I.D. 003700800300701 AND
00370800300702) (FILE NUMBER 4869)
Mr. Shipley explained that the proposal seeks to change the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation for two undeveloped
parcels in the Perrinville area from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Multi -Family Residential — Medium Density (RM-
MD). The immediate area is developed with a mixture of uses, including a post office, local retail shops and services,
professional offices, restaurants, multi -family residential and single-family residential. Perrinville Village, a new 42-unit,
fee -simple townhome development, is under construction in Lynnwood. The property has been zoned BN for many years,
which allows for low -density, strip -mall type development. The height limit is 25 feet, and the setback requirement is 25
feet. The proposed RM-MD designation would allow either RM-2.4 or RM-3 zoning. >
0
L
Mr. Shipley said the Perrin Village property was rezoned from NB to Multi -Family Residential (RM-3) in 1985 and is a
currently developed with five, 4-unit buildings. In 1987, a 1.2-acre parcel was rezoned from RM-3 to BN to allow the United Q
States Postal Service to expand its facilities.
Mr. Shipley reviewed the four criteria that must be met before a Comprehensive Plan amendment can be approved:
Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest? The
Comprehensive Plan does not mention a specific vision for the Perrinville area. The neighborhood is generally
recognized as one that "includes commercial activities." However, there is one goal policy in the Transportation
Element that identifies Perrinville. Goal 5(13)(2)(a)(1) states that RM uses should be located near arterial or
collector streets. Both Olympic View Drive and 76th Ave. W are classified as either collector or minor arterial
streets, depending on the direction. If the proposal had been for property located on a local street, it would be
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Is the proposed amendment detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City? The site was
rezoned to BN in 1962. While he understands the desire for more commercial development, the site has been zoned
as such for 50 years but hasn't been developed yet. The amendment offers potential to add to the "missing middle"
housing type. The applicant's current intent is to develop the site with 6 or 7 townhomes. Any development along
this section would require streetscape improvements to improve walkability and provide some type of connection
from the site to the street. All of these could be seen as in the public interest and consistent with the health and
safety of the City's citizens.
3. Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land sues within the City? The proposal
would result in a slight shift (about 1 acre) from commercial to residential land uses. However, the shift would not
disrupt the balance of land uses within the City. The proposed use is compatible with existing commercial uses, and
office and daycare uses are allowed in the RM zone as primary conditional uses.
Planning Board Minutes
August 26, 2020 Page 8
Packet Pg. 12
2.A.a
4. Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designated and the anticipated land use
development, including, but not limited to, access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses
and absence of physical constraints? The applicant is trying to protect the slope as much as possible rather than
maximizing the land's full development potential. Recent upgrades to the Lynnwood sewer system have increased
its capacity and there are no issues with connecting to their facilities. All other utilities are available to
accommodate the requested land use, as well.
Mr. Shipley recommend that, based on the findings of fact, conclusions and attachments the Staff Report, the Board make a
recommendation to the City Council to approve the change in designation from NC to RM-MD.
Board Member Monroe said the application mentions that the property is not a suitable site for a commercial zone because it
isn't easily accessible to the ground level. He asked if that is a requirement of the BN zone. Mr. Shipley said it is not a
requirement. There is a slope at the street front, so the view might be difficult for commercial development at the top.
Again, he reminded the Board that the site has been zoned BN for 50 years, but hasn't been developed. If the zoning was
appropriate, it is likely it would have been developed by now.
Board Member Monroe asked what zoning the applicant is interested in. Mr. Shipley reminded him that zoning is not part of
the current issue, but the applicant has indicated a desire for RM-2.4. However, it is not likely that the site will accommodate
that amount of density. Board Member Monroe asked if any other properties in the vicinity are designated as RM-MD, and
Mr. Shipley said no. Board Member Monroe pointed out that the surrounding properties are designated either NC or single- N
am
family (RS). Board Member Monroe asked if there is a City policy that RM zoning is appropriate when adjacent to
commercial zoning. Mr. Shipley said RM is generally viewed as a transition zone between RS and commercial. In this case,
the RM would create a transition zone between the commercial and RS zones.
0
Hans Korve, Applicant, said staff summarized the application well. He referred to Comprehensive Plan Policy A.2, which >
states `parcels of land previously zoned for commercial use that are now identified as unnecessary or inappropriate should a
be reclassified for other uses. " As staff indicated, the property has been zoned Neighborhood Business (BN) for 50 years, Q.
and no one has found it suitable for commercial uses for the reasons stated in the application. Having a commercial business Q
that is 8 feet above the street level isn't attractive, and that's likely why the property has been undeveloped for 50 years.
Mr. Korve shared a preliminary site plan, noting that only about half of the property would be developed due to the slope in
the back. The proposal is to construct fee -simple townhomes, where individual units would be separated from 761 Avenue
by the 8-foot elevation change. Individuals in the homes will look over the traffic on 761 Avenue. The units will be
separated from the BN development to the south and north, as well as the backyard of the one single-family residence, via a
landscaping buffer. He noted that a property owner in the area voiced concern about the loss of privacy, but it is important to
note that only one unit would be next to the backyard to the north. The impact would be the same as one two-story house,
and the landscape buffers would adequately address this concern.
Mr. Korve said the site plan honors the natural topography of the site, which is consistent with one of the Comprehensive
Plan goals. If the property were developed for a commercial use, a lot of grading and a large retaining wall would be needed.
This would be quite costly. He expressed his belief that the proposed land use designation change represents the best use of
the property. While many people talk about retaining the character of the single-family neighborhoods, the Comprehensive
Plan talks about the need for affordable housing for a variety of people in the community. Multi -family development on the
subject property would provide "missing middle" units that would be owner -occupied, and the Comprehensive Plan goals
support the proposal.
Andrew Koehn, Edmonds, said the applicant's proposal answered many of he and his wife's concerns. They were worried
about height and ownership and parking on 761 Avenue, which gets fully parked out when the mail service is in operation.
In his experience, apartment overflow can have a significant impact, too. He said he is pleased with the type of development
the applicant is proposing, and they support the proposed amendment.
Alexey Ancheyev, Urban Design Group, said his company specializes in the architectural part of the development, and he
agreed that the proposed development would serve as a good transition between the single-family and commercial zones. He
asked to share some alternative ideas for the proposed development. However, Mr. Shipley reminded the Board that the
Planning Board Minutes
August 26, 2020 Page 9
Packet Pg. 13
2.A.a
focus of the hearing is on the Comprehensive Plan amendment, which doesn't involve the future site design. Mr. Ancheyev
said the change will make the site design even better. Rather than two access points, the updated plan would have just one,
and the seven units would be located towards the back of the lot with the backyards facing the slope. The project would be
separated from 76t' Avenue by landscaping.
The public portion of the hearing was closed.
Board Member Monroe asked why RS-R zoning wasn't considered for the subject parcels. He recognized that the property
hasn't been developed under its current zoning over the past 50 years, but he was concerned about skipping right to RM-MD.
He appreciates the need to create housing to serving the "missing middle," but he also understands that the City can meet its
population requirements with infill. Mr. Shipley answered that single-family residential development wouldn't require the
applicant to go through the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. They could achieve the same density doing single-
family, but the applicant is seeking a different construction type that results in lower construction costs per unit. The City has
more options for single-family homes, which occupy about 75% of the City's total land area. The proposal would provide a
different housing type that is not readily available in the City. It would also improve the streetscape, increase walkability and
result in more people to support the local businesses.
Board Member Monroe asked how the residents in the surrounding neighborhoods would benefit from the proposed change.
Board Member Crank pointed out that the proposed change would result in a more diverse community, and not just more
housing. Mr. Shipley said there are a number of reasons why someone might choose to live in a townhome versus a single-
family home. Chair Robles added that providing a variety of housing options is important so that people can live in the
communities they serve, and the price point of townhome development would better meet that objective.
Board Member Monroe cautioned that it is important to apply the rules consistently throughout the City. If the Board
recommends approval of the proposal, they would be sending the message that other areas that are adjacent to commercial >
zones could also be changed to RM-MD. He suggested that the property owners in Perrinville may get a little shell shocked a
when the multi -family project in Lynnwood is finished, particularly since there is no proposal to improve 76' Avenue. Q.
Q
Board Member Crank said she is excited to see that the "missing middle" is finally being addressed. There have been M
CD
community discussions about this need for a number of years. The last two density projects in Edmonds, at Westgate and off w
of 239t' Street, have been rentals. It is good to see ownership housing being proposed in Edmonds as opposed to rental. oc
Projects of this type help to add to the diversity of the community. Edmonds will continue to grow, and this type of medium- m
density project makes sense. Perrinville might be a good model for creating an urban village where people can shop where a -
they live because there are already retail businesses in the area. She said she supports the proposed amendment as presented.
Board Member Cheung agreed with Board Member Crank. He supports the proposed change, which would encourage a
developer to add more housing in the area, and it likely makes more economic sense to develop townhomes as opposed to
single-family homes. He said he believes that townhome development would fit with the character of the area and is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Board Member Cloutier referred to Board Member Monroe's question about why the applicant is proposing RM-MD as
opposed to NC. He pointed out that all of the City's other neighborhood commercial districts have a transition from
commercial, to multi -family, to single family for exactly the reasons stated by Board Member Crank and discussed on
multiple occasions by the Board. People want to live close to where they can shop, and multi -family residential development
provides enough density to support a transit center. Typically, it is not desirable to locate single-family homes next to
commercial businesses, and multi -family creates a better transition.
Board Member Rubenkonig thanked the applicant for the fine presentation included in the Staff Report. A lot of the
information the Board Members were seeking was already provided by the applicant. He was also very careful to address the
concerns expressed by the public.
Board Member Rubenkonig commented that, if Edmonds were prairie land, the Comprehensive Plan and zoning maps would
have fewer conflicts. But there are a lot of topographical changes throughout the City. Hearing about the 6 to 8-foot change
in elevation helped her look at the site differently. It makes a difference in terms of how you approach a commercial area.
Planning Board Minutes
August 26, 2020 Page 10
Packet Pg. 14
2.A.a
She acknowledged that the current proposal is only related to the Comprehensive Plan amendment, but it is possible that the
applicant will have to stabilize the slope on the east side of the property. If so, that would be a good thing for Perrinville.
This area was formerly a gravel pit and is subject to landslides, and stabilizing the steep slopes is always in the best interest.
She recognized that is not a reason to support the proposed Comprehensive Plan change, but the Staff Report lays out a
number of reasons for why she supports the staff recommendation to change the designation to RM-MD.
Board Member Monroe acknowledged that the application presented by the applicant was impressive. However, there is no
guarantee that is the project that will ultimately get built. The Board should not base its recommendation on the site plan that
was presented. He said he would vote against the proposal. Mr. Shipley responded that, if the applicant wanted to develop
the site under the current BN zoning, they could build single-family homes based on the RS-6 standards. The fact that they
are going through this extra effort speaks volumes to the thought they have put into the project. Board Member Monroe
agreed that the project makes sense, but he is worried about the next project that comes along. What if the Board doesn't like
it and arbitrarily recommends denial? The City should do its best to match the zoning to the surrounding area.
VICE CHAIR ROSEN MOVED THAT THE, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND
ATTACHMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY
COUNCIL TO APPROVE A CHANGE IN DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS TO MULTI-
FAMILY — MEDIUM DENSITY FOR THE TWO VACANT PARCELS IN THE PERRINVILLE AREA (TAX I.D.
003700800300701 AND 00370800300702). BOARD MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION. THE
MOTION CARRIED 6-1, WITH BOARD MEMBERS ROBLES, ROSEN, CRANK, RUBENKONIG, CHEUNG
AND CLOUTIER VOTING IN FAVOR AND BOARD MEMBER MONROE VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
c
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
0
Mr. Chave reviewed that the September 91 agenda will include a report on development activity in the City, a public hearing >
on the updated Flood Hazard Ordinance and a discussion on Development Code work pertaining to the Tree Code. The 0
September 231d agenda will include a presentation and discussion on climate goals planning and more discussion on electric Q.
vehicle charging infrastructure. Q
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Robles thanked the Board Members and the public for participating in the meeting. He liked the contrast between the
two public hearing issues, which provided a lot of thought and forward looking on the part of the Board. The decisions are
not made lightly and require the Board to look at changes that might come up in the future based on decisions that are made
now.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that the public hearings didn't start with the script that is typically read by the Chair
to explain the rules and procedures. She was concerned that, often enough at the beginning of a hearing, there is a question
asking if any Board Member feels he/she should recuse themselves from the meeting. Prior to the meeting she reviewed the
list of those that were noticed within 300 feet of both proposals. She knew five of them, but none of them contacted her to
discuss her point of view. She didn't feel it was necessary to disclose that information. She cautioned that it is important for
the Board to review issues in a very non -prejudicial manner, only looking at the information presented in the Staff Report.
She commented that the Board Members aren't technically allowed to visit sites, either. The Board Members can only
consider the information that is available for everyone else to look at.
Mr. Chave said that is true for quasi-judicial hearings. For example, if the Comprehensive Plan amendment is approved and
the applicants decide to proceed with rezone applications, the quasi-judicial rules would apply. The Chair would provide a
brief introduction explaining the rules and procedures for the hearing, and people would be invited to disclose any
communications they had had that might disqualify them from participating in the process. However, there is a lot more
flexibility with Comprehensive Plan amendments, which are legislative actions. For legislative actions, the Board can visit
site, and they aren't required to disclose communications they might have had regarding the subject of the hearing. Board
Members can step aside if they don't feel they can make an objective decision, but it is not required. Board Member
Planning Board Minutes
August 26, 2020 Page 1 I
Packet Pg. 15
2.A.a
Rubenkonig suggested that, even for legislative actions, the Chair should ask Board Members if there are any reasons for
them to recuse themselves.
Board Member Pence reported that the Economic Development Director conducted a Zoom session on August 24' on the 4'
Avenue Arts and Cultural Corridor. He missed the live meeting, but he watched the consultant's presentation later. He
suggested the Planning Board Members should follow this project, since the Board was involved in the conception of the
project quite a few years ago. He suggested they invite the Economic Development Director to provide an update to the
Board. Mr. Chave said the Development Services Director has already discussed scheduling this update on the Board's
agenda.
Vice Chair Rosen said he participated in the 41 Avenue Arts and Cultural Corridor Zoom meeting and agreed it was
fascinating. He commented that tonight's meeting was a good example of how discussions and decision making should
work. The citizens who participated in the two hearings were extremely respectful, and the Board Members came prepared to
consider the proposals from a variety of lenses. They also came with a willingness to disagree without being disrespectful.
He encouraged the citizens of Edmonds to continue to set this example and not buy into the national pressure to do otherwise.
Board Member Cheung thanked the audience for their participation in the hearings. It is very helpful to have a public hearing
where people show up to voice their opinions and be heard. It was good to see that the Board Members are willing to listen
to new ideas rather than coming to the hearings with preconceived notions.
rn
m
Board Member Monroe thanked Student Representative Bryan for his thoughtful comments. He made some really good
points. Board Member Rubenkonig added that it is important for the student representatives to feel safe to express their
viewpoints. It is important to the public process and the health of the community for young people to share their voices.
0
ADJOURNMENT >
0
L
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. a
Q
Planning Board Minutes
August 26, 2020 Page 12
Packet Pg. 16
5.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/9/2020
Director Report
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Development Services
Prepared By: Michelle Martin
Background/History
Director Report is reviewed at each meeting
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
Director Report attached
Attachments:
Director. Report.09.09.2020.draft.sh.edits.accepted.finaLcloc
Packet Pg. 17
5.A.a
O� Ebb
O
U J:
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 9t", 2020
To: Planning Board
L
From: Shane Hope, Development Services Director Q
a�
o:
L
Subject: Director Report r
a�
L_
i5
"To accomplish great things, we must not only act but also dream. Not only plan but also
believe."
-Anatole France
Next Planning Board Meeting
The Planning Board's next meeting is August 26th it will include two public hearings, each for a
different Comprehensive Plan Map amendment proposal. The first would be for a group of 21
parcels on 91" Avenue. The second would be a for a 1-acre parcel in the Perrinville neighborhood
After the Planning Board completes its work, the proposals will go to the City Council for further
consideration and a decision, along with one other proposal previously discussed
STATE & REGIONAL NEWS
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRQ
PSRC generally does not have board and commission meetings during the month of August
However, now that September is here, more activities are coming up.
C The PSRC Regional Staff Committee met September 3 and discussed:
o Updates to the process for reviewing local Comprehensive Plans
o Update on the regional passenger -only ferry study (this involves not only current
passenger -only ferries but potential routes for the future)
o Healthy business street use during COVID (this included examples from other
cities, including Edmonds).
1 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 18
5.A.a
❑ Equity is a key policy issue in draft VISION 2050. The plan calls for developing a regional
equity strategy which will be central to PSRC's work and will support local Comprehensive
Plan updates.
Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT)
❑ SCT is generally light on meetings in August. The SCT Steering Committee (comprised
mainly of elected officials within our county region) last met on July 22, with an agenda
that included:
o Managers and Administrators Group Missions Statement Update
0 2021 dues and assessments V_
0
o Growth Monitoring Report
o Infrastructure financing and conservation opportunities. o
❑ The SCT Executive Committee met September 2 and considered: a
o Committee appointments o
o Buildable Lands Report
o Quarterly Update on Countywide Planning Policies and Growth Targets
0 2023 GMA Update and Compliance Review
o Update on VISION 2050 Process
UW's COVID-19 Mobility Survey
Understanding the impacts of work from home during the early stages of the COVID-19 crisis was
the intent of a recent study released by the University of Washington. The study focused on the
central Puget Sound area and addressed work productivity, shopping, exercise, food access, and
mental well-being. PSRC and the UW are jointly working on a report to share more details. For
more information, see: https://www.psrc.org/whats-happening/blog/survey-shows-ups-and-
downs-working-home
CITY NEWS
Walkable Main Street and Curbside Dining
With reasonable precautions for COVID-19, outdoor dining and shopping is continuing to be an
option for many people in Edmonds. Under a new temporary program, all downtown
restaurants may use adjacent parking spaces to provide outdoor dining options (subject to
certain requirements, including safety barriers). In addition, a portion of Main Street will
continue to be open to pedestrians only on Saturdays and Sundays. These opportunities will
reflect the same timeline as the Summer Market—i.e., through the weekend of October 10-11.
Waterfront Redevelopment Project
The City will temporary close the beach in front of the Waterfront Center enhance beach habitat
along the new Waterfront Center. During the closure, which is expected to be from late August
to mid -September, pedestrians may not walk on the beach between Brackett's Landing South
and Olympic Beach. The pedestrian easement in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums will also be
temporarily closed.
2 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 19
5.A.a
New City Program for Families with School -Age Kids
The City's Parks Department has been working to open a program that will provide a weekday
day camp for school -age kids, while supporting the student's distance learning needs with the
school district. In the program, special COVID protection practices, including separation and
sanitation, will be provided. For more information, check the webpage:
http://www.edmondswa.gov/parks-recreation-departments/about-us.html.
4th Avenue Corridor Open House
A virtual open house was presented August 24 on planning for city amenities and infrastructure
as part of future improvements to the 4t" Avenue Cultural Corridor. Concepts were discussed
and input was invited. a
a�
L
City Bulletin
To view the current City bulletin or sign up for future editions by email, go to: 0)
http://www.edmondswa.gov/edmonds-city-bulletin.html. o
City Council
Materials for the next City Council meeting are posted online on the Friday before each meeting.
The last meeting, held August 18t" included the following agenda items:
❑ Critical Area Activities Report (presentation)
❑ Introduction to Haines Wharf Comprehensive Plan Amendment Proposal
❑ Adoption of Climate Target Resolution
❑ Consideration of Draft Ordinance Amending the Fireworks Code
❑ Review of Council Code of Conduct
Housing Outreach: Open House and Survey
An online open house —with videos of Commission members and links to a community survey --
was launched on July 15. The open house provided opportunities for people to learn about and
provide opinions through a survey on a first set of policy ideas the Housing Commission is
considering. The survey closed on August 16, with nearly 700 responses. See:
https://www.echcopenhouse.com/ for information about the policy ideas and recent survey.
The Commission's current ideas are preliminary and may be refined further after public input
Meanwhile, a second set of policy ideas is being developed for community engagement in
another month or two. After that, the Commission will continue seeking public input and
preparing policy recommendations, which are due to the City Council by the end of 2020.
All policy recommendations from the Commission will still need further consideration by the
Council, including more public input and refinement from other sources. This stage would start
in 2021.
CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Student Applications for Boards & Commissions
31
Packet Pg. 20
5.A.a
The City is looking for energetic and committed student volunteers to participate as student
representatives for the 2020-21 academic year. In particular, students are being sought for
positions with the Edmonds City Council, Youth Commission, and Arts Commission. Applications
for the City Council Student Representative are due September 18. Interested students should
complete an application form. More information is on the following forms:
http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Youth Commission Application 2020.pdf
http://www.edmondswa.gov/opportunities-contests-applications.htmI
http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Press Release/PDF/2020/Student Rep Application Form 202
0
O.pdf
L
Architectural Design Board a
The next meeting scheduled will be available on line. The previously scheduled meeting for o
September 2nd, 2020 was cancelled. The Architectural Design Board last met virtually on August
5, 2020 (via Zoom). Agenda items included: -°a
❑ Westgate Station General
❑ Design Review Staff report
Arts Commission
The next meeting is scheduled for September 14, 2020 @ 4:30 p.m., Frances Anderson Center.
The Edmonds Arts Commission met August 3, 2020 (via Zoom). Agenda items included:
❑ Acknowledgment of current working environment
❑ Reports on creative programs
❑ Report on capital projects
❑ Funding Administration (2020 Budget)
❑ Staff report
Cemetery Board
The Board met August 20, 2020 (via Zoom) its agenda included:
❑ Chair's report
❑ Staff report on sales, burials, finances
❑ Walk -Back -in -Time planning, including Virtual Tour
❑ Use of Cemetery Funds Comprehensive plan review for remaining meetings in 2020
Climate Protection Committee
The next scheduled meeting will be available on-line. The Mayor's Climate Protection Committee
met last on September 3, 2020, the agenda included:
❑ Public Outreach
❑ Climate Action Plan Status
❑ City Council report
❑ Public outreach opportunities
❑ Developing partnerships
❑ Promoting Diversity and Inclusion of CPC
41
Packet Pg. 21
5.A.a
Conservation Advisory Committee
The next meeting is scheduled for September 10, 2020. The Mayor's Conservation Advisory
Committee last met via Zoom on August 13 @ 3:00 p.m. Agenda highlights were:
❑ Survey Committee Report
❑ Land Acquisition Report
❑ Salmon Safe Report, Press Release
❑ Green Website progress
❑ Management Restoration of City Open spaces
❑ Update on Tree Code revision
V_
0
Diversity Commission
❑ The next scheduled meeting will be available on-line. The Commission last met on
September 2, 2020. Agenda highlights were: U
m
❑ Update from the City: Patrick Doherty, Adrienne Fraley-Monillas o
❑ Edmonds Police Department Community Engagement Team Q & A
❑ Subgroups— Policy Report -00
❑ Budget Updates
❑ Commissioner's Corner
❑ Demographics Report
Economic Development Commission (EDC)
The Commission has openings for two new members. Mayor Nelson particularly encourages
women, people of color, and other minorities to apply for service on this Commission. Interested
Edmonds residents must fill out and submit the official city application form, which may be found
at this webpage: http://edmondswa.gov/boards-commissions-committees-openings.htmi.
Applications are due by 4:30, Wednesday, September 11.
The EDC's agenda for its next scheduled meeting will be available online. The Commission met
August 19, 2020, online, with the following agenda highlights:
❑ Updates on City Plans to assist re -opening
❑ Report from ad hoc Economic Recovery Committee
❑ EDC role and work in response to COVID-19 economic crisis
❑ Retreat discussion
❑ Economic Recovery Committee
❑ Work group discussions
❑ Liaison updates
❑ Roundtable discussion
Housing Commission
The next meeting is scheduled for September 10, 2020. The Commission met last on August 13,
2020. Agenda items included:
❑ Public Engagement
❑ Policy Committee Updates.
❑ Round 2 Policy Ideas
❑ Round 1 Police Committee Updates
5 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 22
5.A.a
❑ Next steps
Additional Housing Commission information is on the website.
Planning Board
The next meeting is scheduled for September 9, 2020. The Planning Board last met on August 26,
2020. Agenda items included:
❑ Director Report
❑ Proposed Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation
❑ Extended Agenda items
Historic Preservation Commission
The next meeting is scheduled for September 10, 2020. The Commission last met on August 13,
2020 via zoom. Agenda items included:
❑ Commission discussion on moving forward in 2020
o Request from the audience
o Unfinished Business
o Commissioner's comments
Tree Board
The next scheduled meeting will be available on-line.
2020. Agenda items included:
❑ Street tree planting plan
❑ Web links project
❑ TB presentation to City Council
❑ Olympic Elementary School planting
❑ Tree tags
❑ Draft Tree resolution
The Commission last met on September 3,
❑ New Business
❑ Senior Center plantings
❑ Possible visit to Urban Forestry Nursey — Mt. Vernon
Youth Commission
The next meeting for the Youth Commissions planned to be September 16 online. Agendas and
meetings for the remainder of the year have not been confirmed.
Lodging Tax Advisory Committee
The next meeting will be available on-line. The Committee last met on July 20th via zoom.
Agenda items included:
❑ Budget and Funding request(s)
❑ Approval of September 5, 2019 meeting summary
❑ Public Comment
Other Boards and Commissions
61
a
Packet Pg. 23
5.A.a
Due primarily to state restrictions on open public meetings during the coronavirus crisis,
meetings for the following boards and commissions were canceled for August. These include
meetings of the following groups:
IJ Sister City Commission
COMMUNITY CALENDAR
The Community Calendar has some updates. Also, here is a reminder about the Saturday
Market: �ff
0
Q.
a�
Saturday Market (aka "Garden Market")
The farmers market in Edmonds is now located on Bell Street between 5t" and 6t" Avenues North. r
Summer hours are in effect: 9:00 am to 2:00 pm. As long as COVID restrictions remain in place, L
the market will have one dedicated entrance and exit, both located on either side of Centennial
0
Plaza. The number of customers is limited to two or three per vendor. About half of the vendors -000
from previous years will be set up at any one time. Spacing between booths will be maintained.
Currently, only produce vendors are serving the market. Ready -to -eat food will be added in the
next phase.
7 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 24
6.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/9/2020
Public Hearing on Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance - New Chapter 19.07 ECDC
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Kernen Lien
Background/History
A new Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) became effective June 19,
2020. The City of Edmonds was required revise and adopt compliant regulations prior to this date.
Failure to adopt the FIS and FIRM through revision of local regulations would have resulted in immediate
suspension from the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). FEMA has stated it did not have the
authority to postpone the effective dates of the maps in response to the COVID-19 outbreak. These
dates are set by legislation and federal regulation that require a community to adopt the new FIS and
accompanying FIRM within six (6) months of the issuance of the Letter of Final Determination. FEMA
encouraged communities to find whatever flexibility is available in their process to ensure that the FIS
and FIRM are adopted on time to avoid the difficulties of suspension.
Early this year, restrictions to the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) prevented the City of Edmonds
from following the normal process for code updates. In order to remain in the NFIP, the City adopted
Interim Ordinance No. 4188 which contained a flood damage prevention ordinance that satisfied FEMA's
requirements for the City of Edmonds to remain in the NFIP.
Now that some restrictions to OPMA have been lifted, the updated flood damage prevention ordinance
is being reviewed for adoption as a permanent ordinance.
Staff Recommendation
Provide a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the new Flood Damage Prevention Chapter
19.07 ECDC as provided in Attachment 1, and an updated reference to the new floodplain maps in ECDC
23.70.010 as provided in Attachment 2.
Narrative
Introduction
Development within the City of Edmonds floodplains are regulated by the City's critical area regulations
(Chapter 23.70 ECDC - Frequently Flooded Areas) and building code regulations in Title 19. Chapter
23.70 ECDC primarily points to and relies upon the building code for the substantive floodplain
development regulations. New FEMA floodplain maps became effective on June 19, 2020, and for the
City of Edmonds to remain a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program the City must update
its floodplain regulations. In order to comply with this requirement, staff is proposing to establish a new
Flood Damage Prevention Chapter 19.07 ECDC located within the building code (Attachment 1). ECDC
23.70.010 is being updated only to reference the new floodplain maps (Attachment 2).
Packet Pg. 25
6.A
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Background
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is a voluntary Federal program that enables property
owners in participating communities to purchase insurance protection against losses from flooding. This
insurance is designed to provide an insurance alternative to disaster assistance to meet the escalating
costs of repairing damage to buildings and their contents caused by floods.
Participation in the NFIP is based on an agreement between local communities and the Federal
Government. If a community adopts and enforces floodplain management regulations to reduce future
flood risks to new construction and substantially improved structures in Special Flood Hazard Areas
(SFHAs), the Federal Government will make flood insurance available within the community as a
financial protection against flood losses. The community's floodplain management regulations must
meet or exceed criteria established in accordance with Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part
60.3, Criteria for land Management and Use. SFHAs are delineated on the community's Flood Insurance
Rate Maps (FIRMs). To provide a national standard without regional discrimination, the 1% annual
chance (100-year) flood has been adopted by FEMA as the base flood for floodplain management
purposes.
Flood Insurance Rate Map Update
The City of Edmonds has limited areas within the 100-year flood plains. The flood plain areas are
primarily around the Edmonds Marsh, Lake Ballinger, and the mouth of Shell Creek as well as some
minor areas along the north Edmonds shoreline. The old FIRM maps (Attachment 3) were adopted in
1999. Over the last several years, FEMA has been studying Snohomish County flood prone areas to
update the FIRM maps. The updated FIRM maps for Edmonds jurisdiction are included as Attachment
4. The largest change in the Edmonds flood plain is in the waterfront area and the State Route
104/Dayton Street area. Under the old FIRM maps, the flood plain was largely confined to the Edmonds
Marsh and along the shoreline. With the updated draft FIRM maps, the flood plain would expand to
cover much of the water front area including Harbor Square and portions of the Salish Crossing site. On
the updated FIRM maps, the extent of the flood plain along Shell Creek would shrink to just the mouth
of Shell Creek. There would be no change in the flood plain in the City of Edmonds' jurisdiction around
Lake Ballinger.
Chapter 19.07 ECDC - Flood Damage Prevention
The new Chapter 19.07 ECDC consolidates the City's floodplain building code regulations in a single
chapter, where currently they are spread over three separate chapters with the building code. In
addition to consolidating existing building code, Chapter 19.07 ECDC includes new sections from the
state model floodplain ordinance (Attachment 5). The draft Chapter 19.07 ECDC provided in
Attachment 1 is a redline/strikeout version of the chapter that was adopted under Interim Ordinance
No. 4188. The primary difference from the interim ordinance is the inclusion of a variance section and
the addition of two new definitions from the model ordinance.
Public Comment
Notice of the Planning Board public hearing was provided to all property owners within the floodplain as
shown on the updated FIRM map. One written comment has been provided to the City which is
included in Attachment 10.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: DRAFT Chapter 19.07 ECDC Flood Damage Prevention
Attachment 2: ECDC 23.70.010
Attachment 3: Old FIRM Maps
Attachment 4: New FIRM Maps
Attachment 5: Model Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance
Attachment 6: Interim Ordinance No. 4188
Packet Pg. 26
6.A
Attachment 7: Planing Board May 27, 2020 Minutes Excerpt
Attachment 8: City Council June 2, 2020 Minutes Excerpt
Attachment 9: August 12, 2020 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt
Attachment 10: Boyd Public Comment
Packet Pg. 27
6.A.a
Chapter 19.07
FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION
19.07.000
Purpose
19.07.010
Applicability
19.07.020
Definitions
19.07.025
Administration
19.07.030
International Building Code section amendments
19.07.040
International Residential Code section amendments
19.07.050
Habitat Assessment
19.07.060
Review of Building Permits
19.07.065
Changes to Special Flood Hazard Areas
19.07.070
Anchoring
19.07.080
Subdivision Proposals and Development
19.07.090
Manufactured Homes
19.07.095
General Requirements for Other Development
19.07.100
All Other Building Standards apply
19.07.110
Variance
19.07.000 Purpose
It is the purpose of this ordinance to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare; reduce the
annual cost of flood insurance; and minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific
areas by provisions designed to:
A.
Protect human life and health; 'D
B.
0
Minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood control projects; U-
C.
Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at v
the expense of the general public; w
D.
ti
0
Minimize prolonged business interruptions; a;
E.
Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities, such as water and gas mains; electric, telephone,
and sewer lines; and streets and bridges located in flood hazard areas;
F.
Help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of flood hazard v
areas so as to minimize blight areas caused by flooding; Q
G.
Notify potential buyers that the property is in a Special Flood Hazard Area; p
H.
Notify those who occupy flood hazard areas that they assume responsibility for their actions; and r
I.
c
Participate in and maintain eligibility for flood insurance and disaster relief. E
19.07.010
Applicability r
a
A.
Lands to which the chapter applies. This chapter shall apply to all special flood hazard areas within
the boundaries of the City of Edmonds. z
U
DRAFT
r
August 6, 2020 Page 1 of 12 Q
Packet Pg. 28
6.A.a
B. Basis for establishing the areas of special flood hazard. The special flood hazard areas identified by
the Federal Insurance Administrator in a scientific and engineering report entitled "The Flood
Insurance Study (FIS) for Snohomish County, Washington, and Incorporated Areas" dated June 19,
2020, and any revisions thereto, with accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and any
revisions thereto, are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. The
FIS and the FIRM are on file at the Development Services Department at 121 5t" Avenue North.
The best available information for flood hazard area identification as outlined in Section G103.3 shall
be the basis for regulation until a new FIRM is issued that incorporates data utilized under Section
G 103.3.
19.07.020 Definitions
The following definitions apply to this chapter.
A. Alteration of Watercourse: Any action that will change the location of the channel occupied by
water within the banks of any portion of a riverine waterbody.
B. Area of special flood hazard: The land in the floodplain within a community subject to a 1 percent or
greater chance of flooding in any given year. It is shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) as
zone A, AO, AH, Al-30, AE, A99, AR (V, VO, V1-30, VE). "Special flood hazard area" is synonymous in
meaning with the phrase "area of special flood hazard".
C. Base flood: The flood having a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (also
referred to as the "100-year flood").
D. Base Flood Elevation (BFE): the elevation to which floodwater is anticipated to rise during the base
flood.
E. Basement: Any area of the building having its floor sub -grade (below ground level) on all sides.
F. Coastal High Hazard Area: An area of special flood hazard extending from offshore to the inland limit
of a primary frontal dune along an open coast and any other area subject to high velocity wave
action from storms or seismic sources. The area is designated on the FIRM as zone V1-30, VE or V.
F-.-G.Development: Any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not
limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or
drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials located within the area of special flood
hazard.
Fr.H. Elevation Certificate: An administrative tool of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that
can be used to provide elevation information, to determine the proper insurance premium rate, and
to support a request for a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) or Letter of Map Revision based on fill
(LOMR-F).
H-.I. Flood or Flooding:
1. A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas
from:
a. The overflow of inland or tidal waters.
b. The unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source.
c. Mudslides (i.e., mudflows) which are proximately caused by flooding as defined in
paragraph (1)(b) of this definition and are akin to a river of liquid and flowing mud on the
DRAFT August 6, 2020 Page 2 of 12
Packet Pg. 29
6.A.a
surfaces of normally dry land areas, as when earth is carried by a current of water and
deposited along the path of the current.
The collapse or subsidence of land along the shore of a lake or other body of water as a result of
erosion or undermining caused by waves or currents of water exceeding anticipated cyclical
levels or suddenly caused by an unusually high water level in a natural body of water,
accompanied by a severe storm, or by an unanticipated force of nature, such as flash flood or an
abnormal tidal surge, or by some similarly unusual and unforeseeable event which results in
flooding as defined in paragraph (1)(a) of this definition.
M. Flood elevation study: An examination, evaluation and determination of flood hazards and, if
appropriate, corresponding water surface elevations, or an examination, evaluation and
determination of mudslide (i.e., mudflow) and/or flood -related erosion hazards. Also known as a
Flood Insurance Study (FIS).
�X. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): The official map of a community, on which the Federal Insurance
Administrator has delineated both the special hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable
to the community. A FIRM that has been made available digitally is called a Digital Flood Insurance
Rate Map (DFIRM).
ILL. Floodplain or flood -prone area: Any land area susceptible to being inundated by water from any
source. See "Flood or flooding."
L-.M. Floodplain administrator: The cernmu44-y-building official is designated by title to administer
and enforce the floodplain management regulations.
AWN. Floodplain management regulations: Zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, building codes,
health regulations, special purpose ordinances (such as floodplain ordinance, grading ordinance and
erosion control ordinance) and other application of police power. The term describes such state or
local regulations, in any combination thereof, which provide standards for the purpose of flood
damage prevention and reduction.
N-.O. Flood proofing: Any combination of structural and nonstructural additions, changes, or
adjustments to structures which reduce or eliminate risk of flood damage to real estate or improved
real property, water and sanitary facilities, structures, and their contents. Flood proofed structures
are those that have the structural integrity and design to be impervious to floodwater below the
Base Flood Elevation.
P. Functionally dependent use: A use which cannot perform its intended purpose unless it is located or
carried out in close proximity to water. The term includes only docking facilities, port facilities that
are necessary for the loading and unloading of cargo or passengers, and ship building and ship repair
facilities, and does not include long term storage or related manufacturing facilities.
aQ. Habitat Assessment: A written document that describes a project, identifies and analyzes the
project's impacts to habitat for species discussed in the "Endangered Species Act — Section 7
Consultation Final Biological Opinion and Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the Implementation of the National Flood Insurance
Program in the State of Washington, Phase One Document — Puget Sound Region," and provides an
Effects Determination.
RR. Highest adjacent grade: The highest natural elevation of the ground surface prior to construction
next to the proposed walls of a structure.
4S. Historic structure: Any structure that is:
DRAFT August 6, 2020 Page 3 of 12
Packet Pg. 30
6.A.a
1. Listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places (a listing maintained by the
Department of Interior) or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as meeting
the requirements for individual listing on the National Register;
2. Certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as contributing to the
historical significance of a registered historic district or a district preliminarily determined by the
Secretary to qualify as a registered historic district;
3. Individually listed on a state inventory of historic places in states with historic preservation
programs which have been approved by the Secretary of Interior; or
4. Individually listed on a local inventory of historic places in communities with historic
preservation programs that have been certified either:
a. By an approved state program as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, or
b. Directly by the Secretary of the Interior in states without approved programs.
T. Lowest Floor: The lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or
flood resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage in an area
other than a basement area, is not considered a building's lowest floor, provided that such
enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non -elevation
design requirements of this ordinance (i.e. provided there are adequate flood ventilation
openings).
U. Manufactured Home: A structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a
permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when attached
to the required utilities. The term "manufactured home" does not include a "recreational vehicle."
R-.V.Mean Sea Level: For purposes of the National Flood Insurance Program, the vertical datum to which
Base Flood Elevations shown on a community's Flood Insurance Rate Map are referenced.
-S-. W. New construction: For the purposes of determining insurance rates, structures for which the
"start of construction" commenced on or after the effective date of an initial Flood Insurance Rate
Map or after December 31, 1974, whichever is later, and includes any subsequent improvements to
such structures. For floodplain management purposes, "new construction" means structures for
which the "start of construction" commenced on or after the effective date of a floodplain
management regulation adopted by a community and includes any subsequent improvements to
such structures.
X. Start of construction: Includes substantial improvement and means the date the building permit was
issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition,
placement, or other improvement was within 180 days from the date of the permit. The actual start
means either the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site, such as the
pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond
the stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent
construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading, and filling; nor does it
include the installation of streets and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement,
footings, piers, or foundations or the erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the
installation on the property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as
dwelling units or not part of the main structure. For a substantial improvement, the actual start of
construction means the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of a
building, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the building.
DRAFT August 6, 2020 Page 4 of 12
Packet Pg. 31
6.A.a
Y. Structure: For floodplain management purposes, a walled and roofed building, including a gas or
liquid storage tank, that is principally above ground, as well as a manufactured home.
Z. Substantial Damage: Damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring
the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the replacement
cost of the structure before the damage occurred.
AA. Substantial improvement: Any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a
structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure
before the "start of construction" of the improvement. This term includes structures which have
incurred "substantial damage," regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not,
however, any alteration of a "historic structure," provided that the alteration will not preclude the
structure's continued designation as a "historic structure."
BB. Variance: A grant of relief by a community from the terms of a floodplain management regulation.
ACC. Water surface elevation: The height, in relation to the vertical datum utilized in the applicable
flood insurance studv of floods of various maenitudes and freauencies in the floodDlains of coastal
or riverine areas.
19.07.025 Administration
A. Establishment of a Development Permit
1. Development Permit Required. A development permit shall be obtained before construction or
development begins within any area of special flood hazard established in Section 19.07.010.
The permit shall be for all structures including manufactured homes, as set forth in the
"Definitions," and for all development including fill and other activities, also as set forth in the
"Definitions."
2. Application for Development Permit. Application for a development permit shall be made on
forms furnished by the floodplain administrator and may include, but not be limited to, plans in
duplicate drawn to scale showing the nature, location, dimensions, and elevations of the area in
question; existing or proposed structures, fill, storage of materials, drainage facilities, and the
location of the foregoing. Specifically, the following information is required:
a. Elevation in relation to mean sea level, of the lowest floor (including basement) of all
structures recorded on a current elevation certificate with Section B comoleted by the
floodplain administrator.
b. Elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any structure has been floodproofed;
c. Where a structure is to be floodproofed, certification by a registered professional engineer
or architect that the floodproofing methods for any nonresidential structure meet
floodproofing criteria in Section 5.2-2;
d. Description of the extent to which a watercourse will be altered or relocated as a result of
proposed development;
e. Where a structure is or000sed in a V. V1-30. or VE zone. a V-zone desien certificate: and
f. Any other such information that may be reasonably required by the floodplain administrator
in order to review the application.
B. Designation of the floodplain administrator.
DRAFT August 6, 2020 Page 5 of 12
Packet Pg. 32
6.A.a
The building official is hereby appointed to administer, implement, and enforce this ordinance by
granting or denying development permits in accordance with its provisions. The floodplain
administrator may deleeate authoritv to implement these provisions.
C. Duties and Responsibilities of the floodplain administrator shall include, but not be limited to:
1. Permit Review.
Review all development permits to determine that:
a. The permit requirements of this ordinance have been satisfied;
b. All other required state and federal permits have been obtained;
c. The site is reasonably safe from flooding;
d. Notify FEMA when annexations occur in the Special Flood Hazard Area.
2. Use of Other Base Flood Data in A and V Zones.
When base flood elevation data has not been provided (in A or V zones) in accordance with
Section 19.07.010, the floodplain administrator shall obtain, review, and reasonably utilize any
base flood elevation data available from a federal, state, or other source, in order to administer
this chapter.
3. Information to be Obtained and Maintained.
a. Where base flood elevation data is provided through the FIS, FIRM, or required as in Section
19.07.025.C.2, obtain and maintain a record of the actual (as -built) elevation (in relation to
mean sea level) of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new or substantially improved
structures, and whether or not the structure contains a basement.
b. Obtain and maintain documentation of the elevation of the bottom of the lowest horizontal
structural member in V or VE zones.
c. For all new or substantially improved floodproofed nonresidential structures where base
flood elevation data is provided through the FIS, FIRM, or as required in Section
iamrn5c?.
d. Obtain and maintain a record of the elevation (in relation to mean sea level) to which the
structure was floodproofed.
e. Maintain the floodproofing certifications required in Section 19.07.025.A.
f. Records of all variance actions, including justification for their issuance.
Improvement and damaee calculations.
h. Maintain for public inspection all records pertaining to the provisions of this chapter.
4. Alteration of Watercourse. Whenever a watercourse is to altered or relocated:
a. Notify adjacent communities and the Department of Ecology prior to such alteration or
relocation of a watercourse, and submit evidence of such notification to the Federal
Insurance Administrator through appropriate notification means,
b. Assure that the flood carrying capacity of the altered or relocated portion of said
watercourse is maintained.
DRAFT August 6, 2020 Page 6 of 12
Packet Pg. 33
6.A.a
19.07.030 International Building Code section amendments
The following sections of the IBC are hereby amended as follows:
A. Section 110.3.3, Lowest floor elevation, is amended to read:
In flood hazard areas, upon placement of the lowest floor, including the basement, and prior to
further vertical construction, the elevation certification required in Section 1612.5 shall be
submitted to the building official. Prior to final inspection approval, the building official shall require
an elevation certificate based on finished construction prepared and sealed by a State licensed land
surveyor.
B. Section 1612.1.1, Residential Structures, is added and reads:
Any residential or commercial structure located in a flood hazard area, that is destroyed, damaged
or demolished in an amount equal to 50 percent or more of its replacement cost at the time of
destruction, shall not be reconstructed except in full conformance with all provisions of this chapter
and other local, state and federal regulations.
MIN "11- MINIM
C. Section 1612.4.1, Lowest Floor Elevation, is added and reads:
For buildings in all structure categories located in the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood
Zones, the elevation of the lowest floor shall be a minimum of two feet above the base flood
elevation, as determined from the applicable FEMA flood hazard map.
19.07.040 International Residential Code section amendments
The following sections of the IRC are hereby amended as follows:
A. Table R301.2(1), Climatic and Geographic Design Criteria, is amended with the following criteria
Flood Hazard(g) = NFIP adoption June 19, 2020. FIRM maps June 19, 2019
B. R322.1, General, is hereby amended as follows:
Buildings and structures constructed in whole or in part in flood hazard areas (including A or V
Zones) as established in Table R301.2(1) shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the
provisions contained in this section.
residential or commercial structure located in a flood hazard area. that is destroved. dama
or demolished in an amount equal to 50 percent or more of its replacement cost at the time of
destruction, shall not be reconstructed except in full conformance with all provisions of this cha
and other local. state and federal regulations.
DRAFT August 6, 2020 Page 7 of 12
Packet Pg. 34
6.A.a
MOM
19.07.050 Habitat Assessment
A development permit application shall include a habitat assessment unless the project is, in its entirety,
one of the following activities:
A. Normal maintenance, repairs, or remodeling of structures, such as re -roofing and replacing siding,
provided such work is not a substantial improvement or a repair of substantial damage. To comply,
such work must be less than 50% of the value of the structure(s).
B. Expansion or reconstruction of an existing structure that is no greater than 10% beyond its existing
footprint.struir-Au're's dimensions
C. Activities with the sole purpose of creating, restoring, or enhancing natural functions associated
with floodplains, streams, lakes, estuaries, marine areas, habitat, and riparian areas that meet
federal and state standards, provided the activities do not include structures, grading, fill, or
impervious surfaces.
D. Development of open space and recreational facilities, such as parks, trails, and hunting grounds,
that do not include structures, fill, impervious surfaces, or removal of more than 5% of the native
vegetation on that portion of the property in the floodplain.
E. Repair to onsite septic systems, provided ground disturbance is the minimal necessary and best
management practices (BMPs) to prevent stormwater runoff and soil erosion are used.
F. Projects that have already received concurrence under another permit or other consultation with
the Services, either through Section 7, Section 4d, or Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
that addresses the entirety of the project in the floodplain (such as an Army Corps 404 permit or
non -conversion Forest Practice activities including any interrelated and interdependent activities.).
G. Repair of an existing, functional bulkhead in the same location and footprint with the same
materials when the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) is still outside of the face of the bulkhead
(i.e. if the work qualifies for a Corps exemption from Section 404 coverage).
19.07.060 Review of Building Permits
Where elevation data is not available either through the FIS, FIRM, or from another authoritative source
(Section 4.3-219.07.025.C.2), applications for floodplain development shall be reviewed to assure that
proposed construction will be reasonably safe from flooding. The test of reasonableness is a local
judgment and includes use of historical data, high water marks, photographs of past flooding, etc.,
where available.
DRAFT August 6, 2020 Page 8 of 12
Packet Pg. 35
6.A.a
19.07.065 Changes to Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA)
A. If a protect will alter the BFE or boundaries of the SFHA, then the protect proponent shall provide
the community with engineering documentation and analysis regarding the proposed change. If the
change to the BFE or boundaries of the SFHA would normally require a Letter of Map Change, then
the protect proponent shall initiate, and receive approval of, a Conditional Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMR) prior to approval of the development permit. The protect shall be constructed in a manner
consistent with the approved CLOMR.
B. If a CLOMR application is made, then the protect proponent shall also supply the full CLOMR
documentation package to the floodplain administrator to be attached to the floodplain
development permit, including all required property owner notifications.
19.07.070 Anchoring
A. All new construction and substantial improvements, including those related to manufactured
homes, shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure
resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads including the effects of buoyancy.
All manufactured homes shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement, and
shall be installed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage. Anchoring methods may
include, but are not limited to, use of over -the -top or frame ties to ground anchors. For more
detailed information, refer to guidebook, FEMA-85, "Manufactured Home Installation in Flood
Hazard Areas."
19.07.080 Subdivision Proposals and Development
All subdivisions, as well as new development shall:
A. Be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage;
Have public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems located and
constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage;
C. Have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to flood damage.
D. Where subdivision proposals and other proposed developments contain greater than 50 lots or 5
acres (whichever is the lesser) base flood elevation data shall be included as part of the application
19.07.090 Manufactured Homes
A. All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved on sites shall be elevated on a
permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is elevated one foot or
more above the base flood elevation and be securely anchored to an adequately anchored
foundation system to resist flotation, collapse and lateral movement.
All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved within zones V1-30, V, and VE on
the community's FIRM on sites:
1. Outside of a manufactured home park or subdivision,
2. In a new manufactured home park or subdivision,
3. In an expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision, or
DRAFT August 6, 2020 Page 9 of 12
Packet Pg. 36
6.A.a
4. In an existing manufactured home park or subdivision on which a manufactured home has
incurred "substantial damage" as the result of a flood; shall meet the standards of ASCE 24-14,
Chapter 4 requirements for residential buildings.
19.07.095 General Requirements for Other Development
All development, including manmade changes to improved or unimproved real estate for which specific
provisions are not specified in this ordinance or the state building codes with adopted amendments and
any (community name} amendments, shall:
A. Be located and constructed to minimize flood damage;
B. Be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement resulting from hydrostatic load
including the effects of buoyancy, during conditions of the design flood;
C. Be constructed of flood damage -resistant materials, and
D. Have mechanical, plumbing, and electrical systems above the design flood elevation or meet the
requirements of ASCE 24, except that minimum electric service required to address life safety and
electric code requirements is permitted below the design flood elevation provided it conforms to
the provisions of the electrical part of building code for wet locations.
19.07.100 All Other Building Standards Apply
All new construction and substantial improvements shall comply with all applicable flood hazard
reduction provisions of the adopted IBC, IRC, Appendix (IBC) G, and ASCE 24.
19.07.110 Variance
A. General
The variance criteria set forth in this section of the ordinance are based on the general principle of
zoning law that variances pertain to a piece of property and are not personal in nature. A variance
may be granted by the City's floodplain administrator for a parcel of property with physical
characteristics so unusual that complying with the requirements of this ordinance would create an
exceptional hardship to the applicant or the surrounding property owners. The characteristics must
be unique to the property and not be shared by adjacent parcels. The unique characteristic must
pertain to the land itself. not to the structure. its inhabitants. or the Drooertv owners.
It is the duty of the City of Edmonds to help protect its citizens from flooding. This need is so
compelling and the implications of the cost of insuring a structure built below the Base Flood
Elevation are so serious that variances from the flood elevation or from other requirements in the
flood ordinance are quite rare. The long-term goal of preventing and reducing flood loss and
damage can only be met if variances are strictly limited. Therefore, the variance guidelines provided
in this ordinance are more detailed and contain multiple provisions that must be met before a
variance can be properly granted. The criteria are designed to screen out those situations in which
alternatives other than a variance are more appropriate.
B. Requirements for Variances
1. Variances shall only be issued:
DRAFT August 6, 2020
Page 10 of 12
Packet Pg. 37
6.A.a
a. Upon a determination that the Erantine of a variance will not result in increased flood
heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances,
cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or
ordinances;
b. For the repair, rehabilitation, or restoration of historic structures upon a determination that
the proposed repair or rehabilitation will not preclude the structure's continued designation
as a historic structure and the variance is the minimum necessary to preserve the historic
character and design of the structure;
c. Upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood
hazard, to afford relief;
d. Upon a showing of good and sufficient cause;
e. Upon a determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardshi
to the applicant;
f. Upon a showing that the use cannot perform its intended purpose unless it is located or
carried out in close proximity to water. This includes only facilities defined in ECDC
19.07.020 of this chanter in the definition of "Functionally Deoendent Use."
2. Generally, variances may be issued for new construction and substantial improvements to be
erected on a lot of one-half acre or less in size contiguous to and surrounded by lots with
existing structures constructed below the BFE, provided the provisions of this chapter have been
fully considered. As the lot size increases beyond one-half acre, the technical justification
required for issuing the variance increases.
C. Variance Criteria
In considering variance applications, the floodplain administrator shall consider all technical
evaluations. all relevant factors, all standards specified in other sections of this ordinance. and:
1. The danger that materials maybe swept onto other lands to the injury of others;
2. The dancer to life and property due to floodine or erosion dama
3. The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of
such damage on the individual owner;
4. The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community;
5. The necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable;
6. The availabilitv of alternative locations for the proposed use. which are not subiect to floodii
or erosion dam
7. The compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development;
8. The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and floodplain management
program for that area;
9. The safety of access to the property in time of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles;
10. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the flood waters
expected at the site: and.
DRAFT August 6, 2020
Page 11 of 12
Packet Pg. 38
6.A.a
11. The costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions, including
maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical, water
system, and streets and bridges.
D. Additional Requirements for the Issuance of a Variance
1. Any applicant to whom a variance is granted shall be given written notice over the signature of a
community official that:
a. The issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the BFE will result in increased
premium rates for flood insurance coverage, and
b. Such construction below the BFE increases risks to life and prone
2. The floodplain administrator shall maintain a record of all variance actions, includiniz
justification for their issuance.
3. The floodplain administrator shall condition the variance as needed to ensure that the
requirements and criteria of this chapter are met.
4. Variances as interpreted in the NFIP are based on the general zoning law principle that they
pertain to a physical piece of property; they are not personal in nature and do not pertain to the
structure, its inhabitants, economic or financial circumstances. They primarily address small lots
in densely populated residential neighborhoods. As such, variances from flood elevations should
be quite rare.
E. Appeals
Appeals of a variance from the provisions of this chapter shall be appealable in accordance with
Chapter 19.80 ECDC.
DRAFT August 6, 2020
Page 12 of 12
Packet Pg. 39
6.A.b
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code Page 1/1
Chapter 23.70 FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS
Chapter 23.70
FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS
23.70.010 Designation, rating and mapping — Frequently flooded areas.
A. Frequently Flooded Areas. Frequently flooded areas shall include:
1. The special flood hazard areas identified by the Federal Insurance Administrator in a scientific and
engineering report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Snohomish County, Washington, and
Incorporated Areas" dated June 19, 2020, and any revisions thereto, with accompanying Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (FIRMS), and any revisions thereto, are hereby pted by reference and declared to be a part of this
ordinance. The FIS and the FIRM are on file at the Development Services Department at 121 5th Avenue
North.
The best available information for flood hazard area identification as outlined in Section G 103.3 shall be the
basis for regulation until a new FIRM is issued that incorporates data utilized under Section G103.3.
-7�Efl1T:f!I:EZTl:lS7f!!/T!lI........
i
I'
_
p1p
!.
2. Those areas identified as frequently flooded areas on the city of Edmonds critical areas inventory. Identified
frequently flooded areas are consistent with and based upon designation of areas of special flood hazard on
FEMA flood insurance maps as indicated above.
B. City Discretion and Designation. Flood insurance maps and the city's critical areas inventory are to be used as a 2
guide for the city of Edmonds development services department, project applicants and/or property owners, and the .0
public and should be considered a minimum designation of frequently flooded areas. As flood insurance maps may a
be continuously updated as areas are reexamined or new areas are identified, newer and more restrictive information C
for flood hazard area identification shall be the basis for regulation. The city of Edmonds shall retain the right to c
designate and identify areas known to be prone to flooding outside of the 100-year floodplain and subject them to
the provisions and protections of this title and the current editions of the International Residential Code and ri
International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19. [Ord. 4026 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. N
U
U
W
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4175, passed February 25, 2020.
Packet Pg. 40
01
E
9
K
9
M
122026' 15' °
0''
A75230
A70A8'AF"
122026' 15"
Im
JOINS PANEL 1000
122022'30"
A7052'30"
m
0
co
_I
z
d
z
O
A70A8'A5"
122022'30"
6.A.c
LEGEND
SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS INUNDATEL
BY 100-YEAR FLOOD
ZONE A No base flood elevations determined.
ZONE AE Base flood elevations determined.
i
ZONE AH Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually areas
of ponding); base flood elevations
determined.
ZONE AO Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually sheet
flow on sloping terrain); average depths
determined. For areas of alluvial fan flooding
velocities also determined.
ZONE A99 To be protected from 100-year flood by
Federal flood protection system under
construction ; no base flood elevations
determined.
ZONE V Coastal flood with velocity hazard (wave
action); no base flood elevations determined.
ZONE VE Coastal flood with velocity hazard (wave
action); base flood elevations determined.
FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE
OTHER FLOOD AREAS
ZONE X Areas of 500-year flood; areas of 100-year
flood with average depths of less than
1 foot or with drainage areas less than
1square mile; and areas protected by
levees from 100-year flood.
OTHER AREAS
ZONE X Areas determined to be outside 500-year
floodplain.
ZONE D Areas in which flood hazards are
undetermined.
UNDEVELOPED COASTAL BARRIERS
rr—.l
Identified Identified Otherwise
1983 1990 Protected Area
Coastal barrier areas are normally located within or adjacent to Special
Flood Hazard Areas.
F000dplain Boundary
Floodway Boundary
Zone D Boundary\•T
Boundary Dividing Special Flood
s ^'^'• = Hazard Zones, and Boundary
w
Dividing Areas of Different
Coastal Base Flood Elevations
Within Special Flood Hazard
Zones.
Base Flood Elevation Line;
" ^^J13^•^'"`^"^^" Elevation in Feet. See Map Index
for Elevation Datum.
----- -� Cross Section Line
Base Flood Elevation in Feet
(EL 987) Where Uniform Within Zone.
V
See Map Index for Elevation Datum.
RM7 X Elevation Reference Mark
W
0 M2 River Mile
ti j
Horizontal Coordinates Based on North
97007'30"• 32022'30" American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27)
r
Projection.
i
N
NOTES
C
This map is for use in administering the National Flood Insurance Program;
t
it does not necessarily identify all areas subject to flooding, particularly from
C)
local drainage sources of small size, or all planimetric features outside
?�
Special Flood Hazard Areas. The community map repository should be
O
consulted for more detailed data on BFE's, and for any information on
Z
floodway delineations, prior to use of this map for property purchase or
'
construction purposes.
d
V i
Areas of Special Flood Hazard (100-year flood) include Zones A, AE, All-
R
A30, AH, AO, A99, V, VE and V1-V30.
'a
Certain areas not in Special Flood Hazard Areas may be protected by
flood control structures.
O
C
Boundaries of the floodways were computed at cross sections and
O
interpolated between cross sections. The floodways were based on
C
hydraulic considerations with regard to requirements of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
>
d
L
Floodway widths in some areas may be too narrow to show to scale. Refer
♦L
to Floodway Data Table where floodway width is shown at 120 inch.
y
0)'
Coastal base flood elevations apply only landward of 0.0 NGVD, and include
M
the effects of wave action; these elevations may also differ significantly
E
from those developed by the National Weather Service for hurricane
M
evacuation planning.
Corporate limits shown are current as of the date of this map. The, user
0
should contact appropriate community officials to determine if corporate
limits have changed subsequent to the issuance of this map.
O
This map may incorporate approximate boundaries of Coastal Barrier
0)
Resource System Units and /or Otherwise Protected Areas established
under the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 (PL 101-591).
l0 ',
For community map revision history prior to countywide mapping, see
=
Section 6.0 of the Flood Insurance Study Report.
V
For adjoining map panels and base map source see separately printed
.0
Map Index,
MAP REPOSITORY
a
Refer to Repository Listing on Map Index
0) j
EFFECTIVE DATE OF
COUNTYWIDE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP:
NOVEMBER 8,1999
W j
EFFECTIVE DATE(S) OF REVISIONS) TO THIS PANEL:
-0I
OI
Refer to the FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP EFFECTIVE DATE shown
on this map to determine when actuarial rates apply to structures in
zones where elevations or depths have been established.
C j
O i
To determine if flood insurance is available, contact an insurance agent or
E
call the National Flood Insurance Program at (800) 638--6620.
t
4
a
E
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
1000 0 1000
Q ,
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE t
0111110
-illsw
PANEL 1285 Of 1575
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTE
CONTAINS:
COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUR
EDMONDS, CITY OF 530163 1285 E
SNOHOMISH COUNTY.
UNINCORPORATED AREAS 535634 1285 E
MAP NUMB[
53061C1285
EFFECTIVE OAT
NOVEMBER 8,19,
JOINS PANEL 1300
JOINS PANEL 1292
Federal Emergency Packet Pg. 41
0
1
0
A
0
M
6.A.c
E
Is
19
I
ELEVATION REFERENCE MARKS
REFERENCE ELEVATION
MARK (FEET NGVD) DESCRIPTION OF LOCATION
RM195 21.256 A U.S. Geological Survey standard
tablet stamped 28 H 1941 19,
located from Edmonds 2.9 miles
southwest along Burlington Northern
Railroad, 0.1 mite north of
Richmond Beach on track side of
north concrete supporting first
bent west of Burlington Northern
Survey Station 873+5.4, on overhead
bridge number 14.5. Reset in 1958.
122024'22"
47°48'45"
0
0
_M
J
z
d
n.
(n
z
0
47046'52"
122024'22"
JOINS PANEL 1285
122°22'30"
47°48'45"
�n
_M
w
4.
a
U)
z
O
47046'52"
122022' 30"
LEGEND
SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS INUNDATE
BY 100—YEAR FLOOD
ZONE A No base flood elevations determined.
ZONE AE Base flood elevations determined.
ZONE AH Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually arei
of ponding); base flood elevatior
determined.
ZONE AO Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually she(
flow on sloping terrain); average deptt
determined. For areas of alluvial fan floodin
velocities also determined.
ZONE A99 To be protected from 100-year flood b
Federal flood protection system und(
construction ; no base flood elevatior
determined.
ZONE V Coastal flood withvelocity hazard (wav
action); no base flood elevations determiner
ZONE VE Coastal flood with velocity hazard (wav
-
action); base flood elevations determine(
FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE
OTHER FLOOD AREAS
ZONE X Areas of 500-year flood; areas of 100-yes
flood with average depths of less tha
1 foot or with drainage areas less tha
1 square mile; and areas protected b
levees from 100-year flood.
OTHER AREAS
ZONE X Areas determined to be outside 500-yea
floodplain.
ZONE D Areas in which flood hazards ar
undetermined.
UNDEVELOPED COASTAL BARRIERS
Identified Identified Otherwise
1983 1990 Protected Are
Coastal barrier areas are normally located within or adjacent to Special
Flood Hazard Areas.
Floodplain Boundary
Floodway Boundary
Zone D Boundary Boundary Dividing Special Flood
/ c r Hazard Zones, and Boundary Dividing Areas of Different
Coastal Base Flood Elevations
Within Special Flood Hazard
Zones.
Base Flood Elevation Line;
593- Elevation in Feet. See Map Index
for Elevation Datum.
CD>----- -- �D Cross Section Line
Base Flood Elevation in Feet
(EL 987) Where Uniform Within Zone.
RM7 X See Map Index for Elevation Datum
Elevation Reference Mark
M2 River Mile
Horizontal Coordinates Based on Nort
97007'30". 32022'30" American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27'.
Projection.
NOTES
This map is for use in administering the National Flood Insurance Program
it does not necessarily identify all areas subject to flooding, particularly from
local drainage sources of small size, or all planimetric features outside
Special Flood Hazard Areas. The community map repository should be
consulted for more detailed data on BFE's, and for any information on
floodway delineations, prior to use of this map for property purchase or
construction purposes.
Areas of Special Flood Hazard (100-year flood) include Zones A, AE, A1--
A30, AH, A0, A99, V, VE and VI-V30.
Certain areas not in Special Flood Hazard Areas may be protected by
flood control structures.
Boundaries of the floodways were computed at cross sections and
interpolated between cross sections. The floodways were based on
hydraulic considerations with regard to requirements of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
Floodway widths in some areas may be too narrow to show to scale. Refe
to Floodway Data Table where floodway width is shown at 120 inch.
Coastal base flood elevations apply only landward of 0.0 NGVD, and includ(
the effects of wave action; these elevations may also differ significant)
from those developed by the National Weather Service for hurricanE
evacuation planning.
Corporate limits shown are current as of the date of this map. The user
should contact appropriate community officials to determine if corporate
limits have changed subsequent to the issuance of this map.
This map may incorporate approximate boundaries of Coastal Barrie
Resource System Units and /or Otherwise Protected Areas establisher
under the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 (PL 101-591).
For community map revision history prior to countywide mapping, see
Section 6.0 of the Flood Insurance Study Report.
For adjoining map panels and base map source see separately printer 7 l
Map Index.
a
MAP REPOSITORY
Refer to Repository Listing on Map Index
Q'
EFFECTIVE DATE OF
ca
COUNTYWIDE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP:
X
NOVEMBER 8, 1999
EFFECTIVE DATE(S) OF REVISION(S) TO THIS PANEL:
�
O
Refer to the FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP EFFECTIVE DATE shown
on this map to determine when actuarial rates apply to structures in
},
zones where elevations or depths have been established.
C
4)
ll
To determine if flood insurance is available. contact an insurance agent or
E
call the National Flood Insurance Program at (800) 638-6620.
L
M
�
li
Q
L�J
C
E
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
500 0 500
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGR l
J
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MA
INEMMIAMMILAX094,i + :
PANEL 1292 OF 1575
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTI
CONTAINS:
COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUI
EDMONDS, CITY OF 530163 1292
WOODWAY, TOWN OF 530308 1292
SNOHOMISH COUNTY,
UNINCORPORATED AREAS 535534 1292
MAP NUMB
53061CI191
EFFECTIVE ON
NOVEMBER 8, 19
JOINS PANEL 1294
Federal Emergency " Packet Pg. 42
0
11
N
ELEVATION REFERENCE MARKS
REFERENCE ELEVATION
MARK (FEET NGVD) DESCRIPTION OF LOCATION
RM175 385.560 Standard U.S. Coast and Geodetic
Survey brass disk stamped C-458
1973, located on north side of
1 9 6 t h Street approximately 135 feet
east of fire hydrant # 3 9 5 9 at the
n a r t h e a s t corner of 196th Street
Southwest and Highway 99, 1.4 feet
north of back of sidewalk and 3
feet west of back of curb on the
west side of entrance to Jiffy
Lube. Monument is buried under
landscaping bark slightly lower in
elevation than the top back of
sidewalk.
122022'30"
47052'30"
cc
w
Z
0-
in
Z
O
47048'45"
JOINS PANEL 1015
Pv ST
SW'
SEA LAWN
CYPRUS PLACE
PLACE
VOHOMISI
;ITY OF E
LUNDS
GULCH
ROAD
tiZ
m' 3 cn
BERTOLA
ROAD
Z)
Z
3
LU
BRAEMAR
DRIVE
FREDERICH
F
BURLINGTON CITY OF EDMONDS
NORTHERN 530163
I—
ZONE X
SNOHOMISH COUNTY
UNINCORPORATED
AREAS,
535534
V�Fw
z
O
Lu u,
w
¢
n
w
z
z
Z
LU
148TH
STREET
`L SOUTHWEST
Q
_
V�
w
Z
Z
>
w
¢
186TH
00 _
STREET
SW cc
187TH
ii �
STREET
SOUTHWEST
= w = w I
10, 3:
_
w
00
188TH STREET
SOUTHWEST
w
�
F
U,
w
�
w
uJ
18
w
Q
190TH
ST SW
O
F!<�
00
O
w
�Q
192ND STREET
M
Lu
¢
w
z
a
{
m
I
Z
-
1O
J!
O524
5z4
Q
196TH
STREET
SOUTHWEST
h:
9/LF
ZONE
A
,
MAPLEWOOD
82ND
w
ZONE X
z
LANE
PLACEuJ
W
...
_
uu
w
tr
O
Z
~
I-
FO
_
o
>
—Z
z�
a_
w---
7TH > Lz
u
2 Lfl AVE w ¢ " Q
Q
N
z
LiJ�
Q
r
ALOHA
w
¢
24
2
w
¢
�Q�
SPRAGUE ST a
w
a
CAROL
c6-LH_
WAY
8TH
=
o
=
F
—
AVE
AVE
OD
N
BELL
N
STREET
o
N
MAIN
STREET
0
uJ
Lu
w h
19
�S
w
ii
Q N
°
> w
¢ w
DAYTON
Cy
STREET
w
LU
w 0.
_
w
rPP�
M
cc
N
MAPLE
STREET
122022,30"
JOINS PANEL 1315
ST
N
WA
SNOHOMISH COUNTY
BURLINGTON UNINCORPORATED AREAS
NORTHERN 1 5355341 f
`FISHER
ROPD
ZONE X
T28N
T27N
G
122018'45"
—T-1 4 7052' 30"
SOUTHWEST 164TH STREET
LU
4
5
w w
� z
> wf¢ Q
I
SNOHOMISH COUNTY
MFq o CITY OF LYNNWOOD
co
�O
w
LU
o Z w
T" i a
z
_ >
I ¢
0 0
168TH z STREET ~
0,9
CITY OF LYNNWOOD
CITY OF EDMONDS 170TH PL
O�
� 68TH
ty AVENUE
WEST
r�
EX
176TH
STREET
7
SOUNDVIEW w
WAY CITY
J
OFI
a
l
EDMONDS
SNOHOMISH COUNTY
SNOHOMISH
r
UNINCORPORATED
AREAS
COUNTY
535534
ZONE
X
181ST ST
181ST PL
Q
182ND
STREET
182ND ST
4OJ
�OO
183RD
183RD
ST
183RD
PL
� v
(1
185TH
ST
�+
1C1
w
Z
w
185TH PL
LF
=
Q
186TH ST
788TH
PqACE!PEN2NYLANE
C
189TH
P
189TH
=
r
w
>
190TH
`L
07H
STREET
I—
N 191ST
91ST
ST
A E
192ND
192ND
PLACE
PLACE
a
PLACE
193RD
STREET
—'�
w
�
Z
>
w
Q
196TH
STREET
19�Ty
�-, CITY
OF
LYNNWOOD
530167
200TH
ZONE X
H
LU
V
i
202ND
w
W
=
99
204TH
20
STREET
y<F WAY
K -� WAY
STREET
w
Z
Z
Q
STREET
STREET
IU =
a
47048'45"
122018'45"
6.A.c
LEGEND
SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS INUNDATED
BY 100—YEAR FLOOD
ZONE A No base flood elevations determined.
ZONE AE Base flood elevations determined.
ZONE AH Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually areas
of ponding); base flood elevations
determined.
ZONE AO Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually sheet
flow on sloping terrain); average depths
determined. For areas of alluvial fan flooding,
velocities also determined.
ZONE A99 To be protected from 100-year flood by
Federal flood protection , system under
construction ; no base flood elevations
determined.
ZONE V Coastal flood with velocity hazard (wave
action); no base flood elevations determined.
ZONE VE Coastal flood with velocity hazard (wave
action); base flood elevations determined.
FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE
OTHER FLOOD AREAS
ZONE X Areas of 500-year flood; areas of 100-year
flood with average depths of less than
1 foot or with drainage areas less than
1 square mile; and areas protected by
levees from 100-year flood.
r---`�--} OTHER AREAS
ZONE X Areas determined to be outside 500-year
floodplain.
ZONE D Areas in which flood hazards are
undetermined.
UNDEVELOPED COASTAL BARRIERS
Identified Identified Otherwise
1983 1990 Protected Areas
Coastal barrier areas are normally located within or adjacent to Special
Flood Hazard Areas.
Floodplain Boundary
Floodway Boundary
Zone D Boundary
Boundary Dividing Special Flood
Hazard Zones, and Boundary
Dividing Areas of Different
Coastal Base Flood Elevations
Within Special Flood Hazard
Zones.
Base Flood Elevation Line;
_513 Elevation in Feet. See Map Index
for Elevation Datum.
------ --� Cross Section Line
Base Flood Elevation in Feet
(EL 987) Where Uniform Within Zone.
See Map Index for Elevation Datum.
0
RM7
X Elevation Reference Mark
L)
W
• M2 River Mile
Horizontal Coordinates Based on North
97007'30". 32022'30" American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27)
v-
Projection.
L
d
NOTES
CL
This map is for use in administering the National Flood Insurance Program;
t
it does not necessarily identify all areas subject to flooding, particularly from
iU
local drainage sources of small size, or all planimetric features outside
3
Special Flood Hazard Areas. The community map repository should be
tv
consulted for more detailed data on BFE's, and for any information on
Z
floodway delineations, prior to use of this map for property purchase or
construction purposes.
V
Areas of Special Flood Hazard 1100-year flood) include Zones A, AE, Al -
M
A30, AH, AO, A99, V, VE and V1-V30.
_
Certain areas not in Special Flood Hazard Areas may be protected by
E
flood control structures.
O
Boundaries of the floodways were computed at cross sections and
0
interpolated between cross sections. The floodways were based on
1P
hydraulic considerations with regard to requirements of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
>
d
Floodway widths in some areas may be too narrow to show to scale. Refer
IZ
to Floodway Data Table where floodway width is shown at 120 inch.
y
1)
Coastal base flood elevations apply only landward of 0.0 NGVD, and include
M
the effects of wave action; these elevations may also differ significantly
E
from those developed by the National Weather Service for hurricane
evacuation planning.
Corporate limits shown are current as of the date of this map. The user
O
O
should contact appropriate community officials to determine if corporate
LL
limits have changed subsequent to the issuance of this map.
C
This map may incorporate approximate boundaries of Coastal Barrier
O
Resource System Units and /or Otherwise Protected Areas established
_
under the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 (PL 101-591).
tt3
For community map revision history prior to countywide mapping, see
d
_
Section 6.0 of the Flood Insurance Study Report.
C1
For adjoining map panels and base map source see separately printed
M
Map Index.
MAP REPOSITORY
i1
Refer to Repository Listing on Map Index
to
CL
EFFECTIVE DATE OF
COUNTYWIDE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP:
NOVEMBER 8,1999
EFFECTIVE DATE(S) OF REVISION(S) TO THIS PANEL:
LL
Refer to the FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP EFFECTIVE DATE shown
O
on this map to determine when actuarial rates apply to structures in
r+
zones where elevations or depths have been established.
_
d
To determine if flood insurance is available, contact an insurance agent or
E
call the National Flood Insurance Program at (800) 638 6620.
t
V
r
C
N
E
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
s
V
1000 0 1000
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRA
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAF
SNOHOMISH COUNTY,
WASHINGTON AND
INCORPORATED AREA
PANEL 1305 OF 1575
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTE[
CONTAINS:
COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFF
EDMONDS, CITY OF 530163 1305 E
LYNNWOOD. CITY OF 530167 1305 E
SNOHOMISH COUNTY.
UNINCORPORATED AREAS 535534 1305 E
MAP NUMBE
53061C1305
EFFECTIVE DATI
NOVEMBER 8,199
Federal Emergency M Packet Pg. 43
A B D E F
6.A.c
M■
rA
M
F17
A■
,A ■
122022'30"
47048'45" r---
N
N_
J
w
Z
a
V)
Z
0
N W
W
- c0
v
BELL
STREET
'4
x
D
CL
M
24
= MAIN
STREET
m MAIN
`Shell
DAYTON
STREET
_
<
m
�
co
MAPLE
=
i
STREET
�y
he
ALDER
= STREET
D
m
co
D
WALNUT
m
m
STREET
G
N
CEDAR
r^—STREET
SOW O1N
SPRUCE ST
_
SOUTH
�
o
c
HEMLOCK
ST
=
m
LAUREL ST
Z
C
M
en
PINE
STREET
PINE
FIR
ST
r--
JOINS PANEL 1305
STREET 19 o r 208TH
x
Zw
C 3
m
x w
w
ZONE X 212TH STREET SOUTHWEST a
cc
82ND e CITY OF EDMONDS
y 0) 530163
x
C
In
:E STREET m 216TH STREET SW m
C
1 218TH I STREET
---� ZONE X 25 ' --`--
ZONE X 30
224TH STREET SW
TOWN OF WOODWAY
530308
I c
I 228TH STREET
- 7x-
28TH STREET
x e m
C
m
D ® 230TH STREET SW m
m
Z
m
M
�o
234TH STREET WEST
D
m 31 Q�
36
236TH STREET WEST =
SNOHOMISH COUNTY x <
rn
UNINCORPORATED AREAS
ZONE X D
535534 238TH STREET SW m
m
CITY OF EDMONDS
530163
w
240TH S SW `E n Q
O 2
oCl
9 242ND i STREET
= SW
{
Co ' m
T27N SNONOMISH COUNTY
KING COUNTY
47045'00" '
122°22'30"
122°i8'45"
—p 47048'45"
STREET
WEST
20
CITY OF LYNNWOOD
530167
rn
x
D
0)m
U)
_®NE
X
211TH
m
�
D
m
m
m
ZONE A
213TH
O� PL
215TH ST
Z
N ZONE A
216TH ST Sw
Hall Creek P
0
CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE
530170
220TH STREET SOUTHWEST
® 222ND STREET SOUTHWEST
C
6 29 m
\ k rn
224TH ST SW
i SNOHOMISH COUNTY
UNINCORPORATED AREAS z
535534
26TH PL SW
227TH ST
ZONE X
\` 228TH STREET SW
ZONE A
?S rH 230TH 4 4
NQ p29ry C 230TH ST SW
L
23p m
r �
N
ST SW
232ND ST SW
�•� �F• r �i 23 h
a`.!�`��;, D
SNOHOMISH COU
KING COUNTY
32
0
w
Z
a
V)
Z
O
/ \ T27N
--' 47045'00"
122°18'45"
a^ SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS INUNDATE
w, BY 100-YEAR FLOOD
ZONE A No base flood elevations determined.
ZONE AE Base flood elevations determined.
ZONE AH Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually are
of pending); base flood elevatioi
determined.
ZONE AO Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually she
flow on sloping terrain); average dept!
determined. For areas of alluvial fan floodin
velocities also determined.
ZONE A99 To be protected from 100-year flood I
Federal flood protection system and
construction ; no base flood elevatioi
determined.
ZONE V Coastal flood with velocity hazard (wa,
action); no base flood elevations determine
ZONE VE Coastal flood with velocity hazard (wa,
action); base flood elevations determine
. = = FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE
OTHER FLOOD AREAS
ZONE X Areas of 500-year flood; areas of 100-ye.
flood with average depths of less the
1 foot or with drainage areas less the
1 square mile; and areas protected t
levees from 100-year flood.
OTHER AREAS
ZONE X Areas determined to be outside 500-ye
floodplain.
ZONE D Areas in which flood hazards a
undetermined.
UNDEVELOPED COASTAL BARRIERS
j
--
Identified Identified Otherwise
1983 1990 Protected Are
Coastal barrier areas are normally located within or adjacent to Specia
Flood Hazard Areas.
Floodplain Boundary
Floodway Boundary
Zone D Boundary
S; • ; ;, ;. t,., Boundary Dividing Special Flood
Hazard Zones, and Boundary
„'MONg
Dividin Areas of Different
Coastal Base Flood Elevations
Within Special Flood Hazard
Zones.
Base Flood Elevation Line
513 Elevation in Feet. See Map Inde>
for Elevation Datum.
— — --- Cross Section Line
Base Flood Elevation in Feet
(EL 987) Where Uniform Within Zone
U
See Map Index for Elevation Datum
C
RM7 X Elevation Reference Mark
V
w
® M2 River Mile
C
Horizontal Coordinates Based on Nor
97007'30". 32022'30" American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27
r
Projection.
NOTES
r
CL
M
This map is for use in administering the National Flood Insurance Program
U
it does not necessarily identify all areas subject to flooding, particularly fron
local drainage sources of small size, or all planimetric features outsidE
3
Special Flood Hazard Areas. The community map repository should bE
Z
consulted for more detailed data on BFE's, and for any information or
floodway delineations, prior to use of this map for property purchase of
construction purposes.
d
c
Areas of Special Flood Hazard (100-year flood) include Zones A, AE, Al-
M
A30, AH, AO, A99, V, VE and V1-V30.
Certain areas not in Special Flood Hazard Areas may be protected by
L
O
flood control structures.
C,
Boundaries of the floodways were computed at cross sections am
O
interpolated between cross sections. The floodways were based or
'I, -
hydraulic considerations with regard to requirements of the Federal
y
Emergency Management Agency.
d
L
Floodway widths in some areas may be too narrow to show to scale. Refe
IL
to Floodway Data Table where floodway width is shown at 120 inch.
N
0
Coastal base flood elevations apply only landward of 0.0 NGVD, and includ
M
E
the effects of wave action; these elevations may also differ significant)
from those developed by the National Weather Service for hurrican,
evacuation planning.
Corporate limits shown are current as of the date of this map. The use,
0
should contact appropriate community officials to determine if corporatE
ly
limits have changed subsequent to the issuance of this map
O
This map may incorporate approximate boundaries of Coastal BarriE
Resource System Unts and /or Otherwise Protected Areas establishe
under the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 (PL 101-591).
C
co
For community map revision history prior to countywide mapping, sef
=
Section 6.0 of the Flood Insurance Study Report.
V
For adjoining map panels and base map source see separately printer
7
Map Index.
lL
MAP REPOSITORY
Refer to Repository Listing on Map Index
Q.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF
COUNTYWIDE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP:
NOVEMBER 8,1999
W
LL
EFFECTIVE DATE(S) OF REVISIONS) TO THIS PANEL:
O
Refer to the FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP EFFECTIVE DATE showr
M
on this map to determine when actuarial rates apply to structures it
zones where elevations or depths have been established.
To determine if flood insurance is available, contact an insurance agent or
E
call the National Flood Insurance Program at (800) 638-6620.
V
C
O
E
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
U
1000 0 1000
r
Q
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGR
an
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MA
SNOHOMISH COI.TNTI
WASHINGTON AND
INCORPORATED ARE.
PANEL 1315 OF 1575
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINT
COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SU
EDMONDS, CITY OF
530163
13T5
LYNNWOOD, CITY OF
530167
1315
MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, CITY OF
530170
1315
INOOD'WAY, TOWN OF
530308
1315
SNOHOMISH COUNTY,
UNINCORPORATED AREAS
535534
1315
Federal Emergency Packet Pg. 44
1250000 FT
1220 26' 15" 1255000 FT 1260000 FT
I 6.A.d I
47°
320000 F
315000 FT
310000 FT
305000 FT
47' 48' 45"
122'
FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION
SEE FIS REPORT FOR ZONE DESCRIPTIONS AND INDEX MAP
THE INFORMATION DEPICTED ON THIS MAP AND SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION ARE ALSO AVAILABLE IN DIGITAL FORMAT AT
HTTPS://MSC. FEMA.G0V
SPECIAL FLOOD
HAZARD AREAS
OTHER AREAS OF
FLOOD HAZARD
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A..V. A99
With BFE or Depth lane AE, AG, AH, VE, AR
Regulatory Floodway
h I� 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of I% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mile zone x
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood Hazard
WZZ
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee
See Notes..:,
INOSCREENI Areas Determined to he Outside the
OTHER 0.2% Annual Chance Fioodplain zone x
AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D
------------- Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Accredited or Provisionally Accredited
GENERAL Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
STRUCTURES Non -accredited Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
E �6.2 Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance
17
"5 Water Surface Elevation (BFE)
- - - - Coastal Transect
-- - Coastal Transect Baseline
Profile Baseline
�43c�,:omE 5 00om 1220 22' 30"
44 E 54500omE 54600om
NOTES TO USERS
For information and questions about this Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), available products associated
with this FIRM, including historic versions, the current map date for each FIRM panel, how to order
products, or the National Flood Insurance Program [NFIP) in general, please Call the
FEMA Map Information eXchange at 1-877-FEMA-MAP (1-877-336-2627) or visit the FEMA Flood
Map Service Center website at https:llmsc.fema.gov. Available products may include previously
issued Letters of Map Change, a Flood Insurance Study Report. and/or digital versions of this map.
Many of these products can be ordered or obtained directly from the website.
Communities annexing land on adjacent FIRM panels must obtain a current copy of the adjacent panel as well as
the current FIRM Index. These may be ordered directly from the Flood Map Service Center at the number listed
above.
For community and countywide map dates refer to the Flood Insurance Study Report for this jurisdiction.
To determine if flood insurance is available in this community, contact your Insurance agent or call the National
Flood Insurance Program at 1-800-638-6620.
Base map information shown on this panel was provided by the USDA-FSA Aerial Photography Field
Office. This information was derived from digital orthophotography at a scale of 1:12,000 and 1-meter
pixel resolution from photography dated 2009.
SCALE
ll Map Projection:
NAD 1983 State Plane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet:
Westerly Hemisphere; Vertical Datum: NAVD 88
1 inch = 1,000 feet 1:12,000
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet
Meters
0 255 510 1,020
PANEL LOCATOR
1015
1910100
W
'K
E
0
M0
0
0
U.
C .IN
a�
'2' 30"
470 52' 30"
5302000%
530 10o0mN
530000 '- N
s2gg000r,N
5298000mN
z07000mN
AH
RD
)6000mN
45"
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON
AND INCORPORATED AREAS
q a�rA�1F�
PANEL 1285 OF 1517 5 im
% ���
���Hn sEc�ar
FEMA
Pane] Contains:
COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX
EDMONDS, CITY OF 530163 1285 F
SNOHOMISH COUNTY 535534 1285 F
VERSION NUMBER
2.3.2.1
Hydrographic Feature
srs— Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
OTHER Limit of Study
FEATURES Jurisdiction Boundary
1292
1315
* PANEL NOT PRINTED
MAP NUMBER
5306IC1285F
MAP REVISED
JUNE 19, 2020
Packet Pg. 45
1255000 FT
122' 24' 22" 1260000 FT
I 6.A.d I
470 4
300000
295000 FT
290000 FT
470 46' 52"
122
FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION
SEE FIS REPORT FOR ZONE DESCRIPTIONS AND INDEX MAP
THE INFORMATION DEPICTED ON THIS MAP AND SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION ARE ALSO AVAILABLE IN DIGITAL FORMAT AT
HTTPS://MSC. FEMA.G0V
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A..V. A99
With BFE or Depth zone AF, AG, AH, VE, AR
SPECIAL FLOOD
HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway
OTHER AREAS OF
FLOOD HAZARD
h I� 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of I% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mile Zone x
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood Hazard
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee
See Notes.. :
INOSCREENI Areas Determined to he Outside the
OTHER 0.2% Annual Chance Fioodplain zone x
AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard zone D
----------- Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Accredited or Provisionally Accredited
GENERAL Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
STRUCTURES mmmmmmtt m Non -accredited Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
E 16.2 Crass Sections with 1% Annual Chance
17 5 Water Surface Elevation (BFE)
- - - - Coastal Transect
-- - Coastal Transect Baseline
Profile Baseline
.545cocmF
546000mE 1229 22' 30"
NOTES TO USERS
For information and questions about this Flood Insurance Efate Map (FIRM), available products associated
with this FIRM, including historic versions, the current map date for each FIRM panel, how to order
products, or the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in general, please call the
FEMA Map Information eXchange at 1-877-FEMA-MAP (1-877-336-2627) or visit the FEMA Flood
Map Service Center website at https://msc.fema.gov. Available products may include previously
issued Letters of Map Change, a Flood Insurance Study Report, andlor digital versions of this map.
Many of these products can he ordered or obtained directly from the website.
Communities annexing land on adjacent FIRM panels must obtain a current copy of the adjacent panel as well as
the current FIRM Index. These may be ordered directly from the Flood Map Service Center at the number listed
above.
For community and countywide map dates refer to the Flood Insurance Study Report for this jurisdiction.
To determine if flood insurance is available in this community, contact your Insurance agent or call the National
Flood Insurance Program at 1-800-638-6620.
Base map information shown on this panel was provided by the USDA-FSA Aerial Photography Field
Office. This information was derived from digital orthaphotography at a scale of 1:12,000 and 1-meter
pixel resolution from photography dated 2009.
SCALE
i
N
Map ProjecDon:
NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet;
Western Hemisphere; Vertical Datum: NAVD 88
I inch = 500 feet 1:6,000
0 500
0 125
PANEL LOCATOR
1,000 2,000
Feet
Meters
250 500
1305
1315
0
W
�
rx
M0
0
0
U.
CU IN
a�
47° 48' 45"
5295000mN
5294000mN
293000mN
52"
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON
AND INCORPORATED AREAS
ry q a�rA�1F�
PANEL 1292 OF 1575�
���Hn sEc�ar
FEMA
Pane] Contains:
COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX
EDMONDS, CITY OF 530163 1292 F
SNOHOMISH COUNTY 535534 1292 F
WOODWAY. TOWN OF 530308 1292 F
VERSION NUMBER
2.3.2.1
Hydrographic Feature
513- Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
OTHER Limit of Study
FEATURES Jurisdiction Boundary
1294
* PANEL NOT PRINTED
MAP NUMBER
53061C1292F
MAP REVISED
JUNE 19, 2020
Packet Pg. 46
1265000 FT
1220 22' 30" 1270000 FT 1275000 FT
I 6.A.d I
47'
fcY��I�I�I�I�
315000 FT
4511IH11111llfl
305000 FT
470 48' 45"
122°
5 000m
47 548000rnE 549noomE 550000mE 551 000mE 1220 98' 45"
FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION
SEE FIS REPORT FOR ZONE DESCRIPTIONS AND INDEX MAP
THE INFORMATION DEPICTED ON THIS MAP AND SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION ARE ALSO AVAILABLE IN DIGITAL FORMAT AT
HTTPS://MSC. FEMA.G0V
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A..V. A99
With BFE or Depth zone AE, AG, AH, VE, AR
SPECIAL FLOOD
HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway
OTHER AREAS OF
FLOOD HAZARD
h I� 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of I% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mile Zone x
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood Hazard
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee
See Notes.. :
INOSCREENI Areas Determined to he Outside the
OTHER 0.2% Annual Chance Fioodplain zone x
AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard zone D
----------- Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Accredited or Provisionally Accredited
GENERAL Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
STRUCTURES mmmmmmtt m Non -accredited Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
E 18.2 Crass Sections with 1% Annual Chance
17
"5 Water Surface Elevation (BFE)
- - - - Coastal Transect
-- - Coastal Transect Baseline
- Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
513- Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
OTHER Limit of Study
FEATURES Jurisdiction Boundary
NOTES TO USERS
For information and questions about this Flood Insurance Efate Map (FIRM), available products associated
with this FIRM, including historic versions, the current map date for each FIRM panel, how to order
products, or the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in general, please call the
FEMA Map Information eXchange at 1-877-FEMA-MAP (1-877-336-2627) or visit the FEMA Flood
Map Service Center website at https://msc.fema.gov. Available products may include previously
issued Letters of Map Change, a Flood Insurance Study Report, andlor digital versions of this map.
Many of these products can he ordered or obtained directly from the website.
Communities annexing land on adjacent FIRM panels must obtain a current copy of the adjacent panel as well as
the current FIRM Index. These may be ordered directly from the Flood Map Service Center at the number listed
above.
For community and countywide map dates refer to the Flood Insurance Study Report for this jurisdiction.
To determine if flood insurance is available in this community, contact your Insurance agent or call the National
Flood Insurance Program at 1-800-638-6620.
Base map information shown on this panel was provided by the USDA-FSA Aerial Photography Field
Office. This information was derived from digital orthaphotography at a scale of 1:12,000 and 1-meter
pixel resolution from photography dated 2009.
SCALE
ll Map ProjecDon:
NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet;
Western Hemisphere; Vertical Datum: NAVD 88
1 inch = 1,000 feet 1:12,000
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet
Meters
0 255 510 1,020
PANEL LOCATOR
MR111
IiK31to]
1309
1320 1317
E
0
W
�
r`x
1�
�p
0
0
U.
cu Its
a�
45"
7° 52' 30"
5302000mN
510 1000mN
5300000mN
!9900omN
j$oOomN
70n0mN
;a0H'N
6"A
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON
AND INCORPORATED AREAS
PANEL 1305 OF 15 f 5 N
���Hn sEc�ar
FEMA
Pane] Contains:
COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX
EDMONDS, CITY OF 530163 1305 F
LYNNWOOD, CITY OF 530167 1305 F
SNOHOMISH COUNTY 535534 1305 F
VERSION NUMBER
2.3.2.1
MAP NUMBER
53001C1305F
MAP REVISED
JUNE 19, 2020
Packet Pg. 47
* PANEL NOT PRINTED
I 6.A.d I
1220 22' 30" 1265000 FT SKYDLIINE 1270000 FT
1275nnf) FT
30
295(
Town of
Woodwa
530308
2900C
285000
280000 F
470 4f
12
5 OQQm
47 5 OOOm
48 E 54900vmE 5500
0
QmE 5510oomE 122' 18' 45"
FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION
SEE FIS REPORT FOR ZONE DESCRIPTIONS AND INDEX MAP
THE INFORMATION DEPICTED ON THIS MAP AND SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION ARE ALSO AVAILABLE IN DIGITAL FORMAT AT
HTTPS://MSC. FEMA.G0V
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A..V. A99
With BFE or Depth zone AF, AG, AH, VE, AR
SPECIAL FLOOD
HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway
OTHER AREAS OF
FLOOD HAZARD
h I� 0.2%Q Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1%Q annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mile Zone x
Future Conditions 1%Q Annual
Chance Flood Hazard
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee
See Notes.. :
INOSCREENI Areas Determined to he Outside the
OTHER 0.2%Q Annual Chance Fioodplain zone x
AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard zone D
----------- Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Accredited or Provisionally Accredited
GENERAL Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
STRUCTURES mmmmmmtt m Non -accredited Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
E 18.2 Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance
17
"5 Water Surface Elevation (BFE)
- - - - Coastal Transect
-- - Coastal Transect Baseline
- Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
513- Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
NOTES TO USERS
For information and questions about this Flood Insurance Efate Map (FIRM), available products associated
with this FIRM, including historic versions, the current map date for each FIRM panel, how to order
products, or the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in general, please call the
FEMA Map Information eXchange at 1-877-FEMA-MAP (1-877-336-2627) or visit the FEMA Flood
Map Service Center website at https://msc.fema.gov. Available products may include previously
issued Letters of Map Change, a Flood Insurance Study Report, andlor digital versions of this map.
Many of these products can he ordered or obtained directly from the website.
Communities annexing land on adjacent FIRM panels must obtain a current copy of the adjacent panel as well as
the current FIRM Index. These may be ordered directly from the Flood Map Service Center at the number listed
above.
For community and countywide map dates refer to the Flood Insurance Study Report for this jurisdiction.
To determine if flood insurance is available in this community, contact your Insurance agent or call the National
Flood Insurance Program at 1-800-638-6620.
Base map information shown on this panel was provided by the USDA-FSA Aerial Photography Field
Office. This information was derived from digital orthaphotography at a scale of 1:12,000 and 1-meter
pixel resolution from photography dated 2009.
SCALE
ll Map ProjecDon:
NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet;
Western Hemisphere; Vertical Datum: NAVD 88
1 inch = 1,000 feet 1:12,000
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet
Meters
0 255 510 1,020
PANEL LOCATOR
1310 1309
1320
1317
iIE iRl
45"
'° 48' 45"
60TH
AVE W
5295Q0omN
12TH
LSW
5294000mN
H
w
,293000mN
92000mN
3ATEWAY
BLV❑
�1000mN
)000mN
�00mN
rom
E NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON
0 AND INCORPORATED AREAS
�W
�1
■L q a�rAF� 1PANEL 1315 OF 1575 N
44 ram+
���Hn 56�%)ar
FEMA
CQ
rho = Panel Contains:
`ti 'li'•3 5�4..h• .
COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX
EDMONDS, CITY OF 530163 1315 F
LYNNWOOD, CITY OF 530167 1315 F
MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, 530170 1315 F
0 CITY OF
SNOHOMISH COUNTY 535534 1315 F
WOODWAY, TOWN OF 530308 1315 F
ILL.
CCU IN
a�
VERSION NUMBER
2.3.2.1
OTHER Limit of Study
FEATURES Jurisdiction Boundary
* PANEL NOT PRINTED
MAP NUMBER
53061C1315F
MAP REVISED
JUNE 19, 2020
Packet Pg. 48
6.A.e
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE
WASHINGTON MODEL (REVISED 12/0912019)
Close to 300 towns, cities, counties, and tribes within the State of Washington participate
in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). As a condition of participation in the
NFIP, communities are required to adopt and enforce a flood hazard reduction ordinance
that meets the minimum requirements of the NFIP; however, there are occasionally
additional requirements identified by state law that are more restrictive. In these cases,
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will require that communities meet
those standards as well.
This model identifies the basic requirements and cross references them to appropriate
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Revised Code of Washington (RCW), or Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) requirements. It also encourages community officials to
consider the direct insurance implications of certain building standards that, if adopted,
can reduce (or increase) annual flood insurance premiums for local citizens. This
ordinance, as developed by FEMA and the Washington Department of Ecology,
supersedes previous versions and includes all the minimum standards required as a
condition of participation in the NFIP. It will be used by FEMA and state staff as the basis
for providing technical assistance and compliance reviews during the Community
Assistance Contact (CAC) and Community Assistance Visit (CAV) process to ensure
federal and state law are met.
The model identifies the basic minimum federal and state regulation requirements that
must be contained in local flood regulations, as well as suggestions for stronger
measures, but notes these measures are recommended, not required. Additionally, it
outlines several specific floodplain development practices and regulations that can reduce
insurance premium. Adopting this model flood hazard reduction ordinance verbatim can
ensure compliance with FEMA; however, it should be emphasized that its adoption is not
a mandatory requirement per NFIP regulation. Some sections of this document are
included for clarity and are not required by federal or state law. For instance, as indicated
In SECTION 1 : STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF FACT, PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES, it Is
not mandatory to adopt this entire section, but by doing so, it will make your community's
ordinance more legally enforceable.
Certain commentary is highlighted in the model ordinance. The highlighted commentary M
does not need to be included in the local ordinances.
Please note: Section 1612.4 of the 2015 International Building Code (IBC) and Section
1612.2 of the 2018 International Building Code incorporate the design and construction
standards of ASCE 24 published by the American Society of Civil Engineers. ASCE 24- a
14 tables 1-1, 2-1, 4-1, and 6-1 contain specific building elevation requirements which
a�
E
1 a
Q
Packet Pg. 49
6.A.e
exceed minimum NFIP standards.
Please Note: RCW 86.16.190 requires that:
Local governments that have adopted floodplain management regulations pursuant to this
chapter shall include provisions that allow for the establishment of livestock flood sanctuary
areas at a convenient location within a farming unit that contains domestic livestock. Local
governments may limit the size and configuration of the livestock flood sanctuary areas, but
such limitation shall provide adequate space for the expected number of livestock on the
farming unit and shall be at an adequate elevation to protect livestock. Modification to
floodplain management regulations required pursuant to this section shall be within the
minimum federal requirements necessary to maintain coverage under the national flood
insurance program.
While state law requires that local governments make provision for critter pads, it is
extremely important to note that RCW 86.16.190 does not relax NFIP standards, including
the no rise standard in floodways, in any way.
This document may also serve as a foundation upon which communities can craft their
own additional measures. The ordinance can be modified to accommodate local
standards, provided they are not less restrictive than the minimum standards identified in
this model. Areas on the model that exceed those minimum standards are clearly marked.
The model ordinance is in a modular format.
Appendix A: Ordinance Standards for Communities with Shallow Flooding Identified as
AO zones on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). These standards are mandatory in
communities that have mapped AO zones.
Appendix B: Ordinance Standards for Communities with Coastal Flooding Identified as
V zones on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). These standards are mandatory in
communities that have mapped V or VE zones.
NOTE: A community may wish to use a numbering system that differs from this model
ordinance. In such cases, special care should be taken to correctly identify internal code
citations within the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance.
c
E
a
a�
E
2 a
Q
Packet Pg. 50
6.A.e
Section 1.0 - Statutory Authorization, Findings of Fact,
Purpose, and Objectives (Not mandatory to adopt section 1.0)
1.1 Statutory Authorization
The Legislature of the State of Washington has delegated the responsibility to local
communities to adopt floodplain management regulations designed to promote the public
health, safety, and general welfare of its citizenry. Therefore, the {Decision Making
Body} of (Community Name), does ordain as follows:
1.2 Findings of Fact
The flood hazard areas of {Community Name} are subject to periodic inundation, which
may result in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of
commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood
protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the
public health, safety, and general welfare.
These flood losses may be caused by the cumulative effect of obstructions in areas of
special flood hazards that increase flood heights and velocities, and when inadequately
anchored, damage uses in other areas. Uses that are inadequately floodproofed,
elevated, or otherwise protected from flood damage also contribute to the flood loss.
1.3 Statement of Purpose
It is the purpose of this ordinance to promote the public health, safety, and general
welfare; reduce the annual cost of flood insurance; and minimize public and private losses
due to flood conditions in specific areas by provisions designed to:
1) Protect human life and health;
2) Minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood control projects;
3) Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and
generally undertaken at the expense of the general public;
4) Minimize prolonged business interruptions;
5) Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities, such as water and gas mains;
electric, telephone, and sewer lines; and streets and bridges located in flood
hazard areas;
6) Help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development
Packet Pg. 51
6.A.e
of flood hazard areas so as to minimize blight areas caused by flooding;
7) Notify potential buyers that the property is in a Special Flood Hazard Area;
8) Notify those who occupy flood hazard areas that they assume responsibility for
their actions; and
9) Participate in and maintain eligibility for flood insurance and disaster relief.
1.4 Methods of Reducing Flood Losses
In order to accomplish its purposes, this ordinance includes methods and provisions for
1) Restricting or prohibiting development that is dangerous to health, safety, and
property due to water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases
in erosion or in flood heights or velocities;
2) Requiring that development vulnerable to floods be protected against flood
damage at the time of initial construction;
3) Controlling the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels, and natural
protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel flood waters;
4) Controlling filling, grading, dredging, and other development, which may increase
flood damage; and
5) Preventing or regulating the construction of flood barriers that unnaturally divert
floodwaters or may increase flood hazards in other areas.
Section 2.0 — Definitions (44 CFR 59.1, not mandatory to adopt all definitions as
shown. However, definitions needed for implementation of NFIP standards in a specific
community can be required in the community's Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance.)
Terms with 1 asterisk trigger a specific minimum requirement and must be adopted.
Unless specifically defined below, terms or phrases used in this ordinance shall be
interpreted so as to give them the meaning they have in common usage and to give this
ordinance the most reasonable application.
*Alteration of watercourse: Any action that will change the location of the channel
occupied by water within the banks of any portion of a riverine waterbody.
Appeal: A request for a review of the interpretation of any provision of this ordinance or
a request for a variance.
E
Packet Pg. 52
6.A.e
*Area of shallow flooding: A designated zone AO, AH, AR/AO or AR/AH (or VO) on a
community's Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) with a one percent or greater annual
chance of flooding to an average depth of one to three feet where a clearly defined
channel does not exist, where the path of flooding is unpredictable, and where velocity
flow may be evident. Such flooding is characterized by ponding or sheet flow. Also
referred to as the sheet flow area.
*Area of special flood hazard: The land in the floodplain within a community subject to
a 1 percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. It is shown on the Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) as zone A, AO, AH, A11-30, AE, A99, AR (V, VO, V1-30, VE).
"Special flood hazard area" is synonymous in meaning with the phrase "area of special
flood hazard".
ASCE 24: The most recently published version of ASCE 24, Flood Resistant Design and
Construction, published by the American Society of Civil Engineers.
*Base flood: The flood having a 1 % chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given
year (also referred to as the "100-year flood").
*Base Flood Elevation (BFE): The elevation to which floodwater is anticipated to rise
during the base flood.
*Basement: Any area of the building having its floor sub -grade (below ground level) on
all sides.
Building: See "Structure."
Building Code: The currently effective versions of the International Building Code and
the International Residential Code adopted by the State of Washington Building Code
Council.
Breakaway wall: A wall that is not part of the structural support of the building and is
intended through its design and construction to collapse under specific lateral loading
forces, without causing damage to the elevated portion of the building or supporting
foundation system.
Coastal High Hazard Area: An area of special flood hazard extending from offshore to 0
the inland limit of a primary frontal dune along an open coast and any other area subject
to high velocity wave action from storms or seismic sources. The area is designated on
the FIRM as zone V1-30, VE or V.
E
Critical Facility: A facility for which even a slight chance of flooding might be too great.
Critical facilities include (but are not limited to) schools, nursing homes, hospitals, police, a
r
a�
E
5 a
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 53
6.A.e
fire and emergency response installations, and installations which produce, use, or store
hazardous materials or hazardous waste.
*Development: Any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including
but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving,
excavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials located within the
area of special flood hazard.
Elevation Certificate: An administrative tool of the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) that can be used to provide elevation information, to determine the proper
insurance premium rate, and to support a request for a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA)
or Letter of Map Revision based on fill (LOMR-F).
Elevated Building: For insurance purposes, a non -basement building that has its lowest
elevated floor raised above ground level by foundation walls, shear walls, post, piers,
pilings, or columns.
Essential Facility: This term has the same meaning as "Essential Facility" defined in
ASCE 24. Table 1-1 in ASCE 24-14 further identifies building occupancies that are
essential facilities.
Existing Manufactured Home Park or Subdivision: A manufactured home park or
subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the
manufactured homes are to be affixed (including, at a minimum, the installation of utilities,
the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads)
is completed before the effective date of the floodplain management regulations adopted
by the community.
Expansion to an Existing Manufactured Home Park or Subdivision: The preparation
of additional sites by the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the
manufactured homes are to be affixed (including the installation of utilities, the
construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads).
Farmhouse: A single-family dwelling located on a farm site where resulting agricultural
products are not produced for the primary consumption or use by the occupants and the
farm owner.
*Flood or Flooding:
1) A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally
dry land areas from:
a) The overflow of inland or tidal waters.
6
Packet Pg. 54
6.A.e
b) The unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any
source.
c) Mudslides (i.e., mudflows) which are proximately caused by flooding as
defined in paragraph (1)(b) of this definition and are akin to a river of liquid
and flowing mud on the surfaces of normally dry land areas, as when earth is
carried by a current of water and deposited along the path of the current.
2) The collapse or subsidence of land along the shore of a lake or other body of
water as a result of erosion or undermining caused by waves or currents of
water exceeding anticipated cyclical levels or suddenly caused by an unusually
high water level in a natural body of water, accompanied by a severe storm, or by
an unanticipated force of nature, such as flash flood or an abnormal tidal surge,
or by some similarly unusual and unforeseeable event which results in flooding
as defined in paragraph (1)(a) of this definition.
*Flood elevation study: An examination, evaluation and determination of flood hazards
and, if appropriate, corresponding water surface elevations, or an examination, evaluation
and determination of mudslide (i.e., mudflow) and/or flood -related erosion hazards. Also
known as a Flood Insurance Study (FIS).
*Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): The official map of a community, on which the
Federal Insurance Administrator has delineated both the special hazard areas and the
risk premium zones applicable to the community. A FIRM that has been made available
digitally is called a Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM).
*Floodplain or flood -prone area: Any land area susceptible to being inundated by water
from any source. See "Flood or flooding."
*Floodplain administrator: The community official designated by title to administer and
enforce the floodplain management regulations.
Floodplain management regulations: Zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations,
building codes, health regulations, special purpose ordinances (such as floodplain
ordinance, grading ordinance and erosion control ordinance) and other application of
police power. The term describes such state or local regulations, in any combination
thereof, which provide standards for the purpose of flood damage prevention and
reduction.
*Flood proofing: Any combination of structural and nonstructural additions, changes, or
adjustments to structures which reduce or eliminate risk of flood damage to real estate or E
improved real property, water and sanitary facilities, structures, and their contents. Flood
proofed structures are those that have the structural integrity and design to be impervious a
to floodwater below the Base Flood Elevation. r
a�
E
7 � r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 55
6.A.e
*Floodway: The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that
must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the
water surface elevation more than a designated height. Also referred to as "Regulatory
Floodway."
*Functionally dependent use: A use which cannot perform its intended purpose unless
it is located or carried out in close proximity to water. The term includes only docking
facilities, port facilities that are necessary for the loading and unloading of cargo or
passengers, and ship building and ship repair facilities, and does not include long-term
storage or related manufacturing facilities.
*Highest adjacent grade: The highest natural elevation of the ground surface prior to
construction next to the proposed walls of a structure.
*Historic structure: Any structure that is:
1) Listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places (a listing maintained
by the Department of Interior) or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the
Interior as meeting the requirements for individual listing on the National Register;
2) Certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as contributing
to the historical significance of a registered historic district or a district preliminarily
determined by the Secretary to qualify as a registered historic district;
3) Individually listed on a state inventory of historic places in states with historic
preservation programs which have been approved by the Secretary of Interior; or
4) Individually listed on a local inventory of historic places in communities with historic
preservation programs that have been certified either:
a) By an approved state program as determined by the Secretary of the Interior,
or
b) Directly by the Secretary of the Interior in states without approved programs
*Lowest Floor: The lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An
unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building
access, or storage in an area other than a basement area, is not considered a building's
lowest floor, provided that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in
violation of the applicable non -elevation design requirements of this ordinance (i.e.
provided there are adequate flood ventilation openings).
M.
Packet Pg. 56
6.A.e
Manufactured Home: A structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built
on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation
when attached to the required utilities. The term "manufactured home" does not include
a "recreational vehicle."
Manufactured Home Park or Subdivision: A parcel (or contiguous parcels) of land
divided into two or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale.
*Mean Sea Level: For purposes of the National Flood Insurance Program, the vertical
datum to which Base Flood Elevations shown on a community's Flood Insurance Rate
Map are referenced.
New construction: For the purposes of determining insurance rates, structures for which
the "start of construction" commenced on or after the effective date of an initial Flood
Insurance Rate Map or after December 31, 1974, whichever is later, and includes any
subsequent improvements to such structures. For floodplain management purposes,
"new construction" means structures for which the "start of construction" commenced on
or after the effective date of a floodplain management regulation adopted by a community
and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures.
One -hundred -year flood or 100-year flood: See "Base flood."
New Manufactured Home Park or Subdivision: A manufactured home park or
subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the
manufactured homes are to be affixed (including at a minimum, the installation of utilities,
the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads)
is completed on or after the effective date of adopted floodplain management regulations
adopted by the community.
Reasonably Safe from Flooding: Development that is designed and built to be safe
from flooding based on consideration of current flood elevation studies, historical data,
high water marks and other reliable date known to the community. In unnumbered A
zones where flood elevation information is not available and cannot be obtained by
practicable means, reasonably safe from flooding means that the lowest floor is at least
two feet above the Highest Adjacent Grade.
*Recreational Vehicle: A vehicle,
1) Built on a single chassis;
2) 400 square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projection;
3) Designed to be self-propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck; and
9
Packet Pg. 57
6.A.e
4) Designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living
quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use.
*Start of construction: Includes substantial improvement and means the date the
building permit was issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair,
reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, placement, or other improvement was within 180
days from the date of the permit. The actual start means either the first placement of
permanent construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings,
the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of
excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent
construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading, and filling; nor
does it include the installation of streets and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation
for a basement, footings, piers, or foundations or the erection of temporary forms; nor
does it include the installation on the property of accessory buildings, such as garages or
sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure. For a substantial
improvement, the actual start of construction means the first alteration of any wall, ceiling,
floor, or other structural part of a building, whether or not that alteration affects the external
dimensions of the building.
*Structure: For floodplain management purposes, a walled and roofed building, including
a gas or liquid storage tank, that is principally above ground, as well as a manufactured
home.
*Substantial Damage: Damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost
of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50
percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred.
*Substantial improvement: Any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other
improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the
market value of the structure before the "start of construction" of the improvement. This
term includes structures which have incurred "substantial damage," regardless of the
actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, include either:
1) Any project for improvement of a structure to correct previously identified existing
violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications that have
been identified by the local code enforcement official and that are the minimum
necessary to assure safe living conditions; or
2) Any alteration of a "historic structure," provided that the alteration will not
preclude the structure's continued designation as a "historic structure."
E
*Variance: A grant of relief by a community from the terms of a floodplain management
regulation. a
E
10
Q
Packet Pg. 58
6.A.e
Water surface elevation: The height, in relation to the vertical datum utilized in the
applicable flood insurance study of floods of various magnitudes and frequencies in the
floodplains of coastal or riverine areas.
Water Dependent: A structure for commerce or industry that cannot exist in any other
location and is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operations.
Section 3.0 — General Provisions
3.1 Lands to Which This Ordinance Applies (44 CFR 59.22(a))
This ordinance shall apply to all special flood hazard areas within the boundaries of
(Community Name).
3.2 Basis for Establishing the Areas of Special Flood Hazard
The special flood hazard areas identified by the Federal Insurance Administrator in a
scientific and engineering report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for (exact title
of study)" dated (date), and any revisions thereto, with accompanying Flood Insurance
Rate Maps (FIRMs) dated (date), and any revisions thereto, are hereby adopted by
reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. The FIS and the FIRM are on file
at (community address).
The best available information for flood hazard area identification as outlined in Section
4.3-2 shall be the basis for regulation until a new FIRM is issued that incorporates data
utilized under Section 4.3-2.
Note: In some communities, the phrase "and any revisions thereto" is not considered
legally binding and should not be adopted.
3.3 Compliance
All development within special flood hazard areas is subject to the terms of this ordinance
and other applicable regulations.
3.4 Penalties For Noncompliance
No structure or land shall hereafter be constructed, located, extended, converted, or
altered without full compliance with the terms of this ordinance and other applicable
regulations. Violations of the provisions of this ordinance by failure to comply with any of
its requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in
connection with conditions), shall constitute a misdemeanor. Any person who violates this
11
Packet Pg. 59
6.A.e
ordinance or fails to comply with any of its requirements shall upon conviction thereof be
fined not more than or imprisoned for not more than _ days, or both, for each
violation, and in addition shall pay all costs and expenses involved in the case. Nothing
herein contained shall prevent the from taking such other lawful action
as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation.
3.5 Abrogation and Greater Restrictions
This ordinance is not intended to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements,
covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this ordinance and another ordinance,
easement, covenant, or deed restriction conflict or overlap, whichever imposes the more
stringent restrictions shall prevail.
3.6 Interpretation (Not mandatory)
In the interpretation and application of this ordinance, all provisions shall be:
1) Considered as minimum requirements;
2) Liberally construed in favor of the governing body; and,
3) Deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other powers granted under state
statutes.
3.7 Warning And Disclaimer of Liability (Not mandatory)
The degree of flood protection required by this ordinance is considered reasonable for
regulatory purposes and is based on scientific and engineering considerations. Larger
floods can and will occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by man-
made or natural causes. This ordinance does not imply that land outside the areas of
special flood hazards or uses permitted within such areas will be free from flooding or
flood damages. This ordinance shall not create liability on the part of {Community
Name}, any officer or employee thereof, or the Federal Insurance Administration, for any
flood damages that result from reliance on this ordinance or any administrative decision
lawfully made hereunder.
3.8 Severability
This ordinance and the various parts thereof are hereby declared to be severable.
Should any Section of this ordinance be declared by the courts to be unconstitutional or
invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole, or any
portion thereof other than the Section so declared to be unconstitutional or invalid.
12
Packet Pg. 60
6.A.e
Section 4.0 — Administration
4.1 Establishment of Development Permit
4.1-1 Development Permit Required (44 CFR 60.3(b)(1))
A development permit shall be obtained before construction or development
begins within any area of special flood hazard established in Section 3.2. The
permit shall be for all structures including manufactured homes, as set forth in the
"Definitions," and for all development including fill and other activities, also as set
forth in the "Definitions."
4.1-2 Application for Development Permit
Application for a development permit shall be made on forms furnished by the
Floodplain Administrator and may include, but not be limited to, plans in duplicate
drawn to scale showing the nature, location, dimensions, and elevations of the
area in question; existing or proposed structures, fill, storage of materials, drainage
facilities, and the location of the foregoing. Specifically, the following information is
required:
1) Elevation in relation to mean sea level, of the lowest floor (including basement)
of all structures recorded on a current elevation certificate with Section B
completed by the Floodplain Administrator.
2) Elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any structure has been
floodproofed;
3) Where a structure is to be floodproofed, certification by a registered
professional engineer or architect that the floodproofing methods for any
nonresidential structure meet floodproofing criteria in Section 5.2-2;
4) Description of the extent to which a watercourse will be altered or relocated as
a result of proposed development;
5) Where a structure is proposed in a V, V1-30, or VE zone, a V-zone design
certificate;
6) Where development is proposed in a floodway, an engineering analysis
indication no rise of the Base Flood Elevation, and
c
7) Any other such information that may be reasonably required by the Floodplain
Administrator in order to review the application.
a
a�
E
II r
Q
Packet Pg. 61
6.A.e
Note: The format of section 4.1-2 is not mandatory but the elevation information
in subsection 1 and the information in subsections 2 through 7 is mandatory.
Elevation Certificates are not mandatory outside of Community Rating System
communities but highly recommended.
4.2 Designation of the Floodplain Administrator (44 CFR 59.22(b)(1))
The {job title of the appropriate administrative official) is hereby appointed to
administer, implement, and enforce this ordinance by granting or denying development
permits in accordance with its provisions. The Floodplain Administrator may delegate
authority to implement these provisions.
4.3 Duties & Responsibilities of the Floodplain Administrator
Duties of the (Floodplain Administrator) shall include, but not be limited to:
4.3-1 Permit Review
Review all development permits to determine that:
1) The permit requirements of this ordinance have been satisfied;
2) All other required state and federal permits have been obtained;
3) The site is reasonably safe from flooding;
4) The proposed development is not located in the floodway. If located in the
floodway, assure the encroachment provisions of Section 5.4-1 are met;
5) Notify FEMA when annexations occur in the Special Flood Hazard Area
4.3-2 Use of Other Base Flood Data (In A and V Zones) (44 CFR 60.3(b)(4))
When base flood elevation data has not been provided (in A or V zones) in
accordance with Section 3.2, BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING THE AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD
HAZARD, the Floodplain Administrator shall obtain, review, and reasonably utilize
any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a federal, state, or other
source, in order to administer Sections 5.2, SPECIFIC STANDARDS, and 5.4
FLOODWAYS.
4.3-3 Information to be Obtained and Maintained (The following language is
required and should be adopted verbatim per 44 CFR)
14
Packet Pg. 62
6.A.e
1) Where base flood elevation data is provided through the FIS, FIRM, or
required as in Section 4.3-2, obtain and maintain a record of the actual
(as -built) elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the lowest floor
(including basement) of all new or substantially improved structures, and
whether or not the structure contains a basement. (44 CFR 60.3(b)(5)(i)
and (iii))
2) Obtain and maintain documentation of the elevation of the bottom of the
lowest horizontal structural member in V or VE zones. (44 CFR
60.3(e)(2)(i) and (ii))
3) For all new or substantially improved floodproofed nonresidential
structures where base flood elevation data is provided through the FIS,
FIRM, or as required in Section 4.3-2:
a) Obtain and maintain a record of the elevation (in relation to mean sea
level) to which the structure was floodproofed. (44 CFR 60.3(b)(5)(ii))
b) Maintain the floodproofing certifications required in Section 4.1-2(3)
(44 CFR 60.3(b)(5)(iii))
4) Certification required by Section 5.4.1 {or the numbering system used by
the community} (floodway encroachments). (44 CFR 60.3(d)(3))
5) Records of all variance actions, including justification for their issuance.
(44 CFR 60.6(a)(6))
6) Improvement and damage calculations.
7) Maintain for public inspection all records pertaining to the provisions of this
ordinance. (44 CFR 60.3(b)(5)(iii))
4.3-4 Alteration of Watercourse
Whenever a watercourse is to be altered or relocated:
1) Notify adjacent communities and the Department of Ecology prior to such
alteration or relocation of a watercourse, and submit evidence of such
notification to the Federal Insurance Administrator through appropriate
notification means, (44CFR 60.3(b)(6)
2) Assure that the flood carrying capacity of the altered or relocated portion of
said watercourse is maintained. (44 CFR 60.3(b)(7)
15
Packet Pg. 63
6.A.e
4.3-5 Interpretation of FIRM Boundaries (This section is not required, but if
the Local Administrators are performing this task on a regular basis, it
should be adopted.)
Make interpretations where needed, as to exact location of the boundaries of the
areas of special flood hazards (e.g. where there appears to be a conflict between
a mapped boundary and actual field conditions). The person contesting the
location of the boundary shall be given a reasonable opportunity to appeal the
interpretation. Such appeals shall be granted consistent with the standards of
Section 60.6 of the Rules and Regulations of the NFIP (44 CFR 59-76).
4.3-6 Review of Building Permits (44 CFR 60.3(a)(3))
Where elevation data is not available either through the FIS, FIRM, or from another
authoritative source (Section 4.3-2), applications for floodplain development shall
be reviewed to assure that proposed construction will be reasonably safe from
flooding. The test of reasonableness is a local judgment and includes use of
historical data, high water marks, photographs of past flooding, etc., where
available.
(Failure to elevate habitable buildings at least two feet above the highest adjacent
grade in these zones may result in higher insurance rates.)
4.3-7 Changes to Special Flood Hazard Area
1) If a project will alter the BFE or boundaries of the SFHA, then the project
proponent shall provide the community with engineering documentation and
analysis regarding the proposed change. If the change to the BFE or
boundaries of the SFHA would normally require a Letter of Map Change,
then the project proponent shall initiate, and receive approval of, a
Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to approval of the
development permit. The project shall be constructed in a manner
consistent with the approved CLOMR.
2) If a CLOMR application is made, then the project proponent shall also
supply the full CLOMR documentation package to the Floodplain
Administrator to be attached to the floodplain development permit, including
all required property owner notifications.
16
Packet Pg. 64
6.A.e
Section 5.0 — Provisions for Flood Hazard Reduction
5.1 General Standards (Section 5.0 is required)
In all areas of special flood hazards, the following standards are required:
5.1-1 Anchoring (44 CFR 60.3(a) and (b))
1) All new construction and substantial improvements, including those
related to manufactured homes, shall be anchored to prevent flotation,
collapse, or lateral movement of the structure resulting from hydrodynamic
and hydrostatic loads including the effects of buoyancy. (44 CFR
60.3(a)(3)(i))
2) All manufactured homes shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse,
or lateral movement, and shall be installed using methods and practices
that minimize flood damage. Anchoring methods may include, but are not
limited to, use of over -the -top or frame ties to ground anchors. (44 CFR
60.3(b)(8)). For more detailed information, refer to guidebook, FEMA-85,
"Manufactured Home Installation in Flood Hazard Areas."
5.1-2 Construction Materials and Methods (44 CFR 60.3(a)(3)(ii-iv))
1) All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed
with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage.
2) All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed
using methods and practices that minimize flood damage.
3) Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air-conditioning equipment
and other service facilities shall be designed and/or otherwise elevated or
located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the
components during conditions of flooding.
5.1-3 Storage of Materials and Equipment
1) The storage or processing of materials that could be injurious to human,
animal, or plant life if released due to damage from flooding is prohibited
in special flood hazard areas (recommended).
2) Storage of other material or equipment may be allowed if not subject to
damage by floods and if firmly anchored to prevent flotation, or if readily
removable from the area within the time available after flood warning.
17
Packet Pg. 65
6.A.e
5.1-4 Utilities (44 CFR 60.3(a)(5) and (6)
1) All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to
minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems;
2) Water wells shall be located on high ground that is not in the floodway
(WAC 173-160-171);
3) New and replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to
minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and
discharges from the systems into flood waters;
4) Onsite waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to
them or contamination from them during flooding.
5.1-5 Subdivision Proposals and Development (44 CFR 60.3(a)(4) and
(b)(3))
All subdivisions, as well as new development shall:
1) Be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage;
2) Have public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water
systems located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage;
3) Have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to flood damage.
4) Where subdivision proposals and other proposed developments contain
greater than 50 lots or 5 acres (whichever is the lesser) base flood
elevation data shall be included as part of the application.
5.2 Specific Standards (44 CFR 60.3(c)(1))
In all areas of special flood hazards where base flood elevation data has been provided
as set forth in Section 3.2, BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING THE AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD,
or Section 4.3-2, USE OF OTHER BASE FLOOD DATA. The following provisions are required:
5.2-1 Residential Construction (44 CFR 60.3(c)(2)(5))
1) In AE and Al-30 zones or other A zoned areas where the BFE has been
determined or can be reasonably obtained, new construction and
substantial improvement of any residential structure shall have the lowest
18
Packet Pg. 66
6.A.e
floor, including basement, elevated one foot or more above the BFE.
Mechanical equipment and utilities shall be waterproof or elevated least
one foot above the BFE.
2) New construction and substantial improvement of any residential structure
in an AO zone shall meet the requirements in Appendix A.
3) New construction and substantial improvement of any residential structure
in an Unnumbered A zone for which a BFE is not available and cannot be
reasonably obtained shall be reasonably safe from flooding, but in all
cases the lowest floor shall be at least two feet above the Highest
Adjacent Grade.
4) New construction and substantial improvement of any residential structure
in a V, V1-30, or VE zone shall meet the requirements in Appendix B.
5) Fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to flooding are
prohibited, or shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood
forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters.
Designs must meet or exceed the following minimum criteria:
a) Have a minimum of two openings with a total net area of not less than
one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to
flooding.
b) The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade
c) Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves, or other
coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and
exit of floodwater.
d) A garage attached to a residential structure, constructed with the garage
floor slab below the BFE, must be designed to allow for the automatic
entry and exit of flood waters.
Alternatively, a registered engineer or architect may design and certify
engineered openings.
5.2-2 Nonresidential Construction (44 CFR 60.3(c)(3) and (4))
E
New construction and substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial or
other nonresidential structure shall meet the requirements of subsection 1 or 2, a
below.
E
19
Q
Packet Pg. 67
6.A.e
1) New construction and substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial
or other nonresidential structure shall meet all of the following requirements:
a) In AE and Al-30 zones or other A zoned areas where the BFE has
been determined or can be reasonably obtained:
New construction and substantial improvement of any commercial,
industrial, or other nonresidential structure shall have the lowest floor,
including basement, elevated one foot or more above the BFE, or
elevated as required by ASCE 24, whichever is greater. Mechanical
equipment and utilities shall be waterproofed or elevated least one foot
above the BFE, or as required by ASCE 24, whichever is greater.
b) If located in an AO zone, the structure shall meet the requirements in
Appendix A.
c) If located in an Unnumbered A zone for which a BFE is not available
and cannot be reasonably obtained, the structure shall be reasonably
safe from flooding, but in all cases the lowest floor shall be at least two
feet above the Highest Adjacent Grade.
d) If located in a V, V1-30, or VE zone, the structure shall meet the
requirements in Appendix B.
e) Fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to flooding
are prohibited, or shall be designed to automatically equalize
hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and
exit of floodwaters. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be
certified by a registered professional engineer or architect or must meet
or exceed the following minimum criteria:
Have a minimum of two openings with a total net area of not less
than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject
to flooding. $
The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above U-
grade.
Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves, or other E
coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry 6
and exit of floodwater.
iv) A garage attached to a residential structure, constructed with the E
garage floor slab below the BFE, must be designed to allow for the
automatic entry and exit of flood waters. a
r
a�
E
20 r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 68
6.A.e
Alternatively, a registered engineer or architect may design and certify
engineered openings.
2) If the requirements of subsection 1 are not met, then new construction and
substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial or other
nonresidential structure shall meet all of the following requirements:
a) Be dry floodproofed so that below one foot or more above the base
flood level the structure is watertight with walls substantially
impermeable to the passage of water or dry floodproofed to the
elevation required by ASCE 24, whichever is greater;
b) Have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and
hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy;
c) Be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the
design and methods of construction are in accordance with accepted
standards of practice for meeting provisions of this subsection based
on their development and/or review of the structural design,
specifications and plans. Such certifications shall be provided to the
official as set forth in Section 4.3-3(2);
d) Nonresidential structures that are elevated, not floodproofed, must
meet the same standards for space below the lowest floor as described
in 5.2-1(5);
Note: Applicants who are floodproofing nonresidential buildings shall be notified
that flood insurance premiums will be based on rates that are one foot below the
floodproofed level (e.g. a building floodproofed to the base flood level will be rated
as one foot below). Floodproofing the building an additional foot will reduce
insurance premiums significantly.
5.2-3 Manufactured Homes (44 CFR 60.3(c)(6)(12))
1) All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved on sites U-
shall be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of c
the manufactured home is elevated one foot or more above the base flood M
elevation and be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation 6
system to resist flotation, collapse and lateral movement. C
(If the above phrase is applied to all manufactured homes in the E
floodplain, then the remaining verbiage is not necessary to adopt.)
This applies to manufactured homes: a
a�
E
21
Q
Packet Pg. 69
6.A.e
a) Outside of a manufactured home park or subdivision,
b) In a new manufactured home park or subdivision,
c) In an expansion to an existing manufactured home park or
subdivision, or
d) In an existing manufactured home park or subdivision on a site which
a manufactured home has incurred "substantial damage" as the result
of a flood; and
2) Manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved on sites in an
existing manufactured home park or subdivision that are not subject to the
above manufactured home provisions be elevated so that either:
a) The lowest floor of the manufactured home is elevated one foot or
more above the base flood elevation, or
b) The manufactured home chassis is supported by reinforced piers or
other foundation elements of at least equivalent strength that are no
less than 36 inches in height above grade and be securely anchored
to an adequately anchored foundation system to resist flotation,
collapse, and lateral movement.
5.2-4 Recreational Vehicles (44 CFR 60.3(c)(14))
1) Recreational vehicles placed on sites are required to either:
2) Be on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days, or
3) Be fully licensed and ready for highway use, on wheels or jacking system,
attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security
devices, and have no permanently attached additions; or
Meet the requirements of 5.2-3 above.
5.2-5 Enclosed Area Below the Lowest Floor 6
w
c
If buildings or manufactured homes are constructed or substantially improved E
with fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor, the areas shall be used solely for
parking of vehicles, building access, or storage. a
r
a�
E
22 r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 70
6.A.e
5.2-6 Appurtenant Structures (Detached Garages & Small Storage
Structures)
For A Zones (A, AE, Al -30, AH, AO):
1) Appurtenant structures used solely for parking of vehicles or limited
storage may be constructed such that the floor is below the BFE, provided
the structure is designed and constructed in accordance with the following
requirements:
a) Use of the appurtenant structure must be limited to parking of vehicles
or limited storage;
b) The portions of the appurtenant structure located below the BFE must
be built using flood resistant materials;
c) The appurtenant structure must be adequately anchored to prevent
flotation, collapse, and lateral movement;
d) Any machinery or equipment servicing the appurtenant structure must
be elevated or floodproofed to or above the BFE;
e) The appurtenant structure must comply with floodway encroachment
provisions in Section 5.4-1;
f) The appurtenant structure must be designed to allow for the automatic
entry and exit of flood waters in accordance with Section 5.2-1(5).
g) The structure shall have low damage potential,
h) If the structure is converted to another use, it must be brought into full
compliance with the standards governing such use, and
i) The structure shall not be used for human habitation.
2) Detached garages, storage structures, and other appurtenant structures
not meeting the above standards must be constructed in accordance with
all applicable standards in Section 5.2-1.
3) Upon completion of the structure, certification that the requirements of this
section have been satisfied shall be provided to the Floodplain
Administrator for verification.
23
Packet Pg. 71
6.A.e
5.3 AE and Al-30 Zones with Base Flood Elevations but No Floodways
(44 CFR 60.3(c)(10))
In areas with BFEs (but a regulatory floodway has not been designated), no new
construction, substantial improvements, or other development (including fill) shall be
permitted within zones Al-30 and AE on the community's FIRM, unless it is demonstrated
that the cumulative effect of the proposed development, when combined with all other
existing and anticipated development, will not increase the water surface elevation of the
base flood more than one foot at any point within the community.
5.4 Floodways (Note the more restrictive language for floodway development per
RCW 86.16)
Located within areas of special flood hazard established in Section 3.2 are areas
designated as floodways. Since the floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the
velocity of floodwaters that can carry debris, and increase erosion potential, the following
provisions apply:
5.4-1 No Rise Standard
Prohibit encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements,
and other development, unless certification by a registered professional engineer
is provided demonstrating through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in
accordance with standard engineering practice that the proposed encroachment
would not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base
flood discharge. (44 CFR 60.3(d)(3))
5.4-2 Residential Construction in Floodways
Construction or reconstruction of residential structures is prohibited within
designated floodways, except for (i) repairs, reconstruction, or improvements to a
structure that do not increase the ground floor area; and (ii) repairs, reconstruction,
or improvements to a structure, the cost of which does not exceed 50 percent of
the market value of the structure either, (A) before the repair or reconstruction is
started, or (B) if the structure has been damaged, and is being restored, before the
damage occurred. Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing
violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications that have
been identified by the local code enforcement official and that are the minimum
necessary to assure safe living conditions, or to structures identified as historic
places, may be excluded in the 50 percent.
1) Replacement of Farmhouses in Floodway
24
Packet Pg. 72
6.A.e
Repairs, reconstruction, replacement, or improvements to existing
farmhouse structures located in designated floodways and that are located
on lands designated as agricultural lands of long-term commercial
significance under RCW 36.70A.170 may be permitted subject to the
following:
a) The new farmhouse is a replacement for an existing farmhouse on the
same farm site;
b) There is no potential building site for a replacement farmhouse on the
same farm outside the designated floodway;
c) Repairs, reconstruction, or improvements to a farmhouse shall not
increase the total square footage of encroachment of the existing
farmhouse;
d) A replacement farmhouse shall not exceed the total square footage of
encroachment of the farmhouse it is replacing;
e) A farmhouse being replaced shall be removed, in its entirety, including
foundation, from the floodway within ninety days after occupancy of a
new farmhouse;
f) For substantial improvements and replacement farmhouses, the
elevation of the lowest floor of the improvement and farmhouse
respectively, including basement, is a minimum of one foot higher
than the BFE;
g) New and replacement water supply systems are designed to eliminate
or minimize infiltration of flood waters into the system;
h) New and replacement sanitary sewerage systems are designed and
located to eliminate or minimize infiltration of flood water into the
system and discharge from the system into the flood waters; and
i) All other utilities and connections to public utilities are designed,
constructed, and located to eliminate or minimize flood damage.
2) Substantially Damaged Residences in Floodway
a) For all substantially damaged residential structures, other than
farmhouses, located in a designated floodway, the Floodplain
Administrator may make a written request that the Department of
Ecology assess the risk of harm to life and property posed by the
specific conditions of the floodway. Based on analysis of depth,
velocity, flood -related erosion, channel migration, debris load
potential, and flood warning capability, the Department of Ecology
may exercise best professional judgment in recommending to the
local permitting authority repair, replacement, or relocation of a
substantially damaged structure consistent with WAC 173-158-076
The property owner shall be responsible for submitting to the local
government and the Department of Ecology any information
25
Packet Pg. 73
6.A.e
necessary to complete the assessment. Without a favorable
recommendation from the department for the repair or replacement of
a substantially damaged residential structure located in the regulatory
floodway, no repair or replacement is allowed per WAC 173-158-
070(1).
b) Before the repair, replacement, or reconstruction is started, all
requirements of the NFIP, the state requirements adopted pursuant to
86.16 RCW, and all applicable local regulations must be satisfied. In
addition, the following conditions must be met:
i) There is no potential safe building location for the replacement
residential structure on the same property outside the regulatory
floodway.
ii) A replacement residential structure is a residential structure built
as a substitute for a legally existing residential structure of
equivalent use and size.
iii) Repairs, reconstruction, or replacement of a residential structure
shall not increase the total square footage of floodway
encroachment.
iv) The elevation of the lowest floor of the substantially damaged or
replacement residential structure is a minimum of one foot higher
than the BFE.
v) New and replacement water supply systems are designed to
eliminate or minimize infiltration of flood water into the system.
vi) New and replacement sanitary sewerage systems are designed
and located to eliminate or minimize infiltration of flood water into
the system and discharge from the system into the flood waters.
vii) All other utilities and connections to public utilities are designed,
constructed, and located to eliminate or minimize flood damage.
5.4-3 All Other Building Standards Apply in the Floodway
If Section 5.4-1 is satisfied or construction is allowed pursuant to section 5.4-2, all
new construction and substantial improvements shall comply with all applicable
flood hazard reduction provisions of Section 5.0, Provisions For Flood Hazard
Reduction.
5.5 General Requirements for Other Development (Optional Provision)
26
Packet Pg. 74
6.A.e
All development, including manmade changes to improved or unimproved real estate for
which specific provisions are not specified in this ordinance or the state building codes
with adopted amendments and any {community name} amendments, shall:
1) Be located and constructed to minimize flood damage;
2) Meet the encroachment limitations of this ordinance if located in a regulatory
floodway;
3) Be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement resulting from
hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy, during conditions of the
design flood;
4) Be constructed of flood damage -resistant materials;
5) Meet the flood opening requirements of Section 5.2-1(5), and
6) Have mechanical, plumbing, and electrical systems above the design flood
elevation or meet the requirements of ASCE 24, except that minimum electric
service required to address life safety and electric code requirements is permitted
below the design flood elevation provided it conforms to the provisions of the
electrical part of building code for wet locations.
5.6 Critical Facility (Optional Provision)
Construction of new critical facilities shall be, to the extent possible, located outside the
limits of the SFHA (100-year floodplain). Construction of new critical facilities shall be
permissible within the SFHA if no feasible alternative site is available. Critical facilities
constructed within the SFHA shall have the lowest floor elevated three feet above BFE or
to the height of the 500-year flood, whichever is higher. Access to and from the critical
facility should also be protected to the height utilized above. Floodproofing and sealing
measures must be taken to ensure that toxic substances will not be displaced by or
released into floodwaters. Access routes elevated to or above the level of the BFE shall
be provided to all critical facilities to the extent possible.
5.7 Livestock Sanctuaries
Elevated areas for the for the purpose of creating a flood sanctuary for livestock are
allowed on farm units where livestock is allowed. Livestock flood sanctuaries shall be
sized appropriately for the expected number of livestock and be elevated sufficiently to
protect livestock. Proposals for livestock flood sanctuaries shall meet all procedural and
substantive requirements of this chapter.
27
Packet Pg. 75
6.A.e
Note: To be "elevated sufficiently to protect livestock" typically means to be elevated at
least one foot above the BFE.
Section 6.0 - Variances
The variance criteria set forth in this section of the ordinance are based on the general
principle of zoning law that variances pertain to a piece of property and are not personal
in nature. A variance may be granted for a parcel of property with physical characteristics
so unusual that complying with the requirements of this ordinance would create an
exceptional hardship to the applicant or the surrounding property owners. The
characteristics must be unique to the property and not be shared by adjacent parcels.
The unique characteristic must pertain to the land itself, not to the structure, its
inhabitants, or the property owners.
It is the duty of the {governing body} to help protect its citizens from flooding. This need
is so compelling and the implications of the cost of insuring a structure built below the
Base Flood Elevation are so serious that variances from the flood elevation or from other
requirements in the flood ordinance are quite rare. The long-term goal of preventing and
reducing flood loss and damage can only be met if variances are strictly limited.
Therefore, the variance guidelines provided in this ordinance are more detailed and
contain multiple provisions that must be met before a variance can be properly granted.
The criteria are designed to screen out those situations in which alternatives other than a
variance are more appropriate.
6.1 Requirements for Variances
1) Variances shall only be issued:
a) Upon a determination that the granting of a variance will not result in
increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary
public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the
public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances;
b) For the repair, rehabilitation, or restoration of historic structures upon a
determination that the proposed repair or rehabilitation will not preclude the
structure's continued designation as a historic structure and the variance is
the minimum necessary to preserve the historic character and design of the
structure;
KIM
Packet Pg. 76
6.A.e
c) Upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary,
considering the flood hazard, to afford relief;
d) Upon a showing of good and sufficient cause;
e) Upon a determination that failure to grant the variance would result in
exceptional hardship to the applicant;
f) Upon a showing that the use cannot perform its intended purpose unless it is
located or carried out in close proximity to water. This includes only facilities
defined in Section 2.0 {or the numbering system used by the community} of
this ordinance in the definition of "Functionally Dependent Use."
2) Variances shall not be issued within any floodway if any increase in flood levels
during the base flood discharge would result.
3) Generally, variances may be issued for new construction and substantial
improvements to be erected on a lot of one-half acre or less in size contiguous to
and surrounded by lots with existing structures constructed below the BFE,
provided the procedures of Sections 4.0 and 5.0 {or the numbering system used
by the community} of this ordinance have been fully considered. As the lot size
increases beyond one-half acre, the technical justification required for issuing the
variance increases.
6.2 Variance Criteria
In considering variance applications, the {Governing Body} shall consider all
technical evaluations, all relevant factors, all standards specified in other sections of
this ordinance, and:
1) The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of
others;
2) The danger to life and property due to flooding or erosion damage;
3) The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage
and the effect of such damage on the individual owner;
4) The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the
community;
5) The necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable;
29
Packet Pg. 77
6.A.e
6) The availability of alternative locations for the proposed use, which are not
subject to flooding or erosion damage;
7) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated
development;
8) The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and
floodplain management program for that area;
9) The safety of access to the property in time of flood for ordinary and
emergency vehicles;
10) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport
of the flood waters expected at the site; and,
11) The costs of providing governmental services during and after flood
conditions, including maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities,
such as sewer, gas, electrical, water system, and streets and bridges.
6.1 Additional Requirements for the Issuance of a Variance
1) Any applicant to whom a variance is granted shall be given written notice over the
signature of a community official that:
a) The issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the BFE will result
in increased premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as high as $25
for $100 of insurance coverage, and
b) Such construction below the BFE increases risks to life and property.
2) The Floodplain Administrator shall maintain a record of all variance actions,
including justification for their issuance.
3) The Floodplain Administrator shall condition the variance as needed to ensure that
the requirements and criteria of this chapter are met.
4) Variances as interpreted in the NFIP are based on the general zoning law
principle that they pertain to a physical piece of property; they are not personal in
nature and do not pertain to the structure, its inhabitants, economic or financial
circumstances. They primarily address small lots in densely populated residential
neighborhoods. As such, variances from flood elevations should be quite rare.
30
Packet Pg. 78
6.A.e
APPENDIX A
STANDARDS FOR SHALLOW FLOODING
AREAS (AO ZONES)
(44 CFR 60.3(c)7, 8 and 11)
Shallow flooding areas appear on FIRMs as AO zones with depth designations. The
base flood depths in these zones range from 1 to 3 feet above ground where a clearly
defined channel does not exist, or where the path of flooding is unpredictable and where
velocity flow may be evident. Such flooding is usually characterized as sheet flow. In
addition to other provisions in this code, the following additional provisions also apply in
AO zones:
New construction and substantial improvements of residential structures and
manufactured homes within AO zones shall have the lowest floor (including
basement and mechanical equipment) elevated above the highest adjacent
grade to the structure, one foot or more above* the depth number specified in
feet on the community's FIRM (at least two feet above the highest adjacent grade
to the structure if no depth number is specified).
2. New construction and substantial improvements of nonresidential structures within
AO zones shall either:
a) Have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated above the highest
adjacent grade of the building site, one foot or more above* the depth
number specified on the FIRM (at least two feet if no depth number is
specified); or
b) Together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, be completely flood
proofed to or above that level so that any space below that level is watertight
with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with
structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and
hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy. If this method is used,
compliance shall be certified by a registered professional engineer, or architect
as in section 5.2-2(3).
3. Require adequate drainage paths around structures on slopes to guide
floodwaters around and away from proposed structures.
4. Recreational vehicles placed on sites within AO zones on the community's FIRM
either:
a) Be on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days, or
31
Packet Pg. 79
6.A.e
b) Be fully licensed and ready for highway use, on its wheels or jacking system,
is attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security
devices, and has no permanently attached additions; or
c) Meet the requirements of subsections (1) and (3) above and the anchoring
requirements for manufactured homes (Section 5.1-1(2)).
32
Packet Pg. 80
6.A.e
APPENDIX B
STANDARDS FOR COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREAS (V ZONES)
44 CFR 60.3(e)(2 — 8)
Located within areas of special flood hazard established in Section 3.2 are Coastal High
Hazard Areas, designated as zones V1-30, VE, and/or V. These areas have special
flood hazards associated with high velocity waters from surges and, therefore, in
addition to meeting all provisions in this ordinance, the following provisions shall also
apply:
All new construction and substantial improvements in zones V1-30 and VE (V if
base flood elevation data is available) on the community's FIRM shall be
elevated on pilings and columns so that:
a) Elevation:
i) Residential Buildings
The bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member of the lowest floor
(excluding the pilings or columns) is elevated one foot or more above the
base flood level.
ii) Nonresidential buildings
The bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member of the lowest floor
(excluding the pilings or columns) is elevated one foot or more above the
base flood level or meets the elevation requirements of ASCE 24,
whichever is higher; and
b) The pile or column foundation and structure attached thereto is anchored to
resist flotation, collapse and lateral movement due to the effects of wind and
water loads acting simultaneously on all building components. Wind and
water loading values shall each have a one percent chance of being equaled
or exceeded in any given year (100-year mean recurrence interval).
A registered professional engineer or architect shall develop or review the
structural design, specifications and plans for the construction, and shall certify
that the design and methods of construction to be used are in accordance with
accepted standards of practice for meeting the provisions of subsections (1)(a)(i)
and (2)(a)(ii).
2. Obtain the elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the bottom of the lowest
structural member of the lowest floor (excluding pilings and columns) of all new
33
Packet Pg. 81
6.A.e
and substantially improved structures in zones V1-30, VE, and V on the
community's FIRM and whether or not such structures contain a basement. The
(Floodplain Administrator) shall maintain a record of all such information.
3. All new construction within zones V1-30, VE, and Von the community's FIRM
shall be located landward of the reach of mean high tide.
4. Provide that all new construction and substantial improvements within zones V1-
30, VE, and V on the community's FIRM have the space below the lowest floor
either free of obstruction or constructed with non -supporting breakaway walls,
open wood lattice -work, or insect screening intended to collapse under wind and
water loads without causing collapse, displacement, or other structural damage
to the elevated portion of the building or supporting foundation system. For the
purposes of this section, a breakaway wall shall have a design safe loading
resistance of not less than 10 and no more than 20 pounds per square foot. Use
of breakaway walls which exceed a design safe loading resistance of 20 pounds
per square foot (either by design or when so required by local or state codes)
may be permitted only if a registered professional engineer or architect certifies
that the design proposed meets the following conditions:
a) Breakaway wall collapse shall result from water load less than that which
would occur during the base flood; and
b) The elevated portion of the building and supporting foundation system shall
not be subject to collapse, displacement, or other structural damage due to
the effects of wind and water loads acting simultaneously on all building
components (structural and non-structural). Maximum wind and water
loading values to be used in this determination shall each have a one
percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (100-year
mean recurrence interval).
If breakaway walls are utilized, such enclosed space shall be useable solely for
parking of vehicles, building access, or storage. Such space shall not be used for
human habitation.
5. Prohibit the use of fill for structural support of buildings within zones V1-30, VE,
and V on the community's FIRM.
6. Prohibit man-made alteration of sand dunes within zones V1-30, VE, and Von
the community's FIRM which would increase potential flood damage.
7. All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved within zones V1-
30, V, and VE on the community's FIRM on sites:
34
Packet Pg. 82
6.A.e
a) Outside of a manufactured home park or subdivision,
b) In a new manufactured home park or subdivision,
c) In an expansion to an existing manufactured home park or
subdivision, or
d) In an existing manufactured home park or subdivision on which a
manufactured home has incurred "substantial damage" as the result of a
flood; shall meet the standards of paragraphs (1) through (6) of this section
and manufactured homes placed or substantially improved on other sites in
an existing manufactured home park or subdivision within zones V1-30, V,
and VE on the FIRM shall meet the requirements of Section 5.2-3.
8. Recreational vehicles placed on sites within V or VE zones on the community's
FIRM shall either:
a) Be on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days, or
b) Be fully licensed and ready for highway use, on its wheels or jacking system,
attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security
devices, and have no permanently attached additions; or
c) Meet the requirements of subsections (1) and (3) above and the anchoring
requirements for manufactured homes (Section 5.1-1(2)).
35
Packet Pg. 83
6.A.e
36
m
c
m
c
L
O
C
0
d
>
d
L
a
CD
tm
m
E
Cu
0
0
0
c
�L
2
ii
IL
a�
c
0
c
�a
L
O
c
0
c
m
m
L
(L
a)
am
m
E
m
0
0
0
a�
0
c
m
E
ns
Q
r
c
m
E
z
m
a
Packet Pg. 84
6.A.f
ORDINANCE NO.4188
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADOPT FLOODPLAIN
MANAGEMENT MEASURES THAT ARE REQUIRED TO
CONTINUE THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM, DECLARING
AN EMERGENCY NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE
ADOPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS INTERIM
ZONING ORDINANCE.
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds received a March 16, 2020 letter from the Director of
FEMA's Floodplain Management Division; and
WHEREAS, the letter described certain steps that were required by the City to participate
in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP); and
WHEREAS, a Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) have
been completed for the City of Edmonds; and
WHEREAS, the FIS and FIRM will become effective on June 19, 2020; and
WHEREAS, by the June 19, 2020 effective date, the Department of Homeland Security's
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Regional Office is required to approve the
legally enforceable floodplain management measures that the City of Edmonds adopts in
accordance with Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 60.3(e); and
WHEREAS, the adoption of compliant floodplain management measures will provide
protection for the City of Edmonds and will ensure its participation in the NFIP; and
WHEREAS, the NFIP State Coordinating Office for Washington State has verified that
Washington cities may include language in their floodplain management measures that
automatically adopt the most recently available flood elevation data provided by FEMA; and
WHEREAS, the above referenced March 16, 2020 letter was FEMA's official notification
to the City of Edmonds that it has until June 19, 2020 to adopt floodplain management regulations
that meet or exceed the minimum NFIP requirements and request approval of those regulations
from the FEMA Regional Office;
1
Packet Pg. 85
6.A.f
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds' adopted floodplain management measures will be
reviewed upon receipt and the FEMA Regional Office will notify the City when the measures are
approved; and
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds' compliance with these mandatory program
requirements will enable the City to avoid suspension from the NFIP; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, this interim ordinance may be adopted on an
emergency basis without first holding a public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the COVID-19 crisis has prevented the City from using its normal public
participation process leading up to the adoption of these regulations;
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A new chapter 19.07 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"Flood Damage Prevention," is hereby added to read as set forth in Attachment A hereto, which
is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full.
Section 2. Section 23.70.010 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"Designation, rating and mapping — Frequently flooded areas," is hereby amended to read as set
forth in Attachment B hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full
(new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike thr-ough).
Section 3. Section 19.05.020 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"Section amendments," is hereby amended to read as set forth in Attachment C hereto, which is
incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline; deleted
text is shown in stfike thfo g ).
2
Packet Pg. 86
6.A.f
Section 4. Section 19.00.025 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"International Building Code section amendments," is hereby amended to read as set forth in
Attachment D hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new
text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in s4il£e thfough).
Section 5. Sunset. This interim ordinance shall remain in effect for 180 days from the
effective date or until it is replaced with another ordinance adopting permanent regulations, after
which point it shall have no further effect.
Section 6. Emergency Declaration. The city council hereby declares that an emergency
exists necessitating that this ordinance take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote
plus one of the whole membership of the council, and that the same is not subject to a referendum
(RCW 35A.12.130). Without an immediate adoption of this interim zoning ordinance, the City of
Edmonds could be suspended from the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Therefore, this
interim regulation must be imposed as an emergency measure to protect the public health, safety
and welfare by ensuring that the City continues to participate in the NFIP.
Section 7. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this
ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 8. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect
immediately upon passage, as set forth in Section 6, as long as it is approved by a majority plus
one of the entire membership of the council, as required by RCW 35A.12.130. If it is not adopted
by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the council, then the language declaring an
emergency shall be disregarded, in which case, this ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
3
Packet Pg. 87
6.A.f
Section 9. Adoption of Findings. The city council hereby adopts the above "whereas"
clauses as findings of fact in support of the adoption of this interim ordinance.
APPROVED:
MAYOR MIKE NELSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CLE K, SCOTT ASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
JEFF TARADA
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: May 29, 2020
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: June 2, 2020
PUBLISHED: June 5, 2020
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 2, 2020
ORDINANCE NO. 4188
M
Packet Pg. 88
6.A.f
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.4188
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the 2nd day of June, 2020, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance
No. 4188. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as
follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE EDMONDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADOPT
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT MEASURES THAT
ARE REQUIRED TO CONTINUE THE CITY' S
PARTICIPATION IN THE NATIONAL FLOOD
INSURANCE PROGRAM, DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE
ADOPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS INTERIM
ZONING ORDINANCE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this 2nd day of June, 2020.
CI CLERK, SCOT SEY
5
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment A
6.A.f
Chapter 19.07
FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION
19.07.000
Purpose
19.07.010
Applicability
19.07.020
Definitions
19.07.030
International Building Code section amendments
19.07.040
International Residential Code section amendments
19.07.050
Habitat Assessment
19.07.060
Review of Building Permits
19.07.070
Anchoring
19.07.080
Subdivision Proposals and Development
19.07.090
Manufactured Homes
19.07.100
All Other Building Standards apply
19.07.000 Purpose
It is the purpose of this ordinance to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare; reduce the
annual cost of flood insurance; and minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific
areas by provisions designed to:
A. Protect human life and health;
B. Minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood control projects;
C. Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at
the expense of the general public;
D. Minimize prolonged business interruptions;
E. Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities, such as water and gas mains; electric, telephone,
and sewer lines; and streets and bridges located in flood hazard areas;
F. Help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of flood hazard
areas so as to minimize blight areas caused by flooding;
G. Notify potential buyers that the property is in a Special Flood Hazard Area;
H. Notify those who occupy flood hazard areas that they assume responsibility for their actions; and
I. Participate in and maintain eligibility for flood insurance and disaster relief.
19.07.010 Applicability
A. Lands to which the chapter applies. This chapter shall apply to all special flood hazard areas within
the boundaries of the City of Edmonds.
B. Basis for establishing the areas of special flood hazard. The special flood hazard areas identified by
the Federal Insurance Administrator in a scientific and engineering report entitled "The Flood
Insurance Study (FIS) for Snohomish County, Washington, and Incorporated Areas" dated June 19,
2020, and any revisions thereto, with accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and any
Page 1 of 7
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment A
6.A.f
revisions thereto, are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. The
FIS and the FIRM are on file at the Development Services Department at 121 5ch Avenue North.
The best available information for flood hazard area identification as outlined in Section G103.3 shall
be the basis for regulation until a new FIRM is issued that incorporates data utilized under Section
G 103.3.
19.07.020 Definitions
The following definitions apply to this chapter...
A. Alteration of Watercourse: Any action that will change the location of the channel occupied by
water within the banks of any portion of a riverine waterbody.
B. Area of special flood hazard: The land in the floodplain within a community subject to a 1 percent or
greater chance of flooding in any given year. It is shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) as
zone A, AO, AH, Al-30, AE, A99, AR (V, VO, V1-30, VE). "Special flood hazard area" is synonymous in
meaning with the phrase "area of special flood hazard".
C. Base flood: The flood having a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (also
referred to as the "100-year flood").
D. Base Flood Elevation (BFE): the elevation to which floodwater is anticipated to rise during the base
flood.
E. Coastal High Hazard Area: An area of special flood hazard extending from offshore to the inland limit
of a primary frontal dune along an open coast and any other area subject to high velocity wave
action from storms or seismic sources. The area is designated on the FIRM as zone V1-30, VE or V.
F. Development: Any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not
limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or
drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials located within the area of special flood
hazard.
G. Elevation Certificate: An administrative tool of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that can
be used to provide elevation information, to determine the proper insurance premium rate, and to
support a request for a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) or Letter of Map Revision based on fill
(LOM R-F).
H. Flood or Flooding:
A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas
from:
a. The overflow of inland or tidal waters.
b. The unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source.
c. Mudslides (i.e., mudflows) which are proximately caused by flooding as defined in
paragraph (1)(b) of this definition and are akin to a river of liquid and flowing mud on the
surfaces of normally dry land areas, as when earth is carried by a current of water and
deposited along the path of the current.
The collapse or subsidence of land along the shore of a lake or other body of water as a result of
erosion or undermining caused by waves or currents of water exceeding anticipated cyclical
levels or suddenly caused by an unusually high water level in a natural body of water,
Page 2 of 7
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment A
6.A.f
accompanied by a severe storm, or by an unanticipated force of nature, such as flash flood or an
abnormal tidal surge, or by some similarly unusual and unforeseeable event which results in
flooding as defined in paragraph (1)(a) of this definition.
I. Flood elevation study: An examination, evaluation and determination of flood hazards and, if
appropriate, corresponding water surface elevations, or an examination, evaluation and
determination of mudslide (i.e., mudflow) and/or flood -related erosion hazards. Also known as a
Flood Insurance Study (FIS).
J. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): The official map of a community, on which the Federal Insurance
Administrator has delineated both the special hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable
to the community. A FIRM that has been made available digitally is called a Digital Flood Insurance
Rate Map (DFIRM).
K. Floodplain or flood -prone area: Any land area susceptible to being inundated by water from any
source. See "Flood or flooding."
L. Floodplain administrator: The community official designated by title to administer and enforce the
floodplain management regulations.
M. Floodplain management regulations: Zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, building codes,
health regulations, special purpose ordinances (such as floodplain ordinance, grading ordinance and
erosion control ordinance) and other application of police power. The term describes such state or
local regulations, in any combination thereof, which provide standards for the purpose of flood
damage prevention and reduction.
N. Flood proofing: Any combination of structural and nonstructural additions, changes, or adjustments
to structures which reduce or eliminate risk of flood damage to real estate or improved real
property, water and sanitary facilities, structures, and their contents. Flood proofed structures are
those that have the structural integrity and design to be impervious to floodwater below the Base
Flood Elevation.
O. Habitat Assessment: A written document that describes a project, identifies and analyzes the
project's impacts to habitat for species discussed in the "Endangered Species Act — Section 7
Consultation Final Biological Opinion and Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the Implementation of the National Flood Insurance
Program in the State of Washington, Phase One Document — Puget Sound Region," and provides an
Effects Determination.
Highest adjacent grade: The highest natural elevation of the ground surface prior to construction
next to the proposed walls of a structure.
Q. Historic structure: Any structure that is:
1. Listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places (a listing maintained by the
Department of Interior) or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as meeting
the requirements for individual listing on the National Register;
2. Certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as contributing to the
historical significance of a registered historic district or a district preliminarily determined by the
Secretary to qualify as a registered historic district;
3. Individually listed on a state inventory of historic places in states with historic preservation
programs which have been approved by the Secretary of Interior; or
Page 3 of 7
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment A
6.A.f
4. Individually listed on a local inventory of historic places in communities with historic
preservation programs that have been certified either:
a. By an approved state program as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, or
b. Directly by the Secretary of the Interior in states without approved programs.
Mean Sea Level: For purposes of the National Flood Insurance Program, the vertical datum to which
Base Flood Elevations shown on a community's Flood Insurance Rate Map are referenced.
New construction: For the purposes of determining insurance rates, structures for which the "start
of construction" commenced on or after the effective date of an initial Flood Insurance Rate Map or
after December 31, 1974, whichever is later, and includes any subsequent improvements to such
structures. For floodplain management purposes, "new construction" means structures for which
the "start of construction" commenced on or after the effective date of a floodplain management
regulation adopted by a community and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures.
T. Structure: For floodplain management purposes, a walled and roofed building, including a gas or
liquid storage tank, that is principally above ground, as well as a manufactured home.
19.07.030 International Building Code section amendments
The following sections of the IBC are hereby amended as follows:
A. Section 110.3.3, Lowest floor elevation, is amended to read:
In flood hazard areas, upon placement of the lowest floor, including the basement, and prior to
further vertical construction, the elevation certification required in Section 1612.5 shall be
submitted to the building official. Prior to final inspection approval, the building official shall require
an elevation certificate based on finished construction prepared and sealed by a State licensed land
surveyor.
B. Section 1612.1.1, Residential Structures, is added and reads:
Construction or reconstruction of residential structures is prohibited within designated floodways,
except for (i) repairs, reconstruction, or improvements to a structure which do not increase the
ground floor area; and (ii) repairs, reconstruction or improvements to a structure, the cost of which
does not exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure either, (A) before the repair, or
reconstruction is started, or (B) if the structure has been damaged, and is being restored, before the
damage occurred. Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of State
or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code
enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions, or to
structures identified as historic places, may be excluded from the 50 percent calculation.
C. Section 1612.4.1, Lowest Floor Elevation, is added and reads:
For buildings in all structure categories located in the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood
Zones, the elevation of the lowest floor shall be a minimum of two feet above the base flood
elevation, as determined from the applicable FEMA flood hazard map.
19.07.040 International Residential Code section amendments
The following sections of the IRC are hereby amended as follows:
Page 4 of 7
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment A
6.A.f
A. Table R301.2(1), Climatic and Geographic Design Criteria, is amended with the following criteria
Flood Hazard(g) = NFIP adoption June 19, 2020. FIRM maps June 19, 2019
B. R322.1, General, is hereby amended as follows:
Buildings and structures constructed in whole or in part in flood hazard areas (including A or V
Zones) as established in Table R301.2(1) shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the
provisions contained in this section. Construction or reconstruction of residential structures is
prohibited within designated floodways, except for (i) repairs, reconstruction, or improvements to a
structure which do not increase the ground floor area; and (ii) repairs, reconstruction or
improvements to a structure, the cost of which does not exceed 50 percent of the market value of
the structure either, (A) before the repair, or reconstruction is started, or (B) if the structure has
been damaged, and is being restored, before the damage occurred. Any project for improvement of
a structure to correct existing violations of State or local health, sanitary, or safety code
specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the
minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions, or to structures identified as historic places,
may be excluded from the 50 percent calculation.
19.07.050 Habitat Assessment
A development permit application shall include a habitat assessment unless the project is, in its entirety,
one of the following activities:
A. Normal maintenance, repairs, or remodeling of structures, such as re -roofing and replacing siding,
provided such work is not a substantial improvement or a repair of substantial damage. To comply,
such work must be less than 50% of the value of the structure(s).
Expansion or reconstruction of an existing structure that is no greater than 10% beyond its existing
footprint. If the structure is in the floodway, there shall be no change in the structure's dimensions
perpendicular to flow. All other federal and state requirements and restrictions relating to floodway
development still apply.
C. Activities with the sole purpose of creating, restoring, or enhancing natural functions associated
with floodplains, streams, lakes, estuaries, marine areas, habitat, and riparian areas that meet
federal and state standards, provided the activities do not include structures, grading, fill, or
impervious surfaces.
D. Development of open space and recreational facilities, such as parks, trails, and hunting grounds,
that do not include structures, fill, impervious surfaces, or removal of more than 5% of the native
vegetation on that portion of the property in the floodplain.
E. Repair to onsite septic systems, provided ground disturbance is the minimal necessary and best
management practices (BMPs) to prevent stormwater runoff and soil erosion are used.
Projects that have already received concurrence under another permit or other consultation with
the Services, either through Section 7, Section 4d, or Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
that addresses the entirety of the project in the floodplain (such as an Army Corps 404 permit or
non -conversion Forest Practice activities including any interrelated and interdependent activities.).
G. Repair of an existing, functional bulkhead in the same location and footprint with the same
materials when the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) is still outside of the face of the bulkhead
(i.e. if the work qualifies for a Corps exemption from Section 404 coverage).
Page 5 of 7
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment A
6.A.f
19.07.060 Review of Building Permits
Where elevation data is not available either through the FIS, FIRM, or from another authoritative source
(Section 4.3-2), applications for floodplain development shall be reviewed to assure that proposed
construction will be reasonably safe from flooding. The test of reasonableness is a local judgment and
includes use of historical data, high water marks, photographs of past flooding, etc., where available.
19.07.070 Anchoring
A. All new construction and substantial improvements, including those related to manufactured
homes, shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure
resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads including the effects of buoyancy.
All manufactured homes shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement, and
shall be installed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage. Anchoring methods may
include, but are not limited to, use of over -the -top or frame ties to ground anchors. For more
detailed information, refer to guidebook, FEMA-85, "Manufactured Home Installation in Flood
Hazard Areas."
19.07.080 Subdivision Proposals and Development
All subdivisions, as well as new development shall:
A. Be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage;
B. Have public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems located and
constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage;
C. Have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to flood damage.
D. Where subdivision proposals and other proposed developments contain greater than 50 lots or 5
acres (whichever is the lesser) base flood elevation data shall be included as part of the application.
19.07.090 Manufactured Homes
A. All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved on sites shall be elevated on a
permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is elevated one foot or
more above the base flood elevation and be securely anchored to an adequately anchored
foundation system to resist flotation, collapse and lateral movement.
B. All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved within zones V1-30, V, and VE on
the community's FIRM on sites:
a. Outside of a manufactured home park or subdivision,
b. In a new manufactured home park or subdivision,
c. In an expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision, or
d. In an existing manufactured home park or subdivision on which a manufactured home has
incurred "substantial damage" as the result of a flood; shall meet the standards of ASCE 24-14,
Chapter 4 requirements for residential buildings.
Page 6 of 7
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment A
6.A.f
19.07.100 All Other Building Standards Apply
All new construction and substantial improvements shall comply with all applicable flood hazard
reduction provisions of the adopted IBC, IRC, Appendix (IBC) G, and ASCE 24.
Page 7 of 7
Packet Pg. 96
6.A.f
Attachment B
Chapter 23.70
FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS
23.70.010 Designation, rating and mapping — Frequently flooded areas.
A. Frequently Flooded Areas. Frequently flooded areas shall include:
1. The special flood hazard areas identified by the Federal Insurance Administrator in a scientific and
engineering report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study(FIS) for Snohomish County, Washington, and
Incorporated Areas" dated June 19, 2020, and any revisions thereto, with accompanying Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (FIRMS), and any revisions thereto, are hereby pted by reference and declared to be a part of this
ordinance. The FIS and the FIRM are on file at the Development Services Department at 121 5th Avenue
North.
The best available information for flood hazard area identification as outlined in Section G103.3 shall be the
basis for regulation until a new FIRM is issued that incorporates data utilized under Section G103.3.
These afeas iden4ified an FEMA fleed insufanee maps as areas of speeiai Jqaad hazard, wllieh iffelude those
the in4ernational Residenfial Code and in4ernational Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title •
2. Those areas identified as frequently flooded areas on the city of Edmonds critical areas inventory. Identified
frequently flooded areas are consistent with and based upon designation of areas of special flood hazard on
FEMA flood insurance maps as indicated above.
B. City Discretion and Designation. Flood insurance maps and the city's critical areas inventory are to be used as a
guide for the city of Edmonds development services department, project applicants and/or property owners, and the
public and should be considered a minimum designation of frequently flooded areas. As flood insurance maps may
be continuously updated as areas are reexamined or new areas are identified, newer and more restrictive information
for flood hazard area identification shall be the basis for regulation. The city of Edmonds shall retain the right to
designate and identify areas known to be prone to flooding outside of the 100-year floodplain and subject them to
the provisions and protections of this title and the current editions of the International Residential Code and
International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19. [Ord. 4026 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment C
6.A.f
19.05.020 Section amendments.
The following sections of the IRC are hereby amended as follows:
A. Table R301.2(1), Climatic and Geographic Design Criteria, is amended with the following criteria:
1. Ground Snow Load = 25 psf non -reducible
2. Wind Speed(d) = 85 mph
3. Topographical effects(k) = No
4. Seismic Design Category(f) = D1
5. Weathering(a) = moderate
6. Frost Line Depth(b) = 18 inches
7. Termite(c) = slight to moderate
8. Winter Design Temp(e) = 27 degrees F
9. Flood u...,a fd( — ro adoption 3,126,174FWA4 maps 1Trv�-9
10. Ice Shield Underlayment(h) = not required
11. Air Freezing Index(i) = 0-1000
12. Mean Annual Tempo) = 50 degrees F
B. R313.1, Automatic fire sprinkler system, is added and reads:
1. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in new buildings containing
five (5) or more attached dwelling units. Refer to ECDC 19.25.035.
2. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in new one -family and two-
family dwellings and townhouses exceeding 3,000 square feet of fire area.
3. The design and installation of residential fire sprinkler systems shall be in accordance with
NFPA 13D.
_C. R322. 1 General, is hereby amended asfollows:
� y
i
ON
IN 1
[Ord. 4029 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3926 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013; Ord. 3819 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3796
§ 2, 2010].
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment D
6.A.f
19.00.025 International Building Code section amendments.
The following sections of the IBC are hereby amended as follows:
A. Section 104.3, Notices and Orders, is amended to read:
The building official shall issue all necessary notices or orders to ensure compliance with this
code. The building official is also authorized to use Chapter 20.110 ECDC for code
compliance in addition to the remedies provided for in this code.
B. Section 105.1.1, Annual Permit, is deleted.
C. Section 105.1.1, Demolition Permits, is added and shall read:
Before the partial or complete demolition of any building or structure (interior or exterior), a
demolition permit shall be obtained from the building official. The permit fee is established
pursuant to Chapter 19.70 ECDC. The applicant shall also post with the city, prior to permit
issuance, a performance bond, or frozen fund, conforming to Chapter 17.10 ECDC herein, in
an amount to be determined by the building official to satisfy all city requirements no later
than 180 days after the issuance of the permit. The demolition performance bond or frozen
fund shall not be released until the building official determines the following requirements
have been completed:
1. Cap Abandoned Sanitary Sewers. Septic tanks shall be pumped, collapsed and removed
and/or filled with earth, sand, concrete, CDF or hard slurry.
2. Knock Down of Concrete Foundation Walls, Porches, Chimneys and Similar Structures.
Concrete, bricks, cobbles and boulders shall be broken to less than 12-inch diameter. Debris
left on site shall conform to IBC Section 1804.2 for clean fill.
3. Construction debris, vegetation, and garbage attributable to the demolition shall be
removed from the site and from unopened street right-of-way within 30 days of written notice.
No debris of any kind may be placed or maintained on street right-of-way (including alleys)
without a permit issued pursuant to Chapter 18.60 or 18.70 of the Edmonds Community
Development Code.
4. Repair of any damage to, and restoration of, any public property to substantially original
conditions, i.e., alley, street, sidewalk, landscaping, water, sewer, storm and other utilities,
rockeries, retaining walls, etc, in accordance with this code and the City's engineering
requirements.
5. Grading of Site Back to Original Topography Grades. Basements shall be filled and
compacted to 90 percent as verified by a special inspector. "Structural fill" is defined as any
fill placed below structures, including slabs, where the fill soils need to support loads without
unacceptable deflections or shearing. Structural fill shall be clean and free draining, placed
above unyielding native site soils and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent modified
proctor, per ASTM D1557.
6. Temporary erosion control shall be installed and maintained per Chapter 18.30 ECDC.
D. Section 105.1.2, Annual permit records, is deleted.
E. Section 105.2, Work exempt from permit, is replaced as follows:
Exemptions from permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization
for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other
laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. It is the applicant's responsibility to comply with bulk
zoning code standards per ECDC Title 16 and storm water management provisions per
Chapter 18.30 ECDC. Permits shall not be required for the following unless required by the
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment D
6.A.f
provisions of ECDC Title 23 or limited or prohibited by the provisions of Chapter 19.10
ECDC:
1. Building (general):
(a) One (1) story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and
similar uses; provided the floor area (including the exterior wall or post) does not exceed 120
square feet, with a maximum eave of thirty (30) inches.
(b) Fences not over six (6) feet high; provided a permit is not required by Chapter 17.30
ECDC.
(c) Movable cases, counters and partitions not over five (5) feet nine (9) inches high.
(d) Retaining walls 4 feet (1,219 mm) in height or less measured vertically from the finished
grade at the exposed toe of the retaining wall to the highest point in the wall, unless:
I. Supporting a surcharge; or
II. Impounding Class I, II, III -A liquids; or
III. Subject to the provisions of Chapter 23.50 ECDC or Chapter 23.80 ECDC.
(e) Rockeries. Construction of rockeries is limited as specified elsewhere in this code.
(f) Water tanks supported directly upon grade if the capacity does not exceed 5,000 gallons
and the ratio of height to diameter or width does not exceed two (2) to one (1).
(g) Sidewalks and driveways not more than 30 inches above adjacent grade, and not over any
basement or story below and are not part of an accessible route, provided a permit is not
required by Chapter 18.60 ECDC.
(h) Painting, papering, tiling, carpeting, cabinets, countertops and similar finish work.
(i) Temporary motion picture, television and theater stage sets and scenery.
0) Shade cloth structures constructed for nursery or agricultural purposes.
(k) Prefabricated swimming pools accessory to an occupancy in which the pool walls are
entirely above the adjacent grade and the capacity does not exceed 5,000 gallons. Hot tubs
and spas less than 5,000 gallons, completely supported by the ground.
(1) Grading less than fifty (50) cubic yards (placed, removed or moved within any 365-day
period) unless subject to the provisions of Chapter 23.50 ECDC or Chapter 23.80 ECDC.
(m) Repair of appliances which do not alter original approval, certification, listing or code.
(n) Replacement or adding new insulation with no drywall removal or placement.
(o) Replacement or repair of existing gutters or downspouts.
(p) The following types of signs are exempt from permit requirements except that dimensional
size and placement standards shall comply with Chapter 20.60 ECDC:
I. Replacing the panel on a previously permitted existing wall cabinet or pole sign,
II. Repainting an existing previously permitted wood sign,
III. Painted or vinyl lettering on storefront windows,
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment D
6.A.f
IV. Governmental signs, campaign signs, official public notices, and signs required by
provision of local, state, or federal law,
V. Temporary signs announcing the sale or rent of property and other tem-porary signs as
described in ECDC 20.60.080,
VI. Signs erected by the transportation authorities, and temporary seasonal and holiday
displays.
2. Mechanical:
(a) Portable heating, ventilation, cooling, cooking or clothes drying appliances.
(b) Replacement of any part that does not alter approval of equipment or make such
equipment unsafe.
(c) Portable fuel cell appliances that are not connected to a fixed piping system and are not
interconnected to a power grid.
(d) Steam, hot or chilled water piping within any heating or cooling equipment regulated by
this code.
(e) Portable evaporative cooler.
(f) Self-contained refrigeration systems containing ten (10) pounds or less of refrigerant or
that are actuated by motor of one (1) horsepower or less.
3. Plumbing:
(a) The stopping of leaks in drains, water, soil, waste or vent pipe, provided that the
replacement of defective material shall be done with new material and a permit obtained and
inspection made.
(b) Reinstallation or replacement of approved prefabricated plumbing fixtures that do not
involve or require the replacement or rearrangement of valves or pipes.
4. Residential permit exemptions:
In addition the following exemptions apply for single family dwellings:
(a) One (1) story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and
similar uses; provided the floor area (including the exterior wall or post) does not exceed 200
square feet, with a maximum eave of twelve (12) inches and maximum height of fifteen (15)
feet. Vehicle storage structures, such as garages and carports, are not exempted.
(b) Window awnings supported by an exterior wall and do not project more than fifty-four
(54) inches from the exterior wall and do not require additional support. ECDC Title 23
provisions shall not apply to such awnings.
(c) Sport courts less than 2,000 square feet.
(d) Dock repair of individual decking members. ECDC Title 23 provisions shall not apply.
(e) Replacement or repair of existing exterior siding. ECDC Title 23 provisions shall not
apply-
(f) Replacement or repair of existing windows or doors provided; no alteration of structural
members is required, the replacement would not require installation of safety glazing, the
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment D
6.A.f
installation does not involve required egress windows. ECDC Title 23 provisions shall not
apply-
(g) Minor like -for -like drywall repairs not involving fire -rated assemblies.
(h) Replacement or repair of individual decking, joists, stair treads, or intermediate rails.
ECDC Title 23 provisions do not apply.
(i) Uncovered platforms, decks, patios, not exceeding 200 square feet in area, that are not
more than thirty (30) inches above grade at any point and do not serve the exit door required
by IRC Section R311.4.
0) Canopies, as defined in ECDC 17.70.035, accessory to a single family dwelling, with a
floor area measured to the exterior wall or post not to exceed 200 square feet, for covered
storage, carport or similar use.
(k) Reroof overlays. Overlays are not permitted over slate, clay or cement tiles, or where the
existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roofing.
F. Section 105.3.2, Time limitation of permit application, is amended to read:
1. Applications, for which no permit is issued within 180 days following the date of
application, shall expire by limitation, and plans and other data submitted for review may
thereafter be returned to the applicant or destroyed by the building official.
2. The building official may extend the time for action by the applicant for a period not
exceeding 180 days prior to such expiration date.
3. No application shall be extended more than once for a total application life of 360 days
except as allowed within this section. In order to renew action on an expired application, the
applicant shall submit a new application, revised plans based on any applicable code or
ordinance change, and pay new plan review fees.
4. The Building Official may extend the life of an application if any of the following
conditions exist:
(a) Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act is in progress; or
(b) Any other City review is in progress; provided, the applicant has submitted a complete
response to City requests or the Building Official determines that unique or unusual
circumstances exist that warrant additional time for such response and the Building Official
determines that the review is proceeding in a timely manner toward final City decision; or
(c) Litigation against the City or applicant is in progress, the outcome of which may affect the
validity or the provisions of any permit issued pursuant to such application.
G. Section 105.3.3, Fully complete application, is added and reads:
In accordance with the provisions of RCW 19.27.031 and 19.27.074, an applicant's rights
shall vest when a fully complete building permit application is filed. A fully complete
building permit application is an application executed by the owners of the property for which
the application is submitted or the duly authorized agent(s) for such owners, containing each
and every document required under the terms of these ordinances and the IBC and is
substantially complete in all respects. It is anticipated that minor changes or revisions may be
required and are frequently made in the course of any building application review process,
and such minor revisions or changes shall not keep an application from being deemed
complete if a good faith attempt has been made to submit a substantially complete application
containing all required components. Where required, the application and supporting
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment D
6.A.f
documents shall be stamped and/or certified by the appropriate engineering, surveying or
other professional consultants. A fully complete building permit application shall be
accompanied by all required intake fees, including but not limited to plan review fees required
under the provisions of this chapter and code.
H. Section 105.3.4, Concurrent review, is added and reads:
An applicant may submit an application for building permit approval and request plan review
services concurrently with, or at any time following, the submittal of a complete application
for any necessary or required discretionary permit approval or discretionary hearing;
provided, that any building permit application submitted concurrently with an application for
discretionary permit or approvals shall not be considered complete unless the applicant
submits a signed statement, on a form approved by the director, which acknowledges that the
building permit application is subject to any conditions or requirements imposed pursuant to
the review and approval of any necessary or required discretionary permit or approvals. The
applicant shall solely bear the risk of building permit submittal with discretionary permit
approval. If, after discretionary approval, the building permit plans are modified or amended
to comply with conditions or restrictions required by any discretionary permit or approval, the
applicant shall be solely responsible for any and all costs which result therefrom, including
but not limited to additional full plan review fees; provided further, that any applicant -
initiated changes made after the original plan review is complete shall also require payment of
full plan review fees.
I. Section 105.5, Permit expiration and extension, is amended to read:
1. Every permit issued under ECDC Title 19 shall expire by limitation 360 days after
issuance, except as provided in ECDC 19.00.025I(2).
2. The following permits shall expire by limitation, 180 days after issuance and may not be
extended, unless they are associated with a primary building permit for a larger construction
project, in which case they may run with the life of the primary permit:
Demolition permits;
Permits for Moving Buildings required by Chapter 19.60 ECDC;
Mechanical permits;
Tank removal, tank fill, or tank placement permits;
Grading, excavation and fill permits;
Water service line permits;
Plumbing permits;
Gas piping permits;
Deck and dock permits;
Fence permits;
Re -roof permits;
Retaining wall permits;
Swimming pool, hot tub and spa permits;
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment D
6.A.f
Sign permits;
Shoring permits;
Foundation permits.
3. Prior to expiration of an active permit the applicant may request in writing an extension for
an additional year. Provided there has been at least one (1) required progress inspection
conducted by the city building inspector prior to the extension, the permit shall be extended.
Permit fees shall be charged at a rate of one quarter the original building permit fee to extend
the permit.
4. If the applicant cannot complete work issued under an extended permit within a total period
of two (2) years, the applicant may request in writing, prior to the second year expiration, an
extension for a third and final year. Provided there has been at least one (1) required progress
inspection conducted by the city building inspector after the previous extension, the permit
shall be extended. Permit fees shall be charged at a rate of one quarter the original building
permit fee to extend the permit.
5. The maximum amount of time any building permit may be extended shall be a total of three
(3) years. At the end of any three (3) year period starting from the original date of permit
issuance, the permit shall become null and void and a new building permit shall be required,
with full permit fees, in order for the applicant to complete work. The voiding of the prior
permit shall negate all previous vesting of zoning or Building codes. Whenever an appeal is
filed and a necessary development approval is stayed in accordance with ECDC 20.06.030 the
time limit periods imposed under this section shall also be stayed until final decision.
6. The building official may reject requests for permit extension where he determines that
modifications or amendments to the applicable zoning and Building codes have occurred
since the original issuance of the permit and/or modifications or amendments would
significantly promote public health and safety if applied to the project through the issuance of
a new permit.
J. Repealed by Ord. 3926.
K. Section 107.3.3, Phased approval, is amended to read:
1. The building official may issue partial permits for phased construction as part of a
development before the entire plans and specifications for the whole building or structure
have been approved provided architectural design board approval has been granted and a fully
complete permit application for the entire building or structure has been submitted for review.
2. Phased approval means permits for grading, shoring, and foundation may be issued
separately, provided concurrent approval is granted by the planning manager, city engineer
and fire marshal, when applicable. No phased approval permit shall be issued unless approved
civil plans detailing the construction of all site improvements including, but not limited to:
curbs, gutters, sidewalks, paved streets, water lines, sewer lines, and storm drainage have been
signed as approved by the city engineer.
3. With such phased approval, a performance bond shall be posted with the city pursuant to
Chapter 17.10 ECDC, to cover the estimated cost of construction to city standards for the
improvements.
L. Seetie 110.3.3, Lowest esr flea-- eleya4ioa is amended to Fea4
in flood hazard areas, upon placement of the lowest floor-, including the basement, and prior -
to fi+rthervertieal constmetion, the elevation eertification required in Section 1612.5 shall be
submitted to the building offieial. Pr-ier to Anal inspeetion appr-oval, the building offieial shall
Packet Pg. 104
Attachment D
6.A.f
ML. Section 113, Board of Appeals, is deleted and replaced by Chapter 19.80 ECDC.
NM. Section 501.2, Address Identification, is amended to read:
Approved numbers or addresses shall be installed by the property owner for new and existing
buildings in such a position as to be clearly visible and legible from the street or roadway
fronting the property. Letters or numbers on the building shall be a minimum six (6) inches in
height and stroke a minimum of .75 inch of a contrasting color to the building base color.
Where public or private access is provided and the building address cannot be viewed from
the public way, a monument, pole or other approved sign or means shall be used to identify
the structure. This means of premises identification does not preclude approved identification
also affixed to structure.
AN. Section 903.2 is amended to read:
Where Required. Approved automatic fire sprinkler systems in new buildings and structures
shall be provided in the locations described in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.13.
gO. Section 903.2.13 is added.
Automatic fire sprinkler systems shall be provided as required by ECDC 19.25.035A.
QP. Section 903.3.7 is amended to read:
Fire department connections shall be installed in accordance with Section 912 and ECDC
19.25.035B.
RQ. Section 907.2 is amended to read:
Where required — new buildings and structures. An approved fire alarm system installed in
accordance with this code and NFPA 72 shall be provided in new buildings and structures in
accordance with Sections 907.2.1 through 907.2.24 and provide occupant notification in
accordance with Section 907.5, unless other requirements are provided by another section of
this code.
8R. Section 907.2.24 is added.
Fire alarm and detection system shall be provided as required by ECDC 19.25.035C.
T. Seet on 1612. i i Residential Stmetures is added and ,ends:
i
. �eTsr:r_�s!stes _ .!tr!err_�:ennss�e!�:r_rers!tisr_�
!.
Packet Pg. 105
Attachment D
6.A.f
VS. Section 3108.1.1, Radio, television and cellular communication related equipment and devices, is added and
reads:
A permit shall be required for the installation or relocation of commercial radio, television or
cellular tower support structures including monopoles, whip antennas, panel antennas,
parabolic antennas and related accessory equipment, and accessory equipment shelters
(regardless of size) including roof mounted equipment shelters.
WT. Section 3109.2, Applicability and maintenance, is added and reads:
1. Swimming pools, hot tubs and spas of all occupancies shall comply with the requirements
of this section and other applicable sections of this code.
2. It is the responsibility of the owner to maintain a swimming pool, hot tub or spa in a clean
and sanitary condition and all equipment shall be maintained in a satisfactory operating
condition when the swimming pool, hot tub or spa is in use. A swimming pool, hot tub or spa
that is neglected, not secured from public entry and/or not maintained in a clean and sanitary
condition or its equipment in accord with manufacturers recommendations shall be
determined to be a hazard to health and safety and shall be properly mitigated to the
satisfaction of the building official.
XU. Section 3109.3, Location and Setbacks, is added and reads:
Swimming pools, hot tubs and spas shall meet requirements of the zoning code of the city of
Edmonds.
1. Minimum setbacks are measured from property lines to the inside face of the pool, hot tub
or spa as required by the zoning code for accessory structures.
2. All other accessory buildings and equipment shall meet the normally required setbacks for
accessory structures in the zone in which they are located.
YV. Section 3109.4, Tests and cross -connection devices, is added and reads:
1. All swimming pool, hot tub and spa piping shall be inspected and approved before being
covered or concealed.
2. Washington State Department of Health approved cross connection devices are required to
be provided on potable water systems when used to fill any swimming pool, hot tub or spa.
ZW. Section 3109.5, Wastewater disposal, is added and reads:
A means of disposal of the total contents of the swimming pool, hot tub or spa (including
partial or periodic emptying) shall be reviewed and approved by the public works director.
1. No direct connection shall be made between any swimming pool, hot tub or spa to any
storm drain, city sewer main, drainage system, seepage pit, underground leaching pit, or sub-
soil drain.
2. A sanitary tee (outside cleanout installed on the main building side sewer line) shall be
provided for draining of treated water into the city sanitary sewer system.
AAX. Section 3109.9, Inspection requirements, is added and reads:
Packet Pg. 106
6.A.f
Attachment D
The appropriate city inspector shall be notified for the following applicable inspections:
1. Footing, wall, pre -form, pre-gunite, erosion control, underground plumbing, sanitary
extension and cleanout, mechanical pool equipment, gas piping, mechanical enclosure
location, cross connection and final inspection.
2. An initial cross connection control installation inspection is required by the city cross
connection control specialist prior to final installation approval.
3. All backflow assemblies shall be tested by state certified backflow assembly testers upon
initial installation and then annually thereafter. Copies of all test reports shall be submitted to
the city water division for review and approval.
13HY. Appendix E, Accessibility Requirements, is amended by deleting Sections E107, E108, E110 and E111.
GQ Appendix G, Flood Resistai4 Caastr-uetiefi, is amended by addition of a new .
Section G301.1(4) Where base flood elevation data has not been provided or is not available
from another authoritative source, it shall be generated for subdivision proposals and other
pro posed developments which con4ain at least 50 lots or 5 acres, whichever- is le
DDZ. Appendix H, Signs, is amended as follows:
1. Section H101.2, Signs exempt from permits, is replaced by subsection (E)(1)(p) of this section
2. Section H101.2.1, Prohibited signs, is added and reads as follows:
a. It is unlawful for any person to advertise or display any visually communicated message, by
letter or pictorially, of any kind on any seating bench, or in direct connection with any bench.
b. All signs not expressly permitted by Chapter 20.60 ECDC.
c. Signs which the city engineer determines to be a hazard to vehicle or pedestrian traffic
because they resemble or obscure a traffic control device, or pose a hazard to a pedestrian
walkway or because they obscure visibility needed for safe traffic passage. Such signs shall be
immediately removed at the request of the city engineer.
d. All signs which are located within a public right-of-way and that have been improperly
posted or displayed are hereby declared to be a public nuisance and shall be subject to
immediate removal and confiscation per ECDC 20.60.090.
3. Sections H104, Identification, H106.1.1, Internally illuminated signs, H107, Combustible materials, H108,
Animated devices, H109.1, Height restrictions, and H110, Roof signs, are deleted. [Ord. 4154 § 9 (Art. D),
2019; Ord. 4111 § 2 (Exh. 2), 2018; Ord. 4029 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 4026 § 2 (Att. B), 2016; Ord. 3926 § 1
(Exh. A), 2013; Ord. 3845 § 6, 2011; Ord. 3796 § 1, 2010].
Packet Pg. 107
6.A.g
FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE — NEW EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE
(ECDC) 19-07
Mr. Lien advised that the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) new Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS)
become effective June 19t''. The FIRMS establish the floodplains within the City. They are often referred to as a 100-year
floodplain, which means there is a 1% change that a flood event will happen in any given year. He explained that the City is
required to update its flood regulations by June 19' in order to remain in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Currently, the City's flood regulations are located in three places: Critical Areas Ordinance (ECDC 23.70 — Frequently
Flooded Areas), Building Code (ECDC 19) and Shoreline Master Program (ECDC 24.40.030 — Flood Hazard Reduction).
Mr. Lien explained that the NFIP is a voluntary Federal program that enables property owners in participating communities
to purchase insurance against losses from flooding. Participation in the NFIP is based on an agreement between local
communities and the Federal Government. Local communities adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations to
reduce flood risks, which must be approved by FEMA. Once the regulations are in place, the Federal Government makes
flood insurance available to properties within the local jurisdictions.
Mr. Lien advised that floodplains are regulated based on the FIRMS, and the City's current FIRMS were adopted in 1999.
For the past several years, there has been an intensive modeling program to update the FIRMS throughout the entire United
States. For Snohomish County, the process began in 2011 with a Coastal Risk Map Project. Draft FIRMS were presented to
the County Council in 2016, but adoption was delayed when the maps were combined with the Levee Analysis and Mapping
Project. He explained that there are a large number of levees that are not certified by FEMA. With this mapping project, the
uncertified levees and lands behind them were considered within the floodway. While the levee project doesn't impact
Edmonds, it had a massive impact in some areas.
Mr. Lien said the City of Edmonds has been using the draft FIRMS since 2017, as they were adopted as the best available
information. When new development occurs along the waterfront, it is important to make sure it is done in compliance with
the flood regulations that were coming. The FIRMS were issued in February 2018, with an appeal period ending May 2018.
The City of Edmonds did not file any appeals, and FEMA sent a Letter of Final Determination to the City on December 19,
2019. The City has six months (June 19, 2020) to get its new flood regulations adopted. Despite the pandemic, FEMA has
indicated it would not delay implementation and local jurisdictions must have their flood regulations adopted by June 19' in
order to remain in the NFIP. Mr. Lien shared maps comparing the 1999 FIRMS to the 2020 FIRMS and explained each one
as follows:
Downtown Waterfront. The 1999 FIRM was limited primarily to the Edmonds Marsh with no Base Flood
Elevation (BFE). The 2020 FIRM expands the floodplain to encompass all of the waterfront, Harbor Square and
some of Salish Crossing and identifies a 12-foot BFE.
Downtown Shell Creek. The 1999 FIRM extended south to Caspers Street with no BFE. The new 2020 FIRM
limits the floodplain to the mouth of Shell Creek and identifies a 12-foot BFE.
Lake Ballinger. The new 2020 FIRM does not make any changes to this area, and it does not establish a BFE.
However, based on historical data, the City has established a BFE of 286.14 feet.
Again, Mr. Lien said the current flood management regulations are spread throughout three different sections of the code:
Critical Areas Ordinance (ECDC 23.70), Building Code (ECDC 19), and Shoreline Master Program (ECDC 24.40.030). For
example, ECDC 24.40.030 prohibits development in areas where structures (i.e. seawalls) are required to prevent flooding.
Staff has been working with FEMA and the Washington State NFIP Coordinator in drafting the regulations. With the
exception of one minor change based on an email from the Washington State NFIP Coordinator, staff believes the draft
regulations will meet FEMA standards. He reviewed the draft amendments as follows:
• ECDC 23.70 — This chapter of the Critical Areas Ordinance would be updated to reference the new FEMA FIRMS.
The current language adopts the old 1999 maps, and the initial thought was to simply change the qualifier at the end
of the maps from E to F. However, FEMA wanted the language to match the language from the model ordinance
that will be added in ECDC 19.07. As drafted, the City shouldn't have to update the section again. As the FIRMS
are updated in the future, they will be automatically adopted.
Planning Board Minutes
May 27, 2020 Page 2
Packet Pg. 108
6.A.g
ECDC 19.07 — This new chapter of the Building Code would consolidate all of the flood damage prevention
provisions into a single chapter and incorporate the elements of FEMAs Flood Damage Prevention Model Ordinance
that are applicable to Edmonds. Typically, the Planning Board doesn't review updates to the Building Code. The
Building Code was supposed to be updated by July 2020, but the pandemic caused it to be postponed until
November. The initial plan was to bring the Building Code Update and Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance
together, but when FEMA decided not to extend the deadline, the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance needed to be
moved forward now. The Building Official is the City's Floodplain Manager, and that is why the Flood Damage
Prevention Ordinance was consolidated into the Building Code.
ECDC 24.40.030. No changes have been proposed for the Shoreline Master Program.
Mr. Lien explained that, given the restrictions related to the Open Public Meeting Act (OPMA), the City is moving forward
with an interim ordinance that will be considered by the City Council on June 21. Once the Planning Board can start having
regular meetings with full public participation, the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance will be brought back for the full
public process.
Board Member Rubenkonig said she supports the proposed amendments. She has worked with floodplain information since
her first planning position. There has been no change to the premise upon which the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance is
based upon, and the Board is not being asked to evaluate that premise.
Chair Robles asked if areas could be added to the map at a later time if flooding were to occur. Mr. Lien pointed out that the
City's only designated floodplains are along the waterfront and around Lake Ballinger. While urban flooding occasionally
occurs in other areas during major storms, these areas would not be considered floodplains. At this time, the City doesn't
plan to add other properties to the FIRMS.
Chair Robles asked if owners of property in the floodplain would be required to have flood insurance when taking out a
mortgage. Mr. Lien answered that properties that are mapped as floodplains would be required to have flood insurance. If
the City isn't complaint with the NFIP, property owners within the floodplains cannot get flood insurance, and that is why the
proposed amendments are important.
Chair Robles said he has seen situations where a person with a house sitting on top of a hill in the middle of a floodplain is
required to get flood insurance when it is completely obvious that the property will never be flooded. He pointed out that the
maps are generated by computers and not validated by humans. He asked if this type of situation could potentially occur in
Edmonds. Mr. Lien said he isn't aware of any situations like this. He agreed that the maps are based largely on a model, and
there may be areas that are inappropriately mapped as a floodplain. There is a process by which a property owner can
challenge a designation and request a map change from FEMA.
Chair Robles asked if Mr. Lien is confident that the proposed amendments would not impose any adverse conditions upon
Edmonds citizens. Mr. Lien answered affirmatively. On the other hand, he said there could be an adverse condition if the
City doesn't adopt the flood regulations and property owners are no longer able to participate in the NFIP.
Board Member Cheung asked if insurance is optional for properties located in a floodplain, and Board Member Monroe
pointed out that flood insurance would be required by the mortgage broker. Board Member Cheung commented that one
potential adverse impact is if the FIRMS are overly broad, a property owner might be required to get insurance even if there is
no potential for the property to flood. On the other hand, Board Member Monroe said property owners within the floodplains
have the benefit of access to flood insurance. Again, Mr. Lien said there is a way for a property owner to challenge a FIRM.
He pointed out that the residential properties in Edmonds that are within the floodplains are primarily around Lake Ballinger,
and the FIRM for Lake Ballinger was not changed with the update.
Board Member Rubenkonig observed that, for the past 30 years, the floodplain has been based on the spillage of water across
the land, and the Army Corps of Engineers was instrumental in identifying floodplains based on historic records of where
flooding had occurred. However, the newer literature seems to focus more on lands within floodplains being capable of
containing the water. She asked if staff has noticed this change, as well. Mr. Lien said this is a philosophical discussion. The
definition of a floodplain is still based on where the water spills over the land. However, a floodplain's capacity to handle
water can be significantly impacted by impervious surface. If there is too much impervious surface, the land cannot absorb
Planning Board Minutes
May 27, 2020 Page 3
Packet Pg. 109
6.A.g
the water and it ends up flowing downstream and causing flooding. While frequently flooded areas are not a major issue for
the City of Edmonds, they are of significant concern in some areas of the country. Again, he said this is a philosophical
discussion that doesn't impact the proposed amendments before the Board. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that,
rather than dealing with spillage across the land, at some point in the future they will pay more attention to how the land can
handle the water.
Mr. Lien advised that there was one addition to the proposed amendment, which was not included in the draft that is currently
before the Board for consideration. The Washington State NFIP Coordinator was adamant that the City's regulations include
additional language related to B Flood Zones, which are coastal zones that take wave action into consideration. The language
has to do with manufactured homes and how they are strapped down. While there are no areas in the City that allow
manufactured homes near the B Flood Zones, the language is required in order to be compliant with the NFIP.
Chair Robles asked how this additional language would apply to recreational vehicles and tiny homes. Are there other types
of homes that might fit into the category of manufactured homes? Mr. Lien said there are building codes in place that deal
with regular stick -built houses. The way manufactured homes are structured and anchored is the important part. There is
zero change of a manufactured home being constructed anywhere near the floodplains. The only residential properties within
the B Flood Zones are along the north shoreline west of the railroad tracks (RS-W), and there will never be any development
within these tidelands.
BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD ACCEPT THE STAFF REPORT ON THE
FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE, INCLUDING THE NEW ECDC 19.07 AND THE ADDITIONAL
AMENDMENT ADDRESSED AT THE MAY 27TH PLANNING BOARD MEETING, AND RECOMMEND
APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL. CHAIR ROBLES SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Robles suggested the Board discuss where they left off before the pandemic and how they want to handle their agenda
items moving forward. He said he would work with the Development Services Director to review the Board's extended
agenda and identify items the Board can move forward now using the virtual format that is necessary to be compliant with
the pandemic restrictions associated with the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA). He said he is interested in learning more
about how the Board can help address issues related to the pandemic, and he believes the Planning Board should at least be
updated on the City's plans for opening parks and future programs that are within its bailiwick.
Vice Chair Rosen referred to the Board's extended agenda, which includes at least 25 items. City staff might also have other
items to add to the list that may have more sense of urgency. He suggested that staff could review the Board's extended
agenda and report at the Board's next meeting about which items can be addressed now and which ones have to wait. Board
Member Monroe concurred. It would be helpful to know what the City needs over the next several months and what the
Board can to do help.
Board Member Cheung asked if the Board is allowed to hold public hearings virtually. Mr. Chave explained that, currently,
the City is operating under the Governor's order and the accompanying OPMA restrictions. The Board has very little it can
do at this point in time. Until the Governor's order changes, the Board cannot hold meetings except on very select subjects
such as the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. Regular business, such as code amendments, is completely off limits for
the time being. Staff can review the extended agenda to see if there are any issues the Board can move forward with right
now, but the answer will likely be none. They are essentially in a holding pattern, waiting until the Governor's order
changes.
Mr. Chave explained that, at this time, the Board cannot hold public meetings that people can actually attend and participate
in. With virtual meetings, it is extremely challenging for the public to participate and follow what is going on. Until some of
the restrictions are lifted, the Board will be extremely limited in what it can do. The City Council is operating in the same
way. Their agendas are limited to issues related to the pandemic and other routine matters such as payroll. The City Council
is not taking up any new initiatives because the public is hamstrung in its ability to participate. This will change when the
Planning Board Minutes
May 27, 2020 Page 4
Packet Pg. 110
6.A.h
Councilmember Olson requested Item 5.1, Approval of Council meeting Minutes of May 26, 2020, be
removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS
3. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPTS OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM CARL STOUT,
GABRIEL MARCU AND CAROLE JOY
6. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 26, 2020 (Previously Consent
Agenda Item 5.1)
Councilmember Olson requested the following corrections:
• Packet page 9, third paragraph, first line, remove "Council" after "Council President Fraley-
Monillas"
• Same page and paragraph, second line, change "the Council" to "that Council"
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
APPROVE THE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 26, 2020 AS AMENDED. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (SUBMITTED TO PUBLICCOMMENTAEDMONDSWA.GOV)
See Attached.
7. ACTION ITEMS
1. FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE
Development Services Director Shane Hope advised the proposed interim ordinance provides flood damage
protection in the building code. It does not change the critical area ordinance or shoreline regulations, but
ensures the community can continue to be part of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The
interim ordinance needs to be adopted by June 19, 2020, with further public involvement in the future. Staff
has reviewed the interim ordinance with state and federal agencies.
Environmental Programs Manager Kernen Lien advised that Building Officer Leif Bjorback is the
Floodplain Manager for the City. Mr. Lien reviewed:
• Floodplains/Frequently Flooded Areas
o New Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) become effective June 19th
o FIRMs establish the floodplain
■ 100-year
■ 1 % chance in any given year
o City of Edmonds Flood Related Regulations
■ Chapter 23.70 ECDC — Frequently Flooded Areas
■ ECDC Title 19 — Building Code
■ SMP ECDC 24.40.030 — Flood Hazard Reduction
o City must update its flood regulations by June 19th to remain in the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
June 2, 2020
Page 2
Packet Pg. 111
6.A.h
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
o NFIP is a voluntary Federal program that enables property owners in participating communities
to purchase insurance protection against losses from flooding.
o Participation in the NFIP is based on an agreement between local communities and the Federal
Government.
■ Local community adopts and enforces floodplain management regulations to reduce flood
risks
■ Floodplain management regulations must be approved by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA)
■ Federal Government makes flood insurance available within the community as a financial
protection against flood losses
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
o Current FIRM maps adopted 1999
o Snohomish County Risk Mapping and Assessment Project
■ Coastal Risk Map project began in 2011
■ Draft FIRM maps presented to Council December 2016
■ Delays due to being combined with levee analysis and mapping project
■ City using draft FIRM maps for regulatory purposes since July 2017
■ Maps issued in February 2018 with appeal period ending in May 2018
■ Letter of Final Determination December 19, 2019
o New FIRM maps effective June 19, 2020
FIRMs of flood area downtown
o 1999 FIRM
■ No Base Flood Elevation
■ Mostly limited to Edmonds Marsh
o 2020 FIRM
■ 12 feet Base Flood Elevation
■ Encompasses all of waterfront, Harbor Square and some of Salish Crossing
FIRMs near the mouth of Shell Creek
o 1999 FIRM
■ No Base Flood Elevation
■ Extends south to Caspers
o 2020 FIRM
■ 12 feet Base Flood Elevation
■ Floodplain reduced to the mouth of Shell Creek
FIRMs of Lake Ballinger
o 1999 FIRM
■ No Base Flood Elevation
o 2020 FIRM
■ Still no established Base Flood Elevation by FEMA
■ City established Base Flood Elevation at 286.14 feet based on historical data
Existing Flood Related Regulations
o Current flood management regulations
■ Chapter 23.70 ECDC — Frequently Flooded Areas
■ ECDC Title 19 Building Code
- ECDC 19.00.025 International Building Code
- ECDC 19.05.020 International Residential Code
■ SMP ECDC 24.40.030 — Flood Hazard Reduction
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
June 2, 2020
Page 3
Packet Pg. 112
6.A.h
o Staff has been in contact with FEMA and Washington State NFIP Coordinator in drafting
compliant regulations
Proposed Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance
o Primarily a Building Code Amendment
■ Establishes construction standards for development within floodplains
■ Standards intended to prevent damage to structures should a flood occur
o Does Not Change Allowable Land Uses, Zoning, Critical Areas or Other Development
Regulations
■ Any development within floodplains must still comply with existing zoning and
development regulations
■ No policy changes related to floodplain development
o New Chapter 19.07 ECDC
■ Consolidates existing building code regulations in a single chapter
■ Incorporates elements of the Flood Damage Prevention Model Ordinance that are
applicable to the City of Edmonds
o Chapter 23.70 ECDC
■ Update ECDC 23.70.010 to reference the updated FEMA FIRM maps
■ No changes to the SMP
23.70.010 Designation, rating and mapping — Frequently flooded areas
A. Frequently Flood Areas. Frequently Flooded areas shall include:
1. The special flood hazard areas identified by the Federal Insurance Administrator in a
scientific and engineering report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study FIS) for Snohomish
County, Washington, and Incorporated Areas" dated June 19, 2020, and any revisions
thereto, with accompanying_ Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS), and any revisions
thereto, are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. The
FIS and the FIRM are on file at the Development Services Department at 121 5th Avenue
North.
The best available information for flood hazard area identification as outlined in Section
G103.3 shall be the basis for regulation until a new FIRM is issued that incorporates data
utilized under Section G103.3.
S
i
.1111
• .
. • •
11 _
1 •
WIN
I'
JBI
2. Those areas identified as frequently flooded areas on the city of Edmonds critical areas
inventory. Identified frequently flooded areas are consistent with and based upon
designation of areas of special flood hazard on FEMA flood insurance maps as indicated
above.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
June 2, 2020
Page 4
Packet Pg. 113
6.A.h
Proposed Interim Ordinance
o Interim Ordinance
■ Proposed interim ordinance to meet the June 19th deadline
■ FEMA has indicated they cannot delay the effective date of the new FIRM maps
■ The effective dates are set by legislation and federal regulations that require a community
to adopt the new Flood Insurance Study and accompanying FIRM within six months of the
issuance of the Letter of Final Determination
■ Per the latest letter from FEMA, if the City does not act by June 19th FEMA will act to
suspend the City from the NFIP
o Planning Board reviewed on May 27th and recommended approval
Next Steps
o Once OPMA restrictions are lifted, run permanent ordinance through full public process
including public hearings
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to 19.07.010 and asked where the flood damage prevention model
ordinance came from. Mr. Lien answered it was provided to the City and FEMA by David Radabaugh,
Washington State National Flood Insurance Program Coordinator. Mr. Lien advised he had provided the
model ordinance to the full Council.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to 19.07.030 and the comment "from 19.00.025" and if this information
would remain in the Internal Building Code as well. Mr. Lien explained it is being removing from 19.00.025
and will be included in 19.07.030. The purpose was to include everything in 19.07 instead of spread through
the building code.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Section 6 of the ordinance, Emergency Declaration that requires
passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the council. City Attorney Jeff Taraday
answered that was true of any emergency ordinance; emergency ordinances always require adoption by a
super majority. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if this was an emergency ordinance or an interim
ordinance or both. Mr. Taraday answered the proposal was to consider it both as an emergency ordinance
and an interim ordinance.
With regard to returning this to Council after the OPMA restrictions are lifted, Councilmember Olson asked
the methodology to ensure that occurs. Ms. Hope answered among other things, it will be scheduled on the
Council's extended agenda for later this year.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
ADOPT THE INTERIM FLOOD PREVENTION ORDINANCE NO. 4188 AS PROVIDED IN
EXHIBIT 6.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her concern about development and trees, noting the City has yet to
adopt a tree ordinance. She did not want developers to get vested and clear cut trees, not to say there were
any trees in these areas.
Councilmember Paine asked why the variance language in the model ordinance was not included. When a
public hearing is held on this ordinance, she would like to have the variance language included in the
ordinance. Mr. Lien answered that is a policy discussion for the Council, whether to allow variances to the
flood damage protection regulations and what those would look like. Currently within floodplains,
structures are required to be built 2 feet above base flood elevation which is stricter that required by FEMA.
He clarified it was not a variance to a land use, but a variance to construction standards that help prevent
flood damage. Councilmember Paine recommended the Council consider the variance language in the
model ordinance that was not included in the proposed interim ordinance. Mr. Lien said not everything in
the model ordinance was included in the interim ordinance because not all of it applied to Edmonds. For
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
June 2, 2020
Page 5
Packet Pg. 114
6.A.h
example, the model ordinance includes regulations regarding floodways; there are no floodways within
Edmonds.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. STUDY ITEMS
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT INCINERATOR REPLACEMENT PROJECT
UPDATE AND RECOMMENDATION
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained the governor's modification to the Open Public Meetings
Act restrictions provided an opportunity for Council to discuss this. This is a study item; staff is seeking
guidance from Council regarding next steps. He introduced Pamela Randolph, Wastewater Treatment Plant
Manager; Lorin Inman, Manager of Business Development Engineering, Ameresco, and Project Manager
on this project; and Dave Parry, PhD, Senior Technology Fellow, Jacobs Engineering Group, hired by the
City as an independent third parry reviewer of all the documentation and analysis that has been produced
to date in reviewing possible options to replace the incinerator. He noted Dr. Parry's resume is very
impressive; this area of wastewater treatment energy consumption usage, particularly the solids portion,
managing biosolids, energy advantages, etc. is within his area of expertise and he has been doing this for
40 years. Mr. Williams reviewed:
• Presentation Goals
o Conduct a brief overview of the various energy programs the WWTP has participated in since
2012.
o Provide a brief overview of the ESCO process
o Discuss Phase 6 — including the Carbon Recovery process, Resolution 1389 impacts, O&M
expenses, and the ESPC contracting methods
o Discuss various available approaches to biosolids management and why pyrolysis and
gasification seems to be the most promising
o Share an evaluation of two different pyrolysis and gasification - projects A and B
o Share staff recommendation and independent engineering review
o Answer questions
Energy Savings Performance Contracting (ESPC)
o An ESPC is a contract between an energy services company (ESCO) and the Washington State
Department of Enterprise Services (DES), under which the ESCO guarantees a not -to exceed
cost, system performance, and energy savings to the client (Edmonds).
o Under this program:
■ Major project risks are shifted from client to the ESCO
■ ESCO provides single -source of accountability and enhances customer control of
equipment & sub -contractor selection
■ DES manages contract and provides oversight
■ Reduces future energy costs and uses the savings to pay for infrastructure improvements
implemented today
Energy Incentives, Grants and Performance
0 2010 Plant staff began working with SNO PUD and entered into an Energy Challenge — since
then we have received approximately $304,000 in PUD revenue to complete energy efficiency
projects. We anticipate the Carbon Recovery project incentive is estimated to be $20,000
o The project will receive a $250,000 grant from the Department of Commerce
o We anticipate another round of Department of Commerce funding this year. The project should
rank very high
Graphic of Pathway to Sustainability at WWTP
o Phase 3 — High Efficiency Blower
■ Project saves $33,909/year and 345 tons CO2 equivalent to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
June 2, 2020
Page 6
Packet Pg. 115
6.A.i
FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE — NEW CHAPTER 19.07 ECDC
Mr. Lien reviewed that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) adopted new Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRMS), which became effective June 19', and the City was required to update its flood regulations prior to that date.
However, pandemic -related restrictions to the Open Public Meetings Act prevented the City from following the normal
process for code updates. The City Council adopted an interim ordinance that allowed the City to remain in the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Now that some of the restrictions have been lifted, the updated Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance (FDPO) is being reviewed for adoption as a permanent ordinance.
Mr. Lien explained that the NFIP is a voluntary federal program that enables property owners in participating communities to
purchase insurance protection against loss from flooding. Participation in the NFIP is an agreement between local
communities and the federal government. Local communities adopt and enforce the floodplain management regulations,
which must be approved by FEMA. FEMA then makes flood insurance available to properties within the community. He
displayed the old FIRMS (Attachment 3) that were adopted in 1999 and the new FIRMS (Attachment 4). He advised that,
under the old FIRMS, the floodplain was largely confined to the Edmonds Marsh and along the shoreline. The updated
FIRMS expand the floodplain to cover much of the waterfront area, including Harbor Square and portions of the Salish
Crossing site. On the updated FIRMS, the extent of the floodplain along Shell Creek was reduced to include just the mouth of
the creek. There were no changes to the floodplain around Lake Ballinger.
Mr. Lien reviewed that, prior to the interim ordinance, the City's flood regulations were sprinkled throughout the code
(Building Code, Critical Area Code and Shoreline Master Program), and the interim ordinance consolidated the regulations
into a new chapter in the Building Code (ECDC 19.07). With the exception of modifications to ECDC 19.00.025
(International Building Code) and ECDC 19.05.020 (International Residential Code), most of the other changes came from
the Flood Damage Prevent Model Ordinance (FDPMO) that was put together by FEMA. There was one minor change to the
Critical Area Code for frequently flooded areas (ECDC 23.70) to reference the most recently updated FIRMS.
Mr. Lien recalled that when the interim ordinance and code changes were presented to the City Council, they had some
questions about the FDPMO, particularly why more of it wasn't included in ECDC 19.07. He explained that the model
ordinance he used to prepare the interim ordinance was a draft version. Since that time, he requested and received an updated
version of the model ordinance, and he and the Building Official reviewed it to identify the provisions that are applicable to
the City of Edmonds and should be included in ECDC 19.07. Many of the provisions in the model ordinance are not
applicable to the City. He referred to the updated code language provided in the Staff Report as Attachment 5, which is a red
line/strike out version of the draft ordinance. He reviewed the changes as follows:
• ECDC 19.07.020 — Definitions. New definitions were added for basement, functionally dependent use, lowest
floor, manufactured home, start of construction, substantial damage, substantial improvement, variance and water
surface elevation.
ECDC 19.07.025 — Administration. Language was added to identify the Building Official as the Floodplain
Administrator. It also lays out the application requirements and the duties and responsibilities of the Floodplain
Administrator.
ECDC 19.07.030 — International Building Code (IBC) and ECDC 19.07.040 International Residential Code
(IRC). These two sections were included in the interim ordinance, but some changes have been made. These
sections have to do with reconstruction after damage or demolition has occurred. The sections in the interim
ordinance dealt with damage within the floodway, but there are no floodways in Edmonds. As proposed, ECDC
19.07.030(B) would read, `Any residential or commercial structure located in a flood hazard area, that is
destroyed, damaged or demolished in an amount equal to 50 percent or more of its replacement cost at the time of
destruction, shall not be reconstructed except in full conformance with all provisions of this chapter and other local,
state and federal regulations. " This same language is proposed to be added to ECDC 19.07.040(B). He explained
that the proposed language mirrors the City's nonconforming code, except it places the threshold at 50 percent and
the nonconforming code places the threshold at 75 percent. Staff feels that a 50 percent threshold is appropriate due
to the safety issues associated with development within the flood zone. There is language in the model ordinance
that identifies 50 percent, as well.
Planning Board Minutes
August 12, 2020 Page 2
Packet Pg. 116
6.A.i
• ECDC 19.07.065 — Changes to Special Flood Hazard Areas. In the model ordinance, this language was included
in the administrative section. However, these regulations are not under the Floodplain Administrator's purview, so
they were given a separate section in the City's version of the ordinance.
• ECDC 19.07.110 — Variance. The City Council requested that language be added related to variances.
• General Requirement for Other Development. This language is included in the model ordinance, but was not
included in the draft ordinance (Attachment 5). The language will be added prior to the public hearing and is
intended to be a catch-all for other development.
Mr. Lien advised that the interim ordinance was adopted in June and expires in November. A public hearing is scheduled
before the Planning Board on September 2nd. Following the Planning Board's recommendation, the draft ordinance will be
presented to the City Council on September 221, followed by a public hearing on October 6r''. The goal is to adopt the
permanent ordinance before the interim ordinance expires.
Board Member Monroe noted that the document is inconsistent as to whether or not "Floodplain Administrator" is
capitalized. He asked if the language is consistent with the model ordinance that was provided by FEMA and consistent with
flood damage prevention ordinances from other jurisdictions throughout the country. Mr. Lien said he doesn't know if it is
consistent with jurisdictions throughout the country, but it is consistent with the model ordinance that was adopted by the
Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE). The model ordinance may be different in other areas of the country.
Board Member Monroe asked if the language has been vetted so that property owners in the City are not placed at a
competitive disadvantage per other communities in the area. Mr. Lien said he does not believe that will be an issue.
Vice Chair Rosen asked if the 50 percent threshold used in ECDC 19.07.030 and 19.07.040 came from the model ordinance
or if it is unique to the City of Edmonds. Mr. Bjorback responded that it is not unique to Edmonds. There is parallel
language in the IRC that establishes a similar requirement for buildings that are torn down for damage more than 50 percent
of their replacement costs. The number can be backed up by other sections, as well. Staff attempted to be consistent with the
model ordinance that was prepared by FEMA, as well as the model building codes.
Chair Robles asked who would be responsible for adjudicating whether or not the 50 percent threshold has been reached. Mr.
Bjorback said this would be the responsibility of the Floodplain Administrator (Building Official). Chair Robles asked if
there is a process for a property owner to appeal the Floodplain Administrator's decision. Mr. Bjorback said he is not a
professional estimator for construction costs, and he depends on the contractor for the project to come up with a cost
breakdown. The replacement costs of the various elements of the structure that have been damaged or removed are compared
to the pre -damaged value of the structure. He agreed, however, that there is some subjectivity when determining if the
contractor's numbers are reasonable. If the number is less than 50 percent, the applicant can proceed with the opportunities
the code affords, if the number is 50 percent or more, the applicant will have to reconstruct the house to meet the current
standards. Chair Robles noted that many situations will be easily determined, but others will be more difficult. Again, he
asked if there would be a process for appeal. Mr. Bjorback said there is an appeal process. He referred to ECDC
19.07.010(E) and said appeals of the Building Official's determination would be forwarded to the Hearing Examiner process.
Board Member Cheung asked how the proposed ordinance would impact property values. Neither Mr. Lien or Mr. Bjorback
could answer this question. However, Mr. Lien said that owners of property within the new floodplains have been contacted
by FEMA. Whether or not a property is located within a floodplain is not the City's decision to make. This is called out by
FEMA. Board Member Cheung asked if property values are likely to go down as a result of the ordinance, and Mr. Bjorback
responded that is desirable to have flood insurance. If your community is participating in the insurance program, that would
only be a positive to property value. Chair Robles commented that the more valuable condition is being located outside of
the floodplain, and he assumes that a property value would decrease if a property is determined to be within the floodplain.
For properties within the floodplain, the only option for insurance is via the federal government.
Chair Robles asked if the expanded borders in the new maps are intended to address climate change or if they attempt to
mitigate other events, as well. Mr. Lien responded that a study of the coastal areas was done, and the new maps are more
precise than the old maps. The Coastal Flood Hazard Project started in 2011, and all of the coastlines in Snohomish County
were surveyed. The new maps considered wind data where the old maps did not. The old maps used water level gauge data
Planning Board Minutes
August 12, 2020 Page 3
Packet Pg. 117
6.A.i
and the updated maps used a different model. The old approach had a one-dimensional wave model and the new approach
used a two-dimensional wave model. The old maps used the USDS contour lines, and the new maps used lidar data. The
calculations for the new maps were more complex, as well. The idea was to update the maps based on new information and
technology. Climate change was not specifically addressed, but the City considered climate change when modifying the base
height requirements.
Chair Robles asked if there as a net gain, net loss or simply a shifting of the borders of the floodplain areas. Mr. Lien said the
floodplain was expanded in the downtown waterfront area. However, the floodplain along Shell Creek was decreased to
include just the mouth of the creek. The floodplain boundaries at Lake Ballinger were not changed. Chair Robles asked if
people who will no longer need to have insurance have been notified, and Mr. Lien said the City has not notified these
property owners.
Mr. Lien referred to the 50 percent threshold and said the City's definition for "substantial damage" is slightly different that
the definition in the model ordinance. The City uses the replacement cost for the structure where the model ordinance uses
the market value of the structure. The proposed language lines up with the existing nonconforming code and is consistent
with the City's current practice. In addition, the model ordinance includes an exception to the 50 percent threshold and the
draft ordinance does not. The definition for "substantial change" in the model ordinance includes an exemption for "Any
project for improvement of a structure to correct previously identified existing violations of state or local health, sanitary, or
safety code specifications that have been identified by the local code enforcement official and that are the minimum
necessary to assure safe living condition. " He explained that, as per the model ordinance, if an entire building within the
floodplain is condemned, the minimum necessary to bring it up to standard would be to reconstruct the building. The 50
percent rule would not apply and the building could be reconstructed without meeting the current flood damage protection
regulations. Staff felt that, given safety issues within the floodplains, it would be appropriate to more restrictive. Mr. Lief
added that a representative from the Department of Ecology (DOE) raised this same question, and staff pointed out that there
may be a loophole in the model ordinance language that could lead to unintended results. Based on that explanation, the
DOE indicated support for the City's proposed language.
Chair Robles voiced concern that, as currently presented, the public might not be sufficiently informed about this change and
its potential impact to them. He asked how this provision could be amplified to generate the discussion needed to make a
good decision. Mr. Lien said the red line draft would be available to the public as part of the public hearing packet, and he
would highlight this section at the public hearing, as well as when the draft ordinance is presented to the City Council.
Board Member Rubenkonig referred to ECDC 19.07.000, which outlines the purpose of the ordinance. When she read the
scenarios addressed in Items B through E, she thought of a future time. She suggested the word "future" should be added to
the four sentences after the word "minimize." Mr. Lien explained that the regulations will only apply to new development
that happens in the future. Any new development within the floodplains will be subject to the regulations. He cautioned that
"future" is a relative term. The regulations apply not just to future development, but development that is happening at the
time. Adding "future" would be an unfortunate choice, because its meaning is vague. Board Member Rubenkonig said she
was struggling to make Items B through E more specific, as she felt they were rather nebulous. However, she understands
staffs point of view and would accept the recommendation. Mr. Bjorback said the City's ordinance can vary somewhat from
the model ordinance, particularly for provisions that do not apply to the City's situation. However, the language in this
section is consistent with what FEMA has proposed for local jurisdictions to adopt.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the modified and additional definitions proposed in ECDC 19.07.020 were prepared by
the staff or if they came from the City Council. Mr. Lien said the definitions are new additions since the interim ordinance
was adopted. With the exception of Item AA (Substantial Improvement), the definitions came directly from the model
ordinance. He explained that, as new sections from the model ordinance were added into the code, definitions were added for
the new terms.
Board Member Rubenkonig referred to ECDC 19.07.030 and 19.07.040 and suggested that, when referencing the IBC and
IRC, the ordinance should include citation to which version of the two codes is applicable and provide information about how
an individual could procure copies of the two documents. Mr. Bjorback explained that ECDC 19.07 will be strategically
placed next to the adopted sections of the IBC and IRC. Title 19 gets updated for Building Code adoptions on a frequent
basis, including references to the appropriate versions of the IBC and IRC. Currently, both the City and the State have
Planning Board Minutes
August 12, 2020 Page 4
Packet Pg. 118
6.A.i
adopted the 2015 IBC, and it is anticipated that the 2018 version will be adopted by both the City and the State by February
2021. Board Member Rubenkonig said she is concerned that the code is clear and understandable to the people who use it,
but she would yield to staffs recommendation that the current language is sufficient. Mr. Bjorback said that the two codes
can be accessed via the Building Division's webpage. Board Member Rubenkonig questioned if adding the links to the code
would be helpful. Mr. Bjorback said staff will assist applicants, as it takes someone with knowledge of codes to navigate
through the relevant sections.
Next, Board Member Rubenkonig referred to ECDC 19.07.065, which relates to Special Flood Hazard Areas. She suggested
that the abbreviation (SFHA) should be added to the heading in parenthesis. Mr. Lien agreed to make that change.
Board Member Rubenkonig referred to ECDC 19.07.110(D)(1) and questioned the meaning of the phrase "written notice
over the signature of a community official. " She asked if this is a legal phrase that is used in such circumstances wherein the
Building Official signs over the written notice to make it official. Mr. Bjorback said neither he nor Mr. Lien are familiar with
the term. If they get to the point of invoking this code section, they would consult with the City Attorney. At a glance, it
looks like it takes a written document with a wet signature.
Lastly, Board Member Rubenkonig referred to ECDC 19.07.110(D)(1)(a) and said she would prefer the word "could" rather
than "will." She also suggested that the dollar figures should be removed. She suggested the language should read, "The
issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the BFE could result in increased premium rates. " Mr. Lien said the
language came straight from FEMA's model ordinance, and FEMA is responsible for insuring properties within the
floodplains. Building in the floodplain below the Base Flood Elevation (BSE) puts properties at a higher risk for damage,
and it will result in increased premiums. Board Member Rubenkonig said she supports language informing that premium
will be higher, but there is no need to include dollar figures. Premiums change frequently. Mr. Lien said he would consult
with the representative from the DOE regarding this proposed change.
Vice Chair Rosen pointed out that the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance is on the Board's extended agenda for a public
hearing on September 9r''. He commented that public engagement and transparency is high on everyone's priority list, and
traditional notification might not be adequate, particularly for people in effective areas. He asked about staff s plan for public
notice and if there are plans to do a higher outreach for property owners within the floodplain areas. Mr. Lien said it is
possible to do a postcard notice to all of properties in the flood zones. Vice Chair Rosen agreed that would be appropriate.
The City can't do wrong by over inviting public comment.
Board Member Pence asked how many property owners would need to be notified. Mr. Lien said that the Port owns most of
the waterfront area, and he has already forwarded information to the Port's Executive Director. The mailings would go
primarily to the properties around Lake Ballinger, more in the dozens rather than the 100s. Board Member Pence said he
shares the concern about the best way to notify people about issues like this. A postcard might be sufficient if it had a link to
the project page that provides a layman's description of what the proposed ordinance involves. The more useful information
the City can get to the public before the hearing, the better. This will lead to a more intelligent discussion at the public
hearing. Mr. Lien suggested the notice could provide a link to the City's agenda website, which provides access to the
agenda before the public hearing. The postcard could provide a brief explanation of the proposal, and the agenda would
provide links to the model ordinance, flood maps, the draft ordinance, etc. His contact information would also be included on
the notice, and people could call him for more information.
As a land use consultant, Board Member Rubenkonig asked about the Planning Department's perspective on sending notice
to others in the development field. Is it common for the Planning Department to reach out to those who regularly propose
projects within the City to apprise them of proposed changes? Mr. Lien said the City doesn't always reach out to those in the
development field when doing code updates. Other jurisdictions in Snohomish County have had to update their Flood
Damage Prevention Ordinances, as well, and they have also struggled with accomplishing the task in light of the restrictions
associated with the Open Public Meetings Act. There are very limited floodplains in the City (Lake Ballinger and the
waterfront), but Snohomish County has much bigger task and their update will affect significantly more property owners.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked how the updated ordinance would be presented on the City's website once it is formally
adopted by the City Council, and Mr. Lien answered that it would be codified in the City's code. Board Member Rubenkonig
asked if it would come up on the City's website as a newsflash so people could take notice. Mr. Bjorback suggested it could
Planning Board Minutes
August 12, 2020 Page 5
Packet Pg. 119
6.A.i
be listed in the "What's New" section under the Development Services Department's webpage. Mr. Lien said it could also be
announced in the Mayor's newsletter.
Chair Robles asked if the City Council would also hold a public hearing on the draft ordinance before formal adoption, and
Mr. Lien answered affirmatively. It is currently listed on their extended agenda for October 6t1i. Chair Robles observed that
if interested parties participate in the Planning Board's public hearing, they can hash out their issues so they are better
prepared for the City Council hearing.
DISCUSSION ON DEVELOPMENT CODE WORK, INCLUDING ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) CHARGING
INFRASTRUCTURE, TREE CODE AND OTHER POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS
Mr. Chave advised that there are few code issues coming before the Board in the next few months. Mr. Lien is working on
the Tree Code Update, which is scheduled for a presentation to the Board in September. Staff is also working on the Climate
Goals Project. In addition, staff has started to work on site development related to EV charging. The City is a member of a
regional code collaboration group where research was presented on EV charging issues (Attachment 1). Staff is seeking
feedback from the Board in advance of drawing up proposed code amendments. The City's code already has some
provisions for EV charging in the General Commercial (CG) Zone along Highway 99. In addition, the City follows the 2018
Washington State Building Code, which also has some requirements for multifamily developments.
Mr. Chave said the research (Attachment 1) explains that it is a lot less expensive to provide the infrastructure upfront when a
development is happening as opposed to retrofitting after the fact. It adds some incremental cost to housing, but given that
EV charging use is increasing, there appears to be a future demand. If the City is attempting to maximize the things it does to
reduce emissions and improve response to climate change, EV charging fits within that range of actions. The research
provides a lot of helpful information, and some is particular to the region. It outlines the types of installations that are being
done and the approaches to pursue. He invited the Board Members to share their thoughts relative to the research.
Board Member Cheung asked if staff has information about the usage of the current EV charging ports. Mr. Chave said he
doesn't, but he could try to gather that information and present it at a later time. Board Member Cheung commented that
having this information could help the City make a stronger case to support future code requirements. Mr. Chave said they
have been used less in recent months because of the pandemic. But anecdotally, there are a few charging spots in the City's
public parking lot, and they are frequently used.
Board Member Crank asked what the prioritization would be around providing EV infrastructure in business areas. There are
some in the downtown bowl around the retail area, but she hasn't seen them in other retail areas outside of the downtown.
She asked if there would be an approach that would make sure the spaces are also available in other commercial areas in the
City. Mr. Chave said a lot of the focus has been on residential charging infrastructure since people need places to charge
them, especially overnight when they are home. It also makes sense to have charging infrastructure in commercial zones, but
the public side is more challenging. Some businesses have installed the infrastructure on their properties, and it might make
sense to have a threshold requirement for larger commercial areas.
Board Member Crank said EV infrastructure could be considered as an element of economic development. The City has
been advertising in a variety of magazines and news outlets, inviting people to visit Edmonds. If the goal is to bring people
to the City to shop and spend money, they need to provide opportunities for EV charging. She cautioned against focusing
solely on the downtown commercial areas.
Board Member Monroe asked how much input the Planning Board would have when it comes to EV requirements. It seems
this would fall under the purview of the Mayor's Climate Protection Committee. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that
amendments to the Development Code fall under the purview of the Planning Board, and the Planning Board is charged with
making a recommendation to the City Council.
Board Member Monroe said he is in favor of being as aggressive as possible. Future -proofing makes a lot of sense, and he
suggested that perhaps EV infrastructure should be required for 25% of all new development (both commercial and
residential). Sound Transit will be giving the City money to address parking, and it is important that this includes a sufficient
Planning Board Minutes
August 12, 2020 Page 6
Packet Pg. 120
6.A.j
From:
ROBERT BOYE
To:
Lien, Kernen
Subject:
flood damage prevention ordinance
Date:
Friday, August 28, 2020 5:03:51 PM
Hello Kermen,
My name is Bob Boye, resident of a home riparian to Lake Ballinger. I would like to
submit my comments to the Planning Board regarding a flood damage prevention
ordinance,
My written comments will be through e-mail. The exhibits will be delivered to you by
'snail mail'.
Geographic background of Lake Ballinger.
Lake Ballinger, Halls Lake, and other low land lakes, were formed by the weight of
fourteen -hundred feet of glacier ice as it ground its way to the sixteen -hundred foot
level of the Cascade Mountains.
Historical development of Lake Ballinger.
When Judge Ballinger platted the thirty-one lots, including nine lots on the Nile
Temple property, the entire Lake Ballinger (Lake McAleer) watershed extending
northward to present day Lynnwood was completely covered by dense Douglas Fir,
Cedar, and Hemlock trees. Flooding was non-existent.
The platting included a wier at the headwaters of the outflow creek (McAleer
Creek). This wier was designed to maintain a higher level of water in the lake during
the harvesting of Cedar trees by a lumber mill. The seasonal elevation of the lake
was established by court order in 1941. The wier was maintained by a property
owner at the southeast corner of the lake by simply adding or subtracting three two -
by -twelve boards.
When the Nile Temple constructed its access road, McAleer Creek was diverted
into a circular culvert and under court order was to allow thirty cubic feet of water to
pass through it each second. At that time the Lake Ballinger Watershed was still a
wooded wilderness with only the Interurban and highway 99 impacting its ability to
absorb rain.
During the fifties and sixties the Lake Ballinger Watershed was impacted by
roadways, commercial development, residential structures, schools, and public
facilities. Rainwater carrying pollutants flooded into Lake Ballinger causing the State
of Washington to declare it the most degraded lake in the State. The residents
riparian to the lake suffered increasing flooding year after year.
The culvert under the access road to Nile Temple was not able to handle the
increase rising of the lake and when the level of the lake rose above the culvert the
Packet Pg. 121
6.A.j
roadway itself became the final barrier.
Flooding reached a critical point in the winter of 1996 and 97 when seven inches
of rain fell in a three day period following eighteen inches of snow on the ground. The
lake rose six feet'above its adjudicated level flooding a half dozen homes at the
southwest corner of the lake. The attached picture shows the water level of the
Yarnell home. They were able to float a canoe in the front room.
In 1997 the homeowners riparian to Lake Ballinger (The Lake Ballinger
Community Club) took the City of Mountlake Terrace to court over its desire to
change the levels of the lake adjudicated back in the thirties. Exhibit #1 describes its
outcome. It did nothing to address the flooding.
It was obvious to everyone that the Nile Temple roadbed and the culvert was the
real problem. Residents began work with the City of Mountlake
Terrace to address that issue. The City of Mountlake Terrace Engineering
Department headed by Mike Shaw drew up a schematic (Exhibit #2) that accurately
displayed the past and present flooding caused by the Nile's roadway.
The upperhand corner of Exhibit #2 accurately shows the new adjudicated levels
Center left shows the level of the lake flooding the Yarnel and Fahey homes. That
brick pyramid -like structure accurately shows the levels of the lake at various stages
of flooding... especially the flooding of 1997.
The situation of the roadway and culvert did not change until five years ago when
The City of Mountlake Terrace completely removed the roadway and culvert replacing
it with a bridge. The attached picture shows that roadway and the resulting
enlargement of the creek bed Since that day flooding of the lake has almost
disappeared. The lake rises one foot for each inch of rain. We've had hard periods of
rain during those five years but the most the lake has risen is under two feet. The
Yarnell, Fahey, and several others in that low corner of the lake have not even been
close to being impacted. The rest of homes bordering the lake sit on a rise ten to
twenty feet above the lake.
Given my testimony I would like to recommend to the Planning Board that it
remove Lake Ballinger from any flood damage prevention designation.
Thank you,
Robert G. Boye
24325 76th Ave. W.
Edmonds, Wa 98026
bobboye@comcast.net
P.S. Kernen, I'll put copies of the two exhibits in the mail tomorrow.
Packet Pg. 122
fF_7 x Io 4- 14-: I
-
-JelimttledjseIeveI
s
U 'S P te wer iak ".
gV
,By SCOT!,TWj,FORS UND ween Edmonds residents who live on
to 'speak at the meeting, :told coan-
,,EDMONDS—..,A dispute at, last Lake Ballinger and the 'City
cilmeimbers that his city wanted to
.of,
week's CitjtCounbil meeting bet- Mountlake -Terrace, ended up in a
see. the lake 'elevation dropped to,
last-minute tompr9inise during a.
277.3,feet.-:"Whenever.the lake rises
Snohmish County Superior Court
above 277.8 feet; 'said Rautenberg,
proceeding last Friday.
"the seventh 'fairway of the(Ball-
The dispute arose .over .a single
ingpi) golf course is 'flooded .with
foot of water.Ahe uppermost foot of
water." The golf course belongs to
water on Lake Ballinger.
the City of Mountlake Terrace.
Edmonds lakefront resident Bob
-'The, matter became an' issue as
Boye told the Edmonds City Council
Aesigni'engineers prepared to, imple-
last week that most of his neighbors
ment the second,phase ofa*project to
wanted the summer lake- elevation
rejuvinate Lake,.Ballingen The'pro-,
at 27&5 feet, the ilevel decided upon
jeci 'u'Allizes Iw6 pipes._one,to tarr Y._�,
I
in a . -1942 Superior Court rul-
oxygen- . and nutrient -rich water
ing."Many of. Vs have developed our
-from Hills.Cre'ek,the-lake's major
property and. built docks 4n ac-
water supply,, to the, lake bottom;
coidance with ..that 4(-year old ral-
the otherpipe tot , arrylpho.sphorous.,
ing,"Boyet6.ld:counciltiienibe'rs.',
rich 'bottom water, which fuels lake-
c.hoking algal blooms, out of the lake
MOUNTLAKE TERRACE city
and. into the. major outlet stream,
engineer Carl :Rautenberg, also R in-
McAleer 'Creek-
vited-bithe Edmonds City"Counefl-"
'The 'Department of Ecology,.
which will provide major funding;
.designated Mountlake Terrace. "as
the lead agency. $0 Mountlake.'Ter-,.:-';
race engineer Rautenberg intended
to adapt theIntake and discharge.
structures to a lake -level of his own
city's liking-277.1 feet.
But. when the Departin . ent of
Ecology set a court date to request
-minor changes on another part of the
'1942 coo rulin&'.angry Edmonds
residents -threatened to argue their
own case befo ii the same judge.. '
Last Friday, morning, on-advidebf.
Superior Court Judge Dennis Britt,
both parties reluctantly agreed to
The Court then officially he-a-Rdthe,
compromise --a summer elevatidn',of
between -277.5 :and 2718 feet; -and
recorded it. Judge,Brittis expedted
to sign.ihe official court d* *
7�eb..18. . court
Packet Pg. 123
FE)c h , ;t *I::-- a -�
Court donor
27 ® 277.8
277.6 277.8
27&8 277°8
Fairy
1981 Wegroed told levels ®f Luke Ballenger,
relying on the good falth of Mountlake Terrace
to regulate accordingly.
Apol l - June 15
Jane 15 - Sept. 95
Sept 85 - Oct. 31
Oct.31 - Aprl/ b
raMeIIr
Water from Halls Greer
entrance pipe pushes
oxygen -rich waiter to
bottom of Lake Ballenger
Syphon pipe pU198 algae, -nola
water from bottom of Lake
�llenger to McAleer Creek
0
IS
Halls Creek
Bermed to prmdde head for entrance pipe a
��
ftrofbam filled tires anchored to botbm
McAleer Creek
weir
0
a>
E
0
0
0
U-
c
0
a>
syphon control value L
0
a�
x
°
as 0
a
a ++
C
° y
E
Road °Dam" over lO&AWr Cr Freeway Embankment o 0
2831 ° v
Flood Level,
Jan. 1997 '
IL
Debda clogged o fflow
277So _ l o ------------- 1-- ----- O
% — ---
27'6°5' - - - --- - -- -- - — -S -- ° c il�
above Sea Level
weir, installed 19912
400' - I -- IOT - weir to road
1700'
a t
° ° fl
.r
a Q
c
Reoc curl g Berm - removed In 1982
V
R
r+
a�
- Q —
Packet Pg. 124
S• S
r
!
' ,Ao-,.
I s '
�,, wr
r►,,
t kit 4
xs
r r�
oil I
I
jj
+ !+ 1
r�
w
i
L
W._ - .._ _ r -.
{ Y oft,
i
Olson
1
1
4!4 }, T
, � � r� * �+�R `� � �7f s �?'�' ` + '7���, may, . ':rrr• !r �'. ' - �- ..r; l .. � - ti
sit At4
711
> � .i,
`w' 44 `
14
}.,N� 1 i �S � `'' • �� l . `w ' 1r l'1'� �i-f �1 , ' r 1'1 • a � '� ,F k!k�� +
�I�' 1 1 +4' ,1i511�t� l'y'S'�Y4• E'� �h i �`ki , _ I .,�`,� � 1 }'
� , , . i" i' . j f r ', 1 � + � !!",,� • � , �. fs � 1 • � � jIVIS, + °1 ' ! I I�1 pr� A#"1
4 . �. ` ! . i � •� .I+L��`^ + , ��d� , , 1 '+r i +;yr� �' i'li', .. , ' 1, . W : u � , 1 . '��� �. , ,
:7
oft
8.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/9/2020
Tree Regulations Code Process Update
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Kernen Lien
Background/History
See narrative.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
The City of Edmonds adopted an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) in July 2019 which included
goals and policy guidance for tree retention within the City. A code update process has started to begin
implementing portions of the UFMP.
Attachment 1 provides an outline of topics and possible concepts that will be explored with the Planning
Board in review and updating of the City's tree related regulations. These broad topics include:
Tree retention during development - Including: exploring low impact development principles
that may provide more flexibility in development in order to retain trees, specific tree retentions
standards during development, and providing incentives for tree retention
Establishing a tree fund into which development contributions or tree penalties can be tracked
and the proceeds spent on tree planting and preservation
Reviewing penalties for illegal tree cutting
Moving the main tree regulations for private property into the Natural Resources title of the
City's development code
Reviewing the existing permitting structure and exemptions for tree removal on currently
developed property
The goal is to have draft code and recommendation from the Planning Board by the end of 2020.
The Citizens Tree Board was briefed on the code update topics at its August 6th meeting and will be
consulted periodically as the code specifics are developed further.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Edmonds Tree Regulations Update Topic Matrix
Packet Pg. 127
8.A.a
2020 Edmonds Tree Regulations Update —Topic Matrix
Topic
Existing Code
Possible Amendment Concepts
Tree Retention
ECDC 18.45.050 notes that "trees shall be retained to the maximum extent feasible."
One of the primary concerns we've heard with regard to tree removal in the City of Edmonds is when trees are
cleared from a site during the subdivision and/or development of properties. The City could explore regulations
The critical area code has a 30% retention of native vegetation requirement for
that require a certain amount of trees to be retained and/or planted when a site is developed. If trees are removed
properties in the RS-12 and RS-20 zones being subdivided if associated with landslide
beyond an established threshold, developers may be required to pay into the Tree Fund.
hazard areas, streams, or wetlands (ECDC 23.90.040.C).
Apart from the 30% native vegetation requirement in the critical area code, there is no
specific tree retention requirement for properties within the City of Edmonds.
Low Impact Development
Low impact development (LID) in the City development code is primarily related to
One of the primary concerns we've heard with regard to tree removal in the City of Edmonds is when trees are
stormwater management. ECDC 18.30.010 (definitions related to stormwater code)
cleared from a site during the subdivision and/or development of properties. One way to maintain more trees on
defines low impact development as "a stormwater and land use strategy that strives to
the site is to employ LID planning principles in the subdivision process. Current subdivision and zoning standards do
mimic predisturbance hydrologic processes of infiltration, filtration, storage,
not allow much flexibility and by the time the required access, setbacks/developable area, and utilities are applied
evaporation and transpiration by emphasizing conservation, use of on -site features, site
to a site, often must of the trees end up being removed. Some flexibility during subdivision design that may be
planning, and distributed stormwater management practices that are integrated into a
explored include flexible setbacks (e.g. modify interior setbacks while maintaining standard exterior setbacks),
project design." However, low impact develop principles may be applied much broader,
cluster developments, flexible lot design (altering lot width and/size requirements while maintaining the underlying
for instance ECDC 24.90.030 (shoreline master program definitions) defines LID
zoning density).
principles as "land use management strategies that emphasize conservation, use of on -
site natural features, and site planning to minimize impervious surfaces, native
vegetation loss, and stormwater runoff."
Tree Fund
The City of Edmonds currently does not have a dedicated Tree Fund
Establishing a Tree Fund will be part of the update. Tree Fund management will likely be established in a new
chapter located in Title 3 ECC. How money makes it into the tree fund and what the funds may be spent on will
have to be explored.
Potential funding options include tree cutting violation penalties, dollar amount per tree removed during
subdivisions (see Tree Retention), or deposit for replacement trees not planted to meet retention requirement (see
Tree Retention topic).
Tree fund could be used to issue tree vouchers (money to purchase trees for planting), planting trees elsewhere in
the City, funding tree education activities, or other tree related activity.
Incentives
There are currently not incentives to retain trees or plant trees within the City code.
The Urban Forest Management Plan included a specific goal to incentivize protecting and planting trees on private
property which included:
A. Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds
B. For properties that retain a certain amount of tree canopy cover, explore establishment of:
i. A property tax "rebate" applicable to the City portion of property taxes; and/or
ii. A stormwater utility fee reduction; and/or
iii. Other techniques that provide a financial recognition of the benefits of tree planting and protection.
C. Develop a certification/awards program to publicly recognize property owners that maintain a certain amount or
type of healthy trees
Allowing more flexibility during development of site, such as discussed in the LID topic, also provides an incentive to
retain more trees during development.
Page 1 of 2
Packet Pg. 128
8.A.a
Topic
Existing Code
Possible Amendment Concepts
Tree Definitions
ECDC 18.45.040 currently defines tree as "any living woody plant characterized by one
Trees may be defined a number of ways and regulations applied to only certain types of trees. Examples include
main stem or trunk and many branches and having a caliper of six inches or greater, or a
"significant tree", "protected tree", "landmark tree", "heritage tree", or "street tree". Additionally, some
multi -stemmed trunk system with a definitely formed crown."
jurisdiction except certain species of trees from their tree regulation requirements (such as red alder). Tree
definitions will be explored.
Permits/Tree Cutting Review for
Currently exemptions from permitting requirements are located in ECDC 18.45.030.
The disparity in application fees and process between existing single-family and multi-family/commercial properties
Existing Developed Properties
Generally speaking, developed single-family properties with no critical areas are exempt
should be addressed.
from tree cutting permits. If there are critical areas present and the tree is not
determined to be a hazard tree (ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b) then a permit is required to cut
The current exemption list contains some dated language and inconsistencies with the critical area code. As such
a tree (which includes topping). When a permit is required on single family properties,
the exempt activities should be reviewed. Another exemption consideration should be given to nuisance tree
it is a Type II staff decision with notice. Type II permits cost $1,010 ($970 application
removal. For example, a tree that is not considered a hazard tree but continually damages sewer lines or is buckling
fee plus $40 technology fee). In addition to the application fee additional costs may
a driveway with its roots may be removed without a permit similar to a hazard tree.
include arborist reports and/or critical area reports such a geotechnical report.
For existing multi -family and commercial properties tree cutting is reviewed a Type I
design review to ensure the property would still comply with the landscaping
requirements of Chapter 20.13 ECDC. Type I permits cost $315 ($275 application fee
plus $40 technology fee). If critical areas are present, additional reports may be
required.
Hazard tree removal does not require a permit, but does require review by staff. There
are no City fees associated with a hazard tree removal review, however there is cost to
an applicant to hire an arborist to document the tree as a hazard tree.
Penalties/Fines
Violations and penalties for tree cutting violations are currently contained in ECDC
The code currently defines a tree as any living woody plant characterized by one main stem or trunk and many
18.45.070. Base penalties may be assessed accord to the size of the tree; civil penalty
branches and having a caliper of six inches or greater, or a multi -stemmed trunk system with a definitely formed
in an amount not to exceed $1,000 penalty for a tree of up to three inches and $3,000
crown. The critical area code also permits the removal of trees less the 4 inches dbh (diameter at breast height) as
for a tree three inches or more. These fines are trebled if the tree is located in a critical
an allowed activity. Given the current code includes penalties for trees that are smaller than the definition of tree
area or the right-of-way for a maximum fine of $9,000 per tree.
and trees which may elsewhere in the code be removed from critical areas as an allowed activity, the penalty
section should be review and evaluated to establish an appropriate penalty for violation of the City's tree cutting
regulations.
Any penalties assessed could be deposited in the Tree Fund account.
Code Location
Tree and vegetation management is spread throughout Edmonds Community
Title 18 ECDC is primarily related to Public Works requirement. Since Chapter 18.45 ECDC is related to tree
Development Code (ECDC). Primary tree code is located in Chapter 18.45 ECDC — Land
regulations on private property and administered by the planning manager, a new chapter (Chapter 23.10 ECDC)
Clearing and Tree Cutting Code. Other tree and vegetation regulations are contained
will be created in Title 23 ECDC Natural Resources to house the main tree related code chapter. Other potential
within Chapters 23.40 — 23.90 ECDC critical area code, the Title 24 ECDC — Shoreline
tree related code amendments may be applied to Chapter 20.75 ECDC — Subdivisions that would allow flexibility in
Master Program, and Chapter 20.13 ECDC — Landscaping Requirements.
subdivision design to encourage more tree retention as noted in the LID and Tree Retention topics.
Page 2 of 2
Q
Packet Pg. 129
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/9/2020
Extended Agenda
Staff Lead: Rob Chave
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Rob Chave
Background/History
The Extended agenda is reviewed at each meeting.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
Extended Agenda Attached.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: 09-09-2020 PB Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 130
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
PUMM S BOARD
Extended Agenda
September 9, 2020
Meeting Item
SEPTEMBER, 2020
September 1. Public Hearing on Update of Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance,
9 Chapter 19.07 ECDC
2. Discussion on development code work: Update of Tree Codes
September 1. Report on Development Activity
23 2. Joint meeting with Mayor's Conservation Advisory Committee
3. Climate Goals Planning — Status Update and Discussion
OCTOBER, 2020
October 1. Discussion on development code work: EV Charging Infrastructure
14 2. Review /discussion on code update work: Tree Codes
October 1. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Update
28
November, 2020
November 1. Review /discussion on code update work: Tree Codes
11
November (No meeting —Thanksgiving Holiday week)
25
December, 2020
December 1. Review /discussion on code update work: Tree Codes,
9 2. Review /discussion on code update work: EV Charging
December (No meeting — Christmas Holiday week)
23
Packet Pg. 131
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
Pending 1.
Implementation / code updates implementing the UFMP
2020-21 2.
Implementation / code updates implementing climate goals
3.
Implementation / code updates addressing WA state roadmap
4.
Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation (esp. 5 Corners)
5.
Low impact / stormwater code review and updates
6.
Sustainable development code(s) review and updates
7.
Housing policies and implementation (incl ADU regs)
8.
Nonconforming buildings and redevelopment issues
9.
Subdivision code updates
10.
Community Development Code Amendments / Re -Organization
11.
Further Highway 99 Implementation, including:
✓ Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented
design/development strategies
✓ Parking standards
Recurring 1. Election of Officers (V meeting in December)
Topics 2. Parks & Recreation Department Quarterly Report (January, April, July,
October)
3. Joint meeting with City Council — March?
4. Development Activity Update
5. Joint meeting with EDC?
Packet Pg. 132