Loading...
Planning Commission PKT 06-20-2018City of Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION June 20, 2018 City Hall 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 6, 2018 4. AUDIENCE COMMENT — UNRELATED TO COMMISSION BUSINESS 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 6. COMMISSION BUSINESS • Discussion of potential amendments to the code regarding "flood damage prevention," FWRC 19.142 7. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS 8. ADJOURN Commissioners Wayne Carlson, Chair Tom Medhurst Lawson Bronson, Vice -Chair Hope Elder Dawn Meader McCausland Tim O'Neil Diana Noble-Gulliford Anthony Murrietta, Alternate Dale Couture, Alternate KAPlanning Commission\2018\Agenda\Agenda 06-20-18.doe City Staff Robert "Doc" Hansen, Planning Manager Margaret Clark, Principal Planner E. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant 253-835-2601 www ci )o(Lederalway.coiii CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION June 6, 2018 City Hall 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers DRAFT MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Wayne Carlson, Lawson Bronson, Tom Medhurst, Diana Noble-Gulliford, Dawn Meader McCausland, Tim O'Neil, and Anthony Murrietta. Commissioners absent: Hope Elder and Dale Couture. City Staff present: Planning Manager Robert "Doc" Hansen, Principal Planner Margaret Clark, Senior Planner David Van De Weghe, Assistant City Attorney Eric Rhoades, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. CALL TO ORDER Chair Carlson called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner O'Neil moved to amend the May 16, 2018, minutes to reflect he stated the Shoreline Management Act, not Program and the Army Corps of Engineers, not FEMA: The motion was seconded. There was no further discussion and the minutes of May 16, 2018, were approved as amended. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT None COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING — Recommendation on Mayor's Proposed Design Standards for All Self -Storage Units Proposed Within the City of Federal Way and Disallowing New Self -Storage in Neighborhood Business Zones Senior Planner Van De Weghe delivered the staff presentation. He addressed the May 16`h Commissioner comments and gave staff responses. He noted they had raised some good points. The city's comprehensive plan lays out policies and goals (vision) for the next 20 years as determined by citizens and the City Council. Extensive time is necessary to achieve the goals and this is part of the reason the commercial and industrial zones look similar and can be difficult to distinguish. Staff feels progress is being made to achieve the vision for BN zone. Self -storage is more of a retail use as opposed to industrial, and staff feels it is reasonable to have different design standards for them. The city currently has some special design standards for some uses. He stated the staff report Exhibit A describes current and proposed design standards. Just screening self -storage facilities so they cannot be seen from the street will not achieve the desired results. For one thing, the facility owners want visibility and exposure so people K.TImning Commission\2016\Meeting Summary 06-06-18.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 June 6, 2018 can find them. In addition, the city encourages Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). One principal of CPTED is natural surveillance, which specifically: "...promotes visibility of public spaces and areas.) Senior Planner Van De Weghe noted that the police receive a disproportionate number of complaints of crimes (vandalism, break-ins, etc.) in self -storage facilities and some visibility should help deter crime. The Commissioners had requested more current images of self -storage facilities and staff has added some current images to the staff report and presentation slides. He then described the Mayor's recommendation and displayed the more current self -storage images. He presented the five proposed design standard guidelines. Senior Planner Van de Weghe remarked that the proposed standards were developed from staff research of what is currently done in other jurisdictions and discussions with industry professionals. Chair Carlson opened the hearing to public testimony. Dana Halloway, Federal Way Resident — She stated that some older self -storage facilities are very ugly; the newer ones are better looking. She supports not allowing them in BN zone. She likes the proposed design standards. Commissioners acknowledged and thanked the city staff for all their work. They appreciate the time and thought that has gone into the proposal. Commissioner O'Neil asked staff to elaborate on why the recommendation is made to eliminate self - storage units from the BN zone. The vision for the area is walkability, but if the minimum lot size is an acre, that leaves out walkability. People will want to drive there, like the Fred Meyer and Safeway. Senior Planner Van De Weghe replied that under the current standards, there are a few that are meant to reduce the size. Many of these facilities are not feasible on a small lot. Commissioner O'Neil asked what about limiting the number and size of the buildings. Senior Planner Van De Weghe stated that is a possibility, but by their nature, self -storage facilities are auto -oriented (it is not easy to move items without a car). Commissioner O'Neil said that at the last meeting, we learned that some 30 percent of self -storage facilities are utilized by businesses to store goods. He imagines that a'retailer in the BN zone would want to use a facility that is close by. He wonders how much of an inconvenience the city will create by not allowing them to locate in the BN zone. He asked how many self -storage facilities are currently located in the BN zone. Senior Planner Van De Weghe replied that there are at least two currently and three vested applications (this includes the project at the old Albertson's on 21"). Commissioner Noble-Gulliford commented that the city's map appears to show that at least one of the vested projects will be located near 356`" and 21". This is an area of the city where business has languished (another area is 288"' and Military Road). She is concerned that restricting uses in these areas will lead to decline. She does not see a rational to restrict self -storage facilities from the BN zone; the areas could use the business. She is also concerned with allowing them in the CE zone. The CE zone was originally intended for just industrial uses. This has been changed to allow retail uses. This has led to fewer large properties being available for industrial use and substantially paying jobs. Another concern is the Twin Lakes Subarea. Studies were completed and the Twin Lakes Subarea was designated and added to the city's comprehensive plan, but the city does not have the zoning and infrastructure to realize the proposed vision. Nor does the city have the funding to create the needed infrastructure. She doesn't see these areas within the BN zone developing into pedestrian friendly areas within the next 50 years. Is the city precluding potential investment in areas that could use the investment in favor of a vision that may take over 50 years to achieve? She currently sees more auto -oriented improvements in Federal Way, as opposed to pedestrian friendly improvements. Vice -Chair Bronson while he appreciates all of the work staff has done on this project, objects to the entire effort. He feels the moratorium was set in a panic. He does not see a compelling reason to restrict self -storage facilities from the BN zone. He lives near a facility located in the BN zone and says it is KAPIanning Commission\2016\Meeting Summary 06-06-I8.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 June 6, 2018 hidden out of the way and is not obnoxious. If they are paying taxes, why should we object? He is very concerned about the possibility of fire and restricting access to internally. He feels restricting access could lead to misuse, especially since the police will not be able to see within. Requiring multi -stories will mean the owner will have to invest in an elevator and likely carts to move items. Commissioner Murrietta agrees with Vice -Chair Bronson. In addition, he is concerned that current investors will lose money if self -storage facilities are restricted from the BN zone. Commissioner Medhurst commented that with due respect to staff, he feels the information in the staff report is only half the information; it only supports the proposal. He is concerned that the proposal will lead to inconsistent design standards in the CE zone for similar developments. In addition, it will be cost the developers more to adhere to the proposed design standards. This appears to be a veiled approach to say the city doesn't want self -storage facilities in our town. Do we want to push investments to another city? Commissioner O'Neil restated what he said at the last meeting; that he feels the issue is that the city wants to save the zoning for businesses that will create living -wage jobs. This is a political decision. Commissioner Meader McCausland commented that she can see the value in some of the proposed design standards. However, she is concerned with the current process for the proposed design standards and how it is affecting some developers. She feels the city should not use a moratorium to develop changes to the design standards. The city should not be approaching the changes in a piece -meal fashion, but as a whole. The city should address design standards as a whole; across all zones and uses. She is concerned that developers have started projects, only to have the city stop them with the moratorium. Vice -Chair Bronson commented that the requirement for 40 percent glass is not compatible with the concern of energy use. The glass will mean the owner will need to pay more and use more energy to heat and cool the building. Chair Carlson commented that the BN use table is not included. Planning Manager Hansen replied that he will provide it to the Commissioners. Chair Carlson stated that he shares some of the concerns expressed about the intent of the proposal. He is not in favor of the requirement that they be multi -story and emulate office buildings. The city doesn't currently require that office buildings be multi -story. The proposal is holding self -storage facilities to a higher standard than office buildings. He is undecided about allowing or not allowing them in the BN zone. Planning Manager Hansen commented that the comprehensive plan vision calls for a pedestrian orientation for the BN zone. The city is not attempting to stop these facilities from locating within the city, but to incorporate them into the comprehensive plan's vision. Staff has spoken to developers who have said that the proposed standards are not above and beyond where the market is headed. They are what we have seen in other jurisdictions and have heard from developers. Commissioner Medhurst asked how design standards can change the land use. He doesn't see the connection. He supports the idea that the proposal is targeting a particular industry. Planning Manager Hansen commented that design standards can lead to change in land use because where certain designs and activities occur, similar ones will follow. Commissioner O'Neil commented that he order to help him understand it, he would like to see a visual representation of the comprehensive plan's vision for the BN zone. Vice -Chair Bronson agrees with Commissioner O'Neil's request. He also commented that he doesn't see how the proposed design standards will make the city more attractive; they appear arbitrary to him. The proposed standards are objective and depend upon where they are used. KAPIanning Commission\2016\Meeting Summary 06.06.18.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 June 6, 2018 Commissioner Noble-Gulliford stated that to be clear on her early comments, the city does have a Twin Lakes Sub -Area in the comprehensive plan, but lacks the zoning and funding to implement it. Her comments are not aimed at staff, but rather the City Council and Mayor. Originally, a million dollars from the HUD 108 loan was intended for the sub -area (according to a HUD letter), but the funding was moved to the Performing Arts and Event Center (PAEC). She feels the lack of funding, and therefore, the lack of improvements to the Twin Lakes Sub -Area has been detrimental to the city. The time and work done on it was wasted and the area has missed out on investment opportunities. Commissioner Medhurst commented that he has been in this community for 26 years and he supports those who are working hard to improve our community. He feels we have an optics problem. The city is proposing design standards for a specific industry and the City Council is considering a tax on that industry. He is concerned that these actions will lead all business/industries to wonder if they will be selected next for special design standards and maybe taxes. Commissioner O'Neil moved to recommend to the City Council that the proposed FWRC text amendments not be adopted. Vice -Chair Bronson seconded. There was no more discussion. The vote was held and the motion carried unanimously. The public hearing was closed. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Commissioner Meader McCausland asked about the process to modify the adopted motion. She also asked about the process of suggesting that design standard changes be considered across zones and uses. Discussions were held on these issues. Discussion was held on the reasoning for the self -storage facilities moratorium and what the City Council wanted to achieve with the moratorium. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford asked if there is a more "official" way (maybe a findings page) in addition to the minutes to inform the City Council of the Commission's viewpoints on the proposed design guidelines. Planning Manager Hansen responded that we do not have the resources to follow-through with that type of a report. However, Commissioners are more than welcome to attend the LUTC and City Council meetings and present their views (either personally or as a body) as part of the public testimony. Commissioners want to be sure that staff understands that their comments and motion tonight in no way reflects upon the respect they have for the staff and the work staff does. Planning Manager Hansen commented that staff does understand. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 7:50 P.M. K\Planning Commission\2016\Meeting Summary 06-06.18.doc A'A CITY OF Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: June 20, 2018 To: Wayne Carlson, Planning Commission Chair Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Robert "Doc" Hansen, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Amendments to FWRC 19.142 to Floodplain Development Regulations I. Introduction On December 20, 2017, the Department of Ecology and David Radabaugh with the Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program met with a number of Federal Way staff in a meeting, known as the "Community Assistance Visit," or CAV. The purpose of the visit was to examine our existing flood prevention program, evaluate our Shorelines Master Program in terms of providing for such protection, and to offer suggestions or recommended changes that need to be made in order to provide for greater flood prevention. II. Background Most lands considered "floodplains," or special flood hazard area (SFHA), are located on the city's coastline according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and their maps which designate where flood areas exist. The Department of Ecology recently conducted a shoreline survey of the city and found a number of situations where they questioned how the uses were permitted. In the CAV review, Mr. Radabaugh concluded a number of items within our process and our code need to be changed to bring it to current standards. Specifically, DOE is requesting us to change our code in a number of sections of FWRC 19.142, including: • Amend the reference to the updated study for King County. • Provide a severability clause. • Provide additional definitions to make the city's code consistent with state regulations. • Update "coastal construction" standards, which will be required when the Flood Insurance Resource Maps (FIRM) are updated by FEMA, scheduled to occur sometime this fall. III. Proposed Code Amendments The draft proposed code amendments are attached as Exhibit A. The proposed amendments will eliminate one section of the code, add definitions to 19.142, provide standards for a habitat impact assessment where required, and provide coastal standards for development within the Planning Commission Staff Report Page 1 of 8 FWRC 19.142 June 20 2018 designated flood plain designated in future maps provided by FEMA. Below is a summarization of the proposed amendments. 1. Eliminate FWRC Chapter 15.15. Under FWRC Title 15, "Shorelines Management," a section exists which duplicates FWRC 19.142 verbatim. This was most likely done to provide ease for the reader looking for these standards. The issue in copying the regulations from one section and repeating it in another is that anytime one section is amended, the section in the other location of the code also has to be amended, and if it is not amended concurrently, the code will not be consistent. This possible inconsistency within the ode potentially creates a problem in administrating the regulation, or when a standard is challenged. 2. Add Definitions. Mr. Radabaugh from DOE requested that the city adopt definitions for "development" and "protected area" because the two terms are referenced throughout the section of the code and state regulations. Although our definition for "development" covers the concerns of DOE, it is not the verbatim definition used in the RCW. It is proposed to be added to definitions of this section to maintain consistency with state law. "Protected area" is also a term used throughout this section of the code and is used in the current floodplain language provided by the state. 3. Update Language and Provision of Exemption from Requirement for a Floodplain Permit. The current code does not reference a "floodplain" permit and does not provide exemptions as allowed by state law for certain activities. This amendment provides for these exemptions. 4. Require a Habitat Assessment for Development Within a Special Flood Hazard Area. Under current state regulations, Federal Way is required to not allow development within a SFHA without a determination of its impact upon natural habitat. A habitat assessment is a process often conducted by wetland biologists who understand the process and possess biological experience. This section is added to describe what is required for a habitat assessment and requirements for mitigation if the assessment shows that the impact from the proposed development needs mitigation. The proposed amendment is derived from language provided by DOE from the RCW. 5. New Section Providing Regulations for Updated FIRM When Applicable. Currently, the city has no "Coastal Zone High Hazard Areas" designated within the FIRM maps regulating our shoreline development. Therefore, the city is not required to provide this language within its code until the new FIRM maps are adopted and released. However, it is anticipated that these zones will be in place by the end of the year, and we would at that time be required to add this language through a subsequent amendment process. It seems resourcefully beneficial to complete this amendment at this time, even though the zones referenced do not yet exist. IV. Timeline The anticipated timeline for completion of the code amendments process are shown below: Planning Commission Discussions 6/20/2018 SEPA Threshold Determination 6/22/2018 Planning Commission Public Hearing 07/18/18 Anticipated Land Use/Transportation Committee Meeting 08/06/2018 Planning Commission Staff Report Page 2 of 8 FWRC 19.142 June 20 2018 Anticipated City Council 1St Reading 06/014/2018 Anticipated City Council 2nd Reading 06/21/2018 V. Reason for Planning Commission Action Per code, the Planning Commission is required to hold a public hearing and make recommendation to the City Council on proposed code amendments. A public hearing will be scheduled to consider these amendments and a staff report will be provided prior to the hearing. Per FWRC 19.80.250, the Planning Commission will provide its recommendation, and any explanatory information on this proposal, to the City Council through the director's report. ATTACHMENT Exhibit A: Proposed Changes to the FWRC 19.142 Regarding Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations Planning Commission Staff Report Page 3 of 8 FWRC 19.142 June 20 2018 Exhibit A Draft Proposed Code Amendments Proposed Changes to FWRC in Meeting DOE Requirements ...................................................................................................................... 15.15 Remove the entire section since it is duplicative of 19.142 and has implications beyond the SMP 19.142.040 Definitions. (New addition) "Development" means 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 with the area of special flood hazard "Protected Area" means the greater ofthe Floodway, Riparian Buffer Zone (RBZ), or Channel Mi rg ation Zone (CMZ). Ifno CMZ is identified in a riverine system, the Protected Area extends to the outer limits of the floodplain. The "protected area " does not extend outside o the Special Flood Hazard Area. "Start of construction " includes substantial improvement, and means the date the building permit was issued, where the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, placement or other improvement occurs within 180 days of the permit date. See also "actual start of construction." 19.142.050 General provisions. (1) Application ofchapter. This chapter shall apply to all areas of special flood hazards within the jurisdiction of Federal Way. The areas of special flood hazard identified by the Federal Insurance Administration in a scientific and engineering report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study for King County, Washington and Incorporated Areas F" dated May 16, 1995, and any revisions thereto, with an accompanying flood insurance rate map (FIRM), and any revisions thereto, are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this chapter. The flood insurance study and the FIRM are on file at Federal Way City Hall. The best available information for flood hazard area identification as outlined in FWRC 19.142.070 shall be the basis for regulation until a new FIRM is issued that incorporates data utilized under FWRC 19.142.070. (2) Penalties for noncompliance. No structure or land shall hereafter be constructed, located, extended, converted, or altered without full compliance with the terms of this chapter and other applicable regulations. (3) Summary abatement. Whenever any violation of this chapter causes or creates a condition, the continued existence of which constitutes or contributes to an immediate and emergent threat to the public health, safety or welfare or to the environment, the director may summarily and without prior notice abate the condition. Notice of such abatement, including the reason for it, shall be given to the person responsible for the violation as soon as reasonably possible after abatement. The costs of such summary abatement shall be recoverable via procedures for recovery of abatement costs as set forth in Chapter 1.15 FWRC, Civil Enforcement of Code. (4) Abrogation and greater restrictions. This chapter is not intended to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this chapter and another ordinance, Planning Commission Staff Report Page 4 of 8 FWRC 19.142 June 20 2018 easement, covenant, or deed restriction conflict or overlap, whichever imposes the more stringent restrictions shall prevail. (5) Interpretation. In the interpretation and application of this chapter, all provisions shall be: (a) Considered as minimum requirements; (b) Liberally construed in favor of the governing body; and (c) Deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other powers granted under state statutes. (6) Warning and disclaimer of liability. The degree of flood protection required by this chapter 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 manmade or natural causes. This chapter 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 chapter shall not create liability on the part of Federal Way, any officer or employee thereof, or the Federal Insurance Administration for any flood damages that result from reliance on this chapter or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder. 19.142.060 Development Activities Subiect to Floodplain Development Permit. (1) Floodplain Development Permit Required. A floodplain development permit shall be obtained before construction or development begins within the regulatory special hazard established in FWRC 19.142.050(1). The permit shall be for all structures including manufactured homes, as set forth in FWRC 19.142.040, and for all development including fill and other activities, also as set forth in FWRC 19.142.040. (2) Non -development Activities. Activities that do not meet the definition of "development" in this chapter are allowed in the regulatory floodplain without the need for a floodplain development permit under this chapter, provided all other federal state and local requirements are met The following are examples of activities not considered development or manmade changes to improved or unimproved real estate: (a) Routine maintenance of landscaping that does not involve grading, excavation or filling; (b) Removal of noxious weeds and hazard trees and replacement of nonnative vegetation with native vegetation; (c) Normal maintenance of structures such as re -roofing and replacing siding,as s long as such work does not qualify as a substantial improvement; (d) Non -nal maintenance of above ground public utilities and facilities such as replacing downed power lines; (e) Normal street and road maintenance including filling potholes repaving and installing signs and traffic signals, but not including expansion of paved areas; (f) Normal maintenance of a levee or other flood control facility prescribed in the operations and maintenance plan for the levee or flood control facili . ; and (3) Other Activities. All other activities not listed in subsection (2) of this section are allowed as long as a floodplain development permit is approved, and, if required, as longas s they meet all the other requirements of this chapter, including the habitat impact assessment and any mitigation required under FWRC 19.142.060(8) and (9), and after a floodplain development permit is issued. (2}(4) Application for flood lain development permit. Application for a floodplain development permit shall be made and shall include, but not be limited to, plans induplicate drawn to scale showing the nature, location, dimensions, and elevations of the area in question, existing or proposed structures, fill, Planning Commission Staff Report Page 5 of 8 FWRC 19.142 June 20 2018 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 (FEMA Form 81-31) with Section B completed by the city of Federal Way building official; (b) Elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any structure has been floodproofed; (c) Certification by a registered professional engineer or architect that the floodproofing methods for any nonresidential structure meet floodproofing criteria in FWRC 19.142.140(2); (d) Description of the extent to which a watercourse will be altered or relocated as a result of proposed development. (3}tQ Designation of the administrator. The director or designee is hereby appointed to administer and implement this chapter by granting or denying development permit applications in accordance with its provisions. The director shall: (a) Review all development applications to determine that the requirements of this chapter have been satisfied; (b) Review all development applications to determine that all necessary permits have been obtained from those federal, state, or local governmental agencies from which prior approval is required; and (c) Review all development applications to determine if the proposed development is located in the floodway. If located in the floodway, assure that the encroachment provisions of FWRC 19.142.160(1) are met. The riparian habitat zone shall be delineated on the site plan b t� he applicant at the time of application for subdivision approval or floodplain development permit for all development proposals within 300 feet of any stream or shoreline. (7) If the project is located in the regulatory floodplain and includes activities not listed in FWRC 19.142.060(2), the application shall include a habitat impact assessment. If that assessment determines that impacts would result from the project the application shall also include a habitat mitigation plan as described in FWRC 19.142.060(9) (8) Habitat Impact Assessment. Unless allowed under FWRC 19.142 060(2) an application to develop in the regulatory floodplain shall include an assessment of the impact of the project on water quality and aquatic and riparian habitat. The assessment shall be: (a) A biological evaluation or biological assessment that has received concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service, pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; or (b) Documentation that the activity fits within a habitat conservation plan approved pursuant to Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act; or (c) Documentation that the activity fits within Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act-, or (d) An assessment prepared in accordance with Regional Guidance for Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation, FEMA Region X, 2010. The assessment shall determine if the project would adversely affect any of the following: (i). The primary constituent elements identified when a species is listed as threatened or endangered; Planning Commission Staff Report Page 6 of 8 FWRC 19.142 June 20 2018 (ii) Essential fish habitat desi an ted by the National Marine Fisheries Service; (iii) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (iv) Vegetation communities and habitat structures, (v) Water quality (vi) Water quantity, including flood and low flow depths, volumes and velocities, (ii) The channel's natural planform pattern and migration processes; (viii) Spawning substrate, if applicable; and/or (ix) Floodplain refugia, if applicable. (9) Habitat Mitigation Plan. (a) If the assessment conducted under FWRC 19.142.060 (8) of this section concludes the project is expected to have an adverse effect on water quality and/or aquatic or riparian habitat or habitat functions, the applicant shall provide a plan to mitigate those impacts in accordance with Regional Guidance for Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation, FEMA Region X 2010. 6) For projects or those portions of a project located within the regulatory floodplain but outside of the protected area, the mitigation plan shall include such avoidance minimization restoration, or compensation measures as are appropriate to mitigate the adverse effects of the project. (ii) For projects or those portions of a project located within the protected area the project shall be revised to include such appropriate measures as are needed to ensure that there is no adverse effect due to the project. Minimization measures are not allowed in the protected area unless they, in combination with other measures, result in no adverse effect. (b) The plan's habitat mitigation activities shall be incorporated into the proposed project The floodplain development permit shall be based on the redesigged project and its mitigation components. (10) Third -Party Review. For the habitat impact assessment required in FWRC 19.142.060 (8) of this section or the habitat mitigation plan required in FWRC 19.142.060 (9), the city may require a third -party review. Third -party review requires the applicant's habitat impact assessment habitat mitigation plan and/or additional technical studies to be reviewed by an independent third party, paid for by the a plp icant but hired by the city. Third -party review shall be conducted by a qualified consultant as defined in the Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation Regional Guidance FEMA Region X 2010 New Section 19.142.155. Coastal High Hazard Areas. Located within areas of special flood hazard identified in Section 19.142.050(1) are "Coastal High Hazard Areas," as designated on National Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) as zones V 1-30 VE and/or V. These areas have potential flood hazards associated with high velocity waters from surges. In addition to meeting all other provisions in this Code the following provisions shall also apply to these FIRM zones. (1) All new construction and substantial improvements as defined in 19.142.040 shall be elevated on pilings and columns so that: a. 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-, and Planning Commission Staff Report Page 7 of 8 FWRC 19.142 June 20 2018 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 buildin z components. 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 000 -year mean recurrence interval). (2) A registered professional engineer or architect shall 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 for meeting provisions of this section of FWRC 19.142. (3) The applicant shall submit the elevation of the site 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 and substantially improved structures, including any basement. (4) All new construction and substantial improvements shall provide 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 spare foot either by design or when required by local or State code, maybe permitted only if a registered ered professional engineer or architect certifies that the proposed structure 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 or 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) Fill for structural support of buildings is prohibited. (6) Man-made alteration of sand dunes is prohibited. (7) All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved on sites, outside or inside of a manufactured home park or subdivision, or manufactured homes outside or inside a manufactured home park or subdivision shall meet the standards of section FWRC 19.142 (1) through (6) above (8) Recreational vehicles placed on sites shall: a. Be on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days, and 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. Provide a floodplain permit and meet section FWRC 19.142.140(3). (9) All new construction shall be located landward of the reach of mean high tide. Planning Commission Staff Report Page 8 of 8 FWRC 19.142 June 20 2018