Fairview staff outlines floodplain code updates to meet FEMA/PICM requirements; planning commission favors minimal compliance

Planning staff reviewed proposed floodplain-overlay updates May 27 aimed at complying with the latest FEMA guidance and new pre‑implementation compliance measures (PICMs) tied to endangered‑species protections.

Staff described three related tasks: adopt the updated Oregon model flood‑hazard ordinance (the 2020 model), add provisions to comply with FEMA’s PICMs (which stem from a 2009 legal challenge and a National Marine Fisheries Service biological opinion) and streamline review procedures for development in the special flood‑hazard (AE) zone. "We need to update your floodplain code to the most recent version," staff said, noting the city last updated its code in 2019.

The nut graf: FEMA’s PICMs require jurisdictions to choose how they will reduce development impacts on listed species; the options range from adopting the model ordinance (with a "no net loss" habitat requirement) to requiring individual habitat assessments for each application or to banning development in the floodplain. Staff and the city attorney recommended an approach that requires applicants to certify they have completed a habitat assessment and shown no net loss of floodplain functions, while seeking clear exemptions for minor activities.

Staff outlined the PICM context: environmental groups sued FEMA over Endangered Species Act consultation in 2009. NMFS later issued a Biological Opinion concluding that floodplain development threatened listed species in Oregon, and FEMA’s PICMs are an interim response while FEMA completes a full implementation plan and environmental review (FEMA anticipates final action in 2027). Until then, jurisdictions were asked to choose an approach and notify FEMA; Fairview informed FEMA in December and is now drafting code language.

Staff described three PICM-era implementation options FEMA offered: 1) adopt the model ordinance with a requirement for no net loss of habitat, 2) require individual habitat assessments for development in the floodplain, or 3) prohibit development in the floodplain. Staff and the city attorney said option 2 — having applicants provide a habitat assessment and certification — is the most practical path for Fairview, combined with carefully defined exemptions for small projects. "If someone is doing development in the floodplain that is not exempt, it's going to require them to potentially do additional work," staff said.

Commissioners asked about local impacts and mapping. Staff said Fairview’s mapped floodplain follows Fairview Creek through Salish Ponds and north past Sandy Boulevard and that the AE zone (1% annual chance of flooding) is the area affected. Staff acknowledged Fairview has a relatively small footprint of developable land in mapped floodplain areas and recommended minimal changes to satisfy FEMA while placing most compliance burden on applicants.

Staff also proposed streamlining review procedures so that small earthwork or repairs in the floodplain could be handled at staff level (Type 1 review) rather than requiring a planning commission conditional-use hearing; large projects would still trigger public hearings. Staff said the city could also continue to pursue map amendments (letters of map revision) but noted FEMA has placed limits on some map amendment processes until its environmental review concludes.

Ending: Staff will draft code language that reflects the commission’s direction, publish materials in the July Fairview Point and bring proposed ordinance changes back for a commission work session in July and a hearing in August. No code amendments were adopted at the May 27 meeting.