No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHazard Mitigation Plan - 2014 (ORD 5797)CHAPTER 21. CITY OF RENTON UPDATE ANNEX 21.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT Primary Point of Contact Deborah Needham, Emergency Management Director 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Telephone: 425-430-7027 e-mail Address: dneedham@rentonwa.gov 21.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE Alternate Point of Contact Mindi Mattson, Emergency Management Coordinator 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Telephone: 425-430-7041 e-mail Address: mmattson@rentonwa.gov The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction and its history: • Date of Incorporation —September 6, 1901 • Current Population-95,540 as of April 1, 2013 Population Growth —The City experienced rapid growth in the two decades from 1990 to 2010. The population increased from 39,340 to 90,927 in those twenty years for a cumulative population growth rate of 230 percent, or an average of 11.5 percent per year. Growth has now slowed in the City. In the three years from 2010 to 2013 the city grew 5 percent, and annual average growth rate of 1.7 percent, which translates into an average annual growth rate of 1.7%. Location and Description —The City of Renton comprises approximately 24 square miles at the southern end of Lake Washington in King County. It is located about 10 miles southeast of downtown Seattle. Renton is situated at the center of a regional and international transportation network. The City is surrounded by freeways and is in close proximity to air, sea and rail transportation hubs. The City has its own airport and seaplane base. Renton is bisected by State Route 167 and Interstate 405. The dominant natural landscape features are Lake Washington, the Cedar River and the Green River. The topography of Renton varies, with generally flat areas near Lake Washington and hilly areas in the east and southeast. Elevations range from about 45 feet at Lake Washington to about 400 feet in the hills. Brief History —originally an important fishing area for Native Americans at the confluence of the Black and Cedar Rivers, Renton was settled by people of European descent in the 1850s, leading to the displacement of the Duwamish people. As the influx of settlers continued, the early Renton economy developed around coal, timber and clay production from the hills surrounding the downtown. In 1911 a major flood provided the impetus for diverting the channel of the Cedar River to prevent future flooding in the City, and in 1916 the Black River disappeared when the Montlake Cut lowered Lake Washington. The building of the Renton Boeing plant during World War II brought thousands to Renton seeking employment. To this day, all 737 jets produced by Boeing have their final assembly in Renton and are launched from the municipal airport. Renton is also home to several important regional government facilities and major corporations, including the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Reserve, Providence Health & Services, and PACCAR. 21-1 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes Climate —The climate of Renton is moderate, with mild winters, averaging 154 precipitation days per year, and warm, dry summers. During the year temperatures range from 37 to 78 degrees and extreme temperatures rarely go below 28 degrees or above 87 degrees. The average annual rainfall is 38 inches. Average monthly precipitation varies from 6 inches November through January to less than an inch in July and August. Average annual snowfall is 12 inches. Humidity varies between 44 percent and 95 percent in summer and winter, respectively. Winds are variable and prevail from the south/southeast at an average speed of 7 miles per hour, seldom exceeding 22 miles per hour. Governing Body Format —The City of Renton operates under the laws of the State of Washington as an "optional municipal code city," governed by the Renton Municipal Code. Code cities have broad authority within their geographic domain. Renton is governed with a mayor -council form of government. Renton voters elect these eight officials "at -large," meaning there is no geographic representation to any position among the city's policy makers. The city consists of ten departments: Administrative Services, City Attorney, Community and Economic Development, Community Services, Court Services, Executive, Fire & Emergency Services, Human Resources and Risk Management, Police, and Public Works. The Fire & Emergency Services Department assumes responsibility for the adoption of this plan; the Emergency Management Director will oversee its implementation. Development Trends —Renton has a mix of land uses throughout the City. Industrial and commercial uses are located primarily in the downtown areas of Renton. The city center area includes mixed -use residential and commercial land, with both single and multi -family homes. Single family residences dominate the eastern and southeastern portions of the City, where most residential growth is still occurring. In addition, there are pockets of mixed -use commercial centers aimed at providing services for residents living along the eastern edges of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides a vision for Renton's development 20 years into the future. The vision includes an emphasis on infill development occurring in existing neighborhoods rather than sprawl and an increase in multi -family housing in the downtown area. 21.3 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT The assessment of the jurisdiction's legal and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 21-1. The assessment of the jurisdiction's fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 21-2. The assessment of the jurisdiction's administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 21-3. Information on the community's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) compliance is presented in Table 21-4. Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 21-5. 21-2 CITY OF RENTON UPDATE ANNEX TABLE 21-1. LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY State or Other Local Federal Jurisdictiona State Authority Prohibitions 1 Authority Mandated Comments Codes, Ordinances & Requirements Building Code Yes No Yes Yes International Building Code 2012 Edition adopted by reference with State Amendments 51-40 WAC and City amendments RMC 4-05-050 Zoning Yes No No No RMC 4-2 (also covered in Comprehensive Plan) Subdivisions Yes No No No RMC 4-7 _( Title IV) Stormwater Yes No Yes No 4-6-030.C. (Adoption of 2009 King Management County Surface Water Design Manual). RMC Titles IV and VIII. Post Disaster Recovery Yes No No No RES 4133, 2/27/2012 Real Estate Disclosure No No Yes Yes WA State mandates certain disclosures by Real Estate agents under RCW 64.06 Growth Management Yes No Yes Yes State Growth Management Act, RCW _36.70, City Comprehensive_ Plan, RMC Site Plan Review Yes No Yes No RMC 4-9-200 (RMC Title IV) Public Health and Yes No Yes Yes Seattle -King County, RMC and City Safety policy and procedure. Some state mandates on public safety__________________________ Environmental Yes No Yes Yes RMC 4-3, Growth Management Act Protection Planning Documents General or Comprehensive Plan (latest update Fall (Currently in draft form — will be adopting the Hazard 2007 general; June 2011 — specific (Ord. 5612) Mitigation Plan by reference just as was done with the Recovery Plan) Is the plan equipped to provide linkage to this mitigation Yes plan? Floodplain or Basin Yes No Yes Yes Growth Management Act, adopted by Plan reference Stormwater Plan Yes No Yes Yes Growth Management Act, adopted by reference Capital Improvement Yes No Yes Yes Required by the city budget document Plan as well as the Growth Management Act, by reference What types of capital facilities does the plan address? Transportation, Utilities, General Governmental (which includes, Fire, Police, and Community Services/Facilities. How often is the plan revised/updated? Annually ______________________________________________________________________ Habitat Conservation Yes No Yes Yes RMC Title IV, Aquifer Protection — Plan 2000, Growth Management Plan, adopted by reference 21-3 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 21-1. LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY State or Other Local Federal Jurisdictiona State Authority Prohibitions 1 Authority Mandated Comments Economic Yes No Yes Yes Comprehensive Plan adopted by Development Plan reference Shoreline Management Yes No Yes Yes RMC 4-3-090, Department of Ecology Plan RCW 90.58.90 Community Wildfire Yes No No No Renton Fire Department Master Plan Protection Plan 1987 Response/Recovery Planning Comprehensive Yes No No Yes RES 4163, adopted 11/5/2012. State Emergency approved January 2012 Management Plan Threat and Hazard No No No No N/A — Have a current (2012) Hazard Identification and Risk Identification and Vulnerability Assessment Assessment associated with 2012 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Terrorism Plan Yes No No No Annex to current CEMP Post -Disaster Recovery Yes No No No RES 4133, formally adopted 4/27/2012 Plan Continuity of No No No No Draft plan continues to evolve, not Operations Plan formally -adopted-by-Council Public Health Plans No No Yes No RES 4130 in 2012. Agreement with Seattle/King County. Have Emergency Support Function #8 of CEMP that addresses in part TABLE 21-2. FISCAL CAPABILITY Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use? Community Development Block Grants Yes Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes User Fees for Water Sewer Gas or Electric Service Yes Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds Yes Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard -Prone Areas --------------- Yes State Sponsored Grant Programs ------------------- Yes Development Impact Fees for Homebu ers or Developers Yes Other Real Estate Excise Tax; King County Flood Control District -Basin Opportunity Fund 21-4 CITY OF RENTON UPDATE ANNEX TABLE 21-3. ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY Staff/Personnel Resources Available? Department/Agency/Position Planners or engineers with Yes • Community and Economic Development (CED): CED knowledge of land development and Administrator/Planning Director, Associate Planners, land management practices �_ Senior Planners, Planning Manager Engineers or professionals trained in • CED: Building Official, Building Plans Examiner and building or infrastructure Building Inspectors construction practices Public Works: Civil Engineers En ineerin Su ervisors Planners or engineers with an Yes • CED: CED Administrator/Planning Director, Associate understanding of natural hazards Planners, Senior Planners, Planning Manager, Development Engineering Manager, Construction Inspectors • Community Services: Urban Forestry and Natural Resources Manager • Public Works: Civil Engineers, Engineering Supervisors Staff with training in benefit/cost Yes • Finance: All staff analysis Surveyors No n/a — contracted out Personnel skilled or trained in GIS Yes CED: Engineering Specialists applications Information Technology: GIS Coordinator • Public Works: Engineering Specialists Scientist familiar with natural No • n/a hazards in local area Emergency manager Yes Fire & Emergency Services Department, Emergency Management Director Grant writers Yes No position in the city is wholly dedicated to grant writing. Available personnel have written grants in the past from the following departments and divisions: City Clerk, Community and Economic Development, Community Services, Emergency Management Division, Finance, Fire & Emergency Services Department, Human Resources/Risk Management, Police, Public Works 21-5 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 21-4. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM COMPLIANCE What department is responsible for floodplain management Community and Economic Development in your community? Who is your community's floodplain administrator? Community and Economic Development (department/position)Administrator Do you have any certified floodplain managers on staff in No our community? What is the date of adoption of your flood damage January 1, 1987, Last updated on December 3, prevention ordinance? 2012 When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit or October 2, 2012 Community Assistance Contact? To the best of your knowledge, does your community have r No any outstanding NFIP compliance violations that need to be addressed? If so please state what they are. Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the flood Yes, but FEMA's delay in updating Green River risk within your community? (If no, please state why) Floodplain Maps has created uncertainty about the accuracy of the maps in this area. -------------------- ------------------------------ Does your floodplain management staff need any assistance Yes, floodplain administrator training and or training to support its floodplain management program? certification If so, what type of assistance/training is needed? Does your community participate in the Community Rating Yes, and Yes System (CRS)? If so, is your community seeking to improve its CRS Classification? If not, is your community interested in joining the CRS program? TABLE 21-5. COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS Participating? Classification Date Classified Community Rating System Yes 6 10/1/2009 Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Yes 3 August_23, 2012 Public Protection Yes 3 Not available StormRead Yes Blue 8/21/2103 Firewise No N/A N/A Tsunami Ready (if applicable) N/A N/A N/A 21-6 CITY OF RENTON UPDATE ANNEX 21.4 JURISDICTION -SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY Table 21-6 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction. Repetitive flood loss records are as follows: • Number of FEMA-Identified Repetitive Loss Properties: None • Number of FEMA-Identified Severe Repetitive Loss Properties: None • Number of Repetitive Flood Loss/Severe Repetitive Loss Properties Known to Have Been Mitigated: N/A TABLE 21-6. NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS Tvpe of Event FEMA Disaster # (if applicable) Date Preliminary Damage Assessment Severe Winter Weather 4056 2012 $225,105 Severe Winter Weather n/a 2011 ----------- No PDA done Flooding 1963 2011 $23,500 Severe Winter Weather ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Floodin 1963 n/a 2011 2010 ! No PDA done $515,303 Severe Winter Weather n/a ami 2010 . No PDA done Severe Weather n/a 2009 . No PDA done Flooding 1817 2009 $11,607,310 Severe Winter Weather 1825 2008 $199,879 Severe Weather n/a 2008 ■ No PDA done Flooding 1734 2007 $4,827,545 Severe Weather n/a 2007 No PDA done Severe Winter Weather ' 1682 2006 $239,281 Flooding 1671 2006 ` $5,019,223 Earthquake 1360 2001 $1,750,240 Flooding 1172 1997 $20,000 ---------------------- Landslides i 1100 1996 $159,790 Flooding 1079 1995 No records available Flooding 883 1990 No records available Flooding______________________________________________________ Floodin................................ Earthquake n/a 492 196 1982 ` 1975 1965 No records available No records available No records available 21-7 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes 21.5 HAZARD RISK RANKING Table 21-7 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern. Hazard area extent and location maps for earthquake, flood, and landslide hazards (including coal mine areas) are included at the end of this chapter. These maps are based on the best available data at the time of the preparation of this plan, and are considered to be adequate for planning purposes. TABLE 21-7. HAZARD RISK RANKING Rank Hazard Type Risk Rating Score(Probability x Impact) ------- 1---------------------------------Earthquake----------------------------------------------------- 3----------------------------------------------- 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severe Weather 30 3 R Severe Winter Weather 30 4 Flood 21 5 � Dam Failure 18 6 Landslide 15 7 Volcano 11 8 Wildfire 7 9 -------------------------------------- Tsunami 0 10 Avalanche 0 21.6 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN INITIATIVES Table 21-8 summarizes the initiatives that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard mitigation plan and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared. 21.7 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES Table 21-9 lists the initiatives that make up the jurisdiction's hazard mitigation plan. Table 21-10 identifies the priority for each initiative. Table 21-11 summarizes the mitigation initiatives by hazard of concern and the six mitigation types. 21.8 FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK/ VULNERABILITY Existing databases containing information about individual structures, particularly for privately owned structures, may not be accurate, and may not have information on very old structures. Any efforts taken to improve the quality of data in those databases will improve the understanding of impact on the community. Likewise, future studies of levee integrity along both the Cedar and Green Rivers would add to the knowledge of flood risk present in their floodplains. 21-8 CITY OF RENTON UPDATE ANNEX TABLE 21-8. PREVIOUS ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STATUS Action # Action Status Carry Over Removed; to Plan No Longer Completed Update Feasible Comments RN-1 ✓ EM included in citywide planning effective in 2011, now ongoing. RN-2 J0 ✓ Becomes Initiative #2. RN-3 W Becomes Initiative #3. RN-4 ✓ Becomes Initiative #4. RN-5 Project completed in 2013. RN-6 ✓ Becomes Initiative #5 RN-7 Projected completed in 2010. RN-8 ✓ Similar to RN-4. Combined them into Initiative #4. RN-9 ✓ Duplicates other morespecific projects in plan that are ongoing. RN-10 ✓ Similar to RN-21. Combined them into Initiative #9. RN-11 ✓ Many similar projects combined under new initiative #1. RN-12 ✓ ■Many similar projects combined under new initiative #1. RN-13 ✓MMqnv similar projects combined under new initiative #1. RN-14 ✓ Initiative #6. Be------------ RN-15 ✓ -comes Becomes Initiative #7. RN-16 ✓ ------------------------------- Combined with RN-25 into Initiative #8. RN-17 ---------------- ✓ -Project -------- completed on February 10, 2010. RN- 18 Already covered by other projects, incl. ongoing compliance with ecological mandates. Remove. Com leted in 2013. Permanent ractice not needed in lan. LRN-2zAE.qimi1nrtn Com leted in 2013. Permanent ractice, not needed in lan. RN-10. Combined them into Initiative #9. RN-22 ✓ Becomes Initiative #10. RN-2 Similar to RN-4. Combined them into Initiative #4. RN-24 Project completed in 2011. RN-25 A Similar to RN-16. Combined them into Initiative #8. RN-26 013etermined to be a response plan element, not mitigation. RN-27 ✓ Outside of control of city staff. RN-28 ✓ Outside of control of city staff. RN-29 �.M Outside of control of city staff. RN-30 Completed RCC Transfer Switch in 2012. RN-31 Outside of control of city staff. 21-9 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 21-8. PREVIOUS ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STATUS Action # Completed Action Status Carry Over to Plan Update Removed; No Longer Feasible Comments RN-32 ✓ Becomes Initiative #11. RN-33 ✓ 'Becomes Initiative #12. Will use existing information in database, not staff time. JRN-34LW RN-35 ✓ Becomes Initiative #13. RN-36 This project duplicated RN-30. Completed in 2012. RN-37 ✓ ---- Becomes Initiative #14. RN-38 r Project completed, maps updated when checked in 2013. RN-39 ✓ Assessment shows no current buildingor infrastructure threat. RN-40 ✓ Becomes Initiative #15. RN-41 Project completed in 2011. RN-42 Response oriented, not mitigation. Remove. RN-43 ✓ ■ Outside of control of city staff. Remove. RN-44 ✓ 2013. Permanent requirement, no longer needed in plan. RN-45 -- -------- 2013. Completed annually. RN-46 ✓ 12013. Completed annually. RN-47 ✓ U013. Completed annually. RN-48 ✓ -Project completed in 2012. RN-49 ✓ - Current assessment shows all feasible measure already taken. RN-50 ✓ Project completed in 2013. RN-51 Not feasible or appropriate based on current risk assessment. 21-10 CITY OF RENTON UPDATE ANNEX TABLE 21-9. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to Included new or in existing Hazards Objectives Lead Estimated Sources of Previous assets Mitigated Met Agency Cost Funding Timeline Plan? RN #1: Continue to maintain compliance and good standing under the National Flood Insurance Program. This will be accomplished through the implementation of floodplain management programs that, at a minimum, will meet the minimum requirements of the NFIP, which include the following: • Enforcement of the adopted flood damage prevention ordinance, • Participating in floodplain identification and mapping updates, and • Providing public assistance/information on floodplain requirements and impacts New and Flood 2,4,10,12 Public Low Local Budget Short Term No existing Works/CED RN #2: Identify and pursue funding opportunities to implement mitigation actions. New and All 5 Emergency Low Local Budget Short Term Yes existing M mt. RN #3 Develop public and private sector partnerships to foster hazard mitigation activities. New and All 13,14,15 Emergency Low Local Budget Long Term Yes existing M mt. RN #4: Develop detailed inventories of at -risk buildings, infrastructure, critical facilities, and important transportation or utility system components, and prioritize mitigation actions. New and All 4,5 CED/ Medium Local Budget Long Term Yes existing Community Services/ Public Works EN #5: Integrate the Mitigation Plan findings into planning and regulatory documents and programs. New and All 2,10 CED Low Local Budget Short Term Yes existing RN #6: Continue to enforce, maintain and update the Renton Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program requirements. New and Flood 2,10 CED Low Local Budget Short Term Yes Existing RN #7: Continue to perform maintenance dredging, maintenance of floodwalls and levees associated with the Army Corps of Engineers Cedar River Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction Project. Existing Flood 5,8,12 Public High Grants Short Term Yes Works RN #8: Continue to implement the Surface Water Utility programs related to flood hazard management, which include public education and customer service programs, and the Capital Improvement Program, engineering program, and maintenance and operations program, which may address measures such as upsizing culverts or storm water drainage capacity. New and Flood 5,8,12 Public High Grants/Local Short Term Yes existing Works Budget 21-11 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 21-9. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to Included new or in existing Hazards Objectives Lead Estimated Sources of Previous assets Mitigated Met Agency Cost Funding Timeline Plan? RN #9: Continue to be a member of the FEMA Community Rating System, and work to identify and implement measures and policies to increase Renton's Community Rating System score to reduce flood insurance rates. New and Flood 2,3,4,5,7,8, Public High Grants/Local Long -Term Yes existing 9,12 Works Budget RN #10 Re-evaluate future land use/zoning designations in FEMA mapped 100-year floodplain. New Flood 2,10 CED Low Local Budget Short Term Yes RN #11: Encourage new developments to include underground power lines. New Severe Weather, 1,2 CED Low Local Budget Short Term Yes Severe Winter Weather RN #12: Evaluate the seismic vulnerability of critical city -owned buildings, utilities, and infrastructure and establish priorities to retrofit or replace vulnerable facilities to ensure adequate seismic performance of critical facilities. Existing Earthquake 1,4,5,6,9, Community Medium Local Budget Long Term Yes 14 Services/ Public Works RN #13: Disseminate FEMA pamphlets to educate homeowners about structural and non-structural retrofitting of vulnerable homes and encourage retrofit. Existing Earthquake 4,6,14 CED Low Local Budget Short Term Yes #14: Obtain funding and retrofit important public facilities with significant seismic vulnerabilities Existing Earthquake 1,5,9 Community High Grants/Local Short Term Yes Services Budget #15: Limit future development in high landslide potential areas. New Landslide 2,8,10 CED Low Local Budget Short Term Yes -16—Continue to support the county -wide initiatives identified in this plan. New and All Hazards 4,6,11,12,1 City of Low General Fund Short term No Existing 3, 14, 15 Renton -17—Actively participate in the plan maintenance strategy identified in this plan. New and All Hazards 4,6,11,12,1 King Low General fund Short term No Existing 3, 14, 15 County OEM, City of Renton 21-12 CITY OF RENTON UPDATE ANNEX TABLE 21-10. MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE # of Do Benefits Is Project Can Project Be Funded Initiative Objectives Equal or Grant- Under Existing # Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Programs/ Budgets? Prioritya 1 440 Medium Low Yes No Yes High 1 Medium Low Yes No Yes Medium 3 . Medium Low Yes No Yes Low -� 2 . Low Medium' Yes No Yes Low . Low Low ' Yes NO Yes Medium -� -2 -- - 2 _ . Medium Low -- Yes ----- No ---------------------------------------------- ------- Yes Medium 3__ ' High High Yes Yes No High ----- ___3___ , High High ' ------------ Yes Yes _____ No (not entirely) _______ High ----8_ , Medium High ' Yes Yes No_(not entirely) Medium - 10 2 _ i Medium Low Yes No Yes High 11 2 _ Medium Low Yes No Yes High 12 6 , Medium Medium ' Yes No Yes Low 13 l 3 , Medium Low Yes No Yes High 14 3 # High High ' Yes I Yes No High ------15 ----- -- 3 ---- � Medium Low ----- ----------------- -- Yes L No -------Yes ------------------ High 16 Medium Low Yes No Yes High 17 Low Low Yes Yes Yes high a. See Introduction for explanation of priorities. 21-13 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 21-11. ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea 3. Public 4. Natural 1. 2. Property Education and Resource 5. Emergency 6. Structural Hazard Type Prevention Protection Awareness Protection Services Projects Avalanche -n/a n/a n/a n/a ------ n/a-------------------------n/a--------- Dam Failure 17 1,2,3,4,5,6,718, 1,9,16 7,8 9,16 7 9,10 Earthquake 17 2,3,12,13 3,16 2,3,4,5 16 12,13 Flood 1,7,17 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, 1,9,16 2,3,4,7,8 9,16 7,8 dd 9,10 Landslide --------------- 17 2,3,4,5,14 3,14,16 -------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ 16 Severe Weather 17 2,3,4,11 3,16 Severe Winter _A do 2,3,4,11 3,16 ______________11,16 ------------------------------------- 11,16 Weather r Tsunami n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Volcano 17 2,3,4 3,16 ' 16 Wildfire _______ ___ 17 2,3,4 3116 ' 16 a. See Introduction for explanation of mitigation types. 21.9 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Two of the hazards assessed and named in this annex do not have applicability to Renton: tsunamis, and avalanches. Renton is sufficiently far inland that a tsunami event will not have any direct effect within the city limits. Although there is potential for a seiche (sloshing of water in an inland body of water that can occur during an earthquake), the effects of the earthquake will be substantial enough that the additional damages of a potential seiche are not considered separately from those of an earthquake. Likewise, it is highly improbable that Renton would ever experience an avalanche, so that hazard is also not addressed. An additional risk posed by abandoned coal mines is present within Renton but not specifically called out in this plan. Since the primary hazard in Renton associated with coal mines is collapse, those potential impacts and mitigation measures have not been individually addressed but are captured within two other hazards that cause land movement: landslides, and earthquakes. The City of Renton prepared maps of the coal mine, flood, landslide and earthquake liquefaction hazards, separate from those prepared as part of this regional hazard mitigation plan update. These are included with this annex, along with the hazard maps generated from Hazus, for clarity about the locations of these specific hazards. 21-14 Data Sources: City of Renton, King County This document is a graphic representation, not guaranteed to survey accuracy, and is based on the best information available as of the date shown. This map is intended for City display purposes only. Information Technology - GIS mapsupport@rentonwa.gov Printed on: 10/14/2013 r 7City of �i r 1 1 n Schools/Education Facilities Fire Station / EMS Station * Renton City Hall © Valley Medical Center © Airport Renton City Limits Coal Mine Hazards Severity K HIGH MODERATE K UNCLASSIFIED City of Renton Sensitive Areas % I d L IL L N" . . . . . . NQ VC� f I qj Ti N" TM --T -T P, A Elf, Data Sources: City of Renton, King County ci) Schools/Education Facilities This document is a graphic representation, not guaranteed to survey accuracy, and is based on the best information Fire Station / EMS Station Flood Hazard available as of the date shown. This map is intended for Renton City Hall City display purposes only. Information Technology - GIS 1fl Valley Medical Center mapsupport@rentonwa.gov Airport Printed on: 10/14/2013 Renton City Limits r City of if City of Renton Ilk Sensitive Areas dz AI IT- 0 1-4 7 & Y N 2-1c A T 0� _go J1 Data Sources: City of Renton, King County (A) Schools/Education Facilities This document is a graphic representation, not guaranteed Landslide Hazard to survey accuracy, and is based on the best information Fire Station / EMS Station Severity available as of the date shown. This map is intended for Renton City Hall City display purposes only. Very High Information Technology - GIs 1fl Valley Medical Center High mapsupport@rentonwa.gov Airport Moderate Printed on: 10/14/2013 Renton City Limits « Unclassified r City of /0_1 if Data Sources: City of Renton, King County n Schools/Education Facilities Liquefaction Susceptability This document is a graphic representation, not guaranteed to survey accuracy, and is based on the best information Fire Station / EMS Station low available as of the date shown. This map is intended for + Renton City Hall City display purposes only. low to moderate Information Technology - GIS mapsupport@rentonwa.gov Printed on: 10/14/2013 r 7City of �i r 1 1 © Valley Medical Center K moderate to high © Airport K high Renton City Limits CITY OF RENTON Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Critical Facilities Government Function © HazMat (1-1) Medical Care Protective Function g Schools o Other Facility Critical Infrastructure o Bridges € Communications Dams 0 Water Supply Power Transportation 0 Wastewater Locations are approximate. Base Map Data Sources: King County, U.S. Geological Survey LgKing County a rprna r€[H 4 N * 2 W E 0 0.5 1 s Miles D A z r c rn Lake m ) � x Washington i -- Duwamish , River r. { SOUTHCENTER Green River SUNSET i 1921111 196TH H = I RENTON MgPLE VA CITY OF RENTON Liquefaction Susceptibility Susceptible Not Susceptible High Bedrock Moderate to High Peat Moderate Water Low to Moderate Ice Low Very Low to Low Very Low Liquefaction data provided by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources. Data is based solely on surficial geology published at a scale of 1:100,000. A liquefaction susceptibility map provides an estimate of the likelihood that soil will liquefy as a result of earthquake shaking. This type of map depicts the relative susceptibility in a range that varies from very low to high. Areas underlain by bedrock or peat are mapped separately as these earth materials are not liquefiable, although peat deposits may be subject to permanent ground deformation caused by earthquake shaking. Base Map Data Sources: King County, U.S. Geological Survey L9King County a TETRA TECH N 0 0.5 1 S Miles Lake Washington A z 1 SUNSET) RF 4TH.'- 3RD Cedar F - �- River V CITY OF RENTON National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) Soil Classification Site Class B - Rock Site Class C - Very Dense Soil, Soft Rock Site Class D - Stiff Soil Site Class E - Soft Soil Soil classification data provided by Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Geology and Earth Resources Division. The dataset identifies site classes for approximately 33,000 polygons derived from the geologic map of Washington. The methodology chosen for developing the site class map required the construction of a database of shear wave velocity measurements. This database was created by compiling shear wave velocity data from published and unpublished sources, and through the collection of a large number of shear wave velocity measurements from seismic refraction surveys conducted for this project. All of these sources of data were then analyzed using the chosen methodologies to produce the statewide site class maps. Base Map Data Sources: King County, U.S. Geological Survey L1 King County a rerRa r€cH J N W+E S 0 0.5 1 Miles F' '• 405 g (ate"_ s .. ° y F e. r; ti i N 1 s : 4 10 .. 5 °�� .. tea' _ el--a'?•-j'.! - -F .. .. .. � � it • .� .a - .. " .. . �� • � '... .. .. _Y• r• ix !:.. �./001,. sY:S'li;�",'7 _ 1:err .. , 01 s . CITY OF RENTON FEMA DFIRM Flood Hazard Areas Floodway 1 Percent Annual Flood Hazard 0.2 Percent Annual Flood Hazard Flood hazard areas as depicted on draft FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM). The 1 percent annual flood hazard is commonly referred to as the 100 year floodplain. The 0.2 percent annual flood hazard is commonly referred to as the 500 year floodplain. Base Map Data Sources: King County, U.S. Geological Survey kgKing County a TETRA TECH N W E 0 0.5 1 s Miles NEWCASTLEGaLF m Lake Washington � I r � m ) j SUNSET N DUWw"m h 6TH ' Y ,_� 128TH 3RD - d r--- I MAPLE _ \ `\ pY � m I -- 518 SOUTHCENTER River � RENTON MAPLE VALLE o-- Y J ' O J a _ 88TH I _ - — = 1961 I O� 200TH ' I � Lake -------------- Youngs o ZOR CITY OF RENTON Landslide Hazard Areas All Hazard Areas The landslide hazard areas shown have been merged from three assessments for use for planning purposes: WA DNR Landslide Areas data provided by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources. This dataset contains 1:24,000-scale polygons defining the extent of mapped landslides in the state of Washington, compiled chiefly from pre-existing landslide databases created in different divisions of the Washington State Department of Natural Resources to meet a variety of purposes. King County Slide Areas - Landslide areas are areas subject to severe landslide risk identified in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance as: A. Any area with a combination of: 1. Slopes greater than 15 % 2. Impermeable soils (typically silt and clay) frequently interbedded with granular soils (predominantly sand and gravel) 3. Springs or groundwater seepage. B. Any area that has shown movement during the Holocene epoch ( from 10,000 years ago to present), or that is underlain by mass wastage debris of that epoch. C. Any area potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision, stream bank erosion or undercutting by wave action. D. Any area that shows evidence of, or is at risk from, snow avalanches. E. Any area located on an alluvial fan, presently subject to or potentially subject to inundation by debris flows or deposition of stream -transported deposits. Slope/Soils Analysis: 1. Areas of slope greater than 40%. Slope determined using a DEM generated from 2002 LiDAR data. Slope data provided by King County DNRP. 2. Areas of Qf (alluvial fans), Qls (discrete landslides), and Qmw (colluvium and the cumulative debris from small indistinct landslides that accumulate on and at the base of unstable slopes) soils as identified in surface geology data provided by King County DNRP. Base Map Data Sources: King County, U.S. Geological Survey L1 King County a TETRA TECH n ? :4, N W E 0 0.5 1 s Miles �-,'r • : �:. f--� rn GOLF � :,',.s}'d�;-.:tY-V.;� ;i `.. i 3 n�OO Lake Washington � r- c -i rn . FNTG� 2c v,A i' ---- iSSgQ�gy fr 6TH z Duwamish 4TH 128TH River ¢ 3RD 599 �tiT� - zNO �oJ� eq� Bedar MAPLE River �� LFY - ��� GRAOY o ~ 518 SOU THOENTER W NO I \- \t` _— RENTON MAPLE VALLEY G n ------- co w Q J O W J � O ' 3 4RD--------____180TH--� �� R 1, P FTRO t/ppSkY / 88TH 196TH I 200TH � I Youngs CITY OF RENTON 2008 LANDFIRE Fire Behavior Fuel Model Anderson 13 Fuel Classes Burnable Non -Burnable ❑ FBFM1 ❑ Developed FBFM2 ❑ Agriculture ❑ FBFM3 ❑ Water ❑ FBFM5 ❑ Barren ❑ FBFM6 FBFM8 ❑ FBFM9 ❑ FBFM10 FBFM11 Fuel Class data (LANDFIRE REFRESH 2O08 (If_1.1.0)) provided by the Wildland Fire Science, Earth Resources Observation and Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey. The LANDFIRE fuel data describe the composition and characteristics of both surface fuel and canopy fuel. Thirteen typical surface fuel arrangements or "collections of fuel properties" (Anderson 1982) were described to serve as input for Rothermel's mathematical surface fire behavior and spread model (Rothermel 1972). These fire behavior fuel models represent distinct distributions of fuel loadings found among surface fuel components (live and dead), size classes and fuel types. The fuel models are described by the most common fire carrying fuel type (grass, brush, timber litter or slash), loading and surface area -to -volume ratio by size class and component, fuelbed depth and moisture of extinction. Base Map Data Sources: King County, U.S. Geological Survey King County a TETRA TECH N W E 0 0.5 1 S Miles