(1) 
A permit shall be granted for activities in regulated wetlands or wetland buffers if the permit, as conditioned, is consistent with the provisions of this chapter. Additionally, permits shall be granted if:
(a) 
A proposed action avoids adverse impacts to regulated wetlands or their buffers or takes affirmative and appropriate measures to minimize and compensate for unavoidable impacts;
(b) 
The proposed activity results in no net loss; or
(c) 
Denial of a permit would deny the applicant of all reasonable economic use of his property. The inability to derive reasonable economic use of the property may not be the result of actions by the applicant in segregating or dividing the property and creating the undevelopable condition after the effective date of this chapter.
(2) 
Wetlands permits shall not be effective and no activity thereunder shall be allowed during the time provided to file a permit appeal.
(Ord. 341 § 7, 1992)
(1) 
Wetland buffers shall be required for all regulated activities adjacent to regulated wetlands. All buffers shall be measured from the wetland boundary. The width of the wetland buffer zone shall be determined according to the wetland category as follows:
Wetland Rating and Characteristics
Buffer Widths by Impact of Land Use*
Other Measures Recommended for Protection
Category IV (score for functions < 30 points)
Low – 25 feet
Moderate – 40 feet
High – 50 feet
 
Category III – moderate level of function for habitat (score for habitat 20 – 28 points)
Low – 75 feet
Moderate – 110 feet
High – 150 feet
 
Category III – not meeting above criteria for habitat
Low – 40 feet
Moderate – 60 feet
High – 80 feet
 
Category II – high level of function for habitat (score for habitat 29 – 36 points)
Low – 150 feet
Moderate – 225 feet
High – 300 feet
Maintain connectivity to other natural areas.
Category II – moderate level of function for habitat (score for habitat 20 – 28 points)
Low – 75 feet
Moderate – 110 feet
High – 150 feet
 
Category II – high level of function for water quality improvement (score for water quality 24 – 32 points) and low level of function for habitat (score for habitat < 20 points)
Low – 50 feet
Moderate – 75 feet
High – 100 feet
No additional discharges of untreated runoff.
Category II – not meeting any of above criteria for habitat or water quality
Low – 50 feet
Moderate – 75 feet
High – 100 feet
 
Category I – Natural Heritage Wetlands
Low – 125 feet
Moderate – 190 feet
High – 250 feet
No additional discharges of surface water. No septic systems within 300 feet. Restore degraded parts of buffer.
Category I – Bogs
Low – 125 feet
Moderate – 190 feet
High – 250 feet
No additional discharges of surface water. Restore degraded parts of buffer.
Category I – Forested
Buffer size needs to be based on score for habitat functions or water quality functions.
If forested wetland scores high for habitat, need to maintain connectivity to other natural areas. Restore degraded parts of buffer.
Category I – high level of function for habitat (score for habitat 29 – 36 points)
Low – 150 feet
Moderate – 225 feet
High – 300 feet
Maintain connectivity to other natural areas. Restore degraded parts of buffer.
Category I – moderate level of function for habitat (score for habitat 20 – 28 points)
Low – 75 feet
Moderate – 110 feet
High – 150 feet
 
Category I – high level of function for water quality improvement (score for water quality 24 – 32 points) and low level of function for habitat (score for habitat < 20 points)
Low – 50 feet
Moderate – 75 feet
High – 100 feet
No additional discharges of untreated runoff.
Category I – not meeting any of above criteria for habitat or water quality
Low – 50 feet
Moderate – 75 feet
High – 100 feet
 
* See subsection (2)(c) of this section for definitions of high, moderate, and low impacts.
(2) 
Buffer Reduction. The buffer widths recommended for proposed land uses with high-intensity impacts to wetlands can be reduced by the planning director to those recommended for moderate-intensity impacts under the following conditions:
(a) 
For wetlands that score moderate or high for habitat (20 points or more for the habitat functions), the width of the buffer can be reduced if both of the following criteria are met:
(i) 
A relatively undisturbed, vegetated corridor at least 100 feet wide is protected between the wetland and any other priority habitats as defined by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (“relatively undisturbed” and “vegetated corridor” are defined in questions H 2.1 and H 2.2.1 of the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington – Revised, (Hruby 2004b)). Priority habitats in Western Washington include:
Wetlands
Riparian zones
Aspen stands
Cliffs
Prairies
Caves
Stands of Oregon White Oak
Old-growth forests
Estuary/estuary-like
Marine/estuarine shorelines
Eelgrass meadows
Talus slopes
Urban natural open space (for current definitions of priority habitats, see http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phshabs.htm)
The corridor must be protected for the entire distance between the wetland and the priority habitat by some type of legal protection such as a conservation easement.
(ii) 
Measures to minimize the impacts of different land uses on wetlands, such as the examples summarized in Table 14.15-1, are applied.
(b) 
For wetlands that score less than 20 points for habitat, the buffer width can be reduced to that required for moderate land use impacts by applying measures to minimize the impacts of the proposed land uses (see examples in Table 14.15-1).
Table 14.15-1
Examples of Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands from Proposed Change in Land Use That Have High Impacts
(this is not a complete list of measures)
Examples of Disturbance
Activities and Uses that Cause Disturbances
Examples of Measures to Minimize Impacts
Lights
• Parking lots
• Warehouses
• Manufacturing
• Residential areas
• Direct lights away from wetland
Noise
• Manufacturing
• Residential areas
• Locate activity that generates noise away from wetland
Toxic runoff*
• Parking lots
• Roads
• Manufacturing
• Residential areas
• Application of agricultural pesticides
• Landscaping
• Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland while ensuring wetland is not dewatered
• Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 feet of wetland
• Apply integrated pest management
Stormwater runoff
• Parking lots
• Roads
• Manufacturing
• Residential areas
• Commercial
• Landscaping
• Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for roads and existing adjacent development
• Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the buffer
Change in water regime
• Impermeable surfaces
• Lawns
• Tilling
• Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from impervious surfaces and new lawns
Pets and human disturbance
• Residential areas
• Use privacy fencing; plant dense vegetation to delineate buffer edge and to discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate for the ecoregion; place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract
Dust
• Tilled fields
• Use best management practices to control dust
* These examples are not necessarily adequate for minimizing toxic runoff if threatened or endangered species are present at the site.
(c) 
Defining of “High, Moderate, and Low Impacts” as Used in Subsection (1) of This Section. The following table provides examples of the types of land use and their impact upon wetlands:
Level of Impact from Proposed Change in Land Use
Types of Land Use Based upon Zoning Designations
High
• High Density Commercial
• Forks Industrial Park and Industrial
• High and Moderate Density Residential
Moderate
• Moderate and Low Density Commercial
• Low Density Residential
• Farming/Agricultural activities conducted pursuant to established plans using best available practices, advice of conservation districts, etc.
• Utility corridors with right-of-way shared by utility providers
• Paved roads and/or trails
Low
• Low Density Residential
• Forestry activities taken pursuant to appropriate Forest Practice Act permits issued by the Department of Natural Resources
(3) 
Buffer Averaging.
(a) 
The widths of buffers may be averaged if this will improve the protection of wetland functions, or if it is the only way to allow for reasonable use of a parcel. Averaging could be allowed in the following situations:
(i) 
Averaging to improve wetland protection may be permitted when all of the following conditions are met:
(A) 
The wetland has significant differences in characteristics that affect its habitat functions, such as a wetland with a forested component adjacent to a degraded emergent component or a “dual-rated” wetland with a Category I area adjacent to a lower-rated area.
(B) 
The buffer is increased adjacent to the higher-functioning area of habitat or more sensitive portion of the wetland and decreased adjacent to the lower-functioning or less sensitive portion.
(C) 
The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging.
(D) 
The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than three-fourths of the required width.
(ii) 
Averaging to allow reasonable use of a parcel may be permitted when all of the following are met:
(A) 
There are no feasible alternatives to the site design that could be accomplished without buffer averaging.
(B) 
The averaged buffer will not result in degradation of the wetland’s functions and values as demonstrated by a report from a qualified wetland professional.
(C) 
The total buffer area after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging.
(D) 
The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than three-fourths of the required width.
(b) 
Averaging may not be used in conjunction with any of the other provisions of this chapter associated with the reduction of a required wetland buffer (listed above).
(4) 
Measurement of Wetland Buffers. All buffers shall be measured from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. The width of the wetland buffer shall be determined according to the wetland category and the proposed land use as identified in this title. The buffer for a wetland created, restored, or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall be the same as the buffer required for the category of the created, restored, or enhanced wetland. Only fully vegetated buffers will be considered. Lawns, walkways, driveways, and other mowed or paved areas will not be considered buffers.
(5) 
Buffers on Mitigation Sites. All mitigation sites shall have buffers consistent with the buffer requirements of this chapter and based on the expected category of the wetland once the mitigation actions are completed.
(6) 
Buffer Maintenance. Except as otherwise specified or allowed in accordance with this chapter, wetland buffers shall be retained in an undisturbed or enhanced condition. In the case of compensatory mitigation sites, removal of invasive nonnative weeds is required for the duration of the mitigation bond.
(7) 
Buffer Uses. The following uses may be permitted within a wetland buffer in accordance with the review procedures of this title, provided they are not prohibited by any other applicable law and they are conducted in a manner so as to minimize impacts to the buffer and adjacent wetland:
(a) 
Conservation and Restoration Activities. Conservation or restoration activities aimed at protecting the soil, water, vegetation, or wildlife.
(b) 
Passive Recreation. Passive recreation facilities designed and in accordance with an approved critical area report, including:
(i) 
Walkways and trails; provided, that those pathways are limited to minor crossings having no adverse impact on water quality. They should be generally parallel to the perimeter of the wetland, located only in the outer 25 percent of the wetland buffer area, and located to avoid removal of significant trees. They should be limited to pervious surfaces no more than five feet in width for pedestrian use only. Raised boardwalks utilizing nontreated pilings may be acceptable; and
(ii) 
Wildlife viewing structures.
(c) 
Stormwater Management Facilities. Stormwater management facilities, limited to stormwater dispersion outfalls and bioswales, may be allowed within the outer 25 percent of the buffer of Category III or IV wetlands only; provided, that:
(i) 
No other location is feasible; and
(ii) 
The location of such facilities will not degrade the functions or values of the wetland.
(Ord. 341 § 7.1, 1992; Ord. 550 § 9, 2007)
(1) 
Regulated activities shall not be authorized in a regulated wetland except where it can be demonstrated that the impact is both unavoidable and necessary.
(2) 
Category I Wetlands. Activities and uses shall be prohibited from Category I wetlands, except as provided for in relationship to exceptions associated with public agencies and utilities, reasonable use, and variances within this chapter.
(3) 
Category II and III Wetlands. For Category II and III wetlands, the following standards shall apply:
(a) 
Where wetland fill is proposed, it is presumed that an alternative development location exists; activities and uses shall be prohibited unless the applicant can demonstrate that:
(i) 
The basic project purpose cannot reasonably be accomplished on another site or sites in the general region while still successfully avoiding or resulting in less adverse impact on a wetland; and
(ii) 
All on-site alternative designs that would avoid or result in less adverse impact on a wetland or its buffer, such as a reduction in the size, scope, configuration or density of the project, are not feasible.
(b) 
Full compensation for the loss of acreage and functions of wetlands and buffers shall be provided under the terms established under the mitigation elements of this chapter.
(4) 
Category IV Wetlands. Activities and uses that result in unavoidable impacts may be permitted in Category IV wetlands and associated buffers in accordance with an approved critical area(s) report and compensatory mitigation plan, and only if the proposed activity is the only reasonable alternative that will accomplish the applicant’s objectives. Full compensation for the loss of acreage and functions of wetlands and buffers shall be provided under the terms established under the mitigation elements of this chapter.
(5) 
Reasonable Use. If an applicant for a development proposal demonstrates to the satisfaction of the planning director that application of these standards would deny all reasonable economic use of the property, development as conditioned shall be allowed if the applicant also demonstrates all of the following to the satisfaction of the planning director:
(a) 
That the proposed project is water-dependent or requires access to the wetland as a central element of its basic function, or is not water-dependent but has no practicable alternative, pursuant to this section;
(b) 
That the proposed activities will result in minimum feasible alteration or impairment to the wetland’s functional characteristics and its existing contours, vegetation, fish and wildlife resources, and hydrological conditions;
(c) 
That the proposed activities will not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered, threatened, rare, sensitive, or monitor species as listed by the federal government or the state of Washington;
(d) 
That the proposed activities will not cause significant degradation of ground water or surface water quality;
(e) 
That there will be no damage to nearby public or private property and no threat to the health or safety of people on or off the property; and
(f) 
That the inability to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant in segregating or dividing the property and creating the undevelopable condition after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter.
(Ord. 341 § 7.2, 1992; Ord. 550 § 10, 2007)
(1) 
After it has been determined by the planning director that a proposed activity will be authorized in a regulated wetland or wetland boundary, the applicant shall take deliberate measures to minimize wetland impacts.
(2) 
Minimizing impacts to wetlands shall include but is not limited to:
(a) 
Limiting the degree or magnitude of the regulated activity;
(b) 
Limiting the implementation of the regulated activity;
(c) 
Using appropriate and best available technology;
(d) 
Taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts;
(e) 
Sensitive site design and siting of facilities and construction staging areas away from regulated wetlands and their buffers;
(f) 
Involving resource agencies early in site planning; and
(g) 
Providing protective measures, such as siltation curtains and other siltation prevention measures, scheduling the regulated activity to avoid interference with wildlife and fisheries rearing, resting, nesting, or spawning activities.
(Ord. 341 § 7.3, 1992; Ord. 550 § 11, 2007)
(1) 
Requirements for Compensatory Mitigation. Compensatory mitigation for alterations to wetlands shall achieve equivalent or greater biologic functions. Compensatory mitigation plans shall be consistent with the Guidance on Wetland Mitigation in Washington State – Part 2: Guidelines for Developing Wetland Mitigation Plans and Proposals, April 2004 (Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10; Ecology Publication #04-06-013b), or as revised.
(2) 
Mitigation shall be required in the following order of preference:
(a) 
Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
(b) 
Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts.
(c) 
Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.
(d) 
Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations.
(e) 
Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments.
(f) 
Monitoring the required compensation and taking remedial or corrective measures when necessary.
(3) 
Compensating for Lost or Affected Functions. Compensatory mitigation shall address the functions affected by the proposed project, with an intention to achieve functional equivalency or improvement of functions. The goal shall be for the compensatory mitigation to provide similar wetland functions as those lost, except when either:
(a) 
The lost wetland provides minimal functions as determined by a site-specific function assessment, and the proposed compensatory mitigation action(s) will provide equal or greater functions or will provide functions shown to be limiting within a watershed through a formal Washington State watershed assessment plan or protocol; or
(b) 
Out-of-kind replacement of wetland type or functions will best meet watershed goals formally identified by the city, such as replacement of historically diminished wetland types.
(4) 
Preference of Mitigation Actions. Methods to achieve compensation for wetland functions shall be approached in the following order of preference:
(a) 
Restoration (re-establishment and rehabilitation) of wetlands.
(b) 
Creation (establishment) of wetlands on disturbed upland sites such as those with vegetative cover consisting primarily of nonnative introduced species. This should only be attempted when there is an adequate source of water and it can be shown that the surface and subsurface hydrologic regime is conducive for the wetland community that is anticipated in the design.
(c) 
Enhancement of significantly degraded wetlands in combination with restoration or creation. Such enhancement should be part of a mitigation package that includes replacing the impacted area and meeting appropriate ratio requirements.
(5) 
Type and Location of Compensatory Mitigation. Unless it is demonstrated that a higher level of ecological functioning would result from an alternate approach, compensatory mitigation for ecological functions shall be either in-kind and on-site, or in-kind and within the same stream reach, sub-basin, or drift cell (if estuarine wetlands are impacted). Compensatory mitigation actions shall be conducted within the same sub-drainage basin and on the site of the alteration except when all of the following apply:
(a) 
There are no reasonable on-site or in sub-drainage basin opportunities (e.g., on-site options would require elimination of high-functioning upland habitat), or on-site and in sub-drainage basin opportunities do not have a high likelihood of success based on a determination of the capacity of the site to compensate for the impacts.
(b) 
Off-site mitigation has a greater likeli-hood of providing equal or improved wetland functions than the impacted wetland.
(c) 
Off-site locations shall be in the same sub-drainage basin unless:
(i) 
Established watershed goals for water quality, flood storage or conveyance, habitat, or other wetland functions have been established by the city and strongly justify location of mitigation at another site; or
(ii) 
Credits from a state-certified wetland mitigation bank are used as compensation and the use of credits is consistent with the terms of the bank’s certification.
(d) 
The design for the compensatory mitigation project needs to be appropriate for its location (i.e., position in the landscape).
(6) 
Timing of Compensatory Mitigation. It is preferred that compensatory mitigation projects be completed prior to activities that will disturb the on-site wetlands. At the least, compensatory mitigation shall be completed immediately following disturbance and prior to use or occupancy of the action or development. Construction of mitigation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing fisheries, wildlife, and flora.
The planning director may authorize a one-time temporary delay in completing construction or installation of the compensatory mitigation when the applicant provides a written explanation from a qualified wetland professional as to the rationale for the delay. An appropriate rationale would include identification of the environmental conditions that could produce a high probability of failure or significant construction difficulties (e.g., project delay lapses past a fisheries window; or installing plants should be delayed until the dormant season to ensure greater survival of installed materials). The delay shall not create or perpetuate hazardous conditions or environmental damage or degradation, and the delay shall not be injurious to the health, safety, and general welfare of the public. The request for the temporary delay must include a written justification that documents the environmental constraints that preclude implementation of the compensatory mitigation plan. The justification must be verified and approved by the city.
(7) 
Mitigation Ratios.
(a) 
When an applicant proposes to alter or eliminate a regulated wetland, the functions and values of the affected wetland and buffer shall be replaced through wetland creation, re-establishment, rehabilitation, or enhancement, according to the minimum ratios established in the table in this section. The ratios shall apply to wetland creation, re-establishment, rehabilitation, or enhancement, which is in-kind, on-site, of the same category, timed prior to or concurrent with alteration, and has a high probability of success.
(b) 
Ratios for out-of-kind or off-site mitigation may be greater than set forth in the table, if the planning director determines that additional mitigation is warranted to mitigate impacts. Ratios for remedial actions resulting from unauthorized alterations shall be greater than set forth in the table; provided, that the extent of the increase shall be as determined by the planning director to be appropriate in the circumstances.
(c) 
Replacement ratios may be decreased by up to 25 percent by the planning director, if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the planning director that all of the following criteria are met:
(i) 
Documentation by a qualified professional demonstrates that the proposed mitigation actions have a very high likelihood of success;
(ii) 
Documentation by a qualified professional demonstrates that the proposed mitigation actions will provide functions and values that are significantly greater than the wetland being altered;
(iii) 
The proposed mitigation actions are conducted in advance of the impact and shown to be successful through post-construction monitoring and function assessment.
(d) 
The mitigation ratios in the following table are required for all projects with unavoidable impacts to wetlands:
Affected Wetland
Mitigation Type and Ratio
Category
Re-establishment or Wetland Creation
Rehabilitation
Re-establishment or Creation (R/C) and Enhancement (E)
Enhancement Only
Category IV
1.5:1
3:1
1:1 R/C and 2:1 E
6:1
Category III
2:1
4:1
1:1 R/C and 2:1 E
8:1
Category II
3:1
6:1
1:1 R/C and 4:1 E
12:1
Category I – Forested
6:1
12:1
1:1 R/C and 10:1 E
24:1
Category I – Score-Based
4:1
8:1
1:1 R/C and 10:1 E
16:1
Category I – Bog
Not possible
6:1
Case by Case
Case by Case
(8) 
Preservation. Impacts to wetlands may be mitigated by preservation of wetland areas when used in combination with other forms of mitigation such as creation, restoration, or enhancement.
(a) 
Acceptable Uses of Preservation. The preservation of at-risk, high quality wetlands and habitat may be considered as part of an acceptable mitigation plan when the following criteria are met:
(i) 
Preservation is used as a form of compensation only after the standard sequencing of mitigation (avoid, minimize, and then compensate);
(ii) 
Restoration (re-establishment and rehabilitation), creation, and enhancement opportunities have also been considered, and preservation is proposed by the applicant and approved by the permitting agencies as the best compensation option;
(iii) 
The preservation site is determined to be under imminent threat; that is, the site has the potential to experience a high rate of undesirable ecological change due to on-site or off-site activities that are not regulated. This potential includes permitted, planned, or likely actions;
(iv) 
The area proposed for preservation is of high quality or critical for the health of the watershed or basin due to its location. Some of the following features may be indicative of high quality sites:
(A) 
Category I or II wetland rating (using the Washington State wetland rating system for Western Washington);
(B) 
Rare or irreplaceable wetland type (e.g., bogs, mature forested wetlands, estuaries) or aquatic habitat that is rare or a limited resource in the area;
(C) 
Habitat for threatened or endangered species;
(D) 
Provides biological and/or hydrological connectivity;
(E) 
High regional or watershed importance (e.g., listed as priority site in a watershed or basin plan);
(F) 
Large size with high species diversity (plants and/or animals) and/or high abundance of native species;
(G) 
A site that is continuous with the head of a watershed, or with a lake or pond in an upper watershed that significantly improves out-flow hydrology and water quality.
(b) 
Preservation in Combination with Other Forms of Compensation. Using preservation as compensation is acceptable when done in combination with restoration, creation, or enhancement; provided, that a minimum of one-to-one acreage replacement is provided by re-establishment or creation and the criteria below are met:
(i) 
All criteria listed in subsection (8)(a) of this section are met;
(ii) 
The impact area is small and/or impacts are occurring to a low-functioning system (Category III or IV wetland);
(iii) 
Preservation of a high quality system occurs in the same watershed or basin as the wetland impact;
(iv) 
Preservation sites include buffer areas adequate to protect the habitat and its functions from encroachment and degradation; and
(v) 
Mitigation ratios for preservation in combination with other forms of mitigation shall range from 10 to one to 20 to one, as determined on a case-by-case basis, depending on the quality of the wetlands being impacted and the quality of the wetlands being preserved.
(c) 
Preservation as the Sole Means of Compensation for Wetland Impacts. Preservation alone shall only be used as compensatory mitigation in exceptional circumstances. Preservation alone shall not apply if impacts are occurring to functions that must be replaced on-site, such as flood storage or water quality treatment that needs to be replicated by water quality measures implemented within the project limits. Preservation of at-risk, high quality wetlands and habitat (as defined above) may be considered as the sole means of compensation for wetland impacts when the following criteria are met:
(i) 
All criteria listed in subsections (8)(a) and (b) of this section are met;
(ii) 
There are no adverse impacts to habitat for fish and species listed as endangered and threatened;
(iii) 
There is no net loss of habitat functions within the watershed or basin;
(iv) 
Higher mitigation ratios are applied. Mitigation ratios for preservation as the sole means of mitigation shall generally start at 20 to one. Specific ratios should depend upon the significance of the preservation project and the quality of the wetland resources lost.
(9) 
Wetland Mitigation Banks.
(a) 
Credits from a wetland mitigation bank may be approved for use as compensation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands when:
(i) 
The bank is certified under Chapter 173-700 WAC;
(ii) 
The planning director determines that the wetland mitigation bank provides appropriate compensation for the authorized impacts; and
(iii) 
The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions of the bank’s certification.
(b) 
Replacement ratios for projects using bank credits shall be consistent with replacement ratios specified in the bank’s certification.
(c) 
Credits from a certified wetland mitigation bank may be used to compensate for impacts located within the service area specified in the bank’s certification. In some cases, the service area of the bank may include portions of more than one adjacent drainage basin for specific wetland functions.
(Ord. 550 § 12, 2007)
(1) 
For development proposal on lands containing wetland buffers, the planning director shall determine allowable dwelling units for residential development proposals based on the formula below.
(2) 
The following formula for density calculations is designed to provide incentives for the preservation of wetlands and wetland buffers, flexibility in design, and consistent treatment of different types of development proposals. The formula shall apply to all properties within existing residential zones on which wetlands and wetland buffers are located.
The maximum number of dwelling units (du) for a lot or parcel which contains wetlands and wetland buffers shall be equal to: (acres in wetland buffer) (du/acre) (density credit).
(3) 
The density credit figure is derived from the following table:
Percentage of Site in Buffers
Density Credit
1 – 10%
100%
11 – 20%
90%
21 – 30%
80%
31 – 40%
70%
41 – 50%
60%
51 – 60%
50%
61 – 70%
40%
71 – 80%
30%
81 – 90%
20%
91 – 99%
10%
(4) 
The density credit can only be transferred within the development proposal site. To the extent that application of the formula may result in lot sizes less than the minimum allowed by the underlying district, they are hereby authorized; provided, that the resultant lot is of sufficient size for an on-site waste disposal system if no sanitary sewer system exists.
(5) 
The planning director shall not allow credit for density for the portions of the site occupied by wetlands.
(Ord. 341 § 7.4, 1992)
(1) 
Bonding.
(a) 
Performance Bonds. The planning director shall require, if necessary, the application of a development proposal to post a cash performance bond or other security acceptable to the planning director in an amount and with surety and conditions sufficient to secure compliance with conditions and limitations set forth in the permit. The amount and the conditions of the bond shall be consistent with the purposes of the chapter. In the event of a breach of any condition of any such bond, the planning director may institute an action in a court of competent jurisdiction upon such bond and prosecute the same to judgment and execution. The planning director shall release the bond upon determining that:
(i) 
All activities have been completed in compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit and the requirements of this chapter;
(ii) 
Upon the posting by the applicant of a maintenance bond.
Until such written release of the bond, the principal or surety cannot be terminated or canceled.
(b) 
Maintenance Bonds. The planning director shall, if necessary, require the holder of a development permit issued pursuant to this chapter to post a cash performance bond or other security acceptable to the planning director in an amount and with surety and conditions sufficient to guarantee that structures, improvement, and mitigation required by the permit or by this chapter perform satisfactorily for a minimum of two years after they have been completed. The planning director shall release the maintenance bond upon determining that performance standards established for evaluating the effectiveness and success of the structures, improvements, and/or compensatory mitigation have been satisfactorily met for the required period. For compensation projects, the performance standards shall be those contained in the mitigation plan developed and approved during the permit review process, pursuant to FMC §§ 14.15.120 and 14.15.175. The maintenance bond applicable to a compensation project shall not be released until the planning director determines that performance standards established for evaluating the effect and success of the project have been met.
(2) 
Suspension – Revocation. In addition to other penalties provided for elsewhere, the planning director may suspend or revoke a permit if he finds that the applicant or permittee has not complied with any or all of the conditions or limitations set forth in the permit, has exceeded the scope of work set forth in the permit, or has failed to undertake the project in the manner set forth in the approved application.
(3) 
Publication of Notice. The planning director shall cause notice of his issuance, conditional issuance, revocation, or suspension of a permit to be published in a daily newspaper having a broad circulation in the area wherein the wetland lies. Such notice shall be published within five working days of the decision or order and shall include at least the following:
(a) 
A brief description of the project, including location;
(b) 
The decision or order of the planning director with respect to the project;
(c) 
Notification that the permit file is open for public inspection during regular business hours, and the address where such file may be inspected; and
(d) 
A statement of the procedures regarding appeal or judicial review of the decision, if applicable.
(Ord. 341 § 7.5, 1992)
Any decision of the planning director in the administration of this chapter may be appealed to-the city council.
(Ord. 341 § 7.6, 1992)