HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrd 2174 - Wetland Mitigation Credit Determination (Repealed by Ord 2301) Repealed by 2301
k -.off r9oe
City of u la
Washington
Ordinance No. 2174 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2074, AS CODIFIED AT
TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 18.45, TO CREATE A PROCESS
FOR DETERMINING THE NUMBER OF WETLAND MITIGATION
CREDITS REQUIRED FOR OFF -SITE MITIGATION; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance does not currently address a
method for determining the number of wetland mitigation bank credits needed for a
specific off -site mitigation project; and
WHEREAS, on May 24, 2007, the City of Tukwila Planning Commission held a
public hearing on the proposed amendments that would create a decision process and
criteria for the determination of the number of wetland mitigation credits required for
off -site mitigation, and has recommended the adoption of certain Zoning Code changes;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on these proposed amendments
on July 16, 2007, after proper notice; and
WHEREAS, after having received and studied staff analysis, the City Council
believes these amendments to the City's sensitive area regulations are desirable;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ordinance No. 2074 §1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.45.090, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
18.45.090 Wetlands Uses, Alterations and Mitigation
A. No use or development may occur in a Type 1, Type 2 or Type 3 wetland or its
buffer except as specifically allowed by TMC Chapter 18.45. Any use or development
allowed is subject to review and approval by the Director. Where required, a mitigation
or enhancement plan must be developed and must comply with the standards of
mitigation required in TMC Chapter 18.45.
B. Alterations
1. Alterations to wetlands are discouraged and are limited to the minimum
necessary for project feasibility. Requests for alterations must be accompanied by a
mitigation plan, are subject to Director approval, and may be approved only if the
following findings are made:
a. The alteration will not adversely affect water quality;
b. The alteration will not adversely affect fish, wildlife, or their habitat;
C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Desktop\Kelly\MSDATA \Ordinances \Wetland Mitigation Credits.doc
GL:ksn 7/12/2007 Page 1 of 5
c. The alteration will not have an adverse effect on drainage and /or storm
water detention capabilities;
d. The alteration will not lead to unstable earth conditions or create an
erosion hazard or contribute to scouring actions;
and
e. The alteration will not be materially detrimental to any other property;
f. The alteration will not have adverse effects on any other sensitive areas.
2. Alterations are not permitted to Type 1 wetlands unless specifically exempted
under the provisions of TMC Chapter 18.45.
3. Alterations to Type 2 wetlands are prohibited except where the location or
configuration of the wetland provides practical difficulties that can be resolved by
modifying up to .10 (one- tenth) of an acre of wetland. Mitigation for any alteration to a
Type 2 wetland must be provided at a ratio of 1.5:1 for creation or restoration and 3:1
for enhancement and must be located contiguous to the altered wetland.
4. Isolated Type 3 wetlands may be altered or relocated only with the
permission of the Director. A mitigation or enhancement plan must be developed and
must comply with the standards of mitigation required in TMC Chapter 18.45.
5. Mitigation plans shall be completed for any proposals for dredging, filling,
alterations and relocation of wetland habitat allowed in TMC Chapter 18.45.
6. Isolated wetlands formed on fill material in highly disturbed environmental
conditions and assessed as having low overall wetland functions may be altered and/ or
relocated under TMC Chapter 18.45. These wetlands may include artificial hydrology
or wetlands unintentionally created as the result of construction activities. The
determination that a wetland is isolated is made through the Type 2 permit process. A
mitigation or enhancement plan must be developed and must comply with the
standards of mitigation required in TMC Chapter 18.45.
C. Mitigation Sequencing. Applicants shall demonstrate that reasonable efforts
have been examined with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and
wetland buffers. When an alteration to a wetland or its required buffer is proposed,
such alteration shall be avoided, minimized or compensated for in the following order
of preference:
1. Avoidance of wetland and wetland buffer impacts, whether by finding
another site or changing the location of the proposed activity on -site.
2. Minimizing wetland and wetland buffer impacts by limiting the degree of
impact on site.
3. Mitigation actions that require compensation by replacing, enhancing, or
substitution shall occur in the following order of preference:
a. restoring wetlands on upland sites that were formerly wetlands;
b. enhancing significantly degraded wetlands;
c. creating wetlands on disturbed upland sites such as those with vegetative
cover consisting primarily of exotic introduced species or noxious weeds.
D. Mitigation Plans.
1. The mitigation plan shall be developed as part of a sensitive area study by a
specialist approved by the Director. Wetland and or buffer alteration or relocation
C:\Documents and Settings\Al1 Users\Desktop\Kelly\MSDATA \Ordinances \Wetland Mitigation Credits.doc
GL:ksn 7/12/2007
Page 2 of 5
may be allowed only when a mitigation plan clearly demonstrates that the changes
would be an improvement of wetland and buffer quantitative and qualitative functions.
The plan shall follow the performance standards of TMC Chapter 18.45 and show how
water quality, wildlife and fish habitat, and general wetland quality would be
improved.
2. In order to achieve the City's goal of no net loss of wetland functions and
acreage, alteration of wetlands will require the applicant to provide a restoration or
creation plan to compensate for the impacts to the wetland and will compensate at a
ratio of 1.5 :1.
3. Impacts to wetlands may be mitigated by enhancement of existing
significantly degraded wetlands; however, in order to achieve the City's goal of no net
loss of wetland functions and acreage, mitigation through enhancement must be
compensated at a ratio of 3:1. Applicants proposing to enhance wetlands must produce
a sensitive area study that identifies how enhancement will increase the functions of the
degraded wetland and how this increase will adequately mitigate for the loss of
wetland area and function at the impact site. An enhancement proposal must also show
whether existing wetland functions will be reduced by the enhancement actions.
4. The DCD Director may approve, through a Type 2 decision, the transfer of
mitigation to a wetland mitigation bank using the criteria in 4.a. through 4.d below.
The Director must determine the number of wetland mitigation bank credits required to
meet the mitigation ratios established in TMC Chapter 18.45.
a. Off -site mitigation is proposed in a wetland mitigation bank that has been
approved by all appropriate agencies, including the Department of Ecology, Corps of
Engineers, EPA or other regulatory agencies; and
and
b. The applicant provides a justification for the number of credits proposed;
c. The mitigation achieved through the number of credits required meets the
intent of TMC Chapter 18.45; and
d. The Director bases the decision on a written staff report, evaluating the
equivalence of the lost wetland functions with the number of wetland credits required.
E. Mitigation Location.
1. On -site mitigation shall be provided, except where the applicant can
demonstrate that:
a. On -site mitigation is not scientifically feasible due to problems with
hydrology, soils, waves or other factors; or
b. Mitigation is not practical due to potentially adverse impact from
surrounding land uses; or
c. Existing functional values created at the site of the proposed restoration
are significantly greater than lost wetland functional values; or
d. Established regional goals for flood storage, flood conveyance, habitat or
other wetland functions have been established and strongly justify location of
mitigation at another site.
2. Off -site mitigation shall occur within the same watershed where the wetland
loss occurred.
C: \Documents and Settings\AII Users\Desktop\Kelly \MSDATA \Ordinances \Wetland Mitigation Credits.doc
GL:ksn 7/12/2007
Page 3 of 5
3. Mitigation sites located within the Tukwila city limits are preferred.
However, the Director may approve mitigation sites outside the city upon finding that:
a. Adequate measures have been taken to ensure the non development and
long -term viability of the mitigation site; and
occurred.
b. Adequate coordination with the other affected local jurisdiction has
4. In selecting mitigation sites, applicants shall pursue siting in the following
order of preference:
a. Upland sites that were formerly wetlands;
b. Idled upland sites generally having bare ground or vegetative cover
consisting primarily of exotic introduced species, weeds or emergent vegetation;
c. Other disturbed upland;
d. Existing degraded wetland.
F. Mitigation Standards. The scope and content of a mitigation plan shall be
decided on a case -by -case basis. As the impacts to the sensitive area increase, the
mitigation measures to offset these impacts will increase in number and complexity.
The components of a complete wetlands mitigation plan are as follows:
1. Baseline information of quantitative data collection or a review and synthesis
of existing data for both the project impact zone and the proposed mitigation site.
2. Environmental goals and objectives that describe the purposes of the
mitigation measures. This should include a description of site selection criteria,
identification of target evaluation species, and resource functions.
3. Performance standards of the specific criteria for fulfilling environmental
goals, and for beginning remedial action or contingency measures. They may include
water quality standards, species richness and diversity targets, habitat diversity indices,
or other ecological, geological or hydrological criteria.
4. A detailed construction plan of the written specifications and descriptions of
mitigation techniques. This plan should include the proposed construction sequence
and construction management, and be accompanied by detailed site diagrams and
blueprints that are an integral requirement of any development proposal.
5. Monitoring and /or evaluation program that outlines the approach for
assessing a completed project. An outline shall be included that spells out how the
monitoring data will be evaluated by agencies that are tracking the mitigation project's
progress.
6. Contingency plan identifying potential courses of action and any corrective
measures to be taken when monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance
standards have not been met.
7. Performance security or other assurance devices as described in TMC
18.45.210.
G. Mitigation Timing. Mitigation projects shall be completed prior to activities that
will permanently disturb wetlands and either prior to or immediately after activities
that will temporarily disturb wetlands. Construction of mitigation projects shall be
timed to reduce impacts to existing wildlife, flora and water quality, and shall be
completed prior to use or occupancy of the activity or development. The Director may
C: \Documents and Settings\A1l Users \Desktop\Kelly\MSDATA \Ordinances \Wetland Mitigation Credits.doc
GL:ksn 7/12/2007
Page 4 of 5
allow activities that permanently disturb wetlands prior to implementation of the
mitigation plan under the following circumstances:
1. To allow planting or re- vegetation to occur during optimal weather
conditions;
2. To avoid disturbance during critical wildlife periods; or
3. To account for unique site constraints that dictate construction timing or
phasing.
H. Permitted Uses Subject to Exception Approval. Other uses may be permitted
upon receiving a reasonable use exception pursuant to TMC 18.45.180. A use permitted
through a reasonable use exception shall conform to the procedures of TMC Chapter
18.45 and be consistent with the underlying zoning.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to
be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the
remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published
in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days
after passage and publication as provided by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this yin- "H day of 1 L d 2007.
ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED:
Jane/. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TQRM BY:
O`ffrce of they Att�iey
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Filed with the City Clerk: 9- (1 (7 t 7
Passed by the City Council: i t -J h -00
Published: r 7-� `i `7
Effective Date: 7 .2 2/ G' 7
Ordinance Number: 1
C:\Documents and Settings\All Users \Desktop\Kelly \MSDATA \Ordinances \Wetland Mitigation Credits.doc
GL:ksn 7/12/2007
Page 5 of 5
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE
No. 2174
City of Tukwila, Washington
On July 16, 2007, the City Council of the City of Tukwila, Washington, adopted
Ordinance No. 2174, the main points of which are summarized by its title as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2074, AS CODIFIED AT TUKWILA
MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 18.45, TO CREATE A PROCESS FOR DETERMINING
THE NUMBER OF WETLAND MITIGATION CREDITS REQUIRED FOR OFF -SITE
MITIGATION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
The full text of this ordinance will be mailed upon request.
Approved by the City Council at a Regular Meeting on July 16, 2007.
2
AL)
E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk
Published Seattle Times: July 19, 2007