Everett staff urge targeted approach to riparian buffers as state guidance prompts review

Teddy Holbrook, the City of Everettenvironmental planner, told the Planning Commission on Sept. 16 that the city must update its critical areas ordinance by 12/31/2025 and opened a multi-meeting briefing focused on wetlands, streams, landslide and flood hazard areas, and the regulatory background that will guide changes.

Holbrook said the city maps include about 72 miles of streams, 811 acres of mapped wetlands in 717 individual wetland polygons, 2,011 acres of potential landslide hazard and 6,710 acres in mapped special flood hazard areas. He said the update must follow the Growth Management Act and be grounded in best available science (BAS).

The presentation emphasized recent Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) guidance recommending a riparian management-zone width based on site potential tree height (SPTH) calculated at a 200-year tree height. Holbrook summarized WDFWmaterials and an internal best available science summary prepared by staff, and said Everett GIS work shows SPTH across the city ranges roughly from 94 feet to 243 feet with most areas near 200 feet. He also noted a separate BAS takeaway that a roughly 100-foot buffer can achieve about 95% pollution removal for many pollutants.

Commissioners pressed staff on trade-offs. Several said Everett is a designated metropolitan center and is densely developed; larger protective widths could reduce buildable land and complicate the growth strategy in the recently adopted Everett 2044 plan. One commissioner summarized the tension: "We have worked really hard to set the stage for creativity around growthand we just don't want to gum up those works." Another commissioner asked whether failing to adopt WDFW's recommended methodology would expose the city to legal risk under the Growth Management Act; staff replied that BAS is a statutory requirement and that departure requires thorough local BAS or other defensible justification.

Staff outlined specific considerations for SPTH: implementation could be time-consuming and costly, rely on coarse soil-polygon data from the National Resource Conservation Service, and be less predictable for applicants because it may require site-specific forestry analysis. Holbrook suggested staff would continue to explore alternatives some jurisdictions are testing and would return with mapping, impact estimates and recommended regulatory language at future meetings.

Holbrook said staff will develop a public participation plan for the critical areas ordinance update, including targeted stakeholder outreach, coordination with state agencies and tribes, SEPA notice, and additional Planning Commission briefings and public hearings. He asked the commission three specific questions: whether commissioners had questions on the BAS summary; whether the commission wanted staff to continue exploring alternatives to SPTH; and whether commissioners had comments on the public outreach plan.

The commission did not take a formal vote on policy but signaled concern about adopting an SPTH-based methodology citywide without further study of effects on buildable lands and predictability for applicants. Staff said it will prepare maps comparing existing stream buffer widths to SPTH-derived widths and estimate impacts on development capacity for future meetings.

The public record included one brief speaker, resident Daniel Dodson, who said he was "participating to understand more about how the planning commission works," and had no substantive comment on the item at the hearing.

Next steps: staff will hold additional stakeholder meetings in September and October, refine BAS materials and maps, start a SEPA checklist and determination, and return to the Planning Commission and City Council with proposed code changes later in the adoption timeline.