Council pauses critical-area update after hours of testimony; refers Ordinance 24-097 to committee of the whole

Snohomish County Council paused formal action on Ordinance 24-097 after an extensive staff briefing and more than two hours of public testimony from tribes, state agencies, environmental groups, builders and residents. The ordinance, which would update county code for wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, geologically hazardous areas, critical aquifer recharge areas and flood hazard permits, remains in the public record and was referred to the County Council’s Committee of the Whole for further review.

Ryan Countryman, council staff, summarized the ordinance and said Planning and Development Services proposed changes would generally increase site-specific protections for critical-area functions and values. Countryman told the council the Department of Ecology updated wetland guidance in 2022 and the Department of Commerce updated guidance in 2023; staff described the state’s “best available science” process as set out in WAC 365-195. Countryman also walked the council through site-level examples used by PDS to illustrate trade-offs: buffer averaging, tract/fencing incentives and how small wetlands have been treated under existing code.

Agency witnesses and tribal representatives urged stronger protections. Tim Stapleton, Habitat Program Manager for the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, said the department’s 2020 science synthesis supports minimum riparian buffer distances and requested the county “incorporate the recommended minimum 100-foot riparian management zone buffer distance.” Emily Atkins, critical-area ordinance coordinator at the Washington State Department of Ecology, told the council Ecology opposed Amendment 1 and said restoring provisions that allow narrower reductions or small-wetland exemptions would “increase the risk of wetland impacts.” Todd Gray, an ecologist for the Tulalip Tribes, said current science supports larger buffers for non-fish streams and cautioned that reduced buffers can amount to treaty infringement where tribal resources are affected.

Builders and some developers urged retaining flexible provisions. Natalie Reber of the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties and John Maranti of Pacific Ridge Homes supported Amendment 1 — which would retain current code allowances for buffer reductions tied to tracts, fences and small-wetland mitigation — arguing those tools are used to maintain housing capacity. Maranti showed the council materials for a completed project (Ivy Terrace) that PDS staff also used as an example, saying certain buffer rules would have reduced that project’s buildable units from 89 to an estimated 54 (a loss of roughly 35 units) under the stricter approach.

Council members raised procedural and substantive questions about data needed to balance environmental protection with housing capacity. Staff told the council PDS had run a hypothetical scenario using 100-foot stream buffers and estimated a loss of about 1,200 housing units in the unincorporated urban growth area under that scenario. Staff also said the county’s critical-area monitoring report suggests current permit protections are “largely effective” but that unpermitted actions and other stressors remain important causes of critical-area change.

After more than 40 people spoke at the hearing — including tribal representatives, state agency staff, conservation groups, farmers and developers — the council closed the oral portion of testimony for the day but left the written record open. Councilmember Low moved to refer Ordinance 24-097 to Committee of the Whole for further review; the council approved the referral 4-0, with the record remaining open and staff directed to prepare additional materials and findings to inform later deliberations. Staff recommended allowing at least six weeks for the council to receive and review additional materials before resuming formal hearings and votes.