City staff outline required updates to Critical Areas and Floodplain ordinances; public review set for fall

City planning staff presented a combined overview of the current update effort for the city’s Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) and the Floodplain Management Ordinance (Chapter 16.18). Senior planner Sarah Pizzo and Economic & Community Director Christy Osborne explained that state law and periodic review require the city to incorporate best available science and state guidance in updates to regulations that protect wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, geologically hazardous areas, critical aquifer recharge areas and frequently flooded areas.

Pizzo said the city hired consulting firm Facet to prepare best‑available‑science documentation and a gap analysis; those documents were provided to council as attachments. Staff has drafted ordinance language and will complete SEPA review, forward a draft to the Washington State Department of Commerce for 60‑day review, and hold Planning Commission and council hearings this fall with the goal of adopting updated regulations by year‑end.

Key updates described for critical areas include: revising applicability and buffer rules for wetlands and streams; aligning wetland rating and mitigation requirements with the state’s most recent methods; clarifying mitigation sequencing and monitoring start times; adding critical aquifer recharge areas and wellhead protection information to the map and report requirements; reassessing geologic/landslide hazard classifications and adding cumulative impact considerations; consolidating stream standards with fish and wildlife conservation area rules; and considering stronger fines and more explicit nonconforming‑use language for critical areas.

On floodplain management, staff said the city’s mapped flood hazard areas are primarily FEMA Zone A (areas with a 1% annual chance of flood) and that the city participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Proposed changes include clarifying definitions, updating permit application requirements for floodplain development, updating floodplain administrator duties, and requiring specific construction provisions for utilities and buildings in the floodplain. Staff said these updates are intended to maintain NFIP compliance and to incorporate state Department of Ecology recommendations.

Staff emphasized the updates are largely technical and driven by state and federal requirements but noted local policy choices—such as reserve authority over stream buffers and the city’s approach to underfunded capital needs—remain within council discretion. Council members asked about process: whether updates are prompted by the state or by anticipated development, how nonconforming structures are handled after loss or destruction, and whether mapping and site visits would guide specific project review. Pizzo said that critical areas are mapped as an indicator but site‑specific surveys and qualified professional reports will determine on‑the‑ground requirements; she also said reasonable‑use and nonconforming provisions can become part of the draft.

No formal action was taken. Staff said the next steps are SEPA review, department and agency consultation, Planning Commission briefings and public hearings in September–October, and council consideration with an aim to adopt the code by the end of the year.

Ending: Staff asked council for guidance on specific policy questions (for example, stream buffer flexibility in urban center areas) and to direct any requests for additional analysis prior to Planning Commission public hearings.