City staff told the City of Bellevue Planning Commission on May 28 that the city must update its critical areas ordinance using best available science and complete the update by the end of 2025.

"This project was initiated by Council on February 25," Assistant Director Christina Gallant said, explaining the timeline and statutory driver for the code changes.

The presentation from senior planner Kirsten Mant and staff outlined five regulated categories — wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (including streams), critical aquifer recharge areas, geologic hazards and flood hazard areas — and emphasized that the periodic review is required under the Growth Management Act and must reflect the best available science (BAS). "The current update is due by the end of the year, so we're on a pretty quick timeline," Mant said.

Why it matters: The ordinance governs where and how the city protects natural resources and where owners may build. Changes could affect redevelopment in urban areas such as Bel-Red and Wilburton, where commissioners and council gave direction to balance critical-area protections with Bellevue’s housing and growth goals.

Staff described the scope they are pursuing: updating definitions (including whether to use "top of bank" or "ordinary high watermark" for stream buffers), revising the steep-slope definition to exclude nonhazardous manmade slopes, creating clearer rules for redevelopment, adding regulation of critical aquifer recharge areas, revisiting buffer and setback standards, and improving permit and reporting processes.

Commissioners pushed staff on specific tradeoffs. Commissioner Villabasis urged staff to study urban-stream case studies that show development and public open space can coexist. "There are streams in urban areas that have created really fantastic development around it with public spaces and parks," he said, and recommended staff compile examples the commission could review. Commissioner Lou asked about the geographic data behind the city’s maps and whether the ordinance will rely on old King County layers or a refreshed citywide dataset; staff said the public maps are illustrative and site-specific studies will remain the regulatory basis, while the city seeks ways to incorporate new project information into its GIS.

Several commissioners asked about flexibility measures for property owners. Commissioner Villabasis asked how "reasonable use" exceptions would work for middle-housing parcels that might otherwise be rendered undevelopable by buffers; staff said they will follow up with details, noting that some jurisdictions use an economics-based test and that the pending middle-housing code remains a moving piece. Commissioner Richard Perez asked whether buyers will reliably be informed if a property contains a critical area; staff said the city cannot guarantee private disclosure but that land-use counter staff and Mapshot (the city’s illustrative mapping service) are resources for prospective buyers, and staff will work to make newer study results more accessible.

Staff also described outreach and next steps: an in-person open house (planned for June 16, location pending), a virtual "lunch and learn" in July, a public draft expected in July, follow-up engagement in August, and a goal of a public hearing in October with final adoption before the statutory deadline. Staff noted ongoing coordination with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Department of Ecology (which must approve the ordinance), and the Department of Commerce.

The discussion identified recurring tension points: how to protect fish-bearing urban streams and water quality while not unduly restricting housing capacity; how to treat manmade slopes differently from natural geologic hazards; and ways to improve mapping and data-sharing so applicants and the public better understand on-site conditions. Several commissioners recommended more performance-based options and clearer mitigation sequencing so redevelopment can occur without sacrificing ecological goals.

No formal motions or votes were taken during the study session; staff sought feedback to refine the draft code. Staff committed to returning with more detail on reasonable use exceptions, the top-of-bank versus ordinary-high-watermark question, and how updated geospatial data can be integrated into public information tools.

Looking ahead: Staff plans to release a public draft in July, hold follow-up outreach in August and seek a public hearing later in the year so the city can adopt the update before the end-of-year statutory deadline.