Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Critical Areas topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lake Stevens explores alternative stream-buffer approach as part of critical areas ordinance update
Summary
City staff presented a proposed update to the critical areas ordinance that would adopt best-available science and consider an alternative riparian-buffer methodology (site-specific 100–150 foot buffers) to balance habitat protection and buildable land constraints; council discussed homeowner impacts, grandfathering and mitigation options.
At a Lake Stevens City Council workshop, Russ, a city staff member, presented the city's required update to its critical areas ordinance, emphasizing changes to how the city will manage stream and riparian buffers under "best available science." He said the biggest change would be in stream buffers and that staff is exploring an alternative methodology recommended by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and used by some neighboring cities.
What staff described: Russ explained that state law requires periodic updates to the critical areas code and that the city hired a consultant to perform a gap analysis and a best-available-science review. "Critical areas as defined in state law include wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded hazard areas, geologically hazardous areas and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas," he said. Russ said the proposed approach would move from older stream-typing models to a riparian (riparian management zone) buffer approach in line with WDFW guidance.
Proposed buffer alternatives and rationale: Russ summarized two paths: adopt the WDFW-recommended riparian buffers based on tree-height methodology (which can result in very wide buffers) or pursue WDFW's alternative approach that assumes much of the functional benefits are achieved within about the first 100 feet of buffer. He said his team is proposing to explore an "alternative method, where in most of our smaller streams, we go straight to this 100-foot buffer, and then in some of our larger streams, we would like to go to this 150-foot buffer with the potential then to do further buffer reductions based on a mitigation strategy." He noted that WDFW literature suggests 90% of riparian function occurs within the first ~100 feet and that diminishing returns occur with wider buffers.
Council concerns and clarifications: council members repeatedly raised homeowner impacts, redevelopment triggers, and grandfathering. Councilors noted that buffers start at the ordinary-high-water mark and that on a given parcel the total regulated width is the buffer on both sides of a stream. Staff said predeveloped or highly disturbed sites (for example, existing roads, hard surfaces) can stop a buffer where prior development has substantially impaired buffer function; such conditions may limit new buffer requirements for existing developed parcels but redevelopment can trigger new standards.
Other substantive points: - Staff noted the update would add a critical-aquifer-recharge-area section (previously not in code) to protect wellheads and groundwater. - Staff highlighted potential mitigation tools such as basin-level mitigation or mitigation banks (example: Grama Road site) as trade-offs to reduce on-site buffer requirements. - Staff said wetlands, geologically hazardous areas and frequently flooded areas mostly need housekeeping or minor updates; streams present the largest substantive change.
Staff asked council whether to pursue the alternative methodology and continue working with state agencies; several council members said they preferred a mixed approach: larger buffers where land is already undevelopable and more flexible/alternative buffers where buildable land and housing capacity would be most affected. Council members also expressed concern about fairness for homeowners who purchased property before more stringent buffers and who may be unable to use or redevelop their land.
Next steps: staff will continue consultation with state agencies (WDFW and DOE), evaluate basin-level mitigation opportunities, prepare composite maps that combine stream buffers and wetland buffers, and return to council with further analysis and acreage impact estimates informed by the consultant's work and the updated critical areas atlas.
Bottom line: staff recommended exploring a WDFW-allowed alternative riparian-buffer methodology that aims to protect habitat while reducing impacts on remaining buildable land; council signaled interest in a targeted, mixed approach and asked staff for more mapping and impact analysis before any ordinance adoption.
