Planning Commission opens public hearing on critical areas update; staff to study larger buffers after WDFW comments

The Everett Planning Commission opened a public hearing Nov. 18 on a periodic update to the city’s critical areas regulations, focusing discussion on stream buffer widths, interactions with steep slopes and wetlands, and outstanding technical comments from state agencies.

Planning Director York Stevens Lodge reviewed the October 31 draft and used maps to illustrate how a proposed increase in stream buffers (from a typical 50-foot standard to a 100-foot minimum for certain stream types) would interact with steep slopes and nearby wetlands. He noted the 100-foot figure corresponds to pollution-removal literature but said Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has urged a different approach: WDFW recommended establishing riparian management zones using a site-potential-tree-height (SPTH) method that in some places could imply buffers up to roughly 200 feet.

"Fish and Wildlife recommends... the site potential tree height method," York said, noting that SPTH aims to preserve future stream wood and forest function and that Douglas firs in the area can reach heights approaching 200 feet.

Commissioners asked whether the city’s numbers matched WDFW’s guidance and whether the SPTH method is practicable in an urban, highly altered setting. Some commissioners said they earlier declined to adopt SPTH because of administrative burden; others asked staff to research metropolitan examples where SPTH had been implemented. York said staff will continue studying the method’s applicability and legal implications and flagged uncertainties about habitat scoring, mapping completeness, and how existing hardscape limits buffer reach in infill contexts.

During the hearing, resident Mr. Bargreen of 2821 Rucker provided in-person public comment. He thanked commissioners for their service, said his family has engaged in planning questions for decades, asked whether his previously submitted written comments would be included in the record, and made a separate remark about salmon and orcas. Chair Chatters confirmed that written comments are part of the record.

Commissioners also raised procedural and clarity questions. Several asked the draft to be clearer about what "may be required" means in practice—specifically, what triggers require a critical areas report, survey or geologic assessment, who makes that determination, and what proximity thresholds apply—so property owners and developers have more predictable expectations. Commissioners asked staff to consider mitigation-plan templates and technical assistance to reduce costs for small, infill property owners who might otherwise face expensive reports.

York said the city has received technical comments from Department of Natural Resources on geotechnical licensing and suggested clarifying definition differences among geological assessment, geotechnical report and similar documents. He also said no formal comments had yet been received from the Department of Ecology but that the city expects an environmental checklist and an expected determination of nonsignificance to be available before the commission’s next meeting.

Staff announced an online open house Dec. 4, a council briefing Dec. 3 and an anticipated return to the commission on Jan. 6 to continue work toward a recommendation. The commission closed the hearing and adjourned for the evening.