Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Critical Areas Code Update topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Everett planners review major reorganization of critical areas code; staff aims for draft ordinance this fall
Summary
City planning staff presented an 81‑page reorganization of Everett's critical areas code (chapter 19.37) on Oct. 7, proposing clearer article structure, revised definitions and buffer rules. Staff will circulate a draft ordinance and pursue public hearings before council later this year.
At a Oct. 7 Everett Planning Commission meeting, staff outlined a proposed rewrite and reorganization of the city's critical areas regulations (chapter 19.37), saying the changes are intended to make rules clearer for staff, applicants and the public while aligning definitions with state guidance.
"I'm Teddy Holbrook, environmental planner," said Teddy Holbrook, who led the briefing. Holbrook told the commission the rewrite would reorganize the chapter into a short introduction and five articles covering review procedures, geologic hazards, wetlands, special flood hazard areas and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. He said the work is largely organizational but noted one potentially significant clarification: a vegetative buffer standard that would define what constitutes an "intact native vegetated community." Holbrook said the vegetative buffer clarification "would be more of a clarification" than a wholesale change.
The staff presentation explained that the critical areas update must follow the Growth Management Act and Washington Administrative Code requirements, use best available science and give special consideration to anadromous fisheries. Staff described mitigation sequencing—avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, compensate and monitor—as the organizing principle for review and explained that some procedural items now buried at the back of the chapter (for example, fencing, signs and recorded covenants) would be moved up front in the restructured code.
Commissioners pressed staff to flag any definition changes that would alter historic permitting practice. "What are the things you would like the presentation to focus on?" Chair Chatters asked; commissioners requested clear explanations of any provisions that would change how landowners or developers can use property. Staff said most substantive standards remain the same and that the vegetative buffer clarification is the item most likely to affect practice.
Public commenters raised site‑specific concerns and broad permitting issues. A resident described Wood Creek erosion and a March washout that, the commenter said, moved roughly "22,000 cubic yards" of material into a floodplain and urged staff to review a 74‑page geotechnical report provided by city stormwater staff (Heather Griffin). Separately, Russell Jo of the Master Builders said reorganizing the code will help permit clarity and urged the commission not to adopt some buffer guidance strictly if it would impose frequent consultant costs, citing a slide that indicated a 100‑foot buffer can remove an estimated 95% of pollutants and 85% of surface nitrogen.
Staff discussed technical points: revised mapping and screening for geologic hazards (including referral to DNR mapping), retention of stream alteration thresholds and compensatory mitigation sections, and use of Ecology's preferred buffer option (option 1) for wetlands. Holbrook noted Ecology published a 2023 supplement refining wetland rating questions but said Everett will remain with Ecology's recommended option to preserve flexibility.
On schedule, staff said the chapter is about 81 pages and that they're working to finish a draft ordinance so the commission and the public can review proposed code language; they aim to have work queued for council consideration before year end but cautioned that public hearing timing may be affected by notice deadlines and the Nov. 4 election day. "We'll get back to cranking on, finishing up this first draft so that we can share it with you as soon as possible," the planning director said.
The commission did not take formal action on the ordinance at the Oct. 7 meeting. Staff will post materials to the city's critical areas project webpage and circulate a draft ordinance to the commission ahead of the next scheduled meetings, which staff said might include Oct. 21 (as a work session), Nov. 4 and Nov. 18 for public hearing and recommendation to council. The meeting adjourned after public comment.
Next steps: staff will prepare and circulate a draft ordinance for commission review, incorporate expert and state‑agency comments, and return with a public hearing date to consider a recommendation to city council.
