Everett planning staff outline major update to critical-area rules, sparking debate on stream buffers

Planning Director York Wachtel told the Everett City Council on April 1 that the city is moving forward with a comprehensive periodic update to its critical area regulations to improve clarity and align local code with state best available science.

The briefing described the scope of critical areas (streams, wetlands, priority wildlife habitat, steep slopes, seismic hazard areas and flood zones), explained the legal framework under the Growth Management Act and Washington Administrative Code, and outlined structural changes to Chapter 19.37 intended to make the rules easier for residents, developers and staff to use.

Wachtel said the update includes both organizational changes and substantive edits: clearer definitions, a reworked sequence of avoidance/minimization/mitigation, expanded lists of exemptions and allowed uses, a new section on nonconforming structures in critical areas, and provisions to incentivize voluntary daylighting of piped streams. "We restructured the chapter so someone dealing only with streams can consult the general procedures and the streams article without wading through unrelated sections," he said.

Several proposed changes would affect stream buffers. Wachtel confirmed the staff proposal increases standard buffers for certain non-fish-bearing streams (NP and NS categories) in some cases — for intact vegetation from 50 to 100 feet and for sparsely vegetated banks to 125 feet — but he emphasized the change affects a small share of the city's land area once parks, steep slopes and functionally disconnected areas are excluded. He summarized staff's estimate that the net effect would impact on the order of tens of acres and, after adjustments, amount to roughly a tenth of a percent of the city's residential development capacity. "Most of these streams are in our lowest-density zones or are already bounded by wetlands or steep slopes," he said.

Wachtel also told the council he and staff relied heavily on state-produced syntheses of the science, including Department of Fish and Wildlife's read of the science. He said Fish and Wildlife recommended much wider, forested riparian corridors (on the order of a tree height over 200 years in some analyses), but that local circumstances, existing development patterns and the need to accommodate growth required staff to strike a balance.

The briefing drew immediate questions from council members about implementation. Councilmember Arlingo asked whether property owners could practically understand requirements and whether staff would provide early assistance. Wachtel said staff, led by environmental planner Teddy Holberg, would offer counter visits and early guidance and that site-specific delineations typically require consultant support but that the code language is intended to be clearer.

Master Builders representative Russell Joe urged caution about increasing buffers in urban Everett, saying the proposal's buffer increases for non-fish-bearing streams would affect about 50 acres and roughly 1% of the city's developable land in his estimate, and he asked the council to retain flexibility such as buffer averaging and director discretion. "These regulations are for Everett and should adapt to an urban setting," he said.

Staff said other specific topics remain under discussion, including whether to treat a stream and its buffer as a single critical area (a Fish and Wildlife recommendation), how to credit on-site versus off-site mitigation, and how to encourage daylighting without penalizing voluntary improvements. Wachtel said some issues require more time and collaboration with agencies and tribes.

A public hearing on the critical area regulation updates is scheduled for April 15, and staff indicated the council would consider ordinance readings and further action at upcoming meetings. The presentation and supporting documents, including the staff'prepared best-available-science summary and the comments-and-responses table, are available on the project webpage.

Next steps: the council will take public comment at the April 15 hearing and is scheduled to consider additional ordinance readings thereafter.