Gig Harbor planners review draft critical-areas code that would expand wetland and stream buffers

Eric Baker, the city of Gig Harbor's community development director, told the Planning Commission on Tuesday that the city has released an initial draft of a decade-required update to the Critical Areas Code (Title 18) and will begin public outreach and hearings in the coming months.

The draft, Baker said, responds to state guidance and the "best available science" that informs wetland and stream protections under the Growth Management Act. "The critical areas code... is required to be updated every 10," Baker said, adding that the city's staff and consultant team prepared draft amendments after a gap analysis against recent science.

Why it matters: The proposed changes would raise many buffer widths around wetlands and streams, potentially reducing the amount of land that is developable and placing new constraints on property owners whose lots fall inside expanded buffers. Baker told commissioners the update is intended to avoid "no net loss" of wetland and stream functions; some public commenters may later press for "net ecological gain," a standard that Baker described as legally undefined at this stage.

Key proposals and effects

- Wetlands: The draft follows the Department of Ecology's four-tier wetland rating system (categories 1—64, with Category 1 most protective) and proposes larger baseline buffers in many cases. Baker used an example where a prior range of 125—6250 feet for a high-value wetland would become a fixed 250-foot buffer at the high end of the scale.

- Mitigation sequencing and bank use: The draft emphasizes mitigation sequencing: avoid, minimize, mitigate on-site, then off-site. Baker said the city prefers on-site mitigation; off-site mitigation (wetland banks) is allowed but held to a high standard, and Army Corps review applies when fills exceed one acre.

- Streams: Stream typing (types 1—5) would remain central; fish-bearing streams (types 1—3) carry the strongest protections. Baker noted significant increases for some nonfish stream buffers (for example, moving from 25 feet to 100 feet for certain nonfish streams).

- Steep slopes, flood hazards, aquifer recharge: Steep-slope standards remain largely unchanged but rely on geotechnical reports for site-specific adjustments. Flood-hazard rules track FEMA maps and are not substantially changed. Changes to critical aquifer recharge sections are largely definitional; hydrologic reports will be required for development within wellhead radii.

Questions from commissioners and staff responses

Commissioners pressed Baker on whether federal changes to wetland regulation would alter local protections. Baker replied that state law and Department of Ecology guidance continue to govern local code: "While there were substantial changes at the federal level, we have state laws that are still in place that keep the protections in the state of Washington the way they were before the federal government did their thing." He said local code must follow state best-available-science requirements, though local jurisdictions can adopt more restrictive standards.

On the effect to housing goals, Baker acknowledged that larger buffers will make less land developable but described the city's two-phase approach: phase 1 tightens critical-area protections while phase 2 will examine housing-code changes (allowing greater heights and reduced setbacks) intended to recapture housing capacity.

Vesting and nonconforming uses

Baker clarified that properties with an approved building permit are typically vested under the preexisting code; projects without vested permits may be subject to the new rules. Existing homes that fall inside new buffers would become nonconforming; Baker said nonconforming structures can be restored after a destructive loss and that reasonable-use exceptions remain a pathway for constrained lots.

Outreach and next steps

Baker said draft redlines and mapping are available on the city website and that staff will notify property owners within 300 feet of mapped wetlands and streams by postcard. Staff expects a staff draft by the end of March, a planning commission public hearing in late March or early April, and council consideration by the end of June.

The commission received the presentation and engaged in extended Q&A but took no formal regulatory action at the meeting. The item will return for additional discussion during the public outreach and formal adoption process.