Mukilteo council pauses critical‑areas code adoption after residents raise buffer, notice and property‑rights concerns

The Mukilteo City Council opened a statutorily required public hearing on proposed updates to the city’s critical‑areas code (Ordinance 15‑33) and then voted to continue consideration to March 16 after multiple residents and developers said the changes, particularly large stream buffers, could make properties unbuildable.

Director Galuska told the council the update implements state requirements under the Growth Management Act and was developed with input from the Department of Ecology, the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Department of Natural Resources. The draft code would change how wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are mapped and buffered, adopt a ‘‘site potential tree height’’ method for determining some stream buffers and use a flood standard of 2 feet above freeboard for a limited waterfront area.

Several public speakers said they only learned of the proposal at the hearing and raised concerns about notice, property rights and economic impacts. Ryan Kilby, a resident and local developer, warned that a 30–50% buffer increase could turn legally buildable lots into effectively unbuildable parcels and asked whether the city has analyzed how many parcels would become nonconforming or pose a takings risk. Larry Jones said his Brewer Creek property—he said the creek is intermittent and not fish‑bearing—would be constrained by a proposed increase from about a 50‑foot buffer to roughly 187 feet; he called the change “draconian” for a downtown site.

Developers reiterated that the city’s published maps currently rate some creeks as non‑fish‑bearing and asked for site‑specific verification before reclassifying streams and expanding buffers. Don Mintier, a longtime resident who has worked on stream rehabilitation, supported restoration in appropriate places but said downtown creeks with perched culverts may not function as fish habitat and argued for tailored approaches rather than a one‑size‑fits‑all 187‑foot standard.

Council members asked staff whether the city could carve out exceptions or rely on ‘‘reasonable use’’ provisions for properties rendered effectively undevelopable. Director Galuska said the new code includes a defined reasonable‑use exception that can be applied through the hearing examiner and that the city must align its regulations with best available science as interpreted by state agencies; she said some flexibility exists but cautioned that arbitrary number changes would not necessarily satisfy state review.

After deliberation the council voted to reopen the hearing procedurally and continue the matter to the March 16 regular meeting, with a March 9 work session to allow staff to present materials and give council members more time to review public concerns. No ordinance adoption occurred at the February 17 meeting.

The council’s next steps are a March 9 work session to review technical options and a March 16 public hearing continuation where the council will take further testimony and could either adopt, amend or continue the ordinance.