EVERETT — Despite overwhelming opposing testimony, the Snohomish County Council passed a controversial amendment alongside its new Critical Areas Regulations ordinance on Wednesday afternoon.
Council members approved the ordinance, along with what is known as Amendment 3, by a 3-2 vote, with Megan Dunn and Strom Peterson voting against it.
The ordinance, originally due in December 2024 with the county’s comprehensive plan, covers development and land management regulations around wetlands, fish and wildlife conservation areas, geologically hazardous areas, aquifer recharge areas and some flood hazard areas.
Throughout 2024, the county’s Planning and Development Services, in partnership with the Washington State Department of Ecology, worked to craft an update to the ordinance, previously passed in 2006. The agencies spoke with local tribes, state agencies and researchers and numerous local experts on how to best protect environmental habitat through the policy revamp.
After PDS introduced the drafted ordinance to county council in December, council members Jared Mead and Nate Nehring introduced an amendment that reserved the proposed updates, keeping the previously used code in use.
During the first public hearing meeting on Jan. 15, many people spoke, outraged by the possibility of not strengthening environmental protections.
The county pushed back the decision in order to take more time to look through the amendment and consider available science. Ultimately, Mead and Nehring withdrew Amendment One from consideration. Mead then proposed Amendment Three, which many believe to be a compromise between the underlying ordinance proposal and the first amendment, with Mead adding protections for stream buffers.
On Wednesday, the council held a public hearing about Mead’s new amendment. The resounding general opinion was that the amendment did not do enough for environmental protections, over 30 people testified and many urged the council to vote against it.
“We estimate that roughly 15,000 acres of existing riparian forest could be at risk of loss under the county’s current code amendments,” said state Fish and Wildlife Regional Habitat Manager Marcus Reaves. “Much of the functional riparian landscape has been unprotected and is actively being degraded under existing standards.”
Community members spoke about how they’ve witnessed the effects of a degrading environment, arguing that passing weaker protections would continue to put wildlife and humans at risk.
Claire Walderman, a former school nurse from Edmonds, said she wanted to testify on behalf of children with asthma and eczema.
“I had a student die of an asthma attack during the wildfires,” she said. “What we’re seeing is an increase in asthma-related disorders and diseases and lung issues in our children, at a rate that has not been seen in years in this area, and it’s due to the fact that we’re losing our canopy.”
A couple of developers testified for Amendment Three, saying it was necessary to provide housing for the growing population.
“I am a parent of two teenagers, and I would love for them to have housing choices and opportunities that are available to me when I moved to the area over 20 years ago,” said Dagny Cook, an entitlement analyst for Pacific Ridge Homes. “Unfortunately, I have had to prepare them in active conversation to accept that this simply may not be their reality.”
After almost two hours of public testimony, the council discussed their opinions of the proposed ordinance and whether to pass it with Mead’s Amendment Three.
Mead said his latest amendment improved environmental protections from the 2006 version of the ordinance, and that it strengthened some protections surrounding stream buffers that the underlying ordinance does not include.
Council member Peterson noted the federal government is actively deregulating numerous environmental protections, making it even more important for local governments to take it upon themselves to protect environmental habitat and water quality for their communities.
A former version of this story misidentified Cassandra Beaumont as a Pacific Ridge Homes analyst. The analyst’s name is Dagny Cook. Cassandra Beaumont opposed Amendment 3, and testified about the ecological importance of fungus.
Eliza Aronson: 425-339-3434; eliza.aronson@heraldnet.com; X: @ElizaAronson.
Eliza’s stories are supported by the Herald’s Environmental and Climate Reporting Fund.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
Gallery
