EVERETT — Snohomish County Council will hold a public hearing on the proposed controversial update to its Critical Area Regulations ordinance during its regular meeting 10:30 a.m. Wednesday.
In addition to hearing public testimony on the matter, the council is expected to consider its next steps on the ordinance. People can either attend the meeting at the Jackson Board Room on the eighth floor of 3000 Rockefeller Ave., Everett, or watch remotely by Zoom.
The ordinance, originally due in December 2024, along 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.
Washington State Department of Ecology and Snohomish County Planning and Development Services worked to draft an update during 2024 to give to the County Council, based on feedback from state agencies, local tribes and stakeholders. But in December, council members Jared Mead and Nate Nehring introduced an amendment to the drafted ordinance, decreasing proposed environmental protections to maintain flexibility for possible development.
The council planned to vote on the ordinance update on Jan. 15. After an article published by the Daily Herald described the amendments and their possible effects four days before the hearing, hundreds of people emailed council members and gave public comment about their concerns.
The county pushed back the decision in order to take more time to look through the amendments and consider the science behind the proposed changes.
In the following months, the council hosted scientific experts and developers. Mead introduced a new amendment, in early April Amendment Three, and withdrew Amendment One from consideration.
The new amendment is billed as a compromise between the draft proposals and current codes, with added protections to stream buffers.
The current code offers incentives for developers to build fences around habitats as a trade off for reducing buffer width. The proposed ordinance from planning staff removes most of these incentives, requiring the minimum buffer widths regardless of if fences are put in. Mead’s amendment keeps some of these incentives but decreases the buffer space, allowing developers to build closer to habitat if they construct barriers.
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.
