[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6154557,"mediaKeyId","5483294-33d152943ecdbbc0c8c159f5edf40866","parentId",5483294,"title","Planning Commission leans toward larger stream buffers, asks staff to pursue riparian management zone and code refinements","audioSeconds",3887,"startMs",3807000,"endMs",7694000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5483294-33d152943ecdbbc0c8c159f5edf40866&start=3807&end=7694","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5483294-33d152943ecdbbc0c8c159f5edf40866/thumbnail_3807000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6154557/Kirkland/King-County/Washington/Planning-Commission-leans-toward-larger-stream-buffers-asks-staff-to-pursue-riparian-management-zone-and-code-refinements","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6154557-3dc1c95219aeab28dd00851c96c04380/orig.mp4?Expires=1770447340&Signature=ieRo78HYtbhoZgN5P4c-UdjQNek1YS5t36fVcoFebzQjMtJdo63OE50ZISG21LAHf9jnV~to7sU2Vzk5Pa4UZ061kTriIdyvplcQso2kZQ8EtVw1qy9Rt1gTLmIgRfmX5BG2H23NvakRXaWVaV90~rsI2nzEEM8wxtobyZJvOYiGv~KIkS3gDAcuBb9qUVfYlqJemC10xL8HlIX~Gmv7Z5vi6QPJvX-qTMhbTsy7nkVhEATm4Spr3SMW-nmY2E2Q0fjQ7U7q4lYyrSpy0CmnatzC75EQTlssCbv7imzHrCkEOOBcngJpYVutXSYZFZnRRt5ra5RnectTRs5H1yZmAQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Kirkland City, WA","date","2025-07-26T19:55:59.57Z","article","The Kirkland Planning Commission held a detailed study session focused on proposed updates to the city’s Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO), concentrating on stream (riparian) buffers and geohazard (landslide/steep‑slope) requirements. Staff presented data on current impacts, the best available science, implementation costs and three candidate approaches; commissioners indicated a preference for the staff option that most closely aligns with state guidance while also asking staff to analyze a riparian management‑zone approach.

Environmental program coordinator Anna Heckman and senior planner Jen Ander led the presentation. Heckman told commissioners that when the city layers all mapped critical areas together “65% of our city is covered in different types of critical areas,” and observed that when high and medium landslide areas are combined “that’s 88% of the parcels in Kirkland.” She emphasized that most parcels do not automatically trigger regulation but that mapped coverage is extensive.

Why it matters: staff said the state’s best available science (including guidance from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) recommends wide stream buffers for water‑quality and habitat protection — WDFW guidance notes approximately 100 feet is needed for water‑quality benefits and site‑potential tree height (used to estimate habitat needs) can indicate larger widths for fish‑bearing streams. Staff warned increases would affect permitting, property impacts and project costs but said current buffer footprints leave room to protect habitat and water quality only in limited locations.

Data and impacts
- Streams and parcels: City staff said Kirkland contains about 80 miles of stream channel; fewer than 2,000 parcels have stream buffers (roughly 7% of the city’s ~25,000 parcels).
- Undeveloped parcels: Expanding a typical non‑fish (N) buffer from the present width to 100 feet would add only a few dozen undeveloped parcels eligible for additional protection; increasing fish (F) buffers to 150 feet added still fewer undeveloped parcels.
- Parcels with significant impacts: Staff identified roughly 300 parcels that would be newly impacted if typical N buffers increase to 100 feet and another ~100 parcels affected if F buffers increased toward 150 feet; staff used a 40% of‑parcel threshold to identify parcels likely to face meaningful development constraints.
- Permits, timelines and costs: New residential permit volume is roughly 300 permits per year; typical single‑family projects with no critical areas averaged about five months of processing, geohazard cases averaged about four months, and projects triggering Chapter 90 stream reviews averaged up to 14 months (including pre‑application determination). Monitoring and mitigation timelines typically require 3–10 years of post‑construction maintenance and annual monitoring reports (staff cited common monitoring contracts and noted annual monitoring costs on the order of roughly $2,000 per year, depending on scope).

Options presented
Staff outlined three principal approaches and a “riparian management‑zone” alternative:
1) No substantive change in regulated buffer widths; maintain current buffers and rely on existing mitigation and stream‑enhancement requirements.
2) Modify buffers in ways that simplify implementation (staff gave an example combining some changes but warned state reviewers could object if measures depart from best available science).
3) Align more closely with state best available science: increase N‑stream buffers to ~100 feet for water‑quality goals and F‑stream buffers to ~150 feet for habitat (with a 25% buffer averaging/reduction option available for development flexibility). Staff noted this approach would be the most defensible under state guidance but would increase the number of parcels facing constraints and require code revisions and outreach.

Riparian management zone alternative: Staff proposed creating an outer management zone (e.g., 100–150 feet) that would not itself impose the most restrictive “no‑development” buffer but would require enhanced site‑level measures (low‑impact design, runoff treatment, limits on light/noise/pollution, tree protection and planting standards). That approach would aim to protect water quality and habitat while preserving more development capacity on parcels outside the regulated buffer.

Commission feedback and direction
Commissioners asked about homeowner impacts, existing legally nonconforming structures and whether buffer averaging would allow practical building options. Jen Ander and Anna Heckman said existing code already allows maintenance and some expansion for detached single‑family dwellings and that many already‑developed properties are treated as legally nonconforming; expansion of buffer widths would not automatically force demolition but could limit redevelopment options and require reasonable‑use or variance review in some cases.

Vice Chair Angela Rosman and Commissioner Erin Jacobson said they favored the more protective option that better tracks the state’s best available science, with Jacobson also expressing interest in the riparian management zone as a flexible, urban‑scale tool. Jacobson noted Kirkland’s urban context and asked for further modeling of K‑Line/BRT station‑area implications and a clear timeline for when station designations trigger TOD rezoning obligations.

Staff next steps
Staff said they will meet with city council to present the options, continue public outreach and refine draft code language. Anna Heckman indicated further work to identify thresholds that reduce unnecessary geotech peer reviews (for very small or low‑risk slopes), clarify protective easement triggers, and consider limited exemptions for minor structures (fences, small deck additions) to reduce costs for homeowners.

Ending: Commissioners asked staff to prioritize code clarity and to return with draft code language and refined impact analysis; staff scheduled one or more additional study sessions before public hearing on proposed CAO amendments.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Kirkland Planning Commission Meeting July 24, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Kirkland Planning Commission held a study session to review proposed updates to the city’s Critical Areas Ordinance, focusing on stream buffers and landslide (geohazard) rules and asking staff to pursue a protective option consistent with state guidance along with a riparian management‑zone approach.","taxTitle","Kirkland, King County, Washington","taxId",2569,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6154565,"Kirkland planners briefed on recent state legislative session, several bills require local code updates",1738,1237000,2975000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5483294-33d152943ecdbbc0c8c159f5edf40866&start=1237&end=2975","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5483294-33d152943ecdbbc0c8c159f5edf40866/thumbnail_1237000.jpg","/articles/6154565/Kirkland/King-County/Washington/Kirkland-planners-briefed-on-recent-state-legislative-session-several-bills-require-local-code-updates","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6154565-38fe39b47514f1899e580ddbe646a093/orig.mp4?Expires=1770447340&Signature=G56H-6D4Q7pUph4sBPIXdWZLLDNpU1lYqw6Fk-V5N7Z74haWrBdTqhxz0kR9SwdJE~5no-3TmJJhyDM52vfShrjLWCITZA9596zgjkmLtLI---o9QKDUnaFhXGB1vCA9f3XOxIcmeeACojosxrgDiNzhu11MAmFLIvvg1AAiO0IeU-ZRQeh3QO5qHVP8udS4BHWuqIQxClfXd1npWGcaxPdkDhQO83dUqmXNNzfcBCLLbDEyi3ywEK1Edo9PB-NWPOgvNciJCcAcS8CtTWYhRcwOZ6bqCSu1pJ0ijNfQG8dczjLZAGm3VpTmbkQHl2hDxlB-vhw9Rb8zSUJ5GIWndg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Kirkland Planning Commission on Thursday received a staff briefing on how the Washington state Legislature works and a run‑down of 2023–2025 bills that will require local implementation by the planning and building department.

The briefing, led by Diana Hart, the city’s government affairs manager, and Lindsey Levine, senior planner in the Planning and Building Department, explained how the city develops a legislative agenda, how staff and a Legislative Work Group coordinate with state legislators, and which enacted bills will require Kirkland code changes or other implementation work.

Hart said the city relies on a small, active delegation relationship in Olympia and a weekly work‑group cadence during session. “Kirkland definitely punches above our weight in engagement and effectiveness for our size in Olympia,” she said, describing the municipal process for tracking thousands of bills each session and escalating city priorities to legislators.

Why it matters: a cluster of enacted bills set new requirements or deadlines that will force code amendments, new public outreach, or multi‑department work. Staff asked commissioners to note likely resource needs and to expect future briefings before formal public hearings.

Key bills and timing
- House Bill 1217 (tenant protections): Sets limits on rent increases and new notice requirements; effective in May. Staff said no code amendment is required but the city will undertake public education for tenants and landlords in connection with the homelessness action plan. (Lindsey Levine)
- House Bill 1293 (design‑review streamlining): Requires jurisdictions to apply clear‑and‑objective exterior design standards and limits design review to a single public meeting. Levine said the city has hired a consultant to recommend code changes and acknowledged staff is “a bit behind” on implementation but will return to commission with a briefing prior to any public hearing.
- Senate Bill 5184 (parking minimums): Establishes limits on minimum parking requirements for residential and certain other uses; implementation likely to require substantial staff time and will be added to a future work program (implementation deadline early 2027).
- House Bill 1491 (promoting transit‑oriented development): Raises density allowances, affordability requirements and limits minimum parking within designated station areas (defined as properties within 0.25 miles of a rail or bus rapid transit stop). Staff said this applies to portions of the NE 85th Street station area and parts of Totem Lake and will require a substantial implementation effort; deadline is 2029.
- House Bill 1096 (lot splitting): Requires an administrative review path for lot splits and forbids pre‑decision public hearings for such splits; implementation deadline July 2027.
- Senate Bill 5509 (child care siting): Requires childcare centers be allowed outright in most zones (except industrial and open space); staff suggested the needed zoning text changes could be included in a future miscellaneous code amendments package (deadline July 2027).
- House Bill 1183 (building‑code and affordable housing): Changes in the state building code preempt some local parking and unit‑size restrictions for certain affordable housing; staff noted implementation responsibilities fall partly to the state building code adoption process but that local planning rules will need adjustment (longer time horizon).
- Other items flagged: changes to the multifamily tax exemption (HB 1494), co‑living standards (HB 1998), and other transport and behavioral‑health funding items on the city’s legislative agenda.

Staff resource and process notes
Levine said department staff review planning‑related bills and recommend positions; the Legislative Work Group meets weekly during session and staff advisors run more than 1,000 bill reviews per session to surface issues of local impact. For bills with near‑term deadlines — notably the parking and lot‑split bills — Levine said the commission should expect those projects to appear on the department’s future work‑program updates.

Commission questions and staff responses focused on workload and team assignment. Levine said public education on HB 1217 may be led by the long‑range planning team if the engagement scope grows beyond mailers. On HB 1096 (lot splits) staff suggested the work could be folded into an existing middle‑housing optimization project if commissioners direct that during the work‑program update. On HB 1491 (TOD), staff noted that the bill applies to station areas that are already designated in regional or local transportation plans, so some future BRT or K‑Line stops could trigger rezoning obligations even before the physical station opens.

Commissioners asked for additional detail on implementation timing and unit‑size thresholds in HB 1183; Commissioner Scott Reiser read the statutory size limits aloud from the bill language for studios (400 sq ft), one‑bedrooms (550 sq ft), two‑bedrooms (750 sq ft) and three‑bedrooms (1,000 sq ft).

What’s next
Staff said they will return to the commission with more detailed briefings ahead of formal code‑amendment packages and recommended the commission consider prioritizing the parking and TOD implementation tasks on the next work‑program update given deadlines and anticipated staff time.

Ending: Hart and Levine closed the briefing without asking the commission for formal direction; staff will present implementation timelines and draft text in future meetings before any public hearings.","City staff told the Planning Commission that multiple 2023–2025 state bills will require Kirkland code or implementation work — including tenant protections, design-review streamlining, parking limits, transit‑oriented development and changes to building-code rules — and flagged staff time and work‑program impacts and implementation deadlines.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning Commission leans toward larger stream buffers, asks staff to pursue riparian management zone and code refinements

Kirkland planners briefed on recent state legislative session, several bills require local code updates