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.