Committee hears CAO update; staff propose wider buffers, new hazards categories and reliance on farm plans for agricultural allowances

Council central staff and county permitting staff on May 21 briefed the Local Services and Land Use Committee on a proposed update to King County’s Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) and related changes to the comprehensive plan. The briefing focused on changes that affect agricultural activities, buffer widths and new hazard area standards.

What was proposed: Council staff said the update follows a best‑available‑science review and would, among other changes, increase protections for wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, revise mitigation ratios, set new upper limits where buffers overlap steep slopes, and add three subsets of geologically hazardous areas (channel migration zones, tsunami hazard areas and alluvial fan hazard areas). Staff said some wetland buffers would increase by roughly 20%–50% and that larger riparian buffers for some streams would increase to the order of roughly 180–200 feet; smaller riparian buffers would also increase, in some cases approximately doubling. The proposed code makes multiple changes about how riparian widths are measured where severe channel migration hazard areas exist.

Agriculture and farm plans: Staff and KCD representatives stressed that the ordinance continues to allow many agricultural activities when property owners have an approved farm management plan. The proposed code specifies the elements of a county‑approved farm plan, requires implementation and monitoring, and tasks DNRP to issue a public rule that will guide farm plan review and monitoring. County permitting staff said they currently conduct limited routine monitoring of farm plans unless triggered by complaints but that the proposed public rule would intensify monitoring for plans that underpin code allowances.

Public comment and concerns: Two public commenters who identified themselves as local farmers or agricultural advocates raised concerns during public comment. David Hackison said he feared the CAO would “negatively affect the market value of my property” because buffer changes would apply to buyers who must produce a new farm plan at sale; Hackison asked, “what's the legal justification for kind of lowering the market value of the property without compensation?”

Lauren Silver Turner, director of the Snoqualmie Valley Preservation Alliance, urged the council to align the CAO updates with existing regional agreements and the comprehensive plan, to ensure conversions of agricultural land are tracked against an acreage target used by fish/farm/flood partners and to provide regulatory certainty that does not add “additional layers of uncertainty” to farm operations.

Permitting implications and schedule: Permitting staff told the committee that vacant land converted into active agricultural use would generally be subject to full critical area and buffer protections; allowances and buffer reductions tied to farm plans require a showing that the property is being actively used for agriculture and that a farm plan and BMPs are in place. Staff emphasized the proposed rulemaking and monitoring changes are intended to provide greater clarity about when agricultural activities may be allowed in or near critical areas.

The proposed CAO package would also repeal the county’s rural stewardship lands program and change some buffer‑reduction pathways. Council staff said a chair’s striking amendment is scheduled for release July 15, a committee briefing on July 16 and a committee vote on Aug. 20; the August committee vote would be the committee recommendation to the full council.

No final code adoption occurred at the May 21 briefing; the item was for discussion and staff Q&A.