Kirkland planning commission backs critical-area code updates, favors riparian management zone approach

The Kirkland Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend City Council adopt draft updates to the city's critical-area ordinance, covering zoning code chapters 5, 85, 90 and 95, and authorized staff to make limited administrative edits to respond to state-agency comments before council consideration.

The vote followed lengthy staff presentations and public testimony about proposed changes to landslide and riparian protections, tradeoffs between expanding fixed stream buffers and creating a broader riparian management zone (RMZ), and a written and spoken comment from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife urging wider buffers based on its best-available-science guidance.

Staff framed the draft as a balance between environmental protection and practical impacts on property owners. Anna Heckman, the city's environmental program coordinator, said the update tries to "build in flexibility" for geotechnical review, add exemptions for some utility work and create graduated review options from a staff site visit to a full geotechnical report. Heckman summarized options as aiming to reduce unnecessary geotechnical permits while keeping public and property safety central.

Jen Andor, senior planner, reviewed proposed stream protections and the RMZ alternative. Staff presented both the consequences of adopting WDFW-recommended buffer widths (which staff said would add about 1,300 parcels into regulated buffer area) and the RMZ option, which would bring a similar number of parcels into a managed zone but would not apply the same development restrictions; instead the RMZ focuses on promoting tree canopy and habitat-friendly development practices outside the regulated buffer.

Morgan Krueger of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife told the commission that Kirkland lies in a "tier 1 priority habitat area for Chinook salmon" and warned that many of the city's waterways are listed as impaired under the Federal Clean Water Act. Krueger urged the commission to "incorporate DFW's best available science by adopting at minimum the 100-foot buffer for type N streams and expanding riparian widths for type F streams, particularly in areas where riparian functions remain intact." Krueger also raised concerns about draft allowances that could permit limited additional impervious surface within existing buffers for legally nonconforming structures.

Staff provided quantified context used in deliberations: under current city buffers about 2,417 parcels lie in regulated buffers citywide (out of ~25,000 parcels in Kirkland), roughly 1,200 parcels have more than 40% of their lot covered by buffer and are already likely nonconforming. A statewide-buffer increase to the site-potential-tree-height approach (the scenario WDFW prefers) would add an estimated 1,300 parcels to buffer coverage and increase the number of significantly impacted (nonconforming) properties by roughly 1,000. Staff said the RMZ would also add roughly 1,300 parcels into a management footprint but without the same development prohibitions; instead it would expand tree-canopy and habitat-focused requirements to more properties, including some across the street from streams.

Commissioners asked for clarification about how the draft would be applied to existing development, how property owners would be notified, and whether the city's approach could be appealed. Staff said legally nonconforming structures retain limited allowances for minor expansions when mitigated; those existing allowances are unchanged in the draft. Staff also said the city has already mailed outreach materials to owners within the proposed RMZ and could send a follow-up notice if the council adopts changes.

Commission deliberations repeatedly contrasted two policy aims: (1) adopt wider fixed buffers aligned with WDFW's best-available science (which staff and WDFW said would provide greater protection where intact riparian functions remain) and (2) adopt the RMZ approach, which staff described as better suited to an urban setting where many parcels already sit within existing buffers and where additional canopy protection and targeted, measurable habitat improvements can be achieved without imposing immediate new development restrictions on large numbers of property owners. Commissioners and staff noted the Growth Management Act (GMA) requirement to incorporate best-available science, and staff warned that either approach could invite appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board.

The commission approved the motion as read by staff: to recommend adoption of the draft critical-area ordinance updates to zoning code chapters 5, 85, 90 and 95 as drafted, and to "acknowledge staff may make additional administrative edits or revisions to respond to state agency comments prior to council adoption." The motion passed unanimously; those recorded as voting in favor were Planning Commissioners Margaret Bunyan, Erin Jacobson, Gina Medea, Julia Nolan, Scott Reiser, Angela Rosman and Chair Rodney Rutherford.

The commission also directed staff to continue outreach and education for affected homeowners and to provide improved web maps and explanations of buffers and the RMZ as the draft proceeds to council.

What changed and what remains: staff said there were no major late substantive changes to the draft since the commission's prior briefing; key adjustments include clarified definitions, a new geotechnical technician definition, added exemptions (for example, some utility maintenance), clearer peer-review exemption criteria, consolidation of tree- and vegetation-related regulations into chapter 95 for usability, and new options for reduced-scope geotechnical assessments (site visits and short applicability memos) intended to lower cost for smaller projects.

Next steps: the commission's recommendation will be forwarded to City Council; staff said they expect additional comments from Department of Commerce and Department of Ecology, will work with state agencies as needed, and will include limited administrative revisions to the draft before council adoption. Staff cautioned that any final adopted code could still be subject to appeal under the Growth Management Act.

Votes at a glance: Motion to recommend adoption of the draft critical-area ordinance updates (KMC chapters 5, 85, 90 and 95) with staff authority to make administrative edits to address state-agency comments prior to council adoption ' Outcome: approved (unanimous)