Kent staff propose larger wetland buffers, updated riparian zones in critical areas code
Loading...
Summary
City staff told the council they are proposing to raise Category 1 and 2 wetland buffers to 300 feet, increase compensation ratios for unavoidable wetland impacts based on Department of Ecology guidance, and set many riparian buffers to 100 feet; staff will finalize responses to 65 state agency comments and hold a Planning Board hearing later this quarter.
Lindsay Walker, city staff, presented a project update on Kent’s proposed Critical Areas Ordinance on Jan. 6, saying staff had received 65 comments from three state agencies and were preparing responses before a Planning Board hearing later this quarter.
Walker called out two principal technical changes under consideration: larger wetland buffers for high‑value wetlands and revised riparian management zones for fish and wildlife conservation areas.
“Category 1 and Category 2 high‑value wetlands … are getting increased to 300 feet now,” Walker said, noting it is uncommon for development to occur near those wetlands and that Category 1 wetlands are often city‑owned and used for conservation or recreation.
Walker also described proposed changes to mitigation, saying compensation ratios (the mitigation required when a wetland impact cannot be avoided) are increasing substantially “due to the best available science that the Department of Ecology released.” The change, she said, aims to incentivize avoidance of impacts and to require greater mitigation when permanent impacts occur.
On streams and riparian zones, Walker said the code language renames those features “fish and wildlife conservation areas” with associated riparian management zones. Staff initially proposed keeping a 100‑foot buffer for fish‑bearing streams and increasing non‑fish‑bearing stream buffers from 40 feet to 75 feet; after comments from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Walker said staff updated the non‑fish‑bearing buffer proposal to 100 feet and is continuing to coordinate with neighboring South King County jurisdictions.
Walker said the proposal includes a range of compensation options for unavoidable impacts and that the City requires third‑party wetland professionals to review proposed impacts, require bonds tied to a five‑year monitoring period, and withhold bond release until consultants confirm mitigation success.
Council members asked for clarification on measurement and monitoring. Walker explained the review process, monitoring timeline and bond release procedure; she also described the habitat scoring system used by biologists (plants, soils and wildlife presence) to place wetlands into categories.
Staff said they will continue internal department review, finalize responses to state agencies, hold the Planning Board hearing later this quarter, and then return to the council with Planning Board recommendations.
