Kenmore hears hours of public comment as council weighs three stream‑buffer options

Kenmore — Dozens of residents and experts filled the council meeting to contest mapping, property impacts and ecology after the city introduced three options for updating stream buffers to align with Washington State guidance.

Supporters of the most protective approach, Option C, argued the change is necessary to protect salmon habitat and long‑term watershed health. "If the answer is yes, option three is the only one that makes any sense," said Tom Murdoch, founder of the Adopt‑a‑Stream Foundation, urging the city to follow Department of Fish and Wildlife recommendations and warning of legal challenges for weaker rules.

Homeowners across Kenmore pushed back strongly, saying maps mislabel intermittent ditches and covered culverts as fish‑bearing streams and that larger setbacks would strip developable area from family properties. "We believe that the stream was mistyped," said Patrick Price, who said his backyard watercourse was shown as a Type F (fish‑bearing) stream on the city map despite not appearing on DFW maps. Several residents asked whether the city could clarify map sources and provide an appeals process that would not leave homeowners bearing the cost of site assessments.

Why it matters: The city must incorporate best available science into its critical‑areas regulations. Staff presented three policy paths: Option A, which modestly increases buffer widths and would affect about 1,200 parcels; Option B, with broader buffers and performance‑based reductions, affecting around 1,400 parcels; and Option C, the site‑potential tree‑height approach recommended by WDFW, producing buffers of roughly 100–231 feet and impacting roughly 1,700 parcels. Staff said Option C offers the highest ecological protection but the greatest effect on parcels.

Technical context: Morgan Krueger, a habitat biologist with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, told the council that WDFW’s best‑available science supports the site‑potential tree‑height method that underpins Option C and that reclassification of a stream’s type usually occurs through field‑verified biological assessments during project review. Todd Hall, principal planner, said mapping was compiled from Department of Natural Resources, WDFW, and local field verification; staff acknowledged discrepancies can exist between statewide maps and parcel‑scale conditions.

Council response and next steps: Council members probed how exemptions, reasonable‑use provisions and one‑time allowances could soften impacts for established homes and asked whether incentives — for instance, buffer reductions in exchange for invasive‑species removal and native replanting — could be adopted. Several members urged more outreach and targeted site visits to resolve local disputes about mapping accuracy before a final policy decision. The council did not vote on buffer changes; staff were asked to return with additional analysis, clearer maps, options for flexibility (including enhancement‑based buffer reductions and one‑time additions), and an expanded public‑engagement plan.

What wasn’t decided: No ordinance was adopted. The council approved the meeting consent agenda earlier in the night but deferred any final action on buffer options until staff can provide follow‑up information and draft code language.

The council’s next procedural step will be for staff to refine maps and code options, and to present a draft ordinance and outreach plan for council review and public hearing scheduling.