Covington city staff and the Planning Commission reviewed a proposed update to the city's Critical Areas Ordinance that would widen stream buffers and add new, limited exemptions for small-scale yard work.

The update is intended to align Covington's code with state guidance under the Growth Management Act and best-available-science documents adopted with the city's recent comprehensive plan, staff said. The Planning Commission recommended measuring stream buffers using a riparian management zone (RMZ) approach and increasing the buffer for fish-bearing streams from 115 feet to 125 feet.

Why it matters: state law requires local codes to avoid a 'no net loss' of ecological functions and values for critical areas. City staff and consultant biologists said recent state guidance from the Department of Ecology and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife tightens expectations for stream protection, and the CAO update is meant to bring Covington into compliance and modernize the code for users.

The presentation focused on two measurement methods. The RMZ sets a static, tiered buffer by stream type; the site-potential tree height (SPTH) approach calculates buffer width from the predicted mature height of dominant riparian trees. Staff said SPTH can produce larger, more variable buffers (citywide averages approached about 180 feet in the consultant's mapping) and can be costly and time-consuming to apply parcel-by-parcel.

"My goal is to walk you systematically through the ordinance," the city's community development presenter said during the meeting. The presenter summarized the process used: a best-available-science document adopted with the comp plan, a gap analysis, planning commission review and public hearing, and a 60-day Commerce review now underway.

Staff showed an interactive GIS dashboard that modeled impacts under different buffer choices. With the current 115-foot buffer, staff reported roughly 118 intersected parcels citywide (about 21 of those vacant) and about 67 acres of encumbrance within those intersected parcels. Staff said counts rise modestly going to 125 feet, grow more at 150 feet, and rise substantially under the SPTH approach where many more parcels would become nearly fully encumbered and likely eligible for "reasonable use" exemptions.

The draft also addresses permitting and enforcement. Wetland delineations and other site reports that support permits are commonly treated as valid for five years; consultant biologists told the council that while jurisdictions can require more frequent updates, five years is the standard used for predictability. "That 5 year number is still held," a consultant said. Independent of that validity period, staff emphasized that mitigation obligations are enforced through security (bonds) and annual monitoring reports until performance standards are met.

To reduce the burden on existing homeowners, the draft adds limited exemptions and a lighter review path: ordinary repairs and small yard projects that are already exempt under the building code (generally up to 200 square feet) would not need a full CAO study; a reconnaissance-level review would cover modest projects up to 500 square feet. Staff said those carve-outs respond to concerns from residents in platted neighborhoods who otherwise might face lengthy, costly reviews for routine repairs or small additions.

Other proposed changes in the draft include clearer enforcement authority (stop work, penalties, timelines), consolidated trail standards, elimination of a separate buffer-reduction pathway (the draft removes the prior option to reduce buffers substantially), updated vegetation standards, and cross-references that move some agricultural provisions to the animal/ farm code.

The Planning Commission's recommendation to the council was to adopt the RMZ methodology and a 125-foot buffer for fish-bearing streams, noting that the narrower change from 115 to 125 feet provides increased protection with limited impact on the city's development capacity. Staff said they expect Department of Commerce comments in mid-November and plan to return the ordinance to council for final action in December, possibly sooner if Commerce raises no substantive comments.

Staff and commissioners emphasized the distinction between discussion and formal action: the joint session produced a recommendation and identified trade-offs and implementation tools, but it did not enact changes. The planning commission's recommendation and staff's revised code will be the documents returned to council for a formal hearing and vote.

Ending: Staff asked whether council wanted an interim revisit; several council members asked staff to consider whether report validity and monitoring timelines could be tightened or triggered by major events. Staff said the permitting vesting rules and bond-tied monitoring both affect how older reports and ongoing mitigation would be treated if the rules change. The joint session was adjourned and council moved on to its regular meeting schedule.