Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permit Processing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Duval updates permit‑processing code to meet state deadlines; council debates role on quasi‑judicial permits
Summary
Consultants and staff presented a full rewrite of Duval's Chapter 14.08 to comply with RCW 36.70B and 2023 SB 5290; the city is currently out of compliance and staff warned missed timelines could trigger fee refunds. Council debated whether certain environmental/variance decisions should remain with the hearing examiner or be shifted to council.
Abby Weber, a planning consultant working with the city, told council on March 17 that Duval’s existing permit‑processing chapter (14.08), last updated in 2007, must be rewritten to comply with amendments to local project review law (RCW 36.70B and 2023 legislation commonly cited as SB 5290).
"This established that compliance with these requirements was actually required by June 2025," Abby said, adding that the city has missed that deadline and the proposed chapter is intended to bring Duval into compliance. The draft reorganizes the chapter chronologically to match staff workflow, clarifies completeness and review timelines, limits repeated design‑review cycles and codifies a single open‑record hearing for specified actions in line with state guidance.
Consultant and staff briefed council on consequences if statutory timelines are missed: portions of permit fees could be subject to refund unless a city meets enumerated state incentive criteria (cities can adopt specified incentive measures to avoid refund requirements). Staff identified three incentive measures already met and recommended one more the city could feasibly implement; they noted many other incentive options are administratively demanding for a small city.
The presentation prompted substantive council debate over whether type‑3 permits (including some environmental and shoreline variances) should continue to be decided by the hearing examiner or be elevated to council. Council member Schaeffer questioned whether the state law primarily benefits developers and asked for evidence that the changes increase affordable housing; other members and the city attorney warned that shifting quasi‑judicial decision‑making to council raises legal and logistical issues and could compromise impartiality and statutory timelines.
Staff and the city attorney suggested middle grounds: retain hearing‑examiner decisions but expand council‑level review or require staff to provide variance reports to council on a periodic basis so policy makers can identify trends without becoming the deciders in quasi‑judicial hearings.
Next steps: staff intend public hearings in April and May and to route final drafts for adoption after the public process. No changes were adopted in the workshop; council asked staff to return with clarifications and suggested reporting mechanisms for variances and exemptions.
Ending: The council extended debate for an extra round at a member’s request and closed the workshop at 8:19 p.m.; staff will continue to refine the draft and schedule required public hearings.
