Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Duval hearing on sensitive-area code draws tribal and builders' comments on buffers and mitigation
Summary
At a public hearing, staff walked the council through proposed DMC 14.42 updates (wetlands, stream buffers, habitat) and presented suggested tribe-supplied edits on reasonable-use exceptions, mitigation proximity and sequencing; the Master Builders Association urged alternative methodologies and warned of study costs.
The Duval City Council held a public hearing on July 21 on proposed amendments to the city's sensitive-areas code (DMC 14.42) that address wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded areas and geologic hazard areas.
Staff recapped outreach over the last year to the Snoqualmie and Tulalip tribes, the Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties. Staff said the Snoqualmie tribe requested stronger language on mitigation sequencing, greater prioritization for on-site mitigation and a narrowed reasonable-use exception so full build-out requests do not produce outsized impacts adjacent to aquatic resources. "They wanted greater prioritization for on-site mitigations, stronger restriction on stream crossings, stronger language in general regarding mitigation sequencing," staff said.
WDFW provided a letter of conditional support after the city incorporated potential tree-height methodology into the draft; WDFW told staff the approach aligns with available science. The Tulalip tribe asked for clarifying edits to wetland buffer exclusions. The Master Builders Association urged reverting from the tree-height method to stream-typing, arguing the tree-height approach increases buffers and study costs and could reduce the number of developable parcels.
During the hearing, Brian McInister, advocacy manager for the Master Builders Association, told councilors that while larger buffers are common across jurisdictions, mapping potential tree heights is not complete for many areas and can make it costly or impossible to achieve required housing numbers without expensive site studies.
Staff said site-specific reconnaissance or full studies will still be required where mapping is advisory and that any shift in methodological approach would require extensive additional work and expense to redo prior analyses. Staff recommended proceeding with the current approach but agreed to keep working with tribal partners to clarify language and to plan a separate, more deliberate tribal-consultation workflow.
What happens next: staff asked council for direction and said final adoption is scheduled to return to council in August with edits reflecting stakeholder input where council supports them.
