MUKILTEO – After the first of the year, people building new homes or commercial buildings in Mukilteo will no longer get a break from stricter state environmental guidelines.
The Mukilteo City Council has decided not to appeal a decision by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board that its new wetland ordinance violates state law.
The ordinance was approved last January. The three-member hearings board’s unanimous ruling, issued Oct. 10, requires Mukilteo to go back and rewrite the law by January. The current law can stay in place until then.
The Pilchuck Audubon Society of Snohomish County filed the appeal with the board in April. The environmental group said changes in Mukilteo’s ordinance were not made with scientific evidence as required by the state, were made without public input and were made without public notice of the action.
The areas near wetlands in which construction cannot take place are smaller in the city’s latest ordinance than those provided for in state law.
Pilchuck Audubon’s appeal of the Mukilteo law was its first of the updated laws done by cities in Snohomish County the past year, said Kristin Kelly, smart growth director for the group. Local jurisdictions are required this year to update their building rules related to wetlands, streams and steep slopes to match stricter state standards.
“This was a great win,” said Pilchuck Audubon president Mike Blackbird. “It’s a precedent that the other cities have to look at. They’re going to have to pay attention to it.”
The narrowest wetlands buffer zone allowed by the state is 75 feet with a reduction of no more than 25 percent, while Mukilteo’s new ordinance allowed for a reduction of 40 percent down to 35 feet.
The ruling applies to “all wetlands, all zoning categories, and all parcels that have wetlands on them,” Mukilteo city attorney Jim Haney said.
For a city to reduce the state’s minimum wetland buffer zones, it must provide scientific evidence that the smaller area will protect the wetland as much as the larger area. Mukilteo’s ordinance puts the burden of proof on the builder applying for the permit.
“Best available science was required to be used in order to get the buffer reduction,” Haney said.
The hearings board said Mukilteo’s method doesn’t qualify as scientific evidence.
“A jurisdiction must provide some rationale for departing from science-based regulations,” the board wrote.
The board agreed that because the changes were made after the close of a public hearing Jan. 24, there was not adequate notice or opportunity for public input.
Pilchuck Audubon also asked the board to require the city to repeal the ordinance, rather than leave it in place until it is changed. The board turned down that request, noting that Mukilteo’s new ordinance is still stricter than its old one.
The City Council agreed in a closed-door meeting Monday not to appeal the decision.
“The council thought that was the best course of action, to move forward rather than to resist the growth board’s ruling,” Haney said.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
