The record, meeting by meeting.

What the city has said and decided, meeting by meeting, with the figures attached and where to check them. What residents said is grouped by theme, without names. Newest first. Quotations are from the city's own recordings; timestamps or transcript lines are in the notes at the bottom.

What is next

Updated October 20, 2026: the dates that have passed are taken off this list.

Sept 23, 2026: the letter goes to the clerk

We sent the letter to the city clerk by mail and by email, for the record of the Title 14 amendments and the comprehensive plan update, with section 6 as a public records request. The clerk acknowledged receipt the same day and said the letter would be shared with the Planning Commission that night and with the council among the written reports for October 6.

Sept 18, 2026: new drafts, and an environmental consultation

The city posted draft amendments to its 2024 comprehensive plan and opened a pre-threshold consultation under the State Environmental Policy Act on the plan amendments (CPU24-01) and the Title 14 zoning amendments (CA26-005). Comments were due October 2; on October 1 the city reissued the notice and they are now due October 15. Policies H 4.10, LU 7.1 and LU 7.5, quoted on this site, read the same in the new draft. [R1]

Correction, October 8, 2026. This entry said that policy LU 9.2 also reads the same in the new draft. It does not. The draft strikes the words about a South Urban Growth Area "to meet growth targets and accommodate deeply affordable housing," leaving "Work with King County to revise urban growth boundaries," and it strikes the passage saying that land "will be needed." Those words are in the plan adopted in June 2025. We read the draft as plain text, where struck-through words look like the rest, and missed it. The article is corrected in the same place. [R1]

Sept 15, 2026: council workshop on Title 14, and the regular meeting

The capacity count. Staff presented room for 932 homes against the target of 890, a margin of 42, down from 1,021 and 131 in December (said aloud as 939 and 49; the posted slides say 932 and 42). The margin shrank because projects approved since 2024 used up land. [R2]

Heights. Proposed residential heights: R12 from 35 to 40 feet, R20 to 45, R30 to 50. [R2]

The affordable housing program. The council's worksheet medians: a requirement applying from R12 through MU30, triggered at 10 homes, 15% affordable; affordable at or under 80% of median, with a home at 30% counted as two. Staff estimated up to half a staff position to administer it, or ARCH at about $36,000 a year. A council member asked whether fees in lieu could fund infrastructure tied to affordable housing; staff said no, housing money must build homes. The packet included Redmond's and Sammamish's mandatory programs. Council feedback to staff is due September 25. [R3]

Moving toward residents. Floor area limits proposed back (50% in R4 and R6, 60% in R8, 70% in R12). Middle housing narrowed toward a local definition (cottages, perhaps duplexes), with a worksheet to come; staff said middle housing "is not required to meet capacity." The special events ordinance was deferred indefinitely, by consensus, after a communication failure was acknowledged. [R3]

Roads. Staff said the traffic model is being updated to the new capacity, and "once that's done, we're going to look at levels of service." The result is not published. [R3]

Money. A September 8 memo from the city administrator set out how the council could waive fees for affordable housing (up to 80% of park and transportation impact fees with no backfill; utility connection fees under a 2023 law) [R4]. A September 9 public works memo put the new maintenance and operations center at about $21.9 million; the public works crew now shares a 1,200 square foot shed [R5]. The preliminary 2027-2028 budget: a general fund of about $16 million for two years; the strategic fund untouched, for discussion October 6 [R3]. The city was awarded $2.6 million of county Conservation Futures money for about three acres at Big Rock that "will remain undeveloped." [R3]

The minutes. The council voted to add a council member's September 1 question, and staff's answer, to the September 1 minutes. The amended minutes are not yet posted. [R3][R6]

Sept 9, 2026: Planning Commission

Public comment on the Title 14 and comprehensive plan work. The commission held a public hearing on the unit lot subdivision amendments (DMC 14.66.140), closed it with no further testimony, and voted to recommend the amendments to the council, as amended. Staff presented a first rough draft of the technical amendments to the comprehensive plan. [R7]

Sept 1, 2026: council workshop (Committee of the Whole) and regular meeting

Required, or chosen? The city administrator: the state has not said the city must have a mandatory affordable housing program; "the state has said have an incentive program," and the ingredients are the city's to choose. [R8]

Mandatory, on the table. Members expected a mandatory requirement in the denser zones and found the draft chapter voluntary; staff floated 10% at 10 homes; two members wanted at least 20%. Asked whether anyone was opposed to "exploring some kind of mandatory option," the council agreed to explore one; the September 15 worksheet followed. [R8]

"No fat left in the map." Asked whether any capacity was still optional and could be removed, staff answered that "right now ... we are at that minimum threshold ... we don't have any fat to trim," and "there ain't no fat left in the map." [R8]

The drafts. The city published its September 1 drafts of Title 14 chapters, including 14.47 (affordable housing), 14.20 (mixed use and commercial) and 3.12 (multifamily tax exemption). [R9]

Aug 26, 2026: Planning Commission

Minimum densities coming out. Staff found the minimums had been carried over from capacity arithmetic that did not require them: "the capacity is there whether or not we have those bookends on these numbers." The proposal became no minimum density in Midtown, Old Town, Uptown and the commercial district. [R10]

Old Town's height unchanged. No height change proposed in Old Town; "slight building height adjustments" in Midtown and Uptown; more height in the commercial district along southern Main Street and Big Rock Road, for mixed-use buildings with commercial space and "three floors above it." The one Old Town change on the table: the minimum lot size, from 2,500 square feet to zero. [R10]

Two consultants. One firm supplied the capacity analysis; a second drafted the code language from its figures. [R10]

What the exercise is. Staff: "We just have to show the capacity is there for smaller seats even if it's not feasible for someone to actually build it because of land economics or demand or whatever it is." [R10]

Earlier record the site relies on

Jan 6, 2026 (council). The work plan with the state; King County's sign-off on the new capacity analysis was the gate the state required, given that December. Staff reported that "King County identified" that the new analysis "doesn't require us to annex any land ... We can do it within the city limits." Target reconciliation is now a letter to the County Executive. Asked whether the neighborhood upzones were needed, staff answered that, apart from how zoning blends between areas, the city did not need to change anything below R20. [R11]

Aug 19, 2025 (council). The city's facilities consultants on a civic campus: the police station, city hall and maintenance yard "are at the end of life"; two options for "the Big Rock two-acre parcel" (a police station there, or city hall and police together); the parcel also listed among city properties the city "could divest from." No decision; a survey and final report were to follow. [R12]

Dec 2022. Lot 409, 2.09 acres at Big Rock Road and the Walden entrance, deeded to the city under the 2008 development agreement "to establish a city facility." [R13]

Records asked for, and their status

The letter's records request (section 6) went to the city clerk with the letter on September 23, 2026, by mail and by email; the clerk acknowledged the letter the same day. State law gives the city five business days to respond: provide the records, give a link to them, acknowledge and estimate a time, ask for clarification, or deny (RCW 42.56.520(1)). Counted from that Wednesday, the fifth business day is September 30. This table changes when the city answers.

What residents said (themes, no names)

Residents spoke at the September 1, 9 and 15 meetings. Their comments ran to six themes, in order of how often each came up:

1. Do what is required, now, and no more. "Meet the state requirements. Keep Duvall livable for now. Let expansion be discussed in the next comp plan." Several asked the city to separate what the state requires from what the city is choosing to do.
2. Infrastructure before density. No emergency room or urgent care; the ladder truck in Woodinville; full classrooms; the bridge at five o'clock; sewer and water. Speakers who said they would profit from growth said the same.
3. Hands off Old Town.
4. Affordability that is real. Support for cottages and small homes; large new townhomes add room but not affordability; size-capped attached accessory units are more affordable by nature.
5. Be included. Maps without dates, learning of changes on social media, comment taken only before the presentation; requests for a town hall.
6. Flood and egress. "What's going to happen when we turn into an island?"