Clyde Hill News: Administration’s “stormwater exception” proposal goes to Planning Commission
Another “gap between written policy and accepted enforcement practice,” according to city staff
An administration proposal to formalize a “stormwater exception” for some substantial remodels goes to the Planning Commission this week for discussion and public comment.
For residents, here’s a broad and brief overview of the issues:
The city has a stormwater drainage problem. The video below (from the administration) illustrates what happens in Clyde Hill when stormwater systems underperform.
The administration’s enforcement practices regarding substantial remodels defer private stormwater drainage improvements.
Progress on efforts to address both (1) inconsistent enforcement practices as well as (2) the lack of clarity on administration policies continues to be slow.
Specifics and details on how we got here and what’s at stake for residents, below.
Also this week: the Budget Advisory Committee, a group of residents who volunteered to provide feedback to the administration as it develops its budget proposal for next year, meets Tuesday. The agenda for that meeting is here, link.
A warm welcome to new readers! If someone forwarded you this newsletter, subscribing is free and easy!
Disclaimer: while I am a councilmember on the Clyde Hill City Council, I write this newsletter in my capacity as an individual resident. Any opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily the position of the city. City information and references here are from public sources. I welcome email responses — and if the topic is about city business I will respond from my city email account.
The short version
If a resident pursues a “substantial remodel” (a remodel above a certain cost threshold), then city code requires that the remodel must comply with all current land use regulations “including setbacks, building height, fencing, and more.”
The administration has been consistent in not enforcing the substantial remodel code as written. It is seeking to update the city’s code to reflect its current enforcement practices, which exempt some substantial remodels from complying with stormwater drainage requirements.
It’s not clear what happens if the “gap between written policy” and actual enforcement continues.
Changes to “substantial remodel” code proposed
The city administration is proposing two changes to the city code regarding substantial remodels (link):
Changing the substantial remodel threshold to be 25% of a property’s total assessed value instead of a fixed value that is adjusted annually.
Creating an exception for substantial remodel projects that do not include land disturbing activity so that they are exempt from meeting stormwater system requirements. This change codifies a practice that is already implemented by staff.
Threshold change: OK
The first change, to the cost threshold for a substantial remodel, is not controversial.
The administration notes that the “threshold amount has not kept up with actual inflation of home values.” It proposes making the substantial remodel threshold 25% of the property’s assessed value. For example:
For a property worth $3,743,000 (the median assessed value in Clyde Hill in 2023), the 25% substantial remodel threshold would be $935,750. The current substantial remodel threshold is $514,000.
It’s easy to spend a lot of time fiddling with how to calculate the threshold. The administration’s proposal is clear and easy to understand. In my capacity as a resident, personally, it seems that trying to improve further on the proposal under discussion is unlikely to be a good use of time.
Stormwater exception: maybe?
Let’s start from the “impact example” the administration provides in their presentation — an “interior only” remodel that does not involve “land disturbing activity:”
A resident does a kitchen remodel which meets the substantial remodel threshold. No other work is done on the property. The resident will be required to bring their property into compliance with all current land use regulations except stormwater drainage….
A $935,000 kitchen remodel?
Setting aside the premise of a $935,000 kitchen remodel and considering this argument in theory: sure — demanding residents take on the “expensive and destructive” work (to use the administrations’s description) to install stormwater drainage for an interior only remodel seems like an exception worth discussing.
Setbacks and fences, but not stormwater?
In practice, it’s not clear what makes stormwater drainage different from any of the other “code regulations, including setbacks, building height, fencing, and more” that the city requires residents to comply with.
The troubling context here is that the administration and council agree that the city has significant stormwater system problems:
The administration just requested (and the council approved, link) $165,000 of spending to develop a “comprehensive stormwater master plan,” above and beyond the city’s planned annual spend on the stormwater drainage system.
The city is planning to create a stormwater utility (effectively, a new tax on residents) to pay for expected work in operating and improving the city’s stormwater drainage system.
Residents around 17th Street as well as near 84th Ave have direct experience with stormwater problems (see the video at the top of the newsletter).
Bringing more of the city’s stormwater drainage infrastructure up to code seems like a good thing for residents.
The administration has not disclosed any data about substantial remodels in Clyde Hill — for example, how many there have been over the last few years, and of those how many have involved stormwater drainage work and how many have been exempted.
It’s not clear, from the administration’s slides and memo, if any of Clyde Hill’s neighbors have made a similar exception for substantial remodels and stormwater drainage.
Consistently inconsistent code enforcement
The administration writes that
For many years, the City has made a consistent practice of waiving stormwater requirements for interior-only substantial remodels
and that “this change codifies a practice that is already implemented by staff.”
It’s not clear when this policy started, where it’s written down, or how residents should know about it. It’s not clear what other unwritten policies affecting residents are in place.
How we got here
The city council and the administration (primarily the city administrator and the mayor) have different points of view about code enforcement in Clyde Hill.
The mayor has consistently denied that there’s a problem, opening a five-page memo about “Code Enforcement- A Position Statement” (link) in June 2022 by writing:
City Councilmembers have all stated that they believe there is a problem with code enforcement. As Mayor, I do not, and here’s why.
In January 2023, the administration proposed updates to the city’s code enforcement regulations in response to the council’s feedback.1
Seeking “clear code, consistently enforced”
The code enforcement changes from the administration in January reflect work by Councilmembers Friedman, Muromoto, and Hachamovitch pursuing a goal of “clear code, consistently enforced” during 2022 and 2023. Their most recent document from June 2023 (link) outlines some problems:
What’s at stake for residents
The current substantial remodel/stormwater policy would appear to delay and slow down improvements to Clyde Hill’s stormwater drainage system. Only new construction appears to be subject to the requirement to update stormwater drainage systems on private property into compliance with the latest code.
At the same time, residents pursuing substantial remodels under the current city policy face less complexity and cost.
At the most recent council meeting, concerns about the city’s legal liability from not enforcing city code were raised. The administration has not yet spoken to that issue.
Public comment
The Planning Commission meets this Thursday, August 24th.
Information about how to attend the meeting is available here (link).
The full agenda for the meeting is available here (link). For anyone who wants to send feedback ahead of the meeting or who cannot attend the meeting, the city’s website (link) has contact information for your elected officials.
Thank you for reading! Please forward and share with your friends and neighbors, and if you are not already getting this newsletter, subscribing is both easy and free.
Dean Hachamovitch