Clyde Hill News This Week, #5
Clyde Hill News This Week, #5
This week: an attempted break-in at the gas station; feedback at City Council meeting about inconsistent enforcement and malicious reports; and feedback to the City on its planned code updates.
Also: ballots for this year’s election should be in your mailboxes now or very soon!
Dog-involved Arrest
Our top story this week involves an attempted break-in at the 76 gas station here in Clyde Hill. Clyde Hill Police responded quickly, and Bellevue Police joined to assist. A Bellevue Police dog tracked down a suspect, who was arrested and booked. Not sure which Bellevue PD canine was involved; we imagine they looked something like this:
Deliberate Inconsistency in Enforcement
During the City Council meeting on Tuesday, a theme emerged around City policy and its enforcement: deliberate inconsistency.
A City staffer, in response to a question about City’s enforcement choices, explained that sometimes, and for some cases, the City has “chosen not to enforce because [of] severe impact on properties.”
In other words, the City may demand that you make changes (like cutting back a hedge that is bothering no one) while allowing the neighboring properties around you to remain non-compliant.
The City is not currently responsible for explaining how it chooses when it enforces and when it takes no action — leaving the system open to abuse.
Remarks at the City meeting from resident Pamela Phillips, who is on the Aqua Vista Homeowner’s Association (HOA) called out the abuse and weaponization of neighbor complaints. Her comments follow:
“The City has elected to enforce code by complaint… here is a portion of the Council Policy adopted in 1990. The excerpt is taken from the Neighborhood Matters page on the City Website:
COUNCIL POLICY
In 1990, the City Council approved the following enforcement policy: Enforcement will be by written complaint. The complaint will be investigated to determine whether a violation is actually present. If there is no violation, the complainant will be advised in writing as to the reason that a violation is not present. If there is a violation, every effort will be made by the City staff to personally meet with the property owner prior to sending a written notice, which would explain the violation, the need and the type of corrective action. The property owner will be given a copy of the complaint and a copy of the articles of the Municipal Code detailing the violation. The corrective notice will give the property owner 30 days to take corrective action, show cause why such action can not be taken, or explain why the City is in error and no violation is present. The corrective notice will also point out the optional appeal process.
My concern is that when enforcement by complaint is unrestricted, this could allow for unintended consequences. For example; a spiteful neighbor could file a complaint with malicious intent. And I can attest that I know of at least two recent cases of this. Given that there are many existing violations that are acknowledged by the City’s governing body, I would like to ask that there be boundaries placed on complaints. I ask that a complaint must be valid in order to be enforced; I suggest the following potential criteria:
a safety issue
a view impact (must be submitted by the impacted party)
a nuisance
a situation that could result in damage to city or personal property
As I previously mentioned, there are many existing cases of violations throughout the city. Clearly these are not impacting community members as there have been no complaints. Many of these existing violations are hedges or living fences that are greater than 8 feet as called out by the city code. If the vegetation is not a safety issue or a view impact, why would the city want to limit these to 8 feet? As an example, there are many properties along 92nd Ave that have lovely tall hedges. These living fences provide a beautiful backdrop to the neighborhood entrances, provide privacy and noise abatement for the residents along a busy street and enhance the aesthetic of our community.
I believe that if a complaint does not meet certain conditions, then our government’s time and money is better spent on addressing more critical issues.”
Feedback for $500, Please
The short version: expect public hearings in November and December for residents to provide feedback to the City. This is a welcome addition to the City’s initial plan, described below.
The initial process as described on the City’s website involves paying $500 to provide feedback. “Consultation with planning staff is required prior to submitting an application” as well. There is no requirement that the City agree to meet.
The City posted on Friday October 8th about an October 31st deadline to provide feedback about the Land Use Code (covering zoning, trees & views, accessory dwelling units, and the like). During the October Council meeting, the City said that there’s actually a “rolling deadline” for feedback. I admit I’m not sure what that means.
The larger process for working through the feedback is not clear. During the meeting, City staff described the plan, a Councilmember then played back his understanding of the plan, and then City staff said no and offered another description of the process. This exchange went on for a while. We can hope that the City clarifies process in writing sometime soon.
Public hearings on this topicare a welcome change.
Thanks again for reading —
Dean