Clyde Hill News: Consensus, progress on budget, land use, and tree code
Also: King County Cm Claudia Balducci provides update; resident’s lawyer criticizes Planning Commission?
At April’s city meeting, Mayor Steve Friedman and the city council demonstrated consensus and alignment on three issues important to residents, approving measures related to
addressing the budget deficit
listening to residents before developing a new tree code (as well as strengthening view protections)
making progress on updating the city’s land use code.
Also, King County Councilmember Claudia Balducci visited to provide an overview of what’s going on in King County. More on these topics and more below, but first:
Long-time Clyde Hill resident Jim Kesl recently made a significant donation toward Clyde Hill PD’s drone fund after meeting Officer Cameron Hanson and getting a demonstration of the technology.
Yarrow Point Councilmember Michael Hyman, in his capacity as a resident, is leading the private effort to help the police with drones. Police officers joined him to thank Mr. Kesl in person for his generosity:
Also, a final reminder that
“Beginning the week of Monday, April 15, 2024, your recycling, trash and compost collection day is changing to Wednesday” (from Republic Services, link)
This issue of the newsletter is coming out a little early because I will be traveling. For the same reason, it’s likely that this newsletter will not come to you next week.
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.
Financial stability plan
The council voted 5-0 to adopt Mayor Friedman’s budget sustainability plan (link).
From a resident’s point of view, it’s great to see a plan. The mayor acknowledged problems clearly and in a way that frames and sets up solutions. To illustrate the progress here, consider this 2021 city response to a question asking if there’s agreement that running a deficit is a problem (link).
The next steps here include a discussion at the May council meeting about priorities, which will make conversations about “what is the city spending its money on, and does it make sense” easier. For residents interested in the topic, the city’s website offers a document in anticipation of that discussion here (link). Email addresses of elected officials are at the city’s website (link and link).
Tree code: listening to residents
The council agreed unanimously on a plan to engage residents and develop guidance (including priorities and scoping) related to a tree code ahead of drafting any specific regulations. Mayor and council also agreed that there was an “opportunity to strengthen and refine the [city’s] view ordinance” using feedback from residents who have gone through the current process.
The discussion acknowledged that a tree code is a potentially contentious issue and that getting ahead of misunderstandings and controversy makes sense. “Debacle” and “landmine” (link) are terms a former assistant city administrator used in relation to a previous city effort related to view protection and flags and flag poles. The city has an opportunity to learn from the mistakes and problems of that effort; some residents continue to have their own versions of what happened.
Residents interested in learning more or engaging on this topic can email council2@clydehill.org and/or council5@clydehill.org.
Planning Commission workflow
The city council voted 4-1 to refer a document with recommendations and clarifications (link) to the Planning Commission for feedback, noting that “addressing the backlog of land use code concerns is important for the community.”
The document suggested possible “misunderstandings about roles, responsibilities, and requirements” related to the work on land use code. The referral of the document to the Planning Commission is subject to additional review by the city attorney.
Context and goals
For context, the document and subsequent council discussion noted that the community has “had over a year to see progress” in response to feedback provided to the Planning Commission in early 2023. As an example, in May 2023, city staff recommended the commission adopt a work plan. In July of 2023, the Planning Commission (link) decided its work plan could wait until January 2024.
According to the discussion at the council meeting, the document was a response to issues and concerns that planning commissioners raised at their March meeting.1 The lack of a clear, shared point of view about how to approach the backlog of unaddressed land use code issues motivated the document and council discussion at the meeting.
Cm Steve Sinwell noted that “most of the residents do see a log jam” around land use code updates and “we’re just searching for ways to… increase the throughput.”
Discussion and additional review
Another council member claimed that the document under discussion was “explicitly contradictory” to a 2022 memo from the city attorney. Later in the meeting, that council member clarified that “I haven’t really had a chance to really run through [the document] with a lot of detail. I’d like to.” (link)
Mayor Friedman and council attempted a conciliatory effort in response to the concern, making the referral to the Planning Commission subject to additional city attorney review.
The mayor noted that he “read the document as… trying to put some clarification into the process” to enable getting “more information out to the public, so they know… what the rules are.” Cm Kim Muromoto commented that “what we’re trying to do is to figure out a nice working system.”
The mayor also praised the Planning Commission’s work on the city’s Comprehensive Plan, noting that he’s “looking for it to be done by next month.” He also noted that the Commission’s current “work plan is a baseline. It’s not a limit of what can be done.”
After the vote, a city staff member asked about the council’s “priority level on getting Planning Commission feedback on this document.” Cm Dean Hachamovitch noted that “the Planning Commission sets its own priorities.”
Resident’s lawyer attacks Planning Commission?
In what appears to be an attack on the Planning Commission, a letter (link) alleging inadequacies in the “public participation program” for the city’s Comprehensive Plan was published in the city meeting packet under “Non-Agenda Public Comments.”
The letter is from a lawyer claiming to represent a resident. That same resident provided public comment at the Planning Commission’s March meeting about the Comprehensive Plan.
To date, the primary forum for public participation related to Clyde Hill’s Comprehensive Plan update has been the Planning Commission’s public review and discussion of the plan.
Councilmember Claudia Balducci’s visit
King County Councilmember Claudia Balducci, who represents Clyde Hill and other neighboring cities in District 6, provided the community an update at Tuesday’s city council meeting.
From a resident’s point of view, the talk inspired a lot of confidence. She clearly understands her job, the complex systems she’s working in, and her goals in serving the community. It was just great to hear a positive, can-do approach to complex problems.
Her comments about road safety and the possible availability of Department of Transportation funds to improve it locally (around the seven minute mark in the video) are particularly interesting. She also acknowledged the challenge that small communities like ours face with respect to state plans and requirements around affordable housing.
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
A public discussion during the March 2024 Planning Commission meeting (about a land use item that had been referred to the Commission in January 2023) sparked a series of conversations involving two council members, the mayor, and the city attorney. According to the discussion at the April City Council meeting, the document attempted to distill those conversations. The document reflected multiple rounds of feedback as well as review by the city attorney.