Clyde Hill News: Intersection safety like it’s 1971
Also: ballots arrive, and the Mayor on recycling
This week, a look at one of the city’s public safety laws, how it’s enforced, and what the city is doing to get better.
Also, an update from the Mayor about recycling in Clyde Hill.
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.
Intersection safety
Here is the short version of where we are today with respect to visibility and sight lines at intersections — followed by background and a resident’s point of view on the significant problem here.
The law on the books in Clyde Hill concerning sight-line visibility at intersections is the original text from 1971 despite changes in safety standards over the last 52 years.
Enforcement of this law occurs primarily when there’s new construction or a substantial remodel.
The city hired a contractor in February to evaluate the situation and make a recommendation. There is no published timeline or relative priority from the administration for the work involved here.
How we got here
Here are screenshots of the current city law today and the original Town of Clyde Hill ordinance from 1971 from the state archives:1
At last week’s council meeting, city staff confirmed that enforcement of this law happens primarily when a lot is being developed (new construction or substantial re-model). After that, according to staff, “We don’t maintain them at the 85-foot triangle.” (link)
The city took some action back in 2016 after a significant lawsuit in King County. As the City of Redmond’s guidance to its residents about intersection safety explains:
“In 2016, the Washington State Supreme Court confirmed that cities must address these obstructions to keep the roadways in a reasonably safe condition.” (link)
In 2016, Clyde Hill sent letters to residents explaining the necessary action:
A search of the city’s website does not show evidence of subsequent activity on this topic until ~2022, when the intersection visibility code appeared on a list of potential code revisions for discussion.
In the meantime, neighboring cities have updated their code and guidance to residents (e.g. Redmond link, Kirkland link).
Change recommended
First, it’s important to celebrate progress. The city’s contractor has recommended developing a new requirement:
Upkeep isn’t a problem. Denial and delay are.
From a resident’s point of view, the municipal code and its enforcement policies needing attention and upkeep isn’t a surprise. Every system needs maintenance and upkeep.
The significant and distressing problem here, from a resident’s point of view, is the combination of denial and delay.
For example, last month residents heard about “omissions in our criminal code” (link) from the city attorney. At the June council meeting, after the city council approved updates to the city’s criminal code, the attorney set expectations about working with Clyde Hill’s police to address the remaining gaps. Again, maintenance is not a surprise.
On the other hand, in June 2022, the Mayor addressed a memo to the community about “Code Enforcement- A Position Statement.” Its opening paragraph explained:
City Councilmembers have all stated that they believe there is a problem with code enforcement. As Mayor, I do not, and here’s why. (link)
Six months later, in January 2023, the council unanimously approved updates to the city’s enforcement policy (Clyde Hill Municipal Code Chapter 17.80).
Whether it’s land use code and enforcement or
addressing the city’s longstanding budget deficit (link)
the confusing and slow path of the city’s Comprehensive Plan update (link)
the distressing treatment of Clyde Hill’s police (link)
there’s a clear ongoing theme involving denial of problems and delaying even the consideration of action.
Voice of dissent: we’re going too fast
The newest councilmember, Cm Ashley Eckel, expressed dissent on the topics of intersection safety code as well as fence code in general.
At the July council meeting, Cm Eckel expressed her concern with the speed at which the city is addressing issues:
“I am still a little confused or concerned about how quickly this is going forward.” (link)
At another point, she asked “We haven’t changed that law in years. Why now?” and asserted “You’re making the assumption that we’re going to change the law, change the code… I don’t think that should be the assumption.”
In April 2022 an evaluation by city staffers themselves (presented at a council meeting) noted “Significant deficiencies found; high demand” in the fence code. The recommendation from staff was to front-load fences into a “Wave #1 of chapters to review.”
Mayor on recycling
“Mayor Klaas had a busy week” according to the July 14 Administrator’s report. The Mayor represented Clyde Hill at the King County Fair and at the Republic Recycling Center:
“Her biggest takeaway is that we have a lot of work to do to improve our city’s recycling efforts, both in terms of quantity and quality of materials diverted for recycling. Staff will partner with Republic to do some community messaging on this topic,”
according to the city.
August primary ballots, delivered
Please vote! Many Clyde Hill residents got their ballots in the mail this week… for reference, only thirty nine percent (39%) of Clyde Hill residents submitted ballots in the August 2021 primary.
I raise this in the context of the work ahead to improve Clyde Hill across the budget, code and enforcement, comprehensive plan, and more.
Who do you want representing you for that work, for setting administration priorities, and providing oversight?
For reference, three residents are running for city council position 2. The top two vote-getters will advance to the general election in November. Here’s a snapshot from last week’s newsletter about the candidates. (The criteria are based on the information the candidates highlighted.) You can find links to their websites and the voters’ pamphlet here (link).
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