Tree Ordinance (3)

The e-mails are flowing fast and furious about a proposed tree ordinance. As I understand it, the Planning Commission is sending a missive back to the Council requesting further direction about what we want. As I have already written, I believe 95% of the residents of Normandy Park are responsible stewards of the trees on their lots and, therefore if we we need to craft a law, it must be one that stops the other 5% from destroying their lots (and damaging the values of their neighbors' lots) by egregious actions.

What prompted this update was an e-mail (forwarded indirectly to me) from a claimed former debate coach wanting proof that a tree cut at SW 206th and First Avenue South would have a direct impact on salmon in Walker Creek. I was not a debater so I don't know the debating term for this kind of an argument but I do recognize its speciousness. Any lot near First Avenue South and SW 206th is in the Des Moines Creek watershed (i. e. storm water that was not taken up by the (former) tree at that location would flow into Des Moines Creek, not Walker Creek) so any "direct" impacts to salmon would be to those in Des Moines Creek, not Walker Creek. Also the impact of cutting one tree would probably be minimal; however, clear cutting a lot there might have a measurable impact on the storm water runoff (and erosion) that would impact Des Moines Creek. This might not directly impact salmon in the creeks in Normandy Park but one of our goals is not only not to be bad neighbors to each other but also not to be bad to our adjacent cities.

I would hope that we can conduct the discussion on this subject with a regard for the truth and not to try to score debating points.

Introduction (old)

I started an old blog 3 and a half years ago but eventually gave up on it. When I started this new one, I decided to repost some of the old information that might be still semi relevant. The next several posts (with the original dates) follow.

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

George Hadley has started this (WE)B Log system for communications to the residents of the City of Normandy Park, Washington. George Hadley is one of seven members of the Normandy Park City Council, elected by the citizens to conduct City business on their behalf. This blog contains personal opinions of George Hadley, and only George Hadley. Nothing written here should be construed to be the official policy of either the City of Normandy Park or its City Council. Such official policy is determined in open meetings of the Council on the second Tuesday of each month (and possibly the fourth Tuesday if necessary) at Normandy Park City Hall, 801 SW 174th Street, Normandy Park, WA 98166. Any opinions expressed here are those of George Hadley. While they are current as they are written, George reserves the right to change any opinion based on conversations with Normandy Park residents, his fellow council members, city staff, but most importantly, the statements of the public and the discussions with the council as conducted at the open meetings. For further information, see the City of Normandy Park web site at http://www.NormandyParkWA.gov/ or contact the City staff at (206) 248-7603. As always, if there is an emergency, call 9-1-1.

Normandy Park Form of Government

The seven elected councilmembers of the City of Normandy Park have two primary duties. The first is to attend the (mostly) monthly meetings on the second Tuesday of the month at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 801 SW 174th Street, Normandy Park, WA 98166. There we decide matters of policy affecting the city, primarily by updating the Normandy Park Municipal Code but also but approving interlocal agreements (with external organizations like neighboring cities), and passing resolutions . The second major function of the Council is to hire (and evaluate and, if necessary, fire) the City Manager.

In the council/manager form of government under which we operate, the professional city manager is the one actually responsible for running City Hall, hiring (and firing) the other employees, and executing the policies and laws passed by the Council. Councilmembers (and even the Council as a whole) are prohibited by state law from directing members of the staff to do (or not do) anything. All such direction must be done through the City Manager.

Meetings

Saturday, March 11, 2006

Meetings

The City Council is required (under the Open Public Meetings Act) to do all of its business (with limited exceptions to be discussed later in this entry) in open, advertised meetings where any member of the public may attend. Members of the public can not even be required to identify themselves. They may come and go anonymously as they like. This holds true even for Council Committee meetings (where a quorum of Council Members is not present and no actions can be taken.) Note that although members of the public may attend and watch, they do not necessarily have the right to participate (asking questions or making statements) except during an announced Public Hearing.

While it is not required, the Normandy Park City Council has two mechanisms for our citizens to participate. Near the beginning of each meeting, we have a Citizen Comment period in which any member of the public who wishes to, may take the floor to speak about any topic they wish for up to three minutes. Secondly, for each item of business, after the staff presentation, members of the public are invited to speak to that topic. The request,that is made of the public, for this priviledge is that they fill out a small form with their name and topic and summary of the comment and give it to the City Clerk (generally sitting on the public's right closest to the public) before the start of the meeting. The City Clerk passes these forms on to the Mayor who uses them to call the appropriate person to speak. They then go back to the City Clerk who can use them to create the meeting minutes.

The exceptions to the Open Public Meetings Act , are limited to 1) discussions (with legal counsel) pending litigation in which the city is involved (because, otherwise, the other side could hear strategies to be employed by our attorneys); evaluation of personnel performance (to protect the privacy of the employee), matters involving the real estate transactions (when advance knowledge of the transaction could affect the price); to review negotiations about contracts (which might affect the cost of the contract); to evaluate the qualifications of a candidate for appointment to the Council; and to discuss charges against a councilmember or member of the staff. [Note: I have paraphrased and combined some of the reasons. Look at RCW 42.30.110(1) cited above for the legally correct definitions.]

Comp Plan (old)

Below is a posting that was made while we were still in a lawsuit with the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB)over our Comprehensive Plan update. Eventually the GMHB did accede to Judge Hillyer's decision although there was one member (of three) who voted against us. He just couldn't find it in himself to follow the law.

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Comprehensive Plan

The City of Normandy Park's 2004 Comprehensive Plan update was challenged by Futurewise (formerly 100 Friends of Washington) and a pair of developers before the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (CPSGMHB) which ruled that it was "clearly erroneous" because it did not have zoning of four dwelling units per acre (as had been established by the CPSGMHB) as the minimum required for urban density. In addition the CPSGMHB invalidated some of our zoning laws because they felt our behaviour was so outrageous.

The City first had to establish a mortatorium on some development in the city because we no longer had any laws to regulate the development. The City then decided to appeal this ruling. About a month later the Washington Supreme Court issued a ruling called Viking Properties concerning another matter but included in the ruling a decision that stated that the four dwelling unit per acre (so-called "bright-line rule") was a instance of law making by a judicial entity (the CPSGMHB) that had no legislative capability. It further stated that the decision of what was an appropriate urban density for a city was to be determined by the local officials, not the any of the Growth Management Hearing Boards (GMHB).

On Friday, March 24, the City's appeal was heard in King County Superior Court by Judge Bruce Hilyer. After hearing arguments from Jay Derr, the City's attorney and attornies for Futurewise and the developers, Judge Hilyer made a verbal ruling that the Supreme Court had made it abundantly clear that there was no "bright line rule" and that four dwelling units per acre was not a law that could be used to overturn the decisions of the Normandy Park Planning COmmission and City Council.

Due to the construction of the Growth Management Act (GMA), he was not able to just declare the Normandy Park Comprehensive Plan accaeptable but instead remanded the case back to the CPSGMHB with an demand that they not use the any definitions of urban density that they had made up but obey the Viking Properties decision. His written order should be given out this week and then the CPSGMHB will have 30 to 45 days to comply with his order.

Baring surprises, our Comprehensive Plan should be approved before June.

While I attended the hearing on March 24, I am not an attorney and some of my understanding of what went on may not be 100% correct but it is fairly clear that Judge Hilyer did uphold the positon of the City that it is our City Council that has the right and obligaton to determine the proper density rules for the City of Normandy Park as long as we follow the requirements of the GMA to ccomodate the growth assigned to us.

Fireworks (old)

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

The City of Normandy Park appears to be the last city in Martin Luther King, Jr. County that has not banned fireworks (except by licensed pyrotechnical experts.) Since there is no local ban, the igniting of fireworks is covered by state law. The residents of Normandy Park seem (from past Fire Department records) to have been responsible and have not caused significant problems. Last year, apparently several local radio stations saw fit to broadcast the fact that Normandy Park was the only local jurisdiction in which fireworks could legally be used by private citizens causing an influx of the types of people who have caused other jurisdictions to ban fireworks. What should be done? One suggestion is to go with the flow and ban fireworks in Normandy Park just as the rest of the cities in King County have done, thus punishing the responsible residents of Normandy Park for the actions of the irresponsible. First, one should note that, under state law, a ban enacted by the City Council does not go into effect for one year so, if such a ban were enacted at the June 13, 2006 City Council meeting, it would not ban fireworks until Independence Day 2007. Thus fireworks would still be legal for Independence Day 2006 and New Year’s Eve 2006. I propose that we pass the ban suggested by the Fire Chief and the Police Chief at the June 13 meeting but also inform the populace that if they present us with a petition signed by 400 voters of Normandy Park (10% of the voting public), that we will place a (binding to us) question on the November ballot whether our citizens wish us to keep the ban or rescind it before it goes into effect. It is not clear to me how we would be able to get a reasonable indication of the feelings of the majority of the residents of Normandy Park in any other way. In the mean time, my hope would be that we could find some reasonable way that responsible Normandy Park residents (and their friends) could continue to enjoy setting off fireworks while stopping irresponsible people from out of town coming to Normandy Park and causing trouble. First, we have already prohibited fireworks from all city property (rights of way and parks.) We need to get the School District and non-residential property owners to post their property banning trespass and fireworks (or accept liability and responsibility for the actions of those who do set off fireworks on their property.) I would like to consider making possession of fireworks an aggravating factor in trespass within the city. Could we advertise these rules and suggest that Normandy Park intends to use fireworks as a revenue source by prosecuting (zero tolerance policy) anyone trespassing with fireworks with the fine money going first to pay for extra police and secondarily to the general fund. I would like to suggest that the current state law is unnecessarily broad in the times fireworks are allowed. I would suggest that noon on July 4 until midnight of the same day would allow everyone adequate time to celebrate Independence Day and 8 p.m. December 31 until 1 a.m. January 1st would allow adequate time to celebrate the New Year.

Old Blog End

I found an old (2005-2006) Blog that I had started on these same topics. I have decided to repost those entries here and then use the old blog for items that are not particularly relevant to my position on the City Council. Since if you start with the most recent posting, this will be the last one you see, this is end of old repostings.