Mayor vetoes Burke Gilman regulation

LAKE FOREST PARK — Mayor Dave Hutchinson cautiously vetoed an ordinance June 4, saying the sensitive area regulation passed by the Council was perceived as preventing coordinated efforts with King County officials to improve the Burke Gilman Trail.

This is Hutchinson’s first veto in his ninth year as mayor.

The veto could, however, be overridden at the June 10 Council meeting, after this edition of The Enterprise went to press. A super majority of five votes against the veto are required. As of June 8, four Council members were against the veto, two were in favor and one was undecided.

Council members Roger Olstad and Ed Sterner support the veto. Those in opposition include Council members Dwight Thompson, Mary Jane Goss, Alan Kiest and Carolyn Armanini. Council member Nate Herzog was still undecided at press time. The vote to override the veto would likely rest on Herzog’s decision, the mayor said.

Council members’ reactions to the veto was not surprisingly similar to their vote on the initial ordinance at the May 27 Council meeting.

Their vote came two weeks after a May 13 public hearing on the issue, during which Metro King County Council member Carolyn Edmonds said the passage of Ordinance 907 would prohibit any trail redevelopment.

At the following Council meeting, members then separated the original Ordinance 907 into two sections and adopted the portion requiring trails in stream buffers to be built with porous materials. The second portion of the original ordinance, pertaining to critical use permits, was deleted and then included in a new ordinance. This was not adopted, but added to the discussion agenda.

Their reasoning for adopting the revised ordinance, Council members said, was not to prohibit trail redevelopment, but to address environmental issues the county is not considering with plans to upgrade the two-mile stretch of trail that extends through Lake Forest Park.

Hutchinson scheduled meetings with Council members to explain his reasoning, and issued a letter, saying that collaboration with King County needs to be an integral part of any trail redevelopment. The ordinance, he said, was passed extremely fast at the Council meeting. There was also significant opposition from residents, Hutchinson said, possibly because people did not realize the pervious surface ordinance was separated from the conditional use permit regulation.

Goss said adequate details have not been provided about Hutchinson’s reasoning for the veto. In turn, blame is basically being shifted to the Council, she said.

“I still don’t see some tangible facts, or information, that says this is why the ordinance is being vetoed,” Goss said.

She said the county has made it a point to say the city is uncooperative, but she claims the county has not taken the necessary steps to mitigate trail concerns.

“I don’t understand the mayor’s point in vetoing something that basically protects the Lake Forest Park environmental record, because the record is exemplary,” Goss said. “This is one of the issues that hasn’t been brought up by the county.”

Sterner said he supports the mayor’s decision because there needs to be time to ensure any Council action is in the community’s best interest.

“I view this merely as an opportunity for us to get more information and improve communication,” Sterner said. “At the end of the day, we do need some amendments to our code.”

Herzog said his initial opposition to 907 was based upon the speed with which it was passed at the Council meeting, as opposed to the actual content.

“I have been speaking to different folks in the community and am letting those opinions weigh in,” Herzog said. “I have not made a firm decision at this point.”

Hutchinson has been working on an outline of an interlocal agreement with King County, which will describe common understandings for trail redevelopment. He anticipated presenting this to Council at the June 10 meeting.

He also intends to form a citizen’s advisory task force to address the topic, and he will ask the Council to table its discussion until July 22, when he intends to bring back a final interlocal agreement for action.