Good morning, all,

We will warn you: This is quite a large document (19 pages in MS Word), since it includes a good deal of word-for-word transcription of discussion in the council meeting. We have therefore included this as an attachment that you can save for later reading or for printing in a smaller font. As with most of our updates, we will now be posting this on our website, if you wish to read the details at a later date.

During the 10/17/01 council meeting, Councilmember Perry McPherson championed the Willow Run residents' plight by making a motion that the council meet in executive session BEFORE the next council meeting (which was November 7^th), decide what issues the city/council could or could not fix for the homeowners, and then make a report to them during that council meeting. Somewhere along the line Perry's motion got ignored. This item did not show up on the agenda for the executive session, but was added after Perry "reminded" everyone. Unfortunately, of course, because the executive session was scheduled to last quite awhile (60 minutes or more) following the close of the council meeting, we cannot report on any specifics at this time. I am certain a report will be made at the November 21^st council meeting on the results.

[For any who are interested, here is Perry's precise, word-for-word motion, which was passed by the council unanimously: "We'll come in a half-hour early and have an executive session on this, then people some answer as to -- can, can the city do anything, or, or if the city can't do anything, they should be told, 'The city can't do anything.' One way or the other, is my feeling on this." The council then approved this motion unanimously. The purpose was to be able to inform the Willow Run residents appropriately, and at the beginning of the council meeting. We encourage people to check the city's recorded tape if they dispute the transcription of Perry's motion. It occurred approximately 40 minutes after the start of the council meeting.]

The City's "Solution" to the illegally-placed Willow Run Fire Hydrant: Check out our website for a picture and short story of how the city "fixed" this problem, using a somewhat unorthodox, certainly a "creative," solution. We have also posted a copy of a letter from W.R. resident and activist Stan Otto regarding the city's "solution." (For more information, read the transcription of the exchange between Sal Chavez and Craig Bruner later in this update.)

As Mr. York gets ready for development on his newly-annexed 40 acre parcel, a violation occurred which involved a diversion of Winter's Creek, during Mr. York's installation of a culvert.

Because Winter's Creek is a Type 2 stream (as identified on DNR's maps) and is an ESA-spawning area, this type of construction work is not to be performed after October 30^th, which is spawning season. Additionally, several required studies were not performed. As it seems with virtually every construction project of this type in Sultan, the work was not performed legally. Several environmental studies were to have been completed and submitted to the city for review and approval prior to the work.

Mr. Mark Wenger of the Washington Fish & Wildlife department confirmed that Mr. York did not use BMP's -- what are referred to as accepted environmental practices called "Best Management Practices" -- during the construction of the culvert. (For more specific details, see our website later this week.)

During the election, a recently-formed local coalition group accused us repeatedly and often of being "extreme" because we absolutely insist that the laws not only be followed, but that the city be held accountable for disasters which cause taxpayers and residents money and grief (such as Willow Run, the Wagley Creek LID construction, Date Street condos, et al). Our laws demand adherence. Otherwise, why have them? Our city insurance and bonding companies demand compliance. And taxpayers should demand not only compliance, but accountability with our laws. To not demand it leaves us at great risk from a legal and liability standpoint. And if that stated position is considered "extreme," then I loudly and proudly plead "guilty as charged."

We have also been accused of being environmental "terrorists," a serious and dangerous charge to make. The truth is that we disagree with many of the environmental laws today. But as we have said countless times, if one does not like the laws, the responsible course of action would be to work to change them, not disregard or flout them.

Our town is once again clean and tidy due to the quick clean-up by all candidates, for which I'm sure the community is grateful.

Congratulations to the apparent winners. At latest count, it would seem that the 3-vote spread between Cindy Broughton and Rob Criswell is still too close to call, pending count of final remaining absentee ballots. The county could not confirm the total number of absentee ballots left to be counted. They will not certify the results until November 20th. We have been told that any council position that requires a statutory recount (which it appears that the Broughton/Criswell race would) would be retained by the "old" council member until confirmation can occur.

The turn-out of approximately 900 voters (which represents about 45% of the registered voters) is appalling, especially this year. After the events of September 11^th you can't step outside your door without seeing someone proudly displaying the American flag. How can one feel proud to be an American without performing the most basic privilege and responsibility of voting? This turn-out is especially worrisome in Sultan, where so many issues of vital importance to our future hang in the balance, and literally hundreds of voter registration forms were personally distributed to residents' homes by candidates.

As a frustrating aside to the turnout of voters, we confirmed that several residents never received any voter cards from the county, even though they had registered. We can only wonder how many new voters who had registered assumed they were unable to vote, simply because they did not receive the cards. Quite unfortunate.

But to anyone who proudly waves and displays our American flag, yet didn't vote, to them I say "Shame on you."

During the election, residents were inundated with aggressive and negative "hit" pieces about G.R.I.T., Ron Kraut, G.R.I.T., Cindy Broughton, G.R.I.T., Mark Raney, G.R.I.T., etc., which were distributed around town by Derek Boyd. If you're interested in receiving that type of information, or wish to be informed of what people at every end of the spectrum are saying around town, we urge you to contact him. Otherwise, we urge you to spread the word about G.R.I.T. and our website. [For anyone not familiar with Mr. Boyd is, he is a previous planning commissioner who was removed from office for significant non-attendance at the PC meetings. Mr. Boyd is also a member of the Boucher family, and is related either by marriage and/or blood to Ed "Chico" Boucher, a local developer, Dusty Boucher, a newly-elected councilmember, and Brady Boucher, the petitioner in the Dr. Raney recall.]

NOTE: We initially thought these newsletters -- which began appearing and being circulated just prior to the election were just plain silly (due to their skewed perspective) -- should not be dignified by any response. But the number and volume of untrue and slanted material in their content do require that some of the "charges" be answered. I plan on doing so on my website in the near future. I also plan on posting all of the "newsletters" that we have received from this group, which others in the community graciously shared with us. (SCC never sent them to us directly.)

LORETTA STORM & ITTAKESGRIT.ORG WEBSITE UNDER ATTACK
In addition to the SCC newsletters, and as most of you are probably already aware, I was served with a temporary restraining order against harassment through these email updates and on my website. It was dismissed.

I have always attempted to post only factual information, and have happily made corrections to my website's content when I am presented with proof that something is incorrect. If ANYONE -- no matter what position they hold in this town -- reads something on my website or in these emails that they know to be incorrect or false, I would consider it a great personal favor, and in the best overall interests of the people in Sultan, if they will present me with written information and confirmation as to the truth. We began this website and these updates to inform people, and have supplied mostly factual information, documents and data in order that you could draw your own conclusions. That objective is as true today as it was in July of 2000 when our website was created and went online.

This Hearing Examiner hearing is scheduled for 2 p.m. on the 20^th. Two o'clock in the afternoon, when most people are working and cannot attend….what else need we say about how the city administration values public input? Legal public notice does not necessarily mean effective public notice.

Regarding "legal" public notice, we checked the codes on what is considered legal notice and find that the posting and notification to nearby property owners does not qualify as "legal."

There are other problematic areas, as well, and if you are interested in the details, check out my website, or read the specifics which appear at the end of this update.

Beckwith Associates will shortly be sending out a survey to determine what the residents in and around Sultan wish for our community in the next several years. We urge residents to begin thinking about this subject (if they have done so already!) and give their input to the city. They need not wait for the survey, either. If you have opinions about what you'd like our future to be -- and what you do NOT wish our future to be -- communicate this to Mayor C. H. Rowe and the councilmembers in writing at: 319 Main Street, Sultan, WA 98294.

Jay Lehman (Willow Run resident): "Today I received a notice of public hearing in my mailbox for four lots in the development where I live. I went to the city code on posting the, positing the signs and everything and it says that within five days after the application's gone to the city, there's supposed to be a sign up there. One here, it appears that they post--that it, it was filed the 22^nd of October, and the sign just went up yesterday. And another thing, another problem with it is it says from the time the sign's posted, you're supposed to have 30 days to, no less than 30 days until the meeting. Well, the meeting's [hearing] posted for the 20^th, and the sign went up yesterday. And another problem that I have is that the meeting is going to be at 2 p.m. in the middle of the day when a lot of our residents are not going to be able to show up for the meeting, and, uh, just very -- another thing that I've seen in here it says that the applicant was supposed to, to, um, supply prepaid postage envelopes to, for the mailings, and it appears that the city paid for the postage and everything, that got mailed out to me. So I'm not sure that -- I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not sure that the code that we have defining this is being applied correctly."

CH: "Where's this development at, Jay?"

Jay: "South of Willow Run. East, I guess. Willow Trace. It'd be the Broughton property."

CH: "Oh, okay. I know [unintelligible]."

Jay: "So, I have some problems that we're not having the right amount of time for the notice, uh, both notices. Pretty much everything that the code outlines here it appears to me hasn't been followed, so… have to find out what's going on with that, and hopefully get the meeting moved to a time that all of us residents can show up to, instead of 2 o'clock in the middle of the day. Thank you."
Eric Lindeblad (Willow Run resident): "I'm on the same subject as Jay, about the public hearing for the Broughton short plat. I looked at the calendar and this is two days before Thanksgiving for the public hearing. Everybody here has jobs. We have lives. The next part of my comment, I don't mean to be sarcastic or nasty but this harkens back to the same thing as the public hearing for the gravel pit, which was held Friday evening of Memorial Day weekend. If you don't want public comment, don't schedule the hearing. I don't know any other way to say it. Thanks for your time."

Jeff Kirkman (Willow Run resident): "I'm here on the same subject. I got the notice tonight. 2:00 p.m. in the afternoon. I don't know anything about code, law or anything like that, but it seems really unusual that a public hearing -- public hearing -- is held at 2:00 p.m. in the afternoon. I mean, that's just unconscionable. I mean, no matter -- I, I didn't even know about the timing of postings and all that sort of thing, but it's just unconscionable. And you people here, are here to represent us. And you're hear to listen to us. So, please, take that into consideration in the future. Thanks."

Sal Chavez (Willow Run resident): "Well, I, from the last meeting that we, that I attended, I thought there was going to be an executive session where they would talk about what a developer's responsible for repairing. And was that done, or what, where we at with that?"

CH: "We, we will have that one after the council meeting tonight. So we were supposed to have it before and [unintelligible]. We got mixed up on our time so we had to move it to the end of the council meeting."

Sal: "So at the next council meeting, they'll -- I mean --

CH: "Unless you want to stay around tonight and come back in after…"

Sal: "Okay. So that's going to be open?"

CH: "I’m not trying to throw you off, but we've got three different issues to talk about for executive session. Might last for a little while."

Sal: "I mean, but it'll be open meeting?"

CH: "It'll be open."

CH: "After the executive session we'll go back into regular session. We'll be open again. So that's what I have."

Raney: "But there may not be any discussion about what we talked about in executive session."

Sal: "I mean, we'll have some action, though, I mean? That, I mean, that's the whole purpose of, you know, having that meeting was to have some type of answer. I mean, if there's not going to be an answer, then what's….? Sort of pointless."

CH: "If, if you would like, rather than stay around, if you give me your phone number, I can call you tomorrow and let you know what we've been -- same thing you'd find out if you stayed here tonight. It's up to you whether -- "

Sal: "I, I'll stay."

Jay: "You put my phone number on there, too?"

CH: "I can do that."

Jay: "Thank you."

Sal: "And there was one more thing. The fire hydrant they talked about putting a barrier around it? And I see there's a barrier and I mean…doesn't she discuss anything, or the developer, discuss anything with the city as far as what can go in and what can't go in? I mean, it was my understanding that the property owner next to the fire hydrant which she does not own, wasn't agreeable with this, and she's put the barrier, barriers up. I mean, what's -- doesn't anybody communicate with them? Or don't they communicate with us? They just do whatever they damn well please? I don't know. It's pretty frustrating."

Sal: "The barrier's only on one side. I thought it had to be on both sides. I mean, what does that -- you know, from what I understood it was three feet. I mean, you know, you're going to put it on one side now that suits her, and what about the other side? Just because it doesn't suit her now, all of a sudden the city is saying that it's okay? I mean, doesn't that sound -- "

CH: "We're not doing anything because it doesn't suit Veronica. But -- "

Sal: "Well, I don't know, be-- I mean, you know…."

Bruner: "Could be designed, like I said, to Merlin Halverson, the, uh, the chief, fire chief, and he, uh, reviewed it and said, Well, bollards on just this one side will, will do, and accept it the way it is. And that's -- the codes do read that way. If you read that [unintelligible], the bollards and the clearance, uh, the final sentence in there, it says, 'or as approved by the chief.' And so…"

Sal: "Okay. Yeah, I would like a copy of that. [unintelligible]."

Jay: "Do you have a memo for that from him, Craig, that we can get, or -- ?"

Craig: "No. He didn't send a memo. It's instruction. [unintelligible]."

Jay: "I'd like to see -- you'd think that the city would have something in writing, him stating that. I'd like to see that."

Craig: "I'm asking -- no. I asked him for something in writing. He said no. The city -- the fire department's actually [sounds like, "annexed"] out of the city, but, uh…"

Jay: "Well, the city's responsible to approve something that's legal. Right now, I vote that any of you councilmembers that take a drive out there…" [CH bangs his gavel and says, "You're out of order, Jay."]

Craig: "You can go over and discuss that with the, uh, with the, with the, uh, Merlin Halverson."

CH: "I would recommend you do that. Go over and talk to the fire chief."

Derek Boyd [Author and originator of Sultan Citizen Coalition newsletters, son (or step-son) of Chico Boucher]: "Good evening. Just have a quick comment here tonight. I wish to speak briefly tonight on behalf of the Sultan Citizens Coalition. Despite what some would like to believe, this is not an organization put here together simply for the local election. Nor is it an organization of merely one or two people. But tonight I'm present, I'm speaking for them. The Sultan Citizens Coalition is in fact a group of concerned citizens who will continue working toward sharing the information with the Sultan community at large in the months and years ahead. We do this in an attempt to conduct the -- combat the bias that's been clearly, uh, expressed by some members of our local media, and certain individuals intent on misleading the public at large to further their own narrow vision of Sultan's future. At this time the Citizens Coalition has asked that I thank publicly those individuals willing to run for office. What a thankless job you guys have. And we do thank you. It was at times a heated campaign with strong words spoken by various candidates and their supporters in the community and the local media. It is our sincere hope that we can now move forward in dealing with the job at hand with a council that is first and foremost willing to work together to insure all Sultan citizens have their voices heard. The stakes are too high, the city's needs too great, to have the potential for a city's future be damaged by petty, personal disputes and agendas. The Sultan Citizens Coalition intends to continue closely watching all members of city council, both current and newly-selected to ensure all are committed to moving forward in a more positive and beneficial direction. I'd like to end by thanking those members of council who are stepping down -- Mr. Ostrom [he was not present], Ms. Eslick -- we thank you for the work you've done, all the heartache you've taken for it. Thank you."

Janet Lovelace Jones (Willow Run resident): "The reason I'm coming here tonight is I wanted to ask the council to create an ordinance allowing leeway to help with what would be considered the working poor. And what motivated me to bring this to your attention is I found myself in a position where I am unable to access different avenues of services that are available to people that, that, uh, um…do not have the financial resources that I have. I am a single parent working two jobs, and, uh…and, um…have, uh, had a lot of roadblocks as far as accessing services. So having the -- if the city could consider developing criteria to be of assistance to other people in similar financial situations in the future, that's what I am requesting."

CH: "What kind of services are you referring to? That you didn't have access to?"

Janet: "Any, any type of services that are available to people that fit the financial criteria, low income."

Eslick: "May I speak to that, please? Have you checked with our Family Support center? Volunteers of America on First Street?"

Janet: "I have not."

Eslick: "The sign also says, 'Camp Vol de Suca' located right by the Boys and Girls club? And that, we put that in place nine years ago just for instances like this. Please go see Marilyn there."

Janet: "I will. Thank you."

Porter: "I'm the one that you spoke to that I, I called you, responded to your letter. And I spoke to the council here the last time about this. And I think we're going to have more people who are going to need some assistance and I had mentioned that last week. And so it's a serious situation we're in right here economically speaking. And I empathize with the problem. But I think Carolyn's got a good idea there, that there could be some good assistance right there. But I think the city needs to look at, uh, taking a look at maybe helping with utilities payments."

Eslick: "It would be nice if the city would assist. But we certainly don't want to double, um, services. I mean, there's no reason to do that. That's exactly why we put it, that Volunteers of America came to Sultan and established it during the loggers crisis time, when we were, all the loggers were out of business during that time. So we had retraining and GED and we had counseling there available. They have housing assistance, [unintelligible] assistance, rental assistance. The food bank's adjacent to it. And they're open on Friday mornings, and by appointment if you can't get there during the day. So all the services you need are right there. Go find them."

Janet: "I'll go ahead and check that out. The problem I've been running into is that my -- I've been turned away from a lot of different places because my income level was not at the criteria that they, that they are asking it to be. And I'll check it out and see whether or not they can actually provide any services to me."

Eslick: "And if they can't, then we need to know that so we can work on some other avenues."

Janet: "I will be back to let you know."

CH: "If that doesn't work, come back here or everyone of us's phone number's in the book, so you can call [unintelligible] anybody on the council or me. Or city hall."

Councilmembers Criswell, Broughton, McPherson and Raney had no comments.

Jim Porter advocated the same thing that Okanogan has, which is a "junior" councilmember from the high school; they get graded in the school for their participation, they can vote (non-counting vote); thinks it's good experience for our youth here. On a different subject, he asked about the fencing around the water tank. [It was my understanding that the subject of security for the water was not going to be discussed in open meeting anymore, due to "broadcasting" our security measures. I have therefore not transcribed or reported on this portion.] Porter also asked on the status of hiring a city engineer and Laura responded that it's part of the budget process.

Carolyn Eslick: Read a letter from Bob Ostrom indicating his absence was due to his attendance at the annual meeting of the Washington State Transit Association in Pasco. He also offered his congratulations to winning council members. He also reported that a previous councilmember Nygren [spelling uncertain] is now a councilmember-elect Nygren for the City of Bremerton. Then Carolyn congratulated all winners. She also mentioned she had spoken to the fire department about some issues and they have told her (and the mayor previously) that they will be taking a back seat because there is now a planner in place who knows what he's doing and that new developments won't be a problem in the future.

Finance: Carolyn reported that employee job descriptions need to be reevaluated in possible anticipation of future economic belt-tightening. Laura Koenig indicated a hearing needs to be set for preliminary and final budget meetings. More budget cutting will be needed. Public hearing on preliminary budget was scheduled for 6 p.m. November 21^st. Laura urged all councilmembers -- both current and elects -- to obtain a copy of the budget and to feel free to call her to discuss it.

Porter: Reported on the initial meeting on the surface water quality management plan, which will probably take about a year and a half. Said he thinks it sounds like a good plan. Connie Dunn said the high school will be involved in the process to offer help and as an educational vehicle.

• Nelson Preliminary Plat: Unanimously approved as presented on drawing, which included cul de sac and parking issues. Porter raised the question of what would happen with the currently-existing house. It is still uncertain as to whether it will be removed or repositioned on the same lot. Rick Cisar (the city's new planner) said that if they wanted to relocate the house, they'd have to conform to the map configuration. Perry asked if the road would be a public or private street. Connie said it would be dedicated as a public street since it's over four lots, but the infiltration trench or the bio-swale in open space would not be maintained by the city, but the homeowners' association. Councilmembers Eslick and Raney thanked the city for the final revisions done to the plat drawing.

• Police Department remodel was accepted.

• Ordinance 769-01 - New appeal process approved unanimously.
• North Wagley Creek LID Formation Hearing Date:

Connie Dunn suggested that it not be held the same night as a council meeting, since it's anticipated it will be a long hearing. This is a fairly controversial LID, which will represent a minimum of 550 new homes and will cost an estimated $3.5 million to construct and will require a new or enlarged sewer facility. (Keep in mind that Sultan taxpayers will "front" the money for the construction costs, as they did with the Wagley Creek LID, rather than the property owners.) The time was set for 7:00 p.m., Wednesday January 23, 2001.

Code Scrubs - given by Rick Cisar: Said he, the Land Use committee and the Planning Commission are looking at the following: cluster ordinance, conditional use permits, comprehensive plan docketing (amendment process), forest practices permit requirements (next year DNR will allow the city to do all the permitting), critical areas ordinance update, SEPA impact fee ordinances, etc.

Recall Expenses: Eslick asked if Mark Raney could participate in the discussion. Attorney Graafstra said his expenses have already been decided, so he could stay and participate. Councilmember Criswell said he didn't think there was anything to discuss, that it had already been decided. Councilmember Eslick said no, it had not been decided. What had been decided/discussed is that expenses would be reimbursed if any of the charges on the recall petition had not been found to have any factual and/or legal basis. It was decided to clarify the previous discussion on this subject. Unbelievably, no bill or breakdown of costs was submitted with the council packet. The total cost for legal fees for the Porter/Rowe recall was $17,356. Councilmember asked Laura Koenig whether or not there was that much in the budget, to which Laura advised some services would have to be cut, and "It will have a major impact on the budget." No decision was reached. [We have performed a complete word-for-word transcription of any discussions that have occurred on this subject and they are posted on our "transcriptions" webpage.]

Design Review Board, Ord. 768-01:
A detailed discussion transpired, mostly between Attorney Graafstra and councilmember Eslick, regarding this ordinance. We have transcribed most of the exchange, because we believe this is a badly-needed function within the city that should be retained.

Graafstra "Councilmember Eslick, you'll remember that you were one of the councilmembers that participated in the joint meeting between staff, and all I was trying to do was alert everybody to what my understanding of the discussion was at that time. And my understanding of the discussion in that joint meeting was that there was a consensus that everybody agreed that the Design Review Board and Design Review Standards needed to be revisited. There were both procedural problems and there were some [unintelligible] problems with the ordinance. There are also important policy decisions that had to be made as to what area might be subject to design review. And I thought the consensus of that meeting was that we were going to be working on those issues, but that we weren't going to take any immediate action. The consensus of that meeting was that there wouldn't be any action taken. That's why I put this background in in this memo that I supplied here. I was nonetheless directed to prepare an ordinance that would rebu--repeal the existing Design Review Board provisions, and so I prepared an ordinance.

Eslick: So if we repeal it, then we will dissolve the Design Review Board, is that -- at this point? That's what that does, is that what you're saying?

Graafstra The effect of this ordinance would be to disband the Design Review Board and to essentially abolish any kind of design review with the city of Sultan at this time. Until a new ordinance could be reenacted. That has ramifications both for regular design matters, but I understand the Design Review Board also reviews sign applications [unintelligible] that examination of sign applications.

Eslick So tell me what are the ramifications if we do not do this, and just go right ahead and, and, and change the item that you need to have changed in order to make it have teeth in it, as you put it?

Graafstra Well, I, I always hazard to say on the record that you have an existing code that has problems in it because if there's somebody out there that doesn't like your Design Review Board, I've sort of created a record. So I really prefer to say that in an executive session sort of setting, or not in an open meeting, in other words where I was talking with less than two of you at a time. But let me just say that the existing Design Review Board code and the Design Review Board standards adopted are very problematic when you look at it under the existing case law. For example the case involving the city of Issaquah, where its design review board standards were found to be unlawful and unenforceable.

Eslick My concern to the council here is that if we don't have some kind of committee that goes over some of the design with the public in the project, we're going to have -- I'm concerned about that. It's antiquated, then. We're going back 20, 25 years on development because we need these design, these specific designs in order to make our community the way our community wants it to look, whoever sits on the board or whoever is part of the committee. I suggest that we, even if it's just the committee that isn't called the Design Review Board. And I think we kind of hashed that out at the meeting that we had. My concern is that it won't get done and we'll never have a committee like this again. The folks that are on this committee have told me that when people come to them they tell them up front that there is no legality, there is no absolute that they have to do the things that they're suggesting and helping them and offering them in more of a negotiation stage. And it seemed to be working okay. I understand the attorney's feeling about that we have a problem here, and it does need to be addressed. But if we just abolish it now, my concern is that it will never come to the table again and we won't be there. We'll be 20 years behind again.

CH Are you saying more like an advisory board?

Eslick Yes.

CH And we've only had this a year and a half. So [our tape shut off early and we lost a sentence or two here, unfortunately].

Eslick …with our whole government system. I'm talking about the UDC that --

Porter I see where you're coming from without a Design Review Board and basically you lose your continuity with the whole overall picture. Yet I agree with the attorney there that we do have problems with it. And which is the best? To retain part of it, retain it all?

Raney Is it not possible to slip the word, "advisory" into some of the definition part of, or the initial part of the ordinance while we're cleaning up the language? But if we make it "advisory," then there's really not that liability that Issaquah found themselves dealing with.

CH The Design Review Advisory Board?

Graafstra If the city wants to provide a [unintelligible] design advisory [unintelligible] like it is, it might be welcome to do that and might be an appropriate expenditure of public funds. I guess I'd have to think about that.

Eslick Where is the money coming from?

Graafstra Well, you're going to have staff, presumably, some sort of assistance to the program, right? You're going to have a staff member that's going to have to participate in some fashion, so that there are some city monies associated with having the Design Review Board.

Eslick Do we charge a fee now for these [unintelligible]?

Graafstra So we have staff that's devoting time, then, to --

Eslick Which we have for the last year, anyway.

Graafstra Well, that's true, but at this point in time we have a code where it's not -- it's, it's advisory in a sense, but it's also a review function. And they make a recommendation and it's a recommendation that's supposed to be considered. Their recommendation runs the gamut from signs to any other kind of building. And it's not…the language even needs to be cleared up as to what the level or the legal strength of that recommendation is. But in any event, having said all of that, you have a Design Review Board which on the face of it reports to be able to make recommendations that need then to be considered by staff and by the city council, potentially, depending on the nature of the development permit that's issued, and that has therefore some kind of force of law associated with it. And the unfortunate part is is of course the standards that are in those design standards really aren't, they aren't enforceable types of guidelines in a legal sense. So you have sort of a hybrid that is well-intentioned, but not well-written and it doesn't really achieve the goals of the good intentions that might be behind it. So the question is, how do you move from where you are to something that may very well have been well-intentioned, to either having something that's legally enforceable, or you go in a different direction. Those are all policy issues to be decided.

CH Oh, so it has different boundaries to what we had originally agreed on, too. As far as whether the design review [unintelligible]?

Eslick Yes. And we talked about that.

CH And also, as you know, we are tightening our belts, so any staff time we can save would help, however minor it is. [pause] But I agree. We do, it doesn't hurt to have something. I don't know what the, the, uh, some kind of a committee. I don't know what the right answer is.

Porter Is there some way our planner maybe has an idea here … ?

Graafstra Well, when we talked about this at the committee level, one of the things we talked about is is that really to have a functioning design process that's meaningful. If you look at a lot of the jurisdictions that then have good design ordinances that in fact are enforced, and we have some real articulated esthetic standards, in many of those cases the design impetus started first on a volunteer level. There was some sort of -- we'll call it downtown association or committee -- in, uh, it was a private function first. For example, Leavenworth has a very ornate design review board process now. That all started out as a volunteer association. And how that became attractive to people is that they were able to work with the local banks so that if you participated in their volunteer program you could get some modest benefits and financing if you used one of the local banks. So that became the economic force that made it attractive. It started out on a voluntary level with some voluntary benefits. As the town grew and its design standards became sort of prevalent, then at a certain point in time it became a municipal function, and they did adopt a design review board and have design [unintelligible]. It becomes a real chicken-and-egg problem. I really would suggest in Sultan's case, you have to, better define what it is, this concept is that you want to foster. You need a stronger volunteer base first to try to encourage it before you get to the legislative/regulatory phase of this.

Rick Cisar: It's our intent to [unintelligible] go back and look at that ordinance and make those changes and realize this year we're taking on the amendment process to our comprehensive plan, and we'll be setting various areas, elements of that plan maybe as a guidance as far as those guidelines [unintelligible]. Like Tom said, we don't have the guidelines to evaluate. If someone came to us [unintelligible] you're going to look at, you really can't tell 'cause they don't know what those guidelines are.

Raney The problem I see is that we've already asked several businesses to do this, and I know North Bend went through this with an Alpine theme, and then they threw it out while they were trying to redo their ordinance and it never came back in. And so you've got a town that's got half-a-dozen Alpine design facades and then everything else has come in now without it. So I'm just afraid we won't have the will to go back to this. We'll find some other issues that are more pressing. We tend to do emergency management rather than proactive thinking sometimes. I mean, I appreciate what you're trying to do to keep us out of trouble, I'm just afraid it'll get back-burnered and we won't see it again.

Porter Well, you know, based upon -- I agree with Mark -- but due to the fact that we are kind of sticking out there like a sore thumb with that ordinance, I'd feel more comfortable if we would lose it. And then revisit it, like the planner just suggested. Bring it back and get something that's [unintelligible].

McPherson Rick, did you have anything [unintelligible] that you could write for us? You know, in the past that you've worked with?

Cisar: Like Tom has said, there's a lot of ordinances out there. It's just that what level that you want?

McPherson Is there a possibility that we could take a look at some?

Cisar: We [unintelligible] some to you, but if you want to just give us a deadline and say we'll come back to council, say, in six months with a recommendation, I think we could probably do that.

Graafstra Right. There are about 10 to 15 jurisdictions in the state of Washington that have Design Review Board and design standards. There are, obviously, five or six towns which have sort of thematic approaches. Snohomish is one, Leavenworth is another. Winthrop is yet another. Poulsbo is another and I think LaConner would be another [unintelligible]. There are other cities that don't really follow a thematic sort of approach, but they do have a design review board and they've attempted to write and enforce [unintelligible] standards. Probably the best example of that around here is Issaquah, where it isn't really a thematic approach. I think some other cities that have design review boards and standards, the city of Vancouver has them. I'm trying to think off the top of my head. In any event, Issaquah and Vancouver are two examples where they have esthetic design review boards and function and they're not of the thematic sort, like Leavenworth and Snohomish.

Eslick But what you're saying is we're not ready for that yet, are we? Until you clean up the code?

Cisar: That's correct. And again, you're going into a, into your comp plan amendment phase, and the planning you have now is really going to change, based on recommendations. And you're going to have a very [unintelligible].

Porter I'd like to make a motion that we accept this as written here, with the stipulation that it be brought back in six months.

CH Within six months?

Porter Within six months.

Eslick Can we [unintelligible] as a discussion item?

Koenig Remember, this is just an introduction of the [unintelligible]. It will come back for a second reading in its final format.

Graafstra May I ask an inquiry? Do you want us to add a section, then, to this whereby we create some sort of internal committee? It could be some councilmembers and a staff member, and essentially by ordinance, then, create a design review study committee that will then report back to council in six months or some deadline? We could add such a section to the ordinance.

Broughtron We did that at the beginning of the design review process. And I think that Mark and Jim almost killed themselves trying to keep up with that.

Graafstra Is that something you want to see in the ordinance? We could add such a section to the ordinance that creates a committee that requires them to report -- you pick the timeline -- three months, four months, six months from now. I can't put a sunset clause in it because this repeals the existing code. So I can't put a sunset clause in it. If we were creating a design review board, we could put a sunset clause in it that says after six months, unless there's more council action, this goes away. But to bring it back to you if you want it in the form of the ordinance, we can [unintelligible] a provision that creates a committee and requires the committee to report back in the timeframe, if that's what you want to see.

Raney You could always take it to the Land Use committee.

Porter Right.

Male [unintelligible].

Graafstra So do you want that kind of expressed language in the ordinance so that it's there? You got something to point to?

Eslick That would be the only way that I would vote "aye" on this. Whether it's going to come back. But again, my concern is what's going to happen between now and then? What's going to happen?

CH Well, that's what I said. This is kind of the off-season, Carolyn. I don't think you'll have a lot of -- it won't be near as heavy as the summertime, is what I was thinking. This is the slowest time of the year, I would think.

Raney [unintelligible] so that we could get back a lot sooner than six months.

Porter Anytime within six months it can go back to the Land Use committee.

Raney Right. Right.

CH Yeah. We don't have to wait six months if it's ready in 90 days. We don't have to wait another half a [unintelligible].

Porter I'll amend my motion on that, then, be referred back to the Land Use committee.

Graafstra So we will have a section of the ordinance to specifically address that.

Motion passed unanimously.

Ed "Chico" Boucher (long-time resident and local developer): I'd like to make a comment on the part there…about the recall expense request for payment by Rowe and Porter. My comment would be that I was here for the, uh, the other, uh…the other, uh payment request, etcetera, ectetera, and whether it contained the word, "no substance" or in the other case using the word "frivolous" or any other words you want to describe, it's, I did--I didn't see the difference. I thought precedent had been set, so to speak, that the city of Sultan, taxpayers, would be paying for recalls that didn't work out. If they worked out, then too bad, so sad. If they don't, that's what I thought they were. The recall action that we did pay for, which was, you know, it's a two page bill that come in to three different lawyers, it's real obvious, and an investigator, was, was not, uh, dismissed or frivolous or anything else. It simply wasn't put together right. It wasn't defended by our city lawyer. It was simply a team of lawyers that got paid for by the taxpayer. I fail to see the difference between that and somebody moving out of the town or lack of substance or frivolous or whatever the second recall one was. If the city citizens are going to pay for, whether it's $5000 or $17,000 or if the next one's $50,000, if the city is going to be paying for it, they have to pay for all of them, I should think. There is no, no difference between substance, frivolous, uh…lack of information, all these different -- anyway, Mark, that's, uh, my statement on it. I've been here for both. And just, the terms, doesn't, uh, doesn't set the precedent, the fact that we pay one, let's pay 'em all. Thank you. {Mr. Boucher is the father of Brady Boucher, who was the petitioner in the Dr. Raney recall action, which was found to have no merit by the court.]

Brady Boucher (Son of Ed "Chico" Boucher, and petitioner in the failed Raney recall effort): I have, uh, I have obviously some experience in the recall department. And watching its dismissal. And I believe the key word isn't "frivolous," it isn't lack of substance, the key word is "dismissed." A court of law dismissed the recall. The recall is over. It was not proved true. Therefore, it must be paid for by the same process that was put in mortar to pay another recall. That was not paid because it was frivolous. Not paid because of lack of substance. It was paid because it was dismissed. The recall has been dismissed, and I believe that Mayor Rowe, Councilman Porter need to be reimbursed for that action. Furthermore, I would like to express, uh, the dismay of seeing Mr. Rowe and Mr. Porter leave, and them being the only members of council to leave. Since other member, or members, of council have a vested -- not -- I won't say "vested interest," -- that's an improper term. Have inappropriate knowledge and/or relationship to the recall and the process. And I believe since I watched Mr. Rowe and Mr. Porter leave the room during that, uh, vote on the first recall to reimburse, I believe the same members need to leave again when that vote is taken. Other than that, I had a comment, and that obviously pertains to the discussion item, the, uh, this last vote that you guys did. My comment is, we pay Mr. Graafstra a lot of money every month -- well-earned -- to do a job. We have very great citizens on council who are educated in, uh, equipment operation, medical doctoring -- whatever you want to call it -- restaurant management school education. We have no lawyers on council. We hire a lawyer to tell us these things. I think the council needs to stop playing lawyer, and start trusting our city attorney, and when he says something, the council needs to take that into consideration and I believe we need to start passing it, because he's the person that keeps Sultan from getting sued. And that's what he's trying to do. And from what I've seen, council is working in opposition to that. Thank you.

Mike Murray (Unfamiliar with Mr. Murray): My comment is on the Design Review Board. Some of those notes you guys kind of touched on, some of the notes I was making as you were discussing it. And one of the biggest discussion items or, or items that come along in council is development here in the city of Sultan. The Design Review Board when I was attending the council meetings when it was being discussed and formed was kind of like a branch of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission was asking that this Design Review Board be formed to help them decide and follow the ordinances and follow, um, making sure everybody's all on the same page and giving recommendations to the developers and so forth. So I looked at it as an arm of the Planning Commission. It helped them. And then in turn ultimately helped the council decide on what developments got built and which ones got changed, much like the plans you have would change there. There's a lot of past mistakes in the city. And there's some residents that, or feel like they're living in one right now that maybe a design review board, if it had been in force at the time could have caught and solved. And you know, I don't want to see a loophole created or a gap in design review board from an ordinance, getting rid of it to the next one coming forward, and having more mistakes in the city happen. And that's what my concern is, is that without that arm of the Planning Commission to assist them in helping, uh, them enforce our ordinances and give proper recommendations, you know, I think that, those mistakes might start happening again. You know, like you were discussing at the end, we don't need to reinvent the wheel. There's other design review board ordinances out there. Get 'em, read them over, and make it so it works with the city and the attorney agreed that, you know, we're not going to get sued over what's written in there. If the current one's written poorly, it needs to be rewritten. But I don't think it needs to be done away with and not revisited. You know? The last part of that is that if it is revisited in three or six months and a new design review board is formed, that's great. I hope that's what happens, if you do decide to repeal the current ordinance. I just think it's a necessary step to help prevent any more mistakes in development in the city of Sultan. And my other concern is what's going to happen to the current volunteers that are on that, that design review board right now? From what I understood when they were being picked for that, they were very qualified individuals in different areas that are volunteering their time to the city. I think a couple of them don't even live in the city, and they're volunteering their time to the city. And I think if we just give away, do away with this ordinance, I think we're going to lose those people and I think that's going to be a problem.

Brady Boucher: It's real easy. I just have to be careful. When I said whatever that means, what I meant was "medical practitioner." Thank you.

Raney Are we going to reset the public hearing and follow the procedures for the Broughton property?

CH Uh…we should. But have we discussed that here yet?

Eslick No. We have not discussed it here tonight.

CH 'Cause this is, this is councilmembers' response to public comments they just made. But you're right. It's something we should talk about.

Cisar Mayor, I'll have to go back and look at the public record and see if the posting was done correctly. [unintelligible].

Raney And we have talked about, as a policy, about moving those meetings to a time when it was acceptable to the residents rather than, um, when convenient for the proponents.

Cisar We looked at three different dates for that public hearing. And when the hearing examiner would be available. That was the most appropriate time that he would be available.

Raney The time of day has been an issue, before you got here, too. It's virtually impossible for people to have any public comment. So I think one of the residents was correct in saying, Don't even ask for comment if you don't have it at a time we can come.

Criswell Yeah. I agree. It should be later in the day.

CH Maybe we'll have her take a look at the posting on that. Maybe we can [unintelligible] information and get something worked out on that.

Raney Then I have one other comment. Let me state again for the record, I had one attorney for my recall, Mr. Todd Nichols. He had a consultant do some preliminary work on recalls from Spokane. The third attorney that he's being referred to is an intimation that Mr. Bill Trippett was an attorney for me. He was not. He was not involved in my recall in any way. He called my attorney and bent his ear for 45 minutes and showed up, uninvited, at the recall. And that's on the record. I'm done.

Section 16.28.010 Purpose, states that the regulations are to control and "…to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare…to prevent the overcrowding of land; to lessen congestion on the streets and highways; to provide for adequate light and air;…to provide for the proper ingress and egress…." Of the specific area and the city generally. We urge Sultan residents who are interested in this issue to go to the end of Fourth Street, turn west/left onto Willow Avenue, then left onto Whispering Pines until they see the little blue land use sign located at the entrance to a short concrete-paved alleyway/access area on the south side of Whispering Pines. Get out of your car and walk to the end of the paved area. The long, narrow greensward area south of where you'll be standing comprises this 4-lot short plat. Make your own decision as to whether or not this project will meet the above criteria.

Next, Section 16.28.130 indicates that it's the Planning Commission, not the hearing examiner, that hears and approves short plats.

Section 16.28.070 Identification marker posting and notification stipulates that signs "…shall be posted on the property within five calendar days from the time of application and shall remain posted for no fewer than 30 calendar days." The original application was filed and $1,150 in fees paid October 11, 1999. Additionally, an affidavit dated November 9, 1999 was signed by Robert Broughton which attested to the fact that notice/markers were placed for the project at the "corner of Whispering Pine Place Broughton Short Plat Access" in accordance with UDC 16.10.010. (16.10.010 is our old UDC code, but this section is virtually identical with current cod 16.28.070.) Both the new and the old code stipulates that identification markers are to be placed "…during the period extending from the time of application to the time of final action…"

Interestingly, this initial application was "renewed" on at least two occasions, by prompting from the city. An April 24, 2000 letter from City Planner Christi Amrine to Bob Broughton and Jim McDaniel stated "This letter is written as a reminder that a short plat application submitted on 10/11/99 and the city has yet to receive your revisions in order to move this project forward…" even though according to code, the application's 180-day effective period had already elapsed. Ms. Amrine wrote Mr. Broughton again on March 21, 2001, stating, "Your application has become null and void in accordance with SMC 16.08 after 180 [days] of no submittal. Through discussion with yourself and Cindy Broughton we are aware that the property is held up through divorce proceedings. Should you wish to maintain the vesting of you[r] application and not have to resubmit with new application fees, you need to submit a letter to the city stating thus, and why you have not resubmitted."

[Here's a head-scratcher: Why would the city go out of their way to alert a landowner about an expired application?]

Also, in accordance with 16.28.070 (B), the city is required to notify adjacent taxpayers of record 10 days before the hearing "using preaddressed stamped envelopes provider by the subdivider…." Residents received envelopes with the city's postmarked postage stamped on them.

Perhaps most damning of all is that their was no proper SEPA review of this project. There was in the file merely an Environmental Checklist which was completed "5 Oct 99" which was signed by Jim McDaniel, PLS dated "17 May 00." Recently, however, there was a critical area study performed on this project and we have a public information request pending for this document.