The Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County

REGULAR MEETING

August 12, 2021

Zoom Meeting

1. CALL TO ORDER

   Chair Hamlin convened the meeting at 7:17 P.M.

2. ROLL CALL

   The following members were present:

   • Evangeline Anderson
   • Sylvia Bushnell
   • Mary Lynne Evans
   • Chandler Felt
   • Marlin Gabbert
   • Jay Hamlin
   • Claudia Hirschey
   • Paul MacCready
   • Hank Margeson
   • James Polhamus
   • Stephen Toy

3. MINUTES:

   Regular Meeting - July, 2021

   Chair Hamlin presented the minutes of the Regular Meeting of July, 2021 for review and action by the Board members. Lenora Blauman reported that she has determined the need for corrections for two scrivener’s errors –based upon input from Chandler Felt.   These corrections have been installed into the document before the Board as follows:

   • Page 2: GRP has been spelled out as Gross Regional Product
   • Page 2: “vacant space” replaced by “office space”

   Action: Chandler Felt moved and Hank Margeson seconded the motion to adopt the amended minutes for the Regular Meeting of July 2021.

   Board members voted nine favor of approving this record of the Regular Meeting. Claudia Hirschey abstained as she did not attend the Regular Meeting.

4. ADMINISTRATION:

   1. Chair’s Report

      • General Business

        Chair Hamlin and Lenora Blauman reported that the Board staff is currently working on several projects including: (1) coordination with King County Executive/Council Work Program; (2) coordinating activities with the State Association; (3) pre-development review for future Notices of Intention; (4) planning of orientation programs for 2021; (5) implementation of the 2021 Budget; and (6) planning for the 2022 Biennial Budget.

      • Washington State Association of Boundary Review Boards (WSABRB)

        Chair Hamlin reported that WSABRB is actively conducting business to address three matters:

        • Annual Conference

          The WSABRB Conference Committee is continuing to plan for the Annual Conference as an in-person event in Grays Harbor County and/or an on-line option for this event from October 6-8.  The program will include speakers, training sessions, and the required Annual Business Meeting.  Key program events will be:

          • Robert Kaufman speaking about basic statutory mandates and contemporary issues occurring for various boundary review boards;
          • A panel of Fire District Commissioners from several counties across the State speaking of matters concerning current organization, future plans for growth and development; occurring issues, and strategies for working successfully with boundary review boards;
          • Legislature 2021 and Legislature 2022:  A panel presentation and discussion of past work and planning for a future agenda before the Legislature as conducted/planned by the State Association’s Legislative Committee.
          • Annual Business Meeting to address the following topics:
            • Selection of officers for the 2020- 2021 business year.
            • Establishment of a work plan for the 2020- 2021 business year (e.g., Legislature, Conference).
            • Establishment of a budget for the 2021- 2022 fiscal year  --  based upon dues assessments and annual conference fees (education/training programs). 

          • Funding for the organization

            At present the organization has adequate funding to manage basic activities and events.  The Executive Committee is working to determine plans for increasing funding resources/opportunities so that the WSABRB will once again have sufficient funding in the near term and into the future to conduct more professional education/training events.

          • Education and Training for Board members and staff

            A team of WSABRB members is continuing to consider interests by staff and members in obtaining education/training materials during the course of the year.  The information will be the foundation for updating the existing Board Member Information Manual and the Staff Training Manual.  The documents will be available on the WSABRB web- site.   Periodic training sessions will be offered on-line.

          Please notify Angelica Velasquez if you plan to join the Conference.

   2. Committee Reports

      • Personnel Committee

        Sylvia Bushnell reported that King County is launching the Annual Personnel Evaluation Program.  The Personnel Committee will evaluate Lenora Blauman – materials will be forthcoming in the near future.

        Ms. Blauman will evaluate Angelica Velasquez and will present the documents to the Personnel Committee.

        The Board will consider these evaluations at the September Regular Meeting.

      • Budget Committee

        Lenora Blauman reported that the Board is functioning well within the allocated budget for each month.  It is anticipated that our agency will remain within the limits of the 2021-2022 Biennial Budget.  Note is made, however, of the fact that there may be additional budget requirements in the event that King County establishes additional cost requirements (e.g., office relocation) within this budget year.

      • Legislative Committee — King County Board/Washington State Association of Boundary Review Boards and Legislative Committee: American Planning Association – Washington Chapter (APA-WA)

        Updating Washington’s Growth Policy Framework

        Mary Lynne Evans, speaking on behalf of the King County Board’s Legislative Committee and the WSABRB Legislative Committee, reported that the Ruckelshaus Road Map Study launched by Joe Tovar (currently identified as Updating Washington’s Growth Policy Framework team) remains a key topic of interest based upon a designated priority for the consideration of an array of complex issues including overarching planning policies and more specific key areas as housing and climate change. 

        Priorities also include annexations in the current phase of the Study.  However.  Annexation Reform is listed as the last of those priorities.  Specifically, priorities are:

        • Adaptive, equitable, and inclusive planning at a regional, and local scale
        • The periodic cycle and dedicated funding for updates to comprehensive plans and development regulations
        • Climate Change
        • Housing elements, affordable housing, and infrastructure
        • Development regulations and permit processes
        • Municipal annexation

        The project continues to prioritize housing and climate change because these items address immediate emergent needs for communities throughout the State- -- and beyond.

        ***

        Mr. Tovar’s project team is charged with the duty of providing information and recommendations concerning implementation of these priorities to the State Legislature - House Committee on Local Government. 

        Ms. Evans stated that — based upon available information – there are some concerns about the current status and future plans for the project team.  Specifically, it appears that the project team is moving at a pace that will likely make it difficult to provide a substantive plan addressing these issues (most particularly planning policies and funding) to the Legislature and the communities for Housing and Climate Change.

        ***

        Ms. Evans reported concerning the State Association’s interest/participation with the Washington State Chapter of the American Planning Association (APA WA)  as the organization considers the process and content of the Updating Washington’s Growth Policy Framework project described in this report.

        To begin, APA-WA is a 1,200-member association of public and private sector professional planners, planning commissioners and elected officials, among others. The organization’s mission is to work to implement the state’s growth planning framework and hope that our input can help improve it.

        APA’s participation in the Updating the Framework project included the following task force of chapter members:

        • Leonard Bauer
        • Holly Gadbaw
        • Brad Johnson
        • Ian Munce
        • John Owen
        • Yorik Stevens-Wajda

        The task force is following the project, providing input and comments, and offering periodic status reports back to the chapter board of directors and legislative committee. The APA-WA reports are based upon APA-WA efforts including education and collaboration with other planners, the APA-WA experience implementing the state’s growth planning framework, the APA-WA Legislative team’s most recent Legislative Priorities document, and the APA Policy Guides, specifically Housing, Planning for Equity, Hazard Mitigation, and Climate Change.

        There’s much in proposals before the Legislature, including improved Growth Management Act (GMA) goals, and an enhanced regional approach to planning.  The team commends the work done by Mr. Tovar’s team at the University of Washington. However, APA-WA notes that this effort has struggled with limited funding, a reliance on contributions from interest groups, and compressed timelines.  As such, the following comments by APA-WA are intended to provide context for the changes included in the bill, identify structural or procedural limitations inherent in update process, and to guide future actions.

        Specifically, APA-WA identified three categories of concerns and suggestions, including areas that would benefit from additional research or analytical work, topics that were omitted from the final plan, but that the organization considers to be worthy of further investigation, and procedural weaknesses in the update process itself.

        Items that would benefit from additional work

        APA-WA reported that one of the principal shortcomings of the initial Roadmap effort was a lack of research or analytical rigor. Some of the problems and issue areas discussed by the stakeholder group were well understood and allowed the stakeholder group to craft straightforward solutions. However, in other cases there reportedly was not enough information available to make informed decisions or there wasn’t enough time available to work through complex issues.  APA-WA reports a strong belief that a subsequent rule making effort led by the Department of Commerce is necessary to address the more technically complex issue areas.  Such an effort could bring together the data, academic research, and interested parties necessary to craft meaningful and effective solutions. Specifically:

        • Housing affordability. Defining housing affordability is notoriously difficult and the subject of continuing debate among housing economists and practitioners.  Among other complexities, any meaningful definition of housing affordability must be capable of differentiating between housing affordability, which housing policies can affect, and poverty, which housing policies cannot. Additionally, a workable definition must account for other household expenses related to housing, such as transportation, and be based on statistically valid methods and good quality data.  The omnibus bill includes an “affordability gap” definition, which, unfortunately, addresses none of the criteria above.  Notably it appears to employ invalid statistical methods, relies on data that does yet not exist, and fails to incorporate transportation expenses.  APA-WA recommends that this problematic definition be left out of the draft bill and that the Department of Commerce be directed to develop a more workable definition in consultation with expert housing economists through a formal rulemaking effort.

        • Urban densities and housing types. The omnibus bill establishes minimum urban densities and mandates the inclusion of “missing middle housing” throughout urban growth areas. On a conceptual level we support both of these ideas.  Unfortunately, the methods mandated by the draft bill do not reflect good planning practice.  The current draft includes a one-size-fits-all mandate for densification of single-family neighborhoods.  Such a strategy has proven unproductive in many communities, due to variations in local physical and economic conditions.  Instead, APA-WA recommends a more nuanced approach be implemented that takes into account local conditions.  The housing inventory and analysis guidance contained in WAC 365-196-410 establishes an excellent framework for analyzing, and addressing, local housing needs. Unfortunately, these rules are only advisory and, in most cases, are only partially adhered to by local governments. In place of the bright-line standards included in the draft bill we recommend that WAC 365-196-410 be made mandatory.

        • Tribal planning and coordination. The omnibus statement reportedly includes many interesting ideas for coordinating the planning efforts of tribes with cities and counties.  APA-WA supports these ideas in concept but recommends that much more work is required in order to ensure there are no unintended consequences.  As an example, APA-WA has concerns with the provisions in proposed legislation that would allow utilities to be extended beyond urban growth areas.  APA-WA recommends that Commerce consult with tribes and local governments to develop a better framework for coordinating planning efforts and infrastructure investments in a manner that conforms to GMA principles.

        • Critical areas and environmental protection. Under the current GMA planning framework detailed requirements for critical area protection and environmental regulation are contained in chapters WAC 365-190 and 365-195.  As opposed to other GMA rules, these rules are mandatory.  The omnibus bill includes numerous provisions that would establish detailed critical area planning requirements in statute, including a definition for Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, requirements for incorporating Puget Sound Partnership data and recommendations, and the integration of salmon recovery plans and tribal data.  The level of detail required to craft workable and scientifically defensible requirements does not lend itself to statutory language.  APA-WA recommends that proposed legislation include language directing Commerce to update the current critical area guidelines in consultation with expert agencies such as Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Department of Ecology (DOE), and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), tribes, and the Puget Sound Partnership (composed of various government agencies and private organizations).

        APA-WA is recommending the following additional topics for consideration:

        • Equity and inclusive participation. APA-WA welcomes the attention given to environmental justice and other similar concepts in the legislation proposed for the Updating Washington’s Growth Policy Framework project.  These changes reportedly represent a long overdue attempt to address structural inequities in the planning process.  However, APA-WA believes that a more all-encompassing effort should be made to address equity and to ensure the GMA planning framework reflects the needs and interests of all Washington residents, particularly those who have historically been marginalized, left out the planning process, or harmed by past practices (such as exclusionary zoning).  APA-WA recommends that equity concerns be addressed in a comprehensive fashion by requiring that GMA planning actions be reviewed to avoid disparate impacts.  Equity considerations should not be confined to environmental justice, but rather broadly incorporated into each comprehensive plan element, particularly land use, housing, transportation, and economic development.  Taking actions to help avoid gentrification and displacement are also important comprehensive planning considerations and should be addressed in the GMA at both the local and regional scale.

        • Regional and statewide coordination. Some issues, such as housing, transportation, climate change, regionally scaled ecosystems, and water resources reportedly defy strictly local solutions. The provisions in the proposed Updating Washington’s Growth Policy Framework project that require counties to update their countywide planning policies are considered a step in the right direction.  APA-WA supports these changes as leading to more effective regional planning. However, the framework could reportedly be strengthened by addressing actions by state agencies and regional planning bodies.  APA-WA finds that, on paper, the GMA requires state agencies to comply with the GMA and local comprehensive plans.  In practice, however, the actions of state agencies and regional bodies related to the GMA are not explicitly allowed to be appealed to the growth management hearings board or courts, making enforcement virtually impossible. APA-WA finds that, given the new goals and requirements aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled, it is more important than ever to ensure local governments, state agencies, and regional transportation planning organizations are not working at cross purposes. Additional measures are needed to ensure state agencies and regional planning bodies comply with the GMA and coordinate their actions with local plans.

        • Annexation. APA-WA finds that annexation issues must be addressed in a comprehensive fashion. The GMA clearly envisions cities as the vehicle for managing urbanization, yet the state’s existing annexation laws impose significant barriers to annexing land within urban growth areas.  At the same time, annexation has provided an opportunity for cities and counties to circumvent GMA planning laws by annexing land immediately after it is added to an urban growth area, but prior to the resolution of appeal periods. There are also reportedly significant fiscal and service delivery issues for counties, cities and special districts inherent in annexations that are often not effectively addressed through the annexation processes currently available.  Annexation issues should be comprehensively addressed in any major overhaul of the GMA.

        APA-WA also finds structural and procedural weaknesses in the Updating Washington’s Growth Policy Framework project. To wit:

        • Lack of analytical rigor and research. Due to the compressed timeline and budget limitations, the Roadmap process   -- now the Updating Washington’s Growth Policy Framework -- relied almost exclusively on stakeholder groups to identify problems and propose solutions.  In most cases no attempt was made to determine whether or not the problems identified by the stakeholder groups were significant statewide concerns as supported by data, or merely problems perceived or experienced by a narrow set of stakeholders.  In some cases, the ideas proposed by groups were not subject to rigorous analysis or supported by research or evidence, and solutions were not crafted by exploring a broad range of alternative actions.  In some cases, the issues being discussed were simply too complex to be addressed in this fashion, leaving many groups with more questions than answers.  The process also allowed advocacy groups to lobby for pet projects, some of which seemed to have no tangible connection to a documented problem. APA-WA strongly recommends that Commerce be provided with the necessary funding to address the issues identified through a formal rule making process backed by good quality research and data.

        • Late additions by some groups that were not discussed in stakeholder convenings. It was APA-WA’s understanding that the draft proposed legislation would be developed by compiling suggestions from the various stakeholder groups, circulating drafts for review, and that during each subsequent round of review the document would be refined by dropping unpopular provisions and by making revisions based on full discussion in stakeholder convenings.  Unfortunately, a significant number of major changes were proposed by various stakeholder groups at the very end of the process and incorporated into the final draft. APA-WA believes that the allowance of late additions was inappropriate and that only those changes that were fully vetted by all of the stakeholder groups or discussed by the breakout groups should be included in a final draft of the project report.  In many cases, APA-WA states that the organization simply does not understand the last-minute changes or know enough about their possible effect to provide meaningful feedback.

        Local Areas of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRDS): APA-WA reports that this organization is adamantly opposed to the LAMIRD provisions included in the final draft of the proposed legislation.  While the final Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) proposal, which is limited to allowing additional uses within existing LAMIRD boundaries, has potential to be acceptably revised with more discussion, APA-WA believes that all of the currently proposed changes could lead to significant problems. These problems could include sprawling development patterns, unmanageable transportation demands, depletion of natural resources, and perhaps most significantly, economic activity and development potential siphoned away from small towns and cities that already have the infrastructure in place to support it.  The stakeholder convenings reportedly did not sufficiently document an actual problem the proposed LAMIRD changes would address.  Only one example was shared - regarding challenges with rural service delivery in a LAMIRD and adjacent properties due to a series of Growth Management Hearings Board decisions.  No information is available regarding how much land is in the state’s existing LAMIRDS, whether regulations are preventing development, or if changing the LAMIRD regulations would improve rural economic conditions.  APA-WA strongly recommends that no revisions to the current statutes regarding LAMIRDS occur until a specific, data-supported problem is identified and appropriate corrective measures are documented.

        ***

        Ms. Evans and Ms. Blauman reported that APA-WA is also independently developing a set of 2022 Legislative Priorities which are separate from, but related to, the Updating Framework project.  Under consideration are the following items:

        • Housing
        • Climate Change
        • Infrastructure
        • Support for Planning
        • Inclusive Planning
        • Transportation
        • Annexation Reform
        • Planning for Schools
        • Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update Cycle

        Ms. Evans reported that the Association (and the King County Board) will continue to work via a system successfully developed for Legislature 2021 into Legislature 2022 on essential topics of interest both now and into the future.

        To that end, Ms. Evans and Ms. Blauman reported that the Association is working with the APA-WA Legislative Committee as that organization is continuing to develop policies and systems to address major topics of interest.  Participation with APA-WA Legislative Committee is necessary in order to enable the organization to work successfully with the greater APA-WA and with the Legislature both during this interim period and into 2022.

        Ms. Evans reported that both the WSABRB and King County will need to continue to interact with the Legislature on behalf of our Board.  Efforts will be focused on work with the Legislature as appropriate and to coordinate information and actions with King County (Karen Meyering), our State Association Legislative Committee (co-chaired by Ms. Evans and Roberta Myers of Grays Harbor County), as well as the Washington Chapter of the American Planning Association.

        Successfully addressing these topics is thought to pave the way for more comprehensive planning and funding sources for the State and its regions therein.  Then there will be more efficient, effective opportunities to address other priorities – i.e., development regulations and annexations.

        (Note: Full text of the APA Draft Legislative Priorities will be distributed to the Board members as advisory information)

   3. Executive Secretary’s Report

      • ORIENTATION PROGRAMS:

        Ms. Blauman is continuing planning for a new future cycle of orientation programs in 2021 — either on-site or by remote connection.

        There is a tentative plan to have a presentation from the Sound Cities Association in September.

        Other suggestions include the following topics/agencies:

        • King County Local Services Unit

        • Puget Sound Regional Council – Vision 2050

        • Municipal Research Services Center

        • WAPA Legislative Team

   4. Correspondence:

      General Correspondence

      Chair Hamlin reported that there has been no correspondence of general interest referred to the Board for this Regular Meeting.

5. NEW BUSINESS:

   1. New Files:

      The Board has no new completed files at this time.

   2. Future Files

      The Board has been advised of several potential proposed future Notices of Intention.  The proposals include:  City of Renton; City of Kent; Sumner/Pacific Utilities Extension.

      Sites planned for future annexation include:

      • Auburn (2 files)
      • Black Diamond (2 files)
      • Carnation (1 file)
      • Enumclaw (8 files)
      • Issaquah (2 files)
      • Maple Valley (3 files)
      • North Bend (4 files)
      • Renton (7 files)
      • Seattle (4 files)
      • Tukwila (2 files)
      • Water District No. 90 (1 file)
      • Bellevue (4 files)
      • Bothell (1 file)
      • Duvall (5 files)
      • Federal Way (3 files)
      • Kent (5 files)
      • Milton (1 file)
      • Redmond (4 files)
      • Sammamish (2 files)
      • Snoqualmie (4 files)
      • Vashon Sewer District (1 file)

      Note: There are 13 unincorporated urban areas in King County that are not assigned to a Potential Annexation Area.

6. ADJOURNMENT

   Chair Hamlin adjourned the Regular Meeting at 8:49 P.M.