The Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County

REGULAR MEETING

February 10, 2022

Zoom Service

1. CALL TO ORDER

   Chair Chandler Felt convened the meeting at 7:08 P.M.

2. ROLL CALL

   The following members were present:

   • Evangeline Anderson
   • Sylvia Bushnell
   • Robert Cook
   • Mary Lynne Evans
   • Marlin Gabbert
   • Jay Hamlin
   • Claudia Hirschey
   • Paul MacCready
   • Hank Margeson
   • Stephen Toy

   Guests: Paul Inghram, Puget Sound Regional Council

3. MINUTES:

   Chair Felt presented the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 13, 2022 for review and action by the Board members.

   Lenora Blauman noted that there has been one revision to the initial document – to better describe a situation, to wit:

   “Numerous valuable comments were offered — with many common ideas as well as suggestions reflecting that equity is linked to the characteristics of the community — that is: “one size does not fit all” communities. The information provided was identified and defined in the Road Map I Final Report as six systemic and transformational reforms to the state growth planning framework.” (page 2)

   Action: Jay Hamlin moved and Stephen Toy seconded the motion to adopt the corrected minutes for the Regular Meeting of January 13, 2022.

   Board members voted eight in favor of approving this record of the Regular Meeting. Mary Lynne Evans abstained.

4. SPECIAL PRESENTATION
   PAUL INGHRAM, PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL: VISION 2050

   Chandler Felt introduced Paul Inghram, Growth Management Director of the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). Mr. Inghram will be presenting information about Vision 2050; a power point accompanies this presentation.

   Mr. Inghram reported that the Puget Sound Regional Council – the body creating Vision 2050 – is a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The MPO provides services to four counties (Kitsap, Snohomish, King and Pierce) and the 82 cities within these counties. Vision 2050 recognizes tribes and military installations as groups essential and integral to regional function and structure. PSRC also includes community representatives within the organization.

   To guide Vision 2050, PSRC has a growth management policy board, comparable to a planning commission and an assembly of all of the jurisdictions and agencies. PSRC holds equity in planning and services as a central priority — to that end, the PSRC Equity Advisory Committee has an essential role in designing and implementing the organization’s work program.

   Vision 2050 provides a robust policy framework focusing on opportunities to support our communities in keeping with the significant current — and anticipated future — growth of our populace. It is likely that 1.5 million people are going to come to the region, in the next 30 years. That’s about the same type of growth we’ve been experiencing for the last 50 years. It is noteworthy that populations are becoming more diverse. The average age is increasing in the region. Households are smaller.

   Mr. Inghram explained how Vision 2050 differs from Vision 2040. Vision 2050 recognizes changes over the past ten years which will affect the future — e.g., the pandemic, the evolution of the economy, climate change, the evolution of the environment, the enduring quality of life in this region, and a clearer commitment to equity.

   Mr. Inghram spoke to the PSRC policies and work program (planning and implementation of services) as they connect to individual communities’ comprehensive plans. Such plans are required by the Growth Management Act (GMA) to be provided by each jurisdiction in our region.

   In addition, PSRC has a certification process for comprehensive plans that is required prior to the agency supporting a community. He described PSRC standards as a “stick and carrot” plan — if a jurisdiction completes a sufficient plan, then funding may be available from the federal government, the State, or regional agencies. If a PSRC certification is not complete, then funding is not available to a jurisdiction.

   Mr. Inghram noted that the process of comprehensive planning has some challenges. The dilemma is that the plans are called upon to be “consistent” in their elements within and among plans. The definition of “consistent” is amorphous — a long debated issue among planners. However, there are situations where consistency is straightforward. Taking the example of Index and Bellevue: Index has one state highway next to it. Whereas, Bellevue has two freeways, six light rail stations, other state highways, and a much more complex transportation network to determine consistency. This is an issue of scale. Common sense is a factor as well — solutions can be achieved by transportation modeling and improvements at an appropriate scale.

   ***

   Vision 2050 emphasizes functional plans for our regional communities. Mr. Inghram spoke of the PSRC outreach program to include the region’s four million people in the design and implementation of Vision 2050. Extensive and successful engagement was enabled by many sources for in-person and on-line connections. A public opinion survey was also a very successful engagement tool.

   Responses confirmed support for the PSRC’s strong urban growth strategy. There was support for PSRC goals and actions at the local level, which is where zoning and permitting occur. Clear urban and rural area boundaries are also central to the future of our communities.

   Vision 2050 places priority on maintaining that urban growth boundary and directing the largest portion of the growth into the areas that are designated centers and that are served by transit. That includes a full range of public transportation systems.

   Vision 2050 has been investigating development patterns in urban and rural areas. Various suburban cities are looking at their growth patterns. Preservation of open spaces and farms is essential. Development is occurring at a rate of 95% in Urban Growth Areas.

   That having been said, a substantial amount of growth is also occurring in our Rural Areas. There is much land that may be viewed as available for development and an increasing interest in development in those areas. Thus, it is challenging to try to preserve some of those rural lands and resource lands. Some counties have Farmland Protection systems and similar other preservation systems in place. PSRC is preparing a toolkit of strategies and tools that counties can use to help try to alleviate pressure on rural areas. These policy objectives require collaborative efforts to come together to support appropriate regulation through local zoning codes building codes.

   PSRC finds that affordable housing is a key matter of interest. PSRC reports a plans a near-term adoption of a regional housing strategy to address this matter. Essentially, the region needs more housing, more affordable, workable policies to address displacement and improve stability for residents.

   Vision 2050 places a high priority on transportation systems. The organization’s most tangible activity is the distribution of approximately $270 million annually in federal transportation funds. With the recent bipartisan Infrastructure Act, that funding will increase going forward as a basic part of the PSRC’s process for work with federal agencies on transportation, infrastructure funding, and helping provide support to local jurisdictions. Mr. Inghram spoke of a potential new state funding package for transportation improvements and new transportation technology.

   Vision 2050 includes a regional economic strategy to attract new commerce — providing support for a diverse community of jobs, housing, government services, and amenities to support quality of life.

   Community members confirmed PSRC views concerning the natural environment, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Vision 2050 places a priority on cleaning up Puget Sound — preparing a tool to preserve the habitat, including work on climate change, reducing transportation emissions, but also looking at how to reduce those negative impacts to our built environment.

   With respect to climate change requirements, there is a need to change building codes to require electrical vehicle infrastructure, and to ensure that there is capacity for both buildings and automobiles to be fully electrified in the future. There is a lot of heavy lifting to do over the next two years to three years to support changes to implement Vision 2050 at the local level.

   Mr. Inghram spoke to the Board’s role of annexation of Urban Unincorporated Areas.

   Vision 2050 policy supports the complete annexation of all the unincorporated urban areas in the region. All of those areas should be annexed to a city or incorporated as appropriate. However, there are few “carrots or sticks” available to PSRC to advance annexations.

   Annexation is supported in principle in many comprehensive plans but requirements and enabling tools have not directly been included in those plans.

   The State of Washington Legislature has previously supported a streamlined sales tax rebate which was successful in promoting city annexations. There is an effort to reinstate that benefit which would be positive to local communities needing funds to govern and serve new areas (e.g., roadways, infrastructure, utilities).

   In conclusion, Mr. Inghram particularly noted that PSRC and other key governing bodies need more funding at the regional level and at the municipal level — which requires conversations and compromises. Discussion often focuses on the need to meet targets for growth — but also may require flexibility on types and locations of development to protect built and natural environments. Throughout our urban area, there is a need for more housing, much stronger commitment to equity and equitable outcomes as planned in Vision 2050.

   ***

   Mr. Inghram expressed appreciation to the Board for inviting him to speak about Vision 2050. Board members thanked Mr. Inghram for his most interesting and valuable presentation.

5. ADMINISTRATION:

   1. Chair’s Report

      General Business

      Chair Felt 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 2022; (5) completion of administration of the Year 2021 Budget; (6) implementation of the 2022 Budget; and (7) launching of the 2023-2024 Biennial Budget.

      Committee Assignments

      Chair Felt stated that the roster of Committee assignments is now complete. Information will be communicated to the members in the near future.

   2. Committee Reports

      • Personnel Committee

        Sylvia Bushnell, Committee Chair, speaking on behalf of the Personnel Committee, reported that the team has begun the process of locating a new Executive Secretary for the Boundary Review Board effective June, 2022.

        A request was made to move into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters relating to this transition. The Board entered into Executive Session at 8:05 p.m. The Board returned to the general Meeting at 8:27 p.m.

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

        Mary Lynne Evans, Co-Chair of the King County Board’s Legislative Committee and Co- Chair of the WSABRB Legislative Committee provided a report to the Board.

        It was confirmed that the King County and the WSABRB Legislative Committees is continuing the agenda and a work program that directs attention to relevant new and continuing proposed bills for Legislature 2022. The team also continues to work with King County to identify and address bills that would affect (promote or remove) the authorities and responsibilities of Boundary Review Boards.

        The team is working with APA-WA to monitor, write, testify, and keep in touch with legislators concerning bills of interest to government agencies and organizations.

        ***

        Ms. Evans reported that SHB 1627, proposing utility service extension into rural areas continues to be viable — but with ongoing opposition by the State Association and APA- WA despite some amendments to restore limited public review. Following the initial hearing, SHB 1627 has moved forward to House Rules — but has no established schedule to move forward to further review by the Legislature. Key dates include:

        February 15th

        Last day to pass bills from chamber of origin (Senate bills from Senate; House bills from House).

        February 24th

        Last day for policy committees to consider bills from opposite chamber. February 28th - Last day for fiscal committees to consider bills from opposite chamber. March 4th – Last day to consider bills from opposite chamber.

        March 10th

        Last day of regular session.

        The bill remains of interest to the King County Board, WSABRB, Association of Washington Cities, and APA-WA based upon the continuing minimal opportunities for public review of such actions (including elimination of consideration by boundary review boards for these specific actions). WSABRB and APA-WA is working to determine how to most effectively provide further comment to legislators now slated to begin review of the bill.

        ***

        Future reports on APA-WA activities will be provided to the Boundary Review Board by Mary Lynne Evans, Legislative Committee Chair and/or Chandler Felt (King County Board Chair).

   3. Executive Secretary’s Report

      • ORIENTATION PROGRAMS:

        Ms. Blauman is continuing planning for a new cycle of orientation programs in 2022. Suggestions include the following topics/agencies:

        • King County Local Services Division

        • Municipal Research Services Center

        • APA-WA Legislative Team

   4. Correspondence:

      General Correspondence

      Chair Felt reported that no general correspondence was submitted this month.

6. NEW BUSINESS:

   1. New Files

      The Board has also received five preliminary files for initial consideration in advance of the proponents submitting completed Notices of Intention. Complete files are anticipated in the first quarter of 2022.

   2. Future New Files

      The Board has been advised by King County of several potential proposed future Notices of Intention:

      • 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 (6 files)
      • Seattle (4 files)
      • Tukwila (2 files)
      • Water District No. 90 (1 file)
      • Covington Water District (2 files)
      • 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)
      • Woodinville (1 file)

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

7. ADJOURNMENT

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