City of Burien
BURIEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 25, 2004
7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
MINUTES
Planning Commission Members Present: Robert Simpson-Clark, chair; Jim Clingan, Jon Newton, Janet Shull and Michael Sumner
Absent: Commissioners Barbara Williams and Rebecca McInteer
Others Present: David Johanson, senior planner; Chip Davis, planner; Gerry Lindsay, minutes taker
Chair Simpson-Clark called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Upon the call of the roll all commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioners McInteer and Williams.
Agenda Confirmation
Motion to approve the agenda as printed was made by Commissioner Newton. Second was by Commissioner Shull and the motion carried unanimously.
Public Comment
Mr. Robert Ramboll, 13724 10th Avenue South, focused on the issue of the Northeast Special Planning Area and regulatory takings. He noted that the city would like to control land in the Northeast Special Planning Area in order to bring about a business park. On that land currently are mostly houses in which people are living. Under the law, property includes all the uses that can be made of a holding; those uses give property value. When uses are taken through regulatory restrictions, such as zoning, the owner loses rights that otherwise belong to him. If the zoning of the Northeast Special Planning Area is changed to business park, those who own residential properties will be denied the right to live on the property in the sense that the area will no longer be residential in nature. If the majority of property owners are opposed to a zoning change that will prevent them from continuing with the current residential use of their properties, and if the zoning change is made anyway, there could be a takings issue. He said he is not interested in having his property be rezoned for commercial uses; he said he would prefer to remain living on the property and hand it down to his grandchildren. Before regulations are made regarding land that does not belong to the city, there should be consultations with legal advisers. Those who own the land should have the say with regard to what the land is to be used for.
Continuing, Mr. Ramboll noted that in the interlocal agreement with the Airport Communities Coalition, item #3 opposes the development of the third runway. He said his property, and none of the properties in the Northeast Special Planning Area, should be used as a tool by the city to thwart the third runway. The Port of Seattle spent a great deal of money adding extra insulation to the homes in the Northeast Special Planning Area to allow the residents to continue living in them. The city lowered the decibel rating to 55 from 65. None of the city councilmembers or planning commissioners live in the Northeast Special Planning Area. Only the present residential uses should be permitted in the area. There should be a neighborhood plan developed for the people who live in the northeast area. The people in Seahurst are getting a neighborhood plan, and they do not have airplanes.
Chair Simpson-Clark pointed out that the matter of zoning the Northeast Special Planning Area is out of the hands of the commission. Mr. Ramboll suggested that the commission should act on its conscience. The city should not zone people out of their homes. A criminal cannot be arrested until they actually do something. To sue the City of Burien, or the Planning Commission, for their actions, they must first do something. Then citizens can go to Growth Management or the Supreme Court. There is still a chance for the city not to do it.
Approval of Minutes
A. April 27, 2004
Motion to approve the minutes as submitted was made by Commissioner Newton. Second was by Commissioner Shull and the motion carried unanimously.
B. April 13, 2004
Motion to approve the minutes as submitted was made by Commissioner Newton. Second was by Commissioner Shull and the motion carried unanimously.
Old Business – None
New Business
A. Presentation on North Highline Annexation Area
Planner Chip Davis stated that in response to the Growth Management Act, King County and the suburban cities began working together in the early ‘90s to develop a guide aimed at planning for growth and expansion over time. The Countywide Planning Policies that were developed at that time included the tenet of working toward the elimination of all unincorporated islands between incorporated urban areas. The county supported the idea because they were being faced with having to provide increasingly urban services, something for which is the county is not designed. For their part, the various incorporated cities were not always happy with the level of infrastructure being developed by the county in areas that would eventually fall under their umbrella. The plan was to include the unincorporated areas in the urban growth boundaries of the various cities within 20 years.
Mr. Davis explained that the North Highline area, which includes White Center and Boulevard Park, is one of the largest of the unincorporated islands. The total area is some six square miles, and the total population is roughly 32,000, or about the same as Burien proper. In 1999 King County, in conjunction with the North Highline Unincorporated Area Council (NHUAC), completed a governance study for the area. As a part of the study, King County and the City of Burien acted in 2001 as partners on an annexation feasibility study. A review and update of the 1999 report is under way by the North Highline Unincorporated Area Council; the work is expected to be completed by the end of the year.
Continuing, Mr. Davis said the annexation feasibility study designated five areas for further analysis of the fiscal and service implications that could impact Burien if all or any of the areas were to be annexed. In addition, there are other very sound reasons for the city to study the area carefully and have a plan for addressing the areas should they be annexed. Burien shares more than just a border with the North Highline area. Many of the same service providers covering the North Highline area also serve Burien residents. Two of those services, water and fire, are very closely intertwined. Some of the fire service for the northwest portion of Burien is provided by contract through a fire station located in the North Highline area. Burien wants to have a say over how that service will be provided in the future. If Seattle were to annex the entire area and assume control of the fire station, the burden for providing fire service for the area would fall proportionately to Fire District #2, which serves the rest of the city. From the current Fire District #2 station, services cannot be provided to the northwest area in a timely manner; either another station would have to be built, or there would have to be a contractual arrangement reached with Seattle.
Some of the water purveyors in Burien have spent a great deal of money over the last 15 years or so upgrading the infrastructure in the North Highline area. If the area is annexed by Seattle, water service will be provided by Seattle, which acts as its own water purveyor. The special districts that serve the area currently would lose the assessed value of the annexed areas, and their service areas would shrink accordingly, possibly to the point of no longer being able to serve the incorporated Burien area.
With those issues in mind, staff has been focused on an assessment of the financial impacts produced by Burke and Associates in December 2003. The report concluded that if Burien had been the governing body for the five focus areas in 2003, maintaining the current level of taxes and services would have resulted in a gap of more than $1.2 million between the additional costs and the anticipated revenues. Of that amount, the greatest net gap would be attributable to Area A, the largest and most populated of the five designated areas. Areas B and C would have negative impacts, whereas Areas D and E would, in fact, generate modest net benefits for the city. Area B is home to a casino that generates sufficient revenues to offset to a significant degree the costs of providing service to the area; should the casino go away or gambling fall off, however, those revenues would be lost and the area would have only a slight positive impact.
Commissioner Newton asked about the $10 million brought to the table as an enticement for cities incorporating the unincorporated islands within the county. Mr. Davis explained that the results of the feasibility study were presented to the City Council in April. The council heard comments from staff, representatives of the North Highline Unincorporated Area Council, fire service providers, and residents of the North Highline area. At the end of the meeting council directed staff to take another look at the entire area. There were concerns voiced about some of the costs that would be generated by the areas, in particular White Center where there are some low-income housing projects.
Commissioner Newton suggested that if there is going to be any business growth in the five areas, it will occur in the White Center area. Mr. Davis informed the commissioners that the council did not act to make any final decisions. One of the recommendations of staff was to drop Areas C and D from further consideration. Area D is being disputed by Seattle and Tukwila and is the location for a huge Seattle City Light substation; it seems highly unlikely Seattle would let the area go to another jurisdiction. There is also an issue regarding the 16th Avenue bridge that was left out in a past annexation; the bridge remains in the county. Seattle is hesitant to take it over because it needs to be rebuilt, and King County does not want it for the same reason. Area C most closely identifies with the industrial area that is part of Seattle.
Commissioner Sumner asked if Burien could contract with Seattle for fire services if Seattle were to annex the area. Mr. Davis said that approach could be taken, but added that there are both political and practical difficulties involved. The City of Seattle does not currently contract for services in any other jurisdiction; there are no circumstances in which Seattle responds first for another jurisdiction. The estimate is that contracting for service in the area would cost in the neighborhood of $1 million. If the fire station were to go away, the contracting for services with someone else could go as high as $2 million, plus the cost of constructing a fire station.
Chair Simpson-Clark asked why the fire district should be treated any differently than a utility, given that they are independent service providers funded completely outside of the city. Mr. Davis answered that Burien has chosen to contract for a lot of services that other cities provide in-house. The City of Seattle has its own water, sewer and fire departments. It is to the benefit of Burien to have healthy service providers with which to contract. Each district needs to have a sufficient assessed valuation so they can continue to operate. Fire District #11 covers most of the Highline area. If that area were annexed into Seattle, most of the assessed valuation for the district would go away; the district would essentially cease to exist and there would be no one for the city to contract with. It is through a contractual relationship that Fire District #2 provides service in the northwest portion of Burien; the contract allows the district to use a station located about three blocks off of Ambaum in Area E.
Chair Simpson-Clark pointed out that no matter what direction is ultimately taken, there will be a lot of what-ifs involved. In the end it will come down to a negotiated business transaction. Mr. Davis concurred and said that is why the city is working with the special districts to assign a value to their facilities. The Public Works Department feels it would be very expensive to upgrade the water system in the Shorewood area given that much of the infrastructure is old and on steep slopes. The $10 million the county has set aside may or may not be a fair figure; it relates to all of the unincorporated islands in King County and some 220,000 residents.
The concern of the City Council is the need to provide a reasonable level of service for all new areas annexed without jeopardizing the current levels of service enjoyed by residents of the city. Without careful planning, annexations can result in huge cash outlays for the upgrading of systems to the detriment of current city services.
Chair Simpson-Clark asked if there would be any benefit to the city as a result of annexing any of the areas. Mr. Davis allowed that the city could continue to exist just fine the way it is. One of the concerns is if nothing proactive is done, one or more of the areas may be imposed on the city. King County has made it very clear that they intend to get out of the business of providing urban services as soon as possible. The city has a vested interest in making sure the special districts are healthy because if they go bankrupt the city will have no one to contract with.
Mr. Davis said the original study did not include the White Center area. At the direction of the council the study will be updated to include the area. The North Highline Unincorporated Area Council also will update its governance study and may conclude that it wants to incorporate on its own. White Center and Boulevard Park have strongly indicated a desire not to be split up, and have expressed a preference for Burien over Seattle.
Answering a question asked by Commissioner Clingan, Mr. Davis said if Seattle were to annex the whole North Highline area, the two fire stations would be taken over by Seattle and could be closed off to access by Burien, though that would have to be negotiated.
Given that scenario, Commissioner Newton asked if there is a geocentric location within the current city boundaries, or any potential annexation areas, that Fire District #2 could relocate to and still provide adequate response to Burien residents. Mr. Davis said the current thinking is that another station would have to be constructed.
Commissioner Sumner suggested that the $1.2 million negative position that would result from annexing the areas does not take into consideration the additional millions that would have to be spent upgrading roads and other infrastructure. He said it would be a stretch to believe that property values within the annexed areas will go up enough to offset the infrastructure investments. Mr. Davis agreed. He said there is no way the annexed property owners and current Burien property owners could be taxed enough to make up for the shortfalls in infrastructure. One approach would be to phase infrastructure improvements over time.
Mr. Davis informed the commissioners that since 1990 the city of Vancouver, Washington, has annexed more people into its city limits than any other city in the state. Its population in 1990 was 46,000; by 2000 it had grown to 143,000. The anticipation is that its population will be 250,000 by the time all of the designated areas are annexed. Vancouver has developed a very cooperative relationship with Clark County, working together on transferring personnel, equipment, certain services, eliminating duplication, and clarifying service roles. The two jurisdictions have worked hard to jointly identify cost-saving opportunities. A framework plan for moving portions of Clark County into incorporated jurisdictions has been developed and implemented. Specific areas targeted for annexation have all been studied and there are known dates for when the annexations will occur. The city has been very successful in obtaining voter approval by clearly sketching out the benefits of incorporation.
Mr. Davis said Burien staff continues to work with Seattle staff. There are meetings planned with the North Highline Unincorporated Area Council and with King County. There is a great deal of work yet to be done and what the eventual outcome is at this point uncertain.
Commissioner Newton said he would be interested in knowing how closely previous pre-annexation assessments have matched with reality in other areas that have been annexed. He said he would prefer to see local statistics.
Mr. Davis noted that if the latest proposed property tax initiative is approved by the voters there could be serious consequences for the revenue stream.
B. Introduction to the 2004 Comprehensive Plan Docket and Amendment Process
David Johanson, senior planner, explained that under the GMA rules jurisdictions are allowed to amend their comprehensive plans only one time each year, with a major update required every seven to 10 years. Burien completed its major update in 2003. The Comprehensive Plan is a long-range plan, and that is the reason the GMA precludes amending it more than once annually.
In May notice of the Comprehensive Plan docket was published according to the legal requirements. On May 17 the City Council was presented with the opportunity to suggest items for the docket. The commission will have the matter on its plate for both meetings during June to gather input from the public. The docket is a list of things to consider during the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. The commission will forward to the City Council a recommendation for what items should be on the docket for consideration. In July the council will review the recommendation of the commission and establish the final docket. In September and October the commission will work on docketed items in preparation for developing a recommendation to the council for each item. The council then will deliberate the items and make final determinations.
A number of proposed amendments have been tentatively placed on the docket. They include the Potential Annexation Area policy, Town Square/Downtown, the Bike and Pedestrian Plan, the Northwest Neighborhood Plan, and policies related to the Phase 2 zoning code issues. There are also three site-specific requests that have been submitted.
Observing that the public submission period is open until the commission’s last meeting in June, Commissioner Shull asked what process is to be followed if at the very last minute a suggestion is made for adding something to the docket, giving the commission no time to discuss the merits. Mr. Johanson said there are specific deadlines outlined in the code, and in order for the commission to fully consider matters they need to be submitted in advance of the cutoff date. However, until the council acts to establish the final docket, items can be suggested.
Commissioner Shull asked if the commission will be receiving a staff report and recommendation regarding the three site-specific proposals. Mr. Johanson said staff will be making giving the commission a professional opinion as to whether the matters should be considered. Beyond that, the commission will be charged with considering each request on its merits.
Mr. Johanson said he would include in the next commission packet an example of a successful Comprehensive Plan amendment request and an unsuccessful Comprehensive Plan amendment request.
Director’s Report
Mr. Johanson informed the commission that on May 26 at 4 p.m. he, along with Planning Director Scott Greenberg and Councilmember Krakowiak, will appear before the King County Growth Management Planning Council to present a proposal for an urban center designation for downtown Burien.
The commissioners were told that the International Building Code is under consideration by the City Council. Action is set for June 7.
With regard to the asphalt company issue, Mr. Johanson said the city sent the company a letter denying its business license based on violations of the fire code. The expectation is that the violations will be fixed and the business will remain in operation.
Mr. Johanson noted that a joint meeting with the SeaTac Planning Commission remains on the calendar tentatively for June 28.
Commissioner Newton reported that he will be out of town from June 23 to 28.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Commissioner Newton. Second was by Commissioner Clingan and the motion carried unanimously.
Chair Simpson-Clark adjourned the meeting at 8:43 p.m.
Approved:
/s/ Robert Simpson-Clark, chair
Planning Commission
/s/ Scott Greenberg, director
Community Development Department