I. Meeting convened at 1 p.m.

A.Members Present:

Ryan Durkan, Chair; Dave Roseberry, Tom Campbell, Cathy Dietrich, David Moseley, Sheila Collins, Terry Husseman, Commissioner Phil Best, Mayor Ed Hansen, Skip Burch, John Herrick, Keith Dearborn, Kimberly Ordon, and Loren Dunn.

B. Staff Present:

Harry Reinert and Julie Knackstedt.

II. Introduction of Members and Opening Comments

III. Staff presentation on history and purpose of the Commission.

A. Statutory Duties

1. Monitor implmentation of the GMA, the 1995 amendments to the GMA, and the integration of the GMA with other environmental statutes.
2. Develop a comprehensive state land use procedure combining SEPA, GMA, SMA, Hydraulics, Forest Practices, and other land use and planning statutes
3. Monitor local government permit processes.
4. Evaluate the potential for private professional certification of compliance of development projects with land use plans and regulations.

IV. Presentation by representatives from the Governor's Task Force on Regulatory Reform

A. Karen Lane

1. Task Force involvement of interests outside of those on the Task Force itself was important in collecting information and developing good will among those interest groups.
2. One of the Commission's goals is to look at what the Task Force did and find out what did and did not work.
3. Avoid the temptation to overdesign and create a perfect system.

B. Rod Brown

1. Think Big! The tendency in the past has been to deal with questions in a piecemeal fashion.
2. Think about substance vs. process. The current system is full of process. Many in the environmental community might be willing to give up some of that process in exchange for more substance. Ask whether the process we have has really achieved our objectives.
3. Recognize the geographical diversity of the state. Solutions that make sense for one part of the state may not make sense for others.

C. Tom Goeltz

1. Use informal meetings as much as possible
2. Issues left unresolved by the Task Force

   a) Timelines for local government permit processing. The 120 time period established in HB 1724 expires in 1998 to allow for a period of review. There are no sanctions if a local government fails to meet the timelines. An award of damages may not be the best sanction, consider alternatives.

   b) Financing of integrated planning and environmental review.

   c) Impact fees. GMA allows impact fees to go through certain rigorous analysis. Some jurisdiction are using SEPA for impact fees. Are they two separate alternatives? Do there need to be fees under both GMA and SEPA?

   d) Shoreline Management Act Integration. Can more be done?

   e) State Permit Coordination. The Task Force explored the idea of giving local governments greater authority to issue state permits. This appeared to be impractical, but should be explored further.

   f) Reliance on Development Regulations. The Task Force made some first steps towards using GMA as the primary source of planning and environmental review, with SEPA acting as a safety net for impacts not analyzed. More needs to be done in this area.

   g) Class IV Forest Conversions. This process needs to be examined. Current process requires a 3 year look forward. The Dept of Natural Resources and its relationship with the cities and counties would benefit from some fresh thinking on this.

   h) Development Regulation Definition. The definition may still be too broad and may give the GMHBs authority to review some individual project actions.

3. Vote taking

a) Karen Lane: Thought voting would be required, but as it turned out it was not necessary.

b) Rod Brown: If you want to persuade a wider audience, need to have a consensus among yourselves.

V. Report to the Legislature

A. The staff discussed the Commission's requirements to make annual reports to the Legislature. The first report is due November 1, 1995 and is supposed to address the questions of financing of integrated planning and the impact of vesting while comprehensive plans and development regulations are on appeal to the GMHBs.

B. The Commission recognized that a full report to the Legislature would not be possible by November 1, 1995 because (1) the commission was appointed later than expected, and (2) the data is not available to report on vesting.

C. The Chair will meet with members of the Legislature and determine what information would be most useful to them at this time.

D. A meeting of the full Commission was scheduled for October 25, from 12 noon to 3 p.m., to look at a draft report.

VI. Financing of Integrated Planning and Environmental Review

A. The staff presented a summary of the issues involved in the question of providing financing for local government integrated planning. The staff recommended that Commission establish an advisory committee consisting of interested Commission members and other interested parties to review the issue and develop recommendations for presentation to the Commission.

B. The Commission agreed to establish an advisory committee on the financing issue to report back to the full Commission. Commissioner Phil Best, Loren Dunn, and Mayor Ed Hanson agreed to sit on the subcommittee. Additional representation will be sought from other interest groups including business and finance.

VII. Study of Impact of Vesting During the Appeal of Comprehensive Plans and Development Regulations

A. The staff discussed the history of the requirement for this report. The staff believes that there may not yet be enough information to make a meaningful report.

B. The Commission will work with local governments and the boards to develop a mechanism to make the report required. Staff will develop recommendations on monitoring and data collections methods.

C. There was a request for information on how many appeals to the Growth Hearings Boards have resulted in a Board's decision of plan invalidity.

VIII. Member's Perspectives and Concerns

A. John Herrick - Concerned that any proposals take into account the ease with which they may be enforced. If there is no effective enforcement, there is no incentive to follow the rules.

B. Keith Dearborn- Would like to take some time and try to understand what problems we are trying to fix before we start designing new systems.

C. Skip Burch - A major concern for DOT is the lack of uniformity among jurisdictions.

D. Loren Dunn - Compliance (i.e. enforcement) is an important issue. The environmental community is more interested in substantive outcomes than in process. Would be willing to look at alternatives that rely less on procedure if there are ways to assure good outcomes. Agrees with a concensus process.

E. Ed Hansen - Local governments are concerned about the costs of any new requirements. Agree that there is a need to understand what the problems are before any solutions are designed.

F. Phil Miller (Terry Husseman, Dept of Ecology) - Concerned that there will not be time to fully implement HB 1724 before another set of changes are put in place. Also thinks it is important to remember that SEPA and SMA establish substantive state interests that need to be incorporated into the GMA before they are dismantled.

G. Sheila Collins - In the tradition of community activism I embrace idea of planning and growth management as a way to see the values and visions of individual communities and the importance of neighborhoods, particularly older neighborhoods and urban areas.

H. Phil Best - Should look at the reasons for the rise of private property rights as an issue. Also consider whether the EIS as currently done is a meaningful document. Also interested in the notion of economically and environmentally sustainable development.

I. David Moseley - Financing of infrastructure is an even bigger issue than financing planning. Coordination among different local governments may be more important, and perhaps more difficult, that coordination between local and state governments.

J. Kathy Dietrich - Would like to see a clear and timely process for permitting. Also interested in the notion of using accredited professionals to certify compliance with certain types of regulations. Also concerned that any development be sustainable over the long term.

K. Kimberly Ordon - Move slowly and carefully. Substance is the key. The primary goal of the tribes is a comprehensive resource and economic development program. Environmental deterioration and the impacts of growth can disrupt that objective.

L. Tom Campbell - Take a step back and establish principles for reform and then measure how well we are doing before moving forward.

M. Dave Roseberry - Remember that there are a lot of people out there who are strongly opposed to the GMA. Counties in Eastern Washington have some real concerns that need to be dealt with.

IX. Administrative Details

A. Public Comments - Opportunity for public comment will be provided each meeting. Initially, this opportunity will come at the beginning of a meeting. If needed, at future meetings there will be a test to see whether comment at the end of the meeting will allow enough time for the Commission to do its work.

B. Next Meetings - Meetings were scheduled for October 25, November 14, and December 12. The tentative times will be 12 noon to 3 p.m., but is subject to adjustment.

C. Meeting Summaries - Staff will prepare a summary of meeting actions, but need not prepare detailed minutes.

X. Issues for Future Meetings

A. Media Relations - What are the rules for talking to the press?

B. Voting - Should Commission decisions be made by voting or by consensus?

C. Fact Finding - How should the Commission ascertain the nature and scope of problems that need to be addressed.

XI. Tasks

A. Establish advisory committee on financing integrated planning

B. Prepare draft November 1995 report to the Legislature

C. Prepare a proposed workplan

D. Staff will provide members a monthly list of letters, reports, and other information received concerning the Commission's work.

E. Collect information on activity before the GMHBs, including the number and type of appeals and the action taken by the boards.