I. Meeting convened at 12:00 p.m.

A.Members Present:

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

B. Staff Present:

Harry Reinert and Julie Knackstedt.

II. Chair Report

A. Meeting with Senator Karen Fraser

1. November Report. — Senator Fraser believes it would be better to send a more detailed report later then to rush something now.
2. Vesting during appeals to Growth Management Hearings Boards. — Senator Fraser helped craft the section directing the Commission to look at the vesting issue. She recommends the Commission should work closely with the cities and counties and the Boards to develop the information needed to make the report. She agreed it would be premature to make any conclusions this year.
3. Funding of environmental review documents. — Senator Fraser emphasized the need to involve parties not represented on the Commission. She also noted that every fund has a constituency which makes it funds belong to it.
4. Relationship of Commission with legislature. — Senator Fraser encouraged the Commission to be visible, and to use informal conversations. She suggested inviting key legislative members or staff to meetings and add key legislative members who have an interest in the issues to the mailing list. She encouraged attendance at Committee weekend.

B. Meeting with Representative Bill Reams.

Rep. Reams also felt that the November 1 deadline was not as important as getting a more detailed report later. He mentioned that the House Government Operations committee heard some concerns about the Kitsap county decision. He said his committee was looking at impact fees and the SEPA categorical exemptions for possible legislation in 1996.

C. Meeting with Karen Lane, chair of the Regulatory Reform Task

Ms. Lane recommended the use of a small number of advisory committees with membership beyond the Commission. However, she said Commission members on advisory committees should make the final recommendations to the Commission.

D. Regulatory Takings.

A number of individuals have suggested the Commission should look at the issue of regulatory takings. The Chair does not think the Commission should be taking a position on this ballot measure. However, one of the Commission's duties is to look at necessary modifications in the state's land use law and streamlining the land use process. These modifications may prove to be a partial solution to the takings issue.

III. Staff Report on Appeals to The Growth Management Hearings Boards

A. Mr. Reinert summarized the history of the Growth Management Hearings Boards and the number of appeals they have handled. He noted that the existing information on those appeals was not reliable. He said the staff will work with Boards to verify that information. The Commission then discussed the extent of the study on vesting. There were questions about whether the review should consider only decisions of total invalidity. There was also a question how to review the impacts - should there be a statewide review or should the review be done on a sample. The staff will work with the Chair and Loren Dunn to develop a meaningful review process.

IV. Proposed Commission Workplan

The chair presented a proposed approach for developing a final workplan. She handed out a chart that listed the duties assigned to the Commission by the Legislature. Responsibilities were divided up among the various Commission members so that a lead was assigned to each task. The Commission lead should develop suggestions on the task, including who else needs to be involved, how to address the issue, and how the issue relates to other issues and the overall goal of a consolidated land use statute. At the December meeting the Commission will go over these individual reports to develop its overall plan.

There was some concern that this might result in the creation of too many subcommittees. The chair said she did not intend that each task would result in a separate committee. Mr. Dearborn was concerned that there was no organizing principles to the workplan. It seemed to be just a series of tasks with overlap or duplication. He thought the workplan needs a way to integrate all the tasks and prevent overlap. He would give further thought to an overall organization. Tom Campbell noted that the act itself provides an overarching goal: to consolidate the land use laws into a single manageable statute. This goal must guide our workplan.

The Chair asked whether members would like to receive briefings on prior studies, existing laws, and the problems people see with current process. There was general agreement to hold such briefings. Ms. Ordon suggested the Commission should also seek out comments on what aspects of our land use system were working well.

V. November 1995 draft report.

The Commission reviewed the draft report. Mr. Dearborn suggested modifying the provisions discussing the environmental laws the Commission would look at to reflect the legislation creating the Commission. He said he had received calls asking about what forest practices the Commission would be looking at. The Chair thought the Regulatory Reform Task Force representatives had identified only Class IV conversions as an issue and she was concerned about broadening the scope of an already large agenda. If other issues arose during the course of the Commission's work, it could be reflected in future reports to the Legislature as issues for future studies. To avoid confusion the language of the report was changed to mirror the words of the statute. Mr. Burch noted that the statute was worded to permit the Commission to look at the ability of both public and private entities to use certified professionals.

VI. Commission Administration

A. Spokesperson to the press.

Ms. Ordon raised the question of who would speak to the press on behalf of the Commission. The Chair agreed to serve that role. There was further discussion of how members would represent themselves when speaking in public. Mr. Burch suggested the distinction was between speaking "for" the commission and expressing a personal opinion.

B. Decision Making Process.

Ms. Ordon said she preferred using a consensus process. The Chair expressed her concern that consensus process might not allow the Commission to make a recommendation on important but controversial issues. Mr. Herrick said be thought that without a consensus, the commission recommendations would not receive much weight. Mr. Dearborn was concerned that a consensus could not be reached on all issues. He thought some matters will need a vote. He thought there would need to be a way to present these issued to the public. Mr. Dunn said it was important to remember that consensus was across issues, not on each separate issue. The Commission will consider the issue again after it hears from Jim Arthur of the OFM Dispute Resolution Project.

C. Mission Statement.

There was general agreement that a charter is not necessary. The statutory goal statement is probably sufficient.

VII. Advisory Committee on Finance Alternatives

Since Mayor Hansen was unavailable to attend, the discussion was postponed.

VIII. Public Comments

A. Conrad Hermsted, Renton, WA — The population forecast that drives the GMA is not realistic or scientifically accurate. The GMA has a fundamental flaw: it does not incorporate the availability of water supply.

B. Steve Claggett — Executive Director of 1000 Friends of Washington, Provided the Commission a few articles describing the Evergreen Specific Plan.

C. Chris Leman — Washington Communities/Neighborhoods - Pleased that neighborhoods are represented on the Commission. Growth will not be sustainable if people who live in the communities are not involved from the beginning.

IX. Tasks

A. Finance Advisory workplan

B. Finalize November 1995 report to the Legislature

C. Continue work on proposed workplan

D. Ask Jim Arthur to come up with other ways to deal with voting/consensus

E. LUSC budget: phone calls, other expenses

F. What is available from local governments or cities for a GMHB study - Mayor Ed Hansen.

X. Meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.

Next meeting is scheduled for November 14, 1994, noon -3:00 p.m. at the Puget Sound Regional Council 6th floor board room.