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

A.Members Present:

Ryan Durkan, Chair; 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. The Chair reported on her meeting with Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen. Sen. Haugen made a number of suggestions that she believed would enhance the relationship of the Commission with the legislature. Sen. Haugen suggested it would be useful to ask the Legislature to appoint members to work with the Commission. Sen. Haugen also thought it would be important for the Commission to bring legislation to the Legislature each year, just to keep the Commission visible. Sen. Haugen said the issues that were of interest to her were governance, balance between local choice and state control, and encouraging the use of mediation increase the visibility of the Commission.

Sen. Haugen recognized that the Legislature will not stop working on the GMA during the next three years, which will make the Commission's task at times more difficult. She is interested in looking at an ombudsman statute as one possible way to address the takings issue. She also thought there might be a role for the Commission in this area. She was mindful of the need for the Commission to avoid getting enmeshed in too many issues, but to the extent that addressing some process issues may also help with some of the concerns over takings, the Commission's work may have relevance.

B. The Chair also reported on a meeting with representatives of the Association of Washington Business Land Use Committee. The AWB expressed concern that the Commission not allow itself to be diverted from the important task it has been given. It believes the Commission should focus on monitoring the effectiveness of GMA and other statutes, resolving problems with capital facilities financing, reviewing the 120 time period for permitting decisions, and developing the consolidated code called for in ESHB 1724. It also expressed concern that the Commission may not have sufficient resources to complete its work. The Chair suggested AWB put its concerns in writing and submit them to the Legislature.

The AWB is also concerned about the resources available to the Commission. This is an issue that the Commission will probably want to visit later when its workplan is settled.

III. Presentation by Representatives from the Commission on Environmental Policy (SEPA Review Commission)

A. Chris Smith Towne, Commissioner on the Commission on Environmental Policy, and Ed McGuire and Ken Weiner, staff counsel and special counsel to the Commission on Environmental Policy, discussed the operation of the Commission.

B. Chris Smith Towne

1. Currently a member of the Central Washington Growth Management Hearing Board. Was a member of the Pollution Control Hearings Board beginning in 1974 and worked on the original SEPA guidelines.
2. Commission had eight legislators, most of whom did little of the day to day work of the Commission but who were important when it came to getting the legislation passed.
3. Most Commission members limited their work to monthly Commission meetings. The bulk of the work was done by the advisory and technical committees.
4. The Commission invited participation by a broad array of individuals and put any individual who wanted to be on a committee on that committee.
5. A steering committee composed of the two co-chairs from each of the committees kept track of what was going on in each of the committees and provided a means for coordination among the committees.
6. The underlying belief of the Commission was that all views needed to be heard, but that a decision had to be made in the end.
7. Public participation was traditional and conventional and probably not all that helpful in terms of bringing new information to the Commission. The public meetings to garner some media attention and did allow the Commission to gauge the acceptability of its recommendations.
8. Almost all committee meetings were held in the evenings. This made it much easier to involve the public in the Commission process.
9. Three of the Commissioners took on the majority of the work between meetings.

C. Ed McGuire

Currently counsel to the Pierce County Council. Was staff to the House of Representatives when the SEPA review commission was established. Shortly after the Commission was created, went to work for the Washington State Energy Office.

The staff spent the first few months trying to determine exactly what the Commission was supposed to do. They met with the constituency groups to find out what they thought the problems were. The Commission members had to be educated on the basic elements of SEPA and how it worked.

The advisory committees met between committee meetings. The staff worked with the co-chairs to keep the advisory committee meetings tightly structured.

Recognized that committees were not the best place to do drafting. It took 1 1/2 years for the trust level among the commissioners and the advisory committee participants to be raised so that drafting could be done by others, with review by the committees and the commission.

The Commission had no preconceived agenda. It's approach was to determine what the problems were and fix those.

D. Ken Weiner

Currently in law practice with Preston Gates Ellis. In the 1970s worked on implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. Established the environmental law section at Preston Gates. Was asked by Sen. Bluechel, the chair of the SEPA Review Commission, to serve as special counsel.

The Commission was established in a highly volatile political environment. The Governor had vetoed two controversial SEPA bills. The creation of the Commission was the compromise worked out to look at some of the issues those bills had dealt with.

The charge given to the Land Use Study Commission is quite similar to that given to the SEPA Review Commission.

The committees were not chaired by members of the Commission. This allowed the Commissioners to participate without speaking on behalf of the full commission. It also freed up time for the commissioners to work on other issues.

There was a considerable outreach effort to involve a variety of interests.

The role of staff was crucial. The special counsel served an important role in working closely with both the Commissioners and the Committees, as well as with the different interest groups.

E. Questions:

1. Tom Campbell: What suggestions for achieving a successful outcome? Look at other models of unifying statutes from other states and jurisdictions. Pierce County has done something like this in stages, with the first step being just to place all of the related provisions in a single code.
2. Terry Husseman: What was the legislative reaction and how did the Commission keep control of the issue? There were attempts to change the proposed legislation, but Sen. Blucher kept tight control over the issue. He also intervened to stop legislation while the Commission was working. The commission members worked hard to ensure that both the Legislature and the agencies honored the Commission's recommendations.
3. Keith Dearborn: How did the Commission come up with the "10 Years After SEPA" report? The staff acted mostly as a scribe. Drafts were circulated to allow comment. The report was published after the legislative session so the legislative history could be included as a part of the report.

IV. Report from the Growth Management Services of the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development

A. Steve Wells, Assistant Director, Shane Hope, Managing Director, and Peter Riley, Senior Planner, Growth Management Services; and Neal Aaland, Department of Ecology.

B. Steve Wells and Shane Hope presented information on how counties and cities are doing in coming into compliance with the Growth Management Act.

1. There are some specific issues DCTED had noticed local governments are struggling with. These include:

   a) Capital Facilities Elements

   b) Housing

   c) Urban Growth Areas

   d) Dealing with jurisdiction boundaries

   e) Development patterns under pre-GMA plans

   f) Relationship of sewer and water districts with city and county planning processes needs to be clarified.

   g) Essential public facilities

   h) Conflicts over where growth should occur are based in part on revenue

   i) Difficulties in siting open space corridors

2. There are four areas of particular concern to the Department:

   a) Capital facilities elements

   The first 50 plans review identified $6 billion worth of capital facilities needs over 6 years. There is little likelihood that this amount of funding will available from the state. There may be some gold-plating in these numbers, but assuming it is inflated, the need is still significant.

   Mr. Husseman asked whether the plans identified where the money would come from. Mr. Wells said most of them did not. Mr. Dearborn asked whether the plans identified the portion of the identified capital facilities needs that were the result of new growth. Mr. Wells said they generally did not.

   b) Coordination between special purpose districts and cities and counties

   This is a significant problem in some areas. There is no requirement that special purpose districts coordinate their activities with cities and counties planning under the GMA.

   c) Quality of public involvement

   Although public involvement efforts have improved considerably, there is still uncertainty whether decisions made at the planning stage will stick when it comes time to make project decisions.

   d) Governance

   There are a number of unresolved issues in the GMA relating to governance. What is a city? a county? rural? urban? What are the relationships between special purpose and general purpose governments? The GMA criteria for distinguishing between urban and rural areas are not adequate. There are increasing problems related to annexation and co-management of unincorporated areas within the UGA. Counties generally do not have standards as high as those in the cities that may eventually annex those unincorporated areas in the UGA.

C. Peter Riley

1. The Legislature appropriated $1.35 million in the 1994 session for pilot projects aimed at integrating GMA comprehensive planning with SEPA environmental review. There were six projects funded with this money. They dealt with five different steps in the planning process.
2. Substantively, the projects advanced the idea of doing good planning, and helped develop processes that will answer environmental questions earlier in the planning process. However, being able to do this type of work requires sufficient funding and ultimately the political will to carry out the decisions.
3. In terms of process, there were a number of problems. The basic problem was that the model of environmental review being used was designed to deal with projects, not programs. For example, SEPA is focused on the taking of some action, but in adopting a plan, there are hundreds of policy decisions made along the way to the taking of an action, the adoption of the plan.
4. The 1995 Legislature approved an additional $3 million for the current biennium. DCTED has provided some of this money to five jurisdictions to develop models for the permit processing systems required by ESHB 1724. The models should be done by the December 15 end of the year. A number of workshops will be conducted in January to present the models to other cities and counties. The remainder of the money will be let as grants under an RFP process which will begin in the near future.
5. The chair asked that the Department report back to the Commission after the pilot permit processes are completed.

D. Neal Aaland

1. ESHB 1724 directed Ecology and DCTED to jointly develop rules to implement elements of the integrated planning and SEPA review process.
2. An advisory committee has been created and will be focusing on three major areas: the combined environmental review and permit review process; ways of determining consistency between plans and projects; and the level of environmental analysis that is best conducted at each stage of the comprehensive planning process.
3. The current plan is to limit changes to the SEPA rules to those things necessary under ESHB 1724
4. The Chair asked that the Departments provide the Commission with an organization chart and a list of who is involved in the advisory committee. She said she wants to make sure the Commission and the departments avoid overlapping their work.

V. Jim Arthur, with OFM's Alternative Dispute Resolution Project, and Jerry Cormick, a mediator in private practice, spoke to the Commission about elements of a successful decision making process.

A. Mr. Arthur laid out his thoughts on a successful decision making process:

1. Although the Legislature had given the Commission a charge, the Commission itself should be very clear about its mission. It should define the problem it is try to resolve, identify the primary issues, what needs or interests must be satisfied to have a successful result, and the other issues that are likely to affect the work of the Commission.
2. The Commission should also consider its role in the shifting political context. What are the possible effects of legislative action on the Commission's work? How does the Commission want to respond? What type of involvement does the Commission want from the Legislature?
3. The members need to define their relationship with the Commission. Are members representing only themselves? or an organization or interest? Regardless of the relationship, members also need to think of themselves as ambassadors to the rest of the public, marshaling support for the Commission's work.
4. The Commission should probably prepare written understandings of procedural matters, as well as of the scope, context, and roles. The understandings could also deal with how the Commission will deal with the media. If there are other procedural issues that might arise during the Commission's work, these should also be resolved ahead of time.

B. Mr. Arthur also spoke to the issue of the decision making process.

1. He suggested there were a number of practical reasons why consensus would probably be best. There is an extensive range of communities of interest that will be affected by the Commission's decisions. Consensus is more likely to gain support of these diverse interests. Consensus will also lend credibility to the Commission's recommendations so that counties and cities will be able to follow them, and the public will respect and understand the decisions.
2. There is consensus is various points in the process, not just at the end. The procedural understandings, definitions of problems, issues, and interests, and the workplan all provide opportunities for developing consensus. There should be interim checkpoints as part of the workplan to make sure the Commission is still in consensus.
3. Recognize that there are different types of decisions and that different parties are responsibly for making them. Some decisions can be made by staff, some by the chair, and some must be made by the Commission.
4. Be clear what agreement means, both in terms of the support of members, but also in terms of their organizations or affiliations.
5. If agreement cannot be reached, the first step is to redouble efforts through the chair. Creating a subgroup to resolve the disagreement could also be considered. It may also be possible to turn the issue over to someone else, but then the Commission loses control of the resolution of the issue.

C. Jerry Cormick discussed his involvement with an effort in British Columbia to implement a national policy on sustainability.

1. The interests realized that the only way of reconciling legitimate differences was through consensus. They realized that voting would not mean anything. The parties would likely only vote along the same schisms that has led to the current impasse. Voting also tends to lead to argument designed to get more votes.
2. Consensus brings with it both rights and obligations. One of the obligations is to clarify areas of disagreement. This enables other members to find a way for a member to come to agreement.
3. Consensus was used only for the central issues.
4. Generally, the chair will spend three to four times as much time as the other members.
5. One of the assets the Commission has is its credibility. As other issues arise which present problems in the political arena, the Commission may be able to serve as a convenor of forums to try to resolve those issues.

VI. Other Commission Business

A. Commission Documents.

There was a discussion of ways that the Commission can make the information that it develops easily available to both members of the Commission and to the public. The staff said that the Commission would soon have an internet email address. The staff is also looking at making information available through various internet services. Mr. Dearborn also suggested that a good document retrieval system needs to be put in place. He said he would put the people in his firm who work with documents in contact with the Commission staff.

B. Takings.

The Chair said that there has been some interest in having the Commission explore the takings issue. She expressed the concern that the Commission's long term task will take considerable time and that if too many other tasks are taken on the Commission will not be able to do all that it should. She recognized, though, that the Commission's work intersects to some extent with the takings debate. The Commission needed to decide what role, if any, it was willing to play in the debate.

Mr. Campbell said he thought the Commission needed to stay open to working with this particular issue. He thought there were many aspects of the takings debate that were closely connected to the Commission's tasks. Commissioner Best was not sure there was any way the Commission could avoid the issue because it is so much a part of the growth management and land use debate. Mr. Dearborn suggested that one point to consider was separating the compensation question from the equity and fairness questions. The latter might be appropriate for the Commission's consideration, while the former could be left to others.

C. Legislative Involvement.

The Chair asked what type of legislative involvement the Commission wanted. She pointed out that Sen. Haugen thought that some type of formal legislative involvement would help the Commission through the years. There was agreement that the Chair should invite a representative from each of the legislative caucuses to serve as an ad hoc member of the Commission. The Chair will work with the staff to extend the invitation through the proper means.

VII. The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.

The next meeting is scheduled for November 30, 1995 at 9 a.m. in House Hearing Room B of the John L. O'Brien Building in Olympia.