I. Meeting convened at 9 a.m.

A.Members Present:

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

B. Staff Present:

Harry Reinert and Julie Knackstedt.

II. Comments by Lorraine Hine,
Governor Lowry's Chief of Staff

The Commission's mission is an important one. The state has had a higher growth rate than many other states. In order to continue attracting businesses that are looking to Washington are doing so in part because of the state's quality of life. We must continue those programs which protect our quality of life while at the same time dealing with growth and eliminating duplication. The Governor is very appreciative for the time that the Commission members have agreed to spend in this important effort.

III. Comments by Legislators

A. Sen. Dan Swecker

Most of the last 20 years has been dealing with the regulatory system from the outside as a businessman. For the average citizen the current system is a nightmare. Local governments are increasingly concerned about unfunded mandates. The Commission should look at creative options. One area that he suggests exploring is privatization. There also needs to be a consideration of the diversity of interests in the state, in particular the differences between urban and rural areas.

B. Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen

Many in the Legislature will be looking to the Commission for leadership on issues that have been difficult to resolve in the Legislature. The Commission should seriously consider asking legislators to sit as ad hoc members of the Commission. This will provide the Commission with advocates in the Legislature. In addition term limits will affect the number of legislators who have the history with these issues.

She also emphasized the need to remember the diversity in the state. What works in one area may not work elsewhere. Don't fix existing problems by adding more process. Funding is an important issue that the Legislature has not yet been able to resolve. This raises the whole issue of growth paying for growth. Local governments should be given as much flexibility as possible. When making recommendations, allow sufficient time for implementation.

C. Rep. Bill Reams

The citizens of the state need the Commission and the continuity to these issues that it brings. The Commission should rely on the work that has preceded it and make recommendations when the timing is right. Rep. Reams will be looking at coordination of property rights, regulatory reform and the growth management act. Compensation for takings does not necessarily have to be payment of money. Applying regulatory reform to local governments will be another issue of attention. The real promise of ESHB 1724 is the integration into one process of SEPA, GMA, and SMA.

There will probably be a number of proposed changes to the GMA in the next session. One area of specific concern is with the Growth Management Hearings Boards. There are proposals to change their authority. The proposals range from being more explicit about their authority to eliminating some of their responsibilities. Complaints abound that the boards are acting super planners. However, there is a value in having state coordination.

D. Sen. Betti Sheldon

Sen. Sheldon also thought the Commission should involve Legislators. She noted she represents Kitsap County which has had problems dealing with the challenges of planning for growth. One major roadblock has been dealing with property rights. One solution may be to give additional flexibility to small property owners.

E. Rep. Les Thomas

Rep. Thomas pointed out that many of the comments the Commission had heard dealt with process. Many of the problems GMA was intended to deal with should have really been dealt with 20 years ago. This leads to the problem of making newcomers pay for the fact that these problems have not been resolved earlier. The public should pay for requirements which have a public benefit. If there is public harm, then the individual should pay for the cost of mitigating the harm. He said he would be introducing legislation putting the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution into statute. He said there needed to be a recognition that cannot put public nuisances in the midst of residential neighborhoods, that zoning is a valid exercise of the police power, that laws cannot be retroactive, that laws should not impose huge burdens on governments and lead to frivolous claims, but need to recognize that people do have property rights. The Commission's job will be difficult in its effort on juggling rights of individuals with the benefits to society. He urged the Commission to focus on property rights issue.

F. Rep. Jack Cairnes

Agree with the comments of Rep. Thomas. He was concerned about the limitation on the lifestyle of some of the state's citizens. A large portion of the state's land mass is either in public hands or restricted by regulations to the extent that it cannot be developed. There are a range of interests in using land, from those who only want to live in an apartment to those who want to have a small acreage. Those supporting Ref. 48 were not asking for a guarantee on their investment, just an opportunity to use their property.

Rep. Cairnes also expressed concern about the authority of the GMHBs. He thought that the boards essentially had veto authority over local governments. HE did recognize that there was a legitimate interest in state oversight.

G. Rep. Jim Horn

Rep. Horn noted that he was a co-sponsor of GMA and was on the conference committee. GMA is simple in concept, but has proven to be more difficult to implement. For example, the Boeing Company believes that the most important element it needs in order to build its next product in this state is assurance that government will act in a time certain.

He also expressed concern that integrated planning might be used as a way to obtain unfair concessions from an applicant in exchange for expedited processing. He also expressed concern about the way the GMHBs had exercised their authority. Local governments should have the ability to make decisions that make the most sense for their communities.

H. Rep. Nancy Rust

Agrees with many of the statements of previous legislators. We were 20 years late in adopting the GMA. But, that does not mean that we should destroy the GMA now. Time certainty for permit decisions, whether the answer is yes or no is important. Ref. 48 was really an effort to gut the GMA. The fact that it lost by as much as it did is an indication that the public wants planned growth. There may be some legitimate concerns with the current system, probably with small developers. More flexibility to deal with their concerns may help address these particular problems.

It is important to compare the process before the GMHBs with that of the Shoreline Hearings Board. Under the SMA, Ecology must approve shoreline plans. In order to give local governments more control in growth management, there is no similar requirement for the GMA. The GMHBs serve an important role in providing some state consistency and that cannot be lost. There may be some changes in tax policy with respect to taxation of property that might deal with some of the impacts of the GMA.

V. Public Comment

There was no public comment.

V. Report of the Chair

A. Sen. Sheldon sent a letter to the Commission recommending the Commission look at the takings issue.

B. The Chair has scheduled a meeting with Rep. Marlin Appelwick, Ranking Minority Leader.

C. The Chair is working on a draft of operating principles based on the B.C. model Jerry Cormick handed out at the last meeting. One issue that is of some concern is how the budget will be handled. The Chair hopes that CTED will continue to be responsible for making the budget decisions. Mr. Campbell said CTED would do so.

D. The Chair asked how members wanted to handle public comment on the Commission's proposed workplan. She has suggested to AWB that it submit any of its comments to the Commission by December 12th and thought the Commission might want to set aside some time for public comment. Mr. Dearborn said he would also like to hear from other groups, such as cities and counties and the environmental community. There was agreement that this would be useful. There was a general agreement that it might be difficult to get representatives from these different groups at the hearing on a short time frame. There was also a sense that it would take more than one meeting to hear from these different groups. The Commission agreed that a public comment plan would be developed as part of the workplan.

Mr. Reinert noted that the members of the State Land Planning Commission, an effort from the 1970s at writing a state land use code, were scheduled to speak to the Commission at its December 12th meeting. If more time is to be allotted for public comment, it might be necessary to reschedule this presentation.

Mr. Husseman said he thought the Commission would be better able to developed a detailed workplan after it hears more of the background information and hears more about the implementation of ESHB 1724. He was not concerned that it might take a couple of months before the Commission is ready to develop its detailed workplan.

The Chair said she sensed a consensus that Commission should take more public comment and additional presentations. At the meeting on December 12th she thought the Commission could start refining its workplan, but did not expect that it would be approved. She would like to at least get some sense of where the Commission expects to go in the first part of 1996, particularly as the Legislature starts its work.

VI. Staff Report

A. Housekeeping Amendments

Mr. Reinert discussed some housekeeping amendments that have been brought to the attention of staff and to other involved in the drafting of ESHB 1724. He suggested one reason the Commission might want to consider sponsoring housekeeping legislation would be to have a presence in the Legislature for the 1996 session. Of the amendments described, only one might present some potential criticism. The law prior to ESHB 1724 required a decision on plats to be made either within 30 days or 90 days, for short plats and long plats respectively. These time periods were not changed by ESHB 1724. This may present some difficulty for integration into the 120 time period established for other permit decisions. However, any change in these time periods may lengthen the time for approval of plat decisions and that may bring opposition. The staff will prepare legislation for the Commission's consideration at its December 12 meeting.

Mr. Husseman thought it would be a good idea for the Commission to pursue this legislation, both because no one else is likely to do it and because it would give the Commission a presence in the Legislature. Mr. Dearborn asked whether there were other amendments that had been not been included. He said he was aware that there may be some refinements needed in the things that count on the clock and those that do not. Mr. Dunn said he thought the Commission should check with the various groups involved with the drafting of ESHB 1724 to get their reaction to the proposed amendments and what additional corrections might be necessary.

There were some concerns that working on a housekeeping measure would divert attention away from the Commission's other work. The Chair asked whether there were other entities that would be willing to take the lead on such a bill. Mr. Reinert expressed some doubt about that possibility. While others may be willing to assist, he thought it would be more difficult to find someone to take the lead. The Chair said she thought it would be helpful to have the legislative members on board when the Commission takes its action on this issue. Mr. Reinert said that was a possibility, but that it would depend on the commitment of the House and Senate leadership to making appointments relatively quickly. That would depend on their commitment to the Commission's work.

Mr. Campbell thought that as long as the bill is not controversial, it would not take much of the Commission's time to develop and get the proposal through the Legislature. Mr. Husseman said that the bill should be strictly housekeeping and that any issues that were borderline should be left out.

The Commission concluded that it should continue to pursue the housekeeping measure, but that it would consult broadly on the proposed amendments and see if there are additional amendments.

B. 1996 Legislative Session

Mr. Dunn asked whether the staff would be able to prepare some summary of bills that relate to the commission's work. Mr. Reinert said the staff would work with CTED and other agencies and provide members of the Commission with the information they needed.

C. Email Address

Mr. Reinert announced that the Commission now has an email address: landuse@wln.com. He said the staff would be working to provide information through email to those members of the Commission and to the public.

VII. Draft Criteria for Evaluation of a State Land Use Code

A. Mr. Campbell presented a draft of criteria for evaluating a state land use code. He said he was trying to come up with criteria against which the Commission could test a state land use code to know when it had achieved success. He said that one could think of these as a problem statement as well as a set of principles. He said he tried to avoid the substantive goals approach of the GMA and focus instead on what would be of significance to a state land use code. The focus is therefore more at the state and regional level than at the local level. He said the overall goal was essentially "flexible certainty."

B. Mr. Dearborn said this was what he hoped we would get as a start. He hoped to end up with criteria that the Commission could measure proposals against to determine whether there was an improvement. He thought it might even be possible to put a point score on some of the criteria. Some of the proposals he saw a givens, really matters of principle. He thought there should be five or ten standards that the Commission would measure every proposal against, such as the idea that there should be no unfunded mandates.

C. Ms. Ordon asked what Mr. Campbell envisioned as the relative state and local roles. Mr. Campbell said that the phrase "flexible certainty" was an indication of the tension between the local and state roles. He said that was one of the issues that the Commission would need to work through because current law is not very clear on this issue. Ms. Ordon also suggested that there needed to be recognition of tribal interests in some of the provisions.

D. Mr. Dunn said he saw these criteria as being part of a two step process. The first is the direction to consolidate statutes. The second is an evaluation of existing laws and how well they are working. He wondered whether there might be different criteria applicable to each of these steps. The Chair noted that at the last meeting Ed McGuire said that Pierce County was taking a staged process to integrating its ordinances was to first just put all of the statutes in a consolidated code as the first step. She thought this might be a manageable task for the next year. Mr. Dunn said that Dick McCann had made very similar comments about his experience in trying to put together a single code.

VIII. The meeting adjourned at 11 a.m.

The next meeting is scheduled for December 12, 1995 at 1 p.m. at the Puget Sound Regional Council.