I. Meeting convened at 12:30 p.m.

A.Members Present:

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

B. Staff Present:

Harry Reinert, Julie Knackstedt, and Chris Parsons.

II. Chair's Report

A. February 9, 1996 Special Meeting

The Commission held a special meeting on February 9 to hear from Stuart Meck, principal investigator for the Growing Smart project sponsored by the American Planning Association. The project is devising different models of land use codes that might be adopted around the country.

Mr. Meck told the Commission that in many respects Washington State is ahead of where other states are. He was not sure that Washington would get as much benefit from their work. He did mention that the project is looking not only at planning issues, but that it will also address infrastructure and financing issues.

The Commission will receive information from the project as it is made available.

B. Statutory Consolidation Workplan/Steering Committee

The Chair noted that she had met with Mr. Dearborn, Mr. Dunn, and Ms. Ordon on two occasions to help develop one of the workplan items. She said that in addition to working on the workplan, she had found this group useful in organizing other aspects of the Commission's work. She said that she would be suggesting a change to the operating procedures to allow the appointment of a steering committee. She will propose that Mr. Campbell be added to the group with which she has been meeting.

C. Public Comment Plan

The chair has been working with the steering committee to develop a plan for receiving public comment. This has led to development of a scoping document which is on the agenda for discussion. The Commission will also need to consider how it wants to reach out to communities outside of the central Puget Sound.

D. Legislative Matters

Mr. Dearborn spoke to the House Government Operations Committee. He informed the Committee about the general nature of the Commission's work to date.

III. Staff Report

Mr. Reinert provided the Commission with a list of bills dealing with growth management or environmental statutes that were still under active consideration in the legislature. He mentioned that one bill which had passed the Senate directed the Commission to conduct a study of ways to avoid land use disputes and to encourage alternative dispute resolution as a means for resolving land use disputes.

IV. Advisory Committee Reports

A. Finance Advisory Committee

Chris Parsons handed out a list of members of the advisory committee and summarized the discussion at the first meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for February 15. The committee is collecting information about current and prior efforts at integrating planning and environmental review. It has established two work groups. One will look at financing alternatives, the other at the costs of conducting environmental analysis.

B. Professional Certification Advisory Committee

Ms. Dietrich said the advisory committee had been scheduled to meet on January 29, but had to cancel the meeting because of snow. The Committee has been in touch with the staff of the Board for Registration of Engineers and Surveyors and the State Building Code Council. Ms. Dietrich is also working on identifying membership. She has also prepared a proposed workplan that is geared towards making recommendations to the Commission by July.

C. Monitoring Advisory Committee

Mr. Burch said the Committee met just prior to the meeting. The Committee established two work groups. One will be looking at the local government permit process, the other at the vesting issue.

Mr. Campbell asked whether the Committee would be looking at other issues, such as the effectiveness of existing statutes such as the GMA, SEPA, and the SMA. This is one of the tasks given to the Commission. The Chair thought these tasks would be handled by the statutory revisions advisory committee.

Permit Monitoring Workgroup — The Permit Monitoring Workgroup, which Mr. Burch will chair, will be meeting in the next few weeks with the cities and counties, planning directors, Ecology, the business community, and neighborhood and environmental groups. The Workgroup is looking at identifying a limited number of jurisdictions to study and then drawing upon individuals and groups from those jurisdictions to assist in conducting the study.

One issue the Workgroup considered was how to develop the baseline data. It has tentatively concluded that it should rely on the individual jurisdictions to provide this information, with comments from the local community.

Mr. Dunn will chair the Vesting Workgroup. He said that the vesting study is still in the formative stages. He invited any Commissions members, and anyone else who was interested, to work with him. He and the staff are exploring the possibility of working with the College of Architecture and Urban Planning at the University of Washington to do some of the research this study will require.

Commissioner Best asked whether this research would be coordinated with the work of the permit monitoring workgroup. Mr. Dunn said that to the extent that it could be, it would.

V. Public Comment

There was no public comment.

VI. Action Items

A. Summary of Meeting — There were no changes to the summary.

B. Operating Procedures

The Chair said the staff had revised the procedures in light of the discussion at the last meeting. The changes were indicated on the document with deletions shown by strikeout and additions in bold and underlined. She noted that she had requested one addition — the appointment of a steering committee. She asked for comments.

The group agreed to the addition of the steering committee. The members, in addition to the Chair, are: Ms. Ordon, Mr. Dunn, Mr. Dearborn, and Mr. Campbell

Mr. Herrick asked about the definition of consensus. He said his understanding was that the Commission would be agreeing to a package as a whole. If a member were asked whether he or she agreed with everything in the package, the response might be that there were some things the member did not care for, but taken as a whole, the member supported the recommendation. Would this be an appropriate response under those circumstances?

The Chair said she thought the Commission would be agreeing to a package. Without necessarily imposing a "gag" rule, members should not argue against specific aspects of the total package if they have agreed to the whole.

Commissioner Best suggested rephrasing the goal of achieving consensus should be stated in the affirmative. Mr. Dearborn thought the provision should also be expanded to include other reports or recommendations of the Commission in addition to its recommendation for a consolidated land use procedure. He also expressed some concern about statement that there could be no public expression of dissent. Mr. Dunn said it was important that members lend active support to the Commission recommendations. Modifications were made to the operating procedures based on these comments.

Mr. Dearborn asked whether a continuation of a meeting was considered a special meeting that would require at least 24 hours notice under the open meetings act. Mr. Prud'homme indicated that additional notice was not necessary.

Mr. Herrick asked what actions an alternate member could take. The Chair said the alternate could participate in discussions, but would not be able to either give assent or refuse assent to an item that was before the Commission for action. The operating procedures were modified to clarify that an alternate could participate in discussion.

The Chair asked whether the operating procedures as revised were acceptable to the Commission members.

Mayor Hansen said he continued to have reservations about the consensus process. He stated that he had never participated in this type of process before. He was concerned that without knowing the end product he would be constrained from disagreeing with the recommendation or expressing his own opinion. The Chair asked if changing the sentence to read that unanimity was the goal would resolve these concerns. Mr. Reinert noted that subsection C. on the next page had a more specific definition of consensus.

The Chair noted that Karen Lane had emphasized the how important the consensus process was in getting the Regulatory Reform Task Force's recommendations enacted. She felt that the Commission's recommendations would be much enhanced if they were arrived at by consensus.

Mayor Hansen said he felt more comfortable with the process where a vote is taken, the issue resolved, and then the group moves on to the next issue. The Chair said that many Commission members had not previously participated in the consensus process and that it would be a learning experience for all. She pointed out that the procedures provide a mechanism for reporting on those areas where a consensus cannot be reached. In those instances, members would not be subject to any restraints on their actions, since there was no consensus.

Ms. Collins said that public interest groups are frequently on the losing end of many issues, so she thought it was important that the Commission attempt to arrive at its recommendations through the consensus process. She said this would also serve as a model for what the Commission would likely be asking the public to do through integration of SEPA and GMA.

Mr. Hansen said he was unable to agree to the operating procedures if they provided for a consensus process. He was not aware that this was going to be a ground rule for serving on the Commission. Since he does not know what the ultimate recommendation of the Commission will be, he thought it would be similar to signing a blank check.

Mr. Husseman noted that the procedures provided that all members must agree to a recommendation. If a member is unable to agree, it is incumbent on the other members to try to find a way to bring that member into consensus. Mr. Hansen thought this might essentially neutralize the Commission's work, making it difficult to develop any meaningful recommendations. Mr. Dearborn noted that the procedures do allow the Commission to report on the issues about which consensus is not reached.

The Chair asked whether Mayor Hansen was advocating for voting. He said he did not want to control the process for the other members. He said that since the majority of the members agreed to a consensus process, he wanted the record to show that he did not agree with the process. No other members raised any objections to the operating procedures. The Commission will operate under the procedures while it attempts to resolve the concerns raised by Mayor Hansen.

C. Commission Organization

1. Organization Chart

The Chair noted that at the last meeting the Commission had reviewed an organization chart proposed by Mr. Burch. She said the steering committee thought it might help to separate the structural elements from the process elements. She discussed a revised organization chart that was provided to the Commission.

Mr. Campbell said he was convening a meeting of state and local government staff to begin looking at how to evaluate existing state land use and environmental laws. He wondered how that task fit in with the proposed statutory review advisory committee and its look at ways to consolidate and integrate existing laws. The Chair suggested that this task could be included under the Statutory Review Advisory Committee.

The Chair asked whether there were any objections to the organization chart, as revised. There were no objections.

2. Process Chart

Mr. Reinert reviewed a proposed chart outlining the process for Commission consideration of issues. One concern raised at the last meeting was how the public fit into the Commission's process. He thought this was something that needed further development. The Chair suggested the Commission could review this at its next meeting along with a proposed plan for taking public comment.

3. Finance Advisory Committee

Discussion of the Advisory Committee's membership and workplan were postponed until the March meeting to allow consideration of both at the same time.

4. Professional Certification Advisory Committee

The chair suggested the workplan should include consideration of the liability, impartiality, and accountability of the certified individual. Mr. Dearborn suggested that Committee should look at the informal mechanisms local governments currently use. He also suggested that there might some subject areas which are more amenable to a certification process. The workplan as revised was approved.

VII. Discussion Items

A. Criteria for Review of Recommendations

The Chair reviewed the changes to the criteria since the Commission's last consideration at its meeting on November 29. One change was to rephrase the criteria as questions, rather than as statements. This recognizes that the Commission will need to balance competing interests.

Mr. Dunn suggested the criteria should be sent out to the Commission's mailing list and invite comment on them.

Mr. Husseman asked how the Commission would be using these criteria. He could see looking at these towards the end of the process to compare the package the commission is considering fits with the criteria. Mr. Dearborn thought that the criteria might be used in checklist fashion. Advisory committees make their reports to the Commission with these criteria in mind. Mr. Moseley thought many of the criteria asked for judgments that are not quantifiable. The Chair agreed. She thought advisory committees and the Commission should keep the criteria in mind as they develop and review recommendations. They can serve as an aid to focus commission decision making.

Mayor Hansen thought question 5, relating to the financial impact on local governments, might need to be rephrased. Other questions tended to favor positive answers. He suggested a positive answer to this question would generally not be appropriate. Mr. Dearborn noted that he had suggested adding this question because he recognized that impacts on local governments needed to be considered. Mayor Hansen suggested that impacts on the private sector should also be addressed.

Mr. Campbell expressed some concern that question 1 had been rephrased to remove the emphasis on growth management as providing the framework for the Commission's work. He expressed concern that this might lead revisiting the entire framework of the GMA. The Chair said she had suggested this change. She thought the GMA's emphasis was on planning. She did not intend to suggest that the underlying principles of GMA should be changed. But, an integrated statute might have additional elements that might not fit neatly into that limited framework. She was concerned the previous version prejudged the outcome. Mr. Campbell agreed that the Commission needed to be flexible in its approach, but because of all the work that has gone into GMA planning over the last five years, he wanted to make sure that the basic framework of GMA would stay in place.

The criteria will be circulated with the agenda for the Commission's March meeting. The staff will prepare a memorandum explaining the purpose of the criteria and invite comment.

B. Scoping Document

The Chair explained that the Steering Committee thought a scoping document would be a useful tool to direct the comments of the various groups that the Commission invites to make comments to the Commission. She said a number of the items were designed to elicit comments and were intended to be provocative. The document would be circulated to the public for comment.

She said the document was broken down into several broad categories — planning, permitting, and appeals — and a miscellaneous category. She invited comments and suggestions from the Commission members.

Commissioner Best suggested that there should be some recognition of the need for fairness and equity for property owners.

The Chair suggested that in light of the SSB 6637, which would ask the Commission to look at Alternative Dispute Resolution, that the ADR issue should be explicitly included in the document. The group concurred.

Mayor Hansen asked the purpose of the document. He thought there were a number of items that might exceed the charge of the Commission. The Chair said that she has come to the conclusion that there is a wide range of opinions about what the Commission's charge is. She said one purpose of the scoping document is to put as many of those ideas as possible on the table for discussion. The Commission would then be able to narrow the list down to something manageable and consistent with expectations.

Mayor Hansen said that some of the ideas mentioned in the document seemed to be going in the opposite direction for what he thought was the Commission's overall objective, to consolidate and simplify the land use process. He thought a state land planning commission was this type of idea. The Chair said that some introductory text would be helpful to clarify the intent. She also noted that some people think that strengthening the state's role in some aspects of the land use process would simplify the process.

Mr. Dearborn noted that Mr. Meck identified a continuum of options for balancing state and local interests. Mr. Dearborn thought the current system was unacceptable and did not serve anyone well. He thought the Commission needed to examine a variety of alternatives, including giving a state agency greater rule making authority as a way to achieve greater consistency between jurisdictions. The idea of establishing a state land planning commission was one way to examine that issue. Mr. Dearborn did think that the idea of the relative roles of state and local governments was addressed in some of the other questions.

Mr. Campbell said introducing the issue of a state planning commission might detract from some of the other questions. He did not think it was necessary to get at the issues the question was intended to address. The Commission agreed to delete the question.

Mr. Dunn said he liked the document. He thought it would stimulate discussion from the various groups that are waiting for an opportunity to address the Commission. He thought the Legislature was looking to the Commission not just to consolidate existing laws, but also to evaluate existing processes and suggest improvements.. He agreed that the Commission would need to narrow its focus and the scoping document would help achieve this.

Commissioner Best suggested that there needed to be greater recognition of regional planning issues. A question will be added to address this issue.

Mr. Moseley and Mayor Hansen expressed some concern about the discussion of revenue sharing. Mayor Hansen thought the question implied there was a governmental entity that had excess revenue and share it. He did not question that counties in particular might not need additional revenue. He said local governments do not generally have any excess revenue to share. Mr. Moseley expressed some doubt as to whether this topic was within the scope of the Commission's charge. The Chair suggested that there has been a breakdown of the planning process in some areas where fiscal planning has not been adequately addressed.

Mr. Campbell said one did not need to think of the question as taking existing revenue from the cities. He thought the idea was to consider ways that new revenue could be generated and shared among jurisdictions. He said good planning was often made subservient to the need of a local government to generate additional revenue. He thought there was a need to look at the way that revenue generating options available to local governments affected land use planning. Mr. Moseley thought that was a good way of phrasing the issue. The group concurred.

Commissioner Best said that the issue was really on how to provide cost-effective services. Mr. Dunn said the issue might be considered as to how to finance those services. The Chair noted the example of the Chicago suburbs mentioned by Mr. Meck. After the success of one large shopping mall, shopping malls have proliferated because they are seen as the way to generate revenue. This is not necessarily good land use planning.

Commissioner Best also suggested that there needed to be some reference to sustainable development and a sustainable environment. Mayor Hansen suggested that there also needed to be some recognition of the need for job creation as an integral part of economic development. He said this might become even more important as the federal and state governments consider welfare reform proposals. The group concurred with Commissioner Best's and Mayor Hansen's changes.

Mr. Herrick reminded the members that Mr. Chapin had said one of the mistakes the State Land Planning Commission made was to try to do too much. He said the Commission would need to be sure to narrow the list over time.

Mr. Dearborn suggested that the document should at least list the statutes the Commission was considering including as part of the consolidation effort. He thought GMA, SEPA, SMA, and the hydraulics code should be included. Commissioner Best noted that the Governor's press release had mentioned the Forest Practices as well. Mr. Dearborn noted that this was probably a reference to Class IV forest conversions. There was also a suggestion that city and county planning enabling statutes and statutes governing special purpose districts should be included.

C. Permit Monitoring Workgroup

Mr. Rick Smith handed out a draft workplan for the permit monitoring workgroup. He said the workgroup had met just prior to the Commission meeting. The workgroup concluded that it should identify a mix of jurisdictions to analyze the permit process. It will work with the cities and counties to identify some likely candidate jurisdictions. From each jurisdiction, it hoped to get a local government, a citizen, and a business or developer representative to help review the information. The workgroup will first need to develop baseline data.

Commissioner Best asked how the workgroup planned to identify the jurisdictions that it would sample. He suggested that it needed to be a statistically significant sample. Mr. Smith said the sampling within individual jurisdictions could be done based on statistical methods, but that selecting the jurisdictions probably could not be.

Mr. Moseley mentioned that there had been some talk of looking at the cities of Spokane, Richland or Kennewick, Olympia, Tacoma, Bellevue, and Everett. Counties which might be considered included King, Clark, Yakima or Walla Walla, Skagit, and Jefferson.

Ms. Collins asked how pubic participation would be integrated into this process. Mr. Dearborn said that there should be a citizen representative from each of the jurisdictions that are being evaluated.

The Chair said this workplan would be put on the next Commission agenda as an action item. If the membership list is available, it could also be listed as an action item.

D. The Chair reviewed a memorandum from Ms. Ordon, who was unable to attend the meeting, discussing the workplan element she had been asked to review. This dealt with the ways to integrate procedures, analysis, and documents required under both GMA and SEPA. Ms. Ordon's memorandum suggested that this task was linked to the effort to consolidate existing statutory provisions. The review called for should be conducted at the same time as that consolidation effort.

E. Public Disclosure Act Rules

The Chair referred the Commission to a memorandum from Tommy Prud'homme, the Commissions Attorney General, that discussed the Commission's responsibilities under the Public Disclosure Act. It appears that the Commission needs to adopt rules governing access to it public records. She has asked Mr. Prud'homme to work with the Commission's staff to develop draft rules which the Commission could review at its March meeting.

F. Public Participation

The Chair will be sending a letter to the Legislative leadership inviting them to appoint members to the Legislative Sounding Board. She said that the Commission might want to consider what additional sounding boards it wanted to create, although this could be done later. Mr. Dunn said there was interest in the environmental community is creating a sounding board of environmental interests. Mr. Dearborn expressed concern that sounding boards might be used as a way to circumvent the advisory committee process. He thought they should be used very selectively.

The Chair said she would work with staff to develop a plan to hear from different groups over the next three or four months. She said this might include, in addition to presentations at the Commission's monthly meeting, a public hearing that might also involve a teleconference hearing. This would enable the Commission to hear from people in other parts of the state.

Mr. Moseley suggested that the city and county planning association should be invited.

VIII. Adjournment — The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.