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, Terry Husseman, David Moseley, and David Roseberry.

B. Staff Present:

Harry Reinert, Julie Knackstedt, and Chris Parsons.

II. Chair's Report

A. The Chair noted that the Commission's meeting was being taped for broadcast by TV Washington. She briefly explained the Commission's history and its overall purpose.

B. The Chair noted that she had invited each of the legislative caucuses to appoint two members to the legislative sounding board approved by the commission at its last meeting. She noted that Representative Scheuerman, from Tacoma, was in the audience and was hoping to be appointed as one of the House Democratic Caucus representatives.

III. Staff Report

Mr. Reinert briefly described five bills that had passed the legislature dealing with the Growth Management Act or SEPA. The bills were: SB 6424, airport siting; HB 2467, industrial developments; HB 2394, master planned resorts; HB 2828, cellular tower siting; and SB 6637, GMHB authority and procedure. Mr. Reinert noted that SB 6543, the housekeeping amendments that the Commission had reviewed at its January meeting, did not pass.

IV. Comments from Mr. Campbell

Mr. Campbell advised the Commission that Taiwan Semiconductor had announced that it would be locating a major new plant in Camas, Washington. The project resulted from a partnership between the state and local governments. In part, the project was enabled by previous work done on wetlands integration by a number of state agencies. Comprehensive planning, including a capital facilities plan, were integral to making Camas a viable site.

V. Natural Resource Agency Panel

Mary Riveland, Director, Department of Ecology; Kayleen Cottingham, Supervisor, Department of Natural Resources; Eric Slagle, Assistant Secretary for Environmental Programs and Health, Department of Health; and Martin Baker, Assistant Director for Habitat, Department of Fish and Wildlife.

A. Mr. Campbell introduced the panel.

He said state agencies had a lot to offer in terms of the lessons that had been learned over the past several years. Since state agencies are often bound by both federal requirements and judicial decisions, they frequently have to deal with complexities that are not apparent on the surface. He said that he has been very impressed at the quality of state agency work in this arena.

B. Mary Riveland — Department of Ecology

Ecology's long term goal is to help citizens, local governments, and businesses in the state to be environmental stewards. Ecology attempts to achieve this goal through assistance to local governments in making their land use decisions, creating local action teams, developing an integrated information system, emphasizing pollution prevention, and providing information to the public.

These issues present a challenge to both Ecology and the Commission in its goal of integrating land use and environmental statutes. Director Riveland said she would focus on three areas that were important issues from Ecology's perspective.

SEPA and the Shoreline Act have unique characteristics that need to be retained in any integration. SEPA provides a safety net to address unanticipated environmental impacts. It also provides the framework for environmental review in non-GMA jurisdictions. It is the means for reviewing non-project actions for their impact on the environment. It is the framework for coordinated analysis of projects that affect multiple jurisdictions, such as the Olympic Pipeline. It is the framework for reviewing major projects with major impacts, such as Battle Mountain Gold Mine. And, it provides the framework for incorporating state concerns into major federal projects.

The SMA provides the framework for implementing the state's responsibilities under the Pubic Trust Doctrine. It establishes the use priorities for the shorelines. It also establishes specific policies to protect the shorelines. It establishes a framework for a state/local partnership for shoreline planning, permitting, and enforcement. It also establishes statewide requirements that apply in both GMA and non-GMA jurisdictions. There are specific protections related to ocean resources and oil and gas exploration. The SMA also meets the federal Coastal Zone Management Act requirements and enables the state to receive federal CZMA grants for local government planning. This CZMA consistency also allows the state to review federal projects to assure their consistency with approved shoreline plans.

Ecology is actively working on implementing HB 1724. It has set up a joint committee with DCTED to develop SEPA rule amendments. It is also providing guidance to local governments to assist them in implementing the permit process requirements of 1724.

Ecology is also working on SMA amendments to implement the changes required by HB 1724. It is developing a manual for a uniform approach to wetlands delineation. It is also developing revised SMA rules and will be sending those out for public comment in the near future.

The Permit Assistance Center has been established and has had over 750 customers to date. Feedback has been very positive. The coordinated permit process has been established. It will be tested out on the Battle Mountain Gold Mine project.

1994 legislation had encouraged Ecology to develop facility-wide permits that would combine a number of different agency operating permits into one process. That has so far proven not to be as useful as the coordinated permit process for development permits.

It will probably not be until this fall that it will be possible to really know what aspects of HB 1724 are working and what needs to be adjusted. It is likely that the biggest roadblock to fulfilling the promise of HB 1724 is the lack of funds for local governments to do early environmental review that has sufficient detail to be useful during the permitting process.

Director Riveland suggested that there should be a review of the substantial development permits under the SMA. She said the current standard which focuses on the cost of the improvement should be changed to one that focuses on the probable impact to the shoreline.

The issue of water availability is one that HB 1724 did not address and it is also given brief mention in the Commission's draft scoping document. Land use plans too often are developed without attention the water availability. It is no longer safe to assume that water will always be available.

Water availability assessment during GMA planning should be strengthened to assure that water and wastewater infrastructure is already in place or can be afforded. California has recently passed legislation with this type of requirement. There is also a need to pay attention to cross-jurisdictional issues, to understand how water use in one jurisdiction affects neighboring ones.

Scoping Document Issues — The question of infrastructure continues to be one of the biggest challenges facing local governments. The GMA can be a tool to more efficiently use limited resources by assuring that growth occurs where there is adequate infrastructure or where it can be provided most efficiently.

The Commission should keep in mind the distinction between streamlining SEPA procedures from changing the substance of environmental review. There will always be a need for environmental review. As that review is integrated into the planning and permitting processes of local governments, fewer projects may require review in addition to what has already been done, but this will depend on the nature of the proposal and the quality of the environmental review that has been done earlier in the process.

The Commission has asked the question of whether SEPA and SMA still provide value. Director Riveland said that there are elements of both statutes that need to be retained.

Questions - Mr. Dearborn expressed some concern that although Ecology has in some cases been willing to assist in streamlining SEPA procedures, but that sometimes the process that Ecology has used may not be strictly permitted under the SEPA WACs. He hoped that in a future presentation Ecology could talk about how it attempts to assist local governments in handling complex projects.

C. Kayleen Cottingham — Supervisor, Department of Natural Resources

DNR has been actively involved in the GMA planning process from the start. DNR has seven regions and has staff in each region who can work individually with local governments. There is also a central office in Olympia to establish departmental policy and provided guidance to regional offices and local governments.

The initial focus of DNR's participation was in identifying forest lands and mineral resource lands as well as identifying geologically hazardous areas. DNR has also provided some assistance from its GIS databases.

DNR provides local governments guidelines that it uses to review local government comprehensive plans. It uses these guidelines to determine whether DNR needs to become more actively involved in the local planning process and whether to appeal a plan. The guidelines have specific recommendations for the designation of forest resource lands, agricultural resource lands, and mineral resource lands. Protective measures for these lands are also recommended.

DNR is also a proprietor of lands. It has reminded local governments that DNR lands cannot be treated differently from property of others.

DNR has a regulatory role in some cases, but it is not the decision maker as far as land use is concerned. One significant area concerns forest practices. In rural or urbanizing areas, property owners sometimes mistakenly believe that once they have permission from the local government to subdivide a parcel, they can cut trees without a permit. In addition, others sometimes believe that the requirement for a permit can be used as a way to reopen the land use decision made by the local government.

Counties have varying abilities to deal with forest conversions and SEPA. This poses a challenge to DNR in dealing with these different jurisdictions.

There are discrepancies between urban growth boundaries identified under the GMA and the boundaries for resources of commercial significance. Ms. Cottingham suggested it would be helpful if these boundaries were matched up.

Under existing law, local governments do not have authority to regulate practices on commercial forest lands if the property owner claims that the land will remain in commercial production for at least 10 years. This is of concern to some local governments, particularly when the lands are located within a highly urbanized area.

Scenic and aesthetic issues are becoming of increasing concern. DNR is increasingly asked to regulate practices based on these concerns, even though it does not have any existing authority to do so.

Another area of confusion is the relationship between forest practices and SEPA. The Forest Practices Board has authority to determine whether certain forest practices are subject to SEPA. One is the conversion of forest lands. The determination is dependent on the intent of the land owner. Forest practices on lands that are platted after January 1, 1960 are subject to SEPA review. Finally, practices that will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Currently, this includes activities that may impact an endangered or threatened species and activities on steep and unstable slopes.

Another area of frustration for applicants and the state agencies are the times for making decisions. The current requirement is that a permit decision must be made within 14 days. This makes it difficult for many other agencies and local governments to get their conditions and issues to DNR in time.

The Timber, Fish, and Wildlife Working Group has been attempting to deal with the issue of conversions. There is a current proposal that may deal with some of the issues. The hope is that an agreement might be reached by June 30.

DNR regulates the reclamation of surface mines, but does not regulation either the location or operation of surface mines. This creates considerable confusion. Local governments have authority over location and some elements of the operation. Other operation regulations may be established by Ecology for water quality issues.

Questions — The Chair asked what recommendations Ms. Cottingham had that would help resolve some of these areas of confusion. Ms. Cottingham said that governance was one of the biggest problems. If an area is slated for urban development, the questions of forest practices are probably best addressed in the local government decision making process. In the forest environment, designated for long term forestry, DNR is still the major decision maker. The problems for the future will surround who should make decisions relating to forested areas which are undergoing pressure for development. Although only ten percent of permit applications are for class IV conversions, almost half of DNR staff time is spent on these applications. She also said that boundaries should be made consistent for multiple purposes. The urban growth boundaries should also be the boundaries for other purposes as well. She restated that there was a need for local governments to consult with DNR as a land owner when they are planning for lands that DNR owns.

Mr. Dearborn asked whether the Commission would have a role in helping to resolve issues surrounding Class IV general forest practices permits if the TFW working group reaches a consensus on these issues. Ms. Cottingham said that if an agreement is reached, the TFW working group should make certain that its recommendations are consistent with the work of the Commission, but the Commission may not need to spend much time on the issue. If the TFW process is not able reach agreement, the Commission may wish to examine the issues in greater detail to see if it might be able to resolve those issues.

The Chair suggested that the Commission should get a report on the TFW's progress in June to determine what the Commission needs to do.

D. Martin Baker

Assistant Director for Habitat, Department of Fish and Wildlife — Mr. Baker noted that the habitat program deals with a number of different issues. It has participated in the TFW process, watershed analysis efforts, the hydraulic permit program, land management for DFW habitat areas, and instream environments and fish habitat enhancement.

Fishing is a major industry in Washington. Approximately $1.2 billion is spent on commercial and sport fishing activities each year. There are about 11 million angler trips each year. There are 50,000 miles of rivers and streams, 7,000 lakes, and 3,000 miles of shoreline in the state.

The state operates a major hatchery program that is working towards supplementing natural spawning. The hydraulic code applies to any activity that diverts, uses, or obstructs, or makes any change to the flow of water or stream beds. The department issues up to 9,000 permits a year, which has doubled in the last five years. In the past, the department reviewed nearly every permit with the applicant. Now it is only able to do so with about fifty percent of the applicants.

DFW is using the Joint Aquatic Resources permit developed between Ecology and the Corps of Engineers. The hydraulics permit is generally the last permit issued. It is supposed to be issued within 45 days, but the department has a goal of issuing the permit within 30 days. Mineral prospecting accounts for most permit applications, with culverts and bridges and bank protection accounting for smaller numbers of applications.

The department has issued a pamphlet for mineral prospectors. A prospector may complete the application based on the information in the pamphlet and submit it to DFW. The department would like to use a similar process for other types of activities, but the requirements for adoption of rules makes it a burdensome process. It may take up to two years for the department to complete this type of process.

Flood protection is a continuing issue. This year has been particularly significant. Floods have an impact not only on the built environment, but also on fish habitat.

Forest practices can have a significant impact on fisheries resources and habitat. The department is actively involved in working with DNR and the forest industry to protect habitat.

Bulkheads present a challenge. Property owners frequently wish to add them as a way of protecting property. However, they can also have an adverse impact on fish habitat. The department is working on ways to use more natural means of protecting shorelines that do not have an adverse impact on fish habitat.

Stormwater. The department hopes that counties will adopt the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Manual. The department would then be willing to delegate authority over hydraulics permit decisions to those counties.

Culverts can be an impediment to fish passage. The department is working with transportation agencies and others to identify problem areas and develop designs that do not block fish.

The department is hoping to work with port districts and other developers to develop approaches to issuing hydraulic permits that will fit more closely with the construction cycle.

Questions — Mr. Dearborn asked about the department's authority to delegate hydraulic permit authority to counties that have adopted the water quality manual. Mr. Baker said the department in one instance has provided a letter stating that a hydraulic permit is not required for projects in the county since the county has adopted the manual. It has determined that requiring a permit would be duplicative. It believes that this is within the scope of authority given to it by the legislature. Mr. Baker noted that there was legislation introduced in the 1995 session that would have allowed the department to delegate hydraulic approval authority to local governments. Local governments realized that the workload would be significant. In addition, there are enough scientific issues that a certain level of expertise is important.

Mr. Husseman asked how the permit program is funded. Mr. Baker said the program is funded out of the state general fund. It is not fee supported.

E. Eric Slagle

Assistant Secretary for Environmental Health Programs, Department of Health — DOH has a relatively narrow area of concern with respect to land use issues: drinking water and on site sewage. DOH's primary concern is the protection of public health. Environmental Health focuses on a broad range of issues.

DOH has a unique relationship with local governments through the local health departments, which have primary responsibility for many health issues.

DOH regulates drinking water supply systems in the state. There are about 15,000 public water systems. Water quality and water quantity is an issue of concern to DOH with respect to these issues. There are a number of water system planning requirements that DOH oversees. These include both regional as well as individual water system planning requirements. The plans are also required to be consistent with GMA critical area requirements for aquifer recharge areas.

On site sewage is the other area closely connected to land use that DOH is involved in. Local health departments have primary responsibility for regulation on site sewage requirements. DOH provides policy assistance. On site sewage has an impact on both drinking water quality and shellfish.

DOH has undertaken a number of efforts to streamline the regulatory process. DOH is working towards clarifying areas of responsibility between state and local health departments. It is also working with other state agencies to coordinate regulatory efforts and looking at areas where it can reduce its workload. One area where it has made progress is the certification of water supply systems with state design requirements.

Mr. Slagle said one major challenge facing the state is how to assure water availability in the future. Public health problems with water in some areas are becoming significant.. In addition, the way in which public health issues are addressed can have an impact on growth patterns. When piped water is provided in an areas because of public health concerns, this may also result in pressure for allowing added development in the area. The proliferation of small water systems is also presenting significant problems.

Questions — Ms. Ordon asked about the funding of state programs that are delegated to local government. Mr. Slagle said local governments had to come up with their own fund sources, such as fees, to pay for their activities. The state does not provide any funds to support these activities.

F. Questions for State Agency Panel

The Chair asked whether there were any further ways to streamline the permit process, such as by combining permits. Mr. Baker noted that hydraulics permit was focused strictly on fish protection and might not be easily consolidated. Ms. Cottingham suggested that there should be a recognition of the differences between agency requirements imposed in their capacity as proprietors from those imposed when acting as regulators. In the forest practices arena, particularly in areas under development pressure, she said the first issue really needs to be who has responsibility for regulating the forest practices. Ms. Cottingham also noted that the Department of Revenue uses the forest practices permit to assure that it receives tax revenues for cut timber.

The chair asked about the availability of area wide permits. Ms. Riveland noted that several state agencies developed a joint aquatic resources permit that has worked well. She noted that as more permits are included in a single process, the process might become more expensive, to the point of being counter-productive..

Mr. Dunn asked the panel members to provide written comments on the issues they think are most important for the Commission to deal with. He also asked that agencies consider how well existing laws are working and make suggestions for areas where there could be some improvements.

The Chair added a request that there be consideration of the extent to which sewer and water district plans should be integrated into city and county GMA plans.

VI. Peter Riley, DCTED

Planning and Environmental Review Fund Grants — Mr. Riley described the grant program managed by DCTED. DCTED received 33 grant applications asking for between $19,000 and $500,000. One application was deemed not eligible because it focused on monitoring the impact of planning and feeding that back into the planning process. 24 contracts have been announced benefiting 40 jurisdictions. Mr. Riley noted that the projects require matching from the local government. In addition , there was an effort to encourage participation from private landowners.

VII. Public Comment

A. Conrad Hermsted

Mr. Hermsted said he was quite encouraged by the comments of Ms. Riveland about the necessity of connecting water availability with growth management planning. He said the Commission's work would only have lasting meaning if it addresses this issue. He said it was necessary to begin addressing the issue immediately.

B. Steve Clagett, 1000 Friends of Washington

Mr. Clagett noted that 1000 Friends was recommending that the Governor veto some provisions of SSB 6637 that 1000 Friends believe would undermine the effectiveness of the GMA. He noted that the provisions changing the authority of the board's to declare plans or regulations invalid would allow a minimum of 270 days for projects to vest before the board could take action on an ordinance that is out of compliance with the act.

The Chair noted that the Commission's procedures made it difficult for the Commission to respond before the Governor must act.

VIII. Advisory Committee Reports

A. Finance Advisory Committee

Chris Parsons, DCTED staff, summarized the Committee's meetings. The Committee is looking at information from California that may prove relevant. It has also formed two workgroups to focus on some specific issues. One is looking at finance alternatives and the other is developing principles to guide the selection of appropriate funding mechanisms.

B. Professional Certification Advisory Committee

Kathy Dietrich summarized the Commission's meeting on March 1. She said the Committee spent some time discussing the problem that the Committee was being asked to solve. She said unpredictability in permit requirements and timelines seemed to be one of the major concerns. She said she is interested in learning more about existing or developing programs for certification of professionals.

Mr. Dearborn suggested the Committee should look at the program Pierce County has instituted to simplify the process for delineating wetlands. It is short of a state certification program, but may have many of the advantages that people are looking to a certification program to provide. Ms. Dietrich said the Committee had shown a preference for that type of program.

The Chair said she thought it was important to focus on where the need was. This is similar to the process used in value engineering.

Mr. Best suggested the committee should look at financial responsibility issues. Ms. Dietrich said the Committee did have a representative from the insurance industry.

C. Monitoring Advisory Committee/Permit Monitoring Workgroup

Mr. Rick Smith, WSDOT, reviewed the proposed Committee membership list and its workplan. The workplan was essentially the same as the one presented at the Commission's February meeting, with a few date changes.

He said the Committee was proposing to sample a variety of jurisdictions, but that it would not necessarily be a statistically relevant sample. There had been a proposal to survey every jurisdiction, but the Committee decided to focus on a few sample jurisdictions.

He also noted the Committee report included some recommendations on the types of permits the Committee was proposing to look at. Mr. Best suggested that the Committee should look at hydraulics and forest practices permits. Mr. Dearborn said the Committee could see how the issuance of these permits is affecting other time lines. Mr. Reinert noted that the problem with the hydraulics permit was less with how long it took to have it issued than with where in the process it was issued. Mr. Dearborn said some local governments may try to argue that delay on the part of state agencies makes it impossible for them to meet the 120 day requirement. He thought any information the Committee could develop to help answer that question would be helpful. He also noted that there were proposals circulating in the Legislature requiring state agencies to comply with the 120 time period. He suggested that this was an issue that needed to be addressed sooner or later. Mr. Dearborn asked about water rights permits and whether they should also be included.

Mr. Best said there was not only a time line issue, but also a quality issue. He said the controversy over a project can significantly affect the process. Mr. Smith said the Committee hoped it would be able to answer those types of questions.

Ms. Ordon suggested that there might be some benefit in looking at the relationship between local permit processes and tribal permit requirements. The Tulalip Tribe has a coordinated plan that could be examined.

The Chair asked that the Committee show its questionnaire to the Commission. She felt it was important to assure that the right questions were being asked, including appropriate questions about the relationship between local permit processes and state agency permitting.

Mr. Smith reviewed the list of jurisdictions the Committee was proposing to work with. It had developed criteria for selecting appropriate jurisdictions. There was an effort to look at small and large, urban and rural jurisdictions. The Committee thought about including King County, but concluded that the circumstances there might be so unique that it would not be helpful.

Mr. Dearborn suggested that there should be some examination of jurisdictions which are not subject to GMA or have not adopted plans. He thought it would be a useful comparison.

D. Steering Committee

The Chair reviewed the changes to the scoping document made by the steering committee. At its last meeting, the Commission had reviewed a draft document and made a number of suggestions for changes. These have been incorporated into the revised document.

Mr. Moseley suggested that the issue of water resource management and availability could be given more visibility, particularly in light of the comments from Ms. Riveland. The Chair suggested that some additional language could be added in the permitting section to address these issues.

Ms. Ordon suggested that there were some other cooperative resource management processes that should be given some recognition, such as the Dungeness/Quilicene watershed management program. Mr. Roseberry cautioned that anything coming out of the Chelan Agreement, and dealing with water resources in general, would be controversial with Eastside legislators. He said that water resource management was a difficult issue.

Mr. Dunn and Mr. Best suggested that more emphasis should be place on regional planning and interjurisdictional coordination issues. Ms. Ordon suggested that akin to economic development there should be a recognition of the needs of resource based economies. Mr. Burch asked whether the term "essential public facilities" included transportation. He said that state transportation needed to be included in this concept.

IX. Action Items

A. Summary of February 9 meeting

There were no changes to the summary.

B. Finance Advisory Committee

Commissioner Best presented the Committee's revised workplan and its membership. He noted that the Committee is working closely with the 1724 SEPA Rule Committee to make sure that the two groups coordinate their efforts. He also said there was a real interest in being creative in developing new finance mechanisms. He said the membership included a broad cross-section of interests.

Mr. Dearborn said he wanted to know how much this would cost on a state-wide basis. He also said it was important to know how long it would take to put this planning process in place. He said that he would not be able to agree to any recommendations that put the entire burden on the private sector. There would have to be savings to the private sector that would offset any additional fees. He knows that is the theory of this process, but he is concerned about the practice.

Mr. Moseley said the flip side of Mr. Dearborn's comments was that local governments should not be made to pay these added costs either. Local governments are already spending considerable sums on the planning process.

Ms. Parsons noted that the Committee did have as part of its workplan the development of information that should answers Mr. Dearborn's questions. Mr. Reinert said that the Committee had discussed the question of what any additional fees would pay for and was in agreement that developers could not be expected to pay an additional fee without compensating savings elsewhere.

Mr. Dunn said he was also concerned, but about the quality of the environmental review that is being paid for. He also expressed some concern about the timeframe. He thought the workplan was ambitious.

The workplan and membership were approved as presented.

C. Professional Certification Advisory Committee

Mr. Dearborn suggested that the Committee check with Marsha Hadley of the Housing Partnership in King County. She has been working on a proposal that might allow a single family home designed by a licensed architect to be approved without further review.

The workplan and membership were approved.

D. Permit Monitoring Advisory Committee

Mr. Burch presented the workplan and advisory committee membership for approval. The Commission approved the workplan, but asked that the questionnaire be submitted to the Commission before it is mailed out.

The Commission discussed the jurisdictions suggested for sampling. After some discussion, the Commission recommended that the Committee expand the list of counties in light of the Commission's discussion. The Committee can begin working with the jurisdictions suggested for inclusion to start developing the workplan.

The membership was approved, with the understanding that as jurisdictions are identified, additional members, including representatives from the development community and the public, will be added.

E. Scoping Document

The Commission approved the scoping document, with changes based on its discussion. The Chair will work with the staff to revise the document. It will then be sent to the Commission's mailing list and provided to future panelists.

F. 1996 Meeting Schedule

The Chair reviewed the proposal for meetings for the next several months. Several members expressed concern about number of groups scheduled for each meeting. Mr. Dunn suggested that it was important to get as much information as soon as possible. There was a suggestion to add some meetings in May to take additional comments. The Chair said she would work with the Steering Committee to develop a revised schedule to accommodate those concerns.

G. Public Disclosure Act Rules

Mr. Reinert reviewed the draft rules for the Commission to comply with the public disclosure act. The Commission approved the draft and directed the staff to arrange to have them published.

X. Adjournment — The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.