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, Ed Hansen, and Kimberly Ordon. Also present: Phil Miller, Department of Ecology, Alternate for Terry Husseman

B. Staff Present:

Harry Reinert, Julie Knackstedt, and Chris Parsons.

II. Chair's Report

A. The Steering Committee has recommended a revised public meeting schedule, with meetings in Ellensburg, on May 1, and Everett, on May 2, added. The Commission will be inviting panels to make presentations at each meeting.

B. The Governor vetoed two sections in SSB 6637 and asked the Commission to address the issues those sections dealt with. One section concerned the Growth Management Hearings Boards' authority to invalidate comprehensive plans and development regulations. The other section dealt with the deference to be given local governments in the planning process. The Chair has had discussions with some steering committee members about how to proceed. She is recommending that either an advisory committee or a sounding board be established. She will be asking the steering committee to develop a proposal for recommendation to the Commission at its May 14 meeting.

III. Staff Report

Mr. Reinert reviewed bills that had passed the Legislature and been signed into law by the Governor. He noted HB 2394, which modified the requirements for master planned resorts, had been vetoed in its entirety. SB 6637 was partially vetoed. Another bill, which had not been brought to the commission's attention before, SB 6236, makes some changes to the time within which construction on a project covered by a substantial development permit must be begun.

IV. Briefing — Amendments to SEPA Rules — Neil Aaland, Department of Ecology, and Heather Ballash, Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development

A. Neil Aaland

ESHB 1724 directed Ecology and DCTED to develop rules to implement the changes to SEPA encompassed in the bill. The agencies appointed an advisory committee in the Fall to assist them in this task. The advisory committee has split into four subcommittees: one to address the combined local permit process, one on environmental information in the planning process, one to develop a revised SEPA checklist, and one, that has disbanded, that developed proposals for determining consistency. The advisory committee will be presenting a conceptual framework for SEPA rule changes at the end of April. Proposed rules will issued in the Summer with final rules to be adopted in the Fall.

ESHB 1724 required all local governments to implement a combined permit process by March 31. However, changes to the rule adoption process made by the 1995 legislature has made the process of adopting rules more time consuming. In addition, the agencies wanted to make sure that the changes were well thought out. The agencies concluded that they would not be able to adopt the rules by the March 31 implementation date. To assist local governments, the agencies have issued two guidance documents discussing the direction the rule adoption is taking. This should make it more likely that local procedures will be consistent with the final rules.

B. Heather Ballash

DCTED has been providing technical assistance and workshops to assist local governments in complying with the requirements of ESHB 1724.

One of the subcommittees has been developing a matrix of issues that should be considered at each level of the planning process to integrate environmental review. If this process is followed, project level review should not need to be as intense as it is currently. A new SEPA checklist is being developed as well.

C. Comment

The Chair asked that the SEPA rules committee work in conjunction with the Commission , to avoid duplicating efforts.

V. Growth Strategies Commission — Dick Ford, Chair, and Mary McCumber, Executive Director

A. Dick Ford

The Growth Strategies Commission started with the assumption that it is better to plan than not to plan. The real issues that needs to be solved are: how much planning, how oppressive is it, and how much do you impinge on people's rights. But planning is not enough.

Infrastructure is a fundamental part of how plans are carried out. The decisions on infrastructure can determine whether the plans are realistic. It is less efficient to provide the infrastructure over a wide area than over a smaller area. Spreading out growth can also have an adverse impact on the environment. Funding infrastructure has proven to be the biggest problem in implementing GMA plans. This is perhaps the biggest unmet task of the Growth Strategies Commission.

Related to this is the need to do good quality environmental review at the plan level, so that straightforward projects can proceed without unnecessary delay. In order to do this, local governments are going to need the resources to do that environmental review. The overall costs may be less under this type of system.

One other issue that has become increasingly important over the last several years is the availability of water.

B. Mary McCumber

Regulatory reform is a key element of improving the land use system. The experience from Oregon, where the homebuilders and 1000 Friends of Oregon jointly support growth management because it leads to faster permitting in the urban areas, is instructive.

One issue that deserves additional work is coordination between different units of government, both among local governments and between local government and the tribal governments. The GMA does not adequately address the issue of state planning and state goals. Transportation is addressed fairly completely, but other issues are not dealt with in much detail. Even though the Growth Strategies Commission promoted "bottoms-up planning," there needs to be predictability for local governments which would come from clearly stated state goals.

Another issue that needs to be addressed is how to handle major regional or state public facilities. The GMA provides little guidance on how the need for these facilities can be assessed and then how to handle questions of siting and impacts. Other funding issues that the Growth Strategies Commission looked at included funding for open space networks, affordable housing, and regional governments. An important aspect of any new process is a monitoring system to evaluate how well it is working.

C. Question

The premise of ESHB 1724 is that local governments should have the option of doing a detailed environmental analysis in conjunction with the plan. Should this be mandatory?

Dick Ford — It seems hard to believe that a local government could do a quality comprehensive plan, especially if it designates certain areas of growth or industrial development, without doing an environmental assessment to back up its planning decisions.

VI. Public Comment

A. Steve Clagett, 1000 Friends of Washington

Mr. Clagett said 1000 Friends supported the purpose behind the amendments in SB 6637 to reemphasize the authority of local governments to give some of the GMA goals preference over others. He said their concern with the bill was that it enabled local governments to completely ignore some of the goals, which he did not believe was consistent with the intent of the Act. He also said there was concern that the delay in the effectiveness of an order of invalidity would create a rush to the permit counter before the order could take effect. Mr. Clagett said that 1000 Friends also had concerns that the changes to the master planned resorts provisions went farther than was necessary.

B. Chris Leman, Coalition of Washington Communities

Mr. Leman said that the fact that the Commission is holding its meetings only during the daytime makes it difficult for members of the public to attend. He said the minutes of the Commission meetings provided good information about commission meetings. He thought it would be helpful to know who was in the audience as well. He said the summaries of advisory committees were less consistent in the amount of information that was available. He said they should provide the same detail that was included in the Commission summaries. He also said that announcements of the meetings were late in being mailed out and that the meeting summaries should be included with the agendas.

VII. Washington Association of Counties Panel

Paul Parker, Association Staff; Karen Miller, Snohomish County Council and Association President; Bob Hart, Skagit County Council and Association Secretary-Treasurer; and Brian Maydole, Douglas County Council, Association Legislative Committee member.

A. Paul Parker

The commission should look at the issues in SB 6637 that were vetoed by the Governor. There needs to be a reaffirmation of the "bottoms-up" planning envisioned in GMA. The role of the boards needs to be revisited. The counties would also like to review the possibility of allowing smaller cities and counties to opt out of the GMA requirements. There also needs to be an examination of the impacts of HB 1724. Some jurisdictions are reporting increased times to process permits as a result of the new requirements.

The Counties think there needs to be a careful examination of whether there really is a need for a consolidated land use code. There can be better integration of some programs, such as the Shoreline Management Act, with less of a state role. The state role in permitting may be more in need of review. There was a proposal in the legislature to require state agencies to issue their permits within 120 days. That may be worth pursuing.

The question of paying for infrastructure is one area that needs serious attention. A three part approach may be worth pursuing: more options to fund infrastructure, better utilization of existing infrastructure, and fewer mandates and more flexibility on how to implement.

Governance is an important issue, but the Commission may not be the appropriate forum for dealing with it. The Commission should keep in mind questions of property rights as it goes about its work, even if it does not try to address that problem head on.

B. Karen Miller

Ms. Miller expressed some doubt about the ability to develop a state wide land use code that would apply in all 39 counties. It is appropriate for the state to set minimum standards and then allow individual jurisdictions the flexibility on how to meet those standards.

She said that the issues vetoed out of SB 6637 were important ones for the counties and a real effort at developing an agreement that would hold was important.

She said that Snohomish County was not experiencing the same problems implementing HB 1724 as were the smaller counties. She thought it had resulted in some improvements.

With respect to governance issues, she said they need to be dealt with, but probably in another forum. She said the counties were dealing with some of the issues in response to regional services legislation passed by the Legislature.

She said one problem many local governments are running into is resistance within existing neighborhoods and urban areas to accept greater densities.

C. Bob Hart

Mr. Hart noted that the way GMA has been actually interpreted by the GMHBs is not the way state agencies had originally anticipated when they provided technical assistance and training early in the implementation process. He said there would be some benefit in having clear state standards established for some elements of a state land use code. However, there needs to be a recognition of the differences among jurisdictions in the state, and that what might work in King County may not make sense for Skagit or Columbia County.

Mr. Hart said one of the major issues facing counties was how to provide services and how to pay for them. He did not think the Commission should take on that particular task. He noted that with changes at the federal level, there are a number of challenges facing local governments as responsibilities are transferred to the state and local governments.

He said the invalidity authority given to the Boards has created considerable concern in Skagit County. One issue of particular concern is whether the board has the authority to invalidate prior ordinances and what happens if they do. For example, does all zoning disappear.

There is also concern that ESHB 1724 imposed procedures for processing permits is actually adding time to the permit process. He did not think this was the intent of the Legislature. Property rights continues to be an issue and the state must move carefully in this area, unless it wants to provide compensation.

D. Brian Maydole

Douglas County has made substantial progress towards complying with GMA. The County has worked cooperatively with the cities and counties in the area to develop a comprehensive transportation plans. Because the state transportation network is such an important part of the local transportation system in these counties, the local communities should be given greater authority to establish priorities for their regions.

The County Association is working on a study to determine what services counties need to provide and what sources of revenue they have to pay for them. He agreed that this is an issue that needs to be addressed, but that the Legislature is probably the best forum to do so. He suggested one avenue for exploration would be to allow local governments to prioritize what state mandated services they would provide.

E. Questions

Will the counties be willing to participate in a committee or workgroup established by the Commission to resolve the issues vetoed by the Governor in SSB 6637? Ms. Miller said she thought this made sense and that, although the County Association's executive committee needed to be consulted, she was certain the counties would be willing to and would want to participate in the process.

VIII. Tribal Governments Panel

Joseph Pavel, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission; Charlene Post, Environmental Policy Representative, Squaxin Island Tribe; Phyllis Meyer, Environmental Programs Manager, Suquamish Tribe; Scott Nicolai, Fisheries Habitat Biologist, Yakima Nation; and Karen Walters, Senior Watershed Planner, Muckleshoot Tribe.

A. Joseph Pavel

There are 26 recognized tribes in Washington. NWIFC has 20 member tribes. Each tribe is a sovereign government. Each has a profound interest in natural resources and cultural resources of the state. They are very interested in the issues being addressed by the Commission. The tribes have programs and expertise to interact with state, local, and federal governments.

B. Charlene Post

Tribal people have property rights that have been recognized by the federal courts and need to be recognized in the planning and regulatory process. Tribal economic stability is closely tied to the natural resource system and, therefore, to land use. There is a need to remember that the tribes are sovereign governments and should be dealt with on a government to government basis. The state and local governments need to recognize that tribal peoples are stakeholders in the land use arena and must be consulted in the planning process.

C. Phyllis Meyer

Tribes are concerned about both on-reservation and off-reservation environmental issues. On-reservation issues directly affect the health of tribal members. The Suquamish Tribe has been involved in a number of environmental and natural resource issues and programs in conjunction with the state and local governments. They have provided information to assist local sewer and water districts.

The tribal perspective on natural resource issues varies from that of non-tribal peoples. The tribes recognize that we are all part of the ecosystem, and that there is an inter-relationship between many different activities that might at first appear to be unconnected. There has been an increasing recognition in the state of this complex interaction, and this has led to efforts at watershed planning. This approach will not solve all of our problems, though.

Ms. Meyer said that there would be a benefit in consolidating some environmental statutes with the GMA. She said that existing enforcement of the shoreline act did not provide adequate protection of the shoreline areas and that better integration of that statute with the GMA might achieve a more efficient system that was more protective of the environment.

She said there is a role of intergovernmental agreements between the tribes and the state and local governments. She suggested this is an issue that needed further work.

D. Scott Nicolai

Mr. Nicolai said that although there often seemed to be a conflict between the property rights of land owners and the need to protect habitat, it is often possible to do both.

One issue that is often raised in the land use context is the need for local control. Often, though, local governments in Eastern Washington do not value the need to protect fisheries resources. Planning should be viewed from a watershed level. This conflicts with the claims of local control. Downstream users of water will suffer if local control is the guiding maxim for upstream users.

Water rights permits should be issued based on the impact on existing water rights holders. The existing exemption of small wells from the water rights permit process should be eliminated. The cumulative impact of these small wells has a significant impact on watersheds.

Local governments generally do not have the expertise to issue hydraulics permits. Many counties have few staff and cannot take on this additional responsibility.

The GMHBs should be left intact. They should continue to have authority to review substance as well as process. It is this authority that has encouraged local governments to generally work constructively with the act. Without that authority, local governments will be less likely to honor all of the goals of GMA.

E. Karen Walters

The Muckleshoot Tribe ceded area includes much of the greater Seattle area. The Green River system is the only one of the Muckleshoot's historical river systems that still has a commercial fishery.

The tribes have generally only been included in the planning process as a "public" or "interested party," rather than as another government. The WACs recognize the importance of involving the tribes in the planning process. Local governments should notify the tribes early in the planning process and in the permitting process. This will reduce the risks that the tribes will have to delay the projects in order to have their concerns dealt with.

A number of tribes have qualified staff who have offered to work with and assist local governments. Smaller jurisdictions could, in particular, benefit from that assistance. To date, though, none of the local governments have sought their assistance. Too often, adversarial relations seems to be the direction chosen.

Water availability to accommodate new growth is an increasing problem. There may be instances where the infrastructure to supply water is adequate, but there may not be water available for that purpose. This is likely to prove troublesome under the concurrency requirements of the GMA. There are also inconsistencies between comprehensive plans and the development regulations to implement those plans. There are also some inconsistencies between jurisdictions.

IX. Association of Washington Cities Panel

Dave Williams, Association Staff; Bob Edwards, Renton City Council; and Roberta Lowendowski, Redmond Planning Director.

A. Bob Edwards

Over 200 of the 275 cities are planning under GMA. Many of these cities are small, with less than 1000 residents. Overall GMA has been positive, but it has taken longer to implement than many would have anticipated. There has been a lot of citizen buy-off.

The biggest issue facing the cities is matching land use and fiscal policies. The six-year capital facilities plans present challenges. The GMA planning process will not be fully realized the first time around. There will be a need for cities to review and improve on earlier decisions. The state needs to maintain its commitment to GMA by providing technical assistance and financial support to local governments.

The development of county-wide planning policies has served to bring cities and counties together to work on major policy issues. There have been some difficulties for counties in making the decisions required by GMA. This in turn has caused difficulties for the cities who need to rely on consistent actions by the counties.

GMA has not changed the struggle between cities and counties over tax base. The GMA has established a policy that development should occur in the urban growth areas. Cities are best suited to provide these urban services. There should be encouragement of annexation in the urban growth areas to accomplish this objective. Counties do need a source of revenue to provide services in the rural areas.

If a consolidated land use code is developed, it should make meaningful changes, not just tinkering around the edges. And, any new code must recognize the differences among cities and provide sufficient flexibility.

B. Roberta Lowendowski

The tendency of the Commission might very well be to recommend new legislation. However, legislation cannot fix all problems. The last few years has seen an increasing number of requirements imposed on local governments. She suggested that the state should be put on a regulatory diet, and that no new requirements should be imposed unless obstacles to success were removed.

HB 1724 did make some clarifications that were helpful. It met the test of removing obstacles while adding some requirements. The biggest problem with HB 1724 has been the lack of any sales job on its benefits. There has been resistance from local elected officials as well as the public that could be reduced.

The Commission has the time to do what it has been asked. For the last three years local governments have consistently been asked if they can live with added requirements. She suggested that it would be better to take the time and make solid recommendations. This would also give local governments a period of stability that they need.

She suggested that a long term goal of the state should be to turn over permitting authority to local governments. Shorelines substantial development permits and hydraulics permits are both areas that may be good candidates for this transfer. The state could focus on an evaluation of local programs rather than making the same comments on each permit. One option might be to have an agency certify that a local government program and regulations meets state requirements, allowing the local agency to handle permits.

Ms. Lowendowski said that often SEPA is used for purposes other than environmental protection. There needs to be some attention to ways to make sure that it is used for its intended purpose and not to obtain concessions from a project applicant. She also said there have been some successful efforts at siting essential public facilities. These worked because the agency trying to site the facilities have worked with local communities from the beginning, rather than trying to force a project on a community.

The property rights debate has served to sensitize local officials to the need to be sensitive about the effect of their actions. Through allowances for special circumstances, more flexible regulations, and purchase where appropriate, local officials can avoid the problems leading to property rights claims.

C. Dave Williams

It has been a pleasant surprise to many cities at how successful growth management planning has been. One issue that might deserve further study is determining how much industrial land is available. In conjunction with DCTED, this information could be collected statewide and be used to encourage development. It would also allow for a determination of whether there is enough land available. There is a need to start showing the benefits of GMA planning, so that local governments will see some positive results of what they have developed.

Infrastructure finance and impact fees are areas that need further work. The Commission could assist in looking at the way impact fees are assessed and whether they are the best way to fund added infrastructure.

Some of the permit processing requirements imposed by HB 1724 are starting to generate opposition among some citizens and public officials. The concerns leading to these complaints need to be looked at.

There would be value in having a state comprehensive plan. However, this is unlikely to be any better than local plans. Because of the need for local governments to address essential public facilities, it would be helpful to know of the state's plans far enough in advance of their need so that siting issues could be handled. At the same time, cities are not interested in having the state adopt rules that regulate their activities. They would prefer to have technical assistance.

D. Questions

Have the cities thought about how they can monitor whether the densities that they are supposed to be taking under comprehensive plans are occurring? — A: The cities as a whole do not have a formal evaluation mechanism in place to deal with this question. King County does have a benchmarks process in place to look at how the plan has been implemented.

How well have the counties and cities been working together, for example with population projections? — A: King County has a fairly good process. In part it relies on a supermajority vote to assure acceptance.

X. Department of Transportation Presentation

Rick Smith and Charlie Howard, Washington State Department of Transportation

A. Rick Smith

As a state agency, WSDOT has a unique role. It establishes transportation policy. It is also one of the largest contractors in the state. The process for building a project starts with identifying the transportation needs within the state. WSDOT develops its own plan and works with local governments to incorporate these needs assessments into local plans. After funding is acquired, the department proceeds through the environmental review and permitting process.

WSDOT was an early supporter of the GMA and worked closely with the Growth Strategies Commission.

The department is impacted by the differences in regulations among jurisdictions. It may be subject to a variety of standards on the same project as it passes through different jurisdictions. The department would like to see some consistency in environmental regulations to reduce the cost and delay that these inconsistencies create.

B. Charlie Howard

There are four basic issues that have evolved for WSDOT since the passage of GMA: state transportation planning; how local comprehensive plans treat state facilities; siting of transportation facilities of state-wide significance; and the regional role in transportation planning.

WSDOT, as do most state agencies, has a planning mandate. One component of the plan addresses state owned facilities. Another component address facilities of state interest, which includes intercity passenger rail, public transportation, freight, marine ports, and non-motorized transportation. The first Washington Transportation Plan has been recently approved by the Transportation Commission and will be released soon. Because there is no comprehensive state plan, the transportation plan is based to the extent feasible on individual plans adopted by other state agencies. It is also fiscally constrained, based on what the WSDOT believes that it will be able to afford.

The relationship between state transportation facilities and local comprehensive plans is not entirely clear. Based on a Legislative Transportation Committee study, it appears that local governments often do not include state transportation facilities in their plans. In some cases, local plans assume that state facilities will handle all of the traffic needs for the jurisdiction. An example where there has been a good process is Douglas and Chelan Counties and Wenatchee and East Wenatchee working with WSDOT to develop a common plan. There is also a problem relating to cross-boundary consistency. There has been legislation introduced during the past couple of years to require local plans to address state transportation facilities.

There has been a long-term difficulty in defining what are the transportation facilities of state-wide significance. And once those facilities are determined, the question of who should do the planning for them arises. There needs to be a collaborative process to designate these facilities. The state should be able to make this determination and require that local governments plan for them. Transportation facilities are distinct from other types of essential public facilities, because major new facilities are likely to be created and existing ones are unlikely to be moved. The types of facilities that might be covered include: freight and intercity passenger rail, the interstate highway system and principal arterials, including passenger ferries, the Columbia River system, marine ports engaged in international trade, and high capacity transit systems.

The state needs to recognize that it cannot just impose major facilities on a local government. It must work on constructive mitigation to reduce as much as possible the impact of the facility on the local community. This has been possible for highway facilities because of the availability of federal money. There will be less of this in the future.

Regional transportation planning has been in existence since the passage of the GMA. Voluntary regional transportation planning organizations (RTPO) were created at the same time and allow cities, counties, and other local agencies to form an organization to prepare their regional plans. The state provides funding for the RTPOs. The RTPOs provide coordination between the state plan and local plans. They have the authority to determine consistency between local transportation plans and the state plans.

C. Questions

The Chair asked that the State Transportation Plan be made available to the Commission. She asked how the state plan was coordinated with local planning. Mr. Howard said WSDOT worked with the RTPOs to try to make its plan consistent with the local comprehensive plans.

Mr. Dearborn suggested that it would be helpful to see a copy of HB 1645 and the LTC study mentioned by Mr. Howard.

XI. Advisory Committee Reports

A. Finance Advisory Committee

Commissioner Best reviewed the Committee's activities over the last month. The Committee has added new members as they have expressed interest. It is looking at a California statute which may provide some useful information on how to pay for integrated plans. The staff is continuing to pursue that subject. It is developing criteria for evaluating suggested funding mechanisms and compare them with each other. It also concluded that any integrated system needs to have quality data. It is recommending that the Commission hear from a panel on this issue. The Chair said the Staff would work with Commissioner Best to schedule the panel.

Mr. Dearborn noted that California does use a mechanism that allows sales tax revenue increases resulting from new construction, such as a shopping mall, to be used to pay for infrastructure.

B. Professional Certification Advisory Committee

Ms. Dietrich said the Committee worked at developing a problem statement. There was concern on the part of some Committee members that there might be a recommendation for a new state certification program. The Committee concluded that this was not a direction it wanted to pursue. The Committee also worked on clarifying what types of programs should be included in its review. Some members suggested that the Committee should focus on environmental permits, while others suggested that it should also look at building and related types of permits. The Committee has not developed a consensus on this issue yet.

The Committee also explored a variety of existing programs that local governments have established to deal with the need for using qualified individuals in planning and project review. The Committee concluded that local governments may already have sufficient authority to establish such programs and that technical assistance may be more useful. The Committee members are conducting a survey among themselves to develop more information on the types of programs that local governments have implemented.

Commissioner Best asked whether the Committee was looking at problems of conflict of interest and bias that might arise. Ms. Dietrich said that these were issues that were under consideration. The Chair suggested that the survey should also look at the benefit that the various programs provided as well as where there is the greatest need.. Did the programs really improve the process?

C. Monitoring Advisory Committee

Mr. Burch said the Committee had added some members. It reviewed the comments from the last Commission meeting and developed a revised list of cities and counties to survey as part of the in depth permit monitoring study. It was suggesting Clark, Pierce, Yakima, King, Douglas, and Pacific counties and the cities of Kennewick, Olympia, Colville, Seattle, Ridgefield, and Granite Falls. This provides a good balance of jurisdictions with a variety of characteristics. After an initial study, a follow-up survey would be conducted in a year. The Committee has been in contact with these jurisdictions and they are willing to participate. Mr. Burch also noted that neighborhood groups would be involved in reviewing the surveys from individual jurisdictions.

The Committee is also recommending that a short survey be sent to all cities and counties to develop a baseline. A similar survey could be conducted in a year to see what changes had occurred.

Mr. Dearborn suggested that the survey might also take a look at types of notice local governments are using. This was an issue during the recent King County rule changes and some information on that would be helpful.

The Chair said it looked like the survey might help answer some of the comments that came up during the Commission's meeting.

D. Statutory Review Advisory Committee

The Chair reported that the Steering Committee is still serving as the statutory review advisory committee. She said that the Committee had discussed ways in which to consolidate statutes.

Mr. Dunn noted that he had looked a several existing statutes and tried to organize their different sections into categories. He had copied several statutes on different colors of paper. His conclusion was that it would be very difficult to approach the task in that manner. There are any number of sections of existing law that contain a number of different elements. In addition, it is apparent that there are differences in policy in some of the existing statutes. Consolidation of these provisions will be more than a mechanical process. It will require the Commission, and ultimately the Legislature, to make policy choices. He concluded that this will be a much more difficult task than he had initially thought it would. He also noted that because many of the existing statutes had case law that had developed around it, changing these sections could involve changing that case law as well.

The Chair noted that in light of Mr. Dunn's work, the Steering Committee had concluded that it needed to develop a framework for organizing the consolidation. After discussing the elements of that framework with the Steering Committee, the Chair had asked Mr. Reinert to put the concepts in writing for the Commission's consideration. The concepts are preliminary and are presented to the Commission for discussion purposes only.

Mr. Reinert said that the first phase in developing a framework is to set the context and the benefits that a consolidated code will provide. He said the benefits included developing a consistent state policy out of the many, and sometime conflicting, policies in current statutes. A second benefit would come from developing consistent regulatory processes that eliminate duplication. This might also lead to better attainment of statutory objectives. A third benefit would be to further simplify review and appeal processes, particularly at the state level.

The GMA, along with the permit and appeal procedures put in place by HB 1724, would provide the statutory framework for a consolidated code. He said that one could develop a matrix that looks at the level of governments and their responsibility for different aspects of the land use and environmental planning and regulatory processes. With this matrix, the Commission could determine what system it would like to design. Then, it could look at the existing system and see how it compares to the Commission's.

Mr. Reinert suggested that as a starting point for testing this approach, the Commission could look at GMA, SMA, the various planning enabling statutes, and the platting and subdivision statute. Environmental statutes that could be looked at would include SEPA and the hydraulics code. He said that both have sensitivities and would serve as a good starting point for testing the ability to consolidate statutes.

The Chair asked Commission members to review the document and make recommendations. She said the Steering Committee would be reporting to the Commission at its next meeting as this process evolves.

Mr. Campbell noted that the proposal included consideration of ways in which the state should reduce parts of its existing authority.

Mr. Dearborn suggested the effect of the recommendations on both large and small jurisdictions as well as on cities as opposed to counties should be included. In addition, the relationship of federal statutes should be at least recognized. He also said there may be a need to consider tribal interests.

The Chair said these issues would be included in the Steering Committee's consideration.

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