I. Meeting convened at 9:00 a.m.

A.Members Present: Ryan Durkan, Chair; Commissioner Phil Best, Skip Burch, Tom Campbell, Sheila Collins, Kathy Dietrich, Loren Dunn, Ed Hansen, John Herrick, Terry Husseman, Dave Moseley, Kimberly Ordon, and Dave Roseberry. Also present: Dick McCann, Alternate for Keith Dearborn.

B. Staff Present: Harry Reinert, Julie Knackstedt, and Chris Parsons.

II. Chair's Report

The Chair reviewed the purpose of the Commission and the Commission's organization for members of the audience. She noted that the Commission had developed a scoping document to help focus its attention as well as serve as a guide for comments from the panels it had invited to appear before it.

III. Business Panel

Ken Johnson, Association of Washington Business; Rick Lennon, Lennon Investments; Roland Dewhurst, Associated General Contractors; Don Marcy, Association of Industrial and Office Properties; Peter Overton, Landowner; Bill Linnahan, Washington Forest Protection Association; Scott Hazelgrove, Washington Association of Realtors; and Dick Stephens, Building Industry Association of Washington.

A. Summary of comments attached.

B. Commission Comments and Questions

Mr. Campbell said there seemed to be a conflict between the expressed desire for local control over the land use process and the desire for consistency between jurisdictions and certainty of outcome.

The Chair asked that members of the panel reflect on the questions of fairness and equity. She wondered whether transition rules might help alleviate some of the concerns about GMA. She also asked the panel to think about the hydraulics approval process. She wondered whether more state control or less would result in improved streamlining.

Mr. Best asked about the "buildable lands" issue. He asked whether the panel had any data on appropriate market factors that would allow for growth and keep land costs within reason. He said only Oregon had really done much work on analyzing how much land was really available for service.

IV. Soos Creek Water and Sewer District Panel - Ron Spear and Kelly Snyder

A. Summary of comments is attached.

B. Commission Comments and Questions

Mr. Husseman asked where the district was getting its water and how it planned to accommodate growth. Mr. Spear said the district had a long term contract with Seattle. In addition is was working on developing its own water supplies to supplement what it received from Seattle. Mr. Husseman noted that not all special purpose districts worked as closely with the neighboring cities and counties. Mr. Spear said various enforcement mechanisms are probably necessary to assure that that special purpose districts meet their obligations and provide appropriate levels of service.

The Chair asked whether there should be a requirement that sewer and water districts be required to plan in a manner consistent with local governments.

Mr. Spear said that he would favor a provision requiring approval by the land use authority over any connections. Ms. Snyder noted that King County requires all special purpose districts to conform to its comprehensive plan. Enforcement is achieved through the county's franchising process.

Mayor Hansen asked how much participation the district had during the development of the King County Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Spear said that at the time the county just told the district what type of development it was expecting to allow. Now, the county involves the districts in discussions to determine whether the districts can provide the service. Ms. Snyder noted that the original plan had included large portions of district boundaries in the rural area. Working with the county, the boundaries between the urban growth area and the district were made more consistent.

Mr. Best asked about whether the district had pressure to allow connections in areas that were not slated for development in the district plans because it had pipes going from one area to another. Mr. Spear said this was sometimes a problem that requires coordination and cooperation among jurisdictions. He also noted that many smaller water districts that do provide water in rural areas that do not have the capability of providing fire flow protection.

V. Environmental Community Panel

Scott Merriman, Washington Environmental Council; Ron Schultz, National Audbon Society; Ann Aagard, League of Women Voters

A. Summary of comments attached.

B. Commission Questions and Comments

The Chair asked for examples of benchmarks that could be brought into the GMA. Mr. Schultz said Melbourne, Australia had set benchmarks for levels of density in different types of zones. Local governments could then achieve those objectives in any way they want. The Chair asked how that differed from the current population forecast system under the GMA. Mr. Merriman said the code sets out goals and objectives and suggestions on how an applicant can meet them, but does not prescribe a particular requirement. There is a need for an active monitoring system.

The Chair asked whether meeting performance based standards would address concerns about particular unwanted projects that face community opposition. Mr. Merriman said education is probably key to dealing with that problem.

Mayor Hansen asked whether a statewide land use board should be elected or appointed. Mr. Schultz suggested the board, or special state wide land use superior court, should be elected.

The Mayor asked whether the panel had any ideas on ways to help local governments pay for costs associated with development. Mr. Schultz said that impact fees would be acceptable, but they cannot pay the entire cost. The Mayor also asked how the public trust doctrine related to property rights issues. Ms. Aagard said that Professor Johnson at the UW Law School had looked at the question and did not believe that there was any conflict.

Commissioner Best asked if there was any reason why the Growth Boards were generating more controversy than the Shoreline or other environmental boards. Ms. Aagard said that when the Shoreline Board was established, it too was subject to initial criticism. They need a period of time to adjust and to get a track record. She also said that the SMA had more definition, and Ecology had explicit rule making authority that is missing in the GMA. Mr. Merriman noted that there had been suggestions to limit the Boards to procedural matters only. He thought this would eliminate any meaningful purpose to the Boards.

Ms. Collins asked whether there would be any reason to limit standing to appeal to the Boards. Mr. Schultz said that if the goal is to have public acceptance of the planning process, citizens need to be able to challenge local decisions so they will have a day in court. Mr. Merriman also noted that many people do not even meet what is perceived to be loose standard. He said the Comprehensive Plan is perceived as being a mystery by many people and they tend not to participate.

Ms. Dietrich asked for additional information on forest conversions. She said this was a significant issue. Mr. Merriman noted that benchmarks could serve as a way to evaluate what was happening and whether there are problems and how to deal with them.

Mr. Husseman asked whether the Commission could really avoid water issues? At a minimum, failure of the GMA to really recognize water availability as an issue is a serious problem. He agreed that tackling the entire range of issues was probably not possible. Mr. Merriman said he was thinking of the broader policy issues. He did agree that there would be value addressing coordination and improving the connection between water availability and growth management.

VI. Public Comment

Chris Leman, Coalition of Washington Communities

A.

Mr. Leman said the scoping document left out four key issues: enforcement to assure compliance with zoning rules and mitigation requirements, strengthening of neighborhood planning, coordination of special purpose district planning with the GMA plans, and improved information to property owners.

He said the consolidated land use code idea would mostly create confusion and cause distrust. He did not think it would be a productive effort. He was concerned that it would be used as a way to eliminate neighborhood protections in the name of efficiency. Mr. Leman expressed concern about any efforts that might lead to forcing essential public facilities on unwilling communities. He said that part of any process should be a careful examination of whether the facility was really essential.

Mr. Leman also said that he though site specific environmental review of projects would always be necessary.

Mr. Leman also noted that there needed to be an effort to reach out to community groups and not appear to be intimidating. He also suggested that the Commission should hold more meetings outside of the Seattle area, such as in Yakima or Spokane.

Mayor Hansen asked how communities can feel comfortable with increased density. Mr. Leman said that benchmarking, site specific review, and a good public process would go a long way towards addressing local concerns. Ms. Collins said that there was a difference between higher density and high density. She said that design review and other community processes can help address concerns.

VII. Advisory Committee Reports

A. Finance Advisory Committee

Commissioner Best said the Finance Committee had met twice. It has started working on an evaluation of the different funding proposals that it had seen. Its report to the Commission will discuss each of these proposals and how useful they might be.

B. Professional Certification Advisory Committee

Ms. Dietrich said the Professional Certification Advisory Committee met once in April. It will be discussing a draft recommendation that Mr. Herrick had prepared at its next meeting in June. It is working with the Permit Monitoring Committee on a joint survey for both advisory committees.

C. Monitoring Advisory Committee

Mr. Burch said that the advisory committee had added a few new members and that it was working with them on the survey. The survey is expected to go out by the end of May. Responses will be due by the end of June. He said that the next step will be to begin the process of working on the more detailed analysis of specific jurisdictions.

VIII. Commission Discussion

A. Consolidated Land Use Code

Mr. McCann said that he had reviewed the concerns about developing a consolidated land use code. He said that in his mind there were essentially four elements to such a code: 1) values and goals; 2) planning, that integrates GMA and SEPA; 3) permitting, which includes what needs to be permitted and who should do it; and 4) appeals, which would include an examination the various boards and how they are structured.

He would start developing common values and goals based on the elements of GMA, SEPA, and the SMA that are most important in the state. This would require developing priorities and balance. If common values and goals can be developed, then it we would have an important first step towards developing a consolidated code.

The Chair asked if Mr. McCann would start with existing law. He said they would be the raw material.

Mr. Herrick asked whether an advisory committee would be necessary. Mr. McCann thought this would be necessary.

Mr. Husseman asked whether priorities would be established in the values and goals. Mr. McCann thought that was more of an implementation issue for local governments, but that there needed to be guidance on how they would do the balancing and prioritization.

Mr. Campbell agreed that the Commission needed to proceed on the issue. He also thought that we should address the policy and goals first.

The Chair said she though an advisory committee would be a good idea. She asked Mr. McCann to help develop a workplan for that committee. She asked Mr. McCann to serve as co-chair with a commission member.

Mr. Dunn expressed doubt about both the practical ability of the Commission to do the integration envisioned as well as concerns about the effect consolidation might have on some fundamental environmental law in the state. He was not sure that this would solve real problems facing the public and that it would divert the Commission's energy from more meaningful work. He also said the environmental community had limited resources to devote to these issues and that he would like to focus on what are the most important issues.

Mr. McCann said he thought it would be possible to both focus on immediate issues as well as look at the longer term issues of a consolidated land use code.

Ms. Ordon said she had similar concerns to those expressed by Mr. Dunn. She thought that the Commission would need to look at case law interpretations as well the statutory language and that would be difficult task.

Mayor Hansen noted that the Governor in his press release announcing the appointment of the Commission assumed that the Commission would be developing a consolidated code. He thought that intent was important for the Commission to keep in mind. Mr. Moseley thought some effort should be put into the consolidated code now, but that it should not be the focus of attention until later in the year, after the November 1996 report is completed. Mayor Hansen agreed. He suggested that finishing out the rest of the year on its current workplan would help the Commission

Mr. Dunn said he did not object to looking at the concept of a consolidated code. Because of his doubts, though, he does not think it should be the highest priority at this time.

The Chair asked Mr. McCann to work with staff to put together a work program for consideration at the next meeting.

B. Draft Paper on Issues for November 1996 Report

The Chair reviewed a draft issue paper she had asked the staff to prepare based on steering committee discussions on how to address the partial veto of SSB 6637 and work towards a November 1996 report. The paper suggested three areas for focus. One was the dispute resolution process, both before cases are appealed to the boards and after they have been appealed. A second issue was how to deal with fairness and equity in the regulatory process. This is based in part on comments from the Commission's public meetings. A third issue is how to deal with rural lands, which was also a focal point of comments at the public meetings. The paper also suggested the appointment of a sounding board to assist the Commission in reviewing the options that it develops.

Mr. Dunn said he would need to review comments from today as well reviewing comments from past meetings. Mr. McCann agreed that there might be other issues that would need to be folded into the paper. Mr. Dunn said he needed to make sure that there was enough substance in the issues to support a compromise.

Mr. Moseley said that there should be assurance that the sounding board would not become shadow commission. The Chair said she envisioned using the sounding board as a resource to assist the Commission, but that it would not supplant the Commission. The Commission would control the policy and issues development. The sounding board would allow the Commission to broaden its political base without turning the issue over to another group.

She noted that prior Commissions had run into problems with getting their recommendations through the legislature and she thought this might be a way to get more of a buy in from other groups.

Commissioner Best asked how the sounding board would be selected. The Chair said she had been discussing potential members with different constituency groups.

Mr. Moseley thought that a combination of the existing advisory committee work and the issues outlined in the draft issue paper would be a good work program for the remainder of the year.

C. Comment from Dave Williams, Association of Washington Cities

Mr. Williams encouraged the Commission to consider how to involve the participants in negotiations on SSB 6637 in its process.

IX. Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.