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

2.  Staff Present: Harry Reinert, and Julie Knackstedt.

1. The Chair participated in a panel discussion at the annual meeting of the Association of Washington Cities in Pasco. She covered the Commission's organization and work to date. Most of the comments were focused on the implementation of HB 1724.

2. The Steering Committee met with the Legislative Sounding Board on June 25. Senators Haugen and Fraser and Representatives Scheuerman and Scott attended. In addition a member of the Senate Republican Caucus staff attended on behalf of Senator Swecker who had a scheduling conflict. The Steering Committee reviewed the Commission's statutory duties, its organization, and work to date. Then the Legislators were invited to talk about what they are hearing on the campaign trail and what issues they think the Legislature may take up next year.
   

   Sen. Haugen noted that she is starting to hear about some of the economic benefits of the GMA. She thought this was a good sign. She is also hearing the "one size does not fit all" theme. She mentioned a number of financing models that the Commission might want to examine for ideas, including the utility tax, the recently enacted library district taxation authority, and modifications to the real estate excise tax. Senator Haugen noted that when the Boards were established they were not intended to be "land use czars" and that some believe that they may have stepped into this role by limiting the flexibility that the Legislature intended local governments to have in making planning decisions. She is reluctant to consider any type of state standards and would have to be persuaded of the need. She thought the idea of state models could be useful in some cases, but also had some concerns about how they might be used.

   Representative Scheuerman, who is from the Tacoma area, said that he had not heard many complaints about the GMA from his constituents. He was aware that there had been some resistance in the cities to accepting the density required for them to meet their growth targets. He said there should be better linkage between transportation and comprehensive plans. There was some discussion on how to get that linkage. He would like to rely as much as possible on the local plans, but he recognized there was a need for the state to establish priorities.

   Senator Fraser said GMA was not controversial in her district either. She thought the consolidated land use code was an important goal for the Commission. She suggested the Commission look at some demographic research from British Columbia and some lessons that could be learned from their experience. She thought tax increment financing should be reexamined as a funding option, although she knew it faced constitutional obstacles. Water resource planning was also an important issue that needed to be dealt with.
   

   Deanne Kopkis, staff with the Senate Republican Caucus, said that a number of her members were concerned about the Boards and that they were likely to introduce a range of proposals in the next session to change the boards. She said some of her members were hearing complaints that HB 1724 was causing delays in permit processing in some jurisdictions. She thought there might be legislation introduced to deal with that issue as well.

   The Chair asked the Legislators whether they thought GMA was generally going in the right direction, and whether the Commission should focus on "mid-course" corrections or on more dramatic changes. The consensus was that GMA should be the basis for the Commission's recommendations and the mid-course corrections were appropriate.

   The next Sounding Board meeting will be during Legislative Committee Weekend in September.

3. The Chair noted that the Boards had followed up on their presentation to the Commission with a letter which is included in the materials provided to the Commission members.

1. Tom Campbell - Mr. Campbell said the immediate issue confronting the Commission was what mid-course corrections were needed during the next session that will allow the long term goal of a consolidated land use code to have a chance of success. He thought mid-course corrections were appropriate. He said the issue of balancing compelling state interests with local discretion was the most thorny one the commission is facing. He did not see either limiting the GMA to procedural requirements or establishing mandatory state standards as viable options. He thought it was important to get some specific issues on the table for discussion. These might include rural character, standard of review, and what happens in transition lands between urban and rural areas. He suggested that under the standard of review, there might be some value in looking at ways to ensure that substantive changes to a draft plan are subjected to additional public comment before they are adopted by a local legislative body.

2. Loren Dunn - Mr. Dunn said he had some concerns about the issue paper because some of the things that it described as problems he felt were indicative of a successful system. For example, he thought the Boards were doing exactly what they were supposed to do - that they had a difficult task and were fulfilling it successfully. He felt the issue paper implied that we are facing chaos and he did not agree that was the case. He recognized that the Boards are trying to balance compelling state interests with local needs and the desire for flexibility and that the Board process may not be the best way to do that balancing.

   He rejected the characterization that GMA imposes a "one size fits all" approach on local planning. He said the GMA does allow for a variety of planning choices. He said the real problem was that some local governments rejected the idea that there are come core problems that they needed to deal with. He noted that GMA is a "bottoms-up" planning process, not a "bottoms-only" planning process. He did think GMA was flawed in failing to provide sufficient guidance about some key concepts. The Boards were trying to provide the guidance. Changing the standard of review does not address this issue. These kind of issues will arise no matter what review mechanism is put in place. He thought there are ways to create state guidelines that provide sufficient flexibility for local governments.

3. Keith Dearborn - Mr. Dearborn said there was a need to separate short term and long term goals. He did not think it would be possible to address all of the issues in the issues paper prior to the legislative session. He did believe that the "one size does not fit all" analysis was accurate of a pressing short term problem that needed to be addressed this year. Included in this is the need to recognize the size and sophistication of communities as well as their historical and cultural development patterns. His perception is that the Boards are saying that past development patterns were a mistake and that local governments have to move to the new way of planning now, with no allowance for a period of transition. This is hard on many small property owners. Large property owners have an easier time of finding ways to achieve their objectives. He thought there were a variety of ways to address those issues. He thought solving those problems would dissipate much of the anxiety over the GMA. Otherwise he was concerned that the GMA could end up being repealed. In response to a question, Mr. Dearborn said he did not know if it is possible to reconcile the anti-sprawl goal of the GMA with some historic development patterns. He suggested that there may be an over-inflated idea of what sprawl is.

   Mr. Dearborn said he found it difficult to believe that there were any jurisdictions which were flaunting the GMA and deliberately refusing to comply. He said this was a myth that kept being repeated. He noted the Commission had never heard from any of the jurisdictions that were put into this category to understand their concerns. He noted that only about 30% of the County Commissioners in office in 1990 are still in office. Many of them have either lost elections or decided not to run because of GMA issues. He was concerned about dismissing the concerns of these local elected officials in a cavalier fashion.

4. Sheila Collins - Ms. Collins said she was interested in ways to improve the public participation process. She thought combining technical assistance with training and facilitation might solve some of the public participation problems. She thought improved public participation might be a partial answer to the problems local governments are having with their comprehensive plans and getting the public acceptance that would avoid appeals. She suggested that the state could provide technical assistance to help communities develop a community vision.

5. Mayor Ed Hansen - The Mayor expressed the concern of many local governments about constantly changing requirements. These have impacts on budgets and staff and make it difficult for cities and counties to do their business. He also noted that there have been well intentioned tax changes which have resulted in loss of revenue to local governments. In addition, there is a trend towards giving local governments additional responsibilities, but without any additional revenue. He also noted that local officials are often elected on specific issues of importance to that community. There needs to be a recognition of that fact and an allowance for local variations. He thought the current GMA split between urban and rural did not recognize that there was something in the middle, whether it is called suburban, transition lands, or something else. He thought there was a need to allow for these areas to develop in appropriate fashions. He thought some flexibility here might help those jurisdictions that are having a difficult time complying with the GMA. He also noted that many jurisdictions are going through economic changes as a result of changes in state and national economies and they need to be able to make changes necessary to adjust to these changes.

6. Dave Roseberry - Mr. Roseberry noted that GMA defines agriculture in the same way it defines natural resources and critical areas. The GMA wants to protect agricultural land from developers. He said that although agricultural land can be harmed by some kinds of development, agriculture is highly integrated into the non-farm economy and is dependent on that economy. It is possible to destroy agriculture while trying to save it. Farmers do not object to planning. They do not want to have happen to Washington what has happened in California. He noted that in his area the original GMA plan would have designated his area for 1 du/160 acres, which would have been a huge decrease in density in his area. This has since been reduced He said that anyone could buy 640 acres, put up a house, and could end up threatening agriculture. He thought trying to protect agriculture by establishing minimum lot sizes was misguided. He noted that in his area, agriculture could not be sustained on ten acres. He suggested that instead of being required to protect all agricultural land, counties should only be required to protect extraordinary land. Most agricultural land can be used for other purposes. He also noted that there are micro-climates and variations in quality throughout the agricultural area that makes it difficult to classify an entire area. He thought it would be best if counties were only required to protect agricultural land, as the GMA goals currently require, and that the Boards could then look at the plans to see if they did that. With respect to the notion of a consolidated land use code, he thought the GMA fundamentally was not an environmental statute and that consolidation with environmental statutes might not be easily accomplished.

7. John Herrick - Mr. Herrick hoped that it would be possible to make the GMA less bureaucratic. He thought performance standards might lead to this goal. He noted that building codes had used this approach for many years. He suggested that this might be a way to achieve the flexibility to allow individual jurisdictions to meet the GMA goals and still satisfy their specific concerns and needs. Mr. Herrick also said he thought it was important for the Commission to be sure that its recommendations would help assure that there are opportunities for all classes of individuals to have family wage jobs and a good quality of life.

8. Kathy Dietrich - Ms. Dietrich said that the major concerns she has heard have been with the need for flexibility and an improved dispute resolution process. She noted that at least one candidate for Governor was advocating repeal of the GMA. She said this was an indication of the impact the GMA was having on people and the need to address those issues that were causing the greatest concern. She thought it should be possible to make improvements in the dispute resolution process. She said that the concerns of fairness and equity could be aided by an improved public participation process. She noted that many areas of the state are growing at a fast rate. The state has the ninth fastest rate of population growth. She thought the Commission could provide a significant benefit by providing certainty about where growth should and should not take place. She said water supply problems were an important element to establishing certainty.

9. Commissioner Phil Best - Commissioner Best said he thought there was a need to rearticulate the need for the GMA. People who are adversely affected by the GMA need to understand the reasons for the GMA. Because property is often the most significant investment for some people, they need to understand why there may a need to downzone their property. He said there needs to be a credible analysis of the effects of growth and sprawl to support the GMA. There is also a need for improved data collection and dissemination to make it easier and less expensive to develop the information necessary to do good planning. He suggested a statewide coordinated database that could be used by both public and private entities would be one way to accomplish this goal.

   He said that the question of improved decision making process would require looking at ways to give the Boards flexibility in resolving disputes. A state program of facilitation or mediation could also be beneficial. He also suggested that the state higher educational institutions, through their community outreach programs, might also be able to help. He thought local governments might be willing to pick up some of the cost if they could see that it would reduce their overall costs of adopting a plan. He did not think the state should be setting priorities for local governments, but there was a role for the state in helping local governments to set their own priorities. He said there also needed to be an examination of ways to reduce the adverse impacts of some GMA decisions on individual property owners. He said there needed a set of tools available to local governments to address those hardship cases. He agreed with Mr. Dearborn that there needed to be a recognition of historical and cultural development patterns.

10. Kimberly Ordon - Ms. Ordon noted that in the face of declining fish runs, flexibility and equity seem removed from the long term effects of land use. Poor land use decisions in the past had been the result of too much flexibility, causing some of the problems with fish runs today. She noted that one significant problem is that existing environmental laws are not enforced. Providing additional flexibility in light of this fact does not make sense. Ms. Ordon noted that the Tulalip tribe and others that have won their appeals before the Boards do not see the problem that those who have lost see. She suggested that the problems some local governments are having with the Boards is simply that they are not meeting the goals of the GMA. She thought performance standards were worth pursuing, but that there needed to be some minimum requirements.

11. Terry Husseman - Mr. Husseman said he thought the Commission should divide its work into short term and long term objectives, with the consolidated land use code being part of the long term work. He said that if the Commission hopes to gain credibility, it needs to make some recommendations for the next session. He thought the dispute resolution process would not be too difficult to resolve. He thought the certainty and flexibility issues identified in the draft issues paper would require more work. He noted that when the Legislature is unable to resolve difficult policy issues, it often will establish the overriding policy goals and then give a state agency the authority to resolve the more difficult questions that it is unable to answer. He said the Model Toxics Control Act was an example where this worked. Ecology went through a two year process to develop the rules and achieved a consensus at the end of that process. Mr. Husseman said that on the certainty issue, the Commission heard proponents from both ends of the spectrum. Some believe that local governments should have complete discretion in implementing the GMA. Others think there is a need for more state guidelines and more prescriptions. He said that the Legislature did leave gaps in the GMA that the Boards are having to fill. He reminded the Commission that after the Shoreline Management Act was adopted, the first decisions from the Shorelines Hearings Board were frequently controversial. Now that the SMA issues have been largely resolved, this is not as much of a problem. It may be that with enough time, as a body of decisions are made, the debate over GMA will also lessen.

    He said that there will be legislation on many of these issues introduced in the next session. He suggested that if the Commission hoped to develop legislation which would both solve the identified problems and have a chance of getting enacted, the Commission would need to establish a process that includes active participants in the Legislative process in negotiating a proposal.

12. Rick Smith - Mr. Smith noted that WSDOT has an interest in achieving consistency because many of its projects cross jurisdictional boundaries. He said the department understood the need for local control and variations, but thought that in the long term there could be some agreed upon standards for some issues, such as levels of service, regulatory issues, and siting of statewide facilities. He understood that integration of statutes into a consolidated land use code might be difficult to achieve. The Department would at least like to see if duplicative provisions could be minimized. He suggested that there would be benefits in developing ways to share data among agencies and jurisdictions.

1. Scott Merriman - Washington Environmental Council. Mr. Merriman said the notion that the Boards were creating bright lines that imposed a single way of doing things was a myth. Local governments have many choices under the Board decisions. The Boards are merely interpreting and applying the GMA. He noted that those who have been prevailing before the Boards are satisfied with the way they are working. He noted that many of those who have challenged local decisions are people who have been involved in the local planning process who felt that their input was ignored by the local legislative body. He said that many of the small jurisdictions in the state have put their plans together. He said the more difficult problem for them will be implementation of a plan. He thought technical assistance to those governments could be beneficial.

   Mr. Merriman said that people other than property owners do have a stake in the planning process and their concerns need to be considered. He suggested that the Commission should take a look at performance based standards and thought the example of the subdivision code from Victoria, Australia was worth reviewing for insights.

2. Rufus Rose - Island County Planning Commissioner. Mr. Rose noted that the Island County Planning Commission had been meeting on a frequent basis ever since the GMA was adopted. He said some communities in Island County would like to grow, while others do not want to. They like being small. He said large lot zoning does not necessarily conserve land, because there may be a tendency to subdivide property into the smallest lot size available, resulting in a 40 acre parcel being converted into four 10 acre parcels. He said the Commission needs to document the effects of its recommendations. He thought the word "guidance" really was just another way of saying "control" and that they the Commission would lose credibility if this was its direction. He said as a planning commissioner it would help him to have clearly identified on a state wide and regional basis the compelling state interests in local terms. He said the Boards have forced Island County to change course in midstream as a result of decisions issued in other cases before the Boards. The County has had to try to anticipate the results on it as a result of the decisions in the Kitsap, Whatcom, and Skagit County cases. He said he had serious reservations about the current structure of the GMA.

3. Mary Lou Block - Snohomish County Executive's Office. Ms. Block said Snohomish County thought there was some merit in allowing additional time for a board to issue a decision if the parties are in the midst of mediation. The County also thought information on mediation should be provided to the parties at the time an appeal is filed. Local governments should be given new optional funding resources when they have completed their planning processes. Counties and cities need this funding so that they can provide the infrastructure necessary to achieve the densities there are required to accept under the GMA. The Legislature should provide some definition of rural, but it needs to allow a variety of options. She suggested that one way to achieve this goal would be to establish a statewide rural stakeholders group that could help develop a definition that meets the needs of different areas of the state. The County believes that we need to move forward on GMA. The state should not look at old issues. The focus now should be on ways to help in implementation, since many counties and cities have already adopted their plans.

4. Paul Parker - Washington State Association of Counties. Mr. Parker endorsed the Commission's decision to put the consolidated land use code off to next year. He also said that he would agree that the GMA does provide considerable flexibility to counties and cities, but that that authority has not always been exercised. He thought there might be some need to make it clear that this flexibility is part of GMA. He suggested that making it clear that some growth can and will occur in rural areas would be one way to achieve this objective. This might include concepts such as rural activity centers and rural villages, recognizing historical development patterns. He also said there needed to be more incentives and rewards for local governments that do their planning. The incentives could be grants or loans to help pay for infrastructure. He noted that the County Association had adopted a resolution on GMA at its recent annual meeting. Mr. Parker said that a variety of options could be considered to help provide the infrastructure that is necessary to support the new people that are expected in the state. One option might be new tax revenue. More efficient use of existing facilities, such as year around use of public schools, would help stretch existing tax resources. He also suggested that different standards for regulating activities in different areas might also make sense.

5. MaryAnn Tagney Jones - Coalition for Washington Communities. Ms. Tagney Jones said that while it is true that rural communities want to be left alone, their real concern is with developers who are looking for ways to profit from rural lands. The Boards have been the means by which the public has been able to fight efforts to put urban growth in rural areas. Without the Boards, she is uncertain who would determine whether local governments were complying with the GMA. Whatever other mechanism is chosen, if it is effective, the same issues being raised about the Boards will be raised about that process.

6. Ellen Gray - Pilchuck Audubon Society. Ms. Gray noted that Pilchuck Audubon had gone through the Board appeal process. Although Pilchuck did not get everything that it wanted, it felt that the process was fair. It also thought the end result gave the County considerable flexibility. The Board approved a number of the County's decisions because the County had made a policy decision that that was were it wanted growth to occur. She suggested that before complaints that the Boards are not allowing enough flexibility are accepted, the claims need to be carefully evaluated. She thought that many of the complaints about the Boards amounted to shooting the messenger.

7. Elsa Gruber - Skagit County Resident. Ms. Gruber said that in her county the problem was that the county did not want to comply with the GMA. The County has not yet adopted a comprehensive plan. It has ignored the citizen participation goal. She noted that there is a risk of losing farmland, which is a significant economic force in the county, to development. Citizens have won all of their appeals to the Boards because the County has not followed the law. This is not a problem with the Board.

8. Steve Clagett - 1000 Friends of Washington. Mr. Clagett said that 1000 Friends is concerned about the path that the Commission might take in the next year. 1000 Friends believes the Commission should recommend a set of standards for key objectives of the GMA and to define the key terms and elements of the GMA. There should be allowance for flexibility This will allow for a break from the current project by project decision making process. He said the Boards have done a good job and have allowed flexibility. The strongest objections to the Boards are from those Counties which want to continue the old way of doing things. In response to a question, he said that without the Boards, the Courts would have to resolve the questions raised through implementation of the GMA. There is not a lot of land use expertise in the superior courts. It is also a much more lengthy and expensive process that usually requires legal counsel. The Boards are somewhat easier for citizens to participate in.

   In response to another question, Mr. Clagett urged the Commission to go slowly in considering changes to the standard of review that applies to appeals to the Boards. He said that is difficult to really know what the differences are among the different standards that have been mentioned to date. He also expressed some doubt that changing the standard would really make that much difference in most of the cases before the Boards.

9. Jane Cooper - 1000 Friends of Snohomish County (not affiliated with 1000 Friends of Washington). Ms. Cooper noted that vesting under old rules continues while planning is taking place. This can result in inappropriate uses in the rural areas. She noted that another way of looking at the GMA was not that it is vague, but general. It is a dynamic statute, not a static one. She said there was a need for some minimum standards to be set by the state. There need to be substantive requirements, not just procedural ones. DCTED should update its procedural guidelines. She suggested looking at the PSRC guidelines as a model for regional guidelines that provide flexibility. She noted that the PSRC guidelines have no enforcement mechanism.

One part of the process would involve the development of issue papers. Each paper would discuss a specific issue before the commission, provide background and information, and present a set of options for the Commission's consideration. A second stage of the process might involve the formation of a drafting committee to assist the Commission in ironing out the details of its proposals.

The Chair then outlined what she perceived to be the issues identified by the members in their earlier discussion. [A copy of the outline, with some editorial revisions and corrections, is attached to this summary.]

1. Issue: Should the GMA should be repealed? The Chair asked whether any members of the Commission supported repeal of the GMA. No members spoke in favor of this option and Chair said she heard a consensus that the GMA should not be repealed.

2. Issue: Should the Boards be retained or should they be eliminated? Should there be any changes to procedure before the Boards or should existing procedures and authority be retained? Mr. Dearborn said that he did not believe that in the short term elimination of the Boards was something to consider, but that if some of the other issues relating to the Boards could not be resolved in the next year, this might be an option that should at least be considered.

   Mr. Dunn said he did not think the Commission could adopt the no-action alternative with respect to the Boards. He thought some changes were probably necessary.

   Mr. Moseley suggested four items for review as part of changes to the boards: standard of review, authority of the Boards to issue orders of invalidity, mediation and timeline flexibility, and Senate confirmation of Board members. Mayor Hansen suggested there might also be consideration of the length of their terms, which are currently six years. Mr. Dearborn noted that the Boards were modeled on the Pollution Control Hearings Board, which have six year terms. Mr. Dunn said this also provides continuity and could avoid rapid change due to shifting political winds.

   The Chair said that she thought before the Commission could effectively discuss the appropriate standard of review, more information was necessary about the alternatives and what they meant. She said she would like to ask Pat Schneider with the Seattle City Attorney's Office and Tommy Prud'homme with the Attorney General's Office to help put together an analysis of this issue.

   Mr. Moseley suggested that on invalidity, perhaps only the Courts should have this authority. Mr. Dunn said that changes to the invalidity power are tied to vesting and that both issues need to be dealt with. Delaying orders of invalidity will result in even more projects vesting under rules that could be determined to be invalid.

   Mr. Dearborn said it would help in looking at the invalidity issue to know what the Boards have found as the "substantial interference" with the GMA to support their decisions to invalidate plans. Commissioner Best said there needs to be an examination of the consequences of invalidity as well. He noted that Kitsap County had ended up with no zoning ordinances as a result of the Board's decision invalidating the County's plan.

   Mr. Dearborn said that elected officials have raised the complaint that people sometimes bring up new issues on appeal that they did not raise during the local planning process. He described this as a standing issue. Mr. Reinert noted that the Legislature had made some changes to the standing requirements as part of SSB 6637. Mr. Dearborn suggested that this might be an issue that could be made as part of the long-term review.

   Ms. Collins noted that part of the reason members of the public file appeals is that they do not believe the public participation process at the local level was adequate and that the elected officials did not consider their views. She suggested that there is a need for technical assistance to help local governments with the public participation process. She also said there are problems with the way citizens are notified of impending changes. Other members agreed that the failure to provide notice often resulted in many of the complaints about the GMA.

3. Issue: Filling in the Gaps in the GMA. The Chair noted that one area of the GMA that was mentioned in many of the comments to the Commission was how to define "rural". She said the GMA does include a definition of "urban" and that the Boards have said that those activities that are defined as being part of urban services or urban in character cannot be included in rural areas. Mayor Hansen also noted that the question of "suburban" development has also been an issue.

   Mr. Dearborn noted that the danger of "filling in the gaps" is that there me be an attempt to come up with a single answer. He said he heard a strong desire to have a variety of options, such as what might be provided by performance standards. He said there was a difference between establishing a policy on "rural" and defining "rural." He thought the later was more likely to be met with agreement. Mr. Roseberry agreed that defining "rural" would not be a good idea. He thought that the general idea of the GMA is to limit growth to the urban growth areas.

   Mayor Hansen said one approach might be to require counties to address the issue, but to leave them the flexibility on how to define it. Mr. Dunn said that this was really one of the core issues the Commission was being asked to address. He thought this issue was what really caused people to complain about the Boards. He said there were two basic approaches the Commission could use. One would be to attempt to come up with a definition that it would present to the Legislature. The other approach would be to recommend a process that the Legislature could adopt that would result in a definition.

   Mr. Dearborn said he personally had come to the conclusion that there should be a process for developing minimum guidelines for some aspects of the GMA, including urban and rural policies. However, when he had mentioned this as a possibility, with the exception of the environmental community, nearly every interest group expressed strong opposition. He thought the notion that the state would establish guidelines, at least in the short term, should probably be taken off the table because of this nearly unanimous opposition. He did think that it might be something that should be looked at in the long term. Mr. Roseberry said another approach would be to have a more specific articulation of the goals of the GMA.

   The Chair asked how the gaps would be filled if not through a state process. Mr. Dearborn said the Boards are not the appropriate forum. Mr. Dunn said that if it is not possible to come up with some way to add substance to the GMA, such as through performance standards, he did not see how it would be possible to agree to changes to the Boards' decision making process. He said the two issues were inextricably linked. Mr. Dearborn did not disagree that they were related, but he thought the Legislature would have to make some of the basic decisions.

   The Chair asked what types of definitions might be recommended. Mr. Dearborn noted that there had been legislation in the 1995 session that had some additional definitions, such as for "suburban." Mr. Husseman noted that the question of answering what is appropriate development for rural areas seemed to be the "gap" that most needed to be filled. He thought the Commission needed to try to address this issue one way or the other, because it was likely to be something that would be before the Legislature in the 1997 session.

   Commissioner Best said that there did need to be some information that would show why this is a problem. Most of the available information is from other states or is dated.

   The Chair said she heard interest in dealing with the rural issue. She thought the Commission would want to review a number of options, including setting a state definition, adding a policy goal, setting in a motion a process that would resolve the issue, and others.

4. Issue: Funding for Infrastructure and Implementation. Mayor Hansen suggested that the question of providing funding for infrastructure and implementation of the GMA needs to be part of the short-term agenda. He noted that there is continuing talk about additional tax cuts. These frequently result in declining revenue for local governments, as well as the state. At the same time, there is an increasing tendency to give local governments additional responsibilities.

5. Issue: Application of the GMA. The Chair noted that there had been a number of proposals over the years to allow counties to opt out of the GMA. She asked whether this was one of the issues that about which the Commission should collect information and explore alternatives. Mr. Dearborn thought it would be helpful to understand what is happening in some of the less populated counties that are experiencing high rates of growth. With a small population base, this would still be a small number of people. He also said it was important to know what type of regulatory programs those counties have to deal with growth. Mr. Dearborn suggested that advocates for "GMA lite" should be asked to come up with suggestions for what might be included. The Chair also noted that there are a number of other options and consequences that should be discussed. She asked Commissioner Best to work with the Washington Association of Counties to develop a set of options.

6. Issue: Flexibility and Equity. The Chair noted that there had been a number of suggestions about the need to allow certain types of historical development patterns in rural areas. These are sometimes called rural activity centers. She thought there was a need to look into this issue. Commissioner Best thought there might be some examples from the East Coast where this was a common development pattern. Mr. Dearborn said Professor Kelly, of Ball State University, had been working on these types of issues, particularly as they relate to transition issues. He noted that in the past Boards of Adjustment had served the purpose of doing justice on a case by case basis. Mr. Dunn said that there were really two different types of transition: between urban and rural areas and between the old rules and the new rules. Mr. Dearborn suggested taking a look at some of the bills Sen. Haugen had introduced in the last session. He also noted that Professor Gary Pivo at the UW had worked on these issues. The Chair asked what had happened over the last few years to address the fairness issue. She thought there had been some legislation addressing this issue and that it would be helpful to know what effect that legislation had had.

   Mr. Husseman suggested that it might be useful to look at the legislation that had been introduced over the last few years as a starting point for consideration of this issue.

7. Issue: Community Education. Ms. Ordon noted that the Legislative Sounding Board had discussed the need for a community education program. Mr. Dearborn said it would be helpful to know what education programs state agencies have in place. Mr. Reinert noted that one of the comments from the sounding board was the need to rearticulate the need for the GMA.

8. Issue: Information, Data Bases, and GIS. Commissioner Best said there was a need to provide better information to local governments to assist them in their planning. Ms. Ordon noted that many of the questions the Commission members were asking could be answered in part by that data. Mr. Dearborn asked what state agencies were doing to coordinate their data. Commissioner Best said he would look into this issue.

9. Issue: Performance Standards. Mr. Dearborn noted that performance standards had been used in the building industry for a number of years. He wondered whether there might be some lessons that could be learned from that experience. Mr. Herrick said that it would be more difficult to develop these types of standards for land use issues than for things such as building design. Mayor Hansen noted that these would also raise questions of local control because there would still be questions of interpretation. Mr. Herrick said he would be willing to look at the Australian code, the TFW process, and Dupont's zoning code (which has performance standards for its industrial zone).

10. Issue: Incentives and Rewards. Mr. Moseley said there was a need to find ways to help and support jurisdictions that are successfully implementing GMA. He noted that much of the discussion is on the problems with the GMA, but the majority of jurisdictions are working hard towards implementing the GMA. Mr. Dunn agreed.