Land Use Study Commission

Summary of Meeting
January 14, 1997
Puget Sound Regional Council
Seattle, Washington

I. Meeting convened at 9:30 a.m.

A. Members Present: Ryan Durkan, Chair; Commissioner Phil Best, Skip Burch, Tom Campbell, Sheila Collins, Keith Dearborn, Kathy Dietrich, Mayor Ed Hansen, John Herrick, Terry Husseman, David Moseley, Kimberly Ordon, and Dave Roseberry. Loren Dunn participate by conference call. Scott Merriman participated as an alternate for Mr. Dunn.

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

II. Chair’s Report

A. The Chair summarized the Commission’s process over the last year. She noted that in the last two months, the Commission held a number of public meetings to take comment on both the Commission’s draft report and draft legislation. The Steering Committee developed a second draft of legislation based on the public comment and that draft was circulated to Commission members and the public on January 9.

B. The Chair noted that Governor-elect Locke has been following the work of the Commission closely. His transition staff has indicated an interest in having the incoming Governor sponsor the Commission’s proposed legislation. They have asked the Commission to submit its recommendations as soon as possible. The Chair said she and Mr. Dearborn had met with Representative Reams who appears to be favorably disposed to the Commission’s recommendations.

C. The Chair said she would allow public comment prior to the Commission’s discussion so the Commission can benefit from comments on the most recent draft.

D. The Chair informed Commission members that attorney members of the Commission are subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct. She read RPC 6.4 which allows an attorney to participate in law reform activities, but requires disclosure if the attorney’s client might be materially benefited by a decision. The attorney is not required to disclose the client’s name. The Chair stated that she was a lawyer in private practice with the Seattle law firm of Hillis, Clark, Martin, and Peterson. She said her firm represents both broad range of clients, both public and private, including governmental entities, private businesses and land owners, and public interest organizations. She said some clients might view recommendations being considered by the Commission as materially benefiting them, others might view recommendations as materially burdening them. She said she did not see her role as Chair as representing a particular interest group.

Mr. Dearborn stated that he was also in private practice with the firm of Bogle and Gates. The firm is quite large and there may be clients in his firm that have an interest in the Commission’s work that he is not aware of. He said no client has contacted him on any of the matters before the Commission or asked him to take any particular actions. He said his firm represents a variety of clients, including major timber companies, port districts, major corporations with land holdings, and major trade organizations with an interest in growth management issues including the building industry and the dairy industry.

Commissioner Best noted that he was an attorney, but he was not in private practice and had no clients at this time.

Ms. Ordon said that she was also an attorney and that she was employed by Tulalip Tribe. The Tulalip tribe has an interest in the outcome of the Commission’s deliberations but had not directed that she pursue a particular course of action.

Mr. Husseman said that he was also an attorney, but that he was not in private practice and had no clients.

III. Public Comment (Morning)

A. Richard Chapin - Mr. Chapin noted that he had prepared a memorandum commenting on the Steering Committee proposal. He believed the proposal had some serious drafting problems. He said there is no clear statement that a county may allow more intensive development in the limited areas described in Section 3(5)(d) of the draft. He was concerned that the draft might lead to confusion that would put decisions back before the boards. He noted that his memorandum also addressed some additional areas that were not clear enough. One area was in defining "low density." He said the requirement that counties prepare a written record showing how the rural element is consistent with the GMA would give to the Boards the ability to say that a county had not included enough detail to support its decision. He said there were a number of good things in the proposal, but that it needed some work.

B. Jim Malonowski - Clark County Citizens United - Mr. Malonowski said his organization is concerned that the Commission had not recognized some of the problems he had presented in prior testimony. He said there were serious problems with the public process in Clark County. He said the Hearings Boards had an extremist agenda and that this should be recognized in the Commission’s report. He also said the requirement in a Western Washington Hearings Board order that rural lots be consolidated would create a lot of anger. He said the amendments proposed by the Commission were acceptable, but that there needed to be a strong statement from the Commission that the Boards had made inappropriate decisions in the past.

C. Pat Schneider - City of Seattle Law Department - Mr. Schneider expressed concern about provisions of the draft that require a city or county to go back for additional public comment under some circumstances. He said that the bill would require a county or city to violate either state law governing the adoption of budgets or the GMA. To correct this problem, he said the proposal would need to exclude comprehensive plans from its coverage, amend provisions of the GMA to allow an inconsistency between the budget and the comprehensive plan for a period of time, or amend statutes governing the adoption of budgets to recognize the fact that additional time for public comment was required.

Mr. Moseley noted that in Ellensburg, GMA amendments are adopted in the summer so that they can be reflected in the budget. He was not aware of any requirement that the GMA amendment process occur at the same time as the budget process. Mr. Schneider said that the GMA requires all amendments under GMA have to be considered concurrently, including amendments to the capital facilities plan. Since the budget must be consistent with the capital facilities plan, there would be an inconsistency if the budget is not adopted at the same time. Mr. Moseley noted that the budget is prospective. He did not believe the problem was as serious as Mr. Schneider suggested.

D. Robert Heller - Graham & James/Riddell, Williams and Chevron - Mr. Heller said sections 25 and 26, expanding the island annexation provisions, were ill advised and should be deleted. He said they raised due process concerns, as encourage bad planning. He noted that island annexations do not have the public process involved in other annexations. If a particular piece of property did not have any residents, there would be no voters who could oppose the annexation. He said that good planning also requires that the city consult with property owners over issues of public facilities, services, land use designations, and taxation. Without notice, this would not be required.

Mr. Dearborn asked whether Mr. Heller had any concerns with the other annexation provisions. Mr. Heller said he did not.

Mayor Hansen asked how services would be provided. Mr. Heller said he was particularly concerned about the provisions allowing land contiguous to a body of water to be annexed. He did not see how services could be provided under these circumstances.

E. Steve Halstrom - Mr. Halstrom agreed with Mr. Chapin that there might be a potential conflict between "rural character" and "rural development" in the draft. He said rural character should be the more important term. He said development in the rural area should not be emphasized. He also expressed concern about the use of the term "intensification" in Section 3(5)(d)(4). He did not know what it meant. He was concerned that it could allow a small country store to be replaced by a large grocery and that this would be inappropriate. He also noted that something like the Herb farm should not be able to expand into another Salish Lodge in the rural area. This type of development should be limited to urban areas. Rebuilding on a current footprint would be fine, but other expansion would not. He supported the requirement for a written record. He said there should also be a requirement for a benchmarking process to see whether the rural area is growing faster than it should.

IV. Public Comment (Afternoon)

A. Sarah Smyth - Olympia Land Use Attorney. Ms. Smyth has represented her family business before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board involving the Mason County Critical Areas ordinance. She expressed concern about the way in which the Western Board is operating. She noted that she had recently filed a contempt motion because the Western Board was refusing to comply with a superior court order. She also noted that the Board had appealed the superior court decision. She noted if it is a party, the Board could not also be a quasi-judicial decision maker.

She suggested that rural counties should be allowed to have some rural industrial development. She said that rural industrial uses should be allowed if they are compatible with rural character, that they do not substantially interfere with natural resource based uses in the rural area, and that they do not require urban governmental services. She could understand why some would like to prohibit all industrial development in the rural area, but she said fairness requires that owners of existing uses be able to adjust to changing circumstances, such as the fact that timber supply for a sawmill is no longer available.

B. Sherilyn Wells - Ms. Wells expressed concern about some of the rural exceptions. She said some of the exceptions could cause environmental problems if not carefully controlled. She also said that allowing infill to be predicated on the provision of services by a private entity could ultimately impact taxpayers. In many areas, taxpayers have had to pick up the costs when these types of systems fail.

She also expressed concern about the exemption from invalidity orders for single family homes. She noted that with the 5,000 gallon per day well exemption, this could create a significant loophole. She also expressed concern about the statement in the intent section that accompanies the standard of review provision that "significance deference" is to be given local decisions. She said local governments should earn that deference by doing good planning with information to back up their decisions.

C. Steve Clagett - 1000 Friends of Washington. Mr. Clagett said he was pleased to see that the GMA Flex proposal was not being considered. He also agreed that the infrastructure finance issue was an important one to address and supported the Commission’s efforts to deal with the problem. Mr. Clagett expressed some concern about using intensity of service as a qualifier for appropriate rural services. He thought this might lead to an argument that suburban levels of service might be acceptable. He suggested that references to "public facilities" and "public services" in the rural element should be changed to "rural governmental services" to make clear that the limitations intended by that latter definition are clearly applicable to the rural element.

Mr. Clagett also expressed concern about the allowance of industrial expansion in rural areas. He did not think enough work had been done on that issue and that it needed more discussion. He also expressed concern about the public participation proposal. He thought it might actually reduce public participation in some circumstances.

With respect to the provisions prohibiting the Boards from issuing advisory opinions, he suggested some modifications to make it clear that if an issue was presented to the Board by the parties, that the Board could make a decision on that issue. He also expressed concern about the invalidity provisions that allow a jurisdiction to get out of an order of invalidity even if it is not in compliance with the GMA. He also thought the exceptions from an invalidity order were too broadly worded and created a substantial loophole. He said if the goal was to let an individual build his or her own house, the provision should be limited to those circumstances.

D. Rufus Rose - Island County. Mr. Rose noted that RCW 43.21H requires state and local governments to look at economic impacts when proposing new regulations. He suggested the Commission, by proposing regulations, should be looking at the economic impacts of its proposals. He also suggested that rural economic areas should be allowed to be as large as necessary to accommodate the needs of a local community. Otherwise, valuable commercial property will end up being used for trivial purposes. He also noted that forcing large lot zoning in rural areas will make affordable housing difficult to achieve.

E. MaryAnne Tagney-Jones - Coalition of Washington Communities. Ms. Tagney-Jones said that providing a menu of choices for counties to choose within the rural area was a good idea. She did not think that it will be possible to eliminate disputes over appropriate types of development in rural areas because the real issue is that there are significant profits to be made under some circumstances. She said that the way to settle the debate over rural areas is to be firm and not allow loopholes. Once people realize that there are no exceptions, they will stop trying to push the limits.

She expressed concern about the exception allowing for tourist facilities. She thought this could lead to more barns being used as antique stores than as barns and what one would end up with is a spread out shopping mall.

She said there was a distinction to be made between rural towns and hamlets or villages. By allowing more development in the hamlets or villages, economic activity could be drawn away from the rural towns, creating economic difficulties for them.

She said there should be no intensification of industrial areas in rural areas. Rather than allowing these to expand, we should be encouraging their removal. She also noted that by allowing these uses to expand within their current boundaries, it will be difficult to contain them within those boundaries in the future.

F. Paul Carkeek - Preston resident. Mr. Carkeek expressed concern about rural industrial zoning. He was concerned that the terms used in the Commission’s proposal, such as villages, hamlets, or crossroads developments, are vague. He also noted that visual compatibility is a vague term, akin to trying to define what is art. He noted that existing rural cities are struggling to survive and they have commercial and industrial areas.

G. Barbara Rudge - Friends of Skagit County. Ms. Rudge expressed concern about what established areas were. If they were areas already zoned, this would perpetuate the sprawl that had been allowed in Skagit County and this is contrary to the purpose behind the GMA. She suggested "established" should be limited to existing areas of development. This would open many areas to infill, but would be more limiting. She said that rural areas should generally be self-sufficient, and that rural services should be provided with this in mind. She noted that reliance on wells limits the amount of development because of septic system constraints. Allowing piped water will result in more water quality problems.

Ms. Rudge also expressed concern about the "tourist" exception. She suggested the phrase "limited-scale" should be replace by "small-scale". She also said strip-commercial development should not be allowed under this exception.

H. Commissioner Mack McDowell - Island County Commissioner. Commissioner McDowell said each county has its own definition of what is rural. He noted that under some measures, Island County has one of the most dense populations in the state, even though it is considered to be a rural county. He said it was important to clearly recognize these differences.

He noted that the Island County’s Shoreline Master Program provided for uses but not densities. He was not sure how the proposal before the Commission would work in that circumstance.

He said the rural exceptions were absolutely vital and that he appreciated what the Commission was proposing.

Mr. Husseman asked whether Mr. McDowell felt there was some limit to what could be considered rural. He noted that Commission was trying to provide the flexibility Mr. McDowell was asking for, but was also trying to establish some limits. He noted that without better definition in the statute, the Boards or the Courts would define what this means. Commissioner McDowell said that the biggest issue for him was the question of densities. He said those should be set by the county. He also liked the definition of rural governmental services, although he thought storm sewers were appropriate in some circumstances.

I. Chris Leman - Coalition of Washington Communities. Mr. Leman noted that he had submitted a letter with comments to the Commission. Mr. Leman noted that neighborhoods were major stakeholders in the GMA. He encouraged the Commission to consider Ms. Tagney-Jones’ comments. He said that the Commission’s process for developing legislation was moving too fast and that there were some issues that should be postponed until next year.

He asked that provisions allowing for financial assistance to community groups be restored to the draft. He also said the public participation proposal might actually be a step backwards. He said that no public notice would be required in some important circumstances, such as the adoption of a capital budget. He also noted that DCTED was preparing a report on public participation as part of an analysis of integrated SEPA/GMA planning and that the Commission should examine this report before it makes any decisions on this issue.

Mr. Leman said the provisions affecting the Boards, invalidity, and "significant deference" to be given to local governments should be eliminated. He said that the buildable lands proposal was unnecessary and was a state-wide mandate that goes against the kind of flexibility normally given to local governments under the GMA. He was also concerned about a proposal that had been earlier considered by the Buildable Lands Committee that would have allowed local governments to charge for access to GIS data.

He said the annexation proposals could create more distrust of government by removing the petition process for annexations. He also suggested imposing the multi-family housing program on small cities that happen to be the largest city in a county was inappropriate.

He urged the Commission to only forward recommendations that were clearly a matter of consensus and for which adequate opportunity for public comment had been provided.

J. John Diehl - Mason County Community Development Council. Mr. Diehl said that domestic water systems should be generally be considered as being urban governmental services, although he did recognize that there would be exceptions to this general rule. He also suggested that the provision on page 8 referring to "harmonizing" the goals should instead require that the county show that it is "fulfilling" the goals of GMA. He thought whether or not the goals had been harmonized was a matter of interpretation.

He noted that the provision governing shoreline master programs could conceivably allow a shoreline master program that was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan to take precedence over the comprehensive plan or with the requirements of the GMA.

He said that the invalidity provisions exempting single family houses from an invalidity order would allow significant violations of the GMA. He noted that Mason County had more than 27,000 vacant rural lots. If these are allowed to develop, the objectives of the GMA would be substantially compromised. He also thought the innovative zoning techniques suggested for designated agricultural lands were inappropriate and could lead to adverse impacts on agriculture. There could be incompatible uses with agriculture and lead to pressure to have lands taken out of agricultural designations.

K. Ann Aagard - Ms. Aagard said the shoreline provision could have the effect of making a shoreline program developed more than 20 years ago, under very different circumstances, permanent. She also noted that prior to HB 1724, there was no requirement for updating shoreline programs. She said that shorelines are not just another zoning code, but involve ecological considerations as well.

She expressed concern that the "recreational uses" exception would be applicable to residential uses. She also suggested that the phrase "more deferential" in the standard of review intent section did not make sense. She said one either gave deference to a local government, or one did not. She did not believe it was a matter of degree.

L. Jane Cooper - 1000 Friends of Snohomish County. Ms. Cooper suggested the provisions governing determining the logical outer boundaries should be redrafted. She thought the concept of rural and intensive development were mutually exclusive. Industrial uses are inappropriate in a rural area. She said the Maltby Industrial area was an example. She was concerned that the recreational exception would allow golf courses, which have an adverse impact on the environment, traffic, infrastructure, and land prices. This would have an adverse impact on affordable housing. She did not believe that intensifying isolated non-residential uses in the rural area was appropriate. This would also lead to infrastructure and traffic impacts that should be avoided. She also said infill of existing residential areas would allow sprawl to continue unabated and would create further groundwater and aquifer problems. She also noted that substantial deference is already given to local governments and that we need to ensure that they comply with the GMA.

M. Dave Williams - Association of Washington Cities. Mr. Williams said he had discussed with Robert Heller his concerns about the annexation proposals. Mr. Williams suggested that the provisions could be modified to apply only to areas with residential property. He said this could apply both to the provisions of existing law, as well as to the new provisions being recommended by the Commission. Mr. Williams said this approach satisfied Mr. Heller.

Mr. Williams also asked the Commission to remember that in making a recommendation on buildable lands, it was asking counties and cities to take on a new task and that it was very important to local governments that the funding be provided as well.

N. Gerald Steele - Friends of Skagit County. Mr. Steele said that he opposed industrial uses in rural areas except under unusual circumstances. He said his organization opposed allowing city and special district water systems that serve cities to also serve rural areas. He suggested a wording change to the definition of "rural governmental services" to clarify its meaning.

He said an invalidity order should be effective immediately when notice of the order is received by the county, which is current law. The language in the proposed draft would allow projects that are clearly inconsistent with the GMA to be filed and vested after the Board’s order was received by the local government. He noted that the proposal would allow projects to vest to an ordinance that does not comply with the GMA, as long as it does not substantially interfere with the goals. He did not object to that change, but suggested that there should be mandatory sanctions four years after a county has been found out of compliance with the GMA.

He suggested that language should be added to the exceptions provisions to limit the expansion of an area to no more than 60 % of the dwelling units and no more than 60 % of the existing floor area of non-residential uses. He said the percentages might not be right, but the concept was to put some absolute limits on the amount of expansion that could occur.

O. Jay Derr - Buck & Gorden, Representing Skagit County. Mr. Derr said the rural element provisions go a long way towards addressing a number of the issues that have been a problem for Skagit County. He said that although he understood why the Commission was not addressing some of the constitutional issues surrounding invalidity, he was concerned that by not addressing some issues, the Commission’s proposals might exacerbate the problem. One issue involved the question of whether the Board’s could reach beyond GMA development regulations. He said the boards were applying GMA standards to regulations that were never expected to be subject to GMA review. He said that by silence, the Commission is condoning or endorsing the Boards’ current stance on this issue. Another issue involves what happens while a county or city is under an order of invalidity. Although the Commission’s proposal to allow interim regulations may help, he thought the proposal was unlikely to make any significant change in the way the Board makes its decisions.

V. Commission Discussion

A. Buildable Lands - Mr. Husseman reported on the progress of the committee created after the December Commission meeting. He commended the participants for their efforts. He noted that although the committee did not come to agreement on legislation, it did agree on principles which he presented to the Commission. The committee said that it would be willing to work for an additional three weeks to attempt to come to agreement on legislation. Mr. Husseman asked the Commission to give the committee this additional time.

Mr. Husseman noted that there was some disagreement over the question of whether a county could determine, after an evaluation of its comprehensive plan, that an urban growth area should be expanded without first implementing other measures to increase density or otherwise achieve the objectives of the plan. He said one jurisdiction thought measures should always be required first. Other committee members thought there could be circumstances when it was clear no measures other than expanding an urban growth area would be effective.

Mr. Dearborn commended Mr. Husseman and Mr. Phil Miller for their facilitation. Mr. Dearborn said the issue addressed by this proposal was very important to the business community. He said that he would like to include some type of placeholder legislation in the Commission’s proposal that the committee would review and report to the Commission at its February meeting.

Mr. Reinert suggested that it would be possible to draft the principles into legislation, recognizing that it would not be as detailed as final legislation might be. Mr. Dearborn suggested three additional elements should be added. One is that the proposal should cover the comprehensive plan and development regulations generally, not just "buildable lands." He also said that the proposal should include funds to pay for the added work, which is consistent with principles the Commission agreed to early in its process. He suggested that the proposal should also be limited to larger, urban counties. Mr. Merriman agreed with Mr. Dearborn, although he thought that rate of growth might be an important reason for requiring a county to implement an evaluation process.

The Chair asked whether Commission members agreed that a placeholder should be developed based on the principles presented by Mr. Husseman. Mr. Campbell said that the placeholder should be limited to the principles. Commission members were in agreement. Mr. Reinert was asked to prepare a draft for review by the Commission later in the meeting.

Afternoon Review - Mr. Husseman reviewed a draft of language prepared by the staff and discussed by an ad hod committee during lunch. The language was based on the principles of agreement discussed by the Commission during its morning session. The proposal requires the larger western Washington counties to conduct an evaluation of their comprehensive plans every five years. If the review shows inadequate supply of suitable land, the counties and cities would be required to take measures to solve that problem. If necessary, the urban growth boundary could be extended after three additional years. The proposal would also appropriate $7 million. This is the amount that is currently estimated to pay for the added requirements, but is subject to further refinements. Mr. Husseman said the Buildable Lands Committee will meet two more times to attempt to refine the proposal and come to agreement.

Mayor Hansen expressed concern about making expansion of the urban growth boundary as a last resort. He said this was prejudging one means of addressing a land supply problem. Mr. Husseman said this was a much discussed issue. The main intent was to encourage local governments to try other measures first. There was concern that there might be a tendency to immediately expand the urban growth area. Some members of the Committee thought that if it was too easy to move the boundary, local governments would not seriously consider measures to increase density. Mr. Dearborn suggested some redrafting to take out the reference to "last resort."

Commissioner Best asked whether this proposal would change existing authority to move urban growth boundaries. Mr. Reinert said this an issue that the Committee had not come to consensus on. It is an issue that the Committee will need to address as part of its continuing discussions.

Mr. Dearborn thought the proposal was good as a placeholder. Mr. Merriman agreed. He thought the provision was much better than prior language the committee had been examining. He wanted the review to include issues in addition to housing density and was glad to see that included in this proposal.

The Chair asked whether the Commission was comfortable with the proposal as a placeholder. The Commission concurred.

B. Rural Element - Mr. Dearborn said that when he and Mr. Dunn approached this task, they came from very different perspectives. He said each of them have concerns about parts of the proposal, but that it is a good compromise that will help put the debate over rural lands in the past and allow the Commission, and the state generally, to move on to other implementation issues. He thought this should be the goal of the Commission’s work.

Mr. Dearborn noted that Mr. Chapin and Mr. Halstrom had raised good questions about the Commission’s intent. He thought it was important for the Commission to go through the draft to be clear about its intent and work towards making that part of the legislative record. He noted that he had prepared some additional written materials to be included with the Commission’s report that would help clarify intent.

Mr. Dunn agreed with Mr. Dearborn’s statements. He said it was important to be as clear as possible.

Mr. Dearborn noted that at a prior meeting the environmental community came forward with a proposal for what might be called "safe harbors." These are certain kinds of uses that should not have to disappear because they are existing uses. Section 3(5)(d) describes these safe harbors. These are not general rules for rural growth, but rather exceptions to the general rule and are referred to as "more intensive rural development" in the proposal. These are anomalies in the rural area, but there are many people who are concerned that they might become the general rule for development.

Mr. Dearborn noted that the draft allows these types of uses to continue, but requires that they be bounded and imposes an additional burden on counties to demonstrate that they can do so and preserve the values of rural character. In response to Mr. Chapin’s concerns, he said it is not the intent of the draft to take away the authority to allow these exceptions in any of the other definitions or provisions of the draft. The definition of urban growth was amended to clearly state that these exceptions are not urban growth.

The first exception addresses shorelines. A GMA county with an adopted shoreline master program is not required to change its master program to conform to the rural element. This would apply to the shoreline master program as it existed on the date the county was required to have adopted a comprehensive plan. He gave the example of Island County, which permits 3.5 units per acre on its shoreline under its Shoreline Master Program. Island County would be able to permit new development to occur under the existing shoreline program, even though it would be at a higher density than the rural element would otherwise allow. Island County would not be required to downzone to one unit for every five acres, as might otherwise be required by some of the Board decisions. If urban governmental services are needed to serve these kinds of development, they could be provided as long as they do not allow sprawl to occur.

The second exception addresses existing residential and non-residential patterns that do not meet the rural element standards, such as 1 or 2.5 dwelling units per acre. A county may allowed this type of development pattern to be filled in at that same density. An existing industrial area would also be allowed to be filled in. These areas would be subject to the restrictions in Section 3(5)(e) that require these areas to be contained. This type of development is currently not allowed under some Board decisions, which have described this type of new development as being urban growth.

The third exception addresses tourist and recreation uses in the rural area. Mr. Dearborn said he had been using The Herbfarm, prior to the recent fire, Remlinger Farm, and the Snow Goose as examples of this type of development. This exception would apply to both existing and new types of uses. They are small-scale uses. Master planned resorts are not included.

The fourth exception applies to non-residential uses. They are isolated, standalone uses, such as Seattle’s Best Coffee on Vashon Island, that have been in existence for many years. The draft allows for "intensification" of these particular uses. This is the term that was subject to some of the public comments and may need to be clarified.

These exceptions are to the general rules established in Section 3(5)(a)-(c). The provisions need to be examined together with the definitions of "rural character," "rural governmental services," and "rural development" added by Section 1. The general rule may not be much different from the rules established by the Boards through their decisions.

Section 3(5)(e) establishes the standards that govern how the exceptions are to be limited or bounded.

Mr. Dunn said that he would like to emphasize that the definition of "rural character" was a real step forward from the point of view of the environmental community. He also said Section 3(5)(e), which sets boundaries and limits on what can and cannot be done under the exceptions, is very important in the overall structure of the recommendation. He said these would restrict the spread of the exception areas.

Mr. Husseman asked what the word "intensification" added to Section 3(5)(d)(ii) that is not covered by the concept of "infill?" Mr. Dearborn said he favored the word "expansion" over "intensification." He gave the example of an existing business in a rural area, such as a business that smokes meats and needs to expand its operations to meet increasing demand. Mr. Dearborn thought the term "expansion" would allow the business to build on to its existing facility, within the limits of its property. He said Mr. Dunn was concerned that the term expansion might also imply that the business could expand beyond its existing property and wanted to use a phrase that would be more limiting. They both agreed that the business should be able to expand on its existing property. Mr. Dunn said he was trying to limit the expansion to more intense use of existing property and preclude expansion onto adjoining property.

The Chair suggested that the phrase "expansion on" the existing property might better describe this intent. Mr. Dunn noted that the term "intensification" is used in a number of places. Mr. Dearborn said the intent was for the phrase to have the same meaning in each place. If it needs clarification, similar changes should be made in each of those locations. Mr. Husseman asked whether a definition of "intensification" had been considered. Ms. Ordon was not sure the suggestion made by the Chair addressed the same intent mentioned by Mr. Dearborn. She thought that not only expanding beyond the property boundaries was precluded, but that different uses would also be covered. She said she was concerned that the term "intensification" would cover the example mentioned earlier of changing a small country store into a large grocery. Mr. Dearborn said there is a body of law on non-conforming uses that address the "intensification" issue. He said that the cases do not focus as often on the question of expansion beyond the boundaries of a property, but rather on the whether increased business activity, such as increasing the number of smokestacks, is covered.

Mr. Merriman asked about the use of the word "industrial." He asked whether an industrial facility using only a portion of its existing property would be able to expand its operations as long as it stays within the boundaries of its existing property. Mr. Dearborn said that if the facility meets all of the requirements under Section 3(5)(e), it would be able to expand in a manner consistent with the county’s regulations. He said that if the use was an "isolated use" contemplated by Section 3(5)(d)(iv), the use would need to be visually compatible with the surrounding rural area and public facilities and public facilities would need to provided in a manner that will not allow low-density sprawl. If the use is part of an area, covered by Section 3(5)(d)(ii), the use would be subject to all of the provisions of Section 3(5)(e). In addition, the provisions of Section 3(5)(c) requires the county to take measures to protect certain values and Section 3(5)(a) requires the county to document how it will address these issues.

Mr. Campbell said he thought some additional clarification was important. He was comfortable with the statements Mr. Dearborn and Mr. Dunn made, but he was not sure that their understanding was fully reflected in the draft legislation. He expressed concern that if the provisions of the draft are not carefully drawn, uses the Commission does not intend to be covered might be allowed, such as RV Parks or major industrial developments, which are covered by other provisions of the GMA.

Mayor Hansen asked about the "rural character" definition and its limitation of agriculture to production of food for local consumption. He suggested that this might conflict with the common practice of farm stands in the rural area that sell not just to the local population, but also to urban neighbors. Mr. Dearborn said that both he and Mr. Dunn agree that the rural development definition and the rural character definition need to be written so activities authorized under the rural element are not excluded by the definition. He said that to the extent that uses which are "exceptions" under Section 3(5)(d) are allowed, they may not be consistent with the rural character definition and they may exceed the scope of "rural development." He said a cross-reference may be necessary to assure that the definitions do not preclude the uses Section 3(5)(d) would permit.

Mayor Hansen also asked about the use of the "visual compatibility" requirement. He asked who would make those decisions. He suggested it would be a fairly subjective standard. Mr. Dearborn said Island County has had a similar requirement for a number of years. He said that his presumption was the this would be established by the County through its development regulations. He did not think that this would be something for which there would be some state standard that the Boards would turn to determine if a county had met the requirement. The Chair noted that Section 3(5)(c) includes a statement that it is the county that establishes the standards. Mr. Dearborn noted that these requirements establish the general rule. He said the general question of who sets the rules. Mr. Dunn agreed that he did not see the Boards making determinations in specific cases of whether a specific project meet these types of standards, but he did see the Boards making an evaluation of whether a county’s plan and program overall meets the core requirements of the rural element.

Mr. Dearborn noted that Island County had developed a manual in the 1980s that it provided to project proponents for them to review to determine whether a project was visually compatible. Mayor Hansen said he had some concerns about government interference with design review.

Ms. Ordon asked about the use of the phrases "established" and "existing" and whether they meant the same thing. Mr. Dearborn said he thought they had different meanings. He thought "existing" referred to something that was already in existence, while something could be established, that is authorized or planned for, but not yet be in existence. He gave the example of an area that has already been established — the zoning is in place — but the actual uses may not yet be existing in that area.

Ms. Ordon said she was not concerned about infill of something like a village, hamlet, or crossroads development, but she is concerned if infill also includes land between two areas, such as between Lake Rossiger and Monroe. She asked whether these provisions would allow infill in that area. Mr. Dearborn said that if the area met the requirements of Section 3(5)(e), so that a line could be drawn around the area, it could be infilled.

Mr. Dunn noted that the description of the "logical outer boundary" came from provisions governing the Boundary Review Boards. He agreed that this provision was critical to constraining the infill area. He said it was important to look carefully at this issue. Ms. Ordon asked whether a cross-reference to the Boundary Review Board statute would help define the intent here. She was concerned that the limitations were discretionary. Mr. Dunn said a cross-reference might not work, because there were elements of it that would not fit in this context. Mr. Dearborn said the intent here is to allow some logical expansion, but not very much. Ms. Ordon was concerned that Section 3(5)(e) might not be clear enough.

Mr. Campbell suggested that the definition of "rural character" and the intent section in Section 2 should be combined. He was concerned that there were differences in terminology and duplication between the sections. He said similar language was used in different places, which would imply that something different was intended He was also concerned about the length of the definition and thought it would be helpful to simplify it if possible. Mr. Dunn said he thought these provisions should probably remain separate, but he would think about Mr. Campbell’s suggestion. The Chair suggested that at a minimum, the draft needed to use consistent language throughout to avoid confusion. Mr. Dearborn understood Mr. Campbell’s concerns. He said that one of the problems with the existing GMA is that there is some inconsistency. The Chair suggested that it might be worthwhile to see if combining the provisions would make sense and not change meaning.

Mr. Campbell followed up on Ms. Ordon’s question about the meaning of the term "established." He asked whether Kitsap County’s zoning of 1 and 2.5 du/acre throughout the rural area would have been established under Section 3(5)(d)(ii) and would be grandfathered in under this provision. He did not think this was the intended result and that the provisions need to be clear that it would not be allowed. Commissioner Best agreed that if "established" meant uses approved in the past, it would allow a county to rely on its pre-GMA comprehensive plan and would not make sense. Mr. Dearborn said he saw a difference between an established area covered by (d)(ii) and an isolated existing use covered by (d)(iv).

Commissioner Best noted that Section 3(5)(d) begins with the statement that the rural element "may" allow for the exceptions listed. He said he assumed that was intended to leave with the counties the discretion of whether to make use of some or all of the exceptions. Mr. Dearborn and Mr. Dunn agreed that was the intent. Commissioner Best asked about the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) exception. He asked whether a county could allow more intensive development along the shoreline different from that in the SMP in effect on the date the county’s comprehensive plan was required to be adopted. He said in some cases a county might want to make changes in the SMP based on the GMA and requirements for establishing UGAs. This provision would appear to lock the county in to the SMP as it existed prior to GMA. Mr. Dearborn said he had not considered that point. Mr. Dunn said he did not want to prevent a county from improving its SMP.

Commissioner Best asked about the phrase "including" used at the end of Section 3(5)(d)(ii) that refers to hamlets, villages, and so on. He was concerned that the list would limit to these types of developments. Mr. Dearborn said it was not his intent to limit (d)(ii) to these particular descriptors. The Chair said she did not think that these terms were limiting, but were only examples of types. Mr. Dunn thought the controls were found in Section 3(5)(e) and that these provisions do.

Mr. Roseberry asked about the provision in Section 3(5)(c) concerning conflicts with natural resource uses. He expressed some concern that this could be over-emphasized. He did not think it would be possible to protect agriculture from all complaints and did not want this language to be read too strictly. He said agriculture was quite dependent on non-agricultural uses in the rural area. If this language is too limiting, it will actually harm agriculture. It could limit the diversity of the agricultural area and that is not the kind of place farmers and their families want to live.

Mr. Roseberry said he thought the proposal put forward by the Steering Committee was excellent. He said the worst scenario from agriculture’s perspective was uniform 10 acre lots. Controlling density in the wrong way could actually have the reverse impact of what is intended and could inhibit development and would not protect rural character.

Mr. Moseley said that he noticed the definition of rural governmental services was included. He thought the definition was not going to be included. Mr. Dearborn said he was concerned that without a definition, the only guidance of what would be appropriate would be the negative. He thought it was important to be clear that there was some level of services that are appropriate in the rural area. Mr. Moseley said the reference to "transit" services might be too narrow. He suggested "transportation" would be broader, and this would include roads as well as transit. He also noted that domestic water in the rural area is generally provided through wells, and not by the counties. Commission members agreed to add "transportation" as suggested by Mr. Moseley.

Ms. Ordon proposed an amendment to Section 3(5)(c) to add a reference to protecting fish and wildlife habitat and water resources. Mr. Dearborn said that this was similar to an amendment the Steering Committee had considered. He noted that critical areas also encompass these topics, and that counties are already required to protect critical areas under the GMA. He said it was important to be clear about how this provision would differ from those existing requirements. Ms. Ordon said that she intended that a county take measures in addition to those things required under the general requirement to protect critical areas. Mr. Husseman said he supported Ms. Ordon’s suggestion.

Commissioner Best noted that the term "intensity" is used in the definitions of urban governmental services and rural governmental services. He noted that "levels of service" was more commonly used in these contexts and wondered why the term was not used here. Mr. Reinert said that level of service was generally used as a way of addressing performance. The difference the definitions were attempting to address were between the quantity of service, such as the number of gallons per minute that a water pipe could provide, and the quality of service, such as water pressure.

Afternoon Review - The Chair reported that an ad hoc group met over lunch to address the question of how to better describe "established areas." She read a proposal developed by the group. Mayor Hansen suggested that the date these areas should have been established should be the date GMA went into effect. Mr. Campbell agreed. There was discussion of whether the provision should limited to just some of the exceptions or should apply to all of them. Mr. Dearborn noted that there was some confusion in the current proposal between uses and areas. This was compounded by using the phrase "established" in some places and "existing" in others. The Steering Committee was asked to review the proposal and use consistent language throughout.

C. Public Participation - Ms. Collins asked how the EIS provision was intended to work. The Chair said she thought the intent was to allow the elected officials to chose another alternative discussed in the EIS if, based on public comment, that seemed to be more appropriate. She described it as the SEPA bookend approach. Mayor Hansen suggested that there might be some value in redrafting the provision to provide clarity. He was concerned that local governments might never be able to make a decision because they would always have to go back to for additional public comment.

Ms. Collins suggested amendments to the public participation provisions. She was concerned that limiting the proposal to "substantial" amendments would allow a jurisdiction to avoid public comment by claiming an amendment was not "substantial." She also suggested taking out the provision that would apply the exceptions to amendments to a comprehensive plan or development regulation. She said the way the provision was currently drafted, notice of comprehensive plan amendments might not be required and she did not believe this was the Commission’s intent. She said this was different from whether one had to provide notice of a proposed change to an amendment to a plan. She also proposed eliminating a provision that would not require notice if a change had been included within the scope of public comment. She said this imposed a significant burden on the public to be aware of all the public comments that had been made on a proposed amendment.

Mr. Dearborn said he thought Ms. Collins’ amendments clarified the provisions. Commissioner Best expressed concern about striking the word "substantial" as did the Chair. The Chair said part of the purpose of subsection (2)(b) was to explain what "substantial" changes were. Earlier drafts had been criticized because the term was not explained. Mr. Herrick said he could see both sides. Mr. Campbell thought the "substantial" was partially based on case law that developed under SEPA. He said there was a desire to not allow a comprehensive plan to be held up because of de minimis changes. Mayor Hansen said he would like to see the changes in writing to gauge how it works in practice. Commissioner Best said he was uncertain what would be necessary to meet the requirement for additional public review and comment. Mr. Husseman said that under Ms. Collins’ amendments, it did not make any difference whether the word "substantial" was left in or not. He suggested accepting Ms. Collins’ amendments. Mayor Hansen and Commissioner Best expressed concern about deleting the exception for changes based on public comment. Ms. Collins withdrew that amendment. The Commission agreed to the other amendments proposed by Ms. Collins.

D. Standard of Review - Ms. Dietrich said she was sympathetic to the concerns raised by Ann Aagard that one either gives deference or one does not. Commissioner Best said he thought that there was a continuum. Commissioner Best suggested adding some language at the end of the first sentence to recognize that the Commission is proposing a standard that is more deferential to local governments than the existing preponderance of the evidence standard. Commission members concurred.. Mr. Campbell noted that the concept of "deference" was stated three different ways in the intent section. He suggested deleting or rewriting the last sentence to correct this problem. Ms. Ordon thought it would be better to delete it. Mayor Hansen said he liked it. Mr. Husseman noted that the Commission had already decided to recommend the clearly erroneous standard and he was concerned that the intent section was saying something else. He said that the Commission should realize this language would be cited in briefs to the Boards and the courts. Mr. Campbell noted that the Commission had tried to use consistent language throughout the draft. He was concerned that the last sentence of the intent section did not meet this objective. Other members agreed.

Mayor Hansen noted that he favored the arbitrary and consensus standard, but that he would not stand in the way of consensus on this point. He said he was considering submitting a concurring letter to accompany the Commission’s report.

Mr. Merriman expressed some concern about adding an intent section. He was not certain that it would clarify the meaning, and that it would perhaps confuse the issue. The Chair noted that Mr. Dunn concurred with the proposed section at the Steering Committee. She was reluctant to remove it without his concurrence. Mr. Dearborn said the provision was important for him. He was doubtful that the change in the standard of review would be meaningful. He had been convinced that modifying the substance of the GMA would result in meaningful changes. He presented for the Commission’s review an addition to the report that states the Commission’s intent to look at the long-term review process as part of its 1997 work program. Mayor Hansen and Mr. Campbell both agreed that this was something that would be worth exploring. Ms. Ordon said she had some concerns about some of the specific options listed. Mr. Dearborn said these did not add anything and could be deleted. The Commission concurred in Mr. Dearborn’s addition to the report.

E. Dispute Resolution / Board Procedures - Mr. Reinert noted that the Steering Committee draft made a few changes from the proposal. It expanded on changes made by the 1996 Legislature requiring the Boards to follow the Administrative Procedures Act by specifically referencing the provisions on ex parte contact. It also included another provision from the APA governing the taking of official notice.

Mr. Dearborn proposed accepting Mr. Clagett’s proposed amendments dealing with the issues that the Board could consider and write an opinion on. He thought they clarified the intent. Mayor Hansen suggested retaining the reference in the Steering Committee draft to issues raised in the statement of issues. Mr. Dearborn concurred. Commissioner Best and the Chair noted that the Board may refine the statement of issues during the prehearing conference. Mr. Dearborn said that in his experience prehearing conferences had resulted in adding issues. Commissioner Best noted that sometimes the parties not represented by counsel may not frame issues well and that the prehearing conference serves as a way to clarify the issues they have presented. Mr. Dearborn said he did not have a problem with clarification, but he did not want the Board to use the prehearing conference to expand issues not raised in the petition.

Mr. Merriman expressed some concern that this would be a disadvantage to unrepresented appellants. Ms. Collins was also concerned that parties not represented by attorneys would be at a disadvantage. Mr. Dearborn said that to some extent, the public had to recognize that the Boards were becoming more legalistic and that having an attorney would be advantageous to a party.

The Commission concurred with Mr. Dearborn’s proposal, as modified by Mayor Hansen.

There were no other changes proposed to the dispute resolution and board procedure sections.

F. Invalidity - The Chair noted that Mr. Reinert had redrafted the prior version of the invalidity provisions to place most of the provisions into one new section. This had made it easier to understand how the sections worked and eliminated most of the cross-references.

Mr. Dearborn noted that the Commission had heard a number of comments on the invalidity provisions and asked whether the Commission wished to address any of those. Mr. Reinert said that many of the comments focused on the exceptions from the invalidity order. The one receiving the most comment was the one allowing single family residences to proceed after an order of invalidity was issued.

Mr. Dearborn asked when the Board’s order would be effective. Mr. Reinert noted that under current law, the Board’s order applies to applications not vested prior to the date the Board issues its order. This has been interpreted by most local governments to mean applications not vested prior to the date and time the county receives the order. The Steering Committee proposal would change this to allow applications to vest if they are received by the local government on the same day as the Board’s order. This was in response to concerns expressed by permit departments that they had to cut off people standing in line to file a permit because an invalidity order was received before the application was submitted.

Mayor Hansen said the question of when an order was received presented problems. He thought there had been circumstances where an order had been faxed and put in an in-basket. He was not sure when it would be considered received. The Chair noted that there was also a question of who had to receive the order. Mr. Dearborn noted that there is a body of case law addressing these issues. He asked why the Board should not be required to have a structured process for notifying the parties when it issues an order. The Chair thought the issue was how to provide clarity to local governments about when the order is effective. Mr. Dearborn said he thought it was important to be as clear as possible on this issue.

Mr. Dearborn suggested the time the Board’s order would be effective should be set as before the end of the business day the Board’s order was issued. Mr. Husseman said he would prefer to set the time as being prior to receipt of the Board’s order by the local government. The Commission concurred with Mr. Husseman’s suggestion.

Ms. Ordon suggested adding the word "completed" to development applications to be clear that the provisions apply only to applications that would vest under existing law. The Commission concurred.

Mr. Husseman asked what would happen, under the Steering Committee proposal, when a local government’s comprehensive plan was found to be invalid and a prior plan is also found to be invalid. Mr. Reinert noted that current law is not changed in this proposal. Current law provides that if the local government had adopted a savings clause, the board may review the prior ordinance to determine whether it is adequate. If no savings clause if provided, the proposal allows the local government to adopt interim measures and have the board determine whether they are adequate pending adoption of a final plan. He noted that a provision in the prior draft that would not have allowed the Board to invalidate pre-GMA development regulations was not included in the Steering Committee proposal. He said at least one purpose of that proposal was to address the fact that when a Board invalidates a pre-GMA development regulation, it creates uncertainty about whether there are any zoning ordinances in effect. He noted this same problem could apply in cases where a county or city has not adopted a savings clause. The provision allowing interim controls was an attempt to address this problem.

Mr. Husseman asked whether the Steering Committee proposal addressed circumstances where a jurisdiction had failed to take actions. Mr. Reinert said the proposal does not change current law. Mr. Husseman thought it was incongruous that a jurisdiction that at least makes an attempt to follow the law is subject to invalidity, but that one that does not try is not subject to a sanction. In a county that fails to take action, projects continue to vest. Mr. Moseley noted that there are sanctions that can be imposed by the Governor.

The Chair suggested that this issue might be considered in the future. She said the Commission had not been able to resolve this particular problem, but that there did seem to be agreement that there was some unfairness that should be addressed.

Mr. Merriman asked about the single family home exemption from invalidity orders. The Chair said she thought the intent was to put into statute some of the Board decisions. Tommy Prud’homme, Assistant Attorney General, said that the Western Board had looked at ownership of lots. The owner of a single lot with contiguous lots is not affected by an order of invalidity. However, if one owns contiguous lots as well, he or she may be required to consolidate lots. He did not think the Commission’s proposal addressed the latter circumstance.

Mr. Merriman expressed the concern the provision exempted all single family residential developments from invalidity orders. He thought it was too expansive. Mr. Dearborn said that under the proposal, tax parcels which had been in existence for years and currently are unbuildable could be built on. Ms. Ordon suggested adding a requirement that the property owner not own contiguous lots. The Chair expressed concern that this would be relatively easy to get around by transferring ownership to family members.

Mayor Hansen asked whether limiting these provisions to urban growth areas might help solve some of the problems Commission members were having with the exemption. Commissioner Best noted that it might be the size of the urban growth area that is an issue. Commissioner Best expressed concern that the Commission not prevent a county from trying to address past zoning practices that it might want to undo.

The Chair suggested using the Shoreline Management Act provision allowing construction of a single family home for personal use. Mr. Campbell thought that was a good approach. The Commission concurred with this suggestion and asked Mr. Reinert to work with the Steering Committee to draft appropriate language to include with the draft.

Mr. Dearborn asked whether the Board would have sufficient information to make the decision of whether health and safety concerns should not allow the single family residence exemption in some cases. The Chair said this would be something the parties would have to brief, if they thought it was something they wanted the board to address.

Mr. Dearborn expressed some frustration with the whole invalidity concept, particularly when it is used as a way to force compliance with the statute. He said he did not see a way around invalidity at this time, but he thought it would never be possible to fix some of the underlying problems with the concept.

G. Annexation - Mayor Hansen presented proposed amendments to the annexation provisions that Mr. Heller and Snohomish County representatives had reviewed and approved. The amendments would add a requirement that "island" areas would need to have residential property owners to be annexed without going through the petition process. The added requirement would apply both to the existing provision allowing annexation of islands of less than 100 acres, as well as for the expanded authority.

Commissioner Best asked why the annexation issue was being addressed in these recommendations. He noted that there are a lot of issues that cities and counties need to address, annexation being only one part of them. He did not believe the Commission was necessarily the place to resolve those issues. Mayor Hansen agreed that there were a number of other issues, but said he felt that addressing this issue was an important element in assuring that GMA functions. The Chair said she thought the Commission recognized the concerns counties had about annexations and that the draft did contain some recognition of existing agreements.

Dave Williams noted that the draft had made changes suggested by the Boundary Review Board Association and Snohomish County. These changes provide for continued involvement of the boundary review board in annexation decisions and also tie annexation decisions more closely to GMA comprehensive plans and local service agreements.

Commissioner Best asked why June 30, 1994 was chosen as a date to apply to "island" annexations. Mr. Williams said the purpose was to make the provisions available only to the first set of counties that were required to plan under GMA. In addition, it was intended to prevent a rush to expand boundaries of cities in such a way to get around the petition process as a way of getting an annexation approved.

The Commission concurred with the proposed amendments suggested by Mayor Hansen.

H. Capital Facilities Financing - The Chair noted that the Steering Committee proposal contained a provision to study the need for and find a way to finance local infrastructure. Mr. Moseley proposed an additional provision that would allow cities and counties planning under GMA to impose a sales tax on new construction. The money would fund GMA capital facilities elements. The tax would be a credit against the state sales tax. This would mean that there would not be an increase in the tax paid, but there would be a decrease in state revenues. He said this worked well because it would provide funds in those jurisdictions which were growing. He recognized that it would not be easy to get this proposal through the Legislature. He thought the Commission had to be clear that if GMA was going to work, the infrastructure need to be in place.

Mr. Moseley suggested that DCTED might be given the authority to determine whether a jurisdiction was in compliance with the GMA. He understood that DCTED was uncomfortable with being placed in this role. He did think it was important that there be some central location to determine whether a jurisdiction is in compliance with the GMA. He suggested it might be possible for DCTED to using a process in consultation with other state agencies and with cities and counties to establish whether a jurisdiction was in compliance with the GMA.

Mr. Moseley said there would probably need to be some changes to the provisions to allow it to be administered by the Department of Revenue.

Mayor Hansen agreed that it was important to put this proposal forward. He did not think the study provision in the current draft was enough. He said Everett’s infrastructure problems were real and serious and a study is not necessary. He said implementing GMA in the cities will become problematic if infrastructure issues cannot be adequately addressed.

Mr. Burch asked whether "new construction" included just buildings or if it included roads. Mayor Hansen pointed out that the amount of tax paid would be the same, so there would not be an increase in costs to the Department of Transportation. Mr. Burch asked whether the funds could be spent on more than infrastructure. Mr. Moseley said the draft allowed funds to be spent on anything within the capital facilities element. This could include things such as parks. He preferred to leave it like this.

Mr. Merriman said he thought the Commission should forward this proposal to the legislature. He liked the idea that growth would be paying for growth.

Mr. Campbell expressed reservations about the proposal. He felt that the details of the suggestion had not been made available in sufficient time for full Commission consideration. He was also concerned that Governor-elect Locke, whose transition staff had been briefed on Commission recommendations, might be unpleasantly surprised to find this proposal among the Commission’s recommendations, particularly if it was part of a single Commission bill. The Chair said she had a similar concern and that Mr. Moseley said he did not object to placing the finance provision in a separate bill.

Mr. Campbell asked whether the city and county associations were including this recommendation as part of their legislative proposals. Paul Parker said the county association was supporting additional infrastructure financing, but had not proposed any specific funding mechanism. Dave Williams said the city association had taken essentially the same position. He said AWC had discussed this specific proposal and would support it, but that it was not specifically seeking to have it introduced. Mr. Campbell wanted to make sure that city and county associations would be supporting the Commission’s recommendation so it would have some chance of making progress. He thought the Commission would be going out an a limb without that kind of support. Mayor Hansen noted that if the proposal was initiated by the cities or counties, it might be seen as self-serving.

The Chair recognized the concern that this specific proposal had not been presented to the Governor-elect and the transition team. She suggested that by including it as separate legislation, the Commission could honor the information given the Governor-elect to date and at the same time encourage the Governor-elect and the Legislature to adopt the proposal. Mr. Moseley said Governor-elect Locke was not a stranger to these issues, both as former chair of the House Appropriations Committee and as King County Executive. He was certain the Governor-elect would know how to deal with the proposal. He just wanted to make as strong a statement as possible, recognizing that the Governor-elect might have to consider this proposal separately from the other Commission recommendations..

Mr. Campbell also expressed concern about the provision requiring DCTED to determine who was eligible for the tax. He said this was a responsibility of Revenue that did not belong with DCTED.

Mr. Moseley said he wanted to be certain that even though the Commission might put the infrastructure finance proposal in a separate bill, it would not be treated as somehow less significant than the other Commission recommendations.

Mayor Hansen suggested that the statements in the report should be strengthened to emphasize the significance of the infrastructure issue. Mr. Husseman agreed. He said the report should emphasize that the success of GMA is dependent on providing sufficient infrastructure. The Commission already knows that there is a gap between the need and the amount of funds available. He said the Commission also knows that more people are coming into the state. Mr. Dearborn agreed. He said the report should state the issue much more forcefully.

Mr. Dearborn said the Commission should also consider the factors that are important to any funding proposal. For him, it is that funds go to locations where growth is occurring and that it be made available without a lot of state strings. He suggested any other funding proposal should be satisfy these criteria.

Mr. Dearborn asked whether the funds should be limited to only urban growth areas. There was no consensus for this limitation. Commissioner Best noted that the funds had to be spent to implement capital facilities plans and that these would generally be focused on the urban growth areas. Scott Merriman said that limiting funds to urban growth areas might encourage drawing larger boundaries. Mr. Roseberry said imposing that limit might make it more difficult to obtain agreement of the Legislature.

Mr. Campbell expressed some reservations, and said he would like to see the final proposal.

I. The Chair asked if Commission members were in consensus on the legislative proposal, understanding that there were some revisions to be made and that members would be able to review those changes. There were no objections.

VI. Summary of Actions

A. Buildable Lands - Include a placeholder provision in the Commission’s legislative recommendation. Request Mr. Husseman to continue working with the committee to reach an agreement for presentation at the Commission’s February meeting.

B. Public Participation - Adopt Ms. Collins’ amendments, as modified

C. Standard of Review - Delete last sentence of intent section. Amend report to state Commission’s intent to review long term review process during

D. Dispute Resolution - Direct Review. Adopt amendment proposed by Steve Clagett with modifications.

E. Invalidity - Change the effective date of the Board’s order to when received by the local government. Modify the single family exemption to apply only to a residence for personal use.

F. Annexation - Modify to apply only to islands that have residential property.

G. Capital Facilities Financing - The Commission accepted Mr. Moseley’s proposed amendment with the recognition that it would need some redrafting to make it work properly.

VII. Adjournment — The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m.