Summary of Meeting

March 11, 1997
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
Lacey, Washington

I. Meeting convened at 12:30 p.m.

A. Members Present:
Ryan Durkan, Chair; Commissioner Phil Best, Skip Burch, Tom Campbell, Keith Dearborn, John Herrick, Terry Husseman, and Kimberly Ordon. Paul Roberts attended as the alternate for Mayor Ed Hansen.

B. Staff Present:
Harry Reinert and Julie Knackstedt.

II. Chair’s Report — Legislative Update

A. Legislative Update.
The Chair noted that since the last Commission meeting the Commission’s bill had been heard in both the House Government Reform and Land Use Committee and the Senate Government Operations Committee. She noted that SB 5758 passed out of the Senate committee with no amendments. HB 1869 did not pass out of the House committee. She did note that another bill was passed by the committee, HB 2244, which took some elements of the Commission’s recommendations, but changed others.

The Chair briefly described the differences between HB 2244 and the Commission’s proposal. Mr. Reinert provided the Commission with a written summary of the differences. She noted that there were a number of options that might revive the Commission’s proposal, but that it was too early to tell what was the most likely outcome. She noted that she had briefed the House Democratic Caucus that morning, explaining to them the elements of the Commission’s proposal and answering their questions.

Mr. Reinert provided Commission members with a list of bills that amended the Growth Management Act or were related.

Mr. Dearborn noted that there were some members of the Legislature who believed that the Commission had excluded some interest groups from its process, in part because these groups have said they were excluded. He said that this view points out the need for the Commission to reach out even more than it already has to involve diverse interests. The Chair pointed out that the Legislature may add to the Commission’s membership in response to some of these concerns.

B. Announcements
The Chair read a letter from Governor Locke received by the Commission that day. The Governor thanked Commission members for their hard work and stated that he was looking forward to working the Commission members during the next year.

III. SEPA/GMA Panel Presentation — Neal Aaland, Department of Ecology; Heather Ballash, Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development; Faith Lumsden, City of Bellevue; Tracy Burrows, 1000 Friends of Washington; and Sally Clark, Association of Washington Business.

A. Neal Aaland
Mr. Aaland reviewed the history of Ecology’s and DCTED’s responsibilities to adopt rules implementing certain aspects of HB 1724, the 1995 regulatory reform legislation. Mr. Aaland noted that Ecology and DCTED were given three charges: (1) amend the SEPA rules to allow the combined permitting process provided for in HB 1724; (2) develop SEPA rule criteria for evaluating the consistency of projects with GMA comprehensive plans; and (3) adopt criteria for evaluating planned actions. Planned actions are those areas of a jurisdiction or categories of projects identified by a county or city for special consideration that, due to the environmental review conducted during the planning stage, do not require SEPA review during the permitting process. Planned actions do not require threshold determinations under SEPA. In addition, Ecology also determined that the SEPA rules would need some amendments to conform them to the changes made by HB 1724. Ecology established and advisory committee in November 1995 to assist with the tasks imposed by HB 1724. Four statewide meetings were held in July on a public review draft that was issued prior to the proposal of a formal set of rules. As a result of input from those meetings, Ecology delayed the publication of the rules to work through additional issues that developed as a result of the earlier comment process. An agreement has been reached on the elements of the proposed rules dealing with planned actions, but not on those dealing with consistency. One bill before the legislature would transfer rule-making authority on the consistency rules to DCTED. Ecology is delaying action on the rule until the session ends. Draft rules should be published in the near future and Ecology hopes to hold public hearings in May.

B. Heather Ballash
Ms. Ballash noted that a major concern for a number of advisory committee members about the consistency rules was that they would be in SEPA. Their concern was that this might create additional SEPA appealable issues and they wished to avoid this problem. She noted that although the planned action rules had initially been quite controversial, the parties had reached an agreement. The agencies have agreed to analyze the rules in two years to see how the rules have worked out. She said the agencies do not have any specific suggestions concerning the consolidated land use code. She suggested the Commission might want to monitor implementation of the rules.

C. Faith Lumsden
Ms. Lumsden said she was speaking from the perspective of those who are required to implement the legislative requirements. She said the advisory committee members had a similar goal of wanting to comply with the goals of the GMA, achieve efficiencies in the permitting process, and maintain the quality of local decisions. She noted that over the last year nearly every jurisdiction has made changes to their processes. Unfortunately, nearly everyone is still confused about the requirements of HB 1724. The changes made by local governments have been relatively small to date. When Ecology and DCTED adopt their rules, this should enable more substantial changes to be implemented and also lead to some greater consistency across jurisdictions. She noted that one concern was that local governments are all being required to do more with less. She felt that additional resources, which might include technical assistance and financing, would probably be necessary for jurisdictions to fully implement the changes being considered.

D. Tracy Burrows
Ms. Burrows said that the process leading to development of the proposed rules had been fairly successful, but that it was difficult to say whether there had been any actual improvements in the way SEPA and GMA interact. She said the question of consistency was important to the environmental community. She thought there was general agreement on the goal of consistency, which is to avoid revisiting basic planning decisions at the project review stage. The problem that is presented, though, is knowing how well environmental studies have been done at the plan level to know what, if any, additional environmental review is necessary for a particular project.

Ms. Burrows also said that 1000 Friends was concerned to make certain that citizen participation is done well. She said local governments should see citizen participation as something more than just a legal formality, that they should see it as an important part of the process so that citizens understand what they can expect as early in the planning process as possible.

Ms. Burrows agreed with Ms. Lumsden that the issues involved in integrating SEPA and GMA were complex and many local governments were continuing on two tracks. She suggested a lot of training would be necessary to address this problem.

E. Sally Clarke
Ms. Clarke reviewed the history that led to HB 1724 in 1995. She said that the question of integrating SEPA and GMA involves more than just permit processes. The comprehensive plan process is also an important element in this process. Ecology’s proposed rules then deal both with the planning process as well with the permit process, each of which has different problems and concerns. She said the benefit of achieving a more integrated system with better environmental review during planning should be greater predictability during the permitting process. This would include greater predictability about what would be protected, including critical areas, as well as greater predictability for property owners about what they could do with their property. She also suggested that this should lead to less process at the permit stage, because much of the work would have been done previously. Consistency was in part intended to be part of this overall framework. She also noted that the first section of HB 1724 recognized that GMA should be the integrating framework. She encouraged the Commission to continue the work that was started with HB 1724.

F. Questions

Mr. Dearborn noted that subarea planning was thought to be the area that integrated planning would provide significant benefits. He said it was beginning to appear that the cost of preparing a subarea EIS was significant enough, and available funds short, that not many subarea plans would actually be prepared. He asked whether there were other ways to take advantage of this capability.

Ms. Burrows said she thought subarea plans were a key means of achieving these benefits. She noted that many jurisdictions have not done any meaningful environmental review of their comprehensive plans.

Ms. Lumsden noted that Bellevue has been doing subarea plans for 20 years. She said that although they might be too detailed at times, the guidance and policies that they provide, with significant public involvement, have been very important. She said this was the easiest and best available tool. She said more detail in development regulations could help, if a jurisdiction does not have a subarea plan. But that route does not offer the public involvement necessary to streamline the process in important ways because the public has bought into the plan.

Ms. Clarke said that if subarea plans are the only means of achieving the integration objectives, we will have failed in our overall objective. She suggested that infill within urban growth areas needs to be encouraged.

Mr. Campbell asked what the Commission could do in the next year to improve the process. He recognized that the current process is very complex. He thought simplification should be high on the list of objectives.

Mr. Best noted that the Commission had been asked to look at ways to finance integrated planning. He noted that the funds currently used to fund integrated planning may instead be appropriated for the buildable lands proposal. He asked where the panelists thought the money could best be spent.

Ms. Lumsden agreed with Ms. Clarke that there could be some significant benefits in streamlining the process through improved development regulations. She said noted that without something to monitor, there will be no reason to do the evaluation.

Ms. Clarke noted that much subarea planning is done in areas that are not yet developed or are underdeveloped and where there is no growth, but where a community hopes growth can be directed. She thought that money for this purpose could more appropriately come from local funds.

Ms. Burrows thought the buildable lands and subarea planning can be complementary and that better information could help assure that infill occurs, particularly if the public is comfortable with the plans for that infill.

Mr. Husseman noted that the Commission will be attempting to develop its workplan over the next couple of meetings. He noted that the SEPA/GMA rule committee has been trying to address these issues over the last year and that there seemed at least some sentiment towards seeing how the changes made by HB 1724 worked out before making any further changes. He asked the panelists whether it might be appropriate to wait before taking additional steps.

Ms. Clarke noted that the presence of two separate panels on the Commission's agenda demonstrated one area that additional work was needed — to integrate GMA and SMA. This is necessary both for planning and for permitting in the shorelines. She suggested that shorelines and growth management planning should be done as a single process. The plan decisions should be able to be relied on during project review. Environmental review at the project stage should be lessened, and in some cases eliminated. She suggested that the development regulations and critical areas ordinances adopted by counties and cities in the last few years provided a basis for making the next step.

Ms. Burrows agreed with Mr. Campbell’s statement that simplification was a priority. She also suggested that ways to make infill work should be high on the Commission's list.

Mr. Roberts noted that over the next few months some of the first subarea plans will be adopted. He suggested that, based on the experience from these early plans, the Commission could look at further changes in the process that would allow expedited permitting even in cases where subarea plans are not prepared, as long as environmental review has been done and there are good development regulations in place.

The Chair thanked the members of the panel and provide the Commission any additional thoughts on the Commission’s workplan.

IV. Shoreline Management Act Panel — Tom Mark, Department of Ecology; Rick Krochalis, Seattle Department of Construction and Land Use; Janet Dawes, Citizen; Chris Parsons, Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development (DCTED); Laura Whitaker, Association of Washington Business; and Mark Carey, King County Department of Development and Environmental Services.

A. Tom Mark
Mr. Mark provided the Commission with a brief overview of the Shoreline Management Act’s (SMA) history, starting with its approval by the voters in 1972. He noted that in addition to addressing environmental issues, the SMA also addressed a number of legal issues, such as the public trust doctrine and the relative role of the state and local governments in regulating the shorelines. One of Ecology’s first tasks under the SMA was to adopt guidelines for the development of local shoreline master programs. The guidelines have not been significantly changed since then. In 1976 the state received approval of its coastal zone management plan which provides both federal money and the ability to regulate federal activity. Some of the federal funds are provided to local governments. With the adoption of GMA, Ecology was aware that there was a connection between the two statutes and established programs to assist local governments in developing plans that would integrate the two programs.

In 1995, HB 1724 gave Ecology some additional tasks and authority. One specific authority was the ability to update the guidelines governing the shoreline master programs. Ecology initiated a process to evaluate its current guidelines and determine what steps should be taken in light of that evaluation. Ecology divided its work into a two major areas: (1) rules governing how the agency approves shoreline master programs; and (2) policies governing the shorelines. The first step has been taken and rules were adopted in November 1996. The second step is still ongoing. The agency conducted a statewide survey, conducted workshops, and prepared two drafts of guidelines that it sent out for public comment. The current working plan is to adopt a pilot rule by the end of 1997. A final rule would be adopted in 1999. That would set in motion the two year period for counties and cities to update their shoreline master programs.

Mr. Mark said that the review process has identified four problem areas that legislation would be necessary to resolve ongoing problems. One problem is how to a county or city could incorporate by reference development regulations adopted under other authority. This would be useful for assuring internal consistency, but has generated a lot of concern. A second issue is how to distinguish between shoreline master programs that have been consistently updated and those which have not be changed since they were adopted. A third issue is how to fit shoreline permits into an integrated aquatic management program. This is more of a problem for other agencies than for Ecology. The fourth issue is the substantial development permit requirements. The SMA standards for distinguishing between exempt permits and substantial development permits do not always relate to their impact on the shorelines. In some cases standards tied to dollar amounts have not been changed over time to reflect inflation. Ecology believes changes in these requirements are in order.

B. Chris Parsons
One of the provisions of HB 1724 was to make the shoreline program an element of growth management comprehensive plans. Ecology’s proposed guidelines, although lengthy, do a good job of providing a variety of options for local governments to adopt their shoreline master plans. This may be particularly useful for the many smaller jurisdictions around the state.

She noted that there were a number of issues that need to be addressed. These include: responsibility for the cost of updating shoreline master programs; workload impacts on the state agencies responsible for reviewing the plans; consistency between shoreline master programs, critical areas ordinances, county-wide planning policies; consistency between jurisdictions; relationship of GMA procedural criteria to shoreline programs; and appropriate land use designations on the shorelines within and without urban growth areas.

C. Janet Dawes
Ms. Dawes noted that she had participated in the advisory committee as a member of an environmental organization. She is now living in Mason County and thought it would be useful to understand how the SMA is implemented in a small mostly rural county. The primary tension is how reconcile planning under the broad state guidelines provided in GMA with the more specific statewide and local interests set forth in the SMA. She said although she understood the desire on the part of many local governments that have the resources to be freed from some of the requirements of the SMA, not all counties and cities have the level of sophistication to support that as a uniform statewide policy. Shoreline protection can be very precarious in these counties.

Mason County has some of the most important shorelines in the state. Although the shoreline plan has statements that appear to recognize the value of shorelines, in practice the policy in the county has been to allow nearly all development in the shoreline. Without Ecology review of permits, the types of activity the county would allow would continue without check.

Ms. Dawes expressed concerns about incorporating other development regulations by reference, particularly because of the problems that might be created in some counties. She also felt that the SMA should remain as the greater of two equals when there are questions about which should govern. She also suggested that the Shorelines Hearings Board should continue to have authority to review shoreline permits. She recognized that HB 1724 imposed a difficult task on Ecology and local governments. She thought Ecology's current draft guidelines were an improvement over the prior version, but that there is a way to go.

D. Laura Whitaker
Ms. Whitaker said the business community was concerned from the outset of the Ecology rule making process about the lack of adequate business representation on Ecology's advisory committee. The majority of committee members were from the regulators and the environmental community. This issue was discussed with Ecology staff. AWB decided not to participate in the committee after the first two meetings because of concerns that remaining on the committee would limit AWB's ability to argue for positions contrary to those taken by the advisory committee.

She noted that the one issue the advisory committee struggled with was how to integrate growth management and shorelines in a meaningful way. She said resolving this issue would be a real help. She went into the advisory committee thinking that one result would be specifically allowing local governments to incorporate other development regulations by reference. The concern for a number of advisory committee members was whether and how subsequent amendments to those development regulations would be reviewed by Ecology. She did believe that the end result of the integration process should be a single statute that combines shorelines and growth management.

E. Rick Krochalis
Mr. Krochalis noted that Seattle was somewhat critical of the way the rule making process was handled. In addition, because it believes it has a strong shoreline program, it was looking for more in the way of local control than Ecology was willing or able to provide. He suggested it was more important to look at the outcome that was expected than how to get there. Mr. Krochalis disagreed with Mr. Mark's assessment that the rule-making had been relatively non-controversial. He noted that Seattle appealed some of Ecology's rules to the Shoreline Hearings Board because it believed they did not comply with the law and the Board had issued a stay of parts of those rules. He was concerned that the guidelines being considered by Ecology would force Seattle to completely revamp its program that has made major strides towards integrating shorelines and growth management. He said DCTED had adopted a better approach, using technical assistance to get compliance with the GMA. There were also concerns that the guidelines were overly prescriptive and too complicated.

F. Mark Carey
Mr. Carey understood that Ecology was required to operate state-wide and that in some jurisdictions the political will to protect valuable shoreline resources was not there and Ecology plays an important role in those places. He said that one of the biggest difficulties for King County in complying with HB 1724's permit timeline requirements was handling shoreline permits. Ecology's role in that process adds delay and in King County's case, does not add much in the way of value. He recognized that King County's shoreline master plan had not been significantly updated in 20 years and that it is out of step with recently adopted amendments to its comprehensive plan. Some of the inconsistencies had led developers to propose amendments to the shoreline plan to achieve some consistency, which brought the issue into focus for the County. One option that might be considered would be to have the state establish performance standards and goals for shorelines within the GMA framework, but to allow the counties and cities have a uniform permitting process.

G. Questions
Mr. Husseman asked how Mr. Krochalis understood the relationship between the GMA and SMA. He asked whether there had been any substantive changes to the SMA in HB 1724 that provided guidance. Mr. Krochalis said there had not been changes in substance. He restated his concern that the guidelines were overly long and did not take into account the fact that Seattle had had a shoreline program in place since the early 1970s. He felt the guidelines made no effort to distinguish between jurisdictions that had good programs and those that did not and would force jurisdictions to start over.

Commissioner Best noted that there had apparently been fewer problems implementing SMA than there had been in implementing the GMA. He wondered whether there was anything in the experience of the SMA that could be used to guide the GMA. Ms. Parsons noted that in part the SMA had been around for 20 years and that there was a certain comfort level with it.

Mr. Dearborn felt that the Shoreline Management Act and Ecology's participation in the implementation of the SMA had until recently been a model for state agencies on how to interact with local governments. He felt that the most recent round of proposed rules had not followed on this history. He said he had been asked a number of times recently why the Commission was not involved in Ecology's efforts, particularly since they seemed to be addressing some of the fundamental questions of integrating SMA and GMA that had been given to the Commission to study. He wondered whether Ecology was prejudging the process and whether it would make it difficult for the Commission to conduct its study.

Mr. Mark said Ecology believed that HB 1724 required it to make some changes to the SMA. He said it was not clear when the rule making process was initiated what areas the Commission would enter. He did not believe any of the decisions contemplated by Ecology in the rules would be irreversible. He also noted that if the statutes changed, that would lead to changes in the rules as well. He recognized that this could lead to a situation where Ecology and the Commission might come to different conclusions on some issues that would be in conflict. Mr. Krochalis suggested that the Commission might be able to act in an oversight role on the rule making process to review both how local governments are doing in implementing their responsibilities under HB 1724, but also how Ecology implements its charge as well.

Mr. Campbell noted that there was a connection between some of the elements of the GMA and the SMA, particularly aspects of the critical areas.

The Chair said she understood Ms. Dawes concerns about checks and balances. She wondered whether there might be some areas where there are duplicate checks, for example both Ecology review and Shorelines Hearings Board review. Ms. Dawes said that in some ways the more important process was review by the Board, but that it is an expensive process that could eliminate some important issues from review.

V. Buildable Lands Subcommittee Update
Mr. Husseman reported that the Buildable Land Subcommittee has met twice since the last Commission meeting. He handed out the 10th Draft of proposed legislation, which was the latest version considered by the subcommittee. The subcommittee agreed to a number of changes to the draft. There were two areas that the Subcommittee concluded it needed additional discussion. It asked the staff to revise the bill in light of the discussion and to make additional changes to make it more readable. In addition, Mr. Dunn had asked to include some provisions that he felt were important for his ability to concur in the proposal. The Subcommittee reviewed the redraft at a meeting prior to the Commission meeting.

During the morning review, the Subcommittee concluded that it had reached an impasse and was not likely to resolve its differences. Mr. Husseman said it was unlikely that the Commission would be able to resolve the differences in the time remaining for the meeting.

The Chair noted that under the Commission's procedures there were several different options. One would be to convene the Subcommittee or some other group to see if the remaining differences could be resolved. She was aware of the difficulty this presented, particularly with the short amount of time to have anything included as part of the legislative process. Another option is to have the Subcommittee report on the issues that it was unable to address and forward this discussion to the Legislature for its consideration.

Mr. Husseman did not believe the bill cut-off was significant. His sense was that the Subcommittee was at gridlock. He noted that the main purpose of the proposal was to have six large or fast growing western Washington counties to evaluate whether actual development within the urban growth areas is consistent with the expectations at the time the comprehensive plan was adopted. If it turns out development does not occur the densities that were expected, the county and its cities would be required to implement reasonable measures to increase the likelihood that the densities would be achieved. This would be attempted first without moving the urban growth boundary. This question of when the urban growth boundary could be moved was one of the points in controversy. There was a concern on the part of some subcommittee members that the standard established in the draft was more stringent than is provided in current law. There was a proposal to delete Sec. 3(5) from the draft and eliminate this provision from the proposal. The proposal would then be silent on when the boundary could be moved. In its place there would be an intent statement to the effect that other measures would be attempted before the urban growth boundary was expanded. The Subcommittee was not able to come to agreement on this option, in part because it ran out of time.

Commissioner Best noted that the Subcommittee had agreed to some modifications in Sec. 3(1) to clarify the language. Mr. Dearborn noted that Mr. Dunn's additions in Sec. 3(2) had presented problems for several members. There were concerns about the costs associated with these requirements. Mr. Dearborn said he did not believe they really went far enough in some ways, that they should include all of the goals. He thought it was too late to incorporate these elements. Since Mr. Dunn was not at the meeting, the Subcommittee was not able to discuss his concerns and consider other alternatives.

Mr. Husseman said one suggestion was to delete Mr. Dunn's additions along with the provisions concerning changes to the urban growth boundary. He was not sure Mr. Dearborn would find the resulting proposal acceptable. Mr. Dearborn said that for him the issue was more one of whether the resulting proposal would generate sufficient support in the Legislature. He said he had heard considerable concern in the business community about the trade-off that was being proposed: more stringent standards for moving the urban growth boundary in exchange for better information about how the planning process was performing. That was part of the reason he had suggested leaving the bill neutral on the actions that the local government should take based on the information that was developed.

Mr. Ordon said she was concerned about dropping the provisions that would require local governments to monitory critical areas and compliance with rural character. She noted that to the extent that any information developed by a local government would be used to make decisions. Those decisions will affect the urban growth boundary, even if there were no specific provisions to that effect.

The Chair said that it seemed from the discussion that the Subcommittee might not really have reached an impasse, but that it just ran out of time to finish its discussion. Mr. Husseman said that it would be important for everyone to be available for any future discussion. The Chair asked whether there was any sense of the costs of the provisions. She was concerned that some of the issues raised by Mr. Dunn might not have been anticipated in the earlier cost estimates heard by the Commission.

Mr. Husseman said the suggestions included in the draft at Mr. Dunn's request had been raised by both Mr. Dunn and Mr. Merriman from the very beginning of the discussions on the buildable lands proposal. The language might be new, but the ideas were not. Mr. Roberts said one of the issues for the cities has to do with whether the provisions relating to the critical areas imposed additional requirements for protecting those areas.

The Chair said she would like to ask the Subcommittee to try one more time to come to consensus. She also wanted to be sure to inform others who had been following the issue about what were the proposed changes in the recommendations. Mr. Campbell noted that a public process would make it difficult for the Commission to impact legislation. Mr. Dearborn noted that he had initially hoped that including a buildable lands component in the Commission's recommendations would provide an incentive to the business community to support the Commission's package of legislation. He was not sure that the ideas being discussed by the Commission were sufficient to provide this incentive. He was skeptical that a meaningful agreement was possible and suggested that the Commission should report on its areas of agreement and disagreement to the Commission. Mr. Husseman noted that there might be no areas of agreement to report. He did not think that Mr. Dunn would necessarily agree to some components of the proposal if the issues he had raised were not also addressed.

The Chair thought she had heard a proposal to delete the provisions added by Mr. Dunn and the provisions of Sec. 3(5) and that she thought this might serve as a starting point for consensus. Commissioner Best noted that there was also a concern about funding. He said the Governor's budget had about one-half of the amount that was originally estimated to be necessary for the program. Mr. Husseman said any proposal dealing with this issue would have to address the question of funding. He said the money or a source of revenue would need to be provided, or else local governments would have a strong argument that there was an unfunded mandate. He said the draft does not tackle the issue directly, but makes the proposal subject to funding by the legislature.

Mr. Campbell said Mr. Husseman was doing a good job trying to find a middle ground on the issue. He thought there was reason to try one more time to come up with language that would address both Mr. Dunn's and Ms. Ordon's concerns and provide Mr. Dearborn with the incentives that he was looking for. He was concerned about the shift in funding that had occurred as a result of this proposal. He noted that the Governor's budget was taking general GMA grant funding and redirected it to these six counties.

The Chair asked the Subcommittee to try another draft. If it is not able to come to agreement, then the Commission could report to the Legislature on the issues that it has been able to resolve and those it has not been able to resolve. Mr. Dearborn said that the Subcommittee should look at the comments submitted by Susan Crowley from the City of Seattle. He also noted that Seattle had proposed a cost-recovery mechanisms that from the business community perspective he thought made sense. He knew that Mr. Dunn had concerns about the proposal in earlier versions, but he thought the current proposal addressed several of his concerns. He said the proposal was similar to legislation adopted in Oregon. He suggested that the Subcommittee should look at including this provision in its next draft. He said local governments need to be able to recover their costs if the monitoring program is to be viable on a long-term basis.

Mr. Dearborn and the Chair both thanked Mr. Husseman and Mr. Miller for their work on this issue.

Mr. Reinert noted that there was not much time left to get something to the Legislature. He said the Subcommittee should meet sometime before the end of this week or early next week. Mr. Husseman asked how the Commission would review any proposal prior to submitting it to the legislature. The April 8 Commission meeting would be too late. Mr. Reinert suggested holding a special meeting that could be via a telephone conference call. Mr. Husseman said another option would be to delegate to the Subcommittee the authority to make a decision on behalf of the Commission. The Chair thought it would be best to work through the full Commission. The Chair announced the special meeting would be held Tuesday, March 18. The time would be announced later. Members will be able to participate via telephone conference call.

VI. Public Comment

A. Michael Kepjae — Mr. Kapjae expressed concern that the counties were using the unfunded mandate requirements in current law to avoid complying with the GMA.

B. Bob Cornish — Kirkland resident. Mr. Cornish suggested that the Executive Summary of the Commission's recommendation on providing assistance to community organization should be clarified to explain what types of organizations are intended to be included. He also suggested that Oregon's planning approach, particularly its emphasis on state-wide planning, had been important reducing the damage from recent floods. He suggested that the Chair should appoint a Committee without attorneys to develop the basic policy directions for integrating GMA, SMA, and SEPA before turning the drafting over to the attorneys to work out the legal niceties.

C. Rufus Rose — Island County Planning Commissioner. Mr. Rose read from a letter sent by DCTED to Island County commenting on a draft comprehensive plan. The letter stated in part that Island County was required adopt development regulations to prohibit development that would cause level of service to drop below the standard established by the transportation element of the comprehensive plan. The letter also states that the County must also apply this standard for state transportation facilities. Under this interpretation, development in Island County, which is generally accessible only by state transportation facilities, will be subject to the state's willingness to fund its transportation facilities. Mr. Rose expressed concern that under the Commission's operating procedures requiring consensus would prevent the Commission from making important recommendations to the legislature. He noted that at a prior meeting someone had stated that the state had identified billions of dollars of identified transportation needs that cannot be funded and that this demonstrates that this aspect of the GMA cannot work without that funding. Mr. Rose said that if this statement is true, it argues strongly for including an examination of transportation as one of the issues the Commission should include in its workplan.

Mr. Dearborn noted that Mr. Burch and others had raised the question of how state facilities should be dealt with in the planning process and in impact fees. He was unsure how this issue had been left by the Commission. Mr. Burch said that he remembered asking questions about whether estimated transportation needs identified in comprehensive plans included state transportation facilities. He noted that the 20 year plan for WSDOT would carry a much higher figure.

D. Greg Griffith — Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP). Mr. Griffith asked that the Commission include protection of cultural resources in its list of things to look at in a consolidated code. Decisions made in local land use planning have a direct impact on the preservation of those resources. He noted that OAHP works with a number of local jurisdictions and that one of the primary roles it provides is maintaining an inventory of historic sites. OAHP is working with WSDOT, DNR, and DCTED in establishing a GIS system. It also provides a training program in conjunction with other state agencies to identify and understand the nature of historic properties. He said OAHP has a lot of resources than can assist local planning departments.

Commissioner Best asked whether the definitions within the GMA were adequate to address the concerns of the Office. Mr. Griffith said that definitions are all over the map, but that the definitions are less important.

E. Chris Parsons — Tumwater City Council member (representing herself). Ms. Parsons reviewed a recent experience in Tumwater involving reviewing aquifer recharge areas as part of the development of a wellhead protection program. The study showed that the comprehensive plan called for development in aquifer recharge areas. Because the information had not been available at the plan level, it was important that the information be developed as part of subsequent planning and permitting processes.

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