What state statutes should be part of consolidated state land use and environmental code?
	Are there areas where new laws are needed?
	Areas where existing laws should be eliminated or consolidated?
	How should the new code be organized?
	Do our existing planning laws provide an appropriate level of planning and predictability for: Resource and environmental protection Resource based economies Watershed and water resource management Capital facilities Affordable housing Economic development and job creation Reliable long-term community livability Property rights protection? Are there innovative ways to better plan for any of these or other important interests of our state? Should the state have a comprehensive plan of its own? With regard to the Growth Management Act, what is the appropriate balance of state and local control? With regard to the State Environmental Policy Act, how can environmental review be integrated at the comprehensive planning stage? How can environmental review be paid for at the planning stage? With regard to the Shoreline Management Act, are there ways to better integrate the Act into a consolidated land use code? Are there sufficient planning options for planning in rural areas? Should the state establish a definition of rural, or should local communities define it? Should the definition be set by statute or by some other means, such as administrative rule? Should the state establish minimum lot sizes in rural areas? Should the state specify minimum net densities in urban growth areas? Are there better ways to coordinate state and local planning with the planning efforts of tribal governments? With the federal government? How can the state achieve interagency consistency in establishing state policy? How can the sate achieve consistent regulation between agencies? How should we plan for geographic areas of statewide significance? How should we plan for large scale developments affecting more than one community, regional transportation facilites, essential public facilities, and similar types of developments? With regard to special purpose district planning, such as sewer and water districts, how can district planning be integrated into the GMA planning process? Does the GMA adequately provide for the transition from pre-GMA to GMA planning in terms of addressing issues of equity and balancing of interests? In the transition to a consolidated land use procedure, how should we handle these issues?

	How could a Land Use Code incorporate means by which fiscal planning could be better integrated with our existing land use planning laws?
	The GMA comprehensive plans to date project that infrastructure needs will exceed the ability to pay for such infrastructure. How can we better address funding for infrastructure demands?
	If GMA requires a transformation of local governance from counties to cities, how can counties ensure a revenue source to provide regional services and services to rural areas?
	How can competition for economically producing territory be controlled?
	Are there changes to the existing system for generating local government revenue that would promote more a efficient and effective land use system?
	How should essential public facilities and facilities of state-wide significance be sited?
	How can the impacts of land use decisions on property rights be minimized?

	Can the permits required from the various state agencies be consolidated into a single, manageable master application?
	How could processing of such an application be accomplished in a timely way?
	Should time limits be established?
	What would be reasonable time limits?
	Should state agencies be required to make permit decisions within the same time periods required for local governments?
	How should permitting in geographic areas of statewide significance be handled?
	How should the state fund and pay for mitigation for projects that have statewide or regional benefit, and that have significant impacts on the communities in which they are sited?
	Are there permits required by our state environmental and land use laws that are duplicative?
	Are there areas where state permit authorities should be delegated to local government?
	Are there areas where the state should assume sole authority for permits?
	Are there innovative means by which permitting can be streamlined or integrated with federal and tribal permit programs?
	Should additional delegation of authority be considered between governments?
	How can professional certification be used as a means to certify that a permit application is consistent with applicable laws?
	With regard to the State Environmental Policy Act, under what circumstances, if any, could environmental review be eliminated at the project stage?

	How are the regulatory reform measures working at the local governmental permit process level?
	Is the 120 day time limit for permits working?
	To what extent have projects vested to comprehensive plans that were later found invalid or not to be in compliance with the GMA?
	How has such vesting, if any effected accomplishment of the GMA goals?

	How can the right balance be struck between local control to achieve a community vision and state oversight to ensure consistency and achievement of a state goals?
	Should the role of the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development (DCTED) be altered?
	Should DCTED be given greater authority to adopt rules?
	Should DCTED be given authority to approve plans and development regulations?
	Should the role of the Growth Management Hearings Boards be altered?
	Should the Boards be limited to hearing procedural issues?
	Should the Boards be given greater authority to hear additional issues?
	If DCTED is given greater authority, is there a need for the Boards? If so, what is it?
	Should appeals of GMA comprehensive plans go directly to Superior Court, instead of the Boards? Should there be provisions for direct review to the Court of Appeals?
	Are there any other aspects of our existing plan appeal system that could benefit from reform?
	Do SEPA and SMA still provide value? If so, what elements need to be retained?

	How is the Land Use Petition Act working?
	Should it be expanded to provide a uniform process at the local governmental level? or to streamline appellate review?
	How well does our system of specialty review boards work (such as the Shorelines Hearings Board, the Pollution Control Hearings Board)?
	Should we have fewer Boards? More Boards? A consolidated Board?
	Are there any reforms which would improve our system or expedite appeals?
	Are there any other aspects of permit appeals that could benefit from reform?

	Is there a need to clarify the governmental services that should be provided by cities and those that should be provided by counties or other forms of regional government?
	How should special purpose districts coordinate their activities with the general purpose governments?
	What should be the role of regional governance in the planning process?
	Should regional governments be established with authority to make some planning decisions currently made by local governments?
	Some planning decisions currently made by state agencies?
	What is the role for interjurisdictional agreements in the planning process?
	Should interjurisdictional agreements be encouraged or mandated for some types of planning decisions?
	Should there be a mechanism for recognizing cooperative resource management efforts that include a land use component?

	What role should alternative dispute resolution play in the planning and permitting system?
	Should local governments be required to enter into mediation or arbitration to resolve intergovernmental disputes?
	Should state agencies be required to enter into mediation or arbitration to resolve disputes between the state and local governments over local planning or permitting decisions?
	Should alternative dispute resolution be required before judicial review of a planning or permitting decision?

[ Return to Table of Contents ]