Letter from the President
By Michael Booth, AICP, President, Puget Sound Section, Washington APA
Hello everyone and welcome to summer making an appearance in the Northwest! I want to thank the Puget Sound Section membership for the opportunity to serve as President for the Puget Sound Section this year and looking forward to meeting more planners.
The section is in a strong position to continue delivering on our main mission: Affordable Education, Networking, and AICP credit training events. The best of the bunch - the Brown Bag Series and a very successful 2011 Puget Sound Section Law Conference (over 230 attendees)! I want to thank Stan May for the continuing Brown Bag Series and the board that worked very hard to bring the membership the Law Conference this year. Those board members are Salina Lyons, Emily Terrill, Jon Davies, Alex Cohan, Jim Colburn, Stan May and Julia Park. A VERY BIG THANK YOU!
This year working with the board, I will focus on creating more opportunities for networking and planning law education through workshops and the Brown Bag series. So with that focus keep an eye out for the following local and state opportunities:
- This fall the board will be supporting the development of a Young Planners Group, led by Casey D. Bradfield and Stephanie Young (more details in this editions article.) I think that it is important to offer greater opportunities to build up networks among the next generation of planners and improve communications with our veteran's planners.
- This fall the board will be working with the Department of Commerce and planning students at the UW on a lecture series that will focus on planning basics and growth management.
- Due to the calls for mini-law conference, the board is looking at a half day workshop for ethics AICP credits and a few other topics in the spring of 2012 - so stay tuned for that announcement.
- Washington State Chapter has set up several webcast for AICP credits for members at:
www.utah-apa.org/webcasts. If you have questions or need other information, please contact Susan Winchell, WA Chapter Continuing Education Chair, at 509-477-4237 or swinchell@spokanecounty.org.
 October 19-21, 2011 - The joint WA/OR APA State Conference in Portland Oregon. www.oregonapa.org/ CascadiaCollaborative
- The Planning Association of Washington (PAW), the Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA) and the Hearing Examiners Association are teaming up to do a Land Use Boot Camp for professionals and lay people working in land use. The boot camp will be scheduled for November 5, 2011. They do need some help in finding available space at a City Hall or other meeting facility with at least two rooms available for presentations in the central Puget Sound area. Seminar fees can be waived for the community allowing use of its facility. If anyone has a venue to spare, or has ideas or would like to participate as a speaker, please contact Phil Olbrechts at olbrechtslaw@gmail.com.
SAVE THE DATE:
Holiday Party - Yep very early notice this year! December 8th at Salty's. This has been a great success and the board and I will be looking forward to seeing you for an end of the year celebration of Planning in the Puget Sound Region. The section will be looking for sponsors and this will be great opportunity to highlight your firm or agency and key project.
So there is the latest and greatest for this quarter. Thank you again and please don't hesitate to email me with any suggestions or questions: mkbooth@tecinc.com.
|
 | | |
|
INTERVIEW WITH DEBORAH MUNKBERG, AICP
| |
| | |
|
Interview with Deborah Munkberg, AICP, Principal and Owner, inova planning communications design llc
By Kendra Breiland, AICP, Newsletter Editor, Puget Sound Section, Washington APA
Deborah Munkberg, AICP | What is your educational background?
I have a bachelor of planning from the University of Washington and a Master of Planning from the Humphrey Institute at the University of Minnesota. I actually started my education in social work, but because I was mostly interested in communities and community organizing, my advisor told me that I wasn't meant to be a social worker, but probably an urban planner. Turns out he was right!
How did you get interested in planning?
I grew up north of Seattle, in what's now the City of Shoreline. When we moved there, it was out in the country, but suburban plats were springing up all around. Everything was kind of the same and it really wasn't a very exciting place to grow up. I remember wishing for more activities and connections in our community. And that's what originally got me thinking about social welfare [and eventually planning] as a college student.
Tell me about your career progression over time.
When I was a graduate student, I was an intern with the City of St. Paul, where the planning department's role was to very assertively promote economic development, encouraging and supporting growth through tax increment financing and other public support. After graduation, I continued working in St. Paul, providing staff support to the City's many neighborhood councils.
Eventually, my husband and I wanted to return to Seattle. When we both got the job offers on the same day, we figured it was meant to be. I was a planner in Kirkland for about five years and really enjoyed it there. It was a great mix of current planning, regulatory review, and long range planning. It was a very well rounded experience and I learned a lot about what it means to be focused on community character and managing growth to achieve a specific vision.
After having kids, I transitioned to part-time work in the private sector. Over the years, I have gone back and forth between the private and public sectors, but ultimately ended up in the private sector. I really love the variety and challenge of quickly learning about client needs and how I can best help them meet their goals. There is a tremendous amount of satisfaction in knowing that you have made a positive different in a community.
Recently, Julia Walton and I have partnered to create inova, which is a realization of our dream to create a planning and urban design practice that builds on our shared experience in the Pacific Northwest and has, at its heart, the goal of helping to build connected, healthy and resilient communities. We have been inspired by the positive reaction we have had from our colleagues and clients and are very excited about the future.
What is one of the favorite projects that you've worked on?
I have been very lucky in my career to work with very smart and talented individuals on some great projects, so it's a little hard to pick a favorite. In general, my favorite projects have been those where there is the opportunity to focus on what's really meaningful to people, what they need in their communities, and how to better serve that need. As an example, I recently had the opportunity to work with Melinda Posner Consulting on a countywide visioning process that did just that.
We adopted a very inside-out visioning process, where we spent a lot of time visiting community organizations, county and city fairs, schools, senior centers, community colleges and other gathering places. We talked to people in their day-to-day lives and asked them some simple questions about what they hoped for the future. What we heard was heartfelt, poignant and sometimes both funny and heartbreaking. Essentially, people told us that they wanted to feel safe and connected to their community, they wanted their kids to feel supported, and they wanted jobs for the future.
What was interesting to me was that we heard almost nothing about land use or transportation, the traditional stuff of growth management. For me, it was a vivid reminder of why I became a planner and how we can help create a planning vision that aligns with the real interests and wishes of a community. This is the kind of planning project that I hope to do more of in the future - find what's at the heart of what people are looking for and how we can serve that to make communities as strong as possible.
What are the challenges to recently starting a small business?
There are lots of challenges! The biggest one is to answer the question: what is our vision and how do we chart our course to achieve that vision? It's a lot like the questions that we try to help our clients answer and surprisingly difficult when applied to yourself. Julia and I have consciously tried to be very deliberate about creating a business entity that will move in the direction of our vision to provide excellent service, great products and an experience that is both enlightening and fun. We have spent a fair amount of energy translating that broad vision into tangible steps and activities in our day-to-day work life.
The other main challenge in a small business is finding enough hours in the day. We are learning about and becoming very grounded in the "business" part of being a business. We recently became a certified DBE and WMBE firm and learned a lot about how to negotiate that process. We are both energetic people who like to think big and face the challenge of learning to pace ourselves in order to maintain some balance in our lives. Last, of course, there is the challenge of learning to live with the risk of being a small business.
At the same time, the cliché that every challenge is an opportunity is true. This past year has been a tremendous learning experience, filled with lots of "aha!" moments. I hope that will continue well into the future.
Speaking of going where you want to go, has inova moved into the new Downtown office space yet?
We are in the midst of that now, building our new home in shared space with Read Wagoner at 110 Stewart Street in downtown Seattle.
If you weren't a planner, what would you do?
This is total fantasy, but I would have a bookstore. It would be a little community bookstore where anyone would be welcome to find and talk about great books. It would be a meeting place, with comfy chairs, book groups and interesting conversation. In the world of ebooks, online buying and megastores, I know it's a dream, but that is what a fantasy job is all about, right?
Closing thoughts?
I firmly believe that planners should be evangelists for what we bring to the table in our communities. When you look around this region, there are planning success stories everywhere. As an example, I live in Kirkland, which is characterized by its system of waterfront parks and strong connection to Lake Washington. Today, thousands of people benefit from a vision that began several decades ago and was accomplished through a lot of nitty-gritty hard work and commitment from planners and elected officials. There are similar stories in almost every community and planners usually play a key role in making those stories happen. We need to trumpet our successes and encourage people to dream big for the future.
|
| | |
|
AVOIDING FISH-RELATED CONSTRUCTION DELAYS
| |
| | |
|
Avoiding fish-related construction delays
Contractors and developers can save time and money by identifying permitting needs, work windows, and fish monitoring and removal requirements.
By Peter Heltzel, TEC Inc.
As an environmental planning and scientific firm, TEC is usually in the middle of the endangered species analysis and dealing with construction impacts to fisheries.
Fish were removed from a section of Willows Creek in Redmond as part of a daylighting project - Photo courtesy of Taylor Associates | The health of Puget Sound salmonids remains a hot topic in the region. Given the continuing increase in Central Puget Sound's human population alongside unstable salmon runs, the need to protect salmon is here to stay. Many Puget Sound salmonid species are listed as threatened or endangered. As a result, there has been a collective effort to minimize any potential construction impacts to juvenile and adult salmonids, as well as to their habitats.
Any in-water or near-water construction projects are under intense permitting and regulatory scrutiny, effectively increasing total project costs as efforts are made to protect salmonids. Although this process is necessary to ensure minimal construction impacts, regulatory compliance and other fish-related issues can severely delay actual start dates for construction.
Fish were removed from a section of Willows Creek in Redmond as part of a daylighting project.
Fish-related construction delays can be avoided by using a well-thought-out plan of attack. By identifying permitting needs, work windows, and fish monitoring and removal requirements, projects benefit from saved time and money.
What is the project scale?
Construction projects that often have fish-related issues include bridge replacements, dock improvements, culvert replacements, channel day lightings, stream route changes and habitat restorations.
While it may appear that these issues only impact large-scale construction projects, smaller-scale projects and beneficial habitat restoration projects also need to go through a permitting process and address other fish-related issues. Regardless of the type of construction needed, delays can mount if permitting and fish-related issues are not addressed up-front.
What type of a permit or approval?
Permitting and regulatory compliance can be a very confusing and time-consuming effort. Does your project trigger the following permits or approvals?
- Biological assessment for National Marine Fisheries and US Fish and Wildlife concurrence,
- Environmental impact statement for NEPA or SEPA,
- Hydraulic project approval for Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife,
- Joint aquatic resources permit application for the US Army Corp, and
- Cultural resource consultations with the Department of Archaeological and Historic Perseveration and affected tribes
The type of permitting required is determined by where the project is located, what type of water body it will impact, what fish and endangered species are present in the impact area, and the size and type of project. These questions identify the various pieces of information that need to be gathered in order to properly address impacts, and therefore decrease any turnaround time of obtaining the proper permitting.
For every project, it is important to determine whether it is covered by federal, state or local entities by first obtaining the aforementioned information. In some cases, all three entities will be involved. The nature of the project will determine which governmental agencies or local jurisdictions need to be contacted and what type of permitting is required.
What about work windows?
Another fish-related construction delay is the allowable work windows for construction. Allowable work windows (also known as construction timing windows) are addressed in the permitting process, and outline blocks of time when construction can occur.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has developed and approved work windows to avoid, or greatly minimize, effects from construction on federally listed or proposed fish species and their prey. In cases where multiple fish species are present, the work windows must be combined to cover all common dates.
Do you know your fish?
It is important to obtain a thorough understanding of what species of fish are present in the impact area to determine which work windows to follow. This information must be accurately determined and incorporated into permitting documents in order to avoid any delay in receiving construction permits.
Determining an incorrect work window can prolong the permitting process to the point that the work window closes, severely delaying construction until the window re-opens. Although work windows pose a major constraint on the timing in which construction can occur, an accurate determination will help keep construction on schedule.
In some cases, federal agencies will approve in-water construction outside of the work window. These cases usually occur when construction is already under way and delays have caused the completion date to overrun the approved work window. When this occurs, federal agencies will reinitiate consultation with new permitting requirements, which are applied during construction outside the work window. Depending upon the location and size of the project and what fish species are present, agencies may require that fish monitoring take place during construction that occurs outside the work window.
Monitor or remove fish?
Fish monitoring is necessary to evaluate the presence of listed species and potential impacts that construction may have on them. Early in the project, it is difficult to ascertain whether or not a project will be completed on time. However, once it is determined that this is the case, it is necessary to act quickly to reinitiate consultation with the appropriate agencies, determine who will conduct the fish monitoring, and have a fish-monitoring plan in place.
Delays of this sort can be avoided by establishing contingency plans prior to any knowledge of construction delays. Knowing all your contacts at the agencies, establishing a fish monitoring plan, and having a contract in place with the fish monitoring crew (if not done internally) will dramatically help avoid any further delays in construction.
Other projects such as channel day lighting, culvert replacement and rerouting streams will undoubtedly pose fish-related issues. Other than obtaining all of the necessary construction permits, the most common issue includes fish removal. Again, it is very important to know exactly what types of fish species are present in the project area and whether or not they are listed under the Endangered Species Act. This information will be included into the construction permits, and will determine what type of permitting is necessary for removal.
In most cases, a consultant will be hired to remove or relocate fish from the project area, and they should already have the proper scientific collection permit in hand. Without having a fully permitted consultant and contract in place, construction delays can mount. These delays can be avoided with good communication with the consultant regarding the time-frame and dates that construction will occur to ensure that fish removal before construction begins.
As the population grows, so will the number of construction projects. This is a natural process that will inevitably help the economic development of the area. However, with an ever-tightening economy, every dollar counts. Knowing your in-house expertise, as well as having a list of knowledgeable consultants at your fingertips, can reduce turnaround time, get construction going and save money.
Peter Heltzel, the senior fisheries scientist at TEC Inc., has over 14 years of professional experience in fisheries biology. TEC is providing construction permitting services on the SR 520 Eastside Transit HOV Design Build Project and monitoring at the Port of Seattle-SeaTac Airport and providing fisheries science services to the City of Bellevue.
|
| | |
|
ISSUE SPOTLIGHT: TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
| |
| | |
|
Over the past year, we have seen more and more Transfer of Development Rights, or TDR, programs popping up. This edition offers a few perspectives on TDF programs.
Issue Spotlight Contents
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Meets Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
By Duncan Greene, Attorney, GordonDerr LLP
Tax increment financing (TIF) is a tool for financing public infrastructure improvements in designated areas by redistributing property tax collections within those areas. While TIF has been widely used in other states, the use of TIF in Washington State has been limited by our Constitution, which requires the state's share of property taxes to be used exclusively for public schools. In recent years, the Legislature has created a number of TIF-type programs, such as the Local Infrastructure Financing Tool (LIFT) program, that attempt to avoid this legal hurdle by redistributing only those taxes that are not part of the state's share. However, because the LIFT program requires a voluntary agreement by the surrounding county to share its revenues with the participating city, participation in the program has been limited.
Graphic created by King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks | In 2011, the Legislature passed legislation (ESSB 5253) that could facilitate the use of TIF in conjunction with Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) programs. TDR is a mechanism that allows landowners to transfer potential development rights from "sending areas" with lower population densities (such as farmland, forestland, and rural lands) to "receiving areas" with higher population densities. This transfer mechanism allows the landowner in the sending area to receive compensation for development that could have occurred on that land.
Building on prior legislation that created a regional TDR program in central Puget Sound, ESSB 5253 creates a framework for financing infrastructure improvements within "Local Infrastructure Project Areas" through increased tax revenues derived from higher-density development in those areas. ESSB 5253 includes detailed requirements for eligible counties to designate agricultural and forest land (and possibly some rural zones lands) as sending areas; to calculate the number of development rights eligible for transfer; and to report those numbers to the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) by September 1, 2011. PSRC will then allocate development rights among receiving cities and report those allocations to cities by March 1, 2012.
Before a receiving city can participate in the Local Infrastructure Project Area (LIPA) program, the city must take a number of steps, such as the following:
- Adopting a development plan for infrastructure in consultation with the State Department of Transportation and the county where the LIPA is to be located;
- Adopting certain regulations intended to facilitate TDR transactions, including developer incentives (such as streamlined permitting and environmental review) and TDR "exchange rates"; and
- Holding a public hearing on the proposed formation of the LIPA.
Once a LIPA is created, the sponsoring city will be eligible to receive a portion of regular property taxes levied on the revenue value within the LIPA.
Of course, until development activity picks up and creates demand for greater density, there will be little participation in TDR programs. But in the meantime, some Puget Sound counties and cities are laying the groundwork for more comprehensive TDR programs. If they are successful and development activity eventually drives greater interest in TDR programs, TDR and LIPA mechanisms could be used to achieve landscape-scale conservation, increase density in appropriate urban areas, and provide much-needed financing for infrastructure in those areas, making them more attractive and livable for urban dwellers.
TDR on the Other Coast
Written by Casey D. Bradfield
In the planner's toolbox, some tools are more seductive than others. Transfer of development rights (TDR) is one of those. It sparkles and beckons with its promises of leveraging private dollars for conservation, directing growth into strategic areas, compensating rural landowners for the effects of downzoning, etc. Communities across the United States have implemented TDR programs. Unfortunately, TDR is notoriously tricky to get right. Only a small handful of communities have truly effective TDR programs.
The Puget Sound is fortunate to have one of these. King County's program has conserved more acres of land than any other in the country. Growing regional TDR efforts are also impressive. Why? One reason is that the planning context in the Puget Sound is uniquely supportive of TDR. For instance, there is demand for development in urban areas above base zoning, cities and counties are accustomed to working together and are willing to consider interjurisdictional TDR agreements, incentive zoning policies provide an effective structure for using the density bonuses associated with TDR credits, and state law is supportive of TDR.
Recently, I spent a fair amount of time considering whether the Triangle region of North Carolina also had conditions supportive of TDR. TDR has been discussed on and off by policy makers in the Triangle for some time. It resurfaced again last year after the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources established strict new rules for stormwater pollutant loading in the Falls Lake Watershed. Jurisdictions needed innovative policy solutions to come into compliance with the rules. The Triangle J Council of Governments (TJCOG) convened a working group to explore whether it was possible to design a TDR program that would work for local jurisdictions. I had the opportunity to sit in on a couple of the group's meetings and also to give a presentation about King County's program.
Before the working group was able to make much progress, political opposition reared its head and demanded attention. Stakeholder groups including the Realtors and the Home Builders made it clear that they were prepared to fight TDR tooth and nail. They were concerned that TDR would act as a tax upon developers and would add unacceptable levels of risk to entitlement processes. Their opposition was significant in the context of state law. North Carolina is a Dillon Rule state and does not have enabling legislation for TDR programs (the law does however allow for limited use of TDR in road construction). Any local government so bold as to adopt a TDR program would be subject to legal challenge. In light of this fact, the TJCOG working group is currently examining whether or not to pursue enabling legislation and develop a program.
One of the Triangle jurisdictions most interested in TDR was Orange County. I assisted in their TDR research this spring as a Policy Intern. Orange County has some characteristics that are supportive of TDR, including a supply of landowners willing to sell development rights and a history of adopting progressive policies. However, in addition to the political opposition mentioned above, the county faces challenges in the demand side of the TDR equation. The cities within its borders have expressed zero interest in an interjurisdictional agreement and the county has no unincorporated lands with the necessary market demand to serve as receiving areas. The county has economic development districts that are intended for urban growth. These appear at first glance to be good candidates for receiving areas, but since their designation over a decade ago they have failed to attract development. One reason for this is Orange County's entitlement process, which can be lengthy and uncertain compared to that of neighboring jurisdictions. A secondary factor is the lack of public utilities in these districts, which Orange County is currently working to address.
In sum, changes are needed at the state and local levels before the context in the Triangle region will be ripe for TDR. Change requires resources. Before expending them it is worth asking whether they could be better spent elsewhere. Are there other policy tools that local governments could use to come into compliance with the Falls Lake rules? It will be interesting to see what happens.
Casey received a Master's degree in City and Regional Planning from UNC-Chapel Hill earlier this spring. She now lives in Seattle and is excited to be co-leading YPG Puget Sound. She would like to thank the following people for reviewing this article: Darren Greve with King County, Dorothy Ariail with TJCOG, and Glenn Bowles with Orange County.
|
| | |
|
PSS LAUNCHES YPG PUGET SOUND
| |
| | |
|
PSS Launches YPG Puget Sound
Stefanie Young, Young Planners Group, Puget Sound Section
Are you a young planner? Would you like a professional venue where you can meet with your peers to network, learn, have fun and connect with mentors? If so, you are in luck! The Puget Sound Section of the American Planning Association is launching a young planners group: YPG Puget Sound.
Young planners groups began popping up across the country in the late 2000s in response to action at the national APA level. In 2007, APA President Bob Hunter appointed the Young Planners Group Task Force to explore demographic shifts within the profession and ways in which young planners engaged with APA. The task force produced a report in 2008. As an outcome of the report, APA recognized that: "There is a need to reach out to the next generation of planners as a service to these members, to sustain the organization, to provide services to a changing professional demographic, and to cultivate the next generation of leaders." Shortly thereafter a number of state chapters created Young Planners Groups (YPGs). Some sections have also created their own YPGs, such as San Diego, Los Angeles and Dallas-Fort Worth.
The Puget Sound Section is jumping on the boat! Two young planners, Stefanie Young and Casey D. Bradfield, are taking the lead on getting things up and running. YPG Puget Sound is in a formative stage. The mission statement and bylaws have yet to be determined. There is room for additional leadership and sponsor partnerships. If you have ideas, questions, or would like to be involved, please let us know! Contact us at ypgpugetsound@gmail.com.
Many young planners groups around the country achieve their missions by holding events. One idea we are considering for YPG Puget Sound is a monthly happy hour that rotates between locations in King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties. We're thinking the 3rd Thursday of each month. Other ideas include panel presentations, mentor events, social gatherings, and more. Would you like to have a say in the kinds of events that YPG Puget Sound holds and where they happen? Ok! Fill out our short online survey. It will only take a few seconds and your feedback could shape the future!
You can also share your ideas at the first YPG event, which will be in Seattle on September 15th (details below). Come meet other young planners. Nerd out about permitting, street design or whatever planning topic you're passionate about. Have fun. We look forward to seeing you there! We also encourage all planners to attend is the upcoming fall lecture series hosted by the UW College of the Built Environment. Stay tuned for more details about that.
Inaugural YPG Happy Hour
Date: Thursday September 15th
Time: 6:30pm
Location: Seattle, venue TBD, details will be posted soon on the PSS website
|
 |
|
