FROM THE EDITOR

Planning Northwest is adding two new sections to the monthly newsletter entitled “Planners on the Move” and “Member Profiles. “The purpose of “Planners on the Move” is to provide information to Washington APA members about who is coming and going in different positions around the state. If you or someone you know has recently moved to a new position, or even retirement, we would like to include an announcement in the newsletter. To be included in this column please send an email to the editor with your name, old position, new position, any additional information you would like to share at the contact information below.

Each month Member Profiles will feature different WA APA members, highlighting who our members are, what they do, and how they got there. We look forward to showcasing the wide variety of talent in this state in this monthly feature.

Lastly, by now all of we are all aware that Initiative I-933 has been filed with the Washington Secretary of State. In the February Planning Northwest, WA-APA Immediate Past-President Michael Kattermann, AICP, provided us with an update of actions taken by the WA APA board to create an Ad Hoc Committee on Regulatory Fairness. In this issue Joe Tovar, FAICP, Chair WAPA’s Ad Hoc Committee on Regulatory Fairness gives another update. This issue will also feature a guest editorial article by Tim Trohimovich, AICP, Planning Director, Futurewise.

Over the next several months Planning Northwest will feature updates from the Adhoc Committee and any guest editorials received. If you would like to submit an article feel free to email them to the Editor, Angela Brooks, AICP at: angeladbrooks@gmail.com with the subject line: Planning Northwest. For the text of the initiative you can go to the following website: http://www.propertyfairness.com/text.htm.

WASHINGTON APA TRACKING PROPERTY RIGHTS INITIATIVE

UPDATE
Joe Tovar, FAICP
Chair, Washington Chapter APA Committee on Regulatory Fairness

The long-rumored Washington Property Rights Initiative was filed with the Secretary of State on February 8, 2006. The proponents have until July 7 to gather roughly 225,000 valid signatures to get the measure on the November, 2006 ballot.

Despite claims to the contrary by its sponsor, the Washington State Farm Bureau, the Initiative is clearly patterned after Oregon’s Measure 37 (M37). It includes provisions that would require a “takings assessment” before a government proposes to adopt or enforce a regulation, and the “waive or pay to enforce regulations” feature cloned from M37.

Titled by its sponsors “The Property Fairness Initiative” they seek to cast the Initiative as a grassroots crusade to redress unfair government regulations. This was a campaign tactic used to great effect by Oregon’s M37 backers.

Fairness is a potent theme because it is a fundamental core value in the U.S., enshrined both in our Federal and State Constitutions, as well as good government and sound planning practice. To counter this clone of Measure 37, we must peel off its outer veneer of fairness, the ballot title, to expose what lies beneath - the fundamental unfairness of a proposed law that would elevate an individual property owner’s self-interest above the reasonable, constitutional and democratically adopted regulations that protect everyone’s interests, including their property rights.

A group has been formed to oppose the Initiative. The Communities Protection Coalition (CPC) has met to analyze and document the wide-ranging negative impacts of this Initiative, and coordinate opposition efforts with like-minded organizations. More information about the CPC appears at its website found at: www.protectcommunities.org.

At its business meeting last October, the Washington Chapter Board of APA adopted a motion to oppose any Measure 37-like Initiative in our state. President Steve Butler appointed several Chapter members to the APA Committee on Regulatory Fairness. The APA Committee has been tracking these events and attending preliminary meetings of the CPC as observers. A detailed analysis of the initiative is being performed by the APA Committee and will be posted on this web page by the end of February. In the meantime, if any Chapter members would like to participate in the activities of the APA Committee, please contact me at my home email address jwtovar@comcast.net.

This is a reminder to any Chapter members who are public employees that they are prohibited by law from using public resources to support or oppose any ballot measure. “Public resources” includes time at work, and the use of government phones, computers, and email addresses. Acting as private citizens, however, they are free to actively oppose or support ballot measures on their own time using their own phones, computers, and email.

The text of the Initiative, and the rhetoric of its supporters, appears at their website; www.propertyfairness.com.

A bulleted summary of the initiative, and its likely consequences, appears on the website of the Association of Washington Cities at http://news.awcnet.org/awcleg/issues/2006-02-10/index.html.

More to come. Check back for updates!

PLANNERS ON THE MOVE

Joe Tovar, FAICP, began his current job as Planning Director for the City of Shoreline in November of 2005. Prior to that, he was Assistant City Manager for Covington, and a member of the Central Puget Sound Growth Hearings Board from 1992 to 2004. Joe was Kirkland's Planning Director from 1981 to 1992. He continues to lecture at the University of Washington as an Affiliate Associate Professor of Urban Design and Planning, and is Chair of Washington APA's ad hoc Committee on Regulatory Fairness.

Michael Thomas, has left the position of Senior Policy Analyst at the Office of Management and Budget with King County to begin his current job as Director of Community Development for the City of Enumclaw. Michael has a bachelor’s degree from the University of Washington in urban geography and a masters degree in public administration from Seattle University. He has 15 years local government experience -and has worked for the cities of Aberdeen, Federal Way and Burien and lastly King County before coming to the city of Enumclaw. His main planning interest is the interplay between land use planning and economic development.

Robert Wyman, AICP was promoted to the Community Development Director for the City of NewCastle. Rob has been with NewCastle since April of 1998. He started there as an Associate Planner for about a year and then a Senior Planner until the end of last year. He has a bachelor’s of science from Syracuse University and a Master’s of Science from University of Arizona. Prior to working for Newcastle he did some work at The Drachman Institute in Tucson, AZ.

Denise Lathrop, AICP will begin her current position as a Land Use Planner at the City of Des Moines on March 6th. Prior to that she was a Senior Planner with Adolfson Associates, Inc. located in Seattle, WA.

Glen Pickus, AICP, has transitioned from an Associate Planner with the City of Mukilteo to a Planner II with the City of Shoreline.

Derek Chisholm, AICP accepted a position with Parametrix, in the Natural Resource and Planning Division doing City Center visioning and design, historic preservation projects, and is a lead on the land use analysis of the I- 5 Columbia River Crossing. He previously served five years with Clark County Long Range Planning; managing special projects, the historic preservation and commute trip reduction programs, and regional travel modeling.

Clark County

Jan Bazal was hired as a Planner I in Development Services.
Nicholas Kindel was hired as a Planning Tech II in Development Services.
Marty Snell was hired as the Long Range Planning Manager.
Gary Albrecht was hired as a Planner I in Long Range Planning.
Laurie Nicholson was hired as a Planner II in Long Range Planning.
Michael Mabry was promoted from Planner II to Planner III in Long Range Planning.
Colete Anderson was promoted from Planner II to Planner III in Long Range Planning.

GUEST EDITORIALS

Planning Northwest is interested in featuring the opinions of planners across the state. If you are interested in submitting an editorial on a particular topic please submit it to: angeladbrooks@gmail.com with the subject line Planning Northwest.

I-933 Will Create Loopholes allowing Shopping Malls on Working Farms and Large Subdivisions on Working Forests
Tim Trohimovich, AICP, Planning Director, Futurewise

In January 1996, Daniel Wood filed Initiative 933 (I-933). I-933 requires that cities, counties, and state agencies pay or waive development regulations that protect human life and property. This article summarizes I-933, notes its effect based on Oregon’s Measure 37, and explains what you can do to help prevent I-933 from being adopted here.

Summary of I-933

The Pay or Waive Requirement
While I-933 contains ten sections, its core is in sections 2 and 3. Section 3 requires that if an agency decides to enforce or apply a regulation that “damages” the use or value of private property, the agency must first pay the property owner the compensation required by Section 2. “Agencies” include local governments and state agencies.

Section 2 defines “damaging the use or value” to include:

• “Prohibiting or restricting any use or size, scope, or intensity of any use legally existing or permitted as of January 1, 1996.”
• Prohibiting or restricting on the continued operation, repair, or replacement of existing tide gates, bulkheads, irrigation facilities, and other infrastructure.
• “Requiring a portion of property to be left in its natural state or without beneficial use to its owner, unless necessary to prevent immediate harm to human health and safety.”
• “Prohibiting maintenance or removal of trees or vegetation.”

The most asked question since the revised I-933 was filed is: Why January 1, 1996? Mr. Wood said it was because it was ten years ago and this is also consistent with the intent statement in I-933. The legislature adopted the best available science requirement for critical areas protection in 1995. The voters also rejected the first attempt to adopt a pay or waive law in Washington in 1995, repealing the law through Referendum 48 with 59 percent voting to repeal and 41 percent voting to keep the law in effect. Mr. Wood opposed this repeal. These events may have influenced the choice of January 1, 1996.

Broad Definitions of Private Property and Compensation with Narrow Exemptions
Private property is defined by Section 2 to include real and personal property protected by the constitution including interests in land, buildings, crops, livestock, and mineral and water rights. Section 2 defines “compensation” as “remuneration equal to the amount the fair market value of the affected property has been decreased by the application or enforcement of the ordinance, regulation, or rule. To the extent any action requires any portion of property to be left in its natural state or without beneficial use by its owner, ‘compensation’ means the fair market value of that portion of property required to be left in its natural state or without beneficial use.” Compensation also includes the costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by a property owner. This definition means that even if a regulation does not reduce the value of private property, cities, counties, and state agencies have to pay property owners anyway or waive the requirement if a property cannot use all of their property.

Section 2 excludes certain regulations from the pay or waive requirement, but the exemptions are narrowly written. For example, a regulation necessary to “prevent an immediate threat to the human heath and safety” is exempt. But is a 100 year flood an immediate threat? Not according to the dictionary. The exemptions are also to be “construed narrowly.”

Other Requirements
Section 1 is an intent statement that attempts to tie I-933 to fairness and hot button issues. Section 2 requires that cities, counties, and state agencies consider and document the effect of the regulation on private property and the alternatives that were considered. Section 4 prohibits cities, counties, and state agencies from charging fees for property owners making pay or waive demands. Section 5 amends the GMA to provide that development regulations may not prohibit legally existing uses. Other sections require that the law be liberally construed.

The Oregon Experience: Developer Loopholes
In November 2004, the Oregon voters adopted their own pay or waive requirement as Measure 37. The experience to date is that Measure 37 has been used to waive regulations, creating loopholes for developers who want to build shopping malls and subdivisions on farmland. This can be seen in the claims filed with the state to date. No compensation has been paid for any claim filed with the state. In 90 percent of the cases the regulations have been waived. Ten percent of the claims were denied. Eighty-nine percent of the claims are on forest and farm land. Most of the claims filed have been in Western Oregon, with 65 percent in Willamette Valley counties.

Eight-six percent of the state claims were to subdivide land and build homes. The former owner of residential development company applied for an 850 lot subdivision on a working forest. Claims have been filed for a 4,400-acre subdivision in Baker County and a 1,400 lot subdivision in Crook County.

While commercial and industrial claims have been smaller in number, some of them have been as dramatic as the large residential claims. A claim was filed in Portland to overturn billboard size limits. A claim was granted in Polk County for a million square foot shopping mall on farmland. Now that the Oregon Supreme Court has ruled Measure 37 is constitutional, we will see even more loophole requests.

Working to Stop Developer Loopholes in Washington
When Measure 37 passed; Futurewise, the conservation community, and organized labor all agreed we do not want developer loopholes in Washington. We have formed the Community Protection Coalition to run a campaign to defeat I-933, just like we beat 1995’s pay or waive law.

Now that I-993 has been filed, more are joining the campaign. You can too. Visit our website, http://www.protectcommunities.org/, sign-up for updates, volunteer, and donate. It is time for us to tell those who want to build shopping malls on working farms and large subdivisions on working forests that the answer is no.

GUEST EDITORIAL
Michael Hintze is a Planner at AHBL, Inc. Graduate of University of Washington Planning Program 2005, Certificate of Urban Design and has an Undergraduate degree in economics from University of Georgia. Michael is interested in elevating the discussion of what sustainability means and how it is applied to urban design and planning practice both under present conditions and future scenarios.

Seattle wants it all. We want to see more active downtown streets, less greenhouse gas emissions, a more livable downtown, an attractive and ecologically-sensitive waterfront, less cars, a more extensive transit system, “green” infrastructure, and more money for education and social programs to boot. Against this backdrop of what appears to be a purposeful move towards a more sustainable future many of our political leaders and transportation planners want to spend up to $4.1 billion dollars on a waterfront tunnel that is nothing less than a continued commitment to making automobile travel convenient and dominant. The popular rhetoric says let’s make Seattle a green city, a city with greater transportation choices, a city committed to meeting the Kyoto Protocol, a city that is trying to reduce its impact on the Puget Sound. And yet we can’t bring ourselves to commit to a less auto-dominated future, and make the leap that other cities have made to reclaim waterfronts, invest in transit, and make their urban cores more livable places by deemphasizing the car. Many people have been convinced by the experts that replacing the Alaska Way Viaduct’s capacity is absolutely necessary. By falsely narrowing the discussion, the transportation planners at WSDOT and their powerful political allies have presented an either/or future scenario that would either have us effortlessly whooshing by the Seattle waterfront much as we do today or tapping our fingers on our steering wheels as we stare out our windshields in frustration upon gridlock.

We are a schizophrenic city. As a city we are ahead in our thinking in so many ways, but we are still in our infancy when it comes to truly visionary thinking – the kind of thinking that will positively reshape our urban landscape for generations to come. Instead we adhere to the status quo of replacing automobile capacity by investing billions in a megaproject that will undoubtedly have cost overruns, and not be the silver bullet its planners are claiming it to be. By doing this we only delay the green aspirations we have for this city.

The discussion of what comes next, after the Viaduct, needs to be broadened beyond threats of gridlock and arguments that Seattle’s geography is such that replacing capacity along the waterfront is the only viable option for keeping people moving efficiently. Planners have a large role to play in this discussion, yet we have not been very vocal. As someone who is relatively new to the planning profession I realize that I am fortunate to be working in a region where there is support for more sustainable approaches to shaping the built environment. The professionals I have encountered, for the most part, have bought into this greener vision for the region. So I ask myself why planners have not been more outspoken about the “preferred alternative” of replacing capacity along the waterfront with the central waterfront tunnel. Replacing the current capacity of the Viaduct hardly seems forward-thinking or sustainable, and more than likely, it is unnecessary. On the contrary it appears to be more of the same approach to transportation planning that has gotten us to where we are today – a car-dependent city where 30% of our land mass is taken up by roads (never mind what parking lots add to this). It is transportation planning separate from land-use considerations and devoid of future scenarios that plausibly point towards decreased car use, and a more people and transit-oriented urban fabric. Cities are multi-dimensional systems and require multi-dimensional, holistic strategies not narrow megprojects.

The modeling that has been used by WSDOT for its EIS does not factor in human behavior. As a recent front page article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (2/8/06) points out, more and more people are choosing to get to work using modes other than their cars. Could it be that this trend will continue, especially if people are given more transportation choices such as an expanded light rail, faster, more reliable buses, and a safer, more comprehensive bike route system? Even if we accept WSDOT’s models, it can be shown that we are only buying time. Their models show that even with replacing the viaduct, I-5 will reach the “gridlock” range (about 373,000 vehicles a day) a mere decade or so after the Alaska way tunnel is opened for business. We are effectively spending up to $4.1 billion to delay traffic congestion for ten years as well as the many “green” aspirations we have as a city.

Meanwhile the city has about $500 million dollars worth of backlogged repairs to be made to existing streets and bridges and the state is having to replace the 520 bridge, which will cost somewhere between $1.7 and $3.1 billion. Add it all up and where approaching $8 billion for road-oriented transportation fixes while our leaders and planners talk out the other side of their mouths about “transportation choices”.

Planners need to weigh in. Personally, I would like to see the APA become more active, and at least call for a more thorough and independent analysis of a no replacement alternative. For example, more sensitive traffic models should be used to more accurately assess people’s transportation demands in the face of raising fuel costs, increased desire for non-car transportation choices, and the desire to live closer to work. An analysis should also be done on what else $4.1 billion can buy us in terms of transit and upgrading the existing road system, including I-5. Planners are in the position to submit well-informed comments on the draft EIS, and they should do so. Replacing the Viaduct with a tunnel is a huge investment and will have even huger long-term impacts on the city and the region. As planners we need to consider what these impacts will be and envision alternative scenarios that move us beyond our cities being planned around highways.

SECTION NEWS

PUGET SOUND

PSS SECTION OF APA SEEKS CANDIDATES FOR OPEN OFFICER POSITIONS

The Puget Sound Section of APA has several opportunities for members to become more involved in APA by becoming a member of the Board. Regular activities of the section include organization of biennial Planning Law Conference, professional / student events and scholarships, Brown Bag series and half day education, section newsletter, and an annual Christmas Party. The Section would welcome fresh ideas for the following open positions:

• Secretary
• President Elect
• Snohomish County Representative
• Pierce County Representative
• King County Representative

For more information, contact Section President Paul Krauss at pkrauss@auburnwa.gov, 253-931-3090 or Treasurer Richard Hart at richard.hart@ci.mercer-island.wa.us, 206-236-3593

Interested candidates should submit an approximately 150 word bio and interest statement for the April newsletter to Newsletter Editor Michelle Whitfield at mmwhitfield@gmail.com, 206-852-7825.

PENINSULA SECTION

The Peninsula Section is currently considering amendments to its Bylaws.

Officers are elected for two years. The amendments would clarify that elections should be held at the end of odd numbered years with the officers assuming their responsibilities January 1st of even numbered years. These details are not currently specified. The amendments include a provision that officers remain in office until the elections are complete.

It is also proposed that the "year" be changed to the calendar year as easier for everyone.

In addition, it is proposed that the current Secretary/Treasurer position be split into two positions (a Secretary and a Treasurer) to share the workload of that official.

Finally, the proposed changes include recognition that the elected county representatives for Kitsap, Mason, Jefferson and Clallam are "officers" of the Section.

If you have would like a draft of the proposal or have questions or comments on the bylaws, please contact Bob Fink at rdf@co.mason.wa.us or (360) 427-9670 ext 366.

INLAND EMPIRE SECTION

APA - Inland Empire Section 2006 Annual Conference
Thursday, June 1st and Friday, June 2nd at Elkin’s Resort in Priest Lake, Idaho

Spaces, Shapes, Movement: Zoning to Enliven the Public Realm

Form-based zoning is on the table. Can it work for your community? Join other planning professionals who are just as curious as you are at the Inland Empire Section’s 2006 Annual Conference. On Thursday, learn from those who are trying to make it happen. Then you will take a shot at it yourself in Friday’s charettes. Our featured speakers include planners, consultants and developers, each offering their views on how form-based planning can help create the shapes, spaces, and movement communities desire.

Elkin’s Resort at Priest Lake once again provides the beautiful and tranquil setting for the APA-Inland Empire Section’s Annual Conference. In addition to the sessions, the longstanding Cities vs. Counties Volleyball rivalry, Fun Run, Mountain Bike Ride, and Golf Tournament add to the many benefits derived from the conference. Thursday evening’s dinner will be followed by the APA Scholarship Fund T-shirt Auction.

For more information, please contact Susan Winchell at 509/477-4237 or SWinchell@spokanecounty.org.

The final agenda will be mailed in mid-March. For more information, please contact Susan Winchell at 509/477-4237 or swinchell@spokanecounty.org.

AICP NEWS

Nancy Eklund, AICP
WA-APA Professional Development Officer
nancye@ci.puyallup.wa.us
253-841-5462

EXAM PREP SESSION SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 25TH

Register now for the Chapter AICP Exam Prep Study Session to be held Saturday, March 25th at South Seattle Community College, 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Registration cost is $20. The online registration form is on the Chapter website.

CONGRATULATIONS TO NEW AICP MEMBERS

A total of 14 Washington Planners have recently joined the ranks of the American Institute of Certified Planners. Congratulations to those who passed the November 2005 AICP exams! This is an important professional milestone in a planning career, and certification of planners strengthens the entire planning profession. Please congratulate these folks on their accomplishment.

November 2005
Chanda Emery, AICP
Bryan Fiedor, AICP
Eric Hanson, AICP
John Hoey, AICP
Jennifer Jerabek, AICP
Michael Jones, AICP
Amy Keenan, AICP
William Osborne, AICP
Glen Pickus, AICP
David Radabaugh, AICP
Robert Rodland, AICP
Jason Stribiak, AICP
Alene Wilson, AICP
Bryon Ziegler, AICP

November 2005 Exam
Percent failed: 22%
WA Planners Passing the Exam: 78% (14 out of the 18 taking exam)
All Planners Passing the Exam: 64%

CONCERNS ABOUT AICP SERVICES?

Please let me know about any concerns you have had about AICP, AICP responsiveness, or products in the past year or two. I will be attending the PDO Exchange at the national conference and want to present any issues you may have had with how well your questions and concerns were answered by AICP.

OTHER AICP NEWS

• The May 2006 AICP exam is being offered between May 8th - 22nd. The application deadline for the November 2006 exam has not yet been set.
• The Chapter granted one reduced fee scholarship for the May 2006 exam; we will have two more scholarships to grant for the fall exam.
• The Chapter has copies of the Chapter President’s Council Study Manual (CD) for sale ($18 or $15 if you pick it up). Contact Andrew in the chapter office office@washington-apa.org.

APA MEMBER PROFILE

JILL STERRETT, FAICP

1. Where are you originally from and how long have you been in Washington State?
   I grew up in Indianapolis, went to graduate school and lived in the L.A. area for 11 years before moving to Washington State in 1988.

2. What is your Educational Background?
   I have an undergraduate degree in sociology and social work, a Master’s Degree in Sociology, and a Masters in Urban and Regional Planning from the University of Southern California.

3. What made you decide on a career in planning?
   I wanted to get into a profession and liked the diversity of planning and the connection it offers to social, economic, and environmental issues.

4. Where are you currently living and working?
   I live on Bainbridge Island and work in Seattle, near Pioneer Square.

5. Describe the planning work you do and your agency/firm?
   I work for EDAW, an international consulting firm providing services in planning, urban design, landscape architecture and environmental studies.

6. How would your city’s citizens describe you?
   N/A, I don’t work for a city government.

7. What are your primary planning interests? What types of projects really captivate you personally?
   I like a lot of different kinds of projects, but am particularly captivated by interesting creative challenges that don’t fit any specific template. I am especially interested in the challenge of helping suburban areas become true cities when they incorporate and revitalizing aging retail areas.

8. Of which planning projects are you most proud?
   I am especially proud of the work we are currently doing for Kennecott Land Company in Salt Lake City. We are preparing a comprehensive plan in coordination with Salt Lake County for 75,000 acres of land that will house nearly 500,000 people over the next 50 years. It is the kind of mega-scale project that makes you think differently about all of your knowledge of planning!

9. If you had the chance to do your whole career over, would you do anything different or are you happy with just the way it is?
   Possibly, I was the managing principal of the EDAW Seattle office and have recently changed to a practice principal. I really enjoy the practice more than management and probably should have made the change a lot sooner!

10. Are you involved in any other divisions of the American Planning Association? If yes which ones?
    Yes, the Information Technology Division and the Urban Design and Historic Preservation Division.

11. Do you have any words of wisdoms to younger professional planners who may be interested in following your career path?
    Explore the field as much as you can in the first 4 or 5 years – then find an area to focus on and become THE expert that everyone wants to hire!

CTED GROWTH MANAGEMENT NEWS

CRITICAL AREAS HELP IS ON THE WAY FOR SMALL COMMUNITIES
Doug Peters
Senior Planner, Growth Management Services, CTED

A new technical assistance tool on implementing critical areas ordinances is being designed for small cities and towns by the state Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development.

This project will result in sample Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) language and administrative approaches for varying city needs, based on successful local examples from around the state and selections from the most recent state agency management recommendations.

Using a $32,000 grant from the state Department of Ecology, the sample CAO will address the requirement of the Growth Management Act (GMA) to designate and protect critical areas. Critical areas include frequently flooded areas, areas with critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water, geologically hazardous areas, wetlands, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas.

A key goal of the project is to condense and simplify the language and administrative steps so that small towns with limited staff can successfully interpret and administer their CAO to ensure that critical areas will be designated and protected.

CTED is looking for interested small city and town staff, planning commissioners, and elected officials to form an advisory group to assist with the project this year. The agency is also advertising for a consultant to work on the project.

The small city and town representatives, consultants, and state agency staff will be identifying issues, examining and discussing alternative approaches, and reviewing drafts of the guidance as it’s developed over the next six months. Participant travel costs for small city/town representatives will be covered through CTED.

The Growth Management Services program at CTED is working with the Association of Washington Cities to communicate with small communities about the project. The agency is also working with the Washington State Association of Counties and small communities to explore the concept of using counties as administrative and technical resources for small jurisdictions through intergovernmental agreements.

Those interested in participating or learning more about this project should contact CTED planner Doug Peters at 360-725-3046 or douglasp@cted.wa.gov.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

NEW WWRP GRANTS FOR FARMLAND AND RIPARIAN AREAS
State Funds Available to Conserve Working Farms and Salt & Fresh Water Habitat

Do you know a special place that needs protection? Make sure your local government knows about state legislation passed last year that creates grants to conserve vanishing farmland and to protect the state’s rivers, lakes, streams, and marine environment. The law adds two new categories to the highly acclaimed Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (WWRP), the first major amendments to the program since its inception in 1990.

Under the new Riparian Protection category local governments and lead entities for salmon recovery may apply for WWRP grants to protect and/or restore shorelines, rivers, streams, estuaries and other waterways. This is one of just a few sources for riparian protection that doesn't require the presence of salmon. http://www.iac.wa.gov/iac/grants/riparian_habitat_description.htm

WWRP Farmland Conservation grants are available to help cities and counties conserve working farms, lands that will stay in private hands and remain active agricultural enterprises for generations to come. In most Washington counties these grants will be the only funding source for farm conservation easements (other than a small share of the federal Farm and Ranchlands Protection Program). http://www.iac.wa.gov/iac/grants/farmland_description.htm

Local governments are also eligible to apply for WWRP grants for the acquisition or development of local parks, trails, water access areas and urban wildlife habitat. The WWRP is administered by the Washington State Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC). A letter of intent for 2007 funding is encouraged by March 15, 2006, but it is not required. Final applications are due May 1, 2006.

Submitted by the Washington Wildlife & Recreation Coalition, the founder and chief advocate for the WWRP grant program. www.WildlifeRecreation.org

PLANNERS FORUM

The Washington State Regional Planners Forum program, which is a partnership endeavor of the Planning Association of Washington, the Washington State Chapter of the American Planning Association, and the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, continues to provide valuable information to planners and planning officials around the state.

There are four regional forums, and the dates and locations for the duration of 2006 are listed below:

Spring 2006 Forum
April 19: Eastern Washington Planners Forum (Moses Lake: Hallmark Best Western)
April 20: Southwest Washington Planners Forum (Vancouver: Water Resources Education Center)
April 26: Olympic Peninsula Planners Forum (Silverdale: Silverdale Community Center)
April 27: Northwest Washington Planners Forum (Mount Vernon: Skagit Station)

Summer 2006 Forum
July 19: Eastern Washington Planners Forum (Moses Lake: Hallmark Best Western)
July 20: Southwest Washington Planners Forum (Kelso: City Hall)
July 26: Olympic Peninsula Planners Forum (Silverdale: Silverdale Community Center)
July 27: Northwest Washington Planners Forum (Mount Vernon: Skagit Station)

Fall 2006 Forum
October 18: Eastern Washington Planners Forum (Moses Lake: Hallmark Best Western)
October 19: Southwest Washington Planners Forum (Vancouver: City Hall)
October 25: Olympic Peninsula Planners Forum (Silverdale: Silverdale Community Center)
October 26: Northwest Washington Planners Forum (Mount Vernon: Skagit Station)

All Forums are held from 9:00 am - 3:00 pm, and are open to the public. Agendas include round-robin sharing of current planning topics and issues by those in attendance, an update from the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development on available technical assistance and funding opportunities, a report from a member of the state's Growth Management Hearings Board with jurisdiction in that region, and several informational presentations by technical experts. For more information about the Forum program, please contact Leonard Bauer at CTED at 360/725-3000.

PLANNING NORTHWEST CALL FOR ARTICLES

CALL FOR ARTICLES

The 2006 Goal for Planning Northwest is to get articles that reflect the diverse planning issues across the state. In order to reach this goal we need your assistance. Please consider submitting an article between 300-500 words (can be longer if need be) on one of the topics listed below. The topics are broad to leave room for the potential authors to determine a topic. If you are interested in writing an article please look at the subjects and deadlines below and contact: angeladbrooks@gmail.com

Article Submission Deadline	Publication Month	Topic
1-Mar	April	Legislative Wrap Up Candidate Photos and Statements
1-Apr	May	President's Article Affordable Housing
1-May	June	Water and Transportation Planning Membership Committee Eastern WA student membership summary
1-Jun	July	President's Article Chapter Award Highlights
1-Jul	August	Agriculture and Rural Planning Promote Conference
1-Aug	September	Urban Redevelopment
1-Sep	October	Environmental Planning
1-Oct	November	Legislative Platform Post Conference Stories
1-Nov	December	New Urbanism/Planning for Parks and Open Space

CALL FOR CONFERENCE SESSION AND MOBILE WORKSHOP PROPOSALS

2006 APA FALL CONFERENCE IN YAKIMA

The Program Committee for the Washington Chapter of the American Planning Association’s 2006 Conference invites your proposals for SESSION TOPICS, SPEAKERS, and MOBILE WORKSHOPS for the state APA Conference to be held in Yakima, October 4 through 6. The program committee will formulate sessions and mobile workshops from the proposals submitted and will then request formal submittals from the selected speakers and mobile workshop hosts.

POTENTIAL CONFERENCE TOPICS

• Transportation
• Housing
• Urban Design
• Environment
• Rural/Small Town Planning
• Economic Development
• Tourism
• Tribal Planning
• Professional Development
• Growth Management

Session Formats:

Formats other than the traditional presentation are encouraged including: Point/Counterpoint, Panel Discussions, Moderated Debate and Interactive Workshops.

Some Details:

• The number of presenters in each session is limited to 2-3 + moderator (60-90 minutes).
• Presenters are expected to register and pay to attend the APA Conference in accordance with the speaker registration policy.*
• Each session will contain professional AV equipment (including laptops & LCD projectors) as well as a technician.
• Mobile workshop ideas for planning-related field visits should be within convenient travel distance of the Yakima conference center.

Submittal Instructions:

Please send a paragraph that describes the topic and message for your proposed session or mobile workshop. Be sure to include the proposed presenter(s) or workshop host(s) and their contact information.

Session and mobile workshop proposals may be submitted via e-mail to Kevin McDonald, kmcdonald@ci.bellevue.wa.us by the close of business on Friday, April 14, 2006.

*Speaker Registration Policy

• If speaker is a planning professional, they are expected to support the profession by participating and paying to attend the conference either as a full registrant or at the 1-day rate (whichever is pertinent to their participation).
• If speaker is only coming to their session and then leaving the conference, their registration fee is waived.
• Due to budget restraints, we are unable to pay honorariums or reimburse for expenses.

NEWSLETTER DEADLINE

MONTHLY NEWSLETTER

Have a project you want to highlight for planners across the state? An issue you think more planners need information on? Planning Northwest is always looking to highlight projects and research of our members. If you are interested in having an article published feel free to contact the editor.

The deadline for the newsletter is the first of every month. Please submit all newsletter articles to Angela Brooks, AICP at angeladbrooks@gmail.com. Please include Planning Northwest in your subject line.