FROM THE PRESIDENT'S DESK

AND ONE MORE THING...
Michael Kattermann, AICP
mkattermann@ahbl.com

"Ambivalence - a simultaneous desire to say or do two opposite or conflicting things." That sums up my feelings as the end of my term as president approaches. On the one hand, I look forward to having more time, but I will miss the level of interaction I currently enjoy with the board, chapter members and other chapter presidents. There is more to do, but it's time to move on. The change is easier knowing that the chapter is in good hands with Steve Butler, AICP, and the chapter board.

Steve has been a tremendous resource to the chapter and help to me as vice president and president-elect for the past 2 years and he will do an excellent job as president. In addition, we are all well-served by the chapter board; a dedicated, hard-working group of volunteers, 2 of whom are returning, Shane Hope, AICP, as vice president and Steve Davenport, AICP, as treasurer. A new board member, just elected, is William Grimes, AICP, as secretary. Congratulations to the new and returning officers. My thanks also to the other candidates, Tim Trohimovich, AICP, and Barry Berezowsky for their interest and efforts in running.

It has been my pleasure and honor to serve with everyone on the board and I want to express my personal thanks to each one of them. They have kept me energized and excited about all we have accomplished.

And just what has the chapter been doing, you may ask? Here is a small sample of what the board and other volunteers have accomplished during the past two years:

• Held successful, joint conferences with the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation (Spokane, 2003) and the Oregon Chapter of APA (Portland, 2004);
• Adopted chapter only membership for boards and commissions;
• Updated the chapter's 5-year Strategic Plan;
• Converted the newsletter, Planning Northwest, to an electronic format;
• Redesigned and updated the web page, www.washington-apa.org;
• Held the first of a series of continuing education workshops;
• Conducted AICP exam preparation workshops and welcomed over 40 new AICP members;
• Inducted three new members into the AICP College of Fellows;
• Completed the first phase of a survey of planning directors on comprehensive planning in WA;
• Created a new awards event with PAW, separate from the fall conference;
• Convened the blue ribbon panel and published Livable Washington 2005 Update
• Increased our profile and effectiveness in Olympia through position statements, communication with legislators, and involvement in the GMA Working Group;
• Established an Energy Task Force;
• Partnered with the Northwest Center for Livable Communities on forums and workshops;
• Instituted a new award for "frontline, unsung planners" in memory of Barbara Grace, AICP;
• Provided $10,000 in scholarships to students at UW and EWU;
• Received the Karen B. Smith Chapter Award from the Chapter Presidents' Council;
• Co-sponsored (with PAW and CTED) the re-activated Planners Forums;
• Adopted comprehensive legislative platform for use by legislative committee and GMA Working Group;
• Initiated pilot, pro-bono program for community planning assistance teams; and
• Hosted APA delegation of Chinese officials during their visit to Seattle.

There is much more going on and much more to do than what is on this list. As planners, we have an amazing pool of skills and talents among our 1,400 plus members. We have the potential to accomplish truly great things when we tap into that pool. One of the best things we can accomplish in the next couple of years is to defeat the so-called property rights movement that is focusing its efforts on our state. Each of us can and must be engaged in this effort by telling the success stories and educating our friends, neighbors and elected representatives about what constitutes good planning and why it is important to all of us.

As members of APA, we have a unique and special perspective on what it takes to make great communities happen. We have a duty to share that perspective and make a difference.

More to come... Stay tuned!

HOUSING WASHINGTON 2005

Housing Washington 2005 is the largest annual conference on affordable housing in the region. Taking place September 11-13, 2005 at the Spokane Convention Center, Housing Washington is a comprehensive event exploring new pathways in the affordable housing arena, focusing on issues from around the world and in our communities.

This conference is an important statewide resource for nonprofit organizations, public agencies, housing-related associations and private businesses and more who are engaged in the affordable housing industry. Don't miss this once-a-year opportunity to engage in a collaborative forum with your colleagues and listen to local, regional and national experts.

Some of the top speakers at Housing Washington 2005 will include:

• Governor Christine Gregoire (invited)
• Avi Friedman, McGill University
• Robert Rapoza, Rapoza Associates
• Frances Fox Piven, The Graduate Center

A sample of scheduled presentations include:

• The Next Decade for Housing and Mortgage Finance
• Raising the Bar in Designing Senior Environments
• Creating Urban Villages
• Expanding Farm Worker Family Homeownership
• Plus informative workshops on housing, bonds, and taxes!

The conference is presented by the Washington State Housing Finance Commission and the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development in partnership with the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance.

For more information, visit www.wshfc.org/conf, e-mail conf@wshfc.org, or call the conference hotline at 1-800-767-HOME (4663) ext. 773.

LIVABLE WASHINGTON CHAPTER CONFERENCE 2005

Join the community of planners and related professionals as the Washington Chapter of the American Planning Association hosts a dynamic mix of sessions, mobile workshops, special events, exhibits and Washington State's Short Course on Local Planning - all focused around making our state more livable.

The conference runs from October 31 to November 2, 2005, and will be held at the Meydenbauer Center in Bellevue, Washington.

Program Information

• Roberta Lewandowski, Program Co-Chair 425-556-2447; rlewandowski@redmond.gov
• Kevin McDonald, AICP, Program Co-Chair 425-452-4558; kmcdonald@ci.bellevue.wa.us
• Eric Shields, AICP, Conference Co-Chair 425-587-3226; eshields@ci.kirkland.wa.us
• Dan Stroh, Conference Co-Chair 425-452-5255; dstroh@ci.bellevue.wa.us
  
  

Conference Management

Event Dynamics, Inc. (360-357-8044)
Joanie Pop, Conference Manager, joanie@eventdynamicsinc.com
Kelly Carson, Registration Manager, kelly@eventdynamicsinc.com

Sponsorship and Exhibit Information

Please contact Michael Booth, AICP, Sponsor Chair, at 425-252-7700 or at mbooth@perteet.com

Visit www.washington-apa.org for future conference updates.

HUMOR

FUNNY CITIZEN COMPLAINTS

Whoever doesn't subscribe to the APA listserv is missing a lot, or not, depending on your viewpoint. A posting by Steve Ladd entitled "funny citizen complaints" hit a funny bone. About 60 readers posted anecdotes, or complained that the email traffic was excessive or insensitive. You decide. Following are some of the funnier citizen complaints aired in this group catharsis. All are true stories related by local planners. For the reader's convenience they are grouped by topic. Over the next few months as space permits we will share some of the responses.

We're here, close the gate behind us!

• At a hearing for a subdivision called Finlandia Estates a citizen presented the hearing examiner with a bottle of Finlandia Vodka, claiming that approving the subdivision would cause the local children to become alcoholics. The examiner told the citizen he could not accept gifts.
• At a City Council meeting a young lady stood up and said, "I just moved here yesterday and I think there is entirely too much development. You have to stop it!"
• Mr. X had just moved into a new home located an hour and a half from where he works. After his first day's commute he called the planning department and in an alarmed and angry voice asked, "When are you going to stop development so my commute doesn't get any worse?"
• Ms. Y bought the first home in a new subdivision, then was shattered to find that homes are being built on the other lots too. How could the City allow her open space to be destroyed?
• At a neighborhood meeting about affordable housing a neighbor objected because she didn't want low-income neighbors. To which the planner responded that the affordable units are for government employees like her who can't afford anything else.
• People opposed to a subdivision that would extend a dead-end street complained that the streets would no longer be safe for their children to play in. A little old lady in the front row got up and said, "For goodness sake! Why do you people let your children play in the streets?"

Save our rural lifestyle!

• After a county approved a subdivision located near farmland, one of the new home owners complained about the farmer spraying fertilizer on his fields. She said his activities interfered with her "rural lifestyle."
• Another rural homeowner complained about a bear rummaging around in her garbage cans, demanding that the county do something about the trespassing bear. The planner told her that actually the development was trespassing on the bear's neighborhood, and recommended that she put her garbage cans in her garage.

HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS

THE GROWING IMPACT OF HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS
Wayne Senville¹, Editor, Planning Commissioners Journal

Both the Spring issue of our publication, the Planning Commissioners Journal², and the April issue of the American Planning Association's Planning magazine³, feature articles about homeowners associations. While this timing is coincidental, it does say something about the increasing impact homeowners associations are having -- on homeowners and on local planning.

In 1965 there were only 500 such associations. The latest information from the Community Associations Institute, the trade group for homeowners associations, indicates there are more than 250,000 associations in the United States. Approximately 50 million people now live in developments governed by homeowners associations. This growth is accelerating, with an estimated four out of every five housing starts included in a homeowners association.

In many places, it's virtually impossible to find new housing that's not developed with a homeowners association. For more and more residents these days, what their association's rules say is of more importance than what's in the zoning ordinance.

According to Alan Weinstein, author of the article on homeowners associations published in the Spring issue of the Planning Commissioners Journal , several factors are driving this phenomenal growth. One is the "changing housing preferences of older adults who often leave the homes where they raised their children to move to no-maintenance developments." Another factor cited by Weinstein is that "developers have found that they enjoy a competitive advantage by constructing new subdivisions with common recreational amenities and provision of some services." Once you start to provide common amenities and services, a homeowners association becomes a virtual necessity.

In addition, homeowners association developments often benefit local governments, by picking up infrastructure, service, and amenity costs the locality might otherwise have to bear. Moreover, by providing certain amenities (such as swimming pools), these developments may reduce the pressure on local governments to provide them.

But Jim Goodno, writing in the April issue of Planning magazine, cautions that "over the long haul, local governments may have to face the fact that poorly capitalized or managed associations cannot maintain aging developments."

Both Weinstein and Goodno point out that homeowners associations have come to increasingly function as "private" governments, setting rules and policies that govern many of the same concerns as zoning.

As Weinstein notes, association rules will normally apply to a variety of issues often covered by local zoning: parking and storage of vehicles; home occupations; accessory uses; fences; building additions; solar energy and telecommunications devices; and many other items. "Indeed, in the absence of state legislation to the contrary, an association's rules will take precedence over less restrictive land use regulations because the residents of the association have agreed contractually to be bound by those rules. Thus, a homeowners association is able to restrict, or even prohibit, uses of property that would be allowed under local land use regulations."

Interestingly, many planners and planning commissioners hear complaints about local zoning being too restrictive, and dictating too many aspects of what someone can do with their property. Yet restrictions which would cause an uproar, or be unlawful, if suggested for local zoning -- such as telling homeowners what colors they can or cannot use in painting their house, or if they're even allowed to display the flag or a political sign -- are common in many homeowners association covenants and rules.

While individuals are free (at least theoretically) to not live in a homeowners association development, or to choose to live in one having rules they agree with, the fact is that in many places this kind of freedom of choice is almost nonexistent. Most new housing entails mandatory membership in a homeowners association. And most associations employ fairly similar sets of rules.

Another concern, according to Weinstein, "is the potential for confusion as to who is responsible for enforcing what rules." As he points out, "it is not unusual, for example, for residents to notify the local planning or zoning office about a neighbor's supposed 'zoning' violation which, in fact, proves to be a violation of the association's rules, not the zoning code."

There is also an increasing recognition that homeowners association rules can work against local planning policies. To cite one example, a number of cities and towns in recent years have modified their zoning to make it easier for homeowners to have home businesses or offices. This reflects changing demographics and employment needs. Yet, standard language in almost all homeowners association rules bar use of the home for any business purpose. Another example: local efforts to promote energy efficiency being undercut by prohibitions against installing solar collectors or clotheslines.

Despite some of the problems just noted, most people who belong to a homeowners association are happy with their association⁴. This shouldn't come as a surprise, as one of the key goals of associations (and association rules) is to maintain and enhance property values by ensuring a development's stability and its well-kept appearance.

So is there a role for planners and other public officials to play? One approach, increasingly taken, is for state legislatures to specify areas in which homeowners association powers are limited. Just a few examples: Several states have limited associations' ability to prohibit energy savings devices, such as solar collectors or clotheslines. Maryland has made it harder for associations to preclude "low-impact" home businesses. In the wake of September 11th, several states have also restricted association rules which limit the display of the American flag.

And to cope with increasing homeowner problems in dealing with their association, Nevada has established a "state ombudsman's office" to provide assistance.

On the local level, while planning boards or commissions usually don't have a say in reviewing specific homeowners association covenants, conditions, and restrictions (the "CC&Rs"), it is certainly within a board or commission's ambit to sponsor a broader, community-wide dialogue -- involving residents and developers -- about association rules and their impacts.

That kind of open discussion could serve to point out areas in which association rules are overly restrictive on residents, or are undercutting broader community planning goals. It could also encourage developers (and their attorneys) to more carefully tailor future developments' CC&Rs, and develop provisions that are less restrictive, and more consistent with local planning policies.

END NOTES

1. Wayne Senville is Editor of the Planning Commissioners Journal, a national quarterly received by more than 7,500 planning commissioners (and professional planners) across the U.S. and Canada: http://www.plannersweb.com. Wayne has worked both as a citizen and a professional planner, having served as a member of the Burlington, Vermont, Planning Commission for nine years, and as former Director of Local & Regional Planning Assistance in the Vermont Department of Housing & Community Affairs.

2. Homeowners Associations, by Alan Weinstein, Esq., in the Spring 2005 issue of the Planning Commissioners Journal. For information go to: http://www.plannersweb.com

3. Housing's 800-Pound Gorilla, by Jim Goodno, in the April 2005 issue of Planning magazine. For information go to: http://www.planning.org

4. According to polling done in 1999 by the Gallup Organization for the Community Associations Institute, 75 percent of homeowners were very (or extremely) satisfied with their association.

GROWTH MANAGEMENT

GROWTH MANAGEMENT BY THE NUMBERS: ARE WE ON TARGET?
Yorik Stevens-Wajda; and Ivan Miller, Puget Sound Regional Council¹

Growth targets represent the amount of household, population, or employment growth a local jurisdiction has committed to accommodate by some future year. While cities and counties have a duty to accommodate the targets, they are allowed broad discretion on how they are to do so. Counties and cities have recently adopted the latest set of targets, incorporating new techniques, and extending their planning horizons to 2022 or 2025.

For the past year, the Puget Sound Regional Council has been examining growth targets in the central Puget Sound region as part of the Puget Sound Milestones monitoring program. This analysis represents the first time that targets from all four counties have been examined from a regional perspective. It provides insight into the structure and methods of the targeting process, as well as the results.

Growth targets are guided by the Growth Management Act's (GMA) planning goals and, as such, should encourage growth in urban areas. Case law from the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board suggests that growth should be targeted largely to cities within the urban growth area. This is consistent with regional multicounty planning policy, which supports focusing growth into cities and their designated regional growth centers.

Some data findings are summarized below:

RESIDENTIAL TARGETS

• The regionally aggregated growth target - the minimum number of new residents the four counties must accommodate - calls for growth of 909,000 residents by the end of the planning period. This represents an annual increase of about 40,000 residents per year, a decrease from the 53,000 new residents per year that had been seen in the 1990s.
• King County has the highest countywide growth target and anticipates 311,500 new residents by 2022. Pierce County's countywide growth target anticipates 211,880 new residents during the same period. Snohomish and Kitsap counties both have a planning period that extends to 2025, and are anticipating 286,200 and 99,600 new residents during that time.
• Adding up the targets adopted by the four counties finds that incorporated cities were targeted for population growth totaling 533,300 new residents over the planning period. The rural areas of the region were targeted for growth of 105,000 residents.
• In total, 253,000 residents were targeted to areas that are within the urban growth area, but not within any city. Of this targeted growth, 70% was allocated to areas that are affiliated with cities for purposes of joint planning and future annexation.

EMPLOYMENT TARGETS

• Currently, only King and Snohomish counties set employment targets. King County anticipates 289,000 new jobs in the 2000-2022 planning period. Snohomish County anticipates an increase of 125,000 jobs during its 2002-2025 planning period.
• Employment targets are much more heavily focused in cities than residential targets. King and Snohomish counties' total employment growth target is an increase of 414,000 jobs, 90% of which are allocated to cities in comparison to 61% of those counties' population target.

FINDINGS

The state of the art of growth targeting has improved significantly since the first round of growth targets were adopted in the early 1990s. Counties are beginning to link their targets more closely to other planning efforts, creating more integrated and holistic planning processes. However, opportunities exist for further refinement of these processes:

• The planning horizons are not consistent.
  Each county currently uses a different starting and ending point for its targets. This can make aggregating and analyzing the targets difficult on a regional scale, and complicates the planning requirements for cities that are located within more than one county.
• The methodologies differ, but are not inconsistent.
  Each county uses a different methodology for allocating growth targets, making regional coordination more difficult. Portions of each county's methodology could be combined and used as recommended regional 'best practices'.
• Employment targets to some extent already exist and add value.
  King and Snohomish counties currently set employment targets, which can help to promote a balance of jobs and housing. These employment targets are useful to cities and counties in preparing their comprehensive plans and ensuring capacity for economic growth.
• Targets for regional growth centers are not well integrated into the process.
  While requirements exist in some countywide planning policies to establish growth targets for designated centers, not all jurisdictions do so.
• The connection between the results of the targeting process, the GMA and VISION 2020 goals could be clearer.
  The results of each county's growth target distribution processes vary significantly. Providing clearer regional guidance would help ensure that the targets implement the regional vision and GMA goals.
• Targets partially consider the impact on annexation and incorporation.
  Best practices support targeting growth into annexation areas.

GROWTH MANAGEMENT BY THE NUMBERS BAR CHART

END NOTES

1. For more information about Growth Targets contact Yorik Stevens-Wajda at 206-389-2158 or ystevens@psrc.org or Ivan Miller at 206-464-7549 or imiller@psrc.org. Growth Management by the Numbers: Population, Household, and Employment Growth Targets in the Central Puget Sound Region will be released as a Puget Sound Milestones report in June 2005.