FROM THE PRESIDENT'S DESK

LOOKING AHEAD TO THE FUTURE
Steve Butler, AICP
sbutler@ci.seatac.wa.us

This is my first column as President, and I feel honored to have been elected to this position by the Washington Chapter, American Planning Association (WAPA) membership. There are many exciting opportunities, as well as challenges, facing our organization. Some of my goals over the next two years are to:

• proactively address both legislative and non-legislative issues important to our profession;
• increase continuing education opportunities;
• promote examples of how planning activities have resulted in an improved quality of life for specific communities;
• expand use of the internet to get "hot off the presses" information out to the membership;
• foster increased communication, both among planners and with related professionals (such as architects and engineers); and
• implement other aspects of WAPA's Strategic Plan.

THANK YOU

I would like to first thank Michael Kattermann, AICP, Immediate Past President, who provided tremendous leadership and did so much for our organization during his term. The list of his accomplishments is long and impressive. I would also like to thank Maria del Mundo (former E.W.U. student representative), Michael Hintze (former U.W. student representative), Richard Rolland (former "Western Planner" representative), Bob Sokol, AICP (past Secretary), and Susan Winchell, AICP (former Nominations Committee Chair) for their recent service to the Board.

Finally, I would like to thank the rest of the Washington Chapter Board Members for their enthusiasm and hard work. As I have come to recognize by having already served as Vice President and then President-Elect, the Board is extremely dedicated and key to our organization's many successes.

LOOKING AHEAD

A major issue facing us is the prospect of a property rights initiative in Washington State, similar to Measure 37 that recently passed in Oregon. If such a measure were to pass in our State, it would severely undermine the good planning that has been undertaken by the residents of Washington. As a result, I have created an ad hoc committee, chaired by Joe Tovar, FAICP, to identify steps that the Washington Chapter might take in battling such an initiative here. We will keep you closely informed on our plans as they unfold.

A subcommittee of WAPA's Legislative Committee is working to select a new lobbyist for our organization. It will be difficult to fill the "large" shoes left by Mike Ryherd, our first and only lobbyist, but I am confident that we will find a high quality replacement.

I would like to remind you about our Annual Fall Conference, which is scheduled this year for October 31-November 2, 2005, at the Meydenbauer Center, Bellevue. You will be impressed by the extensive program offerings. Kudos are in order for this year's conference organizers, especially the Conference Committee Co-Chairs Eric Shields, AICP and Dan Stroh, Program Co-Chairs Roberta Lewandowski and Kevin McDonald, AICP, and Host Committee Chair Kris Liljeblad, AICP.

Finally, I urge you to get involved with WAPA! Please feel free to contact me, or any of the other WAPA Board members, to talk about how you would be able to participate.

Enjoy the rest of the summer!

END OF SESSION REPORT

Legislative Committee
Washington Chapter American Planning Association
Summary of Activities During the 2005 Legislative Session

Legislative Committee Co-chairs Esther Larsen and Ivan Miller began their assignments in June of 2004 by meeting with Board President Michael Kattermann and President Elect Steve Butler for an update on the status of the Board and Committee work regarding legislative issues.

To activate the Legislative Committee, the members of the 2003-2004 Legislative Committee were sent an email updating them on the appointment of new Co-chairs and were invited to take part in the Legislative Committee for the 2004-2005 year. The first task was to put together a draft updated chapter Legislative Platform. This was accomplished via review and incorporation of information from the 2004 Legislative Platform, 2003-2004 Legislative Committee End of the Year Report, Livable Washington Update, and input obtained at the Chapter Board Strategic Planning Meeting held on September 10, 2004. The Draft Legislative Platform was sent to members of the Legislative Committee, the Chapter Board, and Livable Washington Update group for review and comments, which were then incorporated in the Draft Legislative Platform 2004-2005 by Esther Larsen and Ivan Miller.

At the Chapter Annual Meeting on October 4, 2004, the Draft Legislative Platform 2004-2005 was submitted to the Board for approval. Following discussion and editing, the Board adopted the Chapter Legislative Platform 2004-2005, which is available on the Chapter website.

Esther Larsen and Ivan Miller met on December 9, 2004, with Steve Butler, Brad Collins and Mike McCormick of the GMA Working Group and Mike Ryherd, WA APA Chapter Lobbyist to discuss the upcoming Legislative Session as well as the process for review of and position statements on pending legislation. The consensus was to continue as in the past with weekly conference calls. A review process and format as outlined on the WA APA Chapter web page was adopted. A copy of the review process is below.

The Legislative Committee has met weekly each Thursday from noon until 1 PM via conference call from January 6 through April 28, 2005. There are approximately 30 individuals on the email list receiving information on the pending legislation. The conference calls have had 6 to 15 participants each week, and approximately 115 bills have been reviewed with 18 members participating in reviewing bills and writing up a review of the pending legislation. In addition, approximately 15 bills were reviewed a second or third time as amendments were added and changes made to the bills by one house or the other. Approximately 10 bills were in a "watch and see what happens" mode because they were of interest to WA APA but may have had adequate support from other groups or potentially could have amendments that would be of interest to WA APA.

Mike Ryherd has provided a weekly bill tracking list prior to the conference call and weekly updates during the call on pending legislation. With the bills beginning to move out of Committees, he will provide updates on their status, any changes, etc. as they continue through the Legislative process. Mike signs in on all hearings for bills that WA APA has provided a position statement (support, opposition and/or additional comments), and testifies at hearings for important bills that need additional clarification as well as bills that WA APA opposes. He may also testify on bills APA supports, if there are not sufficient other supporters testifying. In cases with hearings on multiple bills at the same time, Legislative Committee members and other APA members are being asked to assist with testimony.

As a point of clarification, to sign in is to be part of the long-term permanent record on the bill, but not part of the short-term paperwork that the Committee's Legislative members/staff review. Only signing in will not give the signer status of a stakeholder with whom the Legislative Committee members/staff will negotiate regarding revisions to bills. Signing in and testifying at a hearing gives the party testifying status of a stakeholder and a part of the short-term paperwork provided to the Committee's Legislative members/staff.

The GMA Working Group members, Brad Collins, Mike McCormick, and Steve Butler, have provided weekly updates on the activity of the GMA Working Group and specific language on proposed legislation regarding both Best Available Science and the Comprehensive Plan Update Timelines.

Following review of the legislation by the members of the Legislative Committee and a summary provided weekly of these reviews by Esther Larsen and Ivan Miller, alternating weeks, a Legislative Committee recommendation was set forth based on the reviews and comments on those reviews. In cases where there was clear support or opposition to bills, the recommendation was either to support or to oppose. In cases with no clear consensus and/or great diversity in opinions, no Legislative Committee recommendation was set forth. In cases with bills that could be supported with changes, suggestions were made regarding changes in the bill language or other issues, and where appropriate, a Legislative Committee recommendation was set forth.

Each week the summary of the reviews and recommendations were sent to the Legislative Committee and to Mike Kattermann and/or Steve Butler to compile position statements to send to the Legislature directed to the Chair and members of the Committee in the House or Senate that was planning a hearing or other action on the pending legislation. Fifty-six position statements were sent to the Legislature. Of those, 7 were restating the position following amendments to the original legislation, and 1 was a change in position due to a change in the legislation. Thus, position statements were sent on 48 different bills.

Information on specific legislation as well as the position statements sent to the Legislature can be obtained by contacting Esther Larsen at elarsen@spokanecounty.org or Ivan Miller at Imiller@psrc.org. However, following the end of the Legislative Session and a debriefing, the entire list of bills reviewed, recommendations, and Position Statements will be made available for viewing on the Chapter web page.

A debriefing is planned on June 10, 2005 in Olympia with Mike Ryherd and some of the Legislators. In the interim, some of the activities set forth in the Chapter Strategic Plan, still in draft format on the web page, will be assigned to Legislative Committee members to begin implementing. In addition, if Task Forces are put together by the Legislature, the Governor, and/or other groups, members of the Legislative Committee will be assigned to participate in order to plan for the 2006 Legislative Session and to provide pro-active outreach and education to elected officials and the public on potential legislative issues.

Esther Larsen
Legislative Committee Co-Chair

2005 American Planning Association Washington Chapter
Legislative Committee Position Statement Summary

2005 Session

Neutral

• SB 5325 - Providing economic development and community revitalization (with comment that further review and analysis of full implications was required, but support generally exists for the type of funding mechanism outlined in the bill; see below as to support after analysis took place).

• ESHB 1153 - Equalizing the costs of providing municipal services to newly annexed areas
• HB 1404 - Requiring certain local governments to regulate forest practices
• HB 1631 - Using revenue under the county conservation futures levy
• HB 1639 - Requiring consideration of water quality during growth management planning
• HB 1680 - Promoting safe neighborhoods through more effective community planning
• HB 1740 - Clarifying the economic development powers of cities, towns, and counties
• HB 1742 - Relating to tax incentives for certain multiple-unit dwellings in urban centers
• HB 1969 - Revising Transportation Goals
• HB 2010 - Authorizing a county real estate excise tax (REET) to fund a geographic information system
• HB 2023 - Creating GMA Infrastructure Account
• HB 2049 - Authorizing Enhanced Permit Pilot Assistance Programs (and requested that expanded scope of bill be for all "planning permits" rather than just for building permits
• SHB 2081 - Creating an aquatic rehabilitation zone designation as a framework for Hood Canal recovery programs
• SHB 2086 - Authorizing extension or expansion of sewage treatment systems in rural areas when necessary to address Hood Canal concerns
• SHB 2097 - Establishing a management program for Hood Canal rehabilitation
• ESHB 2157 - Implementing regional transportation investment plans
• HB 2196 - Providing for expansion of the local option real estate excise tax to fund capital projects.
• HB 2207 - BAS Clarification (with comment of support for GMA Working Group and suggested language changes in legislation)
• SB 5325 - Promoting economic development and community revitalization (with comments for suggested changes in language of legislation to strengthen bill)
• SB 5330 - Creating economic development grants programs
• SB 5370 - Creating economic development strategic reserve account
• SB 5422 - Providing research and services for special purpose districts
• HB 5591 - Modifying the zoning authority of local jurisdictions over gambling activities
• SB 5772 - Creating GMA Infrastructure Account
• SB 5859 - Mitigating loss of farmland
• SB 6012 - Making transportation services an authorized purpose for parking and business improvement areas

• HB 1505 - Comprehensive Plan Amendments Initiated by Local Government (supported planned action ordinance condition and annexation in urban growth boundary condition, with suggestion that "boundary" be changed to "area"; opposed fifty+ jobs condition)
• HB 1565 - Addressing Transportation Currency Strategies (supported strengthening multi-modal components of concurrency; opposed reporting requirements sections as drafted)
• SB 5109 - Preserving farm and agricultural land through conservation futures levies (support basic concept of conservation futures, but concerns with requirement of 50% of levies to be used to purchase ag lands as it restricts local jurisdictions' flexibility as to type of lands to conserve; also suggested consolidation with other bills pending with similar legislative intent to use revenues for conservation and park lands)

• SHB 1169 - Including public school facilities as essential public facilities
• HB 1373 - Relating to imposing impact fees on manufactured housing communities
• HB 1374 - Prohibiting certain restrictions on the location of manufactured homes
• HB 1793 - Allowing fire protection facilities to use impact fees
• HB 1967 - Affirming that cities and counties shall accommodate state projected population growth without requiring a minimum residential density
• HB 2077 - Allowing for adoption of example critical areas policies or regulations (with comment that support would come if bill revised to include that State will defend local governments that adopt model policies and regulations from challenge)
• HB 2078 - Deferrals of GMA Updates
• HB 2079 - Establishing compliance tiers for review and revision requirements mandated by RCW 36.70A.130 (with comment that support exists for GMA Working Group's efforts to craft a bill on deferrals directed to "smaller, slower growing" jurisdictions where burden is high and benefit is low)
• HB 2179 - Establishing urban impact districts (with comment of strong support for the provision of additional resources to local governments to facilitate annexation of unincorporated islands)
• HB 2171 and ESHB 2171 - Allows cities and counties one additional year to comply with update requirements (with comment of support for GMA Working Group efforts to craft a bill on deferrals directed to "smaller, slower growing" jurisdictions where burden is high and benefit is low
• HB 2194 and ESHB 2194 - Requiring 1-year public participation before GMA updates and changing public participation requirements of GMA
• ESSB 5164 - Authorizing the department of transportation to impose mitigation or mitigation fees
• SB 5372 - Notice to water and sewer districts of utility relocation
• SB 5589 - Providing for proceedings for excluding agricultural land from the boundaries of a charter or noncharter code city
• SB 5661 - Creating categorical exemptions from the state environmental policy act for certain activities
• SB 5907 - Affirming that cities and counties shall accommodate state projected population growth without requiring a minimum residential density
• SB 5912 - Clarifying requirements concerning use of scientific information in the designation and protection of critical areas
• SB 5923 - Timelines for required comprehensive plan and development regulation updates
• SB 5930 - Establishing compliance tiers for review and revision requirements mandated by RCW 36.70A.130 (with comment that support does exist for legislation if population threshold was reduced to 50,000 rather than 75,000)
• SB 5954 - Allowing for adoption of example critical areas policies or regulations (with comment that support would come if bill revised to include that State will defend local governments that adopt model policies and regulations from challenge)

2005 American Planning Association Washington Chapter
Bill Review Process and Timeline

2005 Session
Finalized - February 3, 2005

Esther, Steven, and Ivan met on January 27, 2005 to discuss how bills are to be reviewed. Two major communication decisions:

1. Leg committee members' bill reviews are to be sent to the entire leg committee list by leg committee members themselves. This provides the maximum amount of time for members to review one another's bill reviews, if they desire to do so (there is limited time for this step).
2. Comments on another leg committee members bill reviews should be sent only to Ivan and Esther. This is to avoid overload in the number of emails circulating. If there is a major concern raised, it will be at Ivan and Esther's discretion to ask the leg committee for additional discussion and comment.
3. All relevant deadlines are shown in the diagram below, with the distinction between bills with a Monday/Tuesday hearing and all the rest. Both sets of bills have fixed deadlines that work for the additional steps in the process (members can send the reviews earlier than the deadline, which provides additional time for the subsequent steps in the process).
4. After all comments are received, the Chapter President will send a letter to the appropriate legislators and legislative staff. The Chapter President will send a copy to the entire Leg committee list.

PUGET SOUND SECTION APA

SUMMER '05 BROWN BAG SERIES OF CONTINUING EDUCATION

Come to the FREE session you need to do your job better! All go from noon until 1:15. RSVP with Steve Ladd, ladds@ci.bonney-lake.wa.us, (253) 447-4350.

Topic	Time	Place	Great speakers!
The CLCs 100-Year Regional Land Use Plan To save 1.26 million acres of forests, farms, and shorelines in Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Kittitas Counties , the CLC is working with community leaders to create The Cascade Agenda: a forecast of land use patterns over the next 100 years.	Noon, Wed., July 20	* Renton City Hall , 7th floor, Council Chambers	John Howell, Chair, & Michelle Connor, Vice President, Cascade Land Conservancy (CLC)
Innovative Residential Design Standards Join in a discussion on development standards for all housing types, with Bellingham 's Residential Development Standards Update as the case study. Working with staff and stakeholders, MAKERS crafted them to be easy to use, market-friendly, and conducive to community design goals.	Noon, Wed., July 27	* Renton City Hall , 7th floor, Council Chambers	Bob Bengford, MAKERS
Urban Design: from Theory to Regulation Vitality cannot be legislated, nor originality thrive under regulation. Yet spatial complexity necessitates coordination. How do we balance expression against control? Organic versus prescriptive growth? A noted lecturer and urbanist discusses how values influence urban design.	Noon, Wed., Aug. 3	* Renton City Hall , 7th floor, Mayor's Conference Center	Ron Turner AIA, AICP
Two New Tools for Proactive Housing 1) The Innovative Housing Catalog is the 2nd generation of CTED's "Affordable by Design" showcase program. 2) The Multifamily Feasibility Indicator is software that turns cost and revenue estimates into a pro-forma to test the viability of long-range housing plans.	Noon, Wed., Aug. 10	* Renton City Hall , 7th floor, Council Chambers	Michael Luis The Housing Partnership
Tree Retention Developers and homeowners want to cut trees. Communities want to retain them. How to balance these public and private interests? Learn about the regulatory and practical aspects of tree retention, replacement plantings, and urban forestry.	Noon, Wed., Aug. 17	* Renton City Hall , 7th floor, Mayor's Conference Center	Dan Penrose, City of Lakewood, Scott Baker, RCA, Arborist, Tree Solutions Inc.

*From I-405, turn north on SR 167, then go east a half mile on Grady Way. City Hall is at 1055 S. Grady Way, on the right. There is parking in front of the building plus a parking terrace accessible via a ramp. Thanks to Don Erickson for arranging the rooms.

RECAPS OF THE SPRING '05 APA BROWN BAGS

Planning Philosophy 4/20/05

What is your most cherished belief with regard to planning? Will it stand up to empirical examination? This brown bag was years in the making, and transpired unpredictably. None of the scheduled speakers were able to attend, but your brown bag coordinator summarized three essays by Rich Carson, and a professor with a background in land development stole the show.

Mr. Carson attributes Oregon's Measure 37 to elitist environmentalism. While communist China was realizing its errors, and becoming prosperous, Oregon was centralizing its planning authority, and alienating its citizens. Rich also takes shots at New Urbanism, calling its products "feel-good faux-towns which feign urbanity." Rich questions the supposed evil of automobiles and "snout houses," and condemns all social engineering.

UW professor George Rolfe filled in for Hilda Blanco with a penetrating analysis of land market interventions. He considers planning to be theory-based and insufficiently monitored for practical results. For example, a government incentive for affordable housing may benefit only the landowner. The market is smart, but backward-looking. It only knows how to replicate. Planners are forward-looking, but prey to unintended side effects. George advocates land development regulations and joint ventures only if done right. In Vancouver B.C., for example, the government initiated a False Creek development that the private sector said was impossible, but once it was proven feasible the private sector jumped in with both feet. The effective planner will teach her elected officials how to take community development risks that pay off.

Planners have the fire in their belly, but they need to understand the market too. Your brown bag coordinator recommends Basic Economics, A Citizen's Guide to the Economy by Thomas Sowell.

Gown to Town: UW Planning Projects in Partnership With Communities 4/27/05

Any public sector planner with a vexing community issue should consider commissioning a UW Dept. of Urban Design and Planning studio project. For the cost of expenses only, the UW can provide 5-15 willing graduate students. Their work is detailed and professional, as evidenced by presentations on recent planning projects in Buckley, South Lake Union, and Palmer, Alaska. The program emphasizes real-world experience and client satisfaction. Studios occur in the fall, winter, and spring quarters. Contact Brandon Born at 206- Thanks to our student rep Michael Hintze for making this event happen.

Hot Redevelopment Projects 5/4/05

Any of these three large, intensely urban redevelopment projects could have taken the whole hour. We received poignant vignettes of the Greenbridge project, near White Center, the Redmond Former Coast Guard Site project, and two redevelopment projects on privately-owned sites in Tacoma's Hilltop. Speakers Anna Nelson, Jeff Foster, Terry Shirk, and Tom Eanes captured the principal lessons of such projects as follows. 1) Political and financial support are key. The first two projects were on public land and financed largely by grants, representing massive commitment by elected officials. 2) Regulatory flexibility is also paramount: zoning rules had to be rewritten in all three cases! 3) Finding the right mix of housing types and affordability was a common theme. 4) Planners had to battle City engineers to approve narrower streets and fewer parking spaces. 5) Public involvement is crucial: over 100 public meetings were needed to grease the skids for the 1000-unit Greenbridge project. In the end, almost no one objected! Such projects are successes not only for the stakeholders, but for all Puget Sound planners who draw inspiration fro them.

True Urbanism: Demographics, Density, and Design 5/11/05

Mark Hinshaw is a regional asset whose insights on urbanism are gaining national renown. Now a book is in the works, and brown baggers got first peak into the subject matter. The nation is entering the 4-S era: singles, single-head households, seniors, and startups (young couples). The 4 Ss are now the majority, and they want new forms of housing. Seniors are living longer, have more money, and don't want to be isolated, though they may no longer be able to drive. W can only meet their needs though civilized high density. Mixed use projects are becoming common in even smaller cities. Store-front sidewalks are in the public realm: the developer may pay for the pedestrian amenities, but the community controls the space. Design review is mainstream. Non-profits provide affordable housing. "Five over two" construction (two lower floors of concrete, five upper of wood) has made mid-rise housing more affordable. When developers say, "There's no market for that," they often mean, "I'm not in that market." So find someone who is, or bring in a developer from outside the region. Have your city assemble the land and "prime the pump" if that's what it takes. The world is changing, largely for the good. Be part of the change.

Public Health and the Built Environment 5/18/05

A hundred years ago, squalid living conditions in dense cities spawned two fields: urban planning and public health. This brown bag commemorates their common birth. The new common threat is unhealthy lifestyles. Public Health of Seattle and King County has tackled this by encouraging developers to include public health amenities such as smoke-free buildings and walking paths. Developers say they are willing to do so in exchanges for regulatory incentives such as density bonuses and faster permitting. In an interesting reversal of causality, whereas density once caused epidemics, it now makes people healthier by allowing them to walk rather than drive.

What Does "Include the Best Available Science" Mean? 5/25/05

RCW 36.70A.172 says "counties and cities shall include the best available science" in their critical area ordinances. Does that mean they must adopt, for example, DOE's wetland buffer widths? Jay Derr of Buck & Gordon grapples that question in representing Skagit County, where stream buffers along drainage ditches would impact farmers. Based on recent growth management hearings board appeals, Jay concludes that counties and cities not using the agency science must 1) document the reasons why a conflicting GMA goal or other law dictates otherwise and 2) "adaptively manage" the resource. Skagit County met the first requirement by documenting the economic impact that buffer setbacks would have on farmers. (Similarly, a city might document that certain biological functions no longer exist along a given stream, and therefore needn't be protected.) The "adaptive management" requirement is harder. Those not following agency science must monitor the outcome and adjust their management accordingly. Skagit County spend about $1 million on adaptive management and the hearings board said it wasn't good enough. There is no clear standard. Jay also noted that a cautious "no-risk" regulatory approach could lack the "nexus" or "rough proportionality" required for constitutionality.

Harry Reinert of King County Dept. of Development and Environmental Services also believes you can balance critical area protection against other GMA goals, such as urban density and affordable housing. King County's new critical areas ordinance was years in the making, and very contentious. The farmers and environmentalists liked the new ordinance while rural residents hated it. The County invested heavily in BAS research and used the Department of Ecology's third wetland buffer option, which takes into account the intensity of the proposed land use and the wetland functions that are present.

The recent legislature passed no bills on the issue, and there's no consensus on how such a bill should be worded. Jurisdictions are advised to solve their issues politically and avoid appeals as much as possible.