Volume XXI, Issue 7September 2008

President's Message

Joe Tovar FAICP
jwtovar@comcast.net

Check out our new cool newsletter masthead above. It has a new title and a new look. It was redesigned, as well as the new Chapter website, to implement the APA National Branding Guidelines and our new Chapter logo. The website also has a number of other improvements to make it more user-friendly. Surf on over to www.washington-apa.org to check it out.

APA Washington’s Response to Dr. Eicher’s Study on the Cost of Regulation

The long awaited Observations on the Costs of Land Use Regulations and Growth Management: A Critique of a Controversial New UW Study is available on the Chapter website. Thanks for six months of hard work go to committee co-chairs Mike Hubner, AICP and Rose Curran, AICP and their fellow committee members Ken Dueker, AICP, Mark Hinshaw, FAICP, Ron Turner, AICP, Gary Lawrence, Mike Stanger, Dan Stroh and Tim Trohimovich, AICP. These private and public sector practitioners working together were well equipped to do a reality check on the study authored by UW Economics Professor Theo Eicher.

The Chapter’s Cost of Regulation paper puts Prof. Eicher’s study in context, pointing out its methodological flaws and limitations and the fact that it comes to very different conclusions than a number of other research studies on the topic. Mike H. and Rose, together with Legislative Committee Co-Chair Esther Larsen have been invited to present the paper’s perspective at a legislative hearing in Olympia on September 11.

In my view, the subject of the cost of regulation is an important one deserving of continuing dialogue. However, the UW study is but one take on the subject, and a narrow and flawed one at that. More problematic is the fact that certain groups hostile to planning have been using Prof. Eicher’s study to beat the drums for a general roll-back of all land use regulations. APA Washington stands for fair, predictable and sensible regulation, and must work toward those goals through our continuing education and legislative committees. Rose, Mike H. and UW Planning Professor Fritz Wagner will discuss both the UW and APA papers at a panel at the Chapter’s Spokane Conference in October.

Update on APA Conference – Plan It For Our Planet

By now you should have received the registration and preliminary program for our conference on October 13 to 15. If you didn’t receive it, or would like to see it and register online, go to www.washington-apa.org/2008conf.

In keeping with our global climate change theme, we will be trying to make our smallest carbon footprint ever at this year’s conference. Water will be available, but not in bottles. We will minimize use of paper and give you a reusable canvas grocery tote bag to carry conference materials in. At conference sign-in, we will be asking for information about how you traveled to the conference. Carpoolers obviously will make a big contribution to a small footprint. At last check, airfares from Seattle to Spokane are reasonable (as low as $39 one way). At least one of the carriers offer a “carbon buy-back” option.

PRIZE ALERT!

Every member of a carpool with at least three people traveling at least 100 miles will be entered in a drawing for free registration to the Chapter’s 2009 conference! Identify your carpool by name(s) when you check in.

Committee Updates

I appointed Richard Hart and Kristian Kofoed as the APA co-chairs of the Joint APA-PAW Awards Committee. Together with President-elect Scott Greenberg, AICP and Vice-President Hiller West, they discussed different ideas with previous Awards Co-Chair Bob Sokol. We scheduled a telephone conference call with PAW representatives Lisa Parks and Lloyd Skinner for late August. We hope to have a set of proposed reforms for the Chapter Board to consider in October. Stay tuned.

I have also appointed Aubin Phillips, a planner with BHC in Seattle, our new Scholarship Chair. Aubin takes the reins from Paul Inghram, AICP, who is transitioning to his new national role as President-elect of AICP. Welcome Aubin!

Words to Live By

One last note – remember that October is National Community Planning Month. Several Chapter members are participating with APA National to produce radio public service announcements about planning to air in several Washington State markets in October.

I urge you to take advantage of the increased profile of planning in our state by taking some action, however modest, to support that effort. Write a letter to the editor or article for your local newspaper or blog telling the story of good planning; propose a resolution for adoption by your local city council or county commission (models are posted on the Chapter website); or make a contact with your local schools to see if they’d like to participate in our Chapter’s program for “planning in schools” (contact Steve Butler at subtler@ci.seatac.wa.us for information).

The following advice applies equally well to those trying to improve our country, its communities and the lot of its people: It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But, above all, try something. – Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Conference Updates

APA Regional Conference – Plan It for our Planet

When: October 13-15, 2008
Where: Davenport Hotel – Spokane, Washington
For more information, go to www.washington-apa.org/2008conf.

Conference Highlights:

• Closing Keynote Speaker: Christopher Leinberger
  Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institution; Land Use Strategist; Developer; Professor
• Opening Address: Milenko Matanovic
  Executive Director, Pomegranate Center
• Role of Sustainable Farming: Screening of the film “Broken Limbs: Apples, Agriculture and the New American Farmer,” followed by discussion with filmmaker Guy Evans
• Mobile Workshops highlighting topics such as Green Buildings, Downtown Revitalization, Olmsted Urban Park Design and Local Farm Wineries
• Exhibitors displaying valuable products and services
• Student Poster Gallery
• Washington State Short Course on Local Planning
• AICP Certification Maintenance (CM) Credits: Many of the 40 breakout sessions will be eligible.

Paul Inghram, AICP President-elect, will host a breakfast on Tuesday morning of the conference for interested Chapter members to discuss Certification Maintenance (CM) improvements.

Since the Conference preliminary program went to press, two thunderbolts have come down from Mt. Olympia. One was the decision by the Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB) ordering the Department of Ecology to revise its guidelines to require that low impact development techniques be included in local government regulations. The second was a Supreme Court decision in Thurston County vs. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board stating unequivocally that the hearings boards lack authority to draw “bright lines.” Speakers at several sessions at the October planning conference will be discussing these two decisions and what they do (or don’t) mean for the practice of planning in Washington. These updates will be noted in the Final Program.

Other Conferences of Interest

Joe Tovar reports that the Chapter has been active in supporting and distributing information about other conferences and training offered by other disciplines and organizations. Check these out:

• Doing Density Right, an AIA conference September 24-26 in Seattle.
  Here’s the link for more information: http://www.aiaseattle.org/node/2065
  Mark Hinshaw and Joe Tovar will be speaking about how designers, their clients, and neighborhoods should look to plans and regulations to address density issues
• WSDOT Tribal Transportation Conference, which will be held at Sleeping Lady Resort in Leavenworth, October 27-30. The Chapter’s Tribal Representative, Michael Cardwell, says this confab is for more than just transportation planners and engineers. It is an opportunity for us all to interface with Native Sovereign Nations. Here’s the link with more information:
  http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/tribal
• CM credits will be offered at the Bike/Pedestrian Conference in Seattle, September 3-5; at the annual conference of the City and County Planning Directors in Chelan, September 10-12; and the Growth Management Act Continuing Legal Education Seminar in Seattle, November 20-21.

Mountlake Terrace Adopts a Sustainability Strategy

On August 4 the City of Mountlake Terrace adopted a sustainability strategy. It outlines a number of actions to promote taking care of the environment, economy and to provide a livable community for generations to come. The City of Mountlake Terrace wants to use this strategy to attract green businesses and to track its own progress.

When it comes to sustainability, Mountlake Terrace means business. In June the city made the headlines by banning the sale of plastic water bottles within city facilities. In addition, non-emergency response city vehicles are not allowed to idle for more than three minutes. Its new “Sustainability Strategy” contains several other ways for the City of Mountlake Terrace to set an example for sustainability. It wants to encourage others to live and do business with the environment and resource-efficiency in mind.

The Sustainability Strategy has two overarching goals. It plans to build a livable community through its built and natural environment. It plans to improve resource efficiency by reducing consumption of resources through the everyday practices of city employees, business owners and its residents. In order to implement these goals, six strategies are laid out. These action-oriented strategies are prioritized steps that Mountlake Terrace can use to achieve its sustainability goals.

Low stormwater impact development strategies (LSID, aka “LID”) was identified as a high priority. Mountlake Terrace recognizes LSID as a way to reduce the volume and timing of stormwater runoff. They will use these strategies to increase water quality and provide additional streetscape benefits. They plan to compete for grant funds to build some demonstration projects.

Mountlake Terrace wants to put low stormwater impact development and other smart growth strategies into their development regulations. They will evaluate their building code requirements to ensure that they require energy and water conservation techniques. At the same time, they want to ensure that developers have the flexibility to choose multiple solutions to meet standard requirements. It will back up these regulations with incentives to promote energy efficiency and green building designs.

The City of Mountlake will require LEED Silver standards in all city-owned buildings with a floor area of 5,000 square feet or more. The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system was developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). It provides standards for environmentally sustainable construction. Different levels of certification (Certified, Silver, Gold and Platinum) are awarded based on points awarded for the use of various green building materials and strategies. Mountlake Terrace contends that these standards will provide substantial costs savings over the life of the structure while adding minimal additional upfront costs.

Another key strategy is to mobilize energy-efficient mobility options throughout the city. Several action steps are listed to encourage walking and bicycling. They intend to fully implement both their bicycle and sidewalk plans. Their development regulations require new commercial and multi-family developments to provide a certain number of bicycle racks. These strategies are connected to their efforts to aggressively promote the location of mixed-use developments into its town center.

The Sustainability Strategy outlines how the City of Mountlake Terrace can lead by setting a good example. For instance, the City of Mountlake Terrace plans to make its city hall paperless. It wants to replace its fleet of vehicles with hybrids and other furl-efficient models. It will employ policies that encourage more energy-efficient behavior and procurement in all its departments and operations. For example, they will buy only “EnergyStar” devices. They will replace high-intensity and incandescent light with fluorescent lighting.

By setting a good example, the City of Mountlake Terrace intends to attract “clean tech” industries and businesses. Clean Technology is a diverse range of goods and services that harness renewable materials and energy sources. It is technology that reduces the use of natural resources and cuts, or perhaps eliminates, emissions and waste. A unique feature of the clean technology industry is the high level of integration and cross-over between the different industrial sectors.

The research conducted for Mountlake Terrace’s Sustainability Strategy found that clean tech industries desire city attributes that positively affect their image. People employed in clean technology often possess skill sets that command livable wages. They choose to work in clean technology industries because its goals align with their personal core values. They like to combine both their personal and professional core values with where they work, live and play. In other words, they want to live and work in communities that both promote and demonstrate sustainability.

The City of Mountlake Terrace sees itself as a regional leader in the development of sustainable communities. It wants to position itself as an ideal location for clean tech industries and business. It wants to become a place known for its commitment to a sustainable lifestyle.

The city has assumed a similar role before. The city was incorporated a little more than fifty years ago. Shortly after Mountlake Terrace became a city, it was an early champion of community transit. Vic Sood was a member of Mountlake Terrace’s city council at that time. He went on to become the first executive director of Snohomish County Community Transit. Today Vic Sood sits on the Mountlake Terrace planning commission. Somehow it seems appropriate, almost natural, that today Mountlake Terrace wants to be the champion for sustainable communities.

The City of Mountlake Terrace began to look at sustainability when it adopted its critical areas ordinance in 2004. It started work on this strategy in 2005. Work temporarily slowed down until the City won a competitive planning grant from the State of Washington’s Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development. They used the grant to hire the services of Berk and Associates, a planning and consulting firm located in Seattle, who assigned Brian Murphy to be the project manager.

The strategy is available on the City of Mountlake Terrace’s website, which is located at http://cityofmlt.com/cityServices/planning/Sustainability. The website also includes access to its “Clean Technology Opportunity Assessment”.

If you need to make a copy of the strategy or the assessment, Mountlake Terrace encourages you to make an electronic copy and not a paper copy.

City of Monroe Obtains Final Shoreline Master Program Approval

Editor’s note: This article was first published in the July 2008 edition of the Puget Sound Section newsletter. Because the issues identified and discussed in the article may be of interest to jurisdictions and other interested parties outside of the Puget Sound area, it is reprinted here in its entirety. The author has updated the article to reflect events occurring since its original publication and made other minor edits.

In 2001 the city of Monroe obtained Coastal Zone Management funding for preparation of a shoreline inventory and “assessment and gap analysis” (also called a “properly functioning conditions”, or PFC analysis). The work to be funded would be in preparation for a comprehensive update of the city’s Shoreline Master Program. The city hired the Watershed Company, Kirkland-based specialists in shoreline management and critical areas, and John Owen with MAKERS, Inc. to provide assistance with the inventory, analysis, and future preparation of the SMP document.

The inventory focused on the Skykomish River, Woods Creek, and other wetlands and water systems that eventually drain into the Skykomish River within the city of Monroe and its urban growth area. The city completed the inventory and gap analysis in 2002, and obtained further funding in 2003 to prepare the draft SMP document. At about the same time period, the city completed a Critical Areas Ordinance and adopted it in 2003. As part of the CAO adoption process, the Tulalip Tribe had appealed the draft ordinance. Following extensive discussions with the Tribe, an agreement was reached for dropping the appeal in exchange for the City’s commitment that the Tribe would be allowed to participate more extensively in the drafting process for both the critical areas ordinance and the shoreline master program.

The draft SMP was completed in early 2004 and was sent to the Department of Ecology. In August, 2004 DOE returned an extensive set of review comments on the document. However, on January 1, 2004 the new “Shoreline rule” (WAC 173-26) went into effect with new requirements for the preparation and adoption of shoreline master programs. Ecology notified the city that the new requirements were effective on the city’s draft shoreline master program. As a result, the city requested additional grant funding to update the draft document, which was received in 2005. The new project period was for two years, July 2005 to June, 2007. In response to the August, 2004 DOE comments and the requirements of the new Shoreline rule, a new Restoration Element and Cumulative Impacts Matrix were prepared, along with other changes to the draft document, and in September, 2006 the SMP was forwarded to the Department of Ecology. However, comments received from the Tulalip Tribe, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Washington Office of the Attorney General remained to be addressed in the draft document.

Following an extensive series of public workshops, additional modifications were made to the draft document and a public hearing was held by the city’s Planning Commission in January and February 2007, for which extensive notice was provided. Also at this time, the DOE notified the city that a large stormwater detention facility adjacent to a city park would need to be classified as a regulated shoreline due to its size (over 20 acres) and therefore a new shoreline environment designation, policies and regulations for this facility would need to be developed. This required further modifications to the SMP document and a second public hearing.

Procedural and administrative regulations for administration of the SMP were also prepared and forwarded to DOE. The Planning Commission provided a recommendation of approval for both the SMP document and administrative regulations to the City Council in August 2007. In October 2007 the City Council adopted the Shoreline Master Program. An “adoption package” containing all of the public record for the preparation and adoption of the SMP was sent to the Department of Ecology in January 2008.

Following receipt of the adoption package, the Department of Ecology scheduled a public hearing on the document at the city of Monroe in March 2008. Only one interested party attended the public hearing, indicating support for adoption of the document. Following the public hearing, the Department of Ecology’s Project Manager initiated a detailed review of the draft SMP document and periodically provided comments and questions to city staff regarding the document.

On August 1, 2008 the City received a letter from the Department of Ecology approving the Shoreline Master Program subject to a list of required changes to sections of the document, with a list of findings and conclusions in support of the approval, and an additional list of recommended changes. The letter, dated July 28 2008, states that the approval, together with the required and recommended changes, will be effective as of the date Ecology receives written notice of the City’s agreement to the required changes. The required changes were reviewed by staff and the Watershed Company, and have been made to the document.

Ecology approval of the Monroe Shoreline Master Program finalizes a process lasting just over six years, consuming over $100,000 in CZM grant funds and an equal or greater amount of staff time and city resources. Complicating the preparation process was the State adoption of the new Shoreline “rule” (WAC 173-26) in January 2004 and the extensive involvement by affected agencies and the Tulalip Tribe. Some of the issues that were addressed during the preparation and adoption of this Shoreline Master Program had been identified through consultation between local governments and Ecology, but no clear answers existed to provide definitive guidance. Any persons with questions regarding the preparation and adoption of the Shoreline Master Program can contact Hiller West at 360-863-4531 or hwest@ci.monroe.wa.us.

Winners of the 2008 Governor’s Smart Communities Award

On June 5 winners of the 2008 Governor’s Smart Communities Award were announced at a ceremony in Bellevue. These awards recognize outstanding work by local governments, and their partners, who are engaged in effective growth management and community development.

“The Smart Communities award winners reflect the wide variety of efforts that make up effective growth management planning,” said Juli Wilkerson, director of the Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED).

The current issue of CTED’s award-winning “About Growth” newsletter features their accomplishments. The following is a preview of the award winners.

2008 Smart Communities Awards

Smart Vision Award – Comprehensive Planning

• City of Everett for the update of the transportation element in its comprehensive plan. Everett’s conducted a very active, community engagement process. The public participation it generated gave city leaders confidence that the transportation element reflected a shared community direction. It identified a broad range of needs. It has objectives and priorities to guide the city for the next two decades.
• City of Bremerton for its “Downtown Regional Center Subarea Plan”. This plan focuses on mixed growth in Bremerton’s downtown. It implements the vision in the City’s comprehensive plan of downtown Bremerton as the “Metropolitan Center of the West Puget Sound.”

Smart Choices Award – Implementation of a Comprehensive Plan

• City of Newcastle for its work to implement its downtown plan. It was a rocky process; but the City of Newcastle stuck to its vision. They worked out a myriad of details and tailored its ordinances to achieve the goals outlined in its comprehensive plan for an urban village.
• City of Kirkland for its innovative programs to promote housing choices. It created three new programs to create or retain smaller-sized homes. The programs include the preservation of historic homes. They promote the development of cottage communities that are compatible with neighborhoods with traditional single family homes.

Smart Partnerships Award – Development Project to Implement a Plan

• City of Sumner for its partnership to revitalize its historic downtown. Sumner adopted land use designations that add mixed-use developments near its train station. It has new design standards to integrate mixed-use into existing development patterns. It compiled and makes available an extensive database to assist business recruitment and retention.

Judges’ Merit Award

• Adams County for its economic development plan. Adams County worked with the Port of Othello and the cities of Lund, Washtucna, Ritzville and Othello to create a county-wide economic development plan. It binds them together to achieve a common vision through on-going collaboration. The plan resulted in the creation of the Adams County Development Council, which was recognized as an Associate Development Organization.

Millennial Planners Speak Out*

Believe It or Not – Blogs Work

Rob Voigt, rob@robvoigt.com
Cac Kamak, ckamak@oakharbor.org

If we told you that you can get over 50% participation from a public notice, would you believe us? If we said that, with creativity and existing technology, you can get valuable input from a significant number of community members throughout an entire planning process from its beginning to its end, would you believe us? If we told you that by adapting your project framework you can have more citizens engaged in a single project than all public meetings and hearings combined in a given year, would you believe us? We can go on and on, but you may raise your eyebrows, roll your eyes and sigh a big “WHATEVER DUDES!”

Well it is possible. We experience here in Oak Harbor, WA. Believe it or not, the tool we are using to achieve these results is the big scary BLOG.

By adapting this simple communication format for planning projects and incorporating notification, education, dialogue, discussion etc. into the blog design, the City of Oak Harbor has been able to involve over 2000 people in its recent planning projects over the past eight months – that’s at least 1700 more than attended all the public hearings and meetings in 2007.

Oak Harbor is using municipal blogs as its project specific community engagement platform. They are successfully using web tools to increase community involvement. They find it incorporates accountability measures and improves internal project tracking for staff, Oak Harbor’s council and planning commission monitor the electronic, community dialogue. They find it has substantial benefits over the traditional public participation practices. As with any other successful venture, this comes with a price – TIME. However, the benefits far outweigh the costs on multiple levels.

Success stories about meaningful, substantial and effective public input for municipal projects are few and far between. As planners, we seek techniques to engage the public because we believe they should be involved throughout the entire planning process. We strive for high response and approval ratings from our constituents. However, standard planning practices have fallen far short of this mark for decades. It results in decreased citizen involvement and increased systemic elitism. The traditional process has unnecessary complexity and confusion. It reduces accessibility; and inefficiency. Just ask yourself when was the last public process or meeting you witnessed that seemed more like a TV reality show with its share of misinformation; lack of transparency or cooperation; unnecessary misunderstandings; and a shortfall of community identity. Comparing our lofty goals for planning processes with our less than stellar results, you might reach the conclusion that we are failing miserably.

Oak Harbor has used its BLOG for just over 5000 days, a major milestone. It has changed how it views and understands the world. It has changed how they see each other (literally and figuratively) and how they define community.

For more and more of us, we are unable to imagine our world without it. How we communicate, access information, and expectations of information availability are all based on the increasingly pervasive framework of the web and the interaction web tools it provides. As planners we have to find ways to better embrace this technology to benefit the work we do.

The planning profession is inherently involved in developing communities. Not just the bricks and mortar of our buildings, streets, and neighborhoods, but the environments in which community is nurtured and citizens born. By not embracing the technology of today, we are turning our back to the way people relate and interact. How far are we willing to fall behind by not using web tools? It is unacceptable to continue asking “should we use blogs or social networking tools for our projects?” This question equates to professional navel gazing. We are losing ground as communities move beyond our standard approaches.

Everything in life has pros and cons and so do BLOGS. They are both a panacea and a can of worms. Once opened, they will have repercussions that planners must work out. Used wisely and carefully designed and integrated into our professional activities, BLOGS, KNOLS, social networking, and other web tools will have profound impacts on the plans, projects and processes that we, as planners, are assigned to steward. So go ahead and BLOG! WE dare you! Believe it or not, it works.

*Millennial Planners Speaks Out features articles about the planning profession written by planners who are twenty-something. It sheds light on where they think planning is going as they start their planning careers.

Survey Says

A featured article for the next few months will be the recent member survey. Some great ideas and comments were in it. Hopefully these articles will keep the discussion going.

What does the survey say about the “information overload”?

Out of nearly one hundred comments, approximately half of them urged that information be kept concise, succinct and relevant. Some ideas and suggestions include:

• Do not over glitz the message. Make it meaningful, short and concise.
• Keep it brief and to the point. Condense materials into broader topics.
• Be direct in what you are saying.
  
  In the spirit of these suggestions, we can only say – okay.

Several comments focused on the newsletter. Here are a few ideas and suggestions:

• Concise burst rather than traditional articles. Use web news format – headlines with links.
• Use weblinks to access different layers of information. Use more graphs and hyperlinks and less text.
• Consolidated chapter and section newsletters.
• Newsletters can be high quality and low quality. For instance, a higher quality newsletter designed for interest groups and the public; whereas, a lower quality format could be used for more frequent distribution to the general membership.
• Have a hierarchy of what needs to be read versus additional information.
  
  

  The newsletter is moving toward a web-based format. Check out the Chapter’s new website. Several of the suggested ideas are currently underway. Let us know what articles and information are most important to you.

Many comments spoke about email and listserves:

• Make sure emails are kept to a minimum and limited to important topics.
• Restrict use of chapter listserve or consolidate messages into one weekly email.
• Make opportunities for self-selecting involvement to easily screen out the stuff for which we do not want to read.
• Let members sign-up for information in areas of interest. Combine APA emails.
• Training on information management.
  
  Managing information today is very difficult. The ideas and suggestions offered were all very good. They all share a common theme – be concise. Let us all try to be more succinct. It is truly a group effort.

Chapter Only Group Membership

The chapter-only group membership opportunity is available to planning commissions, city councils and commissions, tribal councils, and board members of non-profit organizations and other professional associations.

Up to 10 members may be included in a group membership. The group rate is $150 and is administered by the chapter office.

To obtain a group membership form or learn more about the benefits of this membership, contact Anna Nelson, AICP, Membership Committee chair, at (206) 382-9540 or anelson@GordonDerr.com.