Volume XXI, Issue 11 NOVEMBER 2008

President's Message

Joe Tovar FAICP
jwtovar@comcast.net

As I was driving home last month from the Chapter conference in Spokane, my radio picked up an old Neil Young tune somewhere around Moses Lake. These lyrics from “Into the Blue” stuck to the roof of my mind.

Hey, hey, my, my. Rock and roll can never die.
There’s more to the picture than meets the eye.
Hey, hey, my, my.

There was “more than meets the eye” in each of the following conference pictures, courtesy of photographer Michael Cardwell.

The Washington Chapter Board kicked off the first morning of the conference with its quarterly meeting in the Lincoln Room of the Davenport Hotel. Among the decisions reached at this meeting were to hold our 2009 chapter conference in Vancouver, Washington. Over four hundred of you voted on this item on the website poll over the past month, and Vancouver was the strong favorite. Thanks!

At the opening general session, I was joined by legislative Committee co-chairs Josh Peters and Esther Larsen in presenting the Chapters’ 2008 Legislator of the Year Award to Senator Chris Marr, (D) Spokane.

Together with Chapter members Joe Scorcio, Stacey Ray and Leonard Bauer, Senator Marr also participated in the pre-conference workshop on the Evergreen Communities Act and the work of the Land Use Climate Change Committee. Incidentally, the final recommendations of the LUCC are posted to the Chapter’s website as well.

Among the many conference breakouts were those highlighting the work of Chapter Committees, including the Community Planning Assistance Team, co-chaired by Paula Reeves and Kristian Kofoed. The CPAT update, as well as well as reports from every Board committee, and all conference MS PowerPoint presentations, are posted on the conference website.

On day two, I had the pleasure of presenting three awards to Chapter Members. The Barbara Grace Award was presented to Senior Planner Todd Stowell of the City of West Richland, the Myer R. Wolfe Award for Professional Achievement was presented to Rocky Piro of the Puget Sound Regional Council, and the President’s Award for Service to the Chapter was presented to Esther Larsen of Spokane County. Again, congratulations to all three.

The keynote presentation on day two was the Emmy-nominated film “Broken Limbs” followed by engaging and informative remarks by film-maker Guy Evans.

Another popular session was the Professional Ethics panel, which included Region V AICP Commissioner Michael Davolio. For those AICP planners wishing to register their CM credits from Spokane, please be patient. The National CM submittal system is being rebuilt, and the Chapter is applying for credit for (virtually) all sessions at the conference. When their system is back up, we will email a notice to all Chapter members.

One conference event that will NOT be eligible for CM credit was the very popular “Downtown Self-Saunter” pubcrawl organized by the Inland Empire Section. From all accounts, a great time was had by all.

Last, I want to put in a plug for the new Chapter sweatshirts sold by Michael Cardwell. It’s hard to tell from my new mug shot above, but the sweatshirts feature the green APA Washington logo silkscreened on the back and both the logo and our motto “Making Great Communities Happen” on the front. If you would like to order one, contact Michael at mcardwell@tulaliptribes-nsn.gov 100% of the $25 cost goes to the Joe DeLaCruz Student Scholarship Fund at the Evergreen State College.

Until next month . . .

Hey, hey, my, my. Good planning can never die.
Hey, hey, my, my.

APA/PAW Joint Awards Committee Finalizes Recommendations

The APA/PAW Joint Awards Program committee met again on October 17, 2008 at the chapter office in downtown Seattle to review its discussion from the August and September meetings, and began to prepare a summary of its recommendations for the APA Washington and PAW boards. The committee reached agreement on the following:

• Submittals for the award program should be made electronically in addition to a hard copy, to enable easy dissemination among the members of the judging committee, and to reduce the time necessary for the judges to meet in person.
• The call for submittals will be issued in March 2009 and a reminder provided at the PAW conference in April. The deadline for submittals will be around the end of June.
• The number of categories for submittal will be reduced to minimize duplication and overlap. Submittals would be made in one primary category, with the option of having a secondary category as well. The awards committee will further discuss and finalize submittal categories, the evaluation criteria, fees, and specific timelines early in 2009 for dissemination to all affected and interested parties.

These specific recommendations will be finalized in a memorandum to the APA Washington and PAW boards of directors in November 2008 for review by PAW board members at their November retreat and APA Washington board members at their December board meeting. Anyone having questions regarding the awards process and the committee’s recommendations is encouraged to contact Awards Committee Co-chairs Kelly Larimer (PAW) at klarime@gcpud.org or Richard Hart (APA Washington) at rhart@ci.covington.wa.us.

Puget Sound Section Reports on Summer and Fall Happenings

Hiller West

At the June transition dinner, board members Hiller West and Patricia Love traded places, with Hiller becoming immediate Past-President and Patricia becoming President for the 2007-08 year. Board member Julia Park became President-Elect. Julia and board member Geoffrey Thomas both ran for the position of President-elect earlier this year, and in an unusual occurrence the ballots for both candidates tied! At the transition dinner, the board decided that Julia would become President-elect for the 2008-09 year, and Geoffrey would assume that position during the 2009-10 period.

Other board members for the 2008-09 year include Snohomish County Representative Mike Stanger, Pierce County Representative Emily Terrell, King County Representative Salina Lyons, Student Representative Katie Lichtenstein, Secretary Kent Hale, Newsletter Editor Michelle Whitfield and Brown bag Coordinator Stan May.

The section board has been working on two fast-approaching events: the Puget Sound Section Holiday Banquet in December, and the Law Conference which is held every other year in the Spring. Sponsors are being sought for both events, in particular the banquet as it is less than two months away. Sponsorships are $200 each, and in return the name of the sponsor is displayed on the banner at the banquet and a year’s worth of free advertising is provided in the section newsletter, which is issued quarterly.

The Holiday Banquet will be held on Thursday, December 4 in the evening at the World Trade Center (WTC) on Alaskan Way in Seattle, where it has been held every year for the last several years. In response to popular demand, it will be possible to bring spouses and partners to this event, for a small fee. As always, the banquet will be free to all section members.

It is anticipated the Law Conference will again be held at the Meydenbauer Center in Bellevue in March, 2009 though the venue has not been confirmed. This is a highly anticipated and well attended conference. In October and November the board will be finalizing preparations for the banquet and focusing on the agenda and registration details for the Law Conference. In view of tight budgets everywhere, the section will strive to keep the registration fee for the Law Conference as low as possible. It will be a full-day conference, and at this time three separate tracks are anticipated.

See you all at the banquet!

2008 Regional APA Conference
Plan It for Our Planet Overview

Bryan Fiedor, AICP

This year the conference was held in the elegant Davenport Hotel, located in the heart of Downtown Spokane. The revitalization effort spearheaded by the downtown partnership the past decade was apparent. The Davenport is a historic landmark, and was virtually unused from 1985 to 2000. Now it has been beautifully refurbished and is within walking distance to great restaurants, pubs, River Park Square mall, the downtown library, and River Front Park.

The theme of stewardship for the 21st century and addressing climate change issues were evident throughout conference and many of the sessions and workshops were focused on sustainability and climate change issues. Printed materials were reduced, post-consumer recycled and sustainable organic cotton products were used, and the hotel used energy-efficiency measures, waste reduction practices, and earth-friendly products. Sponsor booths displayed a diverse mix of informative materials and conference “swag”, much of which was focused on environmentally responsible practices or services.

The lunch speakers were great! On Monday, Milenko Matanovic of the Pomegranate Center gave an exceptional presentation on employing the use of public art, creating art through design, and promoting community participation to create great communities and spaces. Tuesday featured a riveting movie by Guy Evans of Sunshine Farms & Tunnel Hill Winery entitled Broken Limbs that showcased the decline of traditional family farms and the transition to a new farmer prototype, which embodies an innovative, diverse, and more consumer interactive model. Guy discussed how vital farming practices are for land use and transportation systems, and that a local farming system is a much more long-term sustainable solution. The lunch sessions wrapped up on Wednesday with a presentation by Christopher Leinberger of Brookings Institution about walkable urban places. Mr. Leinberger discussed how real estate trends are changing towards more compact walkable communities and the traditional car-oriented suburbs are in decline.

Overall, the content of the conference was great and I thoroughly enjoyed the experience. If you attended the conference, please write a brief article about your favorite session, moment, or experience (or several of them) and submit them for inclusion in next month’s newsletter. It would be useful to get a variety of perspectives on what you enjoyed about the conference and especially to share with those unable to attend this year.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Updates Its List of Priority Habitats and Species

Jeff Azerrad
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) recently completed a comprehensive revision of its list of Priority Habitats and Species (PHS). The PHS List is WDFW's main catalog of species and habitats of conservation and management concern. For nearly two decades, PHS information has been a primary tool used by landowners, non-governmenal organizations, environmental consultants, cities, counties, and state and federal agencies to conserve and protect Washington's diverse fish and wildlife resources. The new PHS List can be accessed online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phslist.htm.

An update of the PHS List was necessary to reflect new scientific information that has accumulated since the last major revision occurred in 1999. The update, which required a great deal of input from experts and users of the PHS List, began with an information-gathering (i.e., scoping) phase to identify and prioritize potential revisions. An extensive revision process followed, focusing on matters identified during this scoping phase.

Major updates include changes to the list of priority species, revised definitions for priority habitats, and modifications to the overall format of the publication. An advisory group composed of biologists and habitat experts oversaw every major change. Specialized sub-committees guided revisions to priority habitat definitions. The update concluded with an extensive peer review, during which roughly 70 scientific experts and users of the list – including local city and county planners – provided important comments. The entire update from beginning to end was thoroughly documented.

Some notable revisions to the PHS List include:

• the addition of new priority habitats, including herbaceous balds, inland dunes, and biodiversity areas and corridors;
• major revisions to the definitions that guide the way we map priority habitats such as eastside steppe and westside prairie (formerly known as prairie and steppe) and shrub-steppe;
• a reorganization and revision to the nearshore marine and estuarine priority habitat definitions;
• the removal of the priority habitats known as Urban and Rural Natural Open Space (replaced by the biodiversity areas and corridors priority habitat).

The revised list has been revamped to ensure it is as user-friendly as possible. New features include county-specific distribution maps for every priority species and habitat, along with embedded links to publications that are useful for the management of priority species and habitats. The new list also includes more specific information about the status of all state and federally listed species, as well as improvements to make it easier for readers to navigate the list online.

Other useful PHS tools available online include our Priority Habitat and Species management recommendations and digital data. Used in conjunction with the PHS List, these sources of best available science can help steer local land use decisions by providing guidance to help minimize impacts to important fish and wildlife resources.

The PHS List will primarily be an online resource. Those who have been using our old, hard copy version of the PHS List should recycle it and begin using the new online version. If you are less familiar with our PHS resources, we encourage you to take a moment to learn more about the kind of information PHS can provide to benefit local fish and wildlife planning and protection efforts.

For more information about recent updates to the PHS List, please contact Jeff Azerrad at azerrjma@dfw.wa.gov or at 360.906.6754.

Events

Geography Awareness Week (November 16-22)

Every year since 1987, National Geographic and other organizations have celebrated "geography awareness" during the third week of November, promoting the importance of geography in the U.S. and Canada. (Geography Awareness Week also includes GIS Day.) Each year Geography Awareness Week has a specific theme; for 2008 the theme is the Americas. Find more info at the National Geographic website.

GIS Day 2008 (November 19)

GIS Day provides an international forum for users of geographic information systems (GIS) technology to demonstrate real-world applications that are making a difference in our society. More than 80 countries will participate in holding local events such as corporate open houses, hands-on workshops, community expos, school assemblies, and more. This year marks the 10th year anniversary of GIS Day. Find more information at the GIS Day Website.

A Helping Hand in Green Building

Carolyn M. Hope

As a planner for a local jurisdiction or a consultant, you may sometimes find that you need to provide your citizens or clients with more information than is within your scope of work. The Sustainable Development Task Force (SDTF) of Snohomish County is a resource that can help those of you in Snohomish County and can also assist folks in other regions develop a similar type of organization. The SDTF is a non-profit organization committed to educating communities about the many benefits of sustainable development.

The organization was initially founded by a small group of professionals that were invigorated by the 2004 Built Green Conference in Lynnwood. Staff members from Snohomish County, Snohomish PUD, the City of Everett, and the Snohomish County Economic Development Council formed the SDTF as an ad-hoc organization with the goal of encouraging more green building and sustainable development in the county. Over the years, the SDTF has grown it’s membership, demand for services, and sources of funding, which has required formalizing the organizational structure to a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.

For the past four years, the SDTF has worked hand in hand with developers and builders within the county to promote plans, designs, construction methods that benefit water quality, indoor air quality, and native plants and soil; as well as conserve energy and natural resources. One of our first advocacy projects involved assisting the owners of Snoqualmie Gourmet Ice Cream to add green design elements to their new operation in Maltby, which included preserving an existing building, a pervious concrete parking lot and sidewalk, rain gardens, energy conservation measures, and more. The task force assisted in brainstorming design elements and working with the owners through the permitting process. Since then, the SDTF has worked with developers, builders, individuals, and concerned citizens to facilitate the development of sustainable communities throughout the county.

The SDTF has held workshops and conferences targeted toward developers and builders to provide educational resources about low impact development and green building practices. Through these events, the SDTF has learned about the obstacles facing developers in implementing sustainable projects from market demand to permitting obstacles and code restrictions. This information has lead to the SDTF providing green building education seminars to real estate professionals and working with local governments on permitting and code changes. The SDTF has worked closely with Snohomish County to improve the Low Impact Development permitting process and to provide comments on the Unified Development Code update process to ensure that elements of sustainability are present in applicable sections of the code to enable more green construction, low impact development, and sustainable design.

The SDTF also provides broad scale outreach to the public through quarterly brownbag events, newsletters, and periodic workshops and conferences. This will be the third year that the SDTF has helped promote National Solar Day in the county. This year, the SDTF and Green Everett will promote a two-day event for home owners and small businesses on National Solar weekend called GreeningSnohomishCounty: Taking Actions in your Home, Business, and Community. On Friday, October 3, the SDTF is providing a one-day conference with sessions on remodeling green, greening up the yard, and sustainable communities. The conference will include keynote speaker Jim Diers, author of Neighbor Power - Building Community the Seattle Way. On Saturday, October 4, Green Everett will hold the third annual renewable energy fair, which will provide many speakers, classes and vendors promoting green living. In addition, the fair will be the kick off point for the Snohomish County Solar and Green Home Tour.

For more information or assistance, please go to www.sustainablesnohomishcounty.org or contact Carolyn Hope, past President and WA APA member at carolynh@perteet.com.

Overview: The City of Spokane Greenhouse Gas Inventory

Leon Letson

In 2001, the City of Spokane joined more than 350 U.S. local governments in Cities for Climate Protection® (CCP) Campaign run by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). Furthering this effort in 2007, the City became a signatory of the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. Under this agreement, participating cities aim to meet or exceed Kyoto Protocol targets in their own communities – a 7 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels by 2012. In early 2008, a sustainability task force, consisting of various community stakeholders was appointed by Mayor Mary Verner to help create a strategic action plan for identifying and addressing the impacts of climate change and energy security on the City.

Following relatively standard inventory guidelines, the City of Spokane inventory is composed of two categories, which are analyzed independently: community emissions and government emissions. The inventory of the community emissions explores all sources within Spokane’s city limits, while the government inventory, a subset of the community total, includes those sources that are under the operational/financial control of the City government.

Each of these categories is further broken down by sources and sectors. Sources are the fuel and/or energy that are the basis of the emissions. These include electricity, natural gas, gasoline, diesel, and waste. Sectors are the portion of the community or government operations to which the emissions are attributable. Community sectors include residential, commercial, and industrial buildings, transportation, and waste. Government sectors include the City’s buildings, vehicle fleet, streetlights, water and sewage operations, employee commute, and waste.

In 2005, the City of Spokane emitted approximately 3.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). Emissions associated with transportation made up the majority of the total (1.7 million metric tons of CO2e), while emission associated with energy use in residential, commercial, and industrial buildings accounted for much of the remaining emissions (1.6 million metric tons of CO2e). Government emissions accounted for approximately 2 percent of the community’s total emissions.

In regards to the reduction of future greenhouse gas emissions, there are several “low-hanging fruit” opportunities within the City of Spokane, many of which are centered on the application of Smart Growth principles. These include further promoting alternative transportation choices, increasing the walkability of central neighborhoods, and continuing to focus on the mixed-use revitalization of the downtown. Other assets of the City of Spokane are its abundance of urban trees and green space. Including Parks, conservation land, and private land, there are an estimated 150,000 to 170,000 trees within Spokane’s city limits and 9,000 acres of undeveloped open space. With the emergence of market-based greenhouse gas cap-and-trade systems, such as the one in production by the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), the City of Spokane is poised to leverage these assets in a profitable manner and improve its overall livability.

Thurston County Supreme Court Case

Alan Copsey, Assistant Attorney General, provides a summary of the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision regarding the Thurston County case. It is followed with a brief editorial from APA Washington President Joe Tovar regarding one of the implications of this case.

Thurston County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, Washington Supreme Court No. 80115-1.

Alan Copsey
Assistant Attorney General

On August 14, the Washington Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in the case of Thurston County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. They generally upheld the Hearing Board’s decision but remanded some aspects of it back to them for further consideration

Background

Thurston County's updated comprehensive plan and development regulations was challenged by Futurewise on a number of theories. The Hearings Board ruled that the updated plan did not establish a variety of rural densities. It contained urban growth areas (UGAs) that were larger than justified by the projected population growth for the County. It used impermissible criteria to classify agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance. The County sought direct review in the Washington Supreme Court, which transferred the case to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals issued a broad decision that upheld the Board on all but two issues. The Supreme Court then accepted review.

The Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals in part. It reversed part of it and remanded some of it back to the Board for further review. The Supreme Court made four significant holdings.

1. In response to a comprehensive plan that was updated under RCW 36.70A.130; a petition may challenge only those provisions that have been amended and those provisions that were not amended but are directly affected by new or recent GMA amendments relating to the mandatory elements of comprehensive plans.
   
   The Court recognized that the GMA would be unenforceable if parties could not challenge a failure to revise a comprehensive plan. However, it recognized some caveats. It noted that the GMA does not explicitly require a county to revise every aspect of its comprehensive plan during an update. It also expressed its desire to avoid opening the "floodgates of litigation" every seven years. Therefore, the Court held that a party may challenge a county's failure to revise a comprehensive plan only with respect to those provisions that are "directly affected by new or recently amended GMA provisions" that relate to the mandatory elements of a comprehensive plan.
   
   In this case, Thurston County did not modify its rural density designations when it updated its comprehensive plan in 2004, even though the law regarding the rural element changed in 1997. The Court held that the Board therefore had jurisdiction to consider the claims that (1) some rural densities permitted in the 2004 plan properly should be considered areas of more intensive rural development under the 1997 amendment to the GMA, and (2) the rural designation do no provide for a variety of rural densities.
2. In alleging noncompliance with the 10-year update requirement for urban growth areas in RCW 36.70A.130, a petition may challenge changes to UGA designations and, where the OFM population project for the county has been updated, the unchanged UGA designations.
   
   The Court held that a party may challenge a county's failure to revise its UGA designations in the required 10-year update only if the OFM population projection for the county changed. In this case, the Court held the Board had jurisdiction to review the updated UGA designations because (1) Thurston County, by changing individual UGAs, had modified the overall UGA size; and (2) even if the overall size had not changed, the OFM population projection had been updated since the last UGA boundary designation.
3. A county is not required to identify a land market supply factor in its comprehensive plan, but if the size of its UGA is challenged and the county asserts that it used a land market supply factor, the record must support the conclusion that the factor used was reasonable.
   
   The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the GMA does not require a county to explicitly identify a land market supply factor or provide justifications for adopting such a factor in the comprehensive plan. It finds that RCW 36. 70A. 110(2) requires a county to justify its UGA designation only if the county and city fail to reach an agreement as to the designation of an urban growth area. In all other circumstances, the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating noncompliance. Once a petitioner challenges the size of a county's UGA, the county may explain whether the difference between the supply and demand is due to a land market supply factor or other circumstances. If the county asserts a land market supply factor was used in designating the UGA boundaries, the petitioner may argue the factor employed was clearly erroneous and unreasonable based on the facts in the record.
   
   The Court rejected any use of a "bright-line rule" regarding the reasonableness of a land market supply factor. In the case, the record is not clear whether the 38% excess capacity represented the use of a reasonable market factor or was simply excessive. The Court remanded for the Board to make that determination.
4. Natural resource lands are not included in the rural element and are not used to determine whether a county has provided for a variety of rural densities. Whether densities are rural is determined on a case-by-case basis, without reference to any bright-line density. A variety of rural densities may be achieved through the use or combination of zoning classification and innovative techniques.
   
   The Supreme Court affirmed the Board (and Court of Appeals) by holding that designated natural resource lands are not included in the rural element under RCW 36.70A.070(5). It does not contribute to the required variety of rural densities within the rural element.
   
   The Court rejected any use of bright-line standards to distinguish between urban and rural densities. Since the Legislature did not define what constitutes rural density, whether a particular density is rural or urban is a question of fact based on the specific circumstances of each case. Densities of less than one dwelling unit per acre may be considered in determining whether a comprehensive plan provides for a variety of rural densities.
   
   The Court remanded for the Board to reconsider whether the rural densities adopted by Thurston County are, in light of local circumstances, not characterized by urban growth and preserve rural character. The Court also explained that if the Board determines on remand that the County failed to provide for a variety of rural densities through its zoning classifications, the Board then should determine whether the County achieved the requisite variety of rural densities through its use of innovative zoning techniques (such as clustering). “The use of innovative techniques may be sufficient, regardless of the underlying zoning classifications, to achieve a variety of rural densities.

Implications

Two themes run through this decision – (1) close adherence to the language of the GMA and (2) flat rejection of any bright-line rule. The Court tied each holding to specific language in the statute. It appears that the Court's unanimity was achieved only through a very conservative interpretation of the GMA, with only limited citations to prior court decisions.

This decision makes clear that each Growth Management Hearings Board decision is to be made based on the facts and circumstances of the particular jurisdiction. It can not be made using any bright-line rule or standard, unless such a standard is found in the language of the GMA. What arguably was dictum in Viking Properties, Inc. v. Holm, 155 Wn.2d 112 (2005), is now the unanimous holding of the Court.

The Boards remain free to use their expertise in the GMA and in land use planning, but any finding of noncompliance must be tied explicitly to a specific goal or requirement in the GMA. It must rest on the record before the Board. Consequently, petitioners will have to be careful how they cite prior Board decisions as precedent for legal interpretations of the GMA, since any reliance by a Board on prior Board decisions might be challenged as having relied on a bright-line rule.

Finally, three holdings by the Court of Appeals were left untouched by the Supreme Court. These holdings therefore constitute part of the law of the case:

• A petitioner to a Growth Management Hearings Board need not demonstrate APA standing under RCW 36.70A.280(2)(d) to have participation standing under RCW 36.70A.280(2)(d) to have participation standing under RCW 36.70A.280(2)(b). In particular, a challenger need not be a resident of the jurisdiction whose action is challenged.
• For a county or city to consider a recent amendment as part of its update under RCW 36.70!.130, the amendment must comply with both RCW 36.70A.130 (1) and (4). The public must be notified that the amendment is part of the update and the amendment must be supported either by a legislative finding that a review and evaluation had occurred or by a statement of reasons why revision was unnecessary.
• When designating agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance, a county may establish a reasonable minimum parcel size for designation (reversing the Board), but may not categorically exclude lands that are not currently used for agriculture (affirming the Board).

One Man’s Opinion

Joe Tovar, AICP
APA Washington President

The Supreme Court’s recent Thurston decision certainly heralds the death of the words “bright lines” in growth board decisions, but it does not herald an end to the GMA’s substantive requirements regarding urban and rural land use designations. Nor does Thurston insulate cities and counties from successful challenges alleging noncompliance with the Act.

It’s important to understand that the “bright lines” were never intended to be board-created requirements. Rather, they were intended to provide “channel markers” to assist local governments trying to navigate the GMA’s requirements about urban and rural densities. If you went beyond the markers, you might run aground – or you might not. But if you stayed inside the markers, you had clear sailing.

In my view, the Thurston decision simply removed the channel markers, it didn’t dredge the channel. The GMA’s urban requirements at RCW 36.70A.110 are still there, as are the rural requirements of RCW 36.70A.070(5). Those who miss that distinction are likely to find the snags and sandbars the hard way – on a case-by-case basis.

Washougal Sustainability Initiatives

On September 29, 2007, the Washougal City Council unanimously adopted a resolution supporting sustainable practices and encouraging the adoption of sustainable goals. The latest Southwest Section newsletter, Columbia Connections, presents their sustainability initiative in more detail.

Planners on the Move

APA Washington member Katie Cote has joined GordonDerr, LLP as a land use planner. She most recently has been a planner for the Community Development Department at the City and Borough of Juneau, Alaska, where she worked in historic preservation planning, project review, and land use planning. Prior to her employment in Alaska, Cote was a Special Projects Manager for the White Center Community Development Association, where she managed the neighborhood planning process and researched land use patterns and the regional housing market to inform planning of affordable housing developments. Cote has a Master of Urban Planning from the College of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Washington. She was also a Fulbright Scholar, studying at Brandenburg University of Technology in Cottbus, Germany.

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.