Puget Sound

Spring 2005 Brown Bag Recaps

by Brown Bag Coordinator Steve Ladd except as noted

Spring 2005 Brown Bag Recaps in .doc format.

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.