Puget Sound

Winter 2005 Brown Bag Recaps

by Brown Bag Coordinator Steve Ladd except as noted

Winter 2005 Brown Bag Recaps in .doc format.

Seattle's Center City Access Strategy
2/2/05

John Rahaim set the context. Seattle’s Central City, consisting of ten neighborhoods, is planned to grow by 50,000 jobs. South Lake Union is changing. Zoning is being amended to encourage more housing, and no one’s fighting the extra density.

Jamae Hoffman and Ann Sutphin described the many modes of transportation converging Downtown, including seven transit providers requiring coordination. Finding the capacity will be a challenge. Lack of parking space means it can’t come in the form of single-occupancy vehicles. They are particularly scrutinizing the transitions between modes, such as from light rail to monorail or limited access highway to bus. The team has generated many ideas for improving connectivity, such as making better use of pockets of excess street capacity. Success is possible - in Downtown Vancouver B.C., traffic has declined 13% due to high-density housing.

County-Wide Planning Policies (CWPPs)
2/9/05

Rob Odle told how King County’s Growth Management Planning Council created their CWPPs in the early 1990s. Back then King County competed with its cities to provide land for urban development. Now King County wants cities to take over UGAs.

Paul Reitenbach recounted how the initial King County UGA boundary map was prepared. Overlapping claims to UGAs have been eliminated, but gaps still exist in which no city claims UGAs. King County’s CWPPs have never been systematically updated.

Debbie Johnson told how the Pierce County Regional Council (electeds) and Growth Management Coordinating Committee (staff) formulate their CWPPs. Though state law doesn’t require CWPP updates, obsolescence becomes a problem when plans must be updated in consistency with the CWPPs. Amendments are difficult because many jurisdictions must ratify to the changes according to a weighted voting formula.

Mary Lynne Evans related how a regional collaboration called Snohomish County Tomorrow creates and revises their CWPPs. A thorny issue there has been "reasonable measures to obtain urban density," in which the county monitors density but the cities self-certify that their density is adequate.

CWPPs are central to many issues of concern to planners, such as: UGA boundaries, population allocation, buildable lands, and fair share of affordable housing. But are they easy to read and understandable to the public? Clark County’s CWPPs are only 6 pages long, Snohomish County’s are 37 pages, Pierce County’s are 89 pages and growing. Former Growth Management Hearings Board member Joe Tovar noted that high page count does not ensure clarity. County and city planners and electeds must work to write relevant, succinct, up-to-date CWPPs.

The Best of Town Centers
2/16/05

Our host, Richard Hart of Mercer Island, went first. They are building 3-5 stories of ground-level retail in their center, also plenty of condos. It took the market a while to swallow the (mostly) structured parking requirement, but it’s working now. He devotes staff time to courting developers. Their center has five pedestrian focus areas but no public buildings. Richard recommends flexible design standards.

Bill Trimm of Mill Creek glowed with pride telling the story of his town center. Only 56 acres in size, it is packed with activity and connected to the existing commercial district on SR 527. They prepared a plan in 1992 then requested proposals from developers, who in turn helped them fine-tune the vision for economic viability. Mill Creek hired well-known urban designers and toed the line against piecemeal commercial strip development. As in a shopping mall, their Main Street has anchors at both ends so pedestrians will walk between. The City built much of the infrastructure. "If you build it they will come."

Amy Tarce presented Redmond’s Town Center with emphasis on the new 7-story Marriott Hotel. They have one big landowner who makes land available to developers. Guidelines ensure architectural homogeneity. Redmond’s is the most urban-looking of the three centers, with plenty of brick, fountains, and pedestrian arcades. They encourage apartments above by not counting them in the cap on gross leasable area.

Commonalities? All maintain a strong basis of political support, involve their stakeholders, and use design review but with emphasis on developer convenience. All tie into public transit, commit public funds, and gather the market savvy to know what will work. All mix retail, offices, and residential. All have improved their tax base, given Santa Claus a place to hold court at Christmastime, and memorialized the uniqueness of their communities.

Lessons Learned From Oregon’s New Takings Law (Measure 37)
2/23/05

Jeff Niten of the City of Bonney Lake is a "Measure 37 refugee." He administered the new takings process for Columbia County, Oregon, until quitting in disgust over this gutting of land use protections. In effect, the measure voids land use and environmental regulations which decrease the value of properties, or entitles the owner to compensation. The measure gives relief going back to whenever the owner or their ancestor acquired the property. Since jurisdictions don’t have the money to compensate, the regulations are waived. Depending on when the family bought the land, the waiver may apply to virtually every protection ever enacted. Jeff said the measure was pushed with misleading ads.

Tim Trohimovich of Futurewise (formerly 1,000 Friends of Washington) said Washington defeated a takings bill ten years ago and we can defeat another one. He said Oregon voters voted based on fairness, but planning is about fairness too. Planners can help by always being fair to property owners, and by helping fight a takings law in Washington if proposed again.

Leonard Bauer of CTED said Washington’s Growth Management Act places more control at the local level. This may give Washingtonians a greater feeling of ownership in how growth is handled than Oregonians. We need to publicize planning’s successes. For example, it’s common knowledge that Tacoma has revitalized, but a trade secret that the revitalization began with a plan. Leonard hopes such groups as the Farm Bureau, Washington Realtors, and Master Builders would help fight a Washington takings proposal

Planning Documents that SPARKLE!
3/2/05

The last ten years has seen a revolution in reader-friendly government documents, said Linda Amato of The Resource Group. The Q&A format is now common. Many know that long, technical sentences don’t communicate, and attractive document design is important. Stephanie Miller of Parametrix said EISs shouldn’t be written for attorneys and engineers anymore. EISs need to tell a story to the lay citizen, with technical appendices in the back. Write in the active voice (“The City adopted an ordinance”) not passive (“An ordinance was adopted”). Make your document personal with questions such as, “How does this project affect you?” Design charts so the conclusions pop out. Bob Leedy of the City of Bonney Lake said he rarely has time for graphics, but he tailors his writing for the specific audience and avoids jargon. Rebecca Lind of the City of Renton recommended having non-technical support staff review documents for intelligibility, and having a communications specialist add sparkle before you ship it out.