Full Text
Dorothy Day House (both photos) is a downtown residence for homeless women where the City of Seattle’s TDR program was used. A QUARTERLY PUBLICATION ABOUT GROWTH MANAGEMENT Fall 2008 Transfer Of Development Rights A Critical Tool To Preserving Affordable Housing In Seattle PLEASE TURN TO PAGE 2 S ince 1985, the City of Seattle’s successful downtown Transfer of Development Rights (“TDR”) program has resulted in over 45 transactions—helping with the preservation of 950 affordable housing units in addition to the preservation and creation of such Seattle treasures as Benaroya Hall, Olympic Sculpture Park, the Paramount Theater, Eagles Auditorium ACT Theater. In addition to the preservation and creation of affordable housing, open space, landmark buildings and major performing arts facilities, the program has helped to preserve a varying scale of buildings in downtown Seattle. In 1985, the City adopted legislation that fundamentally changed land use regulations for downtown Seattle, including making TDR one of several methods that commercial developers could use to achieve greater density for high-rise office and hotel development projects. In 2001, the program was reviewed and amended to prioritize affordable housing. Seattle also allows development rights to be transferred between parcels on the same block. Density in downtown Seattle is regulated through a base and maximum floor area ratio (FAR), which varies among the downtown zones. Base floor area is the maximum that a developer may build on a site without gaining rights to additional floor area. A developer may exceed the base and achieve up to the maximum allowable FAR for commercial develoment on a site through the following options: By Nathan Torgelson City of Seattle Photos courtesy of City of Seattle ---PAGE BREAK--- CTED About Growth Fall 2008 2 Built in 1925, the Eagles Auditorium at Seventh Avenue and Union Street is another example of a successful TDR. Published quarterly by the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, Growth Management Services, 128 10th Avenue SW, PO Box 42525, Olympia, WA 98504-2525. The department is the state’s lead agency charged with providing financial and technical resources to build livable and sustainable communities. The department administers the state's Growth Management Act. Its role is to assist and enable local governments to design their own programs to fit local needs and opportunities, consistent with the GMA. Juli Wilkerson, CTED Director Karen Larkin, Assistant Director, Local Government Division Leonard Bauer, AICP, Managing Director, Growth Management Services Mark Porter, Editor Joyce Pidone, Graphic Design About Growth features topics that are of high interest and strives to reflect a wide range of views from various per- spectives. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily the department’s opinions or positions. For comprehensive information about growth management: www.cted.wa.gov/growth The department is committed to equal employment opportunities and nondis- crimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, age, religion, the pres- ence of any sensory, mental or physical disability, or disabled or Vietnam-era veteran status. Persons or organizations wishing to receive About Growth may do so by notifying this office by phone or sending an e-mail to [EMAIL REDACTED]. This publication is available in alternate format upon request. Events sponsored by the department are accessible to per- sons with disabilities. Accommodations may be arranged with a minimum of ten working days notice to the editor or by calling [PHONE REDACTED]. Printed on Recycled / Recyclable Paper About Growth • 25 percent of the floor area above the base may be earned from non- housing TDR (landmark structures and/or open space) or amenity bonuses (urban plazas, public open space, or access to below grade transit stations, for example), or both. TDR: A Critical Tool CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 • 75 percent of any floor area above the base must be earned by using development rights that are transferred from certified affordable or landmark housing sites and/or bonuses that involve mitigation of housing and childcare impacts (“commercial bonus program”), or both. Purchasers (commercial developers) and sellers (sending lot owners) can negotiate TDR sales directly. The City can also purchase development rights and hold them in its “TDR Bank” for later resale. TDR Bank funds revolve, which means that housing TDR-generated funds can be used to purchase TDR from other eligible housing TDR sites. This is a critical tool for preserving low-income housing and landmark structures in downtown. One of the challenges of the program is funding for the TDR Bank, which developers may need to rely on when they cannot find a seller on the private market. More information http://seattle.gov/housing/incentives/ TDRbonus.htm T he population in Puget Sound is expected to increase to five million people by 2025. Many farm and forest land areas are being converted to residential and commercial development. Between 1991 and 2001, 190 square miles of forest in the Puget Sound basin was converted to other uses, equaling 2.3 percent of remaining forests. Local governments need as many land use tools as possible to slow the conversion of rural, farm and forest land. Upcoming updates to land use plans and regulations, starting in 2011 in central Puget Sound, provide an opportunity for counties and TDR Programs As Innovative Land Use Management Technique By Heather Ballash Transfer of Development Rights Specialist CTED-Growth Management Services cities to consider new or to enhance existing conservation tools. The current economy and housing market provide an opportunity to put in place market-based tools that will be available when the market improves. A typical Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program is a market- based mechanism that encourages the voluntary transfer of growth from places where a community would like to see less development, referred to as sending areas, to places where a community would like to see more development, referred to as receiving areas. In 2007, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed into law legislation that directed CTED to work with an CONTINUED ON PAGE 3 Photos courtesy of City of Seattle ---PAGE BREAK--- Fall 2008 CTED About Growth •Provides infrastructure funding incentives for cities participating in the program. •Provides CTED technical assistance and public outreach resources to counties and cities, with a focus on implementing the regional TDR program. TDR programs are recognized and encouraged in the GMA as an innovative land use management technique. All four central Puget Sound counties and a number of cities have adopted a TDR program for conservation or other community goals such as historic preservation or affordable housing. Statewide, 14 programs have been adopted . If you have questions about the central Puget Sound regional program, call Growth Management Services at (360) 725-3000 or see www.cted.wa.gov/growth. CONTINUED FROM PAGE 2 TDR Programs As Innovative Land Use advisory committee to develop a regional TDR program that conserves rural, agricultural and forest land in King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish counties. CTED worked over the last year with the advisory committee to develop recommendations for implementing a regional TDR program in central Puget Sound. The recommendations will be delivered to the Governor and the Legislature on December 1, 2008. The committee supports creating a voluntary, incentive-based regional TDR program in the central Puget Sound region that is separate, but compatible, with existing local TDR programs that: •Establishes county sending areas in rural, agricultural, and forest land and receiving areas in the cities guided by Puget Sound Regional Council’s Vision 2040. •Allows cities to select the sending areas from which they will accept development rights. This issue of About Growth discusses the challenges and successes that counties and cities are experiencing in developing or implementing TDR programs. King County has successfully directed development from rural, natural resource, and open space lands to land within urban areas, including the City of Seattle. In addition, the City of Seattle has its own program to conserve affordable housing, historic treasures, and open space. The Cities of Redmond and Issaquah describe the programs they adopted to conserve open space and habitat in their communities. The City of Tacoma discusses the questions a city must ask about economic development, accepting more density, and ensuring citizens see a benefit in receiving more development in their community. TDR programs aren’t just happening in western Washington. Kittitas County is currently considering a TDR program that focuses on conserving working farm, ranch, and forest land. The County will start the public process in January 2009. Sending area Receiving area Photos courtesy of Cascade Land Conservancy DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FUNDING FOR LAND OWNERS TO MAINTAIN RESOURCE LAND Development rights severed from property with conservation easement ---PAGE BREAK--- CTED About Growth Fall 2008 The Willows Run Golf Courses are on land in the Sammamish River Valley where development rights have been transferred. Redmond’s TDR Program Aims To Preserve Rural Sammamish Valley By Jeff Churchill City of Redmond R edmond’s TDR program was adopted in 1995 and has been amended several times since, most recently in 2007. Redmond adopted a TDR program to help preserve of the Sammamish Valley for agriculture and urban recreation, and to direct growth into areas where it can best be accommodated. Since 1995 the program has evolved to also encourage preservation of environmentally critical areas such as wetlands, streams and their buffers, and preservation of historic sites. TDRs can be used in a variety of ways in Redmond’s receiving areas. Project proponents may use TDRs to achieve additional height, floor area, or parking; to increase maximum impervious surface area; or to substitute for requirements to provide park land. The program is flexible also in that most commercial, industrial, and mixed-use land in Redmond is an eligible receiving area. Measured by program activity and acres of preservation, Redmond’s program is very successful. As of September 19, 2008, over 420 acres of agricultural land, urban recreation land, and environmentally critical areas in Redmond have been protected through the TDR program; over 573 TDRs have changed hands; and over $16.8 million have changed hands in TDR transactions. At this time, the city staff are focusing on providing information to buyers and sellers, and tracking transactions. city staff work proactively with potential sellers to determine eligibility in the program and to help potential buyers and sellers navigate TDR transactions. The city’s last advertising effort occurred in summer 2007 after the program was amended to include some sending areas that were not previously eligible. Two challenges stand out after about 12 years. The first is program visibility. While city staff make concerted efforts to reach those property owners who are eligible, many still have a tenuous understanding of what the program is and how it works. Part of the challenge is communicating briefly but clearly what the TDR program is, since “TDR” is not everyday terminology. Another challenge is time: there is not enough of it to reach out to potential participants individually. The second challenge is facilitating an active marketplace. In particular, Redmond has not found a way to provide TDR sellers with a list of buyers, while sellers often contact city staff looking for lists of TDR buyers. Since development projects come and go, such a list would be difficult to maintain. In other ways, Redmond successfully helps an active marketplace. City staff have provided ample information about the program on the city’s website, including past sales, so that buyers and sellers have access to pricing information. Find out more about Redmond’s TDR program at www.redmond. gov/insidecityhall/planning/ compplanning/transfer.asp. Two challenges stand out after about 12 years. The first is program visibility… The second challenge is facilitating an active marketplace. Photo courtesy of City of Redmond ---PAGE BREAK--- Fall 2008 CTED About Growth of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, which includes a handful of new TDR policies aimed at strengthening the TDR market, reflects a strong County commitment to grow its TDR Program into the future. To date, a total of 520 TDRs have been allocated to private landowners in rural King County thereby permanently preserving over 2,000 acres of land at no public expense. Well over 300 of these TDRs have been used for increased housing density in urban receiving sites; nearly one- third of them used in cities and the remaining two-thirds used in urban King County. The King County TDR Bank is an integral component of the program; it has been involved with several large TDR purchases and sales. Including the bank’s activity, the TDR program has preserved 92,000 acres of land. The bank buys, holds, and sells TDRs to facilitate the private market and create a revolving fund for increased land preservation into the future. The bank strategically buys development rights from rural properties of compelling interest for both a city and the County to protect. A focus of the program is to partner permanent conservation easement. Eligible receiving sites are properties with urban designation and zoned Residential 4 units/acre through 48 units/acre (R-4 – R- 48), Neighborhood Business (NB), and Office Each TDR purchased by a developer translates into two additional units above the receiving site’s base density. In December 2008, the TDR Program will unveil on a revised website an “online TDR market place” – kind of like an “eBay” for TDR where buyers and sellers can find themselves more easily to engage in transactions and post “TDRs for sale” and “TDR wanted” adds. We hope this will bring much needed efficiency and ease to developers and landowners alike. Under the traditional off-line market place, TDRs have sold between $15,000 and $26,000, with the current market price hovering at $26,000. This latest price reflects sales in early 2008 – since that time, the falling real estate and financial markets have slowed developer activity in the County’s TDR market. Despite the recent downturn, $6.75 million has been traded between private developers and private landowners since 1999. Over the last four years TDR transactions occurred at an average rate of 10 per year, involving well over 100 TDRs bought and sold annually. Recent passage in October by the King County Council By Darren Greve King County A dopted in 1999, King County’s Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program is a voluntary, incentive-based and market-driven growth management and land preservation tool. The goal of the County’s TDR program is to direct development growth away from Rural and Resource lands and into designated Urban Areas – both unincorporated urban lands and cities. In so doing, development is relocated into areas with the existing urban infrastructure to accommodate growth. In exchange for increased density and more compact development in urban areas, developers can purchase transferable development rights that originate from “sending site” lands with farm, forest, open space, endangered wildlife habitat or regional trail amenities. Land qualifies as a sending site based on its zoning – that is, properties with Agriculture Forest Rural Area (RA), or R-1 Urban Separator zoning are eligible sending sites. Landowners can retain development rights on their property for future use, and are allocated 1 TDR per every 5 gross acres placed under a CONTINUED ON PAGE 6 King County’s TDR Program Is Helping Preserve Rural And Resource Lands An increase through a TDR on the allowable height of a downtown is helping preserve 300 to 400 additional acres of farms and forests. Photos courtesy of King County ---PAGE BREAK--- CTED About Growth Fall 2008 A TDR program has been a tool of Pierce County’s comprehensive plan and county-wide planning policies for several years. In the late 1990s, groups began to form and more actively advocate for farmland preservation. The county created the Pierce County Farm Advisory Commission (now called the FARM Board; http://pierce. wsu.edu/Agriculture/index.htm) to be an advisory board to the county executive and county council on all issues that related to agriculture. with cities to accomplish inter- jurisdictional TDR agreements. The goal in these agreements is to “link” economic redevelopment (i.e. up- zones) in a city to land preservation. Rural lands that are important to a city remain the focus for TDR preservation. And, importantly, the County offers “amenity funding” to financially assist cities with infrastructure enhancements when development projects use rural TDRs for increased density. One such example is the Seattle – King County Interlocal TDR Agreement which recently expired this past summer. During the agreement’s eight-year lifespan, Seattle received $500,000 from the County, and 840 acres of rural farm and forest lands were protected, and development of 68 potential houses was avoided in areas important to the City’s water supply. These 68 TDRs were bought by developers to increase square footage in three separate high-rise towers located in the Denny Triangle of downtown Seattle. It is estimated these 68 development rights will create a net reduction in transportation-related GHG emissions equal to 49,145 metric tons of CO2. The challenge facing King County’s program is partnering with cities in regional TDR agreements. King County is home to 39 cities, and since the TDR program’s inception only two cities (Seattle and Issaquah) have agreed to partner with the County. Cities are cautious to trade rural land protection via regional TDR for in-city amenities. Cities feel they can only exact from developers a certain amount of money for development projects, and they feel these exactions should be kept for infrastructure enhancement inside the city. An agreement to allow Rural TDRs in for additional density is perceived to redirect dollars outside the city. To a significant degree, this is offset by the amenity payments the County provides, but the pot of money available to offer cities is spread thin. The unfortunate paradigm – that TDR is a barrier to development in cities – needs to be flipped on its head. City-County TDR agreements should – and could - serve as a powerful vehicle that cities can use to stimulate and strengthen their redevelopment projects. Cities can be encouraged to act as receiving sites for Rural TDRs if they are granted ready access to State infrastructure dollars and matched with county funds. In this way, the State can help counties develop a robust market for TDRs. This would create a powerful tool to strengthen the outcomes of GMA as growth would actively be directed into, and accommodated by, cities and away from rural areas. Darren Greve [EMAIL REDACTED] http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/tdr/ By Brady Pierce County CONTINUED ON PAGE 8 King County TDR CONTINUED FROM PAGE 5 Pierce County’s TDR Program Puts Premium On Preserving Forest And Agriculture Lands During the Growth Management Act’s 10-year update to local Comprehensive Plans (1994), the Farm Advisory Commission made several agricultural policy recommendations that emphasized the immediate need to develop tools and an overall strategy to preserve agricultural land. Pierce County implemented several of the policies and by 2006 developed the Pierce County Agricultural Strategic Plan (http://www.piercecountywa.org/ pc/abtus/ourorg/exec/ecd/reports.htm) that outlined specific implementation actions for the county to pursue in order to improve agricultural viability in the county. The plan identified TDR as one of the actions. In 2006, the state legislature awarded the county a Transfer of Development Rights Proviso Grant to develop policies and regulations for a TDR program and the county contracted with Cascade Land Conservancy to assist with developing the program. In November of 2007, the program was adopted unanimously by the county council. The program was supported by the agricultural and development communities, but did have dissenters from those same groups. The program prioritizes sending areas as agricultural and forest lands, and also includes limited conservation and other open space type areas. Drawing courtsey of King County ---PAGE BREAK--- Fall 2008 CTED About Growth The City of Tacoma’s skyline. G rowing concern about the rapid loss of farmlands, forests and open spaces has lead to interest in TDR as a promising conservation approach. TDR is a market-based tool that harnesses the energy of development to generate revenue for conservation, setting up a system to “send” development rights from conservation sites, to be “received” in areas where growth is desired. Focusing growth where it’s appropriate and conserving our most valuable natural and cultural resources are the two sides of the growth management coin—you can’t have one without the other. Thus, pursuit of conservation ultimately leads back to another bedrock planning issue— ensuring that density is a winning proposition for cities. The beauty of TDR is its promise to support both goals. However, this win-win can only occur if the fundamentals are right. While TDR sending sites undoubtedly have their challenges, the greater challenge may well lie at the other end of the transaction—in determining where, how and how much growth should be sought in cities, and how closely cities should tie their growth to TDR. For TDR to work, urban communities need to agree to accept significant new density and tailor their planning systems to ensure that TDR is a primary method to achieve higher densities. Community concerns may make these steps difficult for many communities. Cities contemplating TDR will ask themselves three key questions: Can our economy handle it? While some communities are growth-averse, most view economic development as a primary goal. Cities are typically reticent to do anything that may stifle economic development, and choosing long-term community benefits over perceived short-term downturns is always difficult. Especially in times of economic distress, concern over loss of future investment may lead to rejection of TDR or an over-cautious approach. Are higher densities acceptable in my neighborhood? “Density” is still a bad word to many people. Communities must be confident that new higher density developments will be an asset, not a detriment, to the community. Are development standards and review processes effective in ensuring good design? Are infrastructure, services and neighborhood assets like streets, open space, schools and crime prevention adequate? For years, tight city budgets have made for difficult choices regarding ongoing community investments. And, unfortunately, not all new development has been perceived as contributing to neighborhoods. What’s in it for us? Conserving farms and forests miles away may not be enough to motivate cities to participate. Residents in proposed receiving sites may feel they are being unfairly burdened with development impacts, while residents in rural sending areas get most of the benefits. This can be an even harder sell if there is an unmet need for community assets like open space, or if local open space or historic assets are unprotected. These simple but fundamental questions need to be part of the TDR discussion for cities. A market analysis is needed to demonstrate demand for development and point to where TDR can be effectively tailored to the local market. Cities must have the planning and zoning fundamentals in place to ensure that density becomes a neighborhood asset—if that’s not the case, this work must be prioritized. And, in additional to regional benefits, there must be clear benefits for participating cities—some possibilities include designating local sending sites as well as receiving sites, so that TDR helps meet local conservation goals, and state infrastructure funding advantages for cities participating in regional TDR programs. It is fundamentally a local responsibility to plan for and accommodate growth through adequate standards and procedures, while the state is doing its part by directing growth toward cities through growth management. In addition, cities, regional partners and the state need to work together to empower cities to accommodate growth, and that means looking for ways to help cities address these concerns. The state’s leadership in setting up regional TDR frameworks is already setting the stage. These points are not news to TDR advocates, who recognize the reciprocal relationship between thriving cities and conserved farms and forests. If we are effective in addressing them, then cities, simply by thriving, will take their place as the primary engines of regional conservation. There is work to be done on everyone’s part, but that work is at the core of conservation, community-building and long-term prosperity. Our regional TDR pioneers have already shown us that TDR can be a very useful tool for doing that work. Communities Contemplating TDR Should Ask Key Questions By Elliott Barnett City of Tacoma Photo courtesy of City of Tacoma ---PAGE BREAK--- CTED About Growth Fall 2008 the potential impact of additional development on the receiving sites. As the program took shape, it became obvious that providing a one-to-one transfer ratio and allowing the market to determine the final value of TDRs answered the first major concern and requiring adequate review for the use of TDRs addressed the second. Progress The City of Issaquah’s TDR program has already been used. For example, the city purchased a 2.08 acre creekside property, which contained 25 TDRs, that is now preserved. One of those TDRs was then sold to Rowley Properties Inc., allowing it to gain up to an additional 2,000 square feet on the third floor of the John L. Scott Building. In turn, the architect’s intended design for the building was accomplished. The city now has a total of 31 TDRs available for sale, thanks to its recent T he TDR program, adopted by the Issaquah city council in September 2005, offers several opportunities for unique land transactions. Essentially, the program allows landowners to sell their property’s development rights in exchange for recording a permanent conservation easement on the land. Those transferred development rights can then be purchased by landowners who want to expand density, building height or impervious surface limits on their own properties. This approach offers the property owner of the “receiving site” the opportunity to explore slight adjustments to development standards that would otherwise not be available to them. A focus of the TDR program is the preservation of salmon habitat and flood plain sites along Issaquah and Tibbetts Creeks. The program took several years to develop, and involved a great deal of public input from local environmental groups, developers and residents. Throughout the process, two central issues emerged: creating an appropriate value for the TDRs (both for the sending and receiving sites) and considering purchase of a second creekside site, which included 7.85 acres and 17 TDRs. The sale of two more TDRs is currently under consideration for a condominium conversion project, which needs additional impervious surface area to meet parking requirements. In addition, the City of Issaquah and King County adopted an inter-local agreement in October 2007 for the transfer of up to 75 TDRs from rural King County in the Issaquah Creek Watershed to sites within the city limits. As a result of this agreement, the city will receive $200,000 in Conservation Futures funds to purchase additional open space in the city. This program implements important regional growth management goals outlined not only in the City and County Comprehensive Land Use Plans, but also the State of Washington Growth Management Act, the King County Greenprint Vision, the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan and the Cascade Agenda. More information on the Issaquah TDR program can be found on the City’s Web site, www.ci.issaquah. wa.us/planning, or by calling Debi Kirac at [PHONE REDACTED]. Receiving areas can include cities through jurisdictional agreements and also include urban unincorporated areas, the unique component to the program. Specific unincorporated receiving areas are identified through the County’s Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle that occurs every two years. Applications that request an increase in residential density are required to describe how the amendment will satisfy provisions of the TDR program. By Debi Kirac City of Issaquah Applicants refer to a TDR Conversion Table that was developed using current market data and use a formula to determine the number of development rights needed to be purchased to achieve the requested higher density. Development’s rights must be purchased prior to any development permits being issued or in other words are “transferred” to the receiving site. The program also uses a TDR Committee that participates in prioritizing sending sites, issuing certificates and overseeing and advising the program. The program requires a TDR administrator in a full time capacity. The program was to be implemented in April 2008, but faced a budget shortfall. The program is not included in the proposed 2009 Budget, but will not be final until mid-December. For more information, contact Sean Gaffney, [EMAIL REDACTED]. City Of Issaquah TDR Program Became Reality With Careful Community Input Pierce County’s TDR Program CONTINUED FROM PAGE 6 John L. Scott building in Issaquah gained 2,000 sq.ft. due to TDR’s. Photo courtesy of City of Issaquah ---PAGE BREAK--- Fall 2008 CTED About Growth A s a lifelong resident of the Arlington Community, Mayor Margaret Larson grew up watching the changes in the Stillaguamish Valley, the gateway to the City of Arlington. As the Arlington area has grown, Mayor Larson and members of the Arlington city council became increasingly concerned that the Stillaguamish Valley farmlands would be developed into housing developments and the open space in this precious valley would vanish. In 2004, she began working with the City Council, the Stillaguamish Valley farmers and Snohomish County to find ways to preserve our valley for future generations. Out of this work and dedication became the Arlington Transfer of Development Rights program. Adopted in early 2006, the Arlington TDR program includes over 2,500 eligible acres in the sending area. The receiving area is 337 acres located in a TDR Program A Labor Of Love For Arlington Mayor By Kristen Banfield City of Arlington newly annexed area to the southeast of downtown Arlington. Development in this newly annexed area, dubbed the “Brekhus-Beach” area for the local residents that spearheaded the annexation effort, requires the purchase of development certificates specifically from the Stillaguamish Valley sending area. The program is purely market driven. However, primarily due to the downturn in the regional housing market, development certificates have not yet been purchased. Currently, the city and Snohomish County are working on minor modifications to the current TDR regulations that will consider lessons learned from the Mayor’s participation on the CTED regional TDR committee. Additional changes to the regulations are designed to address issues that will help address the needs of developers and farmers. We believe that once the housing market begins to correct, certificates will be sold. In late October, over 70 interested individuals joined together for a formal briefing on the Arlington TDR program and, more importantly, the opportunity to share ideas on what improvements could be made to the existing program. The individuals there were not government staffers trying to develop a solution in a vacuum, but local farmers, local developers, citizens, and elected officials sharing their thoughts on what improvements would make a difference. While many of the suggestions will take some time to explore, there was one message that came through. The Arlington TDR program can and should work. The commitment is there to make it happen; it will just take a mix of the right regulations, the right market place and the right time. Mayor Larson is often quoted about her passion for the Arlington TDR program. She often starts and ends a conversation about the Arlington TDR program with these guiding thoughts: “The TDR program is not about us. It’s not just preserving a beautiful gateway to the City of Arlington; that’s just a side benefit. It’s not just about implementing the GMA. It’s about preserving these fertile grounds for our grandchildren’s grandchildren. It’s about ensuring that our farms of today continue to produce and that an integral way of life is passed on to future generations.” For more information on the City of Arlington’s TDR program, contact Mayor Margaret Larson or Assistant Community Development Director Bill Blake at [PHONE REDACTED]. Also, visit our website at www.ci.arlington.wa.us The focus of Arlington’s TDR program is to preserve rural valley land. Stilly Valley Farmland. Photos courtesy of City of Arlington ---PAGE BREAK--- CTED About Growth Fall 2008 10 T he holiday season is coming a little early at CTED we’ve just released a new public participation and visioning guidebook. The 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA) requires “early and continual citizen participation” in the development and updates of local comprehensive plans. In addition, one specific goal of GMA is to “Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process.” Here are some features of the 50- page online guidebook, Shaping Washington’s Growth Management Future: “Citizen Participation and Community Visioning Guide”: •Updated, detailed examples of how Washington State communities are successfully using public participation and community visioning. •Digest of Growth Management Hearings Board decisions. •Frequently asked questions and answers (FAQs) chapter. •Clickable pdf. online document that is set up to be viewed easily on the web. •Readers can navigate from page to page, without scrolling. Shaping Washington’s Growth Management Future Citizen Participation and Community Visioning Guidebook “A failure in the public participation process undermines the very core of the (Growth Management Act) GMA and the legitimacy of adopted or amended comprehensive plan provisions and development regulations. The City must err on the side of involving the public in its GMA decisions.” —Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (Dec. 5, 2002) •Type is larger than average print document size. •Bookmarks are used to allow readers to jump to chapters and sub headings. •Readers can jump back to the table of contents from any page. •Text highlighted in magenta is hyperlinked to outside sources. •The guide will print in landscape format by default, but readers can change (in your print dialog box) to print portrait to provide ample white space for notes. We hope you use the guidebook as a tool to get meaningful public involvement in your community’s planning process. It is also designed to give local governments freedom to create a public participation process that makes good sense for their communities. If you have an ongoing citizen participation or community visioning process or are updating your comprehensive plan, this may serve as a handy reference guide. It can also be instructional. We include examples of how Washington communities are successfully taking public participation and community visioning to heart. For more information about CTED visit www.cted.wa.gov Good citizen participation helps: •Reduce public mistrust in government. •Engage citizens in the ownership of local growth management challenges and solutions. •Educate and empower citizens. •Encourage good planning and citizen support. •Ensure compliance with GMA public participation requirements. By Mark Porter Public Participation Specialist CTED Growth Management Services