puget sound region - quality growth alliance
Post on 04-Feb-2022
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008 1
Executive Summary
Change is coming to the central Puget Sound region. On
April 30, 2008, the groundbreaking ULI Reality Check event
at the University of Washington challenged participants to
accommodate 1.7 million new residents and 1.2 million new
jobs in the region by 2040. This is a population increase
equivalent to the Portland metropolitan area.
An unusual collaboration An uncommon alliance of ULI Seattle District Council, Puget
Sound Regional Council, UW College of Architecture and
Urban Planning, Enterprise Community Partners, Cascade
Land Conservancy, Master Builders Association of King
and Snohomish Counties, Futurewise, and the National
Association of Industrial and Office Properties—organizations
that have often sat on opposite sides of the table when it
comes to growth issues—have set aside differences, raised
awareness through the Reality Check event, and committed
to breaking down barriers to achieving quality growth in the
region. They have formed the Quality Growth Alliance: A
Framework for Sound Action to:
Raise greater awareness of land use, transportation and —
climate change
Provide expertise to key communities —
Research compact development policy and —
best practices
Highlight regional successes —
The Reality Check visioning exercise was an extraordinary
opportunity for key business, political, community, and
non-profit leaders from King, Pierce, Snohomish and Kitsap
Counties to pause for a day, think big and decide how the
region can best grow and thrive over the next 30 years.
2 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 20082 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
There are two very special characteristics of the Puget Sound region. One, it’s just beautiful. It’s
absolutely beautiful, and we all have a responsibility to maintain that beauty. Number two, the
economic engine in the Puget Sound Region is truly extraordinary. We’ve outpaced job growth for 30
years over national averages. So we can have both. We can have prosperity and we can have beauty,
but we can’t keep them both without planning effectively.
PATRIck cAllAhAN, — REALITy CHECK CO-CHAIR, CEO OF URBAN RENAISSANCE GROUP
New era of climate change: the land use and transportation equationThis event made history. A broad sample of
private, public, and non-profit leaders gathered
to make land use decisions using a unique,
tactile exercise developed the Urban Land
Institute. For the first time among such visioning
exercises, growth patterns and transportation
were connected to climate change in real time.
As a recognized environmental front runner,
Washington State was one of the first in the
U.S. to establish a growth management law (the
Growth Management Act of 1990). But that does
not mean the goals of the law have been fully
realized. Growth is occurring in dispersed patterns
in the region’s counties, and many local roads are
beyond capacity.
Fossil fuel use in low-occupancy vehicles is
the single leading source of greenhouse gas
emissions in our region. Among all the regional
development patterns that emerged at Reality
Check, the most compact scenario reduced
carbon emissions by 23 percent. yet barriers to
this kind of growth, which would leverage public
investments in transportation and help to secure a
more stable climate, hold us back. Reality Check
organizers turned a spotlight toward this reality
and participants sounded a call to action and
demanded effective leadership.
Diverse leaders across the region found agreementThe participants in the visioning exercise reached
consensus on several collective principles that
should guide our region:
Create — walkable, compact, complete
urban centers
Invest in — transportation and infrastructure
Protect and preserve the —
natural environment
Balance — housing with jobs
Create a variety of — housing options for all
Stimulate — economic development
Support the Washington State — Growth
Management Act goals
Create more — transit-oriented development
When polled, participants said that the most
critical barriers to achieving quality growth are: 1)
increased funding to create more transportation
and infrastructure capacity, 2) coordinated,
cooperative regional leadership, 3) increased
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008 3
Photos: Todd Bronk, EDAW
housing supply for all income levels near
jobs, and 4) reduced public resistance to
compact development.
call to actionParticipants placed new population and jobs
within urban growth areas, consistent with the
Growth Management Act. To ensure our region
thrives, participants recommended focus on
the following:
Place the majority of — jobs and housing
within urban and regional employment
centers, leveraging existing infrastructure
Make additional — infrastructure investments,
most specifically in transit in such a way as to
connect the regional centers effectively
Locate considerable — growth along
transportation corridors, connecting jobs
and housing with transit
Create — great places in which to live, work
and play
Despite the strong support that emerged at Reality
Check for growth management goals, compact
development and transportation choices—
including mass transit—a substantial part of our
region’s development has not achieved growth
management goals. In the era of climate change
and increasingly costly energy resources, regional
leaders from all walks of life resoundingly agreed
to move away from our old assumptions and
instead embrace innovative land use practices
and make needed investments as we prepare for
growth. The Quality Growth Alliance is committed
to leading collaborative efforts to break down the
barriers we face.
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008 5
Executive Summary ................................................................. 1
Background.............................................................................. 7
The Game .............................................................................. 15
Specific Results ...................................................................... 21
Findings ................................................................................. 39
Next Steps .............................................................................. 47
Reality Check and the Quality Growth Alliance Partners ...... 52
Reality Check Participants ..................................................... 54
Volunteers .............................................................................. 62
Recognition ............................................................................ 64
Sponsors ................................................................................ 65
Regional Resources ............................................................... 66
Contact Us ............................................................................. 67
Table of Contents
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008 7
Background
We employ 36,000 people,
and we move 60,000 to and
from our campus every day.
I want our employees to live
reasonably close, with access
to affordable housing, good
transportation, and a strong
education. We want this
area to continue to be at a
competitive advantage.
MARk EMMERT, — PRESIDENT,
UNIVERSITy OF WASHINGTON
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
01960 1970 1980 1990 2000
2006
2010
4,000,000
Population
5,000,000
20302020 2040
Employment
PopulationForecast
EmploymentForecast
Source: PSRC
Historic and Forecast Jobs & Population Growth in Central Puget Sound Region - 2006
The central Puget Sound region continues to be one of
the most rapidly urbanizing areas in the nation, with a
present population of 3.2 million and 1.7 million more
expected to arrive by 2040. With a reputation for enviable
scenery and recreational opportunities, the region is also
an economic powerhouse, home to modern corporate
engines like Microsoft, Amazon, Starbucks, Nordstrom, REI,
and institutional giants such as the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Institute.
But in recent decades, the growth of the region has been on
a collision course with the desirable lifestyle that continues
to fuel it. Traffic, the rising cost of fuel, and the cost of
housing are issues that increasingly affect daily lives and
pocketbooks. There are many problems, including threats
to air quality, declines in the health of fish and watersheds,
and ongoing clearing of forests for development that threaten
the natural beauty and healthy air we all take for granted.
Perhaps none of these is more important or urgent than the
impact of overall energy consumption, greenhouse gases
and climate change.
These concerns, which threaten the
health of the region and even the
globe, cannot be solved on a city-by-
city basis. They can only be addressed
through regional cooperation and a
systemic approach that includes the
entire area.
Reality Check brought leaders from
all over the four-county central Puget
Sound area together in one room,
where they could see the region, its
growth projections, and land use
patterns as a whole. They created
visions together, but they were not
building from the ground up. They
worked with existing plans for the
future, testing them, and considering
them while deciding how we could
accommodate even more growth.
climate changeOne key feature distinguishes the
Puget Sound Reality Check from
similar events around the nation. It
dealt with greenhouse gas emissions
and climate change, not only as a
fundamental issue in planning for
growth, but as an environmental
impact that is a direct result of specific
land-use decisions.
There is now overwhelming scientific
consensus that greenhouse gases
accumulating in the atmosphere due
to human activities are contributing
Interstate 5 runs into the
flooded Chehalis River at
Centralia, Washington,
Tuesday, December 4, 2007.
Drenching rain and howling
winds that downed trees,
cut electricity and caused
widespread flooding left two
people dead and closed
Interstate 5, the main north-
south highway in Western
Washington. Governor
Christine Gregoire declared
a state of emergency
following the third in a series
of storms.
Photo: WSDOT / Jim Walker
Investing in ourselves ensures the region’s future prosperity, drawing people and business here.
Without making those investments, the potential to stall the economic engine becomes quite real.
TONy STEWART, — VICE PRESIDENT OF MARKETING AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, McKINSTRy COMPANy, BOARD
PRESIDENT OF NAIOP, REALITy CHECK PARTNER
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008 9
to global warming, with potentially
catastrophic consequences. In the
Pacific Northwest, the signs are clear.
Warmer temperatures are shifting the
runoff cycle, with more precipitation
falling as rain and less snow in reserve
for delayed runoff and a reliable water
supply. Municipalities, responsible
for ensuring that adequate water
is available prior to growth, must
respond. At worst, lack of water can
shut down development, with no
permits issued.
In 2007, both the Governor and the
Washington State legislature took
action to address climate change,
establishing greenhouse gas
reductions of 50% below 1990 levels
by 2050. To achieve the international
Kyoto Protocol-related goal of keeping
temperature increases to under three
degrees Celsius, there is substantial
consensus that it will be necessary to
decrease greenhouse gas emissions
by 60 to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
The primary greenhouse gas is carbon
dioxide (CO2). Greater fuel efficiency
can help to reduce CO2 emissions. But
this cannot achieve a net reduction
if total vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
keeps increasing. National research
indicates that population growth has
been responsible for only a quarter
of the increase in vehicle miles driven
over the last couple of decades. Three
quarters of the increase are the direct
results of dispersed development
and separated land uses, producing
the need for more trips to meet basic
needs, such as a trip to the grocery
store or to a kid’s soccer game.
Rapid expansion has consumed
land at almost three times the rate of
population growth, and caused CO2
emissions from cars to rise, even as it
has reduced the amount of forest land
available to absorb CO2.
The weight of evidence shows that,
with more compact development,
people drive 20 to 40 percent less, at a
minimal or reduced cost, while reaping
other fiscal and health benefits. A
comprehensive study conducted in
King County showed that residents
of the most walkable neighborhoods
drive 26 percent fewer miles per
day than those living in the most
sprawling areas.
First steps for the environmentThere are encouraging signs in the
central Puget Sound area. While
vehicle miles traveled are increasing
with population, per capita mileage is
decreasing, according to the Puget
Sound Regional Council (PSRC). This
is an indication that neighborhood
(Back then) everything was pretty doggone simple. Gas was pretty cheap...if you had a traffic
problem….well, just build a new road.
chRISTINE GREGOIRE, — GOVERNOR, STATE OF WASHINGTON
10 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
activity is increasing as regional
planners guide denser development
to urban areas and urban growth
centers. However, unless patterns
of low-density development change,
the 1.7 million additional residents
expected in the area by 2040 cannot
be accommodated.
The central Puget Sound Reality
Check builds upon a generation
of environmental leadership that
has already taken some important
steps toward protecting the
regional environment.
The state took a major step in
1971 with the passage of the
State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA), followed by the Shoreline
Management Act (SMA), both aimed
at preventing harm from environmental
consequences of development.
In 1990, the Washington State Growth
Management Act (GMA) set the
framework for growth management,
mandating urban growth areas and
comprehensive plans for all counties
growing appreciably in population.
In addition to overall protection of
the environment, the goals of the act
include increased affordable housing,
multi-modal transportation systems,
open space, and historic preservation.
Under the GMA, by the mid-1990s
cities and counties in the central Puget
Over the last couple of decades we have made remarkable progress in coming together to think as
one region. We have powerful tools to achieve our growth management, environmental, economic,
and transportation goals. But it will take a lot of hard work and committed leadership at all levels—
public and private—to make it happen.
BOB DREWEl, — ExECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL, REALITy CHECK PARTNER
Source: 2020 Emissions - Puget Sound Clean Air Agency; emissions extrapolated to 2050
1990
10
0
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2000 2010 2020 2030202520152005
2008
1995 2035 2040 2045 2050
Central Puget Sound Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector
Million Metric Tons of CO2 Equivalent (MMtCO2e)
Projected EmissionsHistoric Emissions
Business as Usual
State Reduction Targets
Transportation
Buildings andFacilities
Electricity
Agriculture, Forestry, and Solid Waste
Greenhouse gases are
produced from a variety
of sources, ranging from
agriculture to transportation. It
will take reductions in all areas
to meet state targets.
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008 11
Sound region had set population and
employment growth targets, adopted
comprehensive plans, development
regulations, and defined boundaries
for urban growth areas. To coordinate
growth management planning, in
1995 PSRC adopted VISION 2020, a
long-range growth, transportation, and
economic strategy for the region.
There are 82 cities incorporated
within the four-county central Puget
Sound region. Of these, there are 5
metropolitan cities (Seattle, Bellevue,
Everett, Tacoma and Bremerton) and
13 core cities, our most developed
urban centers.
PSRC updated and expanded the
strategy in the VISION 2040, adopted
April of 2008, providing more extensive
regional guidance and policies.
VISION 2040 built on previous
regional planning efforts that focused
on providing better access to jobs,
housing and services connected to
transit. VISION 2040 calls for 53% of
the region’s growth to take place in
urban centers linked with mass transit,
and accommodated in little over
three percent of the region’s urban
land area.
There is progress being made toward
existing growth management and
transportation goals. Bus rapid transit
has been making strides in all four
We’re worried about growth and we see a lot of change coming. So far not in Sumner, but around us
there is a lot of sprawl. We see farmlands that we’ve preserved and yet we see lots of houses coming
in, and all that traffic drains through those farmlands, and it threatens them.
DAvID ENSlOW, — MAyOR, CITy OF SUMNER
Source: PSRC
Share of Permitted New Housing Units in Urban Growth Area by County
1995
1,000
0
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
King: 94.9% average
Snohomish: 83.5% average
Pierce: 72.7% average
Kitsap: 50.2% average
Region: 84.6% average
Since the adoption of the
Growth Management Act,
most central Puget Sound
counties have made progress
in concentrating more new
housing development in
designated urban areas.
12 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
Even as traffic reaches extraordinary
and costly levels, urbanization has
reached an intensity that makes
building new roads and highway lanes
practically and politically infeasible.
At the same time, there is growing
support at all levels of governance for
an integrated transportation network
that includes rail and bus rapid transit,
accommodates private vehicular
traffic, increases the overall role of
bicycling and walking, and gives
people transportation options.
As many as 10,000 acres of forest land
in the Puget Sound area is cleared
every year for new development,
according to the Cascade Land
Conservancy, with concurrent loss
of streambed integrity and natural
systems for slowing and filtering runoff.
The health of Puget Sound hangs in
the balance, and although billions of
dollars are committed to restoration,
cleanup efforts cannot keep up with
the degradation of natural systems
resulting from sprawling development.
When it came before voters in 2007,
Proposition 1 represented a joint
effort by a Regional Transportation
Investment District and Sound Transit
to fund a mixed package of long-term
transportation spending proposals
for the central Puget Sound region.
Transportation, open space, affordable housing, climate change—all those things really boil down to
land use. It’s the common thread.
GREG JOhNSON, — PRESIDENT, WRIGHT RUNSTAD & COMPANy, ULI SEATTLE CHAIR, REALITy CHECK PARTNER
counties. Sound Transit is operating
commuter rail from Everett to Tacoma,
and is also on schedule building
the first links in the region’s light rail
system, due to begin operation in
2009. Compact, mixed-use urban
neighborhoods—with open space and
shopping within walking distance—are
proving to be very popular living
choices for residents of every age.
high cost of sprawlHowever, the Seattle metropolitan area
tops the nation in the gap between
identified need in transportation
projects and funding to meet those
needs, according to a ULI-sponsored
study released in 2008. And Seattle
area traffic is the ninth worst in the
U.S., right behind Boston, according to
a 2008 study by Kirkland-based Inrix.
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008 13
The defeat of Proposition 1 exposed
fractures in the political landscape
and left the challenge of major funding
decisions for another year. It clearly
demonstrated a lack of consensus.
One of the greatest challenges of
growth is to bring affordable housing
into cities, where most of the jobs are.
There are complex causes for rising
land prices, including demand by
residents. New jobs and an influx of
new residents in urban neighborhoods
are affirmations of good planning and
design decisions.
But as values rise, people in moderate
to low income brackets—and even
median income and above—are
being priced out. According to the
U.S. Department of Housing and
Community Development, in 2007 a
typical family of four in Seattle had
enough income to qualify for a house
priced at $280,000, while the median
price for houses was about $450,000.
Affordable housing options for a broad
variety of income levels are needed.
Innovative solutions are critical to
successfully achieving the region’s
quality growth vision.
The progress that has already been
made for protecting the environment
of the central Puget Sound shows that
citizens do not want to saddle future
To meet the region’s long-term need for housing and environmental responsibility, we must ensure
that our essential workforce has innovative and affordable housing choices near where they work.
SAM ANDERSON, — PRESIDENT, MASTER BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF KING AND SNOHOMISH COUNTIES,
REALITy CHECK PARTNER
30% 28%
37%
30%27%
38%
25% 26%
45%
<20.0% 20.0 - 29.9% 30.0+%
55%
27%
18%
44%
28% 27%
40%
27%33%
<20.0% 20.0 - 29.9% 30.0+%
1989 1999 2005 1989 1999 2005
Renters Owners
54.9%48.8%
41.8%
16.7%23.9%24.3%
20.9% 22.3%24.8%
7.7% 4.9%9.2%
1980–19891990–19992000–2006
SnohomishCounty
KingCounty
Pierce County
KitsapCounty
County Share of Net PermittedHousing Units by Date Range
$450,000
$400,000
$350,000
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
King
Kitsap
Pierce
Snohomish
Source: Census, ACS
Source: Census, ACS
Single-Family Median Home Price
Source: Census, ACS
Households by Percent Gross Monthly Income Spent on Housing Costs: 1989, 1999, 2005
Single-family median home prices in the region have increased
substantially since 1995.
generations with the costs of rapidly
increasing energy consumption,
chaotic development and a degraded
and unhealthy environment.
But population growth is expected
to continue at a rapid rate. The
central Puget Sound Reality Check
represented an opportunity for a large
and diverse group of government,
business and community leaders to
take a hard look at what that means
for the region, at how that growth
might be channeled so that the
lives of every resident of the region
improve. Regional economic health
and sustainable development truly go
hand-in-hand.
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008 15
The Game
Every day we come to work
and mark our time hour by
hour, day by day, week by
week. This is a time to step
back and mark it decade by
decade, to confront reality as
we know it, as we can truly
predict it, and adjust for it.
Too often we let it happen to
us. This is our chance to take
control of reality.
EMORy ThOMAS, —
PUBLISHER, PUGET SOUND
BUSINESS JOURNAL
The central Puget Sound Reality Check was a unique event
that brought together a large and diverse set of political,
business and community leaders to envision the future of
their region. In so doing, they worked with the best and
most recent information available about population growth
as well as existing transportation and land use resources.
They decided on guiding principles, placed LEGO blocks
representing growth on a board, and listed barriers to their
vision along with solutions.
More than 1,600 individuals were nominated as participants
-- 250 were selected and participated at the Puget Sound
Reality Check. Participants included leaders from large
corporations, small businesses, developers, elected officials,
conservationists, and civic leaders. At the Reality Check
event, each of the 250 invited participants was assigned to
one of 30 tables. Each table had representatives from a wide
variety of backgrounds along with a trained facilitator and
recorder supporting each table’s deliberation. Together, they
were charged with plotting where future growth through 2040
should go, deciding where to place population, jobs, and the
transportation infrastructure to connect them.
The “game board” was a large-format map of the central
Puget Sound region showing towns and cities, major road
and transit corridors, existing jobs and population, protected
areas, and urban growth boundaries. The map was gridded,
with each cell equaling a half mile square (320 acres). Each
table’s game pieces included a set of colored LEGOs used to
allocate projected densities and two colors of yarn to identify
transit and road corridors. Residential and employment
densities increase as LEGOs are stacked together in a
grid cell.
16 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
According to the rules of the exercise,
total growth projections themselves,
based on PSRC projections, were
not negotiable. Furthermore, all
projections were additive—that is,
the growth allocated on the board
was considered an addition to what
already exists.
All of the projected growth represented
by LEGOs was allocated before the
end of the two-hour game board
exercise. Participants were advised to
think big, keep an open mind, and to
be bold and creative in their approach.
Before positioning LEGOs on the
board, participants were invited to
list and prioritize a set of guiding
principles on which they could all
agree. These principles guided the
here is democracy at work. It’s beautiful how people are designing how they want to live, because
really, a city is only a means to a way of life. So, what we are really trying to decide here is: how do
we want to live? What kind of life will make us happier?
ENRIquE PEñAlOSA, — FORMER MAyOR OF BOGOTá, COLOMBIA
I’m hoping that the necessity of being realistic about what we can do, and the ability to set aside the
posturing and the political agendas, will actually get us to some serious planning.
DAvID FREIBOTh, — ExECUTIVE SECRETARy, KING COUNTy LABOR COUNCIL
Is it important for the future to concentrate housing where employment is? Those are the questions
that we are now having to deal with.
FAAlAAINA PRITchARD, — ExECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KOREAN WOMEN’S ASSOCIATION
allocation of growth and transportation
resources symbolized by the LEGO
and yarn allocations.
At their respective tables, participants
then placed LEGOs representing
growth of 1.7 million additional
people and 1.2 million jobs forecast
for the 2000-2040 period. Under the
state Growth Management Act, the
region’s cities and towns have already
adopted local growth targets through
the year 2025, accommodating the
approximately 1 million people and
675,000 jobs of the forecast period.
The placement of the LEGOs took
place in two stages. In the first,
pre-counted packets of LEGOs
representing adopted local 2025
growth targets were placed onto the
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008 17
game board. Participants were invited
to analyze and adjust the placement of
these, if needed, in response to their
particular table’s guiding principles.
In the second stage, they placed
the unsorted LEGOs representing
additional projected growth, along
with colored yarn representing
transportation systems, on the
board. yellow LEGOs represented
residential population and red ones
represented employment (jobs).
Many cells would have a mix of both.
Participants were informed by aerial
photographs that showed examples
of the different stages of density that
they were representing with different
placement decisions.
Placing blue and orange yarn, draped
in place, indicated each group’s
preferences for accommodating
increased mobility needs through
the region. Blue yarn stood for public
high-capacity transit options (streetcar,
light rail, commuter rail, commuter
bus, bus rapid transit, or ferry service),
and orange yarn for upgraded or
new roads.
Black “barrier” cylinders were placed
on the game board map, giving
participants an opportunity to give
voice to special challenges related
to particular locations or conceptual
issues. After initially placing the
LEGOs and yarn, participants were
invited to review, discuss and adjust
their game boards, in light of their own
guiding principles.
The Reality check
Game Board
The game board showed
the central Puget Sound
region’s designated
urban areas, rural and
natural resource lands,
and existing and funded
transportation systems.
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008 19
Instead of a lot of talking heads, it’s hands-on and interactive, making it more real for people.
JONI EARl, — CEO, SOUND TRANSIT
It’s worth taking a day . . . to think, to debate, and to dream a little bit.
DORIS kOO, — PRESIDENT AND CEO, ENTERPRISE COMMUNITy PARTNERS, REALITy CHECK PARTNER
After the board game portion of the
day concluded, data from each table
was collected by volunteers. yellow
and red LEGOs were counted and
recorded on a cell-by-cell basis as
was the presence of different types
of transportation systems. The data
were used not only to assess the
land use pattern and transportation
priorities that each table represented,
but also to extrapolate the net effect on
greenhouse gas emissions.
To arrive at greenhouse gas emission
impacts of each game board scenario,
a new and specialized program
developed by Mithun and the Puget
Sound Regional Council was applied
to the collected data from each of the
cells. This greenhouse gas analysis
tool calculated only those variables
that are highly correlated to density
and distribution of houses and jobs.
Three tables representing diverse
approaches, from relatively dense to
relatively dispersed, were selected
for immediate analysis following the
close of the game and assessed
in the form of a “report-card” that
visually connected land-use decisions
with greenhouse gas emissions and
climate impact.
Local, national, and international
speakers delivered candid insights
and inspiration to the packed room.
Governor Christine Gregoire energized
the Reality Check audience, speaking
of Washington State’s long pioneering
history of environmental leadership
and change. ULI’s Senior Resident
Fellow, Ed McMahon spotlighted
national examples of communities
that have planned for and leveraged
growth to create thriving, sustainable
places. He cautioned that, while our
region is doing many things well,
we still must make changes to curb
sprawling land use patterns. In order
to move to a world-class region,
Enrique Peñalosa, former mayor of
Bogotá, Colombia, spoke of leaders
who have made transformative change
with lasting effects. Hope, mixed with
reality and inspiration, were part of the
Reality Check experience, as regional
leaders thought big and envisioned
what the next thirty years could look
like in the Puget Sound region.
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008 21
Specific Results
Every eight-year old should be
able to walk to a library.
REAlITy chEck TABlE #15 —
One of the really special things
about this process is that
unlike any other metropolitan
region where it’s happened,
we’re looking at our existing
plans for the future. We’re
looking at how they work, and
how to make them work better.
So we’ve got the real stuff on
the table, and we’ve got very
diverse people and interests in
that discussion.
MARy M — ccuMBER, BOARD
MEMBER, FUTUREWISE,
REALITy CHECK PARTNER
The results of the Reality Check visioning exercise include
collected and compiled statements on guiding principles,
barriers and solutions; data from the game boards
themselves; and polling information.
Guiding principlesAs Reality Check participants represented diverse
communities and brought a wide range of viewpoints to the
exercise, it was recognized that total agreement on every
aspect related to growth would not be achievable. Therefore,
tables were asked to identify key guiding principles in which
there was full table agreement and then used those same
shared principles to inform and guide the visioning exercise.
A number of shared guiding principles emerged, including:
create walkable, compact, complete urban centers (all
30 tables): There was a solid consensus on this guiding
principle, with each of 30 tables listing it as a necessary
component of regional growth. The idea of “complete” was
expressed in several ways. Some tables noted a range of
core services such as health care, education and daycare,
while others included technology, art, and culture. Still others
called for preserving historic and neighborhood character.
Protect and preserve the natural environment (25 tables):
Protection and preservation of Puget Sound ecosystems,
preservation of natural resources, and green space
preservation were among the guiding principles that centered
on environmental protection. Throughout the day, participants
mentioned the value of the natural environment in the region
and the need to protect it.
Balance where people live with jobs (23 tables): A strong
majority of tables prioritized a balance of housing and jobs
within urban areas as a guiding principle for growth. One
table noted there should be a variety of housing choices to
match income levels within the community.
22 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
create a variety of housing options
for all (22 Tables): The concept of
diversity was represented in many
ways, such as housing opportunities
for all income levels as well as human
diversity, including age and culture.
Invest in infrastructure (22 tables):
Tables emphasized multi-modal
transportation—transit, auto, bike
and walking—as a value that requires
additional investment to achieve.
Some noted that all new investments
in transportation should be part of
an integrated network of reliable
mobility choices.
Encourage transit-oriented
development (22 tables): Over
two-thirds of tables emphasized the
need to take advantage of transit
investments by encouraging the
development of dense, walkable
communities around transit stations
and nodes. A common theme was
deliberate matching of rail lines with
housing and jobs.
Support the Growth Management
Act (16 tables): The preservation
of the Washington State Growth
Management Act was noted as
a principle to guide successful
regional planning.
Stimulate economic development
(11 tables): Promoting job growth
was an important guiding principle
for many participants. Some tables
I think a lot about the costs of business as usual. If we continue to grow the way we have been
growing without investing in infrastructure, what is the cost of that? What are the environmental
costs, what are the social costs?
MARGARET PAGElER, — MEMBER, CENTRAL PUGET SOUND GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008 23
defined that in more detail, noting the
need to revitalize older urban cores
and maintain industrial zoning.
Transportation and land useIn the Reality Check game itself,
participants created their own ideal
scenarios for relating land use to
transportation systems in the region.
After the two-hour game, dozens of
volunteers counted the population and
job LEGOs placed on each of the cells
at all 30 tables. The result produced
reliable information about how a
diverse sample of political, business
and community leaders would prefer
to see the region develop.
When comparing the 30 separate table
groups’ approaches to land use, some
common patterns emerged:
Jobs and housing within urban
growth boundaries. When all the
cell-by-cell game board data were
compiled, on average 88 percent of
new population and 97 percent of new
jobs were placed within existing urban
growth areas.
Growth within designated centers.
Two-thirds of the tables focused a
significant amount of growth in cities
with designated regional growth
centers. These centers—places
like Seattle’s South Lake Union,
unincorporated Silverdale in Kitsap
This region is incredibly beautiful. But it is also incredibly fragile. And the actual buildable land is
very constrained.
STEPhEN NORMAN, — DIRECTOR, KING COUNTy HOUSING AUTHORITy
24 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
County, downtown Everett, and
downtown Puyallup—are areas that
local jurisdictions have identified as
places that should accommodate a
significant amount of growth. Reality
Check participants largely agreed.
Greater jobs/housing balance.
All tables agreed that the region must
both plan for and achieve a better
jobs/housing balance with enhanced
opportunities for people to live closer
to where they work.
Comparing the 30 tables’ approaches
to transportation, there were some
common themes:
Transportation choices. Participants
clearly recognized the critical need to
make transportation investments of
all kinds, including a variety of transit
options (local and regional buses,
light rail, streetcars, and commuter
rail), roads and freeways, and ferries.
The vast majority of tables focused on
providing new and enhanced transit
service throughout the region.
Transit-oriented development.
Transit-oriented development was
specifically emphasized. Two-thirds
(66 percent) of the tables focused a
significant amount of mixed population
and employment growth around areas
that were identified as having existing
or planned transit stations, and along
transportation corridors. These transit
station areas can accommodate a
wide range of services, including light
rail, commuter rail, bus rapid transit,
and passenger and auto-ferries.
Mixed-use concentrations in these
areas was clearly seen as a good
way to leverage existing and planned
transit investments, and to provide
better access to goods, services, and
regional attractions.
Water-borne transportation. Almost
all (90 percent) of the tables identified
improved water-borne transportation
as a key opportunity. Investments that
were discussed included improved
passenger and auto-ferries, as well as
opportunities to recreate the region’s
“mosquito fleet,” a system of small-
scale water taxis and private ferries
throughout the region, both on Puget
Sound and Lake Washington.
The first takeaway is, we didn’t bring enough yarn for this room. We had any number of folks taking
yarn from empty tables, asking organizers to go out and bring more yarn. What that means it that we
are looking at a lot of investments.
TAylOE WAShBuRN, — PARTNER, FOSTER PEPPER PLLC
The people are here, but the jobs are over there. We don’t have enough transportation available,
either roads or rail or ferry or whatever. So you really get a clear picture of where the bottlenecks are.
— TOM kIlBANE, MEMBER, KITSAP COMMUNITy FOUNDATION
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008 25
26 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
climate change and greenhouse gas emissionsLand use patterns are linked to
greenhouse gas emissions through
the relative dependence on cars that
they represent. Through increasingly
sophisticated models, development
patterns can be correlated with vehicle
miles needed for residents to get to
daily destinations such as work and
shopping. The relative emission of
carbon dioxide (CO2) is a function of
vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Although there are numerous types
of emissions related to real estate
development, the greenhouse gas
analysis looked only at emissions
directly related to the placement of
LEGOs on the game board map.
The Reality Check greenhouse gas
analysis model looked at three factors:
Residential energy consumption —
for space heating and cooling
VMT from compact / mixed-use —
residential development
VMT reductions from proximity to —
high-capacity transit options
For example, tables that placed
housing near transit scored better
than tables that placed housing farther
away. Tables with a mix of housing
and jobs fared better still, reducing
the need to drive. Similarly, tables with
greater residential densities scored
better due to shared walls and lower
energy consumption.
Because the Reality Check exercise
looked at growth through 2040, a
reference case was developed for
the same time horizon. Based on
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency data,
a “business-as-usual” projection for
2040 greenhouse gas emissions was
calculated by assuming that emissions
continued at the same rate from 1990
to the present.
At the event, the placement of jobs
and housing on each of the 30 game
tables was counted and compiled,
producing a real-time CO2 emissions
calculation. Analysis has shown
that Reality Check tables reduced
greenhouse gas emissions by 7.5
to 23 percent below the “business-
as-usual” projections. The average
reduction from all tables was 13
percent. The chart below shows the
scores for each of the 30 tables, along
with several scenarios developed
by PSRC.
A complete, table by table greenhouse
gas analysis can be found at
www.qualitygrowthalliance.org.
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008 27
It surprises me how many people get it—that we have a real serious challenge here as
a species, and we’re going to have to change our behaviors very significantly in order
to deal with that.
GREG NIckElS, — MAyOR, CITy OF SEATTLE
Source: Reality Check Greenhouse Gas Analysis Model
% Reduction of Land-Use Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Tab
le o
r S
cena
rio
no data available for this table15COM
24260322
PGA23161019200128071706091805130221301129122714040825
BAUDIS
DIS = Dispersed Scenario (Vision 2040 DEIS Alternative 4)BAU = Business-as-Usual Scenario (Vision 2040 DEIS Alternative 1)PGA = PSRC Vision 2040 Preferred Growth AlternativeCOM = Compact Scenario (Vision 2040 DEIS Alternative 2)
25.023.0
20.116.716.6
16.115.8
15.515.5
15.115.1
14.714.7
14.014.0
12.512.412.3
12.012.0
11.811.4
10.910.510.5
9.89.6
9.49.3
9.07.5
7.06.0
10%
15%
20%
28 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
land use patterns developed by participantsWhile each of the 30 tables created a unique vision for the future, some similarities emerged. The scenarios
below are examples of four generalized land-use patterns developed by Reality Check participants.
Each produces its own range of benefits and challenges. Several tables placed their LEGOs in ways that
represent a hybrid of these patterns. The impact of these land-use decisions on greenhouse gas emissions
are analyzed as well.
large central cities
Example: Table 24
Greenhouse Gas Reduction from Baseline: 23.0%
Central cities are characterized by compact urban infill and
gradual redevelopment at higher densities. In this scenario,
the bulk of the population was allocated to the five largest
cities. In several places as many as 13 yellow LEGOs were
stacked up, indicating a preference for higher density
development that has no current precedent in our region.
Very few new areas would be developed at less than medium
density. In time, certain key areas would reach densities not
unlike the Chicago Loop or mid-town Manhattan. Central
cities maximize the use of existing infrastructure and provide
the greatest transit accessibility. A more compact urban
form, access to plentiful transit options, and a high degree
of mixed-use development produces the greatest climate
change benefits of any participant scenario.
Density: broad mix, including substantial
medium, high, and very high density areas
uses: most new development mixed-use,
either vertically or horizontally
Transit: sufficient densities to support
diverse options; greatest transit ridership
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008 29
Multiple Regional centers
Example: Table 28
Greenhouse Gas Reduction from Baseline: 14.7%
Rather than concentrating growth in just the largest cities, this
table created distinct regional centers by clustering growth
into well-defined core areas. This higher-density development
helps maintain open spaces at the periphery for recreation or
natural functions. Some regional centers are characterized by
urban infill and the revitalization of existing downtown areas.
Others would emerge as urban areas after making strategic
investments to increase competitiveness for jobs and
housing. These centers typically have groups of 2 to 5 yellow
LEGOs and plentiful jobs to create a mix of uses. When
designed with new transit infrastructure, and transit-oriented
development, these regional centers have the potential for
substantial greenhouse gas reductions.
Density: broad mix, including substantial
medium and high density areas
uses: much new development mixed-use,
either vertically or horizontally
Transit: sufficient densities to support
diverse options; increased ridership
30 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
Town centers and corridors
Example: Table 13
Greenhouse Gas Reduction from Baseline: 12.0%
Town centers are medium density areas that are smaller in
scale than the regional centers, but more compact and mixed
than traditional suburban development. They are frequently
connected to transportation corridors where pockets of
mixed-use housing over retail are surrounded by a variety of
attached single-family and multifamily housing. A sufficient
number of yellow and red LEGOs are placed in these town
centers and corridors to support high-capacity transit such
as light rail and bus rapid transit. Some jobs are located
near housing, but many more jobs are accessible via transit.
There would need to be a fairly substantial number of town
center and corridor developments to assume the bulk of new
growth. This urban form is relatively more compact than the
lower density business-as-usual case, and therefore offers
modest reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
Density: mix of low and medium densities,
with some pockets of high density
uses: some new development mixed-use,
either vertically or horizontally
Transit: specific locations well served by
new transit investment
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008 31
Business As usual / Dispersed Development
Example: Table 8
Greenhouse Gas Reduction from Baseline: 9.0%
The business-as-usual case refers to the simple extrapolation
of current land-use patterns. Some higher-density
development in urban centers will still occur in this scenario,
but the bulk of residential construction would occur as low-
density single-family residences. Many jobs are dispersed
to smaller office and industrial parks, with most employment
and retail separated from residences. At some point, however,
the amount of land available to build at relatively low densities
would likely require the incremental enlargement of urban
growth boundaries. This table also placed a substantial
amount of housing in currently rural areas. Because low-
density, single-use development patterns increase automobile
dependency and vehicle miles travelled (VMT), and increase
household energy demands, maintaining this trajectory could
make reducing our greenhouse gas emissions to target levels
virtually impossible.
Density: mostly very low and low density,
with small areas of medium and high density
uses: mostly single use zoning with pockets
of mixed-use
Transit: most new development largely
automobile dependent
32 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
Barriers Compared to the guiding principles,
tables differed more about the
barriers to realizing their growth
vision; however, common themes did
emerge. These barriers include:
Insufficient infrastructure capacity
(25 tables): Transportation capacity
was the most noted obstacle to
accommodating growth. Tables
emphasized the need for transit,
sidewalks, water, sewer and storm
water management, and facilities
such as hospitals, schools, and parks.
They expressed concern that growth
gets ahead of what infrastructure
can support.
Existing infrastructure funding
mechanisms insufficient (20
tables): In that same vein, tables
identified that current funding for
diverse infrastructure needs falls
short, and accommodating future
growth will require additional
significant investments.
Regulatory gaps within jurisdictions
(18 tables): There was broad
consensus that growth should happen
within urban centers, and tables noted
the following challenges to achieving
greater compact development:
Lack of consistent, predictable —
permitting processes
Inadequate infrastructure —
capacities between jurisdictions
compact development resistance
(18 tables): Tables agreed that
neighborhood “not-in-my-backyard”
response to compact development is a
significant barrier to overcome, as well
the difficulty of broadening homebuyer
acceptance of compact living.
how will kitsap connect with jobs?
REAlITy chEck TABlE #10 —
Many of the issues we are confronting are usually considered in isolation, in their own separate
planning initiatives. By combining climate change with land use decisions, zoning and transportation
infrastructure and looking at it together, that allows us to solve things in a more effective manner.
PATRIck cAllAhAN, — REALITy CHECK CO-CHAIR, CEO OF URBAN RENAISSANCE GROUP
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008 33
Fragmented regional leadership,
authority and jurisdictional
alignment (17 tables): Regional
initiatives, such as transit,
development along transit corridors,
water/sewer/stormwater management,
and response to climate change
were perceived as fragmented and
uncoordinated with regional growth
goals. A major theme revolved
around disconnected centers
with disconnected transit. Several
tables noted that while many urban
jurisdictions are not meeting their
growth targets, unincorporated areas
will absorb significant growth.
Environmental constraints and
issues (14 tables): Difficult and
contradicting environmental
regulations, climate change, and
topographical constraints such
as mountains and water were
among the regional environmental
challenges cited.
Gap in housing affordability (14
tables): The high cost of close-in
housing was identified as a cause for
sprawl. Those who typically earn less
than median income often drive long
distances to employment centers.
Jobs/housing imbalance (9 tables):
The lack of jobs near housing in
Auburn, Maple Valley, Snohomish, and
other smaller cities is an important
challenge to how we grow as a region.
Interestingly, only one table noted
the Growth Management Act’s urban
growth areas as a barrier, suggesting
widespread recognition that growth
should and can continue to take place
within designated growth areas.
34 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
SolutionsUltimately, solutions to the region’s problems with housing, transportation, environmental protection, and
resource conservation are all interrelated. What is most urgently needed, as articulated by participants, fell
into four overarching categories: regional leadership, adequate financing, transit-oriented development,
and education.
Transit-oriented development should be a high
priority. Participants were convinced that intensive
development near transit, with jobs and housing,
would help to preserve rural land and allow
people to go about their lives with many fewer car
trips. Ideas ncluded:
“Preserve green space, farmland”
“Maximize growth in existing areas along
transportation routes”
“Allow lower parking requirements around
transit-oriented development”
Regional leadership will help to align policy
at the level of local jurisdictions. Participants
called for more cooperation between elected
officials, business, and community leaders
to coordinate overall environmental solutions
with land use and transportation. More specific
recommendations included:
“create incentive zoning”
“Encourage private-public partnerships”
“Streamline regulations”
“Institute one carbon authority”
“Streamline decision-making”
“create one transit authority with
interlocal agreements”
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008 35
Expanding infrastructure and transportation
funding makes it possible to build the systems
that serve regional goals and get us where we
need to go. Participants also said that rising
prices that result, in part, from increasing
scarcity of resources will help to put investments
in sustainable transportation systems into
perspective. Participants suggested possible
solutions such as:
“create better jobs/housing balance”
“use federal level metropolitan program
to focus resources and taxes in existing
high-density areas”
“Address funding deficiencies with tax
reform (income tax, use tax)”
“Reward communities for density”
Public education puts the issues of the region into
true economic perspective, and allows people to
make good choices about their own lives and the
future of the region. Tables suggested educational
topics that included:
“Reflect true cost of sprawl”
“create broader understanding of the
connection between housing affordability
with housing type and size”
“Broaden the framework in which we
evaluate transportation options to
include land use, quality of life, and
economic development”
36 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
Polling resultsReality Check participants were polled individually three times during the course of the day-long event.
Using handheld polling devices, participants registered their priorities in the following categories: Guiding
Principles, Barriers, and Solutions. The following table shows percentages of responses that were among
the participants’ top three priorities most critical to address:
Guiding Principles Barriers Solutions
Invest in transportation
22% Lack of regional leadership
23% Invest in transportation
22%
Growth in centers 15% Lack of funding mechanisms
18% Transit-oriented development
19%
Green & resource land preservation
14% Infrastructure capacity
17% Incentives for density in all centers
17%
Affordable housing for all income levels and in all areas
13% Housing affordability
12% Meaningful regional governance
16%
Jobs-housing balance / mixed use
11% Neighborhood resistance to density
10% High capacity transit / ferries
12%
Economic development
9% Jobs & housing out of balance
10% Match jobs with housing
10%
Leverage existing transportation infrastructure
8% Rural / suburban bias toward sprawl
7% Maximize existing infrastructure
10%
Excellent design 5% Lack of open space
3% Education about quality growth
7%
Green building practices
4% Incentives for good design
6%
Better freight mobility
3%
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008 39
Findings
What comes out of this will
be a big second wave and
possibly a new approach
to how we look at growth
management in the region. We
didn’t want to move the urban
growth boundary, and density
was a common theme.
JAy kIPP, — GRADUATE
STUDENT, UW COLLEGE
OF ARCHITECTURE AND
URBAN PLANNING
The principles, barriers, and solutions that emerged in Reality
Check tell us that leaders and opinion-shapers are concerned
about the regional challenges of growth. They believe there
is a link between land use patterns, regional prosperity,
and quality of life for everyone, and they want to grow more
compactly. They are concerned about climate change.
They are ready to work toward solutions, and they demand
effective leadership so that we can protect the beauty of our
natural environment, continue to enjoy economic prosperity,
and ensure that people at all income levels have access to
quality housing near jobs.
Supporting growth management Grouped around 30 tables and placing game pieces
(LEGOs) that represent housing and jobs, 250 Reality Check
participants showed strong support for growth management.
Overall, they strongly concurred with the aggressive goals
that have already been established by regional planning
agencies such as the Puget Sound Regional Council,
affirming them and in some cases, stepping beyond those
goals. In so doing, they found substantial agreement with
models that call for compact development within a half mile of
transit, within urban centers, and within the established urban
growth area boundaries. The following messages emerged:
Guide growth into areas with existing urban infrastructure.
Inside designated boundaries. — On average 88 percent
of new population and 97 percent of new jobs were
placed within existing urban growth areas and consistent
with the Growth Management Act.
Within existing centers. — Furthermore, two-thirds (65
percent) focused a significant amount of growth in
cities with designated regional growth centers. And
these centers—places like Seattle’s South Lake Union,
unincorporated Silverdale in Kitsap County, downtown
40 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
Everett, and downtown Puyallup—
are areas that local jurisdictions
have identified as places that
should accommodate a significant
amount of growth. Reality Check
participants largely agreed.
In accordance with the GMA. — It
is also significant that accordance
with the Growth Management
Act was listed as a core guiding
principle by 16 tables.
connect compact development
with regional mass transit. A polling
of participants, based on a range of
options, yielded a trio of overlapping
and interrelated priorities that reflect
support for growth management ,
including investment in transportation,
growth in urban centers, and the
preservation of green and resource
lands (see polling results on the
preceding page). Transportation
investment stood out clearly as the
top priority.
When the results were compiled, the
aggregate placement of new residents,
jobs and transit systems showed
that Reality Check participants favor
guiding over 50 percent of population
growth to urban centers, and also
over 50 percent to within a half mile
of transit. They would like to see over
Legend
Urban Growth Area
Regional Growth Center
Metropolitan Center
Rural
Forest
Agriculture
Commuter Rail
High-Capacity Transit
Regional Roadway
Ferry
Monorail
Freight Rail
Planning under the
Growth Management ActDesignated urban, rural and
natural resource lands and the
long-range vision for a regional
transportation system.
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008 41
70 percent of new jobs situated in
the same way. This would result in
development that is more compact
than business-as-usual, and nearly
as compact and transit-oriented as
the pattern projected in the guidance
for local growth targets contained
in the VISION 2040 regional growth
strategy adopted by the Puget Sound
Regional Council.
linking land use and mobilityParticipants demonstrated growing
insight that land use and transportation
are intimately connected in the central
Puget Sound region. The many
LEGOs representing housing and jobs
that were added to the game board
showed that as the region continues
to urbanize, the connection becomes
an even more critical one. As parts of
the region become increasingly urban,
automobile traffic will become a more
and more burdensome fact of life.
Plan for transportation choices
rather than dependence on cars.
Participants reiterated again and
again the principle that the region’s
overwhelming reliance on automobiles
for daily transportation needs cannot
be sustained, and that the citizens
of the region need transportation
choices that are efficient, convenient,
and reliable. The desire for increased
transportation choices was
widespread and not limited to the most
rapidly growing municipalities.
Make the major, long-term
investments needed to create
transportation choices. Virtually all
agreed that planning and building
an effective, integrated regional
transportation system requires
large investments. Investment in
infrastructure came in as the fourth
most cited guiding principle, tied
with transit-oriented development at
22 tables. While no single funding
mechanism emerged as a silver bullet,
the tables recognized the critical need
to make transportation investments of
all kinds, including a variety of transit
options (local and regional buses,
light rail, streetcars, and commuter
Whether it’s parks, whether it’s trails—there’s a whole series of investments that have to be made on
a regional basis.
RON SIMS, — KING COUNTy ExECUTIVE
For a community like Everett, our future is higher education. If we can’t educate our citizens,
companies won’t come and business won’t settle there.
RAy STEPhANSON, — MAyOR, CITy OF EVERETT
42 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
rail), roads and freeways, and ferries.
Insufficient infrastructure capacity
was the top barrier to achieving the
overall goals of the region, cited by 25
tables, with transportation capacity as
the biggest problem. Not surprisingly,
other barriers cited represented
obstacles to building the right
infrastructure: existing infrastructure
funding is insufficient (20 tables), and
there is a gap in regional leadership,
authority and jurisdictional alignment
(17 tables).
Protecting the regional and global environmentGeneral concern about the
environment ranked a close second
guiding principle, at 25 tables,
demonstrating that participants feel
that the health of natural ecosystems,
with all they bring to the quality of life
of the region, is threatened.
Preserve the natural environment
as a precious regional asset.
Participants particularly value the
natural environment of the central
Puget Sound region, repeatedly citing
it as a reason that many people decide
to move here—and why people and
businesses stay. They pointed to
the pristine scenery that has always
beckoned to residents, but they also
affirmed the importance of clean
water and air to residents and to the
fragile ecosystems that these key
environmental assets sustain.
There are some important issues that we are all grappling with, and certainly transportation is one
of those, but in addition to transportation, addressing affordable housing, and continuing to respect
the environment.
JAMES kElly, — PRESIDENT, URBAN LEAGUE OF SEATTLE
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008 43
Twenty five tables, the vast majority,
named a “healthy environment” as
one of their guiding principles, and in
polling, 14 percent put “green space
and resource land preservation” as
one of their three top priorities for
the region.
Participants acknowledged that
environmental values are threatened
by fossil fuel consumption, sprawling
patterns of development, and
insensitive construction practices.
They were concerned that time spent
in cars, as well as the number and
length of car trips made, over time,
is a primary cause of costly health
and environmental problems, from
air and water pollution to global
warming. At the personal level, these
same trips are increasingly causing
budget pressure and diminished
family spending power, due to rising
fuel costs.
Develop housing and job
opportunities close together. All
30 tables listed the development of
“walkable, compact, complete urban
centers” as the very highest among
eight guiding principles that should
apply to development in the region.
Three of the guiding principles—
housing and jobs balance (23
tables), diversity in income, age and
ethnicity (22 tables), and economic
development (11 tables) showed
“Just say no [to development],” is unacceptable. you can shape the growth that is going to occur.
you can have a lot of influence about what it will look like and you can have the kinds of facilities and
amenities that will make it work for your community.
GREG NIckElS, — MAyOR, CITy OF SEATTLE
44 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
Our goals must include the creation of highly livable, compact, complete, connected urban
neighborhoods—beautiful ones—that will help us grow cooler.
BERT GREGORy, — PRESIDENT AND CEO, MITHUN
concern for overall opportunity—in
employment and housing—for
everyone in the region. Balance, as
well as progress, was important to
most of the participants.
Most (18 tables) cited jurisdictional
issues as barriers, including:
regulations that discourage developers
from building in places served by
existing infrastructure; regulatory gaps
within jurisdictions; and not-in-my-
backyard (NIMBy) attitudes in existing
neighborhoods.
Gaps in housing affordability: 14
tables noted that the high cost
of housing exacerbates the job/
housing imbalance by forcing
workers and families away from
close-in neighborhoods and into
sprawling suburbs. Lack of jobs near
housing (9 tables) in small cities and
suburbs like Auburn, Maple Valley
and Snohomish adds, in turn, to the
transportation problem.
land use, transportation and climate change linkRegional development patterns,
compact or sprawling, are directly
related to quantities of greenhouse
gases released. The Reality Check
event took place amid growing
awareness that climate change is
a regional and global reality that
threatens the human and natural
environment, and carries mounting
costs to the region, the nation and
the world.
Through a unique computer program
developed for Reality Check and
based on vehicle miles traveled, each
of the 30 participant scenarios were
evaluated to see how they produce
greenhouse gas emissions. They
resulted in reductions ranging from
7.5 to 23 percent below current
projections for our region. The
average reduction from all tables
was 13 percent. We can achieve
these reductions by growing more
compactly and choosing to make
more trips by transit, walking,
or biking.
Attendees repeatedly affirmed that
given a choice, most people would
like to find homes they can afford
in communities that are complete,
compact and walkable. At the same
time, they acknowledged that the
region’s overwhelming current reliance
on cars for everyday transportation
must shift to other modes, including
walking, and that this can only be
accomplished if more people choose
to live in more densely developed,
mixed-use communities.
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008 47
Next Steps
We are growing old fast. Our
opportunities for development,
and response, are not going to
last forever.
MARk EMMERT, — PRESIDENT,
UNIVERSITy OF WASHINGTON
If we don’t take this opportunity
to make the investments
we know we need in order
to get the trust and the
infrastructure…we will have
blown it.
GRANT DEGGINGER, — MAyOR,
CITy OF BELLEVUE
Accommodating 1.7 million new residents and 1.2 million new
jobs in the central Puget Sound region is both a tremendous
opportunity and a formidable challenge. Preparing for it
cannot wait.
Breaking new groundThe bottom line is that the regional planning is in place
to channel growth to urban centers. yet market forces,
regulatory barriers, inadequate investments, and community
opposition are driving development to areas outside of
urban centers at an unsustainable pace, with recent trends
documenting a disproportionate share of growth happening
in rural areas of Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish Counties. If
we want to realize the vision, redoubling our efforts to grow in
urban centers will be essential.
Accordingly, and in keeping with the Growth Management
Act’s urban growth boundaries, Reality Check participants
quickly reached agreement that more jobs and housing
should happen within the established urban growth areas,
and specifically in urban centers and along transportation
corridors. Current low-density development patterns, inside
and outside of the urban growth areas, are inconsistent with
what Reality Check participants and PSRC’s VISION 2040
calls for. Given this strong consensus, it remains unclear how
jurisdictions—and ultimately our region—will face the barriers
identified, grow predominantly within urban growth areas,
and preserve green space.
Reality Check participants envisioned a significant change to
our growth patterns compared to what is happening on the
ground. When polled, participants identified the most critical
barriers to their vision is the need for 1) increased funding to
create more transportation and infrastructure capacity, 2) a
coordinated, cooperative regional leadership approach, 3)
increased housing supply for all income levels near jobs, and
4) reduced public resistance to compact development.
48 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
Overwhelmingly, Reality Check
participants called for greater
leadership and action.
A forward-looking charge…An unprecedented regional
collaboration of the same Reality
Check event organizers, Urban Land
Institute Seattle District Council, Puget
Sound Regional Council, UW College
of Architecture and Urban Planning,
Enterprise Community Partners,
Cascade Land Conservancy, Master
Builders Association of King and
Snohomish Counties, Futurewise, and
the National Association of Industrial
and Office Properties have committed
to providing leadership to overcome
identified barriers to our shared vision
of how we want to grow.
These organizations recently formed
the Quality Growth Alliance (QGA),
to establish common ground and
lead a staffed action agenda forward.
Members of the alliance are committed
to the future of compact development,
as a means to accommodating growth
while reducing the impact on our
natural resources; increasing energy
independence; enabling easier, less
costly access to jobs and services;
and supporting economically vital,
healthy, complete communities.
The elected officials in the room and others who we all vote for and support have got one heck of
a burden on their shoulders. They are going to have to reinvent zoning. They are going to have to
reinvent processes. They are going to have to speed the works because we’ve got until 2040 when
the equivalent of the metropolitan Portland population is here in our region.”
BIll kREAGER, — REALITy CHECK CO-CHAIR, PRINCIPAL, MITHUN
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008 49
To effect change…The Quality Growth Alliance’s unique
collaboration provides the opportunity
for each member organization to
contribute expertise, knowledge
and resources to the Alliance’s work
activities in order to realize the vision
Reality Check participants created.
The Quality Growth Alliance will:
Provide expertise to those —
major cities, suburbs and
neighborhoods where the
greatest amount of growth is
expected, and assist these
areas in becoming walkable,
thriving communities.
Raise awareness of how land —
use affects climate change –
from a regional transit system
with housing near jobs, to
the protection of our region’s
natural environment.
Research compact development —
policy and best practices to help
inform leaders.
Highlight successes by hosting an —
awards program to acknowledge
achievements in compact
development—from recognizing
instrumental political leaders,
groundbreaking jurisdictions,
visionary real estate practitioners,
or neighborhood opinion leaders.
From today we’re starting to see the beginning of a consensus that we can build on to fundamentally
improve this region.
GENE DuvERNOy, — REALITy CHECK CO-CHAIR, PRESIDENT, CASCADE LAND CONSERVANCy
50 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
Reality check today, April 30, is the start of two years of implementation work. We have to take all
of the great ideas that come out of today—all of the energy, all of the vision, all of the inspiration
and excitement, and this time we have to make it work. We have to take our principles and achieve
quality growth.
JOhN hEMPElMANN, — REALITy CHECK CO-CHAIR, CHAIRMAN, CAIRNCROSS AND HEMPELMANN, P.S.
There is opportunity for all of us here to take leadership roles. Growth is a huge opportunity.
PAT cAllAhAN, — REALITy CHECK CO-CHAIR, CEO OF URBAN RENAISSANCE GROUP
Where it has greatest impact…Due to the size of our four-county
region, the work of the Quality Growth
Alliance will prioritize jurisdictions most
interested in change and that expect to
absorb the greatest population growth.
Specifically, these areas include: 1) the
five major cities of Seattle, Bellevue,
Everett, Tacoma, and Bremerton, 2)
suburban cities expecting significant
growth and primed for making change,
and 3) areas surrounding high-
capacity transit nodes.
Final thoughtsNew understanding of the true costs
of sprawl unfolds every day. Where
there is knowledge, there can also be
hope. The central Puget Sound Reality
Check provided a venue and an
opportunity to share knowledge and
imagination, and shape a prosperous
and sustainable future.
The central Puget Sound region,
with its reputation for innovation and
environmental stewardship, has a
unique opportunity to become a model
of sustainable development. Economic
strength, energy independence, and
sustainable land use patterns go hand
in hand. By preserving and building
great places that are compact,
complete, walkable, and served by
an integrated, connected regional
transportation system, we can build
the future we want.
Hope for the continued prosperity and
beauty of our region depends upon
all of us—our imagination, our action
and our long-term investments. Let
the future begin here, in the central
Puget Sound.
52 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
Reality Check and the Quality Growth Alliance Partners
The quality Growth Alliance is an
extraordinary partnership formed by
eight distinct groups with a broad
range of land use interests. These
organizations have come together
with a common goal of working
collaboratively to provide leadership
and action, which will help overcome
the barriers to quality growth in the
central Puget Sound region.
The Quality Growth Alliance is led by
the following groups:
ulI Seattle, a district council of
the Urban Land Institute, has more
than 750 local, active members
representing a full range of disciplines
related to land use and urban
development. Founded in 1936, the
Urban Land Institute is a 501(c)(3)
non-profit research and education
organization supported by its
42,000 members worldwide. The
mission of the Institute is to provide
leadership in the responsible use of
land and in creating and sustaining
thriving communities worldwide. ULI
facilitates the open exchange of ideas,
information, and experience among
local, national, and international
industry leaders and policy makers
dedicated to creating better places.
Puget Sound Regional council
(PSRc) works with local government,
business, and citizens to build a
common vision for the region’s future,
expressed through three connected
major activities: VISION 2040, the
region’s growth strategy; Destination
2030, the region’s comprehensive
long-range transportation plan;
and Prosperity Partnership, which
develops and advances the region’s
economic strategy.
university of Washington college
of Architecture and urban Planning
(cAuP) represents the schools of
architecture, landscape architecture,
urban planning and construction
management at the University of
Washington. The College dedicates
its diverse resources to the tangible
improvement of the built and natural
environments, emphasizing the value
of craft, critical inquiry, social justice,
and sustainability.
Enterprise community Partners is a
national non-profit organization whose
mission is to see that all low-income
people in the United States have
the opportunity for fit and affordable
housing and to move up and out
of poverty into the mainstream of
American life.
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008 53
cascade land conservancy is
Washington’s largest independent
land conservation and stewardship
organization that envisions a
region that combines spectacular
landscapes, a vibrant economy and
great places to live. Their work is
closely tied to communities, including
active volunteer leadership groups in
the Puget Sound four-county region.
Master Builders Association of King
and Snohomish Counties was founded
in 1909 on the goals of actively
working with government to develop
laws that protect the environment while
still providing attractive, affordable
communities and homes for the
families of the Puget Sound region.
Futurewise was founded in 1990
and is a statewide public interest
group working to promote healthy
communities and cities while
protecting farmland, forests, and
shorelines. The organization focuses
primarily on organizing and advocacy
work, as well as providing public
education, legal efforts, and technical
support to local groups.
National Association of Industrial
and Office Properties (NAIOP),
Washington State Chapter is an
organization dedicated to improving
the climate for commercial real estate
development, providing opportunities for
professional development, and creating
a forum for networking and business
improvement. Founded in 1976, the
Chapter has more than 500 members
representing leading firms in commercial
real estate development.
This report was written by clair Enlow.
Additional editorial assistance was
provided by Shawna Sherman and
kelly Mann, ULI Seattle; Ben Bakkenta,
PSRC; and Bill kreager and Robert
Matthews, Mithun.
Design and layout by Ellen Milne, Mithun.
Printing provided by ABC Imaging.
54 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
Reality Check Participants
The following regional leaders were part of the Reality Check event on April 30, 2008.
Private Sectorleaman Abrams, Director of Civic and Community Affairs, Starbucks
Rob Aigner, Sr. Vice President and Regional Manager, Harsch Investment Properties
Matt Anderson, Senior Project Manager, Heartland
Elizabeth Brauninger, President, Meriwether Company, Inc.
David Brewster, Publisher, Crosscut
Gary Bullington, Senior Director, Cushman & Wakefield
Paul Burckhard, V.P., Design, Lozier Homes Corp.
Suzie Burke, Chairperson, History House
Tom Byers, Partner/Principal, Cedar River Group LLC
Jim cade, Principal, Tiscareno Associates
Eric campbell, President, CamWest Development Inc.
Eric cederstrand, Senior Vice President, Colliers International
Al clise, Chairperson/Chief Executive Officer, Clise Properties, Inc.
Sharon coleman, Director, Real Estate Development, Vulcan Inc.
Rick cooper, CEO, The Everett Clinic
Jeffrey cox, Director of Landscape Architecture and Site Design, Triad Associates
Maud Daudon, President, Seattle-NW Securities Corp.
chris Elwell, Executive Secretary, Seattle Building and Construction Trades Council
Nicole Faghin, Director of Planning and Environmental Services Group, Reid Middleton Inc.
hal Ferris, Principal, Lorig Associates
Sandy Fischer, Landscape Architecture/Community Planner, EDAW
lyle Fox, President, LS&E, Inc.
David Freiboth, Executive Secretary-Treasurer, Martin Luther King County Labor Council
Matthew Gardner, Principal, Gardner Johnson LLC
Stephanie Godby, Owner, Lakeview Construction Mgmt, LLC
Patrick Gordon, Principal, Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Architects
David Graybill, President and CEO, Tacoma Chamber of Commerce
Bert Gregory, President/CEO, Mithun
Matt Griffin, Managing Partner, Pine Street Group, LLC
Frederick W. Grimm, President/CEO, Triad Development, Inc.
Mike Gruber, Sr. Development Manager, Security Properties Inc.
Bob Guenther, Labor, IBEW Local 77
Jean hales, President/CEO, South Snohomish County Chamber of Commerce
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008 55
Fred herber, Vice President of Land Development, Bennett Development
Mark hinshaw, Director of Urban Design, LMN Architects
Brian holtzclaw, General Counsel, The McNaughton Group LLC
A. P. hurd, Project Manager, Touchstone Corporation
Sean G. hyatt, Managing Director, Trammell Crow Residential
Shawn Jackson, Director of Site Acquisitions-NW, The Hanover Company
William J. Justen, Managing Director/Real Estate, Samis Land Company
John kane, President/Principal, Kane Environmental Inc.
Patrick kuo, President/CEO, The Cascadia Project LLC
Bill lewis, President/CEO, Lease Crutcher Lewis
Rick little, Director, Real Estate Services, Weyerhaeuser Company Foundation
kathy lombardo, Sr. Vice President, CH2MHill
Robert lubowicki, President, Home Builders Association of Kitsap County
colin lund, Development Manager, yarrow Bay Group
keith Maehlum, VP Development, HAL Real Estate Investments Inc.
Jack Mccullough, Partner, McCullough Hill, PS
Jay McRae, NW Transportation Manager, CH2MHill
Tomio Moriguchi, Chairperson, Uwajimaya, Inc.
Jim Neal, CEO, Metzler North America Corporation
Patrick Neville, Economic Development Research and Policy, Workers Center/Apollo Alliance
kerry Nicholson, Senior Managing Director, Legacy Partners
Betty Nokes, President and CEO, Bellevue Chamber of Commerce
Denny Onslow, Exec. VP/Chief Development Officer, Harbor Properties Inc.
Peter Orser, President, Quadrant Homes
Peter Ostrander, Vice President, Old Republic Title Company
William Palmer, Principal, W.M. Palmer Consultants in Planning and Design
Bill Plautz, Project Manager, Hines Interests Limited Partnership
Jim Potter, Principal, Kauri Investments
linda Pruitt, Owner, Cottage Company
Susan Ranf, Dir. of Transportation and Neighborhood Relations, Seattle Mariners
Ben Rankin, Principal, Pioneer Property Group
Jon Rose, President, Olympic Property Group
Brian Ross, Managing Partner, yarrow Bay Group
charley Royer, President, Institute for Community Change
Jon Runstad, CEO, Wright Runstad & Co.
Judy Runstad, Partner, Foster Pepper
Scott Shapiro, Managing Director, Eagle Rock Ventures LLC
Ron Sher, Principal, Metrovation
Delee Shoemaker, Director State Government Affairs, Microsoft
herb Simon, Member, Simon Johnson, LLC
56 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
Doug Skrobut, President, McCormick Land Co.
Greg Smith, CEO, Urban Visions
Jared Smith, Northwest Manager, Parsons Brinkerhoff
Jim Soules, Principal, Soules Company
Dale Sperling, President/Chief Executive Officer, Unico Properties LLC
Peter Steinbrueck, Principal, Steinbrueck Urban Strategies
Pete Stone, Senior Vice President, ING Clarion Partners
Geoffrey Thomas, Project Manager, Sundquist Homes LLC
Emory Thomas, Publisher, Puget Sound Business Journal
ken Tousley, Development Manager, Mosaic Homes
Shannon underwood, Principal, Underwood Gartland Development
Darrell vange, President, Ravenhurst Development Inc
Dan voelpel, Business Columnist, Tacoma News Tribune
kevin Wallace, Vice President of Acquisition and Development, Wallace Properties, Inc.
Julia Walton, Associate Principal, AHBL, Inc
Jim Warjone, Chairman & CEO, Port Blakely Companies
Elizabeth Warman, Government Relations Manager-NW Region, Boeing
charlie Wenzlau, Principal, Wenzlau Architects
Stuart Williams, Principal, Pacific Real Estate Partners, Inc.
Daniel Williams, Principal, Daniel Williams Architect / Architecture, Urban and Regional Design
Todd Woosley, Housing Specialist, Seattle-King County Association of Realtors
Public SectorElizabeth Albertson, City Councilmember, City of Kent
Sandra Archibald, Dean and Professor, UW Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs
lucia Athens, Green Building Program Manager, City of Seattle, Department of Planning and Development
kenneth W. Attebery,Chief Executive Officer, Port of Bremerton
Sue Blazak, City Councilmember, City of Burien
Bill Block, Project Director-Homelessness, King County
Ted Bottiger, Commissioner, Port of Tacoma
cary Bozeman, Mayor, City of Bremerton
Josh Brown, Commissioner, Kitsap County
Bill center, Senior Advisor, International Fellow Programs, Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs
Greg cioc, Transportation Planning Manager, Kitsap County Public Works
Sally clark, Councilmember, Seattle City Council
Judy clibborn, Washington State Representative, 41st District
Reality Check Participants
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008 57
Dow constantine, Councilmember, King County
Grant Degginger, Mayor, City of Bellevue
kevin Desmond, General Manager, King County Metro Transit
Jan Drago, Councilmember, City of Seattle
Joni Earl, CEO, Sound Transit
Dave Enslow, Mayor, City of Sumner
Richard Ford, Commissioner, WA State Transportation Commission
leonard Forsman, Chairman, Suquamish Tribe
Daniel Friedman, Dean and Professor, UW College of Architecture and Urban Planning
Anne Fritzel, Senior Planner, WA State Dept. of Community, Trade & Economic Development - Growth
Management Services
Michael Grayum, Director of Government and Community Relations, WA Dept. of Natural Resouces
christine Gregoire, Governor, State of Washington
Paula hammond, Secretary of Transportation, WA State Department of Transportation
Andrew Glass-hastings, Strategic Advisor, City of Seattle
Jeannette henderson, Director of Real Estate, University of Washington
kim herman, Executive Director, Washington State Housing Finance Commission
Tom hingson, Transportation Services Director, Everett Transit
lee huntsman, President Emeritus, University of Washington
laura Iddings, Mayor, City of Maple Valley
Ric Ilgenfritz, Executive Director, Office of Policy, Planning and Public Affairs, Sound Transit
Fred Jarrett, Washington State Representative, 41st District
Michele Johnson, Chancellor, Pierce College District
Bruce kendall, President & CEO, Economic Development Board for Tacoma-Pierce County
Deborah knutson, President and CEO, Economic Development Council of Snohomish County
John ladenburg, Executive, Pierce County
Mark lamb, Mayor, City of Bothell
Denis law, Mayor, City of Renton
Pete lewis, Mayor, City of Auburn
Doug MacDonald, Former WA Secretary of Transportation
John Marchione, Mayor, City of Redmond
Joe Marine, Mayor, City of Mukilteo
Pat Mcclain, Governmental Affairs Director, City of Everett
helen McGovern, Councilmember, City of Lakewood
Dennis Mclerran, Executive Director, Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
Norman Mcloughlin, Executive Director, Kitsap County Housing Authority
lanie McMullin, Executive Director, City of Everett
Bill McSherry, Director of Economic Development, Puget Sound Regional Council
Steve Nicholas, Director, City of Seattle, Office of Sustainability and Environment
carla Nichols, Mayor, Town of Woodway
58 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
Greg Nickels, Mayor, City of Seattle
Stephen Norman, Executive Director, King County Housing Authority
Maren Outwater, Director of Data Systems and Analysis, PSRC
Margaret Pageler, Board Member, Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board
Steve Perrenot, Director of Public Works, Fort Lewis
clare Petrich, Commissioner, Port of Tacoma
larry Phillips, Councilmember, King County
Ron Posthuma, Assistant Director, King County Dept of Transportation
Adrienne quinn, Director, City of Seattle Office of Housing
Steve Reynolds, Chairperson, President and CEO, Puget Sound Energy
christine Rolfes, Washington State Representative, 23rd District
cindy Ryu, Mayor, City of Shoreline
Steve Sarkozy, City Manager, City of Bellevue
carol Simpson, Councilmember, City of Newcastle
Ron Sims, Executive, King County
Sue Singer, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Auburn
Tom Smallwood, Mayor, City of Eatonville
Gregg Snyder, VP of Capital Development, Pierce Transit
larry Springer, Washington State Representative, 45th District
Ray Stephanson, Mayor, City of Everett
Bob Stowe, City Manager, City of Bothell
Diane Sugimura, Director, City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development
Arthur Sullivan, Program Manager, A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH)
Tom Tierney, Executive Director, Seattle Housing Authority
Tom Rasmussen, Councilmember, City of Seattle
lisa utter, Councilmember, City of Lynnwood
Donnetta Walser, Mayor, City of Monroe
Dianne White, Mayor, City of Stanwood
Phyllis Wise, Provost and Executive Vice President, University of Washington
Ben Wolters, Economic Development Coordinator, City of Kent
David yeaworth, Legislative Aide, Seattle Councilmember Sally Clark
Tay yoshitani, CEO, Port of Seattle
Reality Check Participants
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008 59
Non-Profit OrganizationsBruce Agnew, Director, Cascadia Center
Sue Ambler, CEO, Workforce Development Council Snohomish County
Jay Arnold, President, Futurewise
chuck Ayers, Executive Director, Cascade Bicycle Club
Patrick Bannon, Communications Manager, Bellevue Downtown Association
Allison Butcher, Public Affairs Director, Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties
cheryl cobbs, Executive Director, Solid Ground
Mike crowley, Executive Officer, Master Builders Association of Pierce County
Alan Durning, Executive Director, Sightline Institute
Gene Duvernoy, President, Cascade Land Conservancy
Peter Dykstra, WA State Director, Trust for Public Land
Felix Flannigan, Executive Director, Martin Luther King Housing Development Association
Tom Flavin, President/CEO, enterpriseSeattle
kathy Fletcher, Executive Director, People for Puget Sound
Scott Greenburg, Vice President, American Planning Association-WA Chapter
Bill Grinstein, Chair, Washington State Higher Education Coordinating Board
Dr. Andrew harris, Founder, African American Partners for Prosperity
Jennifer Jerabek, South Snohomish County Manager, Master Builders Association of King and
Snohomish Counties
Rob Johnson, Regional Policy Director, Transportation Choices Coalition
kate Joncas, President, Downtown Seattle Association
James kelly, President/CEO, The Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle
kristen kelly, Smart Growth Director and Snohomish/Skagit County Program Director, Pilchuck Audubon Society
and Futurewise
Tom kilbane, President, Kitsap Community Foundation
Jay kipp, University of Washington College of Architecture and Urban Planning
charles knutson, Vice President, Public Affairs, Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce
Doris koo, President & CEO, Enterprise Community Partners
Steve leahy, President & CEO, Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce
Sharon lee, Executive Director, Low Income Housing Institute
Al levine, Deputy Executive Director, Seattle Housing Authority
David levinger, President, The Mobility Education Foundation
Sarah lewontin, Executive Director, Housing Resources Group
Marilyn Mason-Plunkett, President & CEO, Hopelink
Mary Mccumber, Board Member, Futurewise
Michael McGinn, Director, Seattle Great City Initiative
David Miller, President, Maple Leaf Community Council
kollin Min, Director, Enterprise Community Partners
cary Moon, Director, People’s Waterfront Coalition
60 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
Steve Mullin, President, Washington Roundtable
Mike O’Brien, Chapter Chair, Sierra Club-Cascade Chapter
carla Okigwe, Executive Director, Seattle/King County Housing Development Consortium
Ed Petersen, Executive Director, Housing Hope
lua Pritchard, Executive Director, Korean Women’s Association
lisa quinn, Executive Director, Feet First
kathy Roseth, Chief Operations Officer, Plymouth Housing Group
Dr. leon F. “Skip” Rowland, Executive Director, Urban Enterprise Center, Greater Seattle
Chamber of Commerce
Rita Ryder, President, Strategic Initiatives, yWCA
Marilyn young Skogland, Program & Business Development Manager, Manufacturing Industrial Council
Gregg Small, Executive Director, Climate Solutions
chantal Stevens, Executive Director, Sustainable Seattle
Phil Sullivan, Executive Director, Senior Services of Snohomish County
chas Talbot, Director of Operations, Regional Commission on Airport Affairs
chris Townsend, Special Assistant to the Executive Director, Puget Sound Partnership
Jeremy valenta, Rainier Valley Coalition for Equitable Development
Bryan Wahl, Government Affairs Director, Washington Association of Realtors
Irene Wall, President, Phinney Ridge Community Council
Alison carl White, Executive Director, Seattle Works
Steve Whitney, Program Officer, Bullitt Foundation
Reality Check Participants
62 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
Reality Check had tremendous support from volunteer facilitators and recorders that guided inclusive
dialogue at the tables and documented key comments and data. Data collection and synthesis was carried
out by results volunteers. Both volunteer groups were in large part responsible for the success of the
Reality Check event.
Wendy Abeel, Mithun
Mike Anitas, Vine Studio
Stephen Antupit, Mithun
layne Alfonso, GeoEngineers
kristin Anderson
Anne Avery, Puget Sound Regional Council
christine Bae, UW College of Architecture and
Urban Planning
Rebecca Baker, PRR
chad Barron, Pioneer Property Group
Andrea Barry, Parsons Brinkeroff
catherine Benotto, Weber Thompson
Gayle Berens, ULI Center for the West
Dan Bertolet, GGLO
Nancy Bird, EDAW
Steffenie Birkeland Evans, Legacy Partners
leslie Boelter, Nyhus Communications
Grace Borland, Grubb & Ellis Company
Rita Brogan, PRR
Scott carley, Sierra Club
caren chandler, Grubb & Ellis Company
Erin christensen, Mithun
Rachel clad, ULI Seattle
Stefan coe, Puget Sound Regional Council
Nate cole-Daum, Nyhus Communications
Tiana coll, Enterprise Community Partners
lacey Davidson, Touchstone Corporation
Jim Delisle, UW College of Architecture and
Urban Planning
Midori Dillon, Cairncross & Hempelmann
Patrick Doherty, City of Federal Way
Susan Drummond, Foster Pepper
clair Enlow, Freelance writer
Marija Ereminate, HomeStreet Bank
Ryan Espegard, Futurewise
Renee Evans, Urban Renaissance Group
kane Fenner, Intracorp
Joe Ferguson, Pioneer Property Group
heather Flint-chatto, University of Washington
Bill Fuller, Fuller Sears
Greg Gartrell, Housing Consultant
Marta Goldsmith, Urban Land Institute
Gabe Grant, HAL Real Estate Investments
Darren Greve, King County-Water and
Land Resources
Mark Griffin, Port of Seattle
kamuron Gurol, City of Sammamish
charlie hafenbrack, GLy Construction
Nick hartrich, Sustainable Connections
kirsten hauge, PRR
Juan hernandez, Mithun
Michael hintze, AHBL
chris hoffman, Norton Arnold
carrie holmes, Axis Planning & Development
Matt holzemer, Lorig Associates
Mauri Ingram, Trillium Development
Bassam Jurdi, Kennedy Associates
Shannon kearney, Norton-Arnold & Company
Sean keithly, ULI Seattle
Nathan korpela, Washington Real Estate Holdings
Volunteers
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008 63
yvonne kraus, O’Brien & Co.
Rachel krefetz, Housing Development Consortium
Mary Pat lawlor, , Puget Sound Regional Council
Michele leslie, Puget Sound Regional Council
katie lichtenstein, Sound Transit
Sandra Mallory, City of Seattle
Meredith Messmer, Lorig Associates
chris Meyer, Legacy Partners
kate Miller, The Fearey Group
Sarah Miller, Washington State House
of Representatives
Jeffrey Munger, Kennedy Associates
Natalie Newton, ULI Seattle
Sara Nikolic, Futurewise
Jason Oliveira, Weinstein A|U
Ted Panton, GGLO
Monica Parikh, Metzler NA
Tom Posey, CBRE
Jessica Powers, Wright Runstad & Company
kirk Rappe, UW College of Architecture &
Urban Planning
Michael Read, ReadWaggoner
lisa Richmond, AIA-Seattle
Amanda Righi, Mithun
kevin Saxton, ULI Oregon; Kasa Architects
Mike Schechter, Foster Pepper
Gabriel Scheer, Zipcar
Andrew Schmid, Sound Transit
Ann Schuessler, Rafn
Brad Shinn, CH2MHill
lucy Sloman, City Works, Inc.
Monica Smith, BlueGreen Development
Amanda Sparr, Norton-Arnold & Company
katie Spataro, ULI Seattle
catherine Stanford, CA Stanford Consulting
Marc Stiles, Nyhus Communications
Mark Stoner, Peter Stoner Architects
Bob Taunton, ULI Idaho
kevin Thompson, PRR
karen True, Third Place Company
Roger van Dyken, Legacy Project
Marcia Wagoner, ReadWaggoner
Mark Wainwright, GGLO
Greg Walker, Sound Transit
Julie Walker, UrbanTrans Consultants, Inc
Steve Walker, Washington State Housing
Finance Commission
kimbra Wellock, PRR
Scott Williamson, University of Washington
kristine Wilson, Perkins Coie LLP
64 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
Two years in the making, Reality Check was
the product of a group of dedicated volunteer
leaders as diverse as the participants invited to
play the game that day.
The Reality Check co-chairs were Pat Callahan,
CEO of Urban Renaissance Group; John
Hempelmann, Chairman of Cairncross &
Hempelmann, P.S.; Gene Duvernoy, President of
Cascade Land Conservancy; and Bill Kreager,
Principal of Mithun. Each of these individuals
provided countless hours, championing Reality
Check’s vision from concept to execution.
As the lead partner, ULI Seattle and the Urban
Land Institute shared a special role in bringing
Reality Check to this region. In particular,
Suzanne Cartwright’s national-level Reality
Check regional visioning expertise and strategic
thinking were instrumental in carrying out the
event locally. Together, former ULI Seattle chair
Pat Callahan and current chair Greg Johnson
cemented local leadership, resources and staff
to forge an unlikely alliance among partner
organizations committed to working together
over the coming years. Lastly, ULI’s development
of Reality Check—a simple map, LEGOs and a
neutral forum for diverse participants to discuss,
negotiate and think big about growth—was
a tremendous asset to bring to the Puget
Sound region.
Ensuring the event’s critical path, project
managers Shawna Sherman and Kelly Mann of
ULI Seattle contributed significantly to the overall
event’s success. But the group of organizers
and “worker bees” who labored together for
months to put on the Reality Check event was
a committed group. The event’s leadership and
committee members included:
Ben Bakkenta, Puget Sound Regional Council
Jessica clawson, McCullough & Hill
Mark huppert, The McNaughton Group
Robert Matthews, Mithun
Mary Mccumber, Futurewise
kate Miller, The Fearey Group
Jim Neal, Metzler North America
kerry Nicholson, Legacy Partners
Natalie quick, The Fearey Group
Dan Stonington, Cascade Land Conservancy
Tayloe Washburn, Foster Pepper
chuck Wolfe, Attorney at Law
Leveraging an extraordinary educational
opportunity, the Reality Check team, and
specifically Robert Matthews of Mithun,
developed the first Reality Check greenhouse
gas analysis in the country. Using PSRC’s
research data, Mithun broke new ground,
creating analyses to present how land use
scenarios affect climate change.
PowerPoint presentations and video were also
created by Mithun with special thanks to Curt
Pliler and Juan Hernandez.
EDAW generously contributed keypad polling
presented by Brian Scott. Photography by Todd
Bronk and Michael Schuler was also provided
by EDAW.
Reality Check exercise facilitation and training
was provided by Margaret Norton-Arnold of
Norton-Arnold & Company.
Recognition
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008 65
SponsorsStewards
Benefactor
Patrons
Supporters
Friends
Media Sponsor
66 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008
Regional Resources
Interested in learning more about land use and growth in the Puget Sound region?
The following organizations provide substantial online resources on these subjects:
quality Growth Alliance and Reality check
quality Growth Alliance, www.qualitygrowthalliance.org
Reality check, www.realitycheck2008.org
Partner Organizations of quality Growth Alliance and Reality check
ulI Seattle, www.seattle.uli.org
Puget Sound Regional council, www.psrc.org
university of Washington college of Architecture and urban Planning, www.caup.washington.edu
Enterprise community Partners, www.enterprisecommunity.org
cascade land conservancy, www.cascadeland.org
Futurewise, www.futurewise.org
Master Builders Association of king and Snohomish counties, www.mba-ks.com
NAIOP - Washington State chapter, www.naiopwa.org
Related quality Growth Resources
ulI - The urban land Institute, www.uli.org
Brookings Institution, www.brookings.edu
Smart Growth America, www.smartgrowthamerica.org
Municipal Research and Services center of Washington, www.mrsc.org
Prosperity Partnership, www.prosperitypartnership.org
Puget Sound Partnership, www.psp.wa.gov
Sightline Institute, www.sightline.org
clean Air Agency, www.pscleanair.org
climate Solutions, www.climatesolutions.org
ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008 67
Are you interested in getting involved in the next phase of
Reality Check? Here are four ways you can help:
Register on-line to stay informed and download —best practices;
Let us know which areas could benefit from —technical assistance;
Schedule a Reality Check presentation in your —jurisdiction or for your organization;
Help us identify key stakeholders who might be —
interested in joining our committees.
We need your involvement. We invite you to join the effort.
Check us out at www.qualitygrowthalliance.org or call:
Shawna ShermanCommunity outreach director
uLi Seattle
206-224-4504
shawna.sherman@uli.org
seattle@uli.org
Climate Change Analysiseach Reality Check growth scenario was analyzed using
a new greenhouse gas analysis. to learn how each table
scored, please visit the Quality growth Alliance website,
www.qualitygrowthalliance.org.
Participant GuidebookWant to know more? Check out the Participant guidebook
that was sent to all 250 participants for the April 30th, 2008
event. it can be found at www.realitycheck2008.org.
Contact Us
© Mithun/Robert Matthews
top related