puget sound region - quality growth alliance

P u g e t S o u n d R e g i o n

Final Report designed by Mithun.

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


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.

4 ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008

The Quality Growth Alliance


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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



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.


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%


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


Multiple Regional centers

Example: Table 28


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,


Transit: sufficient densities to support

diverse options; increased ridership


Town centers and corridors

Example: Table 13


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,


Transit: specific locations well served by

new transit investment


Business As usual / Dispersed Development

Example: Table 8


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


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


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.


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”


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”


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 37ULI Puget Sound Reality Check 2008 37


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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



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


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



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


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 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


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


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


SponsorsStewards

Benefactor

Patrons

Supporters

Friends

Media Sponsor


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


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

[email protected]

[email protected]

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

700 Fifth Ave, Suite 6100

Seattle, WA 98104

www.seattle.uli.org

206.224.4500

www.realitycheck2008.org | www.qualitygrowthalliance.org

puget sound region - quality growth alliance

Documents