Memo to Seattle Planning Commission - Assignment Example

The Chair, Seattle Planning Commission – Joshua Brower Hiroshi Maruyama The Public Hearing heard by the Seattle Planning Commission (July 8, 2010) to examine Proposed Amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Date: January 12, 2011 This memo presents a summary of debate and comment on the proposed amendments to the City of Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan, 2010-11. Debate and comment was made at the Public Hearings heard on Thursday July 8, 2010, by the Committee on the Built Environment. This memo covers for your information: A brief overview of the annual Comprehensive Plan; A list of criteria used to select the proposed amendments under consideration; A summary of comments made by members of the public with regard to the Comprehensive Plan. Sally Clark, the Chair of the Committee on the Built Environment, opened the Public Hearing at 5:30, in the Seattle City Council Chambers. Also present were Vice-Chair Tim Burgess, and Council Member Sally Bagshaw.1 Three basic categories of debate and comment were heard on the evening: a) development proposals in urban areas; b) neighborhood planning; and c) complaints regarding the process of the plan amendment process. THE PROCESS FOR ADOPTION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Management Plan of the City of Seattle is open to amendments once a year, according to the Washington State Growth Management Act.2 During 2010, the schedule for the submission, proposal and adoption of specific amendments to be examined was as follows: May 14, 2010: Deadline for the submission of a maximum of 10 applications;3 June 19, 2010: Introduction and briefing regarding the proposed amendments to the Council Committee on the Built Environment;4 July 8, 2010: Public Hearing at which particular proposals are considered, at which argument for or against proposals may be raised, and the proposals to go forward are evaluated; July 14, 2010: Briefing of Committee and further discussion to determine which proposed amendments will be given further review and analysis, in light of the commentary at the Public hearing; July 28, 2010: Voting is conducted;5 December 1, 2010: Final recommendations on the proposed amendments are submitted to the Council.6 SELECTION CRITERIA FOR AMENDMENTS Specific criteria are considered by the City Council in identifying amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, according to Resolution 30976, adopted on May 14, 2007. These criteria can be categorized under the following central statements as follows: A. The amendment is appropriate for the Comprehensive Plan. B. The amendment is legal. C. It is practical to consider the amendment. D. There has been a neighborhood review process to develop and proposed change to a neighborhood plan, or a neighborhood review process can be conducted prior to final Council consideration of the amendment.7 For the amendment to be appropriate, it has to be in line with the State Growth Management Plan, referred to above. Likewise, it should not contradict national planning, nor should it be possible to implement it by a change in regulations only. If the amendment could be implemented by changes to budget, or already existing programs, or processes, it will not be adopted. Further, the timing, the available staffing requirements suggested by an amendment, and the information available for analysis of the proposal will be considered. Only when the Mayor or Council are in favor of changing policy significantly, if necessary, as proposed by a specific amendment, will it be considered, as long as it does not as mentioned, contradict the Comprehensive Plan. If a proposal has been rejected by the City Council already, it may not be re-tabled. Finally, it must not break national or state laws. SUMMARY: PUBLIC COMMENTARY AND DEBATE The first proposed amendment (Proposed Amendment Number One: PA #1) was tabled by the Department of Planning and Development.8 The essence of the proposal included the suggested update of the shoreline master program, to include comment on a container port element; a reduction in the number of miles traveled by vehicles; the authorization of mater planned communities on large sites; and updated neighborhood plans for North beacon Hill, North Rainier, and Othello. Public comment raised at the Hearing on the proposed amendment came from two residents of Othello, firstly. Patricia Pascal noted that the effect of the proposed amendments had not been well-examined by the City authorities. Mona Lee commented that increased density could be a very good thing but only if a neighborhood is well-designed, and it is geared toward pedestrian use. She commented that other cities had proven success with well-structured, dense settlements of their own. A resident from the central district, Bill Bradford, objected to the fact that a memo from Diana Sugimura had supported all the amendments from City bodies, even though these lacked detail and substance, while many citizens had submitted detailed proposals, not recommended.9 He questioned the process that guaranteed City government proposals a place in the 10 amendments to be forwarded, even if they were inferior in presentation and detail, in favor of citizen-suggested amendments that had the interests of neighborhoods and of the people in a community as their focus. The Department of Planning and Development (DPD) proposals are, according to Bradford, designed to keep a place open within the 10 amendments to be forwarded, rather than seriously planned and considered. Chris Leman10 then raised the second proposed amendment (PA #2), which covered ways to minimize unnecessary damage by heavy vehicles. The DPD recommended that this proposal be rejected outright, without consultation with the Department of Transport or the UW. Public vehicles are causing extensive damage, running into millions of dollars annually, to public roads and bridges because their weight cannot be supported by these roads and bridges. Privately owned vehicles are closely monitored and regulated to prevent excess weight and are restricted carefully. The same standards of regulation should be enforced on city and County-owned vehicles. A proposal (PA #3) to ensure an element of open and participatory government was then aired by Chris Leman.11 Bill Bradford supported this proposed amendment by adding that growth targets set and decided upon by the City should be reached only after an open, consultative process with the citizens of the City. Leman further reminded the Hearing that the City Council had unanimously approved Resolution 31049, in April 2009, committing the City to the development of a coordinated plan and policy on open government, outside the Comprehensive Plan.12 Further the Council had resolved to consider amendments to the Comprehensive Plan regarding open and participatory government in 2009. A further proposal introduced by Chris Leman (PA #4) set out new goals for the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan.13 He argued that the Plan had to do with more than just land use: rather it included the areas of transportation and infrastructure. Irene Wall14 suggested that all changes in the areas of residential growth, as well as job growth targets should be reviewed by neighborhood planning committees before they were adopted by the City Council, or the County authorities. No further comment was made on this proposed amendment (PA #5). Acting for the Seattle Displacement Coalition,15 John Fox introduced a proposed amendment (PA #6) to set new goals and policies, or change existing goals and policies related to infrastructure, public participation and the replacement of existing affordable housing. Fox’s argument began by highlighting that the language used in goal and policy documents does not read well or clearly enough to justify substantial changes to infrastructure which would be caused by increased density or new zoning of areas. He noted that while the proposed changes had been discussed at the Puget Sound Council, there was no level of participation in that forum. The concern Fox noted in addition were that the City would lose housing for families with children due to the proposed increases in density. He added that it was possible to increase the density in areas without losing existing housing, and in legal ways. But the existing proposed amendment would have to be changed substantially in order for that to be possible. The North Beacon Hill Community Planning Team, represented by Frederica Merrell, 16 in the next proposed amendment(PA #7), suggested that alternative goals and policies were required to replace or complement the goals and policies put forward by the DPD. According to Merrell, the alternative goals and policies developed by the North Beacon Hill Community Planning Team were effective. They included updates to public safety, and arts and culture plans, among others, and were innovative and progressive. The strength of the suggestions was in the support they have from the community, unlike the DPD goals and policies in isolation. A resident of North Beacon Hill, Mila Latoszek, supported Merrell’s comments. She argued that the Planning Team amendments allowed the vision of the community to be understood more clearly. Bill Bradford, from the central district commented further to note that the neighborhood plan of the DPD did not follow the required review process. Another resident of North Beacon Hill, Craig Lerch, added that the community welcomed the spirit of the proposed changes, but required the proposed amendments to be more comprehensive. From the representative of the Roosevelt Development Group,17 Edward Hewson, the gathering heard commentary on the rezoning criteria and the future land use map (PA #8). Further comment from Jim O’Halloran, chair of the Roosevelt Neighborhood Association indicated the lack of community support for the proposal. It was argued that the proposed amendment contradicted and undermined the Roosevelt Neighborhood Plan. O’Halloran noted that the references in the application had not contained any references to, or discussion of comprehensive plan amendments, when the application was presented at specific community meeting. In response, the chair member of the Council speaking for the Roosevelt Development Group, Jack McCullough, commented that community support was one of the criteria for the acceptance of a proposed amendment. In addition, the Roosevelt Development Group had received comment from a fair representation of the community as early as a year earlier. Also, nearly two years’ discussion had been engaged in relating to the proposed amendment. This point was strengthened by Ed Hewson, the CEO of paragon Real Estate Advisors18 with the comment that much feedback had been received from a previous application for the amendment, and that the community had been involved in extensive conversation about this matter for at least two years previously. Kevin Ryder, a partner at the Hewitt architectural firm19 noted that the increasing density made the Light Rail potentially viable and was an obviously sustainable solution for the future of the community in question. Don Vehige, a resident of Roosevelt, and a resident architect at GGLO20 made the point that increasing density would improve the community’s chances of leveraging the multi-million dollar investment which would be needed for development. In addition, according to John Breiner, CFO of Paragon Real Estate Advisors,21 the proposed amendment would allow for the growth of Roosevelt without compromising the community’s character: residential and business change would maintain the commercial color of Roosevelt. Greenhouse gas emissions would also decrease as a result of proposed changes, and the public would benefit from the investment in the Light rail Station, according to Breiner. For American Life, Henry Liebman proposed another amendment: that the neighborhood plan for Greater Duwamish be expanded to promote a wider range of uses in the SODO subarea (PA #9). Roger Pearce, an attorney at Foster Pepper,23 maintained that the SODO is different from marine industrial areas. Hence the request for a modest increase in general sales and administrative office allocations would be appropriate. According to Pearce, a high tech office development would not be out of place. Kiki Gram,24 a resident on a property close to the Jackson Residential Urban Village proposed that the Urban Village be expanded to include her block (PA #10). Her reasoning was that the block on which her property is situated is important to the residents of three neighborhoods: Leschi, Madrona, and Central District. Thus, the specific block would be seen as the gateway to these neighborhoods, and the potential of what could be developed in those neighborhoods with proper planning would become clearer. The chair of the meeting closed the Hearing reminding attendees that they would be required to make final recommendations regarding to rejection or acceptance of the proposed amendments by July 28, 2010. Their considerations should, Sally Clark stressed, be based on the selection criteria in Resolution 30976, and comment by the public as summarized in this memo. FINAL COMMENTS A number of tensions are revealed in the commentary by the public on the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Perhaps the most evident tension is in the public feeling, in certain quarters, that the process of adopting amendments for review and further action is flawed (see PA #s 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8). Numerous residents and neighborhood groups suggest that the city planners do not take local feelings or points of view into consideration when determining the acceptability of amendments. It is also suggested that places for amendments are “reserved” among the ten allocated for debate by the City’s departments. See particularly Bill Bradford’s comments regarding amendments that are incomplete, but approved for Public Hearing when they originate from City organizations (PA #1). The actual conduct of the City authorities is also called into question, when it is argued that private companies are more strictly regulated than the City’s employees and policies (see PA #2). The feeling seems widespread that neighborhood organizations have a great deal more to offer than they are being given credit for, as indicated in the debate around PA #7. The outcome of the Public Hearing as heard on July 28, 2010 is not easy to summarize. What is clear, however, is that plans to develop the city are considered, and that many of these plans provoke high emotions among the citizenry of the City. This open, democratic debate of such issues is sure to mean that planning is implemented with the best possible intentions, and that any mistakes made are not as a result of oversight or lack of participation of interest groups. NOTES AND REFERENCES 1 Seattle Channel, “Committee on the Built Environment Public Hearing 7/8/2011,” http://www.seattlechannel.org/videos/watchVideos.asp?program=be 2 Washington State Department of Commerce, “Growth Management Services Overview of the Growth Management Act,” http://www.commerce.wa.gov/_CTED/documents/ID_892_Publications.pdf 3 Seattle City Council, “Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments,” City of Seattle, http://www.seattle.gov/council/comp_plan/201011amendements.htm (accessed January 7, 2011) 4 Seattle City Council, “Timeline of Specific Comp Plan Related Dates,” City of Seattle, http://www.seattle.gov/council/com_plan_/default.htm (accessed January 7, 2011) 5 Ibid. 6 Seattle City Council, “Comprehensive Plan Amendment Final Action,” City of Seattle, http://www.seattle.gov/council/com_plan_/default.htm (accessed January 7, 2011) 7 City Clerk’s Online Information, “Resolution Number: 30976,” City of Seattle, http://clerk.seattle.gov/~scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s2=&s4=&Sect4=AND&1=20&Sect2=THESON&Sect3=PLURON&Sect5=RESNY&Sext6=HITOFF&d=RESF&p=1&u=/~public/resny.htm&r=1&f=G 8 Diane Sugimura, “Recommendations for Comprehensive Plan Amendments, May 14, 2010” http://www.seattle.gov/council/comp_plan/amend/2010dpd_placeholders.pdf 9 Diane Sugimura, “DPD Preliminary Recommendations for 2010 Comprehensive plan Docket, June 30, 2010” http://www.settle.gov/council/attachments/2010-6-30dpd_recs.pdf 10 Chris Leman, “City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application, May 15, 2010” http://www.seattle.gov/council/comp_plan/amend/2010leman_heavy_vehicles.pdf 11 Ibid. at http://www.seattle.gov/council/comp_plan/amend/2010leman_open_gov.pdf 12 City Clerk’s Online Information, “Resolution Number: 31049,” City of Seattle, http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s2=&s4=&Sect4=AND&1=20&Sect2=THESON&Sect3=PLURON&Sect5=RESNY&Sext6=HITOFF&d=RESF&p=1&u=/~public/resny.htm&r=1&f=G 13 Ibid. op.cit. at http://www.seattle.gov/council/comp_plan/amend/2010leman_vmt.pdf 14 Irene Wall, “City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application, May 15, 2010,” http://www.seattle.gov/council/comp_plan/amend/2010wall_growth_target.pdf 15 Seattle Displacement Coalition, “Our Proposed Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, May 14, 2010,” http://www.seattle.gov/council/comp_plan/amend/2010foxl_growth_target.pdf 16 Frederica Merrell, “City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application, May 14, 2010,” http://www.seattle.gov/council/comp_plan/amend/2010merrell_beacon_plan.pdf 17 Roosevelt Development Group, “City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application, May 7, 2010,” http://www.seattle.gov/council/comp_plan/amend/2010rdg_roosevelt.pdf 18 “Worker Profiles Ed Hewson,” Paragon Real Estate Advisors, http://www.paragonrea.com/agents.php 19 “People Kevin J. Ryden,” HEWITT, http://www.hewittseattle.com/index.asp 20 “Personality Detail Don Vehige,” GGLO, http://www.gglo.com/ourpeople/personalities/dvhige.aspx 21 “Broker Profiles Jon Breiner,” Paragon Real Estate Advisors, http://www.paragonrea.com/agents.php 22 American Life Inc., “City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application, May 13, 2010,” http://www.seattle.gov/council/comp_plan/amend/2010liebman_sodo.pdf 23 “Profile Roger A. Pearce,” Foster Pepper, http://www.foster.com/profile.aspx?id=87 24 Kiki Michelle Gram, “City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application, May 12, 2010,” http://www.seattle.gov/council/comp_plan/amend/2010gram23rd.pdf Read More