Seattle Comprehensive Plan: Toward a Sustainable Seattle Evaluation

Transcription

1 Plan Analysis for UAP 5794 Sustainability Planning Lab Seattle Comprehensive Plan: Toward a Sustainable Seattle Evaluation Kaitlen Scanlon March 26, 2011

2 Table of Contents City Context Information... 2 Overview... 3 Plan Framework and Analysis... 3 Basic Structure and Organization of the Plan... 4 Vision and Goals... 4 Traditional Policy s... 4 Sustainability Policy s... 5 Vertical Integration... 7 Horizontal Integration... 7 Plan Implementation... 8 Conclusion... 8 Additional Resources P a g e

3 City Context City Information Size* 84 square miles Region Main Industry/Industries* Pacific Northwest Aerospace, Information & Communications Technology, Clean Technology, Healthcare Total Population (2009)* 616, 669 Population Change ( ) 16.2% increase Median Household Income* $60,843 Sustainability Plan Type of Plan Comprehensive Plan Sustainability Capacity Link for Complete Plan: Year of Adoption 2004 Report Card or Progress Report, Year Size of Sustainability Office (staff and budget) Primary P.O.C. No, do provide annual amendments Staff: 12 employees 2010 budget: $1,416,103** Jill Simmons, Director *Based on 2009 Census and American Community Survey data ** 2 P a g e

4 Overview Developing the Plan The City of Seattle adopted its first comprehensive plan in 1994 and has since provided annual updates and amendments, with the last comprehensive update occurring in Since this update, several major amendments relating to sustainability have been added, they include: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions Increase tree canopy Reduce solid waste Discourage conversion of surface area to parking to preserve open space Climate Change adaptation and mitigation strategies Unique to Seattle and the State of Washington overall is the verbiage of the State s Growth Act (GMA) 1 which requires all municipalities to develop a comprehensive plan to manage population growth, protect the natural environment, concentrate development in urban areas, prevent urban sprawl, and maintain transportation, housing and open space opportunities. In other words, the GMA mandates that municipalities incorporate sustainability elements into their comprehensive plans. 2 For example, the GMA requires each county to define an urban growth boundary to determine where future population growth would occur. 3 City staff has found that the inclusion of sustainability principles in the GMA provides greater weight and backing in the application and enforcement of the plans goals and principles. Community Outreach The plan update and subsequent amendments have been a collaborative effort on the part of City staff, elected officials, and thousands of citizens. Specifically, public input was crucial for the development of the Plan s four core values: community, economic opportunity, social equity, and environmental stewardship. With regards to the current comprehensive plan, the City of Seattle provides a myriad of opportunities for the public to get involved in the development of their city, from traditional public meetings to more modern opportunities through social media. For example, the city s Department of Planning and Development has created both a Facebook and Twitter page dedicated to the latest plan update, Seattle 2030 & Beyond. 4 In speaking with Kristian Kofoed, a long-range planner for the City, he finds Seattle to be a very active city in terms of public involvement. He noted, however, that public turnout depends largely on the topic under discussion, with a higher turnout for the more concrete, short-term issues such as parking rates while the more abstract topics generate fewer truly committed citizens. A number of citizen groups also participate in the planning process and tend to be concerned with environmental, land use and transportation issues. One such group, Futurewise 5, is a 1 For more information on the Growth Act visit: 2 City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan: Toward a Sustainable Seattle Reader s Guide ( 3 Reader s Guide (Pg. 3) 4 Facebook Page: Twitter Page: P a g e

5 statewide public interest group advocating for the development of healthy communities and cities while protecting critical environmental areas such as farmland, forests, and shorelines. Plan Framework and Analysis Basic Structure and Organization of the Plan Seattle s Comprehensive Plan is similar to most comprehensive plans in that it includes a table of contents, a table detailing the legislative history of the comprehensive plan since its inception in 1994 (includes various plan amendments and additions), key elements (listed below) and various appendices. This basic layout, as well as the clear demarcation between elements throughout the plan (each page included a side title detailing which key element it corresponded to) and the use of distinct headings/subheadings for major goals and their related policies made this plan both accessible and digestible to most users. Key s Urban Village * Land Use * Transportation * Housing * Capital Facilities * Utilities * Economic Development Neighborhood Planning Human Development Cultural Resources Environment *Those elements denoted with an asterisk have a corresponding appendix at the end of the plan. Vision and Goals The plan addresses traditional planning problems, principles, and policies as is required by the State s Growth Act. Furthermore, within the goals section, the plan designated a need for more compact development, to address climate change and other environmental concerns, to develop more affordable housing and promote social equity overall. Finally, it paid tribute to the thousands of citizens who worked together with City staff and elected officials to aid in the creation of the comprehensive plan, predominately helping with the formation of individual neighborhood plans. The only area in which the Comprehensive Plan performed poorly was its long range visioning processes, of which no mention was made. However, in speaking with Mr. Kofoed and in looking at the Department of Planning and Development s website 6 such a long-range process is in place. As was mentioned earlier, the department provides annual amendments to the plan and undergoes a comprehensive update about every 10 years. Both the amendment and updating processes require frequent public meetings and allow for public engagement through various social media tools. Traditional Policy s As illustrated in the table above, Seattle s Comprehensive Plan performed extremely well with respect to the traditional policy elements; presumably due to the more stringent regulations P a g e

6 required be the State s Growth Act, which requires certain elements such as transportation, land use, and housing, be addressed. A few specific areas where Seattle excelled include: Transportation s o Specify the need to locate compact developments near existing or planned transit infrastructure o Creation of multi-modal transportation hubs to provide transfer points between various modes of transportation, thus increasing overall connectivity o Provide faster, more frequent and reliable transit services o Include a bicycle classification network within the Transportation Strategic Plan o Provide and maintain a comprehensive bicycle network Environmental s o Increase tree canopy by 1% annually, starting in 2008 o Increase the amount of permeable surfaces and natural vegetation o Preserve natural and ecological features through the designation of open space Affordable Housing o Partner with financial institutions and Washington State Housing Finance Commission to provide more affordable housing o Implement employer-assisted housing programs o Use rent subsidy vouchers, land trusts, and limited-equity cooperatives to increase availability of affordable housing Despite its exceptional performance within this category overall, greater consideration could be made with respect to increasing the use of alternative fuels and the management of hazardous materials. While the plan made brief mention of both, it lacked any specific programs or policies to advance either goal. For instance, the plan states the need to increase the use of alternative fuel vehicles; however, it does not expand on ways to achieve this increase (increasing use of alternative fuel vehicles in City operations). Similarly, the plan declares the necessity of cleaning up contaminated industrial sites but fails to identify certain sites in need of clean up or incentive programs to encourage attendance to such sites. While this would be considered a flaw in terms of the evaluation template, comprehensive plans tend to be more general in nature and as such would not likely include such specifics as increasing the use of alternative fuels in City operations. Instead, such specifics would likely be found in other city plans, such as the Transportation Strategic Plan. Sustainability Policy s While Seattle s Comprehensive Plan gave significant attention to the environmental aspects of sustainability, but in large part failed to mention the social and economic aspects of sustainability. While the plan excelled with respect to greenhouse gas emissions, urban forestry, and green buildings, it did not refer to a green economy in any respect, and gave little attention to 5 P a g e

7 the creation of a sustainable food system and increasing access to parks and open space for inadequately served areas. First, to illustrate on the successful aspects of the plan: With regards to greenhouse gases, the plan calls for a greenhouse gas inventory to be conducted at least every 3 years; the development of greenhouse gas emissions standards for private buildings; and no net increase in the City s contributions to greenhouse gas emissions by relying on energy efficiency, renewable energy, and offsetting emissions through the planting of trees With regards to urban forestry, the plan calls for the creation of a sustainable urban forest; an increase in the overall tree canopy by 1% annual beginning in 2008; and an update of the Urban Forest Plan Finally, with regards to green buildings, the plan aims to reduce fossil fuel consumption in new and renovated city-owned buildings to ½ of the U.S. average; utilize green building practices in the repair of city buildings; and require all new buildings to be carbon neutral by 2030 Second, to detail areas for future improvement: Identify suitable green businesses and industries and develop incentives to encourage their location in Seattle Further sustainable food programs beyond the community gardens currently mentioned the inclusion of incentives to purchase local foods and establish farmers markets In the plan to expand the parks and open space system throughout Seattle, expansion to ensure access in areas that currently have limited or no access to such spaces One point worth mentioning is the attention Seattle s plan gave to economic development, seemingly equating sustainable economic development to mean increased access to jobs and job training. The plan stresses the need to increase the number and types of jobs available to Seattle s residents and to ensure its citizens have access to suitable jobs. Furthermore, the plan advocates the implementation of job training and employability programs to better aid Seattelites in finding desired jobs. 6 P a g e

8 Vertical Integration Seattle Comprehensive Plan: Toward a Sustainable Seattle Urban Village Land Use Transportation Housing Utilities Environment State Growth Act King County s Countywide Planning Policies State Growth Act State Shoreline Act State Shoreline Program Coordination with Washington Ferry System State of Washington Building and Energy Codes HUD Development Standards HUD Consolidated Plan Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission Federal Communicatio ns Commission State Growth Act Seattle Comprehensive Plan: Toward a Sustainable Seattle State Shoreline Act State Shoreline Program Lower Duwamish Watershed Habitat Restoration Plan Seattle s Comprehensive Plan exhibits great vertical integration throughout the entire document, specifically with respect to its connection with various federal and state policies and programs. The chart above illustrates several examples of such integration based on the key elements of the plan itself. As expected, the plan places great emphasis on ensuring the consistency with the State Growth Act, which requires, among other things, that Level of Service issues be addressed as well as maps and inventories be included in the planning document. Other, more specific examples include: Connection to the State Shoreline Act, which requires public access, natural areas, and views of the water be protected and enhanced Adherence to King County s Countywide Planning Policies, which mandate the inclusion of an economic development section within the comprehensive plan addressing the 20- year estimate on the type and number of jobs to be accommodated within a jurisdiction Horizontal Integration Urban Village Land Use Transportation Housing Utilities Environment Future Land Use Map Seattle s Land Use Code Neighborhood Plans Future Land Use Map Seattle s Land Use Code Seattle Transit Plan Transportation Strategic Plan Seattle DOT Financial Plan Ordinance Complete Streets Program Pedestrian Master Plan Seattle Housing and Building Maintenance Code City of Seattle Consolidated Plan Seattle Capital Improvement Program Works with Seattle City Light, Seattle Public Utilities & Seattle Steam Urban Forest Plan Seattle Shoreline Master Plan 7 P a g e

9 As would be expected with most comprehensive plans, Seattle s plan makes great mention of the city s other programs and policies. The following list highlights a few: Transportation Strategic Plan: contains maps and detailed descriptions of Seattle s street classifications, provides specific strategies, policies, and programs necessary to achieve the transportation goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan Ordinance Complete Streets Program: promotes safe and convenient access and travel to all users (pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, etc.) Seattle Housing and Building Maintenance Code: minimum standards for the maintenance and operation of renter-occupied housing units Plan Implementation While the development of a comprehensive plan requires input from countless players (city staff, businesses, state officials, citizens, etc.) the actual oversight and plan modifications and updates are largely completed within the long-range planning division of the Department of Planning and Development. Planners within this division, of which Mr. Kofoed is one, depend heavily on work completed by both the State of Washington and King County. King County sets 20-year growth targets, which it bases on the state s population predictions, these growth targets are then incorporated throughout the plan to inform such things as new housing developments, transit expansions and improvements, and needed growth in employment sectors. As previously noted, the legal backing provided by the Washington Growth Act has helped tremendously in terms of plan implementation and compliance. However, that is not to say that the process was without challenges. A primary issues identified by Mr. Kofoed is grappling with the question What is the definition of sustainability? As I am sure most planners and environmentalists would attest, sustainability holds a different meaning to different individuals and within different situations. Similarly, different groups feel certain aspects of sustainability are of greater importance, which inevitably means the City will have to choose one action over another. For example, should the city focus on environmental aspects and require businesses to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions or focus on equity aspects, and require developers to include more affordable housing in their developments. Therefore, in order to make the greatest difference, the city must continually engage its citizens on what sustainability means to them and which issues they feel are most important. According to Kofoed, Seattle has been extremely successful in creating such a dynamic conversation, a conversation that promises to continue due to the overwhelming passion many of Seattleites have developed for the topic of sustainability. Conclusion A key take away from the evaluation of Seattle s Comprehensive Plan, which is also true of the majority of comprehensive plans, is that they are designed to act as a general guide to the future development of an area. Even if such plans have incorporated sustainability principles throughout, it is unlikely that they will provide detailed programs or policies; rather they tend to provide basic sustainability goals, policies, and link to outside plans or programs, which provide more specific guidance. 8 P a g e

10 Another noteworthy point from this evaluation, which again holds true on a large scale, is the flexible definition of sustainability. As Mr. Kofoed pointed out, sustainability has become more of a political football for many groups, with each group having their own meaning and priorities when it comes to sustainable development. While in time a more concrete definition may development, for now it is important to keep in mind that most individuals and groups have a particular definition for sustainability, which may differ from other individual and group definitions. Additional Resources Community Power Works energy efficiency building retrofit program IMCool climate action campaign to inform citizens about the steps they can take to reduce pollution Seattle ReLeaf program to inform citizens on the importance of trees and how they can get involved with the program Green Seattle Partnership partnership to restore Seattle s forested parkland Sustainable Cities Institute works with cities across the country to assist in local sustainability planning 9 P a g e