Last night, the Neighborhood Plan Advisory Committee (NPAC) voted to recommend to City Council that the Ballard and Capitol Hill neighborhood plans be updated next year. According to the ordinance and resolution that established this round of the neighborhood planning process and NPAC, NPAC is to “provide advice on the order of plan updates after the status reports are completed.” Prior to receiving such advice, and without consulting NPAC, the DPD has recommended to Council that two of the three following neighborhood plans be updated: Columbia City, Rainier Beach and the University District. The DPD’s rationale was that that the City recommendations were based on the nexus between transit and planning efforts for stations that have already opened, and that the City’s model for outreach – the Public Outreach Liaison model – had been such a success that it made sense to continue it, especially as Rainier Beach contained populations similar to the 3 other neighborhood plans to be updated this year: Othello, Mt. Baker and Beacon Hill. The City alleges that this model is based upon the “trusted advocates” model used in recent years in White Center. However, it is my opinion, after looking at reports on the use of that model in White Center, that the City has not followed the model with the rigor with which it was followed in White Center. Ballard and Capitol Hill were chosen after discussion of the following list of neighborhoods developed by a subcommittee of NPAC: Aurora/Licton Springs; Ballard, Capitol Hill, Columbia City, Rainier Beach, University District and West Seattle Junction.
The discussion of the neighborhoods occurred in the context of the following general criteria developed by the same subcommittee that developed the list of neighborhoods:
- Existing growth targets (economic or residential) have exceeded projections. Existing growth targets (economic or residential) have not been met.
- Data set results (ie health reports, census data)
- Stakeholder perception to change or adjust urban village boundaries
- Need to add elements to the existing Neighborhood Plan (as identified by Status Reports)
- Transportation Investments (Transportation Oriented Development, Major State Projects ie SR99 and SR 520)
- Lack of Infrastructure (ie Sidewalks, Transit, Wastewater, Stormwater)
- External Pressure from Developers and/or Private Institutions
- External Pressure from Public Institutions (ie County/City health initiatives)
- Equitable distribution of current resources (through the lens of Race and Social Justice Initiative and consider status of items on existing Approval and Adoption Matrix) Alternative wording: Opportunity to effect equitable distribution of resources
- Stakeholder organization and participation (through the lens of Race and Social Justice Initiative) Alternative wording: Opportunity to support broad stakeholder participation in neighborhood organization
- Willingness of neighborhood stakeholders to participate in an update.
During the discussion last night, some members of NPAC asserted that the following neighborhoods were not willing or interested in participating in this round of neighborhood updates: Columbia City, Aurora/Licton Springs and the University District.
I argued for Capitol Hil based on the LINK Light Rail Station, the intense development pressures and changes that the neighborhood had experienced in recent years, neighborhood concern with those changes and neighborhood interest in participating as shown by attendance at the meetings regarding Light Rail and a neighborhood design charrette that focused on the Capitol Hill Station. This is also the general sense I have developed from my participation in numerous neighborhood meetings. As Kate Stineback pointed out later, Capitol Hill will also be receiving a streetcar in the very near future.
The Council and the Mayor have always intended that neighborhood plan updates for 2010 emphasize those neighborhoods “containing transit stations(not necessarily LINK Light Rail stations).” However, during budget discussions, Councilmembers expressed a concern with broadening the scope of the neighborhood plan updates beyond transit and land use. As part of its budget recommendations to the Mayor, the Council : “Directed Executive to undertake two new neighborhood plan updates and create a more expansive and community-driven process.” For those desiring more information, Seattle Channel has a recording of the Budget discussion on these issues: it took place the afternoon of October 20, 2009.
For those who are curious about the range of options, the following neighborhoods were excluded by the Council and the Mayor from this round of neighborhood updates because they “have been the subject of recent extensive planning initiatives….”: Duwamish Manufacturing and Industrial Center; Ballard Interbay Manufacturing and Industrial Center; Denny Triangle and Commercial Core; Pioneer Square and Chinatown-International District; South Lake Union; Roosevelt; Northgate, and South Park.
The purpose of this post is to inform a wider Capitol Hill public and to give individuals and organizations an opportunity to comment on NPAC’s recommendation to update the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Plan in 2010. I will also be contacting local organizations and businesses for their input. Information gathered would be summarized and presented to the Council by December 15th for its consideration in making a final decision as to which neighborhood plans will be updated in 2010.
I would appreciate timely comments regarding this matter. I will follow the comments here, and respond to any questions, but can also receive comments at raptor922 (AT) isomedia.com. Thank you for your time and attention.
A map of the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Planning Area can be found by going here: http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/npi/plans/caphill/ and clicking on the link for the Neighborhood Plan Area Map.
Dennis Saxman, East District Representative to the NPAC.
Thanks Dennis…. now to digest it.
first, i would like to thank Dennis for such a well-rounded and thoughtful summary of last night’s NPAC discussion. it is really important that community members weigh in here on whether you feel that the cap hill neighborhood plan be updated in 2010, as “willingness to be updated” became a key theme in our discussion last night.
the one caveat that i want to make to this post is that there was NOT a rigorous application of criteria to the shortlist of communities we looked at last night, much to my dismay. it as basically a round robin discussion, and the communities that were most strongly advocated for wound up at the top of the list – cap hill, ballard and rainier beach. now, this does not mean that they aren’t the right communities to be looking at. i for one believe that now is the time for cap hill to engage in this kind of work. but i am hoping that we will produce data to back up these recommendations over the next two weeks.
one compelling reason to wait that was also mentioned last night was that the new administration may have a new approach to planning updates that takes hold in 2011 and not 2010 – would this be a reason for cap hill to wait for an update? please weigh in!
Dennis, just one correction. Licton Springs was not among the neighborhoods considered “uninterested” or “unwilling” to proceed in 2010.