Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Neighborhood Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews dozens of neighborhood-center map proposals; Magnolia, Queen Anne see multiple options
Summary
Staff and councilmembers presented numerous proposed changes to the comprehensive-plan future land use map on Aug. 4, including new neighborhood centers across the city and multiple competing boundary options for Magnolia and other neighborhoods. Councilmember Ray Strauss offered three alternative maps for each proposed center in his district; he
The Select Committee on the Comprehensive Plan on Aug. 4 reviewed a long series of map changes and proposed additions to the city’s future land use map that would create or refine neighborhood centers across Seattle.
Councilmember Ray Strauss told the committee he had developed three options for each proposed neighborhood-center boundary in his district "so I can receive more feedback on which of these 3 options is best." He said the approach is intended to continue community outreach and that he will bring only one amendment per neighborhood center forward in September.
Central staff listed new centers and boundary changes proposed across the city. Notable items included: eight new neighborhood-center proposals sponsored by Councilmember Rink (Alki, Broadview, Dawson, Gas Works, Oil Heights, Nickerson South Canal, Roanoke Park and South Wedgwood); multiple Magnolia options from Strauss (three versions for Magnolia Village, North Magnolia and Magnolia Valley, nine Magnolia amendments in total); Kettle’s proposal to add a Nickerson neighborhood center near North Queen Anne and Seattle Pacific University; and Rivera’s boundary modifications in District 4 (Wedgwood, Bryant, Ravenna) including removal of historic-district areas from some centers.
Strauss and other members emphasized that the multiple-option approach is intended to continue district-level outreach. Strauss said that after community discussion he would reduce the options so only one proposal per neighborhood center is advanced in September. Staff noted some map errors would be corrected and that several boundary proposals have been refined based on walk-throughs and stakeholder feedback.
What was not decided: the committee did not adopt any map changes at the Aug. 4 briefing. Members signaled they will negotiate which options are combined into substitute map language and which single-option amendment will be posted for comment in each case.
Clarifying detail: staff said some centers were previously studied in alternatives in the environmental review while others would need additional analysis depending on the final selections. Several members asked staff to correct specific map shapes and to confirm which inset and block-level adjustments would be included in the posted materials.
Ending: The committee’s map work produced many competing options for neighborhood centers; staff and councilmembers plan outreach and technical fixes over the next month to reduce the number of active proposals before the Sept. 12 public hearing.
