Neighbor organizing opposition to 5020 California project

| Development | Neighborhoods | West Seattle news

The first Southwest Design Review Board meeting of the new year, one week from Thursday, is scheduled to look at the Spring Hill apartment/retail mixed-use building proposed for 5020 California and 2 parcels south of that address (area photo above; developers BlueStar told WSB last week there’s no project rendering yet). As mentioned in our December 11 update, it’s now outlined as a 6-story building with 90 apartments, 100 parking spaces, and 4,000 square feet of retail. Area resident Mary wanted other neighbors to know that she’s drafted a letter opposing it and that they can contact her if they want a copy of it or are interested otherwise in joining forces:

Mary’s letter:

Seattle Department of Planning and Development
700 5th Ave Ste 2000
P. O. Box 34019
Seattle, Washington 98126-4019
Attn: Eric Murphy
Attn: D. M Sugimura, Director
Attn: Colin Vasquez
RE: Project 3008044 Zone NC2-65
Area: West Seattle
Address: 5020 California Ave SW

We are writing with regard to Project 3008044 Zone NC2-65, the proposed 6-story 90-unit apartment building/parking facility project at 5020 California AVE SW, Seattle WA.

As residents of and committed property owners in the Alaska junction area of West Seattle, we oppose this project to build a large multi-story 90-unit apartment building/parking facility in this location.

This project will significantly increase traffic congestion in an already congested area. Traffic currently backs up on California from the Junction south to past the Rite-Aid building on busy weekends and evenings. Adding 90 apartment dwellings and a parking structure on this block will produce gridlock between here and the Junction, an area of high traffic already.

This negative impact on traffic levels and patterns will significantly increase the number of accidents to motorists and pedestrians. West Seattle in general and the Alaska junction area in particular is characterized by heavy pedestrian usage. Citizens and government planning agencies should encourage and protect pedestrian usage and safety rather than increasing car traffic. In and out access from buildings in this block of California Avenue is dangerous and difficult under the current usage; the proposed development will increase car traffic and in and out activity to a much more dangerous, unsupportable level. California Avenue is not designed to for this type of traffic, it does not and should not function as a major arterial. This new apartment building/parking structure may require additional traffic lights and other safety measures at city cost to accommodate the increased number of cars along the street entering and exiting the proposed development.

Additionally, such a large apartment/parking complex will increase the transient population in this area of West Seattle. West Seattle is known for its small community atmosphere. This complex will detract considerably from that character, while increasing safety risks and concerns. This area along California has been improved and enhanced by the construction of high quality condominium buildings, bringing committed and long lasting investors and residents to the area. The proposed apartment/parking project will detract greatly from the atmosphere and character of the Junction, with significant negative impacts on safety, property values and quality of life.

The size of the project and its design carries risks regarding soil and ground stability as well flood water control. The selected site already requires a retaining wall for fairly small buildings. West Seattle has a long sad history of slope failure and flooding. Can the land, and the utility and street infrastructure truly sustain such a large development? Are the developers and the City of Seattle assuming responsibility and liability for the changes they propose to make in this area?

Finally there are already a number of construction sites/project under way or scheduled in the neighborhood. There is the Graham/California project (see below); the current construction behind Petco along 42nd between Alaska and Edmonds; the construction taking place north of Alaska at 42nd, and still another project planned for the area where Alaska and Fauntleroy meet. The cumulative negative environmental impact of all these construction sites and projects on traffic, safety, stability is severe.

We do not oppose development of the site at 5020 California Ave. SW, but do strongly oppose this particular project. We look to the Design Review Board to support a reasonable project, one more in line with the neighborhood, something similar to the recently approved development in the California/Graham junction, which the neighborhood has welcomed as enhancing the area. A general description (taken from the West Seattle Blog):

The complex designed by Junction-based Nicholson Kovalchick Architects now consists of three buildings â€” a 3-story, 6-unit â€œlive-workâ€ building with their commercial space (averaging about 450 sf per unit) fronting on California; a 3-story, 5-unit townhouse building fronting on Graham; and a 3-story, 4-unit townhouse building behind them. A public/private courtyard is planned for the center of the complex, and the units are intended to have rooftop decks in addition to â€œpalletized green roofs.â€

The current proposal for 5020 California Ave SW, a 6 story 90-unit apartment building/parking structure compares very poorly with the Graham/California Project.

We appeal to the Design Review Board to guide development of this area in a manner and style that improves the character and quality of this West Seattle Neighborhood. This project as proposed would hurt property values, contribute significant safety risks, increase traffic congestion and severely negatively impact the entire West Seattle Junction area.

We are totally opposed to this proposed development at 5020 California Ave SW in Seattle.

If you’re interested in contacting Mary, she’s at Mary98136@gmail.com — to express opposition OR support OR just to get questions answered, the Design Review Board meeting is a great place to start; it’s at 6:30 pm, Denny Middle School library, January 10th. According to the meeting announcement, the city planner assigned to the project is Colin Vasquez, whose name is on Mary’s draft letter; that announcement page includes his phone number and also a map of the area, showing the three specific parcels involved in this project. According to King County property records, the building immediately north of the project site has 8 stories and 28 units; to the south is a 3-story, 7-unit condo building.

JT January 1, 2008 (9:48 pm)

It doesn’t seem like developers can win. Every other construction thread brings up the need for more apartments. Now it’s being opposed because there’s too much traffic. Do condo owners have less cars? As a pedestrian, I have never felt unsafe downtown or on Broadway or the Ave. Why would more cars on California make me unsafe. In fact the more backed up it is, the safer it is to walk because everyone is going slow. Of course there’s heavier traffic on weekends and evenings, because yes, California is a main arterial. It’s also where most of the restaurants, bars, and shops are located. By the way, there’s just as much traffic on 35th, Fauntleroy, Admiral, Delridge, etc. And have you seen Harbor Ave./Alki on a weekend. And why do apartments equal more transients.

Jan January 1, 2008 (10:09 pm)

JT…I agree…I would much rather see apartments than condos at this point. And you’re right. Calif. Ave. IS a major arterial, like it or not. I’m an apartment dweller, and I’m not transient. I’ve been in my apartment since 1999, and expect to stay here for the long haul. The Graham/Calif. Ave. project isn’t even close to this location…and should have no bearing on the decision to approve or disapprove this project. The “high quality Condos” that have been built near this project location aren’t that “high quality”, in some people’s opinions. And, frankly, some of us get tired of being unwelcome by some people in the community because we’re only renters.

credmond January 1, 2008 (11:13 pm)

Mary is doing what concerned citizens are supposed to do – contact the right officials in charge of a project she has comments and concerns about. The board will review Mary’s comments, those of others – pro and con – and come up with a recommendation. The zoning certainly supports the developer’s request and according to SDOT, 2006 traffic flow on California was 14,000 a day, Fauntleroy from the dock to California was 12000 and from California to the Viaduct was 18000 a day, 35th was 24000 and Delridge was 17000. So, looks like California is not all that congested from SDOT’s perspective. By the way, Broadway had 8000 and University Ave. had 11000 – no wonder JT feels safer.

I do think the city has a real problem, though, in that there is no coordinated planning going on – it’s all piece-meal, single project at a time, one developer after the other. This approach is producing the incredible and often ugly hodge-podge we’re seeing in Roosevelt, Ravenna, Green Lake, Ballard, and – yes- West Seattle. That’s what needs to change.

Aidan Hadley January 2, 2008 (12:13 am)

West Seattle is growing. No matter how long some of you try to hold on to some kind of suburban dream, our peninsula will become more dense and more reflective of the large city in which we live. The people who will come here should not be viewed merely as interlopers who will put additional cars on our overloaded roads. They should be welcomed for the intellect, talent and innovation they will bring to our city and our economy. Many of you will no longer be able to drive everywhere alone in your cars. Deal with it.

grr January 2, 2008 (5:36 am)

JT’s post says everything I was gonna say :)

JenV January 2, 2008 (6:31 am)

I resent the implication that because I don’t own a home/condo that I am “transient”. I have lived- and rented in- West Seattle since 1992. What West Seattle needs is fewer condos and more apartments! There is already a lack of affordable rental housing here- and too many condos sitting empty. Let’s try encouraging people to stay here by building nice, affordable rental housing!

Rick January 2, 2008 (7:40 am)

I’ve lived,owned and rented here for 35 years.(can’t afford owning anymore) I’ve left a few times bit always end up coming back. Guess I’m one of those “transients”. Hey it’s not all bad. Usually, ya don’t have to paint the new place or have the carpets cleaned. I’m not a big fan of a lot of the development here but one thought to keep my resentment in check; Paul Allen buys Huling property and has his EMP architect design the “West Seattle Gateway Experience”.

grr January 2, 2008 (8:00 am)

“Paul Allen buys Huling property and has his EMP architect design the â€œWest Seattle Gateway Experience”

I would love that (ok..except for the Gear design’). But I’d love Paul to design and build an incredible ‘mini-downtown’ Gateway to WS. It COULD be a showpiece of design and urban planning.

grr January 2, 2008 (8:00 am)

oops…’meant to say Frank Geary’ design..duh.

CMP January 2, 2008 (9:00 am)

I know that I’ve made some anti-development remarks before, particularly concerning the Petco project, but I really don’t think that the 5020 California apartment complex will “severely negatively” impact this area of the Junction. I’ve rented an apartment one block south of the proposed Spring Hill site for years and I welcome what will probably be a higher end apartment building, more so than another condo complex. I’m quite certain there won’t be “transients” showing up; we have plenty of weirdos in that area already so this one project won’t make it any worse. I also walk, run and drive that stretch of California often and I really don’t think traffic is all that bad or unsafe. And coming from a very impatient driver and pedestrian, that says a lot.

This is off topic, but no one seemed to raise much of a stink over that eyesore of an apartment building at the Alaska Junction next to the hardware store. That one seems much worse for the community!

pointcounterpoint January 2, 2008 (9:14 am)

In addition to Mary’s arguments re: the project on California, she should investigate the issue of “concurrency”.

If the project would fail “concurrency”, then there is a stronger basis to oppose the size/design/impacts of/from the project. The city would have to address the loss of the current “level of service” somehow, not just by allowing the area to be hopelessly clogged up.

How the city “measures” concurrency may be an issue also; the City of Bellevue has been known to change the way they measure concurrency standards (over two hours instead of one, averaged) in order not to “fail” at certain intersections. Check that out.

Mary’s letter seems reasonable in that it acknowledges that some kind of development will likely occur there- the details of that development will be key.

Jan January 2, 2008 (12:28 pm)

CMP…the building next to True Value is one ugly building. I sometimes wonder about the taste of the architects. Or, as I’ve been known to say, it’s all in their mouth. I suppose they figured that the green , etc. would be “Pacific Northwesque” (a new word – lol).

Kayleigh January 2, 2008 (1:26 pm)

This is actually my neighborhood. I don’t care if it’s “ugly” (which is a matter of opinion, anyway) and I don’t worry so much about soil or the character of apartment dwellers. I do support affordable housing, although I think the traffic concerns are legitimate.

I am weary of the “growth is coming; deal with it” attitude, which is disrespectful to people with legitimate concerns about development and the quality of life in West Seattle. It’s reasonable to value the things, tangible and intangible, that are lost as development occurs. I understand some *don’t* value those quietly disappearing things and believe that growth will bring us all prosperity, fascinating neighbors, and an all-night diner (Denny’s, anyone? Yuck.)

WestSeattleMom January 2, 2008 (1:31 pm)

I am not anti-development. Actually, I like seeing our neighborhood improved and updated. But, must we accept huge boxy buildings on California Avenue? Shouldn’t we as a community demand that developers scale the buildings to fit in our neighborhood and have a attractive appearance. It appears to me that some of the apartment buildings that have recently gone up on Queen Anne Ave have a Parisian flair that adds to the livablity of the area. In contrast, the apartments and condo’s recently built across California Avenue from this new project are exceedingly ugly. That awful peach colored monstrosity can be seen from Vashon. That building is already looking shabby and worn and it was built maybe five years ago.

Mary makes a good point that adding more people without dealing with the resulting increase in road usage is unsupportable. The intersection of California and Dawson St. is already dangerous and congested 24/7.

I don’t think we as concerned neighbors are being unreasonable in demanding that new developments meet the needs of the all who live in the area being developed, not just the financial needs of the property owners. Who will look out for the needs of West Seattleites if we don’t?

WestSeattleMom January 2, 2008 (1:40 pm)

oops, the peach colored monstrosity I refer to in the previous post is actually closer to the junction of Edmonds & California, next to 7-11.

CMP January 2, 2008 (2:55 pm)

I live at California and Dawson and that is not a busy intersection 24/7…or very dangerous for that matter. It gets quiet at 8:00 pm and doesn’t get busy again until about 7:00 am. I’ve lived there for five years now and haven’t noticed much of a difference in traffic or accidents with the completion of those condos further north. And believe me, I’m pretty observant when it comes to crappy drivers and bad traffic. I haven’t taken a look at this project yet, but I hope the design is nice and it would be great if the rental rates were reasonable. I’m not counting on that…rent will probably only be a few hundred bucks cheaper than a mortgage…may as well buy a place at that rate!

Paul January 2, 2008 (3:12 pm)

I cannot see all of the telephone poles with their wires and transformers from Vashon, so the peach monstrosity is like a beacon — guiding the way back to one of the best places in the world to live.

TheVelvetBulldog January 2, 2008 (6:00 pm)

Gotta join the chorus of renters here and raise the red flag about being labeled “transient.” I’ve lived in my current place for 13 years and I keep the yard looking way better than some of the home-owners around me. Also, anyone who saw my post in the Forum will note that I’m looking for someplace to move to – and there’s almost nothing available! There’s a whole population of us wondering what the hell we’re going to do when affordable housing options no longer exist. I would define this letter as “classist” (though I’m sure that’s not what the author intended.)

Mary January 2, 2008 (6:33 pm)

some information on apartments currently being built in this neighborhood

The building behind Petco on 42nd SW and will have 130
units, the one on the corner of 42nd SW and Alaska will have 165 units and the one on Alaska and Fauntleroy will have 185 units. A fourth smaller building of thirty-five units will be built on 42nd SW, just north of Alaska.
This is a total of 515 apartments currently under construction or already passed the design stage..

Mary January 2, 2008 (7:03 pm)

correction: these are UNITS being built, I don’t know that all are apartments but assume most ate, if anyone knows more, please inform us all…

grr January 2, 2008 (10:07 pm)

“Mary makes a good point that adding more people without dealing with the resulting increase in road usage is unsupportable.”

sooo…are you suggesting that maybe they just mow down land and build more roads to handle the increased transportation needs? Not really sure how they’ll do that..

Dave Gould January 3, 2008 (5:45 pm)

Have you seen the two homes that will be replaced by this project? If both were bulldozed, the neighborhood would be improved. If someone proposed 80 families move next door to you when there were only two families before, would you consider your neighborhood improved? Since I live in the neighborhood and can see people moving in and out of rentals with no good place to park vehicles while loading and unloading; how do you manage “mover” traffic in the narrow skinny alleyway? If businesses are on the ground floor on California, where do the customers park? The issue is not renters versus condo owners; the issue is tremendous density on such a small footprint and the resulting traffic.

Deeno January 6, 2008 (2:19 am)

Iâ€™m really disappointed that Spring Hill will only have 90 apartment units. Wouldnâ€™t it be much nicer if we could squeeze about 150 or 160 in there?

Iâ€™m sure if the Blue Star management team would take a closer look at this, they could figure it out, especially with the help of SDPD.

Just think folks, we can make West Seattle into another Bellevue if we really put our minds to it.

I am really looking forward to seeing this beacon of beauty grace our neighborhood and look forward to the day when we can all celebrate with a sense of satisfaction at the wonderment that will be 6 stories of pure bliss.

Thanks to the Blue Star people and city zoners who were able to add this to our already growing collection of new affordable housing. Are we becoming famous or what?

It is so nice when developing teams come to West Seattle with the intention of upgrading our dusty old community instead of just making money. Thank you so much for your generosity and welcome to the neighborhood.

elizabeth January 7, 2008 (8:58 am)

For the love of God- could we somehow hire an developer/architect who has good taste? What is with all these” hidious depressing boxy” looking buildings someone is supposed to call home? sGive me a freaken break!!! Gee, I’ve got a great idea: Why don’t we tear down one ugly building and put up another ugly one!!! Sorry to say but most of these architects are just looking to make a quick buck and get their designs from a cereral box….If it was up to me, {speaking from a design point} I would demolish 70% of West Seattle and start over… to the developer: How about classy buildings for a change…you know the kind that people want to LOOK AT as well as LIVE IN!!!

Sorry, comment time is over.