West Seattle development: 30-apartment, no-off-street parking 6917 California SW gets land-use approval

This morning the decision is in from the city Department of Planning and Development – land-use approval for the 30-apartments, no-parking-spaces project at 6917 California SW (map), with DPD determining its “environmentally non-significance,” meaning the city will NOT require a full environmental-impact report. Read the decision here.

After we broke the news of the plan here last October, it drew citywide attention as another flashpoint of concern over increasing density adjacent to single-family neighborhoods – including commentary on its official sign:

Though the project was not planned for Design Review, three meetings were held in December – one with contextual information about the land-use process, one with developer Mark Knoll, a third with city planners, organized after they gathered enough signatures to ask DPD to call the meeting for comments. The decision document includes the results of planners’ review, including these paragraphs about the parking concern:

The proposed 30-unit apartment building proposes zero on-site vehicular parking spaces, and eight bicycle spaces in the basement of the structure. The subject site is within a multi-family zone, the Morgan Junction Residential Urban Village, and is within 1,320-feet of a street with “frequent transit service” (SMC 23.84A.038 “T”); therefore, there is no minimum requirement for on-site parking (SMC 23.54.015).

The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Manual indicates that the residential use could generate peak demand for approximately 41 vehicle parking spaces (1.37 spaces per residential unit peak demand). However, these estimates are generated based on data collected from suburban sites, with typical market-sized residential units. The proposed development consists entirely of studio sized residential units that are approximately 220 square feet in size, located in a dense neighborhood with frequent transit and opportunity for walking and biking to nearby services. It is reasonable to expect that the actual peak parking demand from this project would be less than 41 spaces. As is typical with residential projects, the peak parking demand is expected to occur during late evening and overnight hours.

To better understand the impacts of this development, the applicant submitted a Parking Demand and Parking Utilization Study (William Popp Associates, January 22, 2014). This study estimates the parking demand for this use, and evaluates the existing availability of on-street parking in the area. What the study finds is that this apartment building will likely generate a parking demand of approximately 15 vehicles (0.5 per unit), and that these vehicles can be accommodated on the street as the study area has a late evening parking utilization rate of 55% (282 legal on-street spaces with 156 vehicles parked). The expected 15 project-related vehicles would increase the on-street utilization rate to 61%.

The decision can be appealed to the city Hearing Examiner; deadline is two weeks from today, March 31st. Meantime, demolition and construction permits are pending.

63 Replies to "West Seattle development: 30-apartment, no-off-street parking 6917 California SW gets land-use approval"

  • Mike March 17, 2014 (8:29 am)

    Did they take into account the fact that the “frequent” bus service (the #22) only runs once an hour and after the forecasted big cuts, won’t run at all? And it is a few blocks to the overcrowded “C” line?

  • DTK March 17, 2014 (8:44 am)

    I realized long ago that these DPD meetings are a farce and a waste of time. The city does not care about your thoughts, concerns and valid complaints. We are being bullied by developers and the DPD rolls over when they see dollar signs and succumb to backroom handshakes. The city is filled with cowards who need to take off their blinders and see what they are doing to this community. Unfortunately, I think it’s already too late.

  • Civik March 17, 2014 (8:48 am)

    Mike, that’s the reason for the rush. Right now the 22 exists, so you plan for current conditions, not future ones. Also, no parking makes it cheaper for the developer to dump the parking problem on the street.

  • Tuesday March 17, 2014 (9:02 am)

    People are not being bullied by developers. People are being bullied by the CITY. They couldn’t build this kind of thing with no parking if the CITY wasn’t on board. There seems to be a suspense of reality in Seattle. Just because you dream of Seattle as a car free utopia, doesn’t mean it will actually ever happen. Because the west seattle bus system as is… barely functional and they continue to threaten to make it less functional. Oh, and never mind that, they want to focus on taxing us more for parks. I could not be more frustrated with this ridiculousness. No parking means I frequent local businesses less because I’m not going to go where it’s inconvenient with two tiny kids. More online shopping for me! Don’t try to guilt me into shopping local when I have to walk two miles to get there. Time is money… and they seem hell-bent on making the price of patronizing local businesses too high. I guess in their efforts to make seattle “affordable” they’ll make it a millionaire’s playground. Makes perfect Seattle sense.

  • WS15yrs March 17, 2014 (9:14 am)

    This is the result of the lame brains from the previous mayoral administration. The idea is that if you squeeze out cars, people will HAVE to take buses and ridership goes up. It is an absurd idea, especially given the current problems with metro. A more obvious way to get ridership up is to improve bus service but that costs money. So, middle-class homes in the blocks nearby will find their street parking unavailable to them or their friends.

  • News Reader March 17, 2014 (9:36 am)

    Will the construction workers who build this thing also be taking transit? They obviously won’t be parking “on site.”

    Is the impact on a neighborhood from a year’s worth of construction workers ever considered or measured? This would include blocking sidewalks and streets, noise from power tools, etc? And, of course, the cars and trucks owned by the construction workers that now will park on the street. Plus the delivery trucks bringing construction supplies.

  • dsa March 17, 2014 (9:37 am)

    The way it is supposed to work is that the entity, the city in this case can declare a project to be a DNS, if the following is true:
    1. there are no impacts caused by the project
    2. the construction of the project will mitigate possible impacts.
    I have not read their dns, but what I am observing is that the city is not admitting impacts will be caused by parking.
    I’m so old I remember being taught at a UW lecture on urban planning that every building should house it’s own vehicles.
    Only the carprowlers benefit long term from this action.

  • NorDel March 17, 2014 (9:47 am)

    Even if they were to build this structure with a garage it doesn’t mean the residents will pay to park in it. Youngstown Flats is a perfect example of this. It’s too expensive to park in their own garage, so the auto owners in the building flood the street parking on neighboring streets.

  • ms March 17, 2014 (10:08 am)

    I propose they name it “the nike”.

    Because if you live there you’re walking…

  • WTF March 17, 2014 (10:09 am)

    If I owned a buisness in WS I’d be pissed. The “idea” that all of the transient apartment dwellers will patronize WS is valid but unsustainable. This kind of building will push homeowners with committed spending power to do their business elsewhere. The right hand definaey doesn’t know what the left hand is doing in this City. Might look good now, but have we NOT learned anything from the same debacle in California? History has a way of repeating itself and it may come sooner than later!

  • AJL March 17, 2014 (10:15 am)

    The lack of auto parking aside, 8 bicycle parking spaces is NOT enough for a 30 unit “no auto parking” building. If they were serious about this they would have at least 30 spaces, perhaps 60 spaces for bicycles.

  • tedb310 March 17, 2014 (10:41 am)

    What AJL said. Although, I’m not happy with some of the city government’s decisions they do have a tough job. They are trying to set building guidelines based on infrastructure availability (mass transit) they don’t provide and further more has been somewhat unstable of late.

  • datamuse March 17, 2014 (10:41 am)

    The “idea” that all of the transient apartment dwellers will patronize WS is valid but unsustainable.
    Why? When I lived in an apartment (for many years, thank you very much, I really resent the “transient” framing here), I patronized nearby businesses almost exclusively. And no, I didn’t have a car. I walked or bused everywhere, mostly walked.
    Owning a house doesn’t give you exclusive right to the street. Last I checked, those were public streets.
    (Not that it matters, but I now own a house. With a driveway.)

    • WSB March 17, 2014 (10:53 am)

      Sorry I missed that one, but as we have asked before, please keep away from demonizing renters. Were you NEVER a renter? If so, you’re part of a small percentage of people who apparently inherited their parents’ home early in life or were a wunderkind tycoon. I didn’t own a home until we bought this one 21 years ago, in our early 30s. For the 10 years before then, I guess you could have called me “transient,” but we certainly spent money and behaved well in the communities we lived in while I was on the career-advancement track (until reaching Seattle and realizing I did not want to move on to any place in the top 10 after this – had already lived in L.A. anyway). Even the small apartments are going to go for enough money that they’re not flophouses. – TR

  • Ray Kaye March 17, 2014 (10:50 am)

    This is a prime example of proving that the inmates are running the asylum!

  • Guy March 17, 2014 (10:54 am)

    Will there at least be dog stroller parking?

  • Brian March 17, 2014 (11:11 am)

    Even if you take their parking space logic at face value and consider that it may be true, what happens after this apodment building is complete? Are future no-parking developments going to use the same data to justify their existence or will there be a tipping point where there are so many no-parking buildings that there is literally ZERO space left on the streets for the incoming cars?
    This sort of justification may work now but it’s going to be harder and harder for developers to find allowable reasons for building apartment complexes with no parking allotments as the street spots get taken up. I mean, that is unless the city comes up with a new reason not to require parking spots (which I can totally see happening).

  • TM March 17, 2014 (11:16 am)

    Clearly this type of thing is untenable for so many reasons. One comment that caught my eye was the parking with regards to kids in the car- that area is already tricky, and this will really push it. When I am driving with kids, if I don’t find convenient parking on the first pass I’ll typically postpone an errand or shop elsewhere. Likewise if it’s pouring rain (when does that ever happen?). Over time if I notice an area is regularly difficult parking, it moves out of circulation- I adapt and shift my business to other locations that are now more convenient. It’s too bad, Morgan Junction businesses are going to suffer. There’s just a limited amount of parking already in that immediate area, I don’t get it.

    The public transportation thing is a quagmire- Seattle just isn’t one of those cities with a functional set of services. And when the weather is nasty (heavy rain +), most everyone with a car is going to use it- as an ex-bus rider, you just can’t count on buses being on time or not being at capacity during those times. Biking into town during bad weather is dicey too. Agreed on the 8 bike spots for this project comedy as well.

  • Fauntleroy neighbor March 17, 2014 (11:17 am)

    The solution to the problem of increased on-street parking demand from unparked micro-units is expanding the Restricted Parking Zone (RPZ) Program to include the single-family neighborhoods adjacent to areas that allow these projects (& not allowing residents of unparked multi-family projects to have permits). I support creation of sustainable, lower-cost housing, but it’s not sustainable if residents of such housing own private cars. Not sure why this hasn’t already been done; the first micro-housing project in Seattle was approved in 2006. Maybe it’s taken this long for such projects to be proposed in neighborhoods outside of the true urban core, where folks are much more likely to own cars.

  • wetone March 17, 2014 (11:37 am)

    Not really surprised as this city seems to work very well with Blueprint (Dan Duffus)and his group along many others. Special thanks goes to our great Mayor Ed Murray for showing his real colors/cares $$$$. DPD director Diane Sugimura and her crew for making it so easy for these people to ruin surrounding neighborhoods so easily. Just another stupid outcome from our city along with showing how outdated our building requirements are for the infrastructure we have. I would like to know if William Popp Associates (traffic/parking report) go off data their given from city and investor or actually spend time day/night and see real time conditions ? No one to blame but our city for making requirements so easy. West Seattle is going to be a very expensive and hard place to live soon with terrible commutes just wait for all these new buildings to fill up and many more in the works. If anyone thinks buses are going to make things easier wake up, that will always apply to small percentage especially with no bus hub/parking center for accessibility.

  • Norma March 17, 2014 (11:39 am)

    There was an opportunity for something that would enhance the neighborhood and allow for development. I don’t understand why the city chose to turn their backs on the community. Building permits are not a right but something to be won by considering the existing community’s needs and future impact as well as profit to the builder. In this case the city has ignored the neighborhood and permitted a project that will continue to degrade the area. It’s a bad decision!

  • vincent March 17, 2014 (11:47 am)

    The solution is really simple, meters.

    Street parking is a public resource, everyone gets to use it. Good for you if you had a spot, now its time to share.

  • JanS March 17, 2014 (12:02 pm)

    GIRWS is heavily involved with the Fauntleroy/Alaska project design, vacation, etc. I wonder, will they also be heavily involved with projects like this Morgan Junction one. I have hoped that they aren’t just a one trick pony, and would like to see more action by them on these smaller projects.

    I live across from Element 42 in the Admiral District. They have 2 different parking areas, but one has to pay for them. We definitely see an uptick to street parking, often having no parking available on our street at all. Between the cars from Element, some shoppers who do not use the Safeway lot, and Safeway employees parking on our street, those of us who have visitors, or, like me, who works at home, and see clients in home office, often hear complaints about how those clients have to park far away, and walk. It’s a very busy street, entrances into Safeway, etc. So I feel for those already living in Morgan…the people who approve these things don’t live here, and frankly have no real idea what problems they’re going to cause.

  • Bob formerly of west seattle March 17, 2014 (12:06 pm)

    ….and how many people per unit will be living in this “housing project”? What magic ball is showing how many residents will or will not have a car???
    IF this is going to be a trend, I would be looking else were to live if I were not living elsewhere already. I really like the 0.5 per unit when it comes to how many vehicles. Fiats all around for everyone.

  • Brian March 17, 2014 (12:24 pm)

    @JanS: While I sympathize with your plight as a resident being affected by development that reduces on-street parking, I take issue with your complaint about not having parking spots for your clients. In those cases, you’re a business just like any other that operates in the area.

  • skeeter March 17, 2014 (12:42 pm)

    Seems to me taxpayers are subsidizing folks who park free on the street. There should be a $200/year permit if you want to park overnight on a street owned by taxpayers.

  • twobottles March 17, 2014 (1:26 pm)

    So no one that currently parks in the street pays taxes?

  • Lincoln pk March 17, 2014 (1:34 pm)

    It’s frustrating to see this wonderful community turn into an over populated Capitol Hill. Parking has become an issue (and will only get worse), crime will go up which means a need for more patrols which costs money. In the last 30 years I’ve seen west seattle go from a scary crime ridden area to a wonderful family community and it’s sad to see it go back to the way it was. Seattle simply can’t afford more police, parks are losing funding and rents continue to go up for businesses. The bubble will burst at some point. We are at capacity and they just keep building.

  • JanS March 17, 2014 (1:53 pm)

    Brian…I think my point was…as the smallest of small business owners, I lose business because of it. And if I’m affected , other small businesses will be, too. As one poster said above…in heavy rain (3X the norm this month alone – lol), if lack of parking, etc. people will go elsewhere to businesses that *are* accessible. We recently had a thread about how people are now not shopping in the Alaska Junction due to lack of parking. It does happen.

  • Michael March 17, 2014 (1:56 pm)

    I agree with the comment about there only being 8 bike parking spaces in a no car parking building with 30 units. That sounds ridiculous and seems like it will impact marketability. We have one car for our one garage space, carpool and utilize the dwindling and increasingly more expensive bus service. With all the projects planned for our wonderful west Seattle community, the livability is in jeopardy. City officials are ruining our neighborhood. It’s not the developers. They build what is legally allowed by code. I fully expect to have to relocate within the next couple of years. When I can’t invite anyone over to my home because there is no place to park, I’m out of here. How about a community non profit garage in one or two of these buildings to alienate the business and guest parking concerns.

  • Jeff March 17, 2014 (1:57 pm)

    Yay! This IS good news. Yay!

  • Diane March 17, 2014 (1:59 pm)

    @Jan; many of us longtime community volunteers who were involved with GIRWS were also involved in this Morgan mini-studio-with-zero-parking project; in fact, TR posted several stories about the classes/events organized by Morgan leaders Deb Barker and Cindi Barker, who have both been very long time community volunteers and experts in land use; they presented one forum to educate the Morgan community about zoning/land use issues, another where the city DPD was invited in; another with this developer presenting his mini-studio project and taking questions (extremely rare); all with packed rooms; Deb and I have also been involved with GIRWS, and Cindi attended at least one of our meetings, where we had a visual presentation of design alternatives, that was advertised as open to everyone; about 30 people showed up (which is sadly a typical ‘big’ turnout at most community meetings); as I’ve said several times, most of the members of GIRWS are unpaid community volunteers who care deeply about our neighborhood and spend countless unpaid hours, many evenings, weekends, to advocate for the betterment of our neighborhood, on many projects
    there are several other highly regarded neighbors who have been volunteering in West Seattle for decades who were part of GIRWS, but I’m not going to name them here; that’s up to them to self-id, due to all the demonizing of GIRWS; considering the tenure and depth of knowledge of some of these longtime community volunteers, I’m the new kid on the block, having only been actively advocating for our neighborhood for 6+ yrs
    GIRWS was formed to focus on one project; the largest commercial development to be built possibly ever in the history of WS, which sets a huge precedent for all other developments, and sits at the gateway to our neighborhood; so it is true that the GIRWS focus was just on this one project, with the connection that it significantly affects all of WS; most of us involved with GIRWS also volunteer for 10+ other things
    I wish we had had more help from an organized group like this during the highly controversial Conner project; unpaid neighborhood volunteers fought just as hard for better design on that one; long forgotten by most, but not by those of us who were fighting for good design of the huge project in the junction 6+ yrs ago; which was sold eventually to Equity, local businesses kicked out (like Rocksport); the buildings sat empty for 2 yrs, now 2 big holes in the ground at Alaska junction, finally getting built; it’s been so long, and I’ve participated in so many design reviews since, I can’t even remember what the design for that other most important project will look like; but I do know, it is HUGE, and I am certain people will start complaining about the massive structures when they start going up
    on that junction project, on the Hole project, on the new WF project, on the mini-studios-with-zero-parking projects, there are a small group of dedicated neighbors who fight for something better; out of WS pop of 100k or more, there’s a core group of at most 20-30 people who show up at community meetings to advocate for what I see as our WS living room
    I am incredibly grateful to the community leaders who have so generously shared their expertise, educated me, on the fly; this past 6 yrs of volunteering in WS community groups has taught me far more than I ever learned in college and grad school; thanks especially to Deb Barker and Cindi Barker, brilliant women (unrelated) for their leadership in Morgan, and beyond

  • Diane March 17, 2014 (2:02 pm)

    @Jan, re the Admiral Safeway parking; as you know, I was also deeply involved in the design reviews and advocating for neighbors in that project; at every meeting, I asked for underground parking, sufficient to accommodate customers and residents; it was during the recession, when Safeway appeared to have access to endless cash; they were remodeling their stores all over the country; and because pretty much no other projects were happening due to banks collapsed and no financing, Safeway got whatever they wanted; I think we’re just now started to see the negative impacts; last Sunday (DST day) I drove to the upper lot about 5pm; cars were circling the lot; I was shocked; usually when I drive up there, it’s empty; this is just the beginning; with 1000’s more apts being built, many with zero parking, it’s going to be pure hell to ever find parking again in WS, similar to Capital Hill; no doubt, paid parking will come next, and RPZ’s (residential parking zones with stickers/signs that only allow people living in that zone to park); one of the good things about being a life-long renter, I can get the hell outta here when that happens; and knowing I did my best to improve the landscape of our neighborhood; but sadly with the knowledge that our city depts of transportation and development are highly flawed; they do not work together or help each other, or the neighborhoods; and this is what we end up with, bad designs and horrible traffic/parking nightmares to come

  • ryan March 17, 2014 (2:16 pm)

    I own a home right up the street from this project. My house has no off-street parking. Some of my neighbors don’t have off-street parking. Some of the neighbors use their garages as storage and park their cars on the street. Others who have off-street parking park their second, third or even fourth cars on the street. Maybe even their boats sometimes in the summer. Why are homeowners entitled to use the street but others are not? Everyone is paying taxes to use these streets. The entitlement you all have is crazy.

  • Diane March 17, 2014 (2:19 pm)

    @WTF; you appear to be appointing yourself as part of a “home owner elite”; I am so sick and tire of hearing anyone incorrectly make degrading comments about renters; where the hell do you think we buy our food, gas, shop for our misc needs? many renters have more money to spend in local shops/restaurants because they are not burdened by mortgages; and renters are increasingly very high income
    this “transient apartment dweller” has been living in West Seattle for 15 years, highly involved in community; stop the ridiculous bias of demonizing renters; it is wrong, and unethical

  • justme March 17, 2014 (3:09 pm)

    220 sq ft apartments? Maybe their cars will be tiny too, thus taking up much less space than an suv.

  • iggy March 17, 2014 (3:36 pm)

    It occurred to me that when the 22 bus goes away, all those bus-stop no-parking zones can be used for cars. The one at Willow, for example, is a huge bus stop.

  • Michele Drayton March 17, 2014 (3:46 pm)

    There is an answer to this run away development. Lets make sure the next city council member elected by district, (West Seattle) does not support more of this type which is ruining West Seattle

  • furor scribendi March 17, 2014 (3:49 pm)

    What we’re seeing is the building-boom pendulum swinging hard in the direction of high density and against car ownership, which started in the Mayor Rice administration in 1990 or so, when the Urban Villages concept got official backing. The results are the worst case scenarios you’re all discussing. When the pendulum begins swinging the other way, as it surely will, the now-new mini-apts and zero-lot line developments, which will not age well, will look like the cookie cutter and ad hoc solution they are. Think I’m wrong? Just look at the thousands of 800 sq ft homes built out towards High Point, built during World War 2, which were a semi-permanent solution to a temporary problem (war time shortages of building materiel). Much of westside development is driven by rebuilding or replacing these 800 sq ft homes. Don’t like the current trend in ugly high rise construction w/ no parking? Just wait 30 years for when they’re torn down for the next New Building Trend.

  • Jimmy March 17, 2014 (4:10 pm)

    The old codgers bark at the moon. Tough.

  • skeeter March 17, 2014 (4:16 pm)

    Twobottles – I think you misunderstood my comment. Of course people who park in the street pay taxes. The questions is whether one group of taxpayers is subsidizing another. There are not unlimited street parking spaces. Let’s say you have two houses. One house (A) has a 2 car garage and 2 cars in it. The other (B) has a 2 car garage and no cars in it, but instead has 2 cars parked on the street. House A, in my opinion, is subsidizing house B. Both are paying taxes but house B is using a public asset to store his car and house A is not. Now multiply this by 20,000 houses AND limit the number of street parking spaces. You’ve got a fundamental inequity.
    My proposal would be to charge cars that park on a city street a fee. That way taxpayer A isn’t subsidizing taxpayer B.

    I think everyone who parks on a city street should pay a modest fee to the city for that privilege. Free parking is actually a huge, huge problem. If encourages people to drive and shields drivers from the true cost associated with their behavior. If businesses want to provide customers with a parking space that’s fine. It’s their choice and they are paying for it. But cities should not be encouraging driving by having taxpayers subsidize free parking on city streets.

  • Jimmy March 17, 2014 (4:28 pm)


    You are making way too much sense here. Please drop it.

  • Diane March 17, 2014 (4:53 pm)

    “The old codgers bark at the moon. Tough.Comment by Jimmy”
    oh, and now we’re getting ageism; not ok

  • Twobottles March 17, 2014 (4:58 pm)

    Skeeter, yes I misunderstood. My apologies.

  • Gatewooder March 17, 2014 (5:03 pm)

    Time to replace Diane Sugimura as DPD Director, she has caused enough damage to our city. I think that it is pretty obvious that she sees her job as putting the approval stamp on any development proposal that lands on her desk rather than representing the interests of the people of Seattle.

  • Peter March 17, 2014 (5:27 pm)

    It can’t be said too many times: if you don’t want to live in a city, move out of the city. Problem solved.

  • fiz March 17, 2014 (6:04 pm)

    A little off the subject, but here goes: I’ve been married to the same man for forty-nine years and there is NO WAY we could live in 220 square feet! There would be one less person in West Seattle, with or without a car.

  • JanS March 17, 2014 (6:48 pm)

    I remember when “Urban Villages” were first brought up, and how up in arms many people were about.And it’s coming to fruition. Time for us to really pay attention to who is running things, and if we don’t like what they’re doing, then vote, vote, vote to change them. it is so very hard to fight the laws in place after they’re in place. We community members need to watch who is approving what, and when it works against what we want to see in our community, vote those people out. That’s our power.

    I agree with Diane and others who are pointing out that not all renters are “transient”, I will have been in my present apartment 15 years next August. And to her other point, I’m 67.

    Peter….I have lived in West Seattle for 39 years. I’m 67 years old. I have a very small family here who I would like to be near. But, if I’m not happy with everything being done here, I should just up and leave everything I know, and go…where, really? Just throw a dart at a map? I scoff at that. It’s not that simple, and you know that. The “city” is over the bridge…this is West Seattle, in my eyes a sort of semi-urban, bordering on sub-urban part of Seattle. We do want to live in a city, a well run, well planned, well designed one. We want our mayor, our councilpersons, our city planners to walk in our shoes, get their heads out of their arses, and pay attention to how things are really going to affect the locals. Growth is going to happen, but it doesn’t have to destroy us in it’s wake.

  • NW March 17, 2014 (6:49 pm)


  • JoB March 17, 2014 (8:26 pm)

    you would be surprised at who reads this bunch of folks pecking away at their tablets :)

  • Amy March 17, 2014 (8:56 pm)

    Who is going to live in a 220 sq feet studio? I don’t understand what kind of people they are trying to attract to this building that is going up in my neighborhood. Any ideas, WSB?

  • DTK March 17, 2014 (9:01 pm)

    Could someone turn down the volume?

  • buckwheat March 17, 2014 (10:45 pm)

    More crap. Thank god for the district council positions in 2015. Maybe WS will have someone on the council who will represent WS best interest and who will try prevent this crap being built.

  • pdh March 17, 2014 (10:47 pm)

    Seriously, density impact of this project is detrimental to the neighborhood in which it is proposed. It’s amidst single family houses.

    This is a DPD rubbestamp: developer gain & neighborhood pain.

    Regarding right to parking in front of one’s house for home owners or renters in homes, Seattle Land Use Code requires that to build a house, you must prove that you have on street parking for one vehicle in front of the property. That pretty much should validate their right to park in front of their house.

    Why do developers get to build projects with no parking? The make building, sell it at a good profit and leave a mess for the neighborhoods.

    The DPD could stop this. The codes and laws are there. They don’t. Mayor Murray, please do something about this. The DPD director answers to you.

    Neighbors Encouraging Reasonable Development.

  • drahcir61 March 18, 2014 (7:52 am)

    Plenty of complaining … will YOU be the one to file an appeal or continue complaining & wait for someone else to do it?

    As the article mentions with a link, “The decision can be appealed to the city Hearing Examiner; deadline is two weeks from today, March 31st.”

    If enough people complain & appeal you might be surprised what could happen with this project AND future projects.

  • Stevy March 18, 2014 (3:36 pm)

    Folks, this problem are caused by population increase in urban areas like Seattle. Blaming the city planer allowing development w/out parking alone is not responsible. The city planer tries to increase density along main corridors so that suburban sprawl is being reduced to preserve our surrounding green space. I’m sure that we all agree that we do not want to see the Puget Sound become like LA and it suburban area. No one wants to commute for hours to go to & from work.
    Each one of our house were first built on a prairie, at one point right? People were complaining at that time too.
    One way or another, we all (single family home owner or apartment tenant) are directly affected by this population growth.
    We have to be tolerant to each other and share what we so far taken for granted. We all have kids which one day will want to be independent and lives in town near their job and by us. So, we have to make room with what we have (our city). Living style must be changed for all of us.
    Because we are not selfish, lets all be compassionate and tolerant toward our new and young residents who can afford only so much and are willing to put up with 220 sf studio.

  • Jeffrey March 18, 2014 (10:27 pm)

    You people are hilarious! Thanks for all the humor.

    I like renters that pay their rent on time and respect the property and are responsible in the community.

    There are plenty of property owners who are knuckleheads.

    Be assured that development WILL continue until the demand curve snaps back. And keep in mind that the city is pro-development for one simple reason: they need to grow the tax base.

    But please keep griping about it. You people write the damndest things. Funny stuff.

  • darenatwork March 19, 2014 (8:58 am)

    hey believe it not 220sq ft is do-able. you just have to be skinny and live 80% outside your apt.

  • WS since '66 March 19, 2014 (9:24 am)

    I’ve lived in WS since 1966. I liked the small town feeling back then so I understand all the emotional responses. Times have changed and more people are moving to Seattle and West Seattle. They want to live here for all the reasons that we do. Now let’s put emotion aside for a minute.

    Parking spaces cost money and add to the cost of each unit. Why? It is because of the space they take up is valuable. Some people don’t own a car and don’t want to pay for a parking place which they won’t use. If one were to buy a condo and want an extra parking space it would cost between $20,000 and $30,000 if there were any available to purchase. It is the same if someone wanted a condo with amenities such as a workout room and pool they wouldn’t mind paying more and getting more. Buildings which have those amenities will have higher rents or homeowners dues. Someone who has no desire to use those facilities would not even consider paying extra for something they won’t use.

    Another reason not to get ones ire up is the fact that if someone NEEDS a parking place then they wouldn’t even consider renting/buying in a building that offered none. The tenant/owner with a need for parking would be looking at buildings which offer parking.

  • Kathy March 20, 2014 (8:44 am)

    May I offer a couple of practical suggestions to those tired of circling looking for a place to park your car in order to patronize West Seattle businesses?

    This bike trailer weighs less than 10 lbs, holds 60 lbs of stuff (including golf clubs, yoga mats, bags of compost, etc.) pops off your bike in seconds, wheels like a shopping cart into stores or onto a bus, and folds down quickly to carryon size for airline travel: http://www.burley.com/travoy-c238

    This raincape looks stylish, keeps you and your bike dry, and makes biking in the rain a joy not a pain:

    These items are not cheap, but in the 4 years I have been using the trailer, it paid for itself a long time ago, in reduced gas consumption and less frustration about where to park. And now when I look out in the morning and see it is raining, I think, “Oh, boy, I get to wear my raincape” instead of “Oh, darn, it’s raining”.

    Now for some better bike infrastructure in West Seattle: http://westseattlebikeconnections.org/events/seattle-bike-expo-2014-tweed-ride/

  • Neighbor March 20, 2014 (7:55 pm)

    How is it that the SAME commenters always happen to be affected by EVERY development. Do you people live everywhere in West Seattle? You sure seem to make every development your personal issue. First it’s parking. Then it’s a union issue. Then bike parking. Then traffic. Then density. Then bus crowding. I’m beginning to wonder if most of the naysayers are busybodies with nothing better to do than complain about development. Yes, zero parking in this development is absurd, but the credibility of many commenters is running on empty right now given your anti-every development stance as if each is a personal affront.

  • WS since '66 March 29, 2014 (8:42 am)

    Someone opined about Urban Villages being the problem and that values near them have gone down and has ruined the neighborhood. That is such a misguided and uninformed statement backed up by no facts. Homes located within walking distances of Urban Villages have seen their values go up more than those where someone has to get in a car to drive to that same UV then has to park said car. Most people like to be able to take a walk to get a cup of coffee, eat a meal, shop, seek entertainment and enjoy the open spaces that are found within the UV districts.

    UVs actually cut down on the actually having to use and park a car. The walk tends to be good exercise which improves health and saves money. Shops and businesses within that UV benefit from those previously described homeowners and renters who enjoy that walk to the amenities.

    We actually had a chance to address the traffic and transit problem some years ago with the Monorail. There were 5 different ballot measure about the Monorail. Of those 4 were approved and one was not thereby shutting down the whole project. Even adding a year for “overruns” we would have been enjoying a ride to downtown and beyond for the last 4 years. I wonder how many of those bitching about the transit and traffic voted against it.

    I understand why so many are upset and emotional about more people moving into “our” West Seattle but the fact remains that YOU and your family were once the people who were scorned for having the audacity of moving into “our” home.

  • Stevy March 30, 2014 (4:04 pm)

    Well put SW/66!

    We have to co-exist with the limited space that we all appreciated.
    UV may not be the perfect solution, but it is currently acceptable until someone offer a new feasible solution.

Sorry, comment time is over.