Ex-restaurant site at 35th/Fauntleroy fenced off after neighbors point out unauthorized parking blamed on nearby microhousing

(WSB photo)
The new fence around the eight-months-vacant ex-Beni Hoshi Teriyaki site at 35th/Fauntleroy is NOT a sign of imminent change, according to the property owner, Seattle City Light. We noticed the fence last night, checked city development files but found nothing, then inquired with SCL today. Spokesperson Scott Thomsen tells WSB:

The land where the teriyaki restaurant had been located is a former substation site that we still own, but are not using. In addition to recent trouble with graffiti, a neighborhood group contacted the city with concerns about people who were parking on the site. The fencing was put up to deter additional graffiti and respond to the neighbors’ complaints about the parking.

(WSB photo)
We do not have any plans for the property at this time. It is one of the properties that is now considered surplus. As you are aware, we have been reviewing those properties a few at a time for possible sale.

(It’s not included in the current round of surplus properties under review, just to be clear.) Thomsen didn’t name the neighborhood group but unauthorized parking there was mentioned in a recent note to the city by SeattleNERD (Neighbors Encouraging Reasonable Development), which is based in the neighborhood north of upper Avalon Way. We were among the CC’s on a note from SeattleNERD’s Paul Haury that included a photo of vehicles parking in the ex-Beni Hoshi lot and attributed it to residents of nearby apartment buildings such as the recently opened no-offstreet-parking microhousing building at 3266 Avalon. The note focused on concerns about another microhousing building planned next door, 56 units at 3268 Avalon as reported here in March (a temporary power pole is at the site, suggesting work might start soon, though no other permits have been issued).

ADDED 9:44 PM: In a comment, SeattleNERD has published its full letter to the city and elaborates further on the resulting exchange. As noted above, the parking wasn’t the main topic of the group’s note to the city about the second microhousing project in the works nearby.

Side note about microhousing: New rules continue working their way through the City Council (next step is a possible committee vote on September 16th). They would not affect the 3268 Avalon Way project, though, because it’s already in the system.

84 Replies to "Ex-restaurant site at 35th/Fauntleroy fenced off after neighbors point out unauthorized parking blamed on nearby microhousing"

  • onion September 9, 2014 (6:12 pm)

    Interesting. I thought microhousing dwellers didn’t need parking spaces. Could it be that the developers’ projections misrepresented the need for parking in their applications?? (I’m stifling my surprise at this turn of events.)

  • CandrewB September 9, 2014 (6:13 pm)

    Impossible, it’s an urban village. They do not have cars.

  • Gotb September 9, 2014 (6:25 pm)

    Did Paul Haury present any actual evidence that the apartments are responsible for the problem at the site, or are he and NERD just pushing their anti-housing agenda again? If he presented any evidence, what is it?

  • West Seattle since 1979 September 9, 2014 (6:27 pm)

    Do they know for sure it’s people from the microhousing?

  • Ray September 9, 2014 (6:39 pm)

    No evidence needed to be presented. This property is not open parking for anyone, regardless of where they live.

  • schwaggy September 9, 2014 (6:47 pm)

    City Light should sell this property asap so this blight can be developed in to another awesome 7 story complex with no parking and ho-hum retail establishments on the ground level.

  • neighbor September 9, 2014 (7:07 pm)

    I live on a nearby street, and I can tell you the availability of parking has decreased dramatically sine the new condo/apartment/microhousing units opened up. This has also come with an increase in litter and other unfortunate side effects. There are more buildings coming in the area, and neighbors are concerned.

  • WSobserver September 9, 2014 (7:27 pm)

    Looks like a parking lot to me. Why shouldn’t cars park there?

    Why would the neighbors complain about cars parked in a parking lot? I’m mystified.

  • wsn00b September 9, 2014 (7:33 pm)

    Seattle City Light should just sell that plot to another microhousing developer. Problem solved


  • timh2o September 9, 2014 (7:40 pm)

    I sure hope using street parking instead of onsite parking comes to a stop. I don’t know if this is the case here but…
    I wonder how its working in the other areas with “podments”?

  • Micro-man September 9, 2014 (7:50 pm)

    All I did was park my micro-car there for 2 hours. Can I get a little micro-understanding?

  • Jw September 9, 2014 (7:50 pm)

    Isn’t free parking better than another dumpy building with chain link around it? Chain link won’t keep out the local “artists”. As a bonus street parking will be worse…. Who complains about this stuff?

  • sophista-tiki September 9, 2014 (7:50 pm)

    Give me a break its 99% probably the micro housing people who were provided no parking in their uber crowded hood. Oh wait, those people magically don’t have cars and ride our invisible transit? but you know go ahead and shove a few thousand more of them in so – Kowloon The fence is somewhat satisfying in a snarky passive aggressive Seattle way.

  • DW September 9, 2014 (7:50 pm)

    Why would Seattle City Light just let it sit there?

  • sn6uV September 9, 2014 (7:52 pm)

    I think the no parking micro-housing is absurd, but also don’t really get why the city needs to fence that lot. How does that serve the people? Why not use it for temporary parking?

  • denis September 9, 2014 (8:08 pm)

    Did I miss something? Why do you care if someone parks in a vacant lot? The fence looks worse.

  • Laur September 9, 2014 (8:13 pm)

    I don’t think anyone is against micro-housing. The opposition is to developers building units without providing sufficient parking for each building’s residents.

  • gatewood September 9, 2014 (8:17 pm)

    The fence is a terrible eye sore we will probably endure for years. Shame on you complainers. Paint will take care of the graffiti and really, what are the cars hurting? And if the city was smart they’d turn it into a pay lot.

  • CanDo September 9, 2014 (8:18 pm)

    Oh good, because the lot has a much more appealing look without cars parked on it… NOT! Who cares if anyone parks there? It’s an eyesore either way.

  • WTF September 9, 2014 (8:20 pm)

    Why doesn’t SCL just tear the dam’ building down? Let people park there; what business is it of anyone’s who parks. It’s so ridiculous and it’s such a typical c-suite answer to a question we deserve a straight answer for. That fence is not only ugly it’s insulting to those of us who live and pay taxes in West Seattle. Why do we deserve to have our neighborhood trashed even more and looking like a junkyard?

  • flimflam September 9, 2014 (8:21 pm)

    I know for sure this isn’t “microhousing” folks parking there. I can say this is completely true because the developers said there would be maybe, possibly, a small , small % of residents that would be driving a car. therefore, this is not happening.

  • flimflam September 9, 2014 (8:23 pm)

    “Did I miss something? Why do you care if someone parks in a vacant lot? The fence looks worse”

    well, if I actually owned the lot I might have a strong opinion on the matter. do you allow free parking at your house?

    • WSB September 9, 2014 (8:33 pm)

      Absent comment from SeattleNERD, which I haven’t had time to contact yet, I will say the note I mentioned was not a complaint about the parking – just pointing out, in the context of their contention that the area’s parking needs exceed its parking availability, that parking was happening on this lot. Certainly no way to say, short of stalking/following the people who parked here, whether they were residents of 3266 Avalon or not – but frequent passersby/residents of the area will certainly note that this area wasn’t even full all the time when the little teriyaki restaurant (Yasuko’s, before Beni Hoshi) was in operation.

  • Rick September 9, 2014 (8:42 pm)

    I’m seeing more and more of the ever increasing entitlement attitude in comments these days. You’re not using your house or condo while you snowbird 6 months out of the year so why shouldn’t somebody else use it, unless you’re just being selfish. (sarcasm) Who do you think carries the liability on that lot? I can say with certainty it’s not likely the folks who feel entitled to park there. Oops, there’s that word again.

  • Kg September 9, 2014 (8:45 pm)

    Is it possible the property owner would be held liable for any damage or theft that would occur on the property?
    If so then the fence may be justified.

  • onion September 9, 2014 (8:50 pm)

    For the record, I don’t care whether people park in the lot. That lot should be put to productive use. And I have nothing against the residents and their opportunities to have decent housing. I do have a problem with the developers and city officials who are selling a fake bill of goods.

  • jissy September 9, 2014 (9:08 pm)

    Hmmmmm, seems like complaining is going to have the opposite effect, i.e. all those folks now parking on the residential streets and in the neighborhood. Seems like the lot was put to highest and best use for a time.

  • Paul Haury September 9, 2014 (9:08 pm)

    For the record, the complaint wasn’t about “Micro-people parking on City property” as some are stating.

    With respect to notifying the City about some parking on its property, actually, the email was a complaint about the DPD not following SMCs 25.05.670- Cumulative effects policy, and 25.05.675- Specific environmental policies. We were telling the DPD and the Mayor that parking is now so bad now in our neighborhood that even the Micro people can’t find parking. And, yes they were Micro’ people’s cars.

    Here’s what I sent- Judge for yourselves:

    My first message-

    Hello Director Sugimura and Mayor Murray,

    Our neighborhood has not received any answer to the question of how the DPD is going to mitigate the effects of this project as per Seattle Municipal Code:

    • The Height, Bulk and Scale (SMC 25.05.675 G2 a, b, and c)
    • Traffic and Transportation (SMC 25.05.675 R2 a, b and c)

    It appears that the DPD is passing this project #6404485 (3268 SW Avalon Way) along without the proper diligence. This is very disappointing, especially in the light of the Superior Court ruling in case 14-2-05319-3, for THE HARVARD DISTRICT NEIGHBORS, LLC. Like the Harvard Ave Microhouse, every unit, and for the proposed project at 3268 SW Avalon Way, 56 of them, should be counted and the Director should force this project to go back to Design Review. DPD is passing it as 7 units. It exceeds the minimum of 20 unit count by 36 units that would require Design Review (where land use law says adverse impacts should be mitigated).

    Here is an example of the negative impacts.

    The new and existing Microhouse at 3266 SW Avalon Way (56 units with no parking) has completely filled every last parking space on our block that was available. This 56 unit building was passed by the DPD as a 7 unit building so that it could evade Design Review. While, at the same time it was reported to another city division as a 56 unit for tax write off purposes. People from the Micro ride their bikes 1500 feet to check on their cars and on occasion get items out of the trunks (apparently there is not enough storage in a Micro unit). Also, since every spot is full in the area they have resorted to parking in the abandoned teriyaki business.

    My second message in response to the City saying they’ll get the parkers out and put a fence up.

    Hi (SCL official’s name removed),

    Just for clarification, I’m not upset that any cars are parking on SCL property, though the questionable activities (graffiti, drug needles, dealing… etc) that we and your crews deal with are problematic. (I feel bad for your peeps that have to risk being stuck by needles and stuff while doing their job.) Your SCL people are quite nice and have done well in cleaning things up periodically and when we report stuff to you. Thanks.

    My reporting of the parking had to do with evidence to the fact that the parking is now so over-full in our neighborhood from the allowance of a newly built Micro-house building, that they are spilling over into the SCL property. A Micro-House was built with zero parking, without doing the proper project impact mitigation of specific and cumulative effects as specified by SMCs for traffic, height bulk and scale, and parking on our adjacent neighborhood by the DPD.


    End of messages- that’s what I sent.

    The truth is, Seattle wouldn’t be in this pickle if the density impacts of projects were honestly calculated. The newly proposed Micro is being called less than 20 units, and that allows them to evade the required Design Review for the 58 unit structure. That is deceptive misrepresentation. And they, the DPD and Developer, are doing it again.

    Here is the land use SMC the developer got to evade with the help of the DPD: SMC 23.41.002 (Design Review) Purpose “ensure that new development enhances the character of the city and sensitively fits into neighborhoods … to provide for effective mitigation of a proposed project’s impact and influence on a neighborhood.”

    Why? To benefit the developers, regardless of the cost of nearby neighborhoods.

    Count Micro-units 1-1 and make reasonable development that makes for healthy better living neighborhoods.


  • swres September 9, 2014 (9:15 pm)

    Use the lot or sell it. There should be eyesore fines for abandoned and ugly properties, especially those that attract squatters.

  • Alki resident September 9, 2014 (9:18 pm)

    That fence looks hideous. Whoever complained south parked cars needs to get a life.

  • Donovan September 9, 2014 (9:21 pm)

    Suggestion: City Light should flatten that ugly building and put in some pay parking. It would make use of the space, provide some income to SCL for the property, and help a tiny bit to alleviate the parking problem. Enforcement might be an issue, but it seems like a win-win.

  • Brian h. September 9, 2014 (9:50 pm)

    Again, you have no more right to park on a public street than anyone else. Saying others shouldn’t park on street to let you do so is pretty absurd. Hard to take a complaint like that seriously.

  • Sarah September 9, 2014 (9:50 pm)

    Well … looks like the original post-er responders, Gotb and 1979, got what thy wanted. There is no way you can build housing without parking. Period. Why should we be surprised? West Seattle has become a developer’s wet dream.

  • miws September 9, 2014 (10:02 pm)

    I was going to bring up the point that Rick and Kg did; liability may be the issue.


    As nice as it would be to allow people to park there, the property owner might be held liable, if someone misstepped on uneven ground, going to or from their car, and twisted their ankle, or, if a pedestrian walking by on the public sidewalk got hit by a driver flying out of the lot.


    In this case, being City Light property, the ratepayers/taxpayers would end up footing the bill.


    Another concern might be a higher potential for
    littering in the lot, beyond what just might blow in from elsewhere, or be dropped by passers-by.



  • Jon September 9, 2014 (10:05 pm)

    So the developers shouldn’t be building units without parking, but all of the homes in the neighborhood without driveways and garages are ok? I just want to make sure I have a handle on any possible entitlement issues and hypocrisy here…

  • s September 9, 2014 (10:26 pm)

    I think the point of the complaint was that microhousing developers are claiming their tenants will not have cars. DPD believes them and exempts them from building garages. But the fact of the matter is that micropeople do have cars. If developers were forced to build garages, then there would be more parking for micropeople and other residents in the neighborhood as well. People win, developers make a little less profit.
    Just as an aside, I don’t have any skin in the game. I could get four more cars and have an off-street space for all of my cars.

  • cj September 9, 2014 (10:43 pm)

    We expected something other than this to come from no parking micro-housing?

  • Eric1 September 9, 2014 (11:02 pm)

    It isn’t just the micro-housing. That whole area is too dense without the necessary infrastructure/parking. The road is crap because they dig it up every other week to put in a connection to another apartment complex. On the other weeks they re-stripe the road or re-time the lights to confuse the drivers.
    I doubt any of those newer apartments have two parking stalls per unit. Since you need a double income to live anywhere in Seattle, you will get more cars than parking stalls.

  • steve September 9, 2014 (11:52 pm)

    I move that Benni Hoshi Teriyaki be preserved as a historical landmark.

  • JanS September 10, 2014 (1:21 am)

    and when the micro units in the junction are built, the same thing will happen.From the beginning, people have said (including me) that the idea that these renters will not have cars is absurd. And, yes, they will park on already crowded streets. And they will park in the free lots in the junction when they can get away with it.It’s been the argument from the beginning. Yes, I realize that public streets/parking are indeed public, and can be used by anyone, but the city has it’s head up it’s arse if it doesn’t think that it’s contributing to overcrowding in these areas.

    To the person who made the comment about houses that do not have parking. That’s one house, sometimes one car, maybe two. These buildings are 56-58 units etc. (not the BS # of 7 shoved down everyone’s throat.) That’s a mighty big difference in numbers. Same thing happens where I live in Admiral. Element 42 has parking if you pay for it. Some elect to not pay and park on the street…and between them and employees of local businesses on many days there isn’t a parking place to be had. Add in an event place at Lander and 42nd, and their lack of parking (have a wedding and the cars are actually illegally parked all along Lander in no parking zones), and it fills up mighty fast. I see clients in my home, and many times they complain about not being able to find parking nearby.SW Avalon is 10 times worse.

  • Mike D. September 10, 2014 (3:09 am)

    @ Steve – That cracked me up. I second that motion. Landmark status for Beni Hoshi Teriyaki.

  • Smitty September 10, 2014 (6:53 am)

    Three times in the last week or so I have been “stopped” behind a car turning left into that lot while heading south on 35th. During rush hour it results in a ton of cars being backed up and/or ending up stuck in the intersection because people just aren’t used to that in that area.

    If nothing else it is better for this reason alone.

  • steve September 10, 2014 (7:00 am)

    Turn the lot into a park. It could be a nice looking entrance to west seattle and would allow all the people living in that area to have an outdoor space to enjoy. A parking lot would be as hideous as the microhousing that everyone is complaining about.

  • Dunno September 10, 2014 (7:02 am)

    Firefighter training. It’s a rathole. We the people who pay SCL bills own it! Pay parking for now. Sound transit station tomorrow!

  • Growing Pains September 10, 2014 (7:33 am)

    Complaining about ugly fencing and saying that the city should let others use the lot to park since it currently isn’t in use it quite myopic. The big picture is to bring awareness to the micro housing and lack of parking issue so that the city has to reevaluate possibly effecting change to prevent worsening future problems. We can’t just keep using band-aid solutions like parking in somebody else’s lot to make the problem go away and shove it under the rug. Closing the lot forces everybody including the city, neighborhoods, micro housing tenants and building owners to have some skin in the game so the problem is addressed.

  • wakeflood September 10, 2014 (7:52 am)

    To anyone who has issues with developers not being honest about their impacts to infrastructure, and the DPD letting them do it, there’s a meeting today in the City Council chambers for the public to chime in on “Developer Impact Fees”.

    Sounds like at least a few folks who posted above might want to offer their thoughts to the Council on this topic?

    I suspect that one can also use emails to the Councilmembers as an optional method to provide your thoughts – although Tracy might have more info on that?

    All of which is to say, here’s an opportunity to speak to your electeds on what appears to be an important element of our community’s livability. To paraphrase Sean Connery in The Untouchables…”What are you willing to do?!” :-)

  • Elle Nell September 10, 2014 (7:59 am)

    First off, I just crack up and what people do with there time… Sounds like some need to find something to do with there time. With that being said, I have witnessed guys parking there that were working construction on the homes/street behind Hoshi and down Avalon… Big F’n deal, really???

  • AmandaKH September 10, 2014 (8:08 am)

    Street parking in the Junction residential areas should be RPZ. That way, if you have a garage/driveway, you use it. If you do not, you buy a parking permit.

  • artsea September 10, 2014 (8:09 am)

    We all know…..or should…..that the city would like ALL cars removed from Seattle. Next they’ll be putting up ugly fences around major roadways to achieve their goal faster.

  • heather September 10, 2014 (8:17 am)

    Good letter Paul Haury. And thank you for posting it here. I support different approaches for affordable housing but bypassing impact review on one hand but then qualifying for tax breaks on the other is kind of stomach turning.

  • heather September 10, 2014 (8:21 am)

    Read Paul Haurys post (original letters). Parking on that lot was clearly listed as an impact concern for his original grievances – which are valid public concerns.

    It’s disappointing to me to learn that the city has no plans for that site…

  • comment by b September 10, 2014 (8:56 am)

    It seems many of you that have commented, have not really-REALLY- read the letter Paul Haury and Seattle NERD sent the Mayor et al. You would understand this is not just a simple complaint about a few cars in a vacant lot. The big F*ing deal, as some of you are wondering, is that the close surrounding neighborhoods of single family homes, have been bearing a significant brunt of the DPD’s neglect and cheek-turning while apartments, condos, micro-units get erected all around them. Despite what the City would LIKE to believe (that this area of Avalon/Fauntleroy/35th is a mass-transit hub of young, working, WALKING professionals) it is not. If you do not live in this area, and your home/property value/parking availability/view/children have not been affected by this significant uptick in development and construction, then PLEASE have some consideration, and think before you post your off-hand, snarky comments! It does nothing for our West Seattle ‘hood in general when you suggest that no one should care.

  • John September 10, 2014 (9:59 am)

    Due diligence.
    When one purchases property abutting or close to different zoning, it is reflected in the price being lower.
    At least some of those complaining should realize the low price, low taxes and views across Avalon that they have enjoyed for so long are the result of Avalon not being developed as allowed and to its potential.
    Other people passed on this area for exactly those reasons, it was an old poorly built under-utilized area zoned for re-development of apartments and condos.
    It appears that many of the old 1900 era Seattle boxes along 32nd were converted to view McMansions during the last housing boom and some of these people now want the rules changed for their continued benefit.
    Mr. Haury’s citation of the codes DPD is not following could be interpreted the same way for the construction he and his neighbors have made. They all have impacts.
    Enjoying proximity to density’s bounties should be carefully balanced against inconveniences when deciding where to live.

    • WSB September 10, 2014 (10:13 am)

      A trip through Google Street View doesn’t show “McMansions.” Some second-story additions on the north side of the street. Going out on an errand run and will drive through to see if that’s changed since the GSV camera went through, since we have something to check over there anyway.

  • Mickymse September 10, 2014 (10:24 am)

    So, we still have no actual proof that the folks who parked there were residents in the micro-housing nearby. even if, say, one or two of the cars were, the others could just as easily be folks who decided to park here and hop on RapidRide buses nearby.
    We also are supposed to feel sorry for homeowners WITH garages and driveways who don’t use them to park their cars in? Unless you’re complaining that visitors can’t find parking when they come over to visit you, exactly what are you complaining about? You don’t feel like using your garage for what it was BUILT for?

  • clulessinws September 10, 2014 (10:36 am)

    “I don’t think anyone is against micro-housing. The opposition is to developers building units without providing sufficient parking for each building’s residents.

    Comment by Laur — 8:13 pm September 9, 2014 #”

    Actually Laur, a lot of people are against microhousing. I don’t know anyone who is for it.

  • Alice September 10, 2014 (11:34 am)

    I held off on judgment until I could drive by. IT LOOKS HORRIBLE. That fenced-off, derelict-looking property is the first and last thing most people will see in West Seattle. I don’t care if it becomes parking or a park or housing — but this is not acceptable, City Light!

  • Civik September 10, 2014 (11:53 am)

    I believe seattle used to require there be enough curb space to park on-street for houses so that homeowners could have room to park. Most of the garages in older housing don’t really have much room for anything other than a compact or two door vehicle, which was great when households could have a single ‘breadwinner’. But today that’s just not possible.

    Cars are a requirement until the city gets its transportation plan in order and feels up to the task of informing the public of what that plan is so we can have a discussion about it.

  • Jacob September 10, 2014 (12:15 pm)


  • Alki resident September 10, 2014 (1:00 pm)

    We made our bed and let this happen so now we have to lay in in it; says I

  • Bradley September 10, 2014 (2:02 pm)

    When you have the “move people, not cars” mentality as a city, you get fewer parking spots for all the transit advocates who secretly own one car for each family member.

  • wsn00b September 10, 2014 (2:04 pm)

    If they fix it and make it less sketchy, the standard set of directions I give to friends will change…

    “Keep going west on west seattle bridge, once you reach the end you’ll see a bunch of weeds in the median and around and broken signs indicating left to 35th ave SW. The intersection is all broken concrete and very sketchy looking. Turn left and go past the sketchy taco time and teriyaki place. Continue for a few mile on 35th ave SW. It will be pretty broken bumpy road…”

  • Alki resident September 10, 2014 (3:28 pm)

    I like that Taco Time. It’s clean inside and the people were nice or at least nice enough for fast food.

  • 4thGenWS September 10, 2014 (3:29 pm)

    Seems like a great spot to put Diva Esspresso since they were kicked out of their last joint. Is SCL wanting to rent this place?

    And don’t blame the micro-housing people for not having onsite parking…the city needs to continue to get slammed for this nonsense.

    I think they are just setting it up so they can start putting parking meters up and get more revenue from the taxpayers so they can just spend more money more frivolously.

  • Diane September 10, 2014 (3:38 pm)

    fyi, there are many houses in Seattle that have no garage or off-street parking; I lived in a house in West Seattle for 7 yrs, just down the hill from the junction (learned recently it’s called Seaview, though I certainly had no view, of anything, except my neighbor’s houses); there was no garage, no off-street parking; same for most of my neighbors; we all had to park on the street
    but it is true that most/many homeowners use their garages for storage, rarely for their cars; the house across from me has a garage, used for storage; and a huge double driveway that could hold 4+ cars; but they park their 2 vehicles on the street; sometimes they park 1 car in their driveway

  • West Seattle Hipster September 10, 2014 (4:57 pm)

    While I believe that the influx of micro housing dwellers are responsible for the lack of parking, I am more concerned that SCL is basically going to leave that site abandoned and neglected. I also like the idea of turning that space into a park.


    The Taco Time across the street is far from sketchy, the food is good and the workers are always friendly & polite. The building and property is clean and well maintained, and to call the restaurant sketchy is ridiculous.

  • Skittles4Marshawn September 10, 2014 (6:20 pm)

    The fence looks ridiculous, but I’m sympathetic to the fact that the owner of the lot probably has liability concerns. Hopefully there is a better long-term use for the lot.

    Also, I’m a homeowner in West Seattle and I think the comments complaining about the use of street parking rather than on-site parking are absurd. My deed didn’t come with an exclusive right to street-parking. (Although my garage is nearly inaccessible due to an unpaved alley…so I do utilize street parking — that’s a different issue though!)

  • wetone September 10, 2014 (9:04 pm)

    Heard some talk of a few micro projects being planed in the north Admiral area soon. Should be interesting to see how that goes. Shouldn’t be a problem there as they won’t be adding to any parking issues ; )

  • en September 10, 2014 (9:12 pm)

    Everyone is freaking out about a neighbor complaining about parking. If that’s all it took, i’m glad. For years this has been a hang out for drug users and vagrants. During the construction of the many condos on Avalon you could watch construction workers buy drugs behind the restaurant on a daily basis. I called the police myself a few times and once they actually showed up .. During the construction of the buildings many workers would park illegally, taking down no parking signs and blocking driveways. I and others reported this, with no action. One day after most projects were done and all the workers left, the city finally put the no parking signs up. Convenient .. They probably fenced it off to draw attention away from the success the NERDs are having in their battle against the city.

  • wsn00b September 10, 2014 (10:28 pm)

    Err. I meant 7-11 and not Taco Time. Whew.
    (anyways, doesn’t really matter what I think is sketchy. Really.)

  • Skittles4Marshawn September 10, 2014 (10:47 pm)

    @ Smitty: a car commuter complaining about being inconvenienced by other car owners making turns into parking lots. As a bus commuter (and car and home owner), I don’t have anything to say about this that could in any way be described as “polite” so… :-/

  • Bill September 11, 2014 (7:43 am)

    Steve said:

    “I move that Benni Hoshi Teriyaki be preserved as a historical landmark.

    Comment by steve — 11:52 pm September 9, 2014 #”

    Thanks Steve — I needed that!

  • West Seattle since 1979 September 11, 2014 (11:16 am)

    Regarding people needing one car per income in a household: Wow, here I thought i had a job and an income all these years! I’ve been going to this place every weekday, and getting checks every 2 weeks. I guess I must be delusional though, because I don’t have a car! (Also some of my co-workers take buses to work because parking is too expensive and hard to find here.)

    I realize not everyone can take the bus, and that it’ll get worse if the bus cuts go through, but it’s just kind of funny when I read that a two-income household must necessarily have two cars. (Yes I realize many if not most do, but still.)

  • Neighbor September 11, 2014 (11:54 am)

    Dear clulessinws,

    I live 2 blocks from a microhousing unit and I am for it. Not all of us grew up in McMansions nd moved directly into large apartments or single family homes, and microhousing provides opportunities for people to live in desirable neighborhoods who probably contribute to the community who would otherwise not be able to afford to live here. Now you know of someone who finds such development favorable!

    I do not, however, support these developments that do not include parking – that’s short sighted and poor city management at its worst. I am also against folks who live on streets that have long been zoned for multi family housing who think that multi family housing somehow means poor or undesirable tenants will live there, and who are just against all development. Development is going to happen, so better to contribute constructively to the dialogue than just oppose it on presumptive socioeconomic or other reasons about the “undesirable” renters. What snobbery.

  • West Seattle since 1851 September 11, 2014 (1:17 pm)

    I remember when all ya alls starting showing up around here in the 1850’s and I was thinking even back then that this place is getting too crowded. Couldn’t even park my horse in front of my own place! Then came all the buildings in the neighborhood and WS just went downhill from there.

    More things change, the more they stay the same.

  • higgins September 11, 2014 (3:03 pm)

    I for one am hoping that all this ire about parking gets channeled into the push for light rail and better public transit in general. It’s a natural, if frustrating, process: increase density > decrease parking per capita > make having a car a burden > The People begin to demand better transit.

  • Michael September 11, 2014 (3:36 pm)

    Diane Sugimura and her cronies have sold us out. The fence sucks, and SCL probably put it up to make things worse for parking just to piss off the NERDS that live nearby. I live on Avalon just behind the microhousing and there are no longer any parking spots on the street after 7pm. There used to be many just 8 months ago. It’s stupid and criminal to allow developers to skirt zoning laws on one hand and exploit tax breaks on the other hand. Either your building is 7 units (which it isn’t) or it’s 56 units(which it is), it isn’t both at the same time. PLEASE FIRE THE DPD DIRECTOR AND PURSUE POSSIBLE CRIMINAL CHARGES. She has to be taking bribes, nothing else makes sense. Certainly she has not upheld the public trust. And Mayor Murray, you made promises too, and we hope you don’t forget that voters are responsible for you being in office. Better keep those promises unless next election you’d like your title to change from Mayor Ed to “Mr. Ed”.

  • Elle Nell September 12, 2014 (12:09 am)

    The thing is, once again folks want to vote( not vote) for certain things… Waste time thinking that Seattle is going to stay “our” sweet small town is really easy to do but we have to wake up and realize that we are like in the top 5 highest growing cities in the nation…. What does that mean? Well, for starters, we have no control over this rapid development. The things we might have some say in are the things we should be f’ ing worried about…. Like, oh I don’t know… Rent control… Otherwise, you can complain your little heart all the way out of your fav cluster of condo madness!! Moral of this story…. Less jaw moving and more action JACKSON!!!

  • John September 12, 2014 (8:20 am)

    Is there supposed to be available parking after 7 PM on your street?
    Is that a right of yours that Diane Sugimura took away?
    Why do you chose to live right behind an area long slated for re-development?
    It appears the fence may have been put up in response to NERDS introduction of it to his agenda.

  • Cheryl September 12, 2014 (9:40 am)

    Never saw THIS coming. No, not at all. (HAHAHAHA)

  • sam-c September 12, 2014 (3:13 pm)

    Maybe the nearby drive through Starbucks should use this lot as overflow… you know, like the cell-phone waiting lot at the airport.
    I am always amazed at how the drivers at SB like to block traffic lanes by getting in line for their coffee, or cause near accidents by pulling in and out of that Starbucks. It’s more nerve-wracking to drive by that place than it would be to drive by a playground of unsupervised preschoolers.

  • Michael September 12, 2014 (9:28 pm)

    I never said a thing about expecting street parking as a right. I made a comment that it was getting scarce. Where are you coming from neighbor? Parking is become scarce because your office (yes, your office) isn’t following the rules. Characteristically, you singled out 5% of my post, replied completely off topic, and didn’t address a single thing of substance in my post. You obviously work for the city.
    Actually who knows, but sounds likely. :-$
    Why not respond to any of the obvious failures of DPD, or the obvious bias in enforcing building code as written, or the attempt by a developer to claim unit count of a bulding one way to benefit in permitting, then turn around and claim it in a completely opposite way to claim a tax benefit. Why not respond to that? We can’t ignore that there will be a s#%tload of cars from the tenants in these 56 units of “no car drivin’ space aliens”. Obviously there will be a lot of cars John. As the Vue gains tenants and if this goes up as “permitted”, it is going to be ridiculous. Development was/is supposed to be subject to building codes. That’s all we are asking John.

  • John September 13, 2014 (10:39 am)

    No need for libel.
    I don’t have an office.
    I do not work for, nor am I professionally associated with; the DPD, the City of Seattle, any building trade groups, nor am I any type of apartment developer.

    I am however, aware of the way our system works.

    The Mayor and City Council elected by us decide on the policies, pass the regulations and supervise enforcement.

    The various departments such as DPD serve under the elected officials.

    Diane Sugimura (no friend or acquaintance of mine) is an administrator of the codes passed by the elected officials.

    I wonder if you are confused about “building codes?”
    All construction is subject to the same building codes which often in some way relate to safety. If you are aware that building codes are not being followed, please phone or submit online to DPD the specifics.

    Another whole set of codes are related to Land Use/Development and your gripes.
    Diane Sugimura as head of DPD is also charged with administering the Land Use Codes.

    When you write “PLEASE FIRE THE DPD DIRECTOR AND PURSUE POSSIBLE CRIMINAL CHARGES. She has to be taking bribes,” those are serious charges.
    Any proof whatsoever?

    Also I would be interested to hear exactly what codes are not being enforced or how as an administrator the DPD Director she is not upholding the public’s trust?

    In response to unit counts versus tax credits, I am not familiar with the system but, just like traffic codes change the flow (or lack) of traffic, land use codes change the flow of development. They are constantly being evaluated and corrected. A good example is the “six-pack” housing that sprouted up along Delridge in response to land use codes. The land use code was changed.

    Here on WSB there is excellent coverage we can all see.
    The issues of density and small housing units; unit counts, unit sizes, accommodations, parking, tax benefits, locations are all before the City Council right now. This is the way our system is intended to function. It is your chance to speak, contact the city council and mayor.

    Yes, there will be cars, perhaps a lot of them. Everywhere in Seattle people are complaining about growth but offer no way to address it. You chose to live in a ripe for re-development, long zoned higher density area.
    Change is difficult and it is here.
    Not everyone owns cars. The percentage number of drivers has been and continues to go down.
    Should renters that do not own cars (they do exist) be required pay an additional $100 per month for a garage they have no use for?

    Just as people driving in traffic adjusts its flow, so will the neighborhood parking challenges adjust the flow of renters.
    Those without cars will appreciate and be drawn while those with cars that have nowhere to park will find the inconvenience of the limited street parking too much and move.

    In all situations, the NERDS are facing unwanted change. There will be less of the once commonly available street parking.
    As homeowners, NERDS theoretically have private parking in their garages, driveways and the little known availability of the space on the street side of your driveway skirt (not across the skirt itself which is considered the planting strip). Depending on configuration, most houses have at least two parking spaces without adding in multiple car garages.

    In the future, if Michael is correct and all of the micro-renters have cars, multiple cars, multiple tenants with cars per unit, then the Nerd’s may have to resort to temporary parking on the street and reserve a space on their property when guests visit. This is already the case in other parts of our city.

    As a neighbor, I am coming from a holistic approach to the inevitable growth (and declines) in our city, civic responsibility and due diligence for those that are already here and for those who choose to come. I come from a strong belief that NIMBYism offers no solutions.

  • Paul Haury September 20, 2014 (12:11 am)

    For the record, the NERDs have been very consistent and have not been anti-development. We cave repeatedly called for balanced reasonable development. NERD stands for Neighbors Encouraging Reasonable Development. West Seattle will have cars for many years to come. We’ll be lucky to see light rail by 2025. The size, traffic impacts, and parking impacts of projects like this are unreasonable.

    The City DPD called the Micros 7 units when they are actually 58 units in order to bypass good City land use codes and processes that could have been used to properly mitigate negative impacts on neighborhoods. The density impacts are 8x that of what is being addressed. It’s fraud.

    Developer and city gain revenue and it’s a loss for the neighborhoods.

    Sadly, the developer and City use the people who live in the Micros as pawns in need, and then portray those in the affected neighborhoods as goats. People living in the Micros pay 875 for a 100+ square foot room, and then have to park 1/4 mile away. That can’t be fun for them. Developer and DPD lies about density created this.

    But it’s worse for the neighborhood. The fraudulent activity has negatively effected the neighborhoods (all over the city) so that, a 60-70 year old person with limited mobility has to walk 1/4 mile to get home from parking. Or, for that matter, a parent with children. That’s not right.

    Both the Micro peoples and the neighbors have a similar inconvenience and are good people. But those in the single family neighborhood, they had an existing quality of neighborhood taken though deception.

    Calling poorly planned density beyond an area’s infrastructure inevitable is a lame resignation to corruption and bad city planning. By doing so, you contribute to the sanctioning of existing neighborhood people’s quality of lives as expendable.

    Further, implying that the NERDs, or anyone not happy with unreasonable development, are unhelpful NIMBY’s wrongly blames the neighborhoods as causing the problem and allows those who perpetuate unreasonable density through deception and misdirection to continue on.

    Put the focus where it belongs. Stop the deception.


Sorry, comment time is over.