Followup: Neighbors mobilize after temporary Fire Station 29 suddenly switches to smaller site

By Tracy Record
West Seattle Blog editor

Fire Station 29 in Admiral has been slated for remodeling and seismic-safety upgrades since voters passed a citywide levy 11 years ago.

For at least a year, the city has been saying that while the work is under way at Station 29, its engine and personnel would be based from the same Harbor Avenue industrial site that was interim home to North Delridge’s Station 36 during its now-complete upgrades. The $1.8 million contract has now been awarded, and Station 29 work is soon to start.

Then suddenly last Wednesday, the city was sending reps door-to-door around a triangle of SDOT right-of-way a block northeast of the current station – between 44th SW, Ferry SW, and SW Hill, across the street from Admiral Congregational Church and A Child Becomes Preschool – telling neighbors the plan had changed at the last minute, and that the triangle would house the interim fire station instead, for about a year, a tight fit at best.

Since our first report that afternoon, we have pursued follow-up questions, and neighbors have been mobilizing. Their point, in a Saturday-morning gathering attended by City Councilmember Tom Rasmussen, is that they’re not against having firefighters nearby (they’re already on the block) – they’re concerned about the size and safety of the newly designated site, and the lack of transparency in keeping the change under wraps until the last moment.

Saturday morning’s meeting was organized by neighbor John Noonan, who said that a contractor “spray painting lines in our yard a few weeks ago” gave the first hint of the new plan, though no one would confirm it until the notification on Wednesday. (We first inquired with the city on January 2nd, the preceding Friday, but did not get confirmation until January 7th. The most-recent status report for fire levy projects, dated November 26th, said the “site search” for interim Station 29 was complete by then, without listing an address, and that “preliminary design” had begun – yet no public word of the site change emerged until six weeks after that.

After notification last Wednesday, Noonan immediately started contacting city reps with safety concerns including:

Emergency vehicles don’t drive slowly, and the new location will introduce at least one additional intersection for the fire trucks to go through before reaching California Ave, that doesn’t have a signal of any kind. The proposed driveway for the fire truck is directly adjacent to another family that has young children. … Also, the mobile home will be built so close to the street on 44th Ave SW, it’s going to create a major blindspot on 44th & SW Hill St. … The building is tremendously oversized for the property. Parents load & unload their kids to the [Admiral Church] preschool four times a day right there but cars now won’t be able to see them until they’re very close. The same for churchgoers in the busy time before service. The proposed driveway for the fire truck is directly adjacent to another family that has young children. What about crosswalks, stop signs, signals? Has anybody from the city even considered the safety aspects?

Other concerns include parking; we counted, during the Saturday morning meeting, 16 vehicles along the triangle or immediately across the streets on its east and west sides (the church/preschool parking lot is immediately north).

Councilmember Rasmussen suggested on Saturday morning that a community meeting seemed in order. There had been a City Council hearing related to the Station 29 project in late summer, but at that time, there was no word of a change in the interim location.

In response to one of our followup questions from last week, city Finance and Administrative Services spokesperson Cyndi Wilder said SFD had initiated the eleventh-hour request for a location change. “Seattle Fire Department requested in late 2014 that the temporary station be moved to Fire Station 29’s service area and on top of the hill, which prompted the new site. Due to the timeframe in which the Fire Station 29 project must be completed, a new site for the temporary fire station was limited to City-owned or other immediately developable properties. Temporary Fire Station 29 will be placed on City-owned property and SDOT right of way, therefore the development requires SDOT permits; it does not trigger a land-use process.”

We’ll be checking tomorrow on the status of those permits.

There also is Seattle Public Utilities involvement, as they have a water-quality-testing installation (photo above) on the north side of the triangle, and that apparently has to be moved. “No Parking” signs that were up at the site on Saturday morning suggest some work will begin as soon as Tuesday.

Wilder mentioned a timeframe for the project’s completion – that was a reference to the fire levy passed in 2003 running out this year.

Back to the reason for the location change, that part of our inquiry was forwarded to SFD spokesperson Kyle Moore, who said, “The Seattle Fire Department ultimately decided that the temporary fire station needed to be on top of the hill, close to the existing station, in order to maintain rapid response times for emergencies. … To give you an example, if a person in Fire Station 29’s experienced a medical problem and needed a fire unit, the average response time would increase from 4 minutes to 6 minutes. When it comes to medical events that involve cardiac arrest, every second counts. In addition, inclement weather, including snow and ice on the roadways, would delay emergency responders as they navigate up the hill from the temporary Harbor Avenue location. By keeping the temporary station in the neighborhood, quick emergency response times are maintained.”

The new location does not require new materials, according to Wilder: “The tent and trailer are the same ones used at other temporary fire station projects.” She didn’t say exactly what from the former interim Station 36 would be moved up the hill; here’s what is still visible at the Harbor Avenue site that was originally going to be used:

The city has continued a month-to-month, $2,003/month lease on that site – Port of Seattle property – in the six months since FS 36 moved back to its permanent site, but Wilder says, “Once the remaining tents and trailers are relocated to the temporary sites for Fire Stations 32 and 29, the lease will be terminated. … There is no cost to lease the SDOT property where temporary Fire Station 29 will be located.”

We are told by a source that at least one other site that was considered, as an alternative to the Harbor Avenue site, also would not have costs to the city – a section of Ferry Avenue in front of the current station.

So what’s next?

Councilmember Rasmussen promised to look into questions brought up during the Saturday morning gathering, “to get answers as quickly as possible.”

“We love our firefighters,” Noonan told him, “but this is out of size for the triangle.”

Rasmussen acknowledged that the site seemed “tiny.” For a fire station, anyway; neighborhood kids have been using it as a mini-park, and one was kicking a ball around as the meeting wrapped up.

20 Replies to "Followup: Neighbors mobilize after temporary Fire Station 29 suddenly switches to smaller site"

  • LyndaB January 11, 2015 (11:43 pm)

    Can it fit at the old Charlestown Cafe?It’s not like that place is rockin’ now. I’m not good with specs but ideas I’m great with! :)

    • WSB January 11, 2015 (11:51 pm)

      That was reportedly one of the other sites suggested, along with the also-awaiting-demolition Life Care Center. Hard to believe, we’re coming up on 4 years since it closed…

  • dsa January 12, 2015 (1:05 am)

    Charleston should work if the developer wants to cooperate. Response times are not the same as triangle, but they won’t get potentially blocked at the bottom of the hill as the Harbor site.

  • flimflam January 12, 2015 (6:23 am)

    maybe I don’t understand the codes here, but is it legal to have structures right up to the property line?

  • Anne January 12, 2015 (7:06 am)

    I thought the idea was to put interim station on city owned property. That would rule out Life Care Center & Charlestown Cafe properties.

  • John Noonan January 12, 2015 (7:56 am)

    We all chose to live next to Firestation #29 when we bought our homes, and we have zero complaints. We’re as Pro-SeattleFire a group of neighbors as you can get. We’re mostly worried about the safety implications of this site.
    .
    @Anne In a statement provided to us by Finance & Administrative Services, they DID say the city preferred a site owned by the city, but the reason was that FAS didn’t want to “trigger a land use process”. Ironically, it seems like a land use process is exactly what was appropriate here.
    .
    This is a rendering of the blind corners the plan would create: http://goo.gl/tB4mcy

  • Civik January 12, 2015 (8:37 am)

    I find the building setbacks an interesting question. If they build this, will it allow any developer to come in and ignore the setbacks of other homes on the block?

    • WSB January 12, 2015 (8:50 am)

      I doubt this is precedent-setting in that way because it’s basically a tent and a portable building/trailer. Or supposed to be. The two major issues, and forgive me if they don’t come through that way, are: (a) Is this all really going to fit on that triangle without a shoehorn, especially given the operational requirements of a fire station, and (b) the fact this was apparently the plan for at least a few months before it was surfaced publicly, being presented at the last minute as a fait accompli, in a project that has been 11 years in the making.

  • dsa January 12, 2015 (8:41 am)

    Thanks John for the renderings. Northbound on 44th in the build condition would be sight restricted. The solution is to limit 44th to southbound only for the duration. Make 44th one lane only southbound for the 12 months.

  • workdowntown January 12, 2015 (9:12 am)

    I think this site is very workable – and I vote to keep the station in close proximaty to the existing station. The emergency vehicles always leave the station slowly…

  • K'lo January 12, 2015 (9:45 am)

    seems the site @ Florida and Harbor would make the most sense as it’s already set up as a temporary fire station location. Also, keep in mind that there will be fuel trucks coming to whatever location is chosen.

  • John Noonan January 12, 2015 (10:31 am)

    @dsa I’ve been thinking about that too. I wonder if closing 44th all-up makes even more sense, since there is a pretty real risk going south bound on 44th of either running into someone coming down Ferry Ave, or running into the fire truck coming out of the tent. Us and our neighbors would be impacted, but it could be “Residential Access Only” like they’ve done north of 95th on 35th Ave NE for the Thornton Creek project.

  • GlacierK January 12, 2015 (11:02 am)

    It does seem like a lot to fit on a small piece of property, I will agree with that. However, I would like to mention again to people that are so definite that Fire Station 36 is the place to put the station. Have you looked at the fact that moving the station there would without a doubt add 5 minutes of response time to anywhere on the Admiral Hill or Alki? That seems absolutely unreasonable to me and I would be up in arms about that. That is a huge difference. You can talk all you want about where the fire station should ideally be placed, but if there is not a piece of city owned property to put it on, it makes the proposition exponentially more difficult. As far as the traffic concerns go. That seems like something a 4-way stop should be able to mitigate. Remember we are talking about 12 months. Not an eternity. The fire station is not being permanently re-built on this piece of land. Are you sure there will be fuel trucks coming and going? Not all fire stations have their own fuel and I would imagine that they would go somewhere else temporarily. Is that something that was mentioned? As neighbors who live near the fire station now, you should also be aware that the fire engine does not go screaming out of the station like in the movies.

  • NIMBY January 12, 2015 (11:06 am)

    You know, I live very close to this location and can’t believe the outcry here. This is not a community park, nor is it some kind of homeowner easement. A city right-of-way is by definition there for the benefit of the city. Seems like this will benefit more of the citizenry then it will inconvenience. I find it funny that the original complaint when this was announced on the WSB was that it would take away an unofficial park, but apparently it has morphed into a public safety issue (if you don’t believe me go read the comments on the original post). I guess whatever argument best suits your agenda…

  • dsa January 12, 2015 (11:06 am)

    Sounds like a simple low cost compromise in the making to me.

  • John Noonan January 12, 2015 (2:13 pm)

    @GlacierK As a group we’re curious why the Harbor Ave spot was fine w/ the SFD in March and again in August, but if the response times are truly worse than I think everybody can agree it’s the wrong spot. We’re more interested in learning about Lifecare, Charlestown cafe, and the location in front of the station.
    .
    @NIMBY My initial reaction was certainly “ahh that’s going to suck for the kids” .. As a group of neighbors, an inconvenience sucks, but it’s just that — an inconvenience, and that’s not a good enough reason to fight this plan. But that was about 30 seconds after learning about the plan. Once we had some questions answered by the city, spoke w/ the firefighters themselves, and walked the site we’ve since learned that there are serious safety concerns. We’re still waiting on the city to answer about 10 more questions. ALL OF THIS would be avoided with the community review process that is supposed to be followed on these firestation relocation projects.

  • Eaglelover January 12, 2015 (2:45 pm)

    This is really concerning, I went to the open house to inform the public, living in the neighborhood seeing the notices, and then all of a sudden they plan to shoehorn something that this that seems to be breaking many rules on several levels. It seems sneaky and not very open, to me it may set a bad precidence.

  • GlacierK January 12, 2015 (5:26 pm)

    Fair enough. I have no allegiance to the City of Seattle government, I can only imagine that it is much more difficult to come to terms on a lease agreement on someone else’s property (Lifecare, Charlestown Cafe, etc.). The City would have to pay market value for a lease of that land which I would imagine would delay any development that is in the works for those properties. It doesn’t seem like it would be beneficial for the property owner unless they were planning on the property sitting empty anyway. It seems much more reasonable to me for the City to use the property it already owns. Especially if it is in the same vicinity of the current fire station, maintaining the same level of service that the current fire station provides. The initial reaction from me really comes from the outcry of neighbors about the City wanting to build on the “park” space. Yes it is a nice green space. However, in reality it is City owned right of way. It is not a park, and was not designed for neighborhood use. Now the City wants to use it for the purpose of a temporary fire station. That seems like a reasonable use of the property to me. Perhaps not ideal, but reasonable.

  • Jason January 14, 2015 (10:12 am)

    GlacierK, you’ll have to trust me on this, but the way city finances works, the fire station remode budget will be tapped “rent” costs by SPU for using that property, and probably at some inflated, non negotiable rate that would probably be higher than private property lease costs.
    .
    Did you know that fire department doesnt own a single fire station or fire truck? They are forced to “lease” both from the facilities, and fleets departments respectively. They don’t even own the telephones in the fire stations. Those are “rented” too from the communications department… It’s a big shell game of money.

  • Jason January 14, 2015 (8:42 pm)

    Oh yeah, and in case you’re wondering – that “rent” that facilities charges the fire department applies to ALL stations – even the brand new ones that were paid for in FULL by the fire levy proceeds. Sounds prudent, huh?

    How much is SPU going to charge against the remodel budget for removing and reinstalling the water monitoring station???

Sorry, comment time is over.