Street vacation for Harbor Avenue storage facility? Design Commission review Thursday

(Rendering for proposed West Coast Self-Storage project)

Last month, we mentioned two self-storage facilities are now on the drawing board for Harbor Avenue SW. The one that’s been in the works the longest, at 3252 Harbor SW, goes back before the Seattle Design Commission this Thursday because the project team is seeking a street vacation – the right to include and ultimately acquire what’s on the books as undeveloped public right-of-way, technically part of 29th SW and City View. As part of the process, a “public benefit package” must be proposed and approved, and the Design Commission has to give its blessing. Its next consideration of the project is scheduled for 10:30 am Thursday (April 6th) at City Hall downtown. Steve Tangney of West Coast Self-Storage, proposing to build the new facility, told us last month that their proposed public-benefit package “will focus on improvements to the Alki Trail along our site frontage. We will be widening and reconstructing this section of the trail and adding landscape trees, art, lighting and relocating existing power poles out of the trail.”

Here’s the project page on the commission’s website, where you can see a map as well as documents from the SDC’s review of the project’s “urban-design merit” last December. The project would replace an old industrial building and tow yard with a new 4-story self-storage building with 50 enclosed parking spaces. Thursday’s hearing will include an opportunity for public comment.

5 Replies to "Street vacation for Harbor Avenue storage facility? Design Commission review Thursday"

  • Gatewooder April 4, 2017 (6:49 pm)

    I don’t see any benefit to the city from a street vacation for this project.  A storage facility doesn’t generate any much needed employment on this side of the Duwamish River, as would a commercial office building or other potential use.  As for “improvements” to Alki trail, this project does the opposite by putting two large driveways across it that will have bad sight-line visibility and create safety issues for people using the trail. 

    The other objection that I have is that a street vacation precludes a connection between Harbor Avenue and the Terminal 5 area in the future.  Who knows what will happen to Terminal 5 in the coming years, decades?  Public right of ways are an asset to the city that should not be taken out of the city inventory unless there is an unquestionable public benefit.  That is not the case with this project.

  • Tim April 4, 2017 (7:21 pm)

    Gatewooder I agree 100%. I think these faculties will only have person working at any time after the business is up and running. The construction will have mostly out of town construction labor.

    The driveway cuts are an issue too.

  • Pat April 4, 2017 (7:52 pm)

    Holy cow!  Why don’t you just say you are against all businesses?  The vacation make sense  on this parcel.  It is easy to say no.  What do you propose will replace the denied business?  It seems to me to be a perfect spot to benefit the community.  Their drawing looks attractive, there is a great need for storage what do you Monday morning quarterbacks want?

  • 22blades April 6, 2017 (9:59 am)

    Holy cow! Why don’t you say a developer is entitled to every piece of land not developed. Our green spaces are hard fought assets for all citizens.  Get back to me when developers start paying for full repairs to infrastructure when they build out. It’s our land & streets.

  • anonyme April 6, 2017 (1:02 pm)

    Excellent arguments against this project.

    The only reason there might be a “great need for storage” is because far too many Americans consume unholy amounts of resources, more than they can ever possibly use, and then have to find larger and larger receptacles for waste – the byproduct of greed, which seems to exemplify this project.  Public benefit has nothing to do with private profit.

Sorry, comment time is over.