DEVELOPMENT: 1606 California comment time; 6940 25th SW exemption denial

Two development notes from the city’s latest Land Use Information Bulletin:

1606 CALIFORNIA SW COMMENT TIME: This site in North Admiral has had redevelopment plans for seven years – but they’ve changed over time, from a small apartment building, to the current plan, an 8-unit rowhouse project, 3-stories with 8 offstreet parking spaces in “basement garages.” Its developers have now applied for a land-use permit, and that’s opened a public comment period through December 21st. This notice explains how to comment.

6940 25TH SW: The city has denied a developer’s request to be exempted from a requirement “to extend the public drainage system across the full frontage of the property.” specifically, extending “a 12-inch diameter storm drainage main … from an existing 18” storm drainage main in SW Myrtle St north along 25th Avenue SW approximately 300 feet to the north boundary of the property.” A representative of the developer, who was considering buying the 22,400-sf site to build at least three houses, said the requirement would “caus(e) a severe and unexpected financial hardship.” In a written decision, the city disagreed:

Since this property has not even been purchased … it cannot reasonably be claimed to meet the test of 22.800.040.C(a) as a severe financial hardship, and as the requirement was communicated to the applicant during the City’s first notification of the proposed project on 8/5/2019, neither can it be considered unexpected.

It’s not clear whether the proposed project is still active; county property records show the land is still in the same ownership as it had since long before this proposal, and there were no permit applications since the aforementioned 2019 date.

1 Reply to "DEVELOPMENT: 1606 California comment time; 6940 25th SW exemption denial"

  • Jethro Marx December 8, 2020 (1:04 pm)

    Yikes- we might want to take a closer look at 6940 25th SW. The request for exemption is so ridiculous and factually incorrect that I hope someone else is the final developer of the properties. They could have applied for an adjustment and claimed the stormwater would be handled on site by relatively inexpensive and appealing green structures. (Swales, rain gardens, retention landscaping/cisterns, etc.) An advantage of that approach is that it would be at least less obviously dishonest. We need to reduce the stormwater discharge and surface runoff into the creek, while also upgrading and expanding existing infrastructure if we want salmon back, rather than prop up an already profitable development opportunity. These requests boil down to a scummy residue of prioritizing expanded profits for a few rich people over public benefits and responsible restoration of public land sorely in need.

Sorry, comment time is over.