West Seattle Thursday: 12th Flag; Hotwire turns 12; Carmilia’s reopens; Design Review for clinic project…

The biggest event on any calendar for miles around is tonight’s Seahawks game. And we have one big event for local fans, as well as other highlights from the WSB West Seattle Event Calendar:

(Thanks to Sha’ari for the photo of the Metropolitan Market [WSB sponsor] booth at “12th Flag” celebration!)
THE 12TH FLAG: Party starts at 11 am outside West Seattle Corporate Center, and then the huge “12th Flag” – 1,500 square feet – goes up at 12:30 pm. Newest details are in this preview. (Delridge/Andover)

HOTWIRE’S 12TH ANNIVERSARY: Happy 12th anniversary to WSB’s inaugural sponsor, Hotwire Online Coffeehouse in The Junction! They’re offering a special drink for the occasion – mixing in 12th Man excitement – $1.20 for a 12-ounce white chocolate, blueberry, and mint mocha. (4410 California SW)

CARMILIA’S REOPENS: After a two-week closure for “freshening,” Carmilia’s in The Junction (which celebrates its 12th anniversary later this year!) reopens at 5 pm tonight. Proprietor Linda Sabee shared this photo of the new seating area in her shop:

She says Carmilia’s will be open until 9 tonight, 11-8 tomorrow, then resuming regular hours starting Saturday, with fall clothes and new brands in the store as well as the “freshened-up” decor. (4528 California SW)

DESIGN REVIEW FOR CLINIC PROJECT: 6:30 pm at the Senior Center of West Seattle, the Southwest Design Review Board takes a second “early design guidance” look at the eye clinic proposed for 7520 35th SW. The “packet” is linked in our most recent development roundup. (Oregon/California)

‘COMPLETE WORKS OF WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE – ABRIDGED’: Come cheer youth performers/producers (and donate to a local nonprofit they’re raising money for), 7:30 pm in the Seattle Lutheran High School gym, first of three performances, details in our calendar listing. (41st/Genesee)

6 Replies to "West Seattle Thursday: 12th Flag; Hotwire turns 12; Carmilia's reopens; Design Review for clinic project..."

  • TGL September 5, 2014 (9:01 am)

    I attended the design review meeting. There was a makeshift review board of primarily substitutes who came in to this cold.

    First of all, there was unanimous support from 5 local residents for the proposer’s preferred alternative, which was clearly superior to everyone’s eye save one of the board members – an “acting” chair – since nobody on this board seems to be a stable member?

    But I was appalled by their lack of consideration for the preferred alternative. What they (read, one guy) wanted is a large block mass along the street which seemed far less in line with what the locals wanted to see and less functional for the clinic as well. Consequently, I’ve heard that it’s now unlikely that the ONLY opthalmologist and eye care surgery/center in WS will stay here. The cost to make the INFERIOR selected design work for their needs is prohibitive and now they’ll just move to Burien or some other place.

    Well done, SWDRB. You just nixed a project that would have been a wonderful asset to the community and helped rejuvenate one of the ugliest stretches of 35th Ave.

    In short, no other District Design Review Board is as dysfunctional as your own SW board. They’re known for being a cluster (I’ve heard this from OTHER local boards) and they demonstrated it last night. These folks need to get booted and start fresh with somebody who knows what they’re doing.

    I’m going to contact DPD today to ask them what can be done.

    Hope you can find a bus or enjoy your ride to Burien when you need eye care.

    • WSB September 5, 2014 (9:06 am)

      Actually, you didn’t see ANY “regular” or veteran board members there. We had a reporter/photographer at the meeting and will be publishing a separate story with video later today. I am told that there was only one regular SW board member present, and he is the newest member, I believe it would have been his third meeting. The other two people: A substitute from another part of the city (the name is not familiar to me) and a past member who fills in on rare occasions when needed. The board currently has one vacancy and four regulars; we have covered all but a few Design Review Board meetings over the past seven years and no, there is no “stability” problem, just happens that the chair, whose term had not expired, resigned this summer because he moved out of the area to go to graduate school. A permanent replacement has to be approved by the council (it’s usually a rubber-stamp by the time it gets that far). The SW board has only met twice since May because there haven’t been other projects ready to review or re-review. – TR

  • TGL September 5, 2014 (9:15 am)

    OK, so from your perspective, having only 1 of the 4 board members available is fine. But not paying attention to your constituent’s desires might not be?

    Or how about asking a few questions of the proposers about what impacts there might be from their potential decisions?

    Nothing – and I mean NOTHING – in the proposer’s preferred alternative requires variances or is outside of DPD standards. This thing would have been permitted without issue by the city. And now it goes away.

    The results speak for themselves.

    • WSB September 5, 2014 (9:26 am)

      It’s not my “perspective.” We deal in facts, and that’s why I commented, not about the outcome or any opinion of how the meeting went, but simply because you described the board as not being “stable,” and that’s not true. I mentioned the recent resignation of chair Laird Bennion; the previous departure was because of term limits (former chair Myer Harrell had to depart after the statutorily limited two terms, and Matt Zinski, the one SWDRB member who was there last night, was appointed to that opening earlier this year). – TR

  • TGL September 5, 2014 (9:31 am)

    Let me rephrase: I beg to differ. To my thinking, based on your description of the board member participation above, and what the proposer’s experienced between their two bites at the apple, describes something other than stability. Out of a potential 8 board attendees being there for both meetings (4 members x 2 meetings – or maybe only 3×2?), I counted 2 (1 member X 2 mtgs.) Is that stability?

    It may be the case that other, more controversial and longer processed buildings have experienced stability, as you describe. This one, clearly didn’t. And while that isn’t likely the entire reason behind this decision, it certainly had impact.

  • TGL September 5, 2014 (9:50 am)

    And not to beat a dead horse, as I truly DO appreciate this blog and your high journalistic standards…BUT…I’ll stand by my initial statement that, the board that was present and made a significant decision that likely nixed a very important project for our community’s health and well being was…”makeshift”.

    That’s unacceptable for our community.

    If Mr. Zinski reads this and wants to discuss what several of his constituents think, we’re available.

Sorry, comment time is over.