Aegis story needs to be questioned
I am writing to offer some personal clarification and rebuttal to the article you published last week on March 1, 2013, titled, “Queen Anne Residents Battle Aegis in Continued Hearings,” written by Gwen Davis. I and many other Queen Anne residents are personally offended by the inaccurate accusations quoted within your article and presented by a few neighbors opposing the Aegis project at the hearing.
I would like to address and offer corrections to the author’s chosen quotations below:
Quote: Notably, three Queen Anne residents testified in favor of Aegis. But opponents say Aegis’ use of Queen Anne-resident testimony was manipulative. “Aegis tried to demonstrate lack of neighborhood consensus by presenting witnesses who, while they may live in Queen Anne, are actually real estate development associates of the Aegis attorney,” said one opponent, who requested anonymity for this story. “The undisclosed connections between the Aegis attorney and witnesses further raise the distrust neighbors feel about the rezone process and Aegis.”
Answer: I and others who offered testimony at the hearing are neighbors and absolutely independent voices and are in no way connected to Aegis whatsoever. Unfortunately, this slander appears as an effort to deflect attention away from the fact that the Aegis project has undergone more scrutiny in 1.5 years than any project I can remember on Queen Anne, and having rigorously done so, gained support from our community, community council, land-use committee, Seattle Design Review Board (DRB) and, finally, the Seattle Department of Planning and Development (DPD).
Quote: Romi Gordon testified about parking concerns: “The thing that no one is taking very seriously is that there are 20 parking spaces for 60 units — that seems insane that people don’t think that this is a problem. I understand that most of them won’t have cars, but there will be staff, nurses, people who go to retail on the bottom floor — I’m not sure where they are supposed to park. Not everybody takes buses; not everybody walks, especially in our climate in the rain. “[Aegis] has all these computer models about how parking is going to work, but it doesn’t seem like this is viable,” Gordon said.
Answer: Aegis and its architects presented its concept, project scope and use, estimated parking needs and generous parking-design solutions to Land Use Review Committee, Queen Anne Community Council and the DRB during no less than six times in public meetings. Romi and Richard Gordon were at each one together with some of their neighbors. Their comments were always respectfully registered.
Aegis presented the Seattle Zoning Code requirements and the fact that, in respect for their neighbors, it chose to provide well more than the required number of on-site parking spaces at considerable cost. I feel that providing excess parking was a direct response to the Gordons and their neighbors.
Many of the neighbors opposing the project are on record testifying that they live and work in surrounding buildings that provide no off-street parking. While they insist that Aegis provide even more extra parking, they park their own cars and those of dozens of guests and clients of their businesses on [West] Galer [Street], Third Avenue West and other nearby city streets.
Quote: Resident Maria Vasilyadis reminded examiners about how she originally brought her concerns about the project to the Queen Anne Community Council in 2011, but that they were not adequately addressed. An opponent’s motion in 2012 was also muffled, she said.
Answer: Indeed, I and my colleagues, Maria and many others attended the six public meetings and testified, asked important questions, challenged some Aegis design assumptions and, in so doing, inspired many respectful considerations accepted by Aegis during the 1.5 years, including dozens of design refinements. To claim that her concerns were not adequately addressed ignores that fact that all six public meetings accepted public testimony from her and her neighbors, and in the end, all three very independent boards and the city DPD made their own informed decisions and chose to agree with the amended Aegis project proposal.
Thank you for allowing me to provide a response to the article you published. I hope my comments shed a bit of transparency upon this neighborhood concern and testimony during their appeal hearing.
Martin Henry Kaplan, AIA, Chair
Queen Anne Community Council’s Land Use Review Committee
I am an upper Queen Anne resident of 24 years who lives near the site and feels moved to comment in favor of the new assisted-living facility and the added capacity.
I believe this will be a desirable addition to the neighborhood. It bothers me to read that residents who testified in support of the project are accused of being compelled by Aegis to do so. Even it that was true, has no one noticed how our senior neighbors have few nearby choices when they are no longer able to live independently in their homes? How many of these do you think would prefer to stay in their neighborhood, if they possibly could?
I have so enjoyed having friends of all ages in this community but lately am mourning the loss of its age diversity. Let’s consider the community benefits, as well as the traffic consequences, of this facility.
Christi Loso
Queen Anne
Hardware store’s age not shown in records
Regarding Rob Wilson’s contention that the Magnolia Hardware Store was started in 1924 and one of the earliest businesses in Magnolia (Letter to the Editor, Feb. 13, 2013): I found it was not listed in the Seattle Polk Directory, the record for businesses in Seattle until 1928. This was consistent with our sources Ralph and Jack Chambers, sons of the original owner, Roy Chambers, saying the store was not opened until April 1, 1927. This information was given in a personal interview they gave to writer of the “The Village,” Joan Santucci, in Magnolia: Memories & Milestones and myself.”
Monica Wooton, President
Magnolia Historical Society