Public Forum on the Draft EIS: Thursday, July 10th

The Department of Planning and Development is soliciting public comments on the Hospital's Draft EIS (available on the Hospital's Master Plan site). You can provide comments in two ways:

• Attend the Public Forum for the DEIS. July 10, 6-8 p.m., at the Center for Urban Horticulture. For further details, see the flier prepared by the Laurelhurst Community Club.
• Submit written comments to Scott Ringgold, City Planner. You also may wish to send your comments to the Citizen's Advisory Committee. Deadline for DEIS comments: July 28, 2008.

Your input will shape the next round of discussion of the Hospital's plans. For those who care about both outstanding health care for our regions' kids and the well-being of NE Seattle neighborhoods, please take time to comment. Your ideas will shape a better plan.

Carol Eychaner's Review of the Draft EIS

Seasoned land use planner Carol Eychaner has made her initial review of the Draft EIS available for CAC review. You may find it helpful to you in composing comments on the EIS (due July 28th). She provides:

• Additional Comments on the Draft EIS (from June -- very specific)
  
• Comments on the Preliminary Draft EIS (from January -- provides best overview)
• Supporting Materials:
• Hospital's letter to the Department of Health objecting to additional pediatric beds at a Swedish facility (see excerpts here)
• Field Study on Bed Needs
• Map of Hospital's Property Acquisitions

Carol finds that car trips to the larger hospital could increase by a factor of 2.9 (from 9,200 to 26,680), far more than the increase factor of 1.9 used by the Hospital in its EIS:

"Under all the DEIS alternatives, hospital facilities and beds would increase by more than the factors projected by CHRMC and used for the trip generation... Applying these factors to the number of existing average daily trips of 9,200, would result in a range of 22,080 to 26,680 total trips at full build out - many more than the 17,600 trips estimated in the EIS."

Additional items of interest provided in Carol's documents:

"The requested 160-foot height increase is more than five times the height allowed by the campus' underlying and surrounding zoning." (Comments on the PDEIS)

"The magnitude of CHRMC's proposed on- and off-campus expansion -- in a low scale, low density area outside of any urban village -- is wholly in conflict with the urban village growth strategy that is the foundation of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The impacts of the development proposal ... on the character, scale, land use, viability and livability of the surrounding community are significant and unmitigatable. CHRMC has also made it clear that its plans will not stop with this master plan proposal, but that it is the building block for more to come." (Comments on the PDEIS)

"When CHRMC proposed its current master plan for the Laurelhurst campus, adopted in 1994, it argued that it was essential to have its clinical and research space in close proximity on the same campus... Apparently the need was not so essential after all, since all of CHRMC's research is now located off campus at or near the Denny Triangle site. " (Comments on the DEIS)

"CHRMC has ... proposed... 194 psychiatric beds. This large a psychiatric facility would likely have economies of scale allowing for a viable separate campus or co-location with one of the other existing psychiatric hospitals in the Seattle area... a reasonable discussion of alternatives would include CHRMC’s establishment of a pediatric psychiatric hospital at a location separate from the current campus." (Field Study)

“In Seattle, Swedish Hospital’s inpatient pediatric services now care for more King County children than does CHRMC.” (Field Study)

“The need for Swedish’s pediatric beds is essentially nonexistent” -- CHRMC , May 2005

We've previously covered the Hospital's opposition to Swedish's expansion of inpatient care on the Eastside. Now available and fascinating to read is the Hospital's own letter to the Department of Health objecting to the addition of any pediatric beds at the Swedish facility. In May 2005, two years before CHRMC proposed adding 350 beds to its site, the former CEO of CHRMC wrote the following:

“Children’s is strongly opposed to Swedish’s proposal to establish a dedicated 8 bed inpatient pediatric unit. All available data suggests that the demand does not exist for such a unit, and that rates for inpatient pediatric care continue to decline within the service area...

The need for Swedish’s pediatric beds is essentially nonexistent."

Huh? Remember, Issaquah's population just grew 26% in one year alone (Seattle Times). Perhaps the the Hospital should reconsider adding beds where the kids are if bed need projections have changed so dramatically?

30% of Perimeter Homes Already Acquired by Hospital

Two weeks ago, land use planner Carol Eychaner provided the CAC with updates on the Hospital's purchases of adjacent homes. The materials she provided:

• Summary Memo
• Table of Acquisitions
• Map of Acquisitions

From her Summary Memo:

• "CHRMC has purchased 9 (or 30%) of the 30 single family homes that are on streets around the perimeter of its campus (the 5 houses associated with Talaris on NE 45th Street are not included in this calculation). Of the 17 houses that are on NE 45th Street, between 40th and 45th Avenues NE, 11 are owned by or associated with CHRMC or Talaris. All CHRMC purchases were made since June 2007 and the most recent was on May 23, 2008...
• CHRMC has purchased 43 units in Laurelon Terrace, representing 32.1% of total ownership. All purchases were made since October 2007 and the most recent was on June 9, 2008. "

University Village Proposes 25% Expansion

While commenting on the nearly-3X expansion/rezone proposal from the Hospital as part of the EIS process, you may wish to consider another nearby proposal that will strongly impact transportation corridors. From the May 8th Seattle PI: Seattle's University Village plans big expansion:

"Plans call for about 25 percent more retail space at the upscale open-air Seattle shopping center, and a similar increase in the number of parking stalls.

...When all the work is done, the plans say, the number of parking spaces would increase about 28 percent, from 1,938 to 2,474."

It isn't a stretch to imagine that a 28% increase in parking stalls will produce a 28% increase in car trips to this location, along the same arterials used by Hospital traffic.

Upcoming Events: Walking Tour and Next CAC Meeting

CAC Walking Tour This Sunday: 1 pm Sunday, June 22nd: CAC will take a walking tour of Ravenna-Bryant to evaluate the impact of the Hospital's plans, particularly the Hartman building. Meet at the intersection of Sandpoint Way & Penny Drive. Neighbors welcome.

CAC Meeting Next Tuesday: 6-9pm, Tuesday June 24th: Members of the CAC will discuss their initial concerns regarding the Hospital's Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Location: Talaris Cedar Room, 4000 NE 41st Street. Public comment time available.

Comments on the Draft EIS sought by City DPD

The Hospital's Preferred Alternative: Alternative 7 is shown in Hospital's powerpoint slides from last week's CAC Meeting. An "After" image from Sandpoint:A "Before" image from the same perspective:Two more before/after perspectives, this time from the south side:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Kudos to the Hospital team in working quickly to include Alternative 7 in the Draft EIS, which is now available on the Hospital's web site.

Comments: Please submit your comments on the Draft EIS to Scott Ringgold at the Seattle DPD and the members of the Citizen's Advisory Committee. The comment period last 45 days, so please comment before July 28, 2008.

Mark your calendar: The DPD will hold a public hearing to gather comments on the Draft EIS on Thursday, July 10, 6 – 8 p.m. at the Center for Urban Horticulture, Northwest Horticultural Society Hall, 3501 NE 41st Street, Seattle, WA 98105.

Update on Bald Eagles at Talaris:

• Looks like they won't be featured in the EIS because Talaris is considered a sufficient buffer.
• Great news on the chicks -- rumor has it that a neighbor up the hill has spotted two chicks in the nest using a spotting scope. If you want to go see the family, the best spot to stand is next to the first light post east of the intersection of Surber and 41st Street (on the south side of the street). Stand just to the east of the light post, look north and you'll see the nest in the tall trees at Talaris.

Update on Home Acquisitions

The Hospital has closed on a total of 9 neighboring homes, on top of its Laurelon acquisitions:

Location	Sold Date	Price
4323 NE 45th St	6/12/2007	$858,375
4736 44th Ave	9/28/2007	$960,000
4335 NE 45th St	10/10/2007	$960,000
4205 45th St	11/19/2007	$617,000
4702 44th Ave NE	12/17/2007	$727,000
4315 NE 45th St	1/25/2008	$1,012,50
4319 NE 45TH ST	2/11/2008	$850,000
4416 43RD AVE NE	2/22/2008	$712,500
4554 45TH AVE	5/23/2008	$1,134,000

59% (10/17) of the homes along 45th Street between 40th & 45th Avenues are now owned by organizations known to be seeking development of adjacent parcels.

You can keep an eye on the Hospital's ongoing purchases using the King County Assessor's eSales database. Note: For recent sales, the purchaser is only found on the Recorder's Office pdf tax records.

Update: Carol Eychaner has documented 39 Laurelon units acquired by the Hospital for approximately $10.4 million as of 5/29/08. These units are in addition to the stand-alone homes listed above, for a total of 48 homes in all.

Reminder: CAC Meeting This Tuesday, June 10

On the schedule this week -- the Draft EIS:

• A presentation by the City of Seattle on the supporting Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
• A formal presentation by Children's on the Draft Master Plan

Tuesday, June 10, 6 - 9 p.m. Agenda. Talaris Conference Center Dining Room 4000 NE 41st Street

Particularly interesting will be the extent that the EIS covers the Laurelon alternative (Alt 7). Up to this point, we've heard that the EIS will not fully cover this alternative, the one clearly favored by the Hospital. There will be public comment time allocated, so bring your questions.

Reminder: CAC Meeting Today (Tuesday), 6-7:30pm

This meeting will cover the proposed "Train Building Addition," which will add beds under the existing Hospital Master Plan.

• Tuesday, May 20, 6 – 7:30 p.m. Agenda
• Wright Auditorium at the Hospital: 4800 Sand Point Way NE; Seattle, WA 98105

Next CAC Meeting: Tuesday, May 6th, 6pm

This Tuesday's Citizens Advisory Committee meeting will address transportation issues and include public comment time. The DON says that meeting topics will include:

● Improved bicycle and pedestrian connections
● Shuttle and transit enhancements
● Off-site parking and other parking management tools

WHEN: Tuesday, May 6, 2008, 6:00 – 8:30 p.m
WHERE: Wright Auditorium at Children’s Hospital

Report from the April 15th CAC Meeting

This week's CAC meeting produced a clearer and ever-more intimidating picture of Alternative 7. The massive scale of this proposal (1.5 million square feet and multiple 160 foot towers) is best shown in pictures from the Hospital's PowerPoint presentation (excerpts below). Also helpful:

• The Northeast District Council's early review of Alternative 7
• The CAC Design Subcommittee's list of "Issues for CHRMC to Consider"

Alternative 7 shifts much of the impact of the towers from the higher ground to lowland Laurelhurst and south Bryant:

In the next two images, note the 1100-car parking garage and entrance on 40th, a narrow street where cars have trouble going in both directions simultaneously today:
Note the unprecedented 160 foot cap proposed for the entire Laurelon property, plus the narrow, 40 foot buffers facing residences on the north and south:Bottom Line: Alternative 7 retains the scale of other alternatives and many of their impacts, even though these impacts are shifted substantially (this time towards neighbors in the lowlands). The addition of 1.5 million square feet (equivalent to the Columbia Tower) in the form of 160 foot towers will have unmitigatable impacts, particularly transportation bottlenecks and noise (among other things). Towers of this size, running 24/7, are not quiet neighbors.

We're still asking -- is it really wise to concentrate all new pediatric beds for our region at a single, congested site? Why not add pediatric beds for non-specialized care in areas where youth populations are growing? What about adding a pediatric wing to an existing hospital, close to kids' homes?

An Issue of Credibility

At Tuesday's CAC meeting, the Hospital publicly distributed a letter it sent to the members of the CAC. This letter claimed:

"As you know, Children's has purchased several homes directly on the east and south perimeters of the hospital campus. Children's Board of Trustees approved these purchases in order obtain some homes to lease to Children's faculty and staff who want to be near the hospital and avoid commuting..."

This claim is not credible. Not long ago, the Hospital advertised almost all of its purchased homes on Craigslist. You can see our previous post for a full table of advertised prices. The Dave Poletti ads were reposted repeatedly to keep them top-of-the list on Craigslist. The ads said nothing about the rentals being intended for "faculty and staff." At the end of the day, it appeared that the rental agency was successful in its public ads -- one of the listings quickly changed from "Available" to "Application Pending."

The Hospital's credibility suffers when it presents an inaccurate picture of its land-use intentions.

The CAC needs to receive accurate information on how the Hospital's purchases are managed. A major transition from owner- to renter-occupied homes along 45th Street has occurred. This transition must be publicly recognized and evaluated by the CAC. 12 out of the 17 homes (71%) along 45th St between 40th & 44th Avenues are now rentals, largely due to purchases by the Hospital and agents of Talaris.

[Note: Craigslist ads always expire after 30 days, so we saved two of them. Here's a zip folder with these ads. Just download the folder, unzip the files to a folder on your hard drive, and click on each of the .html rental files.]

Hiatus.

With respect and consideration for people working on all sides of this difficult issue, we're taking a hiatus. No one asked us to do so, but it's the right step right now.

Update 3/21/08: Our inbox is full of inquiries about the evolution of the Master Plan, so we've added the diagram on the right showing the Hospital's new preferred alternative. You can click on the image to enlarge it. Alternative 7 is shown in the 2nd-to-last slide in the Hospital's 3/16/08 CAC Powerpoint Presentation. We've highlighted three key features:

• 160 foot building heights ("MIO") for most of Laurelon and part of the existing CHRMC site. See the region outlined in red.
  
• Institutional boundary leapfrogs Sandpoint to the Hartman property. See "MIO 105'" circled in yellow.
• Possible new entrance onto NE 50th, a residential street. See the green circle. Slide deck clearly rules out a new entrance on 45th for Alternative 7, but fails to call out any change in the Hospital's plan for a new 50th St entrance. At the CAC meeting, Hospital representative Ruth Benfield said that the inclusion of a new entrance on 50th in Alternative 7 is TBD.
  

Resources for you while we're on hiatus:

• Citizen's Advisory Committee Email Link -- The Committee invites your comments.
  
• Laurelhurst Community Club Documents
• Children's Hospital Master Plan Site

Opportunity for a Second Site.

A large parcel of land at the nexus of Bellevue and Redmond just went on sale. Consider:

• Overlake: 28 acres, 78$ million, zoned for up to 125 foot buildings and currently contains a former Group Health hospital (Seattle Times).
  
• 136 Laurelon Condos: 6 acres, 93$ million, zoned residential (Seattle Times).

Yet CHRMC has told neighbors that the Overlake site is "too small."

The Hospital needs to consider a second in-patient site as part of its EIS. The impacts of a massive expansion at the Hospital's current site may very well be unmitigatable. This makes it ever-more essential for the Hospital to explicitly, publicly justify the trade-offs of accumulating 600 beds in NE Seattle vs. establishing a second site for in-patient care.

We ask: Why not put the beds where the kids are?

Consider where the kids are.

• Seattle? Only 17% of the Hospital's patients came from Seattle in 2006, according to the Hospital’s own report. Furthermore, “Seattle [is] second only to San Francisco as the big city with the lowest percentage of households with children — only 20 percent have children under 18” (Seattle Times).
• The Eastside (for example). Issaquah's population (for example) just grew 26% in one year alone (Seattle Times). Yet remember, Children’s has filed suit to halt Swedish’s construction of 175 new beds (including pediatric beds) in Issaquah (Seattle Times).

Consider real transportation hurdles for patients and families. If you are an Issaquah parent and your child is hospitalized, the last thing you want to do is to fight the 520 bridge to see her before/after/during work. In a hectic hospital, kids need their parents as both advocates and sustainers. If you're a kid, you don't want to have to spend your school days trucking to endless follow-up appointments (or a long series of tests) across the lake. Long distance travel discourages consistency in follow-up and ongoing care. Just a fact of our transportations mess. The out-patient clinics the Hospital plans to add are helpful, but they do not fix the problem of accessibility of in-patient care & follow-up.

Define "critical mass." The hospital claims that it won''t have "critical mass" for a second in-patient site. At the same time, it proposes adding 350 beds to the 250 it already has at one site, for a total of 600. Why wouldn't 350 beds be sufficient to establish a second site? The current site had 200 beds until only recently.

Publicly evaluate trade-offs of a second site. Yes, initial startup size at the second site might be a challenge and a trade-off, but it would be temporary. As for proximity to the UW, it's time to talk about technologies that let doctors participate in research seminars on campus via teleconferencing. Yes, doctors would sacrifice convenience with two campuses, but patients would gain better access to care. And a 350 bed hospital would certainly be self-sustaining, so cross-lake trips for doctors should not be a daily activity.

Publicly evaluate potential partnerships with other hospitals. To improve the accessibility of beds while making the most of scarce resources, could Children's add a pediatric wing to an existing--or new-- adult hospital? Yes, highly specialized care might remain located in Laurelhurst, but less-specialized care could be offered closer to kids' homes. Thinking out-of-the-box, could Children's partner with another hospital to co-locate adult and pediatric beds during the start-up phase for a new site, converting all beds to pediatric use in the long-term?

We ask: Is it possible to put the beds where the kids are?

[Update: Please note:

• The Overlake site is most certainly not in Issaquah. We've heard of a letter from a hospital-paid legal team that claims that it is. Overlake is on the border of Bellevue & Redmond & right next to 520, as shown in the map above.
• This post mentions Issaquah because of the Hospital's efforts to kill the addition of a hospital there, including pediatric beds accessible to that area. It is included as an example of how the Hospital needs to think more carefully about accessibility of care to patients.]

March 18th CAC Meeting & Various Updates

1. A Citizen's Advisory Meeting is scheduled for next week:

• Tuesday, March 18, 2008, 6:30- 9:00 PM
• Talaris Conference Center, Cedar Room, 4000 NE 41st Street, Seattle, WA 98105
• From DON: "The meeting will focus on a discussion of Laurelon Terrace Purchase and Children's Hospital follow-up to CAC's letter to City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development (DPD) concerning the preliminary Draft Plan. "
• Public comment time will be available at 7:55 pm.
  

2. The Department of Planning responded to the Hospital's draft EIS in writing.

• Definitely worth reading, particularly DPD's concerns about transportation infrastructure and the duration of construction.
  
• DPD Comments on the Preliminary Draft Master Plan

3. The Hospital has closed on two more houses on NE 45th street since our last summary of home sales.

• Eight = The total number of single-family homes purchased by the Hospital and now dark.
  

4. HB3071 passed in the WA State Senate last week.

Laurelon votes to take Hospital deal, despite hairy conditions

Laurelon friends, we'll miss you sadly if you choose to go.

What a painful vote for Laurelon residents. The Hospital's massive construction proposals have been intimidating quite a few neighbors (inside and outside of Laurelon) for almost a year. Laurelon residents certainly deserve a financially sound escape route from the clutches of the Hospital. Unfortunately, the Laurelon sale contract has some sharp teeth.

The contract has so many conditions that you have to wonder whether (and when) any Laurelon owner will ever see a windfall.

Laurelon residents now face a dilemma -- they've signed up to sell something that they do not own. The Hospital will only pay owners the promised premium for their homes if the City approves an upzone large enough to please the Hospital. Yet... you do not own the zoning of your home, so you cannot sell a change to its zoning. A residential owner can no more guarantee an upzone of her property as a condition of sale than can a downtown developer.

Zoning is a common good that cannot be bought/sold by individuals. Laurelon's residential zoning encompasses over 20% of the moderately priced, multifamily homes in Laurelhurst/Sandpoint. The persistence of land zoned for multi-family residences is a common good that cannot be sold by condo owners. [Acknowledgment: "Moderately priced housing" is a misnomer in Seattle... is any housing in our city genuinely "moderately priced" relative to incomes these days? Here the term "moderate" to refers to the spectrum of prices in Seattle, not to median incomes.]

Will Laurelon residents ever see the premium they've been promised for their homes? Could be a long wait with this contract. And in the mean time they've signed up to become lobbyist for the Hospital's towering plans-- whatever those plans may be.

More on the sale and the contract, explained well by SmarterNeighbors this morning:

Laurelon Terrace supports Children’s buyout offer, clauses and all.

Last night a straw poll by Laurelon Terrace owners supported Children’s Hospital’s buyout offer for their condo. Of course, this doesn’t mean that Children’s will be writing checks in the amount of 2.8x the value of each unit anytime soon. What is required for this deal to go through are the following clauses:
(You can download a copy of the proposal with all the terms here.)

1. The state legislature must pass HB3071, a bill to retroactively apply the ownership percentage (from 100% to 80%) required to change the law of any condo older than 1990.

2. The deal is contingent upon final approval of Children’s master plan and the plan must include expansion of the major institution boundaries to include Laurelon and must include development standards that meet Children’s satisfaction.

3. The city must approve street right-of-way vacations on terms determined by Children’s.

4. And to quote from Children’s,

‘Laurelon Terrace Board must publicly support Children’s MIMP and development of the Laurelon Terrace site as a positive solution for Children’s and the community.’

[Update: For those questioning the use of "intimidating" above: With all due respect, neighbors have certainly felt intimidated by the Hospital's towering proposals and 20+-year construction forecast over the last year. For examples of Laurelon residents vocally concerned about the loss of their homes, see A Voice from Laurelon and more recent testimony. ]

Testimony against SHB3071

The State Senate Committee on Consumer Protection and Housing heard public testimony against SHB3071 yesterday:

Testimony by Lois Jones against SHB3071 (bold added):

"I’m Lois Jones, a Laurelon Terrace resident. I’m speaking today for the people at Laurelon who do not want to lose our homes

We are concerned on two levels. One personal and one looking at the long-term effects of passage of SHB 3071. This is not just about LTC. If this bill passes, all Washington state condo complexes set up before 1990 will be affected.

We who wish to remain in our quiet, safe, lovely garden community are currently protected by law against a forced sale of our homes. Some of us have lived in this complex since our association was founded in 1978. These people, most older than I, do not want to move into high rises and do not feel ready to live in retirement homes. They thought they were protected from having to move against their will.

I’ve owned at Laurelon 4 ½ yrs. As a child I moved 5 times and, since turning 17, I’ve moved another 16 times because of having to leave a rental. I looked for over a yr. before buying at Laurelon. During that time I found nothing else that met all my wants and needs. Recently I’ve driven NE Seattle neighborhoods and spent hours at Broker.com. I see nothing that appeals. No amount of money can put me in another spot where I can walk to all my activities, is within 15-20 minutes of my sister’s and daughter’s families, close to bus stops to get anywhere in Seattle. I thought I was protected against being forced to sell against my will.

Many Laurelon residents are saying they should have the right to sell to Children’s. They have that right under current law. But we also have the right not to sell if we don’t want to. If SHB 3071 passes we will lose that right.

Some people inside and outside Laurelon say it’s not fair if one person can stop the will of many. I can’t say there’s no one at Laurelon who would do that, but much as we desperately wouldn’t want to sell and much as we think it would be extremely bad policy to pass SHB 3071, if it came down to just a handful of us objecting, we agree that we could not in good conscience stand in the way of everyone else.

Which brings us to the long-term effects on the whole state of Washington. We are concerned that if this bill passes it will give developers an unfair advantage against homeowners. And we are very concerned about the loss of affordable housing. "

Additional testimony against SHB3071:

• By the city-wide Seattle Community Council Federation. Text available here.
• By the Laurelhurst Community Club. Text available here.
• By WA State House Representative Jamie Pederson, 43rd District

Important Follow-up: The LCC rebuts false testimony in favor of SHB3071 in this Letter. Excerpts (bold added):

"The prime sponsor of the bill mistakenly stated that there was nothing in the Declarations signed by condominium property owners regarding dissolution and that the property interest outlined in the contract just refers to the state statute regulating condominiums, which can be changed. This is incorrect.

The Declarations document signed by Laurelon condominium property owners does, in fact, address dissolution and calls for agreement by ALL property owners. Section 16.3 of the document states:

“Abandonment of Condominium Status. Except when acting pursuant to the provisions of the Act involving damage, destruction, or condemnation, the Association shall not, without consent of all institutional first mortgagees and institutional first deed or trust beneficiaries of any apartment, seek to abandon the condominium status of the project.”

This provision of the contract contains no reference to the state law governing condominiums, as stated by the prime sponsor. The prime sponsor also incorrectly stated that under the agreement, the property owners collectively agreed to subject itself to the condominium law and any dissolution requirements as might be changed by the Legislature.

Condominium ownership is a valuable property right. The Declarations document signed by Laurelon property owners was signed and recorded with King County in 1978. All property owners were aware of the terms of the agreement and the requirement that everyone must agree to dissolve the condominium complex."

Baby Eagle Sighting?

A sharp-eyed neighbor sent the following report on the Bald Eagle Family nesting at the Talaris wetlands (kitty-corner to the Hospital):

"[twelve] days ago, my daughter and I saw the mother and baby flying between our house and the hospital. Last week, the baby was flying solo.

That baby eagle was very white and working hard to keep up with the mother. After a brief rest, she made the baby fly some more. The solo flight was much more assured in the way it flew."

Let's get these magnificent neighbors covered in the Hospital's EIS!

Update: Another neighbor just sent the following caveat:

"I have been watching this nest building activity since it began in early January and was prompted to read a little about eagle nesting behavior. The Audubon web site is a typically good start. I would guess, as an amateur birder and casual observer, that this pair has not yet produced chicks and we still have that thrilling event to look forward to.

A summary of their breeding activity includes the following information; nest building takes anywhere from 1-3 months, eggs are laid usually near the end of February, incubation of the eggs takes 35 days, and new eagles do not fly until they are 10-12 weeks old. The Talaris eagles do not yet seem to sitting on the nest nearly constantly as is required for incubation of eggs. Perhaps May would be the time to expect sightings of young eagles learning to fly.

Just one more reason why our neighborhood is special and deserving of everyone's efforts in maintaining its character."

Update 3/21/08: Another neighbor kindly shared a new photograph of the eagles sitting on their nest. Click on it to enlarge:

Seattle Community Council Federation: "Vote NO on SHB3071"

Today, the city-wide Seattle Community Council Federation voiced its opposition to SHB3071. Its full letter is included both below and in this file. The author of the Council's letter is a member of the Haller Lake Community Club and Vice President of the Federation.

Also today... The Northeast District Council reiterated its opposition to SHB3071 (see its new and original letters). The Laurelhurst Community Club's opposition to this bill is unchanged (see its testimony and original letter). Contact info for our legislators is here. The Senate Committee on Consumer Protection and Housing will hold a hearing on SHB3071 on Tuesday, Feb 26 at 1:30 pm. Additional posts on SHB3071 can be accessed here.

The Seattle Community Council Federation's letter:

February 25, 2007

TO: Senator Margarita Prentice, Senator Darlene Fairley, Senator Erik Poulsen, Senator Jeanne Kohl-Wells, Senator Adam Kline, Senator Ed Murray and Senator Ken Jacobsen

RE: Vote NO on SHB 3071

Dear Senators:

The Seattle Community Council Federation, a coalition of community groups throughout the city of Seattle, urges you to vote no on SHB 3071 and to do all you can to kill the bill.

Changing the condominium law to allow 80 percent owner approval, rather than the current 100 percent for complexes built prior to 1990 would essentially give Children’s Hospital the power of eminent domain. It is grossly unfair to change the rules in the middle of the game for dissolving condominium complexes, especially for those who had counted on living out their days in a nice, quiet and safe complex. Please do not allow Children’s Hospital to force people out of their homes. It is quite different for those who purchased condominiums built after 1990—they bought with the full knowledge that 80 percent of their neighbors could dissolve the complex.

Demolition of the 136-unit garden Laurelon Terrace condominiums will also result in a loss of 21 percent of the affordable housing in the Laurelhust/Sand Point area of Seattle—housing that cannot be replaced in this part of the city.

Children’s Hospital has planned a massive expansion—the addition of 1.5 million square feet, with building heights inconsistent with Seattle Comprehensive Plan and local laws. The level of expansion sought is unprecedented in a low density single family area. Children’s master plan must be approved at the local level in a process that will not be completed until July 2009. Children’s must also proceed through the State Board of Health “certificate of need” 12-step process for approval of the requested bed expansion. A recent study prepared by Field Associates, specialists in healthcare and hospital planning, concludes that Children’s proposal appears to be approximately ten times the actual number of beds required by the hospital 20 years from today. And, unnecessary hospital beds are expensive to the community. With all of these uncertainties, passage of HB 3071 is premature.

Laurelon residents are certainly entitled to negotiate with Children’s and should be well-compensated for the loss of their homes. It doesn’t take a state law for this to happen.

Children’s originally planned a buyout of Laurelon over the next 20 years—now they want the property right away. And, Children’s has offered nothing so far in return—no reduction in the amount of square footage or building heights, just to list a couple of examples—other than a price to those who wish to sell that is almost three times the value of the property. But, Children’s offer has many contingencies—everyone must sell, the master plan must be approved, and homeowners must agree to more or less be lobbyists for the hospital. There is no assurance that replacement affordable housing can be sited in the area.

We hope you will vote NO on HB 3071 and encourage your colleagues to also vote NO. Thank you for considering the views of the Seattle Community Council Federation.

Sincerely,

Rick Barrett, Vice President, Seattle Community Council Federation

cc: Senate Consumer Protection and Housing Committee Members: Senators Brian Weinstein, Claudia Kauffman, Jim Honeyford, Jerome Delvin, Mary Margaret Haugen, Derek Kilmer, Bob McCaslin, Rodney Tom

The Bald Eagles Have Landed

Two sunbathing beauties hung out near their nest yesterday. They had many admirers.

The eagles' nest is located in the Talaris wetlands, the parcel of land directly south of Laurelon and kitty-corner to the Hospital's SW corner.

And yet the Hospital's EIS claims:

"(ii) Unique Species -- Not reviewed; none reasonable [sic] expected to exist on site."

More pictures of the nest are here. Double-click on any photo to make it larger. Note the location of the existing hospital relative to the nest and eagles can be seen in in the photo below.

LCC's Preliminary Review of the Hospital's Offer

See the Summary of the Hospital's Laurelon Offer
Worth noting: The Hospital requires full approval for its massive upzone of this residential parcel before it will close:

"Final approval of Children's MIMP [Major Institution Master Plan], including inclusion of the Laurelon property within the MIO [Major Institution Overlay] boundaries with development standards acceptable to Children's, by the City of Seattle (with exhaustion of any appeal periods)."

In other words, the Hospital will pay only the market rate for Laurelon units up front. It will pay an added premium only after it has received full go-ahead for upzoning the parcel from residential to "Major Institution." And yet... city home owners do not own the zoning of their land, so they cannot guarantee changes to their zoning.

See the Laurelhurst Community Club's Preliminary Review of the Hospital's Offer
The Laurelhurst Community Club identified many important questions the proposal left unanswered for Laurelon residents (bold highlighting added):

"Will Laurelon owners really benefit from sale of their homes to Children’s, how long will they have to wait, and what will happen to their properties and values in the meantime?

Children’s has offered $93 million to purchase Laurelon Terrace—a price per unit close to three times the approximate current value. For a young family that would like to buy a house, older residents interested in moving into assisted living, and investor-owners seeking a profit, the offer sounds appealing.

But, there are many contingencies that make the potential windfall very uncertain and meanwhile leave Laurelon owners as hostages to Children’s plans. All of these contingencies would allow Children’s to back out of the deal.

First, the Legislature would have to pass House Bill (HB) 3071, a measure that would change the condominium law to require 80 percent, rather than 100 percent homeowner approval to dissolve the complex. If the bill passes and the other contingencies are not met, Children’s could back out of its offer to purchase the units at a premium price. This means that Children’s would have secured a valuable right to purchase the Laurelon Terrace complex but owners would not get the premium price cited by Children’s to get the law changed.

Second, the deal is contingent upon final approval of Children’s master plan AND the plan must include expansion of the major institution boundaries to include Laurelon AND must include development standards AND all of this must be to Children’s satisfaction or it does not have to pay. Some kind of master plan will eventually be approved. One question is whether the major institution boundaries will be expanded—something strongly discouraged in the Major Institutions Code. The other more important question is whether the development standards meet with Children’s approval. What if Children’s prefers 240 foot or 160 foot towers and that height is not approved? What if Children’s does not want to agree to the 75-foot setbacks as proposed or eliminating roadways through the setbacks? There are dozens and dozens of development standards and any one that isn’t acceptable to Children’s could be a basis for Children’s to back out of the deal. There is nothing in the summary of Children’s proposal to protect Laurelon owners.

Third, the City must approve street right-of-way vacations on terms acceptable to Children’s. This is yet another opportunity for Children’s to back out and an extremely complicated and contentious process.

Why are there no explicit protections in the deal for Laurelon property owners? What would happen to the homeowners who put a down payment on a house and are never able to realize the windfall? What about older residents counting on the windfall to afford assisted living who then don’t have the funds to pay? What if the whole offer falls through due to the many contingencies and residents can’t then afford to move, yet will be forced to? Where will they go?

Why weren’t owners told how long it could take for the many conditions to be realized? The master planning process according to the Major Institutions Code takes about 24 months. This means that final approval might not take place until July 2009. This does not take into account any possible appeals during this process, which could substantially lengthen the process. During this entire period, there would be uncertainty for homeowners.

It should be noted that Children’s is paying the bulk of the attorneys’ fees to make the deal happen. Does that make a difference as to how the deal was worked out? This is an important question for residents to ask.

Finally, where is the concern about the loss of affordable housing in the area? Manageably-sized moderate income apartments suitable for seniors in walking distance of shopping and services and on reliable bus routes are a precious commodity, especially in Laurelhurst. The preliminary draft environmental impact statement estimates a loss of 21 percent of the moderate income housing in the area if Children’s succeeds in its Laurelon takeover. While it is said that Children’s would be required to propose comparable replacement housing, that could be anywhere in the city and “comparability” is an elusive concept."

Shifting sands under HB3071

New development: Laurelon is currently considering a substantial buyout package from the Hospital, so the number of Laurelon residents opposed to HB3071 has significantly decreased (Seattle PI and Seattle Times). At the request of a Laurelon resident engaged in these new negotiations, we have removed the Action Alert on HB3071 from the top of this site.

Nevertheless, we bring you one Laurelhurst neighbor's personal opinion on HB3071:

HB3071 is bad public policy because it gives developers an unnecessary leg up against homeowners. It lets a developer take over a pre-1990 condo complex after obtaining permission from only 80% of residents. Would you want your neighbor (the one who signed up for a huge mortgage than he can't afford) deciding whether you have to sell your home (the one you finally paid off after years of thrift)?

Yes, Laurelon residents should be free to negotiate with the Hospital and must be well-compensated for the loss of their homes, if they choose to accept an offer.

However, HB3071 would lower the bar for all developers and take away important protections for a much larger group of home owners than just Laurelon residents. What might the Hospital's offer have looked like if the threshold for takeover of Laurelon had stood at 80% instead of 100%?

Food for thought: HB3071 would help the Hospital eliminate over 20% of the moderately priced housing units in Laurelhurst/Sandpoint. If HB3071 makes it easier for developers to buy out older condo complexes, could other neighborhoods face similar losses of housing? How often do developers replace moderately-priced housing with expensive housing? Hmmm...

Please Help Laurelon Residents Stop HB3071 in the State Senate

[Update: See the next post for an update on Laurelon & HB3071]

HB3071 will now go to a State Senate committee, very likely the Consumer Protection and Housing Committee. Lois Jones, Laurelon resident, writes:

"These last few months have been incredibly frustrating and stressful. I can't believe how depressed this whole process has made me and other Laurelon residents who want desperately to stay in our beloved homes and neighborhood."

How to help: Please help the long-time residents of Laurelon stop the Hospital from legislating away the homes they own and love. Email the members of the WA State Senate's Consumer Protection and Housing Committee and urge them to stop HB3071 (now SHB3071):

Brian Weinstein - Chair (D) Weinstein.Brian@leg.wa.gov
Claudia Kauffman - Vice Chair (D) kauffman.claudia@leg.wa.gov
Jim Honeyford - Ranking Minority Member (R) Honeyford.Jim@leg.wa.gov
Jerome Delvin (R) delvin.jerome@leg.wa.gov
Mary Margaret Haugen (D) haugen_ma@leg.wa.gov
Ken Jacobsen (D) jacobsen.ken@leg.wa.gov
Derek Kilmer (D) kilmer.derek@leg.wa.gov
Bob McCaslin (R) mccaslin.bob@leg.wa.gov
Rodney Tom (D) tom.rodney@leg.wa.gov

Individual emails are definitely most effective, but if you're rushed, you can email all members of the Committee at once.

What's next? Further info will be posted on the bill’s website soon. The committee's next two meetings are Feb 21 and Feb 22. HB 3071 is not currently listed on the agenda for either of those days, but committee agendas are constantly changing. The next cutoff date is Feb 29. By that date, the Senate must have considered the bill. March 7 is the last day for the Senate to take action on the bill.

Laurelon Loses in Legislature

Bad News: At about 11pm tonight, the State House passed