Community Council Federation Asks the City to Consider the LCC Alternatives

Any Seattle neighborhood, not just Laurelhurst, is vulnerable to being shut out of the Master Planning Process by a well-financed, well-connected institution. The City gave the Hospital the go-ahead to brush off reasonable alternatives developed by a land-use professional on behalf of the surrounding community. If it can happen in Laurelhurst, it can happen in any Seattle neighborhood. Bravo to the Community Council Federation for their letter.

This November 6 letter was addressed to Scott Ringgold, the City Land Use Planner:

RE: Reconsideration of Study of LCC Alternatives in Childrens EIS

Dear Mr. Ringgold:
As you may recall, the Seattle Community Council Federation, a coalition of community groups throughout the city of Seattle, submitted detailed environmental scoping comments on Childrens Hospital concept plan. The Federation continues to monitor issues related to the Childrens master planning process. We were disappointed to learn that you have rejected the request by the Laurelhurst Community Club to include the alternatives prepared by its land use consultant for study in the environmental impact statement (EIS). We join the Childrens Advisory Committee, the Northeast District Council and the Laurelhurst Community Club (LCC) in requesting that you reconsider your decision.

Your letter of October 12th includes no rationale for denying the reasonable request to study the LCC alternatives, incorrectly interpreted those alternatives and does not address Childrens failure to document its purported need for expansion at the level proposed. The alternatives submitted by LCC during the last master planning process were studied in the EIS. A great deal of effort and expertise went into developing the LCC alternatives and they merit further study in the current process. We support and endorse the analysis of your decision prepared by land use consultant Carol Eychaner.

The LCC alternatives strike an appropriate balance between Childrens need to expand and minimizing the impacts upon surrounding communitiesas required by the Major Institutions Code. The additional alternatives suggested by Childrens fall short in achieving this balance. Even with a reduction in building height from 240 feet to 160 feet, the height would far exceed anything the city has ever approved in a single-family low density setting and would set a dangerous precedent for other similarly situated neighborhoods abutting major institutions.

Childrens new alternatives do not address the new entrances that would be created on the campus from residential streets, directing high volumes of traffic into a quiet neighborhood. Finally, Childrens seeks to expand its boundaries, not only across Sand Point Way as originally planned, but to eliminate the 136-unit Laurelon Terrace [moderately-priced] housing condominium complex.

The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires study of reasonable alternatives. To date, no reasonable alternatives other than those recommended by LCC have been proposed. Study of those alternatives in the EIS should be mandated. We urge you to reconsider your decision and to require study of the LCC alternatives in the EIS.

Thank you for considering the views of the Seattle Community Council Federation.

Sincerely,
Rick Barrett, Vice President