Hiatus

This site needs to take a hiatus for reasons unrelated to the issue at hand. Until we're back in action, please keep an eye on the Laurelhurst Community Club web site for updates. Thanks.

UPDATE: CAC Tour is a PUBLIC Event

The CAC Tour starting at 2pm on Sunday the 18th is actually a public meeting. The public is INVITED to join the tour. (Except the visits inside family homes at Laurelon --these are small condos). The tour starts at the Hospital's Giraffe Parking Garage. From a member of the CAC:

"We definitely want public to come along so everyone has the opportunity to weigh in with the CAC. This will be a great opportunity for that. Show the CAC where you live as we walk and how you will be impacted, etc. So mark it on your calendars."

The tour will happen rain or shine. Bring cameras to snap pictures of the balloons. Email us your photos and we'll share them here.

Post-Tour Update: Handouts from the tour, provided by the CAC:

• CAC Tour Outline Handout
  
• Windermere Circle Handout
  
• BIG Powerpoint Deck with Before/After Pictures
  

Alert: Watch for the Weather Balloons, Sunday 11/18/07 2pm

Correction: The CAC Tour IS Actually a Public Event (see post above).

Heard at the CAC Meeting: This coming Sunday, at 2pm or
later, the Hospital plans to fly weather balloons to heights of 160 and 240 feet. These are the proposed heights of several of the Hospital's towering "alternatives."

The balloons will head aloft sometime during the CAC's 2-4pm tour of the proposed expansion area (including Laurelon). Note that the Hospital will be launching the balloons, so don't be surprised if their markers are less than conspicuous.

We bet you can figure out where the balloons are located by watching the committee members looking skyward. They meet at the Giraffe Garage at 2pm, rain or shine. Please respect that the tour itself is not for the public-- This is a public CAC meeting, so the public is indeed invited to almost the entire tour, except the times when the CAC will be visiting family residences at Laurelon.

Be ready with your cameras!

Laurelon Action Coalition: Buying and Bulldozing our Community is Not Okay

Residents of Laurelon have now formally banded together to form the Laurelon Action Coalition.

These determined folks refuse to see 136 units of moderately-priced housing demolished as part of the Hospital's "long-term play." Laurelon units actually qualify as "affordable housing" according the our Mayor's tax-credit criteria, but we'll stick to calling them "moderately-priced." Laurelon residents plan to defend their homes and community from the Hospital's buy-and-bulldoze plan. Check out the Hospital's Laurelon "Alternative" before you read the Laurelon Action Coalition's first letter to the CAC:

Dear Citizens Advisory Council:

The Laurelon Action Coalition is a group of Laurelon Terrace Condominium homeowners who do not want Children's Hospital to purchase units in our condominium complex. We do not want to see our wonderful garden neighborhood devoured by Children's Hospital. We first made this known to our ownership at large at its Oct 25th Homeowners' Meeting (See below). The lawyer subsequently hired by us will be reporting his findings at our next Homeowners' Meeting scheduled Nov. 28th.

Among many concerns, we take great umbrage at Ruth Benfield's comments at the Oct 30th CAC meeting in which she indicated Laurelon would become available for construction because our board had hired a lawyer to deal with that and that our complex is run down, burdened with debt, and has no funds to do needed work. Laurelon continues ongoing projects to maintain, repair and upgrade infrastructure systems and features including sewers, siding, porches, window replacements, plumbing, electrical. Homeowners take great pride in remodeling and meticulous maintenance of their units. We hope this will be obvious on your walking tour Nov. 18.

Sincerely,
The Laurelon Action Coalition

Excerpt from Presentation made at Laurelon Terrace Homeowners Meeting Oct 25, 2007

After reflection on what was presented by Buck Law Group at the homeowners' meeting in September, we wondered about the lack of other options presented to protect us from take over by Children's Hosp.

At the same time, a number of homeowners approached us about the possibility of protecting Laurelon Terrace by a change in our Declaration, Covenants, and By-laws.

We consulted 4 lawyers recommended to us who specialize in preparing covenants and by-laws for condominium associations.

All four agreed that tightening and/or adding covenants of the types we discussed are common, legal, and should be effective if written and executed properly.

We are going to retain a lawyer to investigate our current documents, propose changes, present the pros and cons, and at a homeowners' meeting recommend what would work best.

Reminder: CAC Meeting This Tuesday, Nov 13 at 6pm, Talaris

This week's Citizens Advisory Council meeting agenda includes time for public comments and two intriguing items:

• Discussion of CHRMC Needs Calculations
• Our interpretation: The Hospital plans to build 350 beds but the Dept. of Health has predicted it will need 65. Explain?
  
• Discussion of the Relationship of the Evaluation of Impacts in the EIS to CAC Options to Recommend Changes to the Proposals
• Our interpretation: Can the Hospital really brush off the CAC's uanimous recommendation to consider the LCC alternatives?

Date: Tuesday, November 13, 2007. 6:00- 8:15 PM
Place: Talaris Conference Center, Cedar Room. 4000 NE 41st Street (the old Battelle site)

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

A Neighbor Takes a Long-Term Look at Construction Costs

This interesting analysis of alternative plans and their costs was contributed by a neighbor:

CHRMC Expansion: Two Cost-effective Alternatives

Chicago's Children's Memorial Hospital (CCMH) is building an entirely new 1.25 million sq. ft. hospital on a new site to replace their current facility (see here and here). Their latest cost estimate is $1 billion, taking 4 years to complete. Compare this to the cost of Seattle's Children’s Hospital and Regional Medical Center (CHRMC) expansion proposal:

Plan A: CHRMC proposes a 1.5 million sq. ft. on-site expansion overlaying their current buildings, taking 15-20 years. They have not released the cost - our Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) should ask for this estimate - but common sense and a professional construction cost estimator tell us that the cost will be at least double that of construction on a clean site. Based on the Chicago cost, this leads to an estimate of (1.5/1.25) x $1 billion x 2 = $2.4 billion.

Furthermore, CHRMC tells us that 20 years from now, the current buildings that remain will have to be replaced, having outlived their useful lives. How much more will it cost to replace these 900,000 sq. ft. on-site? Perhaps $1 billion, probably more, requiring another 10 years of on-site construction. Thus we estimate the total cost of 2.4 million sq. ft. of new/renovated space for CHRMC to be $2.4 + $1 billion = $3.4 billion, accompanied by up to 30 years of on-site construction impact and disruption on the patients, their families, the medical staff, and the community. (Cost estimate based on Chicago numbers; no estimate released by CHRMC.)

Plan B (buiid on a new site): By contrast, CHRMC does say that the cost to move from their present 900,000 sq. ft. site and build a brand new 2.4 million sq. ft. hospital (including the additional 1.5 million sq. ft. they ask for) would be $2-2.5 billion, taking only 5 years. And this cost would be reduced further by the proceeds of the sale of the existing campus. So for a savings of $1 billion or more, CHRMC could build a brand-new 2.4 million sq. ft. facility instead of the proposed 1.5 million sq. ft. on-site addition followed by renovation of their current buildings. This would avoid up to 30 years of disruption to CHRMC itself and the community.

Clearly Plan B would be win-win for everyone.

Another low-impact, low-cost alternative:

Plan C: leave the current 900,000 sq. ft campus untouched and build a second 1.5 million sq. ft campus on a new site, with the advantage of geographical diversity and/or locating next to a partner hospital or CHRMC's own new research facility. Based on the Chicago numbers, this would cost only $1.2 billion, again with no disruption to anyone. CHRMC objects, citing the inefficiency of operating a "smaller satellite hospital", but surely 1.5 million sq. ft. does not qualify as a small satellite. Chicago's CCMH is happy to be getting a brand new 1.25 million sq. ft. hospital in total.

Letters to the Editor from Neighbors

We're behind in sharing letters from neighbors to the Editor of the Seattle Times. Here are two that made it to us but didn't make it into print:

To the Editor:
The Times overlooked an important story with its recent article (“Laurelhurst, Children's Hospital at it again over planned expansion,” 9/27/07).

Children’s Hospital appears to be seeking to limit the location and thus the accessibility of in-patient pediatric care in our region. The Hospital plans to concentrate in-patient pediatric services in a heavily congested area that is already well-served by hospital facilities. Parents on the Eastside and elsewhere need to hear this news.

The Hospital is actively working against a planned expansion of hospital beds by Swedish on the growing Eastside. The Times reported that the Hospital has formally complained to the Department of Health that expansion in Issaquah “concentrates too many hospital beds” in one place (“Hospitals challenge state's OK for Swedish in Issaquah,” 6/23/07). Yet Children’s has proposed twice as many new beds (350 vs. 175) for its facility in Northeast Seattle, hardly the center of population growth in our region.

Swedish appears to be quite a progressive institution. Its website celebrates its collaborative, regional heart-surgery program (“Mary Bridge, Swedish Establish Joint Pediatric Heart-Surgery Program,” 2/10/04). Physicians care for young patients close to homes and families. What a forward-thinking idea. Let’s get more of those on the table.

To the Editor:
"Children's unveils revised plan" [10/31/07] discusses tower heights, but omits more important questions:

Is such a large expansion warranted? The hospital plans to build 300+ beds, but the Department of Health projects it needs only 65.

CHRMC actually opposes Swedish Hospital's plan to build 175 beds (including pediatric beds) in the growing area of Issaquah ["Hospitals challenge state's OK for Swedish in issaquah", 6/23/07]. Why does CHRMC oppose a geographic expansion of in-patient health care?

If expansion is justified, where should it occur? CHMRC's mission would be better served by a second campus rather than by 15-20 years of major construction on their current working campus. A few reasons:

• A second campus would offer geographic diversity to serve a growing population.
• Contrary to your article, the cost of a second campus would be only 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of on-site expansion. This would free up at least $500 million for land acquisition, additional medical personnel, and state-of-the-art equipment.
• 15-20 years of construction dust, noise and obstruction would threaten patient health, staff morale, and staff attrition. In fact, CHMRC administrators say [CHMRC, 10/30/07] they would much prefer to build on a clean site if feasible.