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...

Laurelon Residents Seek to 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."

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 HB3071: yeas, 52; nays, 43; absent, 0; excused, 3. This back-handed bill now goes to the State Senate.

Where were the 46th District Representatives? Representatives Kenny (46th), McIntire (46th) and Chopp (43rd) voted for the bill and for the Hospital's takeover of Laurelon.

Testimony against the bill:
Kudos to the Representatives who spoke up on behalf of the Laurelon residents who want to stay in their homes. We've included snippets of sorta-quoted, sorta-summarized testimony recorded as people spoke:

• Peterson, 43rd District. Points out that people who bought before 1990 bought a right to stay in their condos absent eminent domain. We’re about to take about a property right away to make it easier for a single landowner to purchase an adjacent parcel.
• Dunn, 12th District. When you buy into a 1990 condo, everyone is of the understanding that it takes a 100% vote to dissolve the condo complex. This was understood by all at purchase. It’s not right to change what’s already set upon purchase. It sets a bad precedent. Bad legislation.
• Sum, 7th District. This is a very bad bill. To displace someone from their home, that they own—this is their property. If someone wants people to leave, they need to start negotiating with them. 80% of my neighbors should not be able to tell me I have to move.
• Darneal, 27th District. She directed a nonprofit that leased commercial property in Tacoma. A new owner (after 7 owners) had plans to turn the building into condos. Each time previous owners had tried, it hadn’t pencil out. 7th owner said he had bottomless pockets and wanted to turn it into condos. She had a 7 year lease. Nevertheless, she was expected to move for 5000$. That would not cover the cubicles. She held on. The building could not be taken over and her piece of paper, her 7 year lease meant something. “To these people [at Laurelon], that piece of paper meant something.”
• Sum 7th District. Without property rights, there are no rights. You don’t violate property rights. This is not an election, this is a property right. If this situation is so valuable, let the parties go into negotiation. We’re only as strong as the weakest person in our society.

Testimony for the bill:

• Goodman from 45th District
• Rodney from 5th District
• Armstrong 12th District
• Shindler 4th District.
• Miloscia 30th.

Voting Yea: Representatives Anderson, Appleton, Armstrong, Barlow, Blake, Chase, Clibborn, Conway, Crouse, Dunshee, Eddy, Eickmeyer, Ericks, Fromhold, Goodman, Green, Haigh, Hasegawa, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kessler, Kirby, Liias, Loomis, McCoy, McIntire, Miloscia, Moeller, Morris, Nelson, O'Brien, Ormsby, Pettigrew, Quall, Rodne, Rolfes, Schindler, Seaquist, Sells, Simpson, Sommers, Springer, Sullivan, Upthegrove, Wallace, Warnick, Williams, Wood, and Mr. Speaker Chopp
Voting Nay: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Bailey, Campbell, Chandler, Cody, Condotta, Darneille, DeBolt, Dickerson, Dunn, Ericksen, Grant, Haler, Hankins, Herrera, Hinkle, Hudgins, Hurst, Kelley, Kretz, Kristiansen, Lantz, Linville, McCune, McDonald, Morrell, Newhouse, Orcutt, Pearson, Pedersen, Priest, Roach, Roberts, Ross, Santos, Schmick, Schual-Berke, Smith, Sump, Takko, Van De Wege, and Walsh
Excused: Representatives Flannigan, Hailey, and Skinner

HB3071 Stalling in Committee

House Bill 3071 is still stalled in the House Rules Committee as of 11:30 p.m. tonight [Thursday].

Comments on Public Disclosure

A neighbor just sent the following comments to us:

Secret Meetings? Lack of Public Disclosure?

At the February 12th Children’s Citizens’ Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting, [a CAC member from View Ridge] offered the following motion:

“I propose that in the future any notes, comments, or actions taken by the Children’s Advisory Committee (CAC) sub-committees be kept in the strictest of confidence until such time that they are formally shared with the full CAC at a formal meeting. This means that sub-committee members, or anyone in attendance at a sub-committee meeting is prevented from discussing the contents of such meeting(s) with members of the general public, or the press.

Once the formal presentation to the full CAC has been made members are free to make comment.

It is also recommended that sub-committee meetings be recorded for the preparation of formal notes, or minutes for approval by the sub-committee members.”

With no understanding of the state’s Public Records Act or the Open Public Meetings Act that applies to local advisory committees created by law, the CAC was poised to adopt the motion with a few minor amendments. After the Montlake representative on the CAC raised concerns about the need for an open and transparent process, another CAC member suggested that the motion be tabled. The Department of Neighborhoods person who staffs the committee suggested that advice should be sought from the City’s Law Department prior to voting on [the] motion. All of this occurred prior to the public comment period.

During the public comment period, concern was expressed about withholding information necessary to allow the public to comment.

This is an extremely important issue that impacts the type of process the CAC will pursue in the future. It is very difficult for citizens and community groups to comment at CAC meetings if there is no advance notice about the specifics of what will be discussed or even a description of the topic listed on the CAC agenda item distributed prior to the evening of the meeting. In this case, the CAC was at a major disadvantage because it had no notice about the View Ridge motion and no background information about the applicable law. It is especially difficult for Laurelhurst, the major stakeholder in the process, which has consultants onboard to provide technical review and assistance.

The Laurelhurst Community Club (LCC) received a copy of the schematic of the parameters for the alternative developed by the CAC subcommittee shortly after the February 2nd subcommittee meeting. LCC asked questions of individual CAC members and received answers to enable a written comment from its land use consultant at the February 11th meeting. Although Mr. Lucas, who serves on the CAC subcommittee, assisted in briefing the Northeast District Council about the new alternative at its February 7th meeting, he would have preferred that the new alternative be unveiled to the full CAC prior to being released to the public.

Moving Backward

Up until the February 11th CAC meeting, there was general consensus on the committee to reject the four alternatives proposed by Children’s for its expansion that would forever change the character of Laurelhurst and this part of northeast Seattle. Led by the Bryant, citywide rep and one Laurelhurst representative on the committee, the group refused to take those alternatives off the table.

The position statement that was supposed to be developed by the committee was prepared by the chair, the Bryant rep who now appears to be leading the charge to support Children’s. The Department of Neighborhoods staff person provided technical assistance with the statement putting together information from minutes of prior meetings. The statement was distributed at the meeting and committee members were given ten minutes to read it before going through it and making a few changes.

One of the biggest problems with the process is that the CAC does not receive materials from Children’s in advance to enable a thoughtful review prior to making decisions. There is no one to answer technical questions at the meeting and answers provided by Children’s are often evasive or incorrect.

Follow-up from the February 12th CAC Meeting

Handouts. Land use planner Carol Eychaner made the following materials available to the CAC and the public at last night's CAC meeting:

• Letter covering strong concerns about the CAC subcommittee's new plan for Hospital development.
• Memo tallying all Hospital purchases to-date, including houses, condos and downtown. Note that this memo leaves out the Hospital's latest home purchase. For that purchase, see this post.
• Table of Hospital purchases covered in the above memo.

Hospital PR on Laurelon. Tuesday's Seattle PI's article inaccurately portrays the Hospital's maneuvers to obtain Laurelon as favored by "the community." Please see these posts for perspectives from the community and Laurelon residents.

One small bright note: an insightful comment by a reader of the PI article. "DolphinGirl" posted the following on the PI comment area (bold added):

"Gee, is there anywhere you can live in the Seattle area and not worry that you will be kicked out of your home? Forget 'The needs of the many outweighing the needs of a few'; you shouldn't be forced out of your home for any reason! If those people choose to sell, that's definitely their right. But the people that want to stay should be able to without fear. What happens next? The majority decide to sell and then maybe the government decides "eminent domain" would be a handy tool to use here to boot out the remaining unwilling homeowners? One of my neighbors in South Park is being eminent domained out of his home and business right now, a move which could easily be avoided if the "project" SPU is pushing were moved a mere 100 yards south. Children's may need to expand, but it is located in a residential neighborhood (accent on the word "residential") and needs to respect that. Yes, I agree with the above poster who says anyone who speaks out against Children's will be labeled a "kid hater". I counter that label with another: "home lover"."

Reminder: Citizen's Advisory Council Meets This Tuesday

Please join your neighbors this Tuesday, February 12, 2008, at 6pm in the Children's Hospital Wright Auditorium. The auditorium is located near the Hospital's main (Giraffe) entrance.

The Citizen's Advisory Committee will continue discussing its response to the Hospital's Draft EIS. Public comment time is allocated towards the end of the meeting.

More on HB3071

As we discussed last week, HB3071 would allow corporations to take over condominium complexes (not just Laurelon) after acquiring 80% (not 100%) of condo units. The Hospital (and Representatives Goodman, Rodne, Williams) had the audacity to present HB3071 to our legislature as follows:

Staff Summary of Public Testimony:
(In support) ...This bill originated because Children's Hospital in Seattle needs to expand and it is best for the community that the hospital utilize the neighboring Laurelon Terrace condominium complex instead of building up or moving out. The majority of Laurelon residents want to sell but they cannot do so because a few residents have admitted they are holding out for more money.

Now, consider the real "community" response. The Northeast District Council represents 14 community clubs and an additional 6 community/business groups near the Hospital. The Northeast District's position on this bill (bold added):

RE: Vote NO on HB 3071

Dear Speaker Chopp and Representatives Pedersen, Kenney and McIntire:

At its January 7th meeting, the Northeast District Council, representing 20 community and business organizations in the 43rd and 46th legislative districts, voted to oppose House Bill 3071. The bill purports to merely harmonize statutes that address the termination of condominiums. In reality, the bill would ultimately result in the loss of a substantial segment of irreplaceable affordable housing in our area. We urge you to vote no on this bill and do all you can to kill it.

The prime sponsor of the bill states that it is intended to make it easier for Children’s Hospital and Regional Medical Center to acquire the 136-unit Laurelon Terrace condominium complex, located adjacent to its property, for its expansion plans. But, at what cost? It would mean the loss of 21 percent of the moderate income housing in our area as documented in the preliminary draft environmental impact statement. This housing cannot be replaced. Where will all the seniors and others go? Many purchased the condominiums with the expectation that they could live there for their remaining years. They were assured this because the condominium law would not allow termination of the condominium agreement without their consent. There is no similarly situated affordable housing in the area, and many purchased their homes to be near their kids.

Children’s is in the process of acquiring Laurelon Terrace condominium units—20 units so far. HB 3071 would give Children’s the power to terminate the condominium with only 80 percent of ownership, instead of the 100 percent that is now required under the law which regulates condominiums prior to 1990. Please do not provide the tool to allow Children’s to acquire and demolish this much needed affordable housing.

The Northeast District Council urges you to do all you can to defeat HB 3071. Thank you for considering our views.

Nesting Neighbors: EIS Ignores Nesting Bald Eagles.

Apparently, the Hospital's EIS consultants didn't dig too deeply into biological impacts. Section (d), "Plants and Animals," reads:

(i) Habitat -- Not reviewed; only usual urban birds can be reasonably expected on site.
(ii) Unique Species -- Not reviewed; none reasonable [sic] expected to exist on site.

It just so happens that a pair of bald eagles has been nesting next door to the Hospital since roughly Fall 2007. Not coincidentally, the eagles started building their nest roughly when the Hospital's well-drilling project ended. Perhaps they didn't find the reverberating clanging welcoming?

We respectfully suggest to the Hospital that the threatened species nesting next door deserves consideration in the Hospital's Environmental Impact Statement.

If you'd like to see your wide-wing-spanned neighbors, go to the intersection of Surber and 41st Street, just west of the western entrance to the Talaris Institute (the site of many CAC meetings).

Sorry, we only have nest photos thus far, not eagle photos. If you're a more dedicated photographer, please send us your shots.

House Bill 3071

A new bill going before the State House of Representatives would allow Children’s Hospital to terminate (and bulldoze) all 136 Laurelon Terrace condominiums after acquiring only 80 percent ownership, instead of the 100 percent now required by law. The loss of Laurelon would eliminate more than 20% of the moderately priced housing units in the Laurelhurst/Sandpoint area, according to the Hospital's recent EIS.

Further details on this issue are included in the Laurelhurst Community Club's 2/7/2008 letter to Representatives Phyllis Kenney and Jim McIntire (cc: Speaker Frank Chopp). [bold added]

"RE: HB 3071 – Vote No, Preserve Affordable Housing
Dear Representatives Kenney and McIntire,

The Laurelhurst Community Club Board of Trustees urges you to vote NO on HB 3071. This bill would pave the way for the acquisition and demolition of the 136-unit Laurelon Terrace garden condominium by Children’s Hospital, resulting in the loss of much needed affordable housing in our area.

Children’s Hospital is a Seattle major institution that requires a City-approved master plan for new development. Children’s is currently proposing a new master plan for unprecedented, significant expansion on and near its Laurelhurst campus, in an area that is designated by the City’s comprehensive plan to have only limited growth. The amount of new development that Children’s wants is more than that already housed in the current hospital, and is akin to building an entirely new, additional hospital at the site.

One of the alternatives that is being studied in the master planning process includes Children’s acquisition of the Laurelon Terrace condominiums. According to the preliminary draft environmental impact statement on the proposed expansion at Children’s, the acquisition would mean a loss of approximately 21 percent of moderately priced housing in the area. Seattle cannot afford to lose this housing.

It is still early in the master planning process, and Children’s does not have City approval to expand its major institution boundary onto the Laurelon Terrace condominium site. But this has not stopped Children’s from taking aggressive actions to acquire Laurelon Terrace units. All of the institution’s development proposals, which include 240-foot and 160-foot towers that would loom over the two-story garden condominiums, seemed designed to scare property owners into selling to Children’s. If you pass HB 3071 – which would give Children’s the power to terminate the condominium with only 80 percent of ownership, instead of the 100 percent now required by law – it would add yet another threat to the residents of Laurelon Terrace.

Such aggressive tactics should not be used to pressure our seniors and moderate income neighbors to sell and leave their homes. Many purchased condominiums in the beautiful Laurelon Terrace garden community to be close to their families who live in the neighborhood. There is nothing comparable in the neighborhood that is affordable.

It has been suggested that a majority of condominium owners at Laurelon Terrace want to sell to Children’s. We find no evidence to support this assertion. As of January 29, 2008, Children’s has purchased 20 units in Laurelon, representing only 15.2 percent of the total ownership. The statement that the condominium owners want to sell also begs the question: Who wouldn’t feel pressured to sell when presented with development proposals that would destroy the livability of your residence, and when faced with a powerful cadre of attorneys who are working to strip you of your home and your most basic property rights?

Children’s supporters have also said that HB 3071 is necessary to allow termination of dilapidated and devalued condominiums. To the contrary, Laurelon Terrace is a charming, well-maintained garden complex that offers much needed affordable housing. There is no dilapidation problem that needs fixing.

While the Laurelhurst Community Club supports the general mission of Children’s Hospital and its work, LCC has major concerns with its proposed expansion plans. Children’s is proposing 2.4 million square feet of development—1.5 million more than the approximately 900,000 square feet that is currently built on its Laurelhurst campus. In its comprehensive plan, Seattle has designated urban villages/centers where most of the City’s growth and development is supposed to occur. Children’s is not located in any of the designated urban villages/centers.

Seattle’s Land Use Code requires that major institution master plans reflect “a reasonable balance of the public benefits of development and change with the need to maintain livability and vitality of adjacent neighborhoods” (SMC 23.69.032E.2). Children’s proposals are a long way from achieving this balance, and the acquisition and demolition of the Laurelon Terrace condominiums does not close the gap.

In addition to the significant loss of affordable housing, the alternatives that have been developed for Children’s master plan and EIS show that the institution’s acquisition of Laurelon Terrace would not result in any substantial reduction of development that is proposed on other parts of its campus. The acquisition could, instead, provide a site for even more expansion, which means more traffic and other impacts, thereby further decreasing the livability and vitality of the adjacent neighborhoods.

The degree of public benefit of Children’s proposed expansion is also dubious. A recent study prepared by Field Associates, specialists in healthcare and hospital planning, “Study of Bed Projections for Children’s Hospital and Regional Medical Center, Based on Department of Health 12-Step Method,” shows that the number of new hospital beds being proposed by Children’s is excessive. A hospital must obtain a certificate of need to expand its number of beds. In this regard, the study notes that the State Department of Health allocates a statewide pool of hospital beds according to geographic region and service type to ensure against over-expansions detrimental to the public interest.

The study concludes:

Unnecessary hospital beds are expensive to the community.
The Department of Health 12-step method tells us the minimum number of hospital beds required in order to benefit patients and the public but it also places a ceiling on the desired number of beds. Nevertheless, CHRMC’s proposal of 350 new beds appears to be approximately ten times the actual number required at CHRMC twenty years from today.

In light of such an oversupply, CHRMC’s proposal may not provide a public benefit that outweighs its negative impacts. Based on just the numeric need methodology of the Department, CHRMC’s proposal to add 350 acute care beds is not consistent with the mandate established by the legislature nor with the public benefit balancing required by in the Major Institutions chapter of Seattle’s Land Use Code. Rather, by unnecessarily duplicating hospital beds, the CHRMC Master Plan can be expected to have unwanted impacts on the financial and program viability of other hospitals and to unnecessarily increase the cost of health care both locally and in the state. Under-used hospital beds put extra costs into the health care system, thus driving up the taxes and health care premiums we all pay to support it. As the Washington legislature stated, when hospitals over-build, “that excess capacity of health services and facilities place considerable economic burden on the public.”

HB 3071 appears to have been drafted for the sole purpose of making it easier for Children’s Hospital to take over a neighborhood-cherished, affordable housing community and demolish it for the construction of an excessive facility – one that does not even have the basic City and State approvals that are required for development and bed expansion.

We hope you will vote NO on HB 3071 and encourage your colleagues to also vote NO. Thank you for considering the views of our community."

Hospital Hires Councilman Peter Steinbrueck as Consultant

We observe the hiring of former Councilman Steinbrueck with strong reservations. Barely more than a month ago, he served as the Chair of the City Council Urban Planning Committee. The Council and the Urban Planning Committee hold a variety of trump cards in the Hospital issue, so Steinbrueck’s recent role and power on the Council raise a bushel of conflict-of-influence questions (details below).

At the same time we ponder ethics, we sincerely hope that Councilman Steinbrueck continues his support for moderately priced housing while working in his new role as advocate for the Hospital. [We particularly look forward to hearing how Mr. Steinbrueck weighs in on a disturbing new piece of legislation pushed by the Hospital. House Bill 3071 will allow the Hospital to take control of 136 moderately-priced Laurelon condominiums after purchasing only 80% of them. More on this tomorrow.]

Back to the announcement from the Seattle PI, 2/7/2008

"Former City Councilman Peter Steinbrueck will work as a consultant with Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center and community members on the hospital's 20-year growth plan, Steinbrueck and Children's said Wednesday."

Huh? Within two months of leaving the Council, the former head of Council and Chair of Land Use Committee is hired by an institution to help advance that institution's agenda around a land use issue that will soon go before the Council.

Aren't there ethical concerns here? Mr. Steinbrueck's letter to the City's Ethics Committee says there is no conflict in his taking on this consulting role. But take a look at Section 4.16.075 of the City’s Code of Ethics.

Prohibited conduct after leaving City.
B. No former officer or employee shall, during the period of one (1) year after leaving City Office or employment:
1. Assist any person in proceedings involving the agency of the City with which he/she was previously employed, or on a matter in which he or she was officially involved, participated or acted in the course of duty;
2. Represent any person as an advocate in any matter in which the former officer or employee was officially involved while a City officer or employee;

Remember that the City Council (and the Land Use Committee chaired by Steinbrueck) voted to approve the membership list for the Citizen's Advisory Committee, over objections from the surrounding community. Steinbrueck's opinions were key to this ruling (see this letter from the LCC). How can this record of involvement be OK given ethics rule B2 above?

600 beds in once place is OK, but 175 is "Too Many"?

Children's Hospital has appealed to the Department of Health to block Swedish Hospital from building a new, 175 bed hospital on the growing Eastside. It claims that Swedish will put "too many beds" in one place. At the same time, Children's insists that it must build 350 additional beds at its own site, for a grand total of 600 beds in one place.

Something is fishy here.

The following excerpts come from a recent Seattle Times article. The article summarizes the appeal filed against Swedish:

Swedish Plans to Build in Highlands (Seattle Times, 1/24/2008)

"Swedish Medical Center will build its future Eastside hospital in the Issaquah Highlands.... The first phase of the 175-bed facility is expected to open by 2012.

Four hospitals filed a joint appeal with the state Department of Health last June over its decision to allow Swedish to build a facility in Issaquah.

Overlake Hospital Medical Center in Bellevue, Evergreen Hospital Medical Center in Kirkland, Snoqualmie Valley Hospital in Snoqualmie and Children's Hospital & Regional Medical Center in Seattle argue that the state's approval concentrates too many hospital beds in one part of the Eastside.

The $207 million facility would include a pediatrics unit, 10 operating rooms and a neurology department."

A bit more food for thought:

• The planned Swedish Hospital location is "greenfield," so construction will be unhindered by existing structures. In contrast, Children's plans will entail decades of disruption to existing hospital facilities during construction. This will impact patient care and escalate costs.
• Children's seeks 600 of its own beds in one place. These beds would be very close to the UW Hospital, which has... you guessed it... even more beds.
• Which area is growing most quickly, so logically needs more beds-- the Eastside or NE Seattle? The Eastside wins hands-down. Issaquah's population just grew 26% in one year alone (see the Times).
  

Letters to the Editor

From neighbors:
Letter To The Editor of the Seattle PI-- Unpublished
Subject: Reply to P-I editorial 01/15/08

Your 01/14/08 editorial "Finding consensus" states that "Children's Hospital certainly needs to expand". The key questions are, by how much and where? Consider the facts:

CHRMC justifies the scope of its expansion by forecasting a need for a total of 548 pediatric beds by 2020. But the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) estimated this need at only 317 beds while a recent estimate by Field Associates put the number at 271, a substantial disparity.

You "liked what Children's Ruth Benfield said at a [Citizen's Advisory Committee] meeting last week: '...we will ultimately be able to come together with something that is workable ' ". However, when asked at an earlier CAC meeting why Children's OPPOSED Swedish Hospital's recent proposal to the DOH for new pediatric beds on the East Side, Ms. Benfield said "Swedish is a fine hospital, but they can't provide the same level of care that we can." Apparently it is ok for Children's to expand but not its competitors.

Finally, it is not only "some neighbors" who want the hospital to expand elsewhere. Many of the hospital's own physicians, nurses, and staff dread the impact of an entire generation (25 years, not 15) of very costly construction overlaying their existing buildings, where they treat the most vulnerable of patients.

Letter to the Editor of the Seattle PI, 1/10/2008-- Published
Building a second campus would cost less money

Seattle's Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center proposes a 1.5 million sq. ft. on-site expansion overlaying their current 900,000 sq. ft. campus. CHRMC says "it would be too impractical and expensive" to expand to a second campus (Wednesday P-I), but has not released the cost of its own expansion plan. In fact, building a second campus would cost substantially less than on-site expansion. New construction on an unoccupied site is far less expensive than upgrading old buildings, especially for high-tech uses.

The cost-effective alternative: Maintain the current campus for non-critical patients and build a second campus at South Lake Union. That would save hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on world-class faculty and state-of-the-art equipment.

This alternative would avoid the severe impact of 15-20 years of on-site construction on the patients, families and medical staff of a working hospital. It would offer the advantage of contiguity to the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center and CHRMC's own new South Lake Union research center. CHRMC's vital mission would be better served by this cost-effective alternative.

Recent articles in the PI and Times:

• Bigger Children's Hospital means more time in traffic
• Children's Hospital: Finding consensus
• Still too tall, say Children's Hospital neighbors
• Swedish Plans to Build in Highlands
  

Hospital Has Closed on 27 Homes/Condos

The Hospital has now closed on 27 nearby homes and condos. This includes 21 units at Laurelon Terrace, a moderately-priced condo community, and 6 single-family homes. The pace of purchases has accelerated swiftly this winter.

The threat of decades of construction is remarkably effective in "convincing" neighbors to "voluntarily" sell their long-time homes quickly. If that doesn't work, there's always the Supreme Court's decision in favor of cities using eminent domain on behalf of private developers (Kelo vs. City of New London). The future is not looking bright for Laurelon.

21 Laurelon Terrace Sales as of January 3, 2008:
Sale Date 1/8/2008 Sale Price $292,000
Sale Date 1/18/2008 Sale Price $243,000
Sale Date 1/7/2008 Sale Price $285,000
Sale Date 10/31/2007 Sale Price $377,500
Sale Date 1/15/2008 Sale Price $239,000
Sale Date 10/15/2007 Sale Price $240,000
Sale Date 12/10/2007 Sale Price $380,000
Sale Date 1/22/2008 Sale Price $257,000
Sale Date 10/31/2007 Sale Price $243,000
Sale Date 1/9/2008 Sale Price $281,000
Sale Date 1/2/2008 Sale Price $300,000
Sale Date 11/20/2007 Sale Price $243,000
Sale Date 12/28/2007 Sale Price $236,000
Sale Date 10/23/2007 Sale Price $280,000
Sale Date 12/3/2007 Sale Price $248,000
Sale Date 10/17/2007 Sale Price $230,000
Sale Date 1/9/2008 Sale Price $236,000
Sale Date 1/14/2008 Sale Price $253,000
Sale Date 1/7/2008 Sale Price $228,000
Sale Date 12/28/2007 Sale Price $244,000
Sale Date 11/19/2007 Sale Price $226,000

6 Single Family Home Sales, as of February 3, 2008:

Location	Sold Date	Price	Rental (listed by Dave Poletti & tara@davepoletti.com)
4XXX NE 45th St	6/12/2007	$858,375	"Available Now" -- $2850 (see craigslist ad)
4XXX 44th Ave	9/28/2007	$960,000
4XXX NE 45th St	10/10/2007	$960,000	"Application Pending" -- $2550 (formerly listed on craigslist)
4XXX 45th St	11/19/2007	$617,000	"Available Now" -- $2,275 (see craigslist ad)
4XXX 44th Ave NE	12/17/2007	$727,000
4XXX NE 45th St	1/25/2008	$1,012,500

Total $ Spent on Condos: $5,561,000
($/condo = $264,810 .... so the projected $ for all 136 condos is ultimately $36 million)
Total $ Spent on Homes = $5,134,875
Total Dollars Already Spent Buying Homes and Condos = $ 10.7 million

Note that the total cost of construction is estimated to be in the billions of dollars at the current site. (Remember, it's exceedingly expensive to build towers on top of an existing hospital that must continue to function during construction.) Looks like the Hospital has figured out that buying land zoned for residential use and getting it rezoned for towers is cheaper than to buying land already zoned for height. Just wait until the idea catches on throughout Seattle.

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: A Laurelon resident just emailed to report the current tally of Laurelon sales as 22, not 21, with at least two further sales pending. That brings the number of total condo + home sales to 28, with at least two more pending. The resident gave these tallies:

• Total closed CHRMC condo purchases, as of Jan 22, 2008: 22
  
• Total owner ship purchased by CHRMC: 16.69 %
  
• Total of closing prices: $5,843,500