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."

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

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 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 little people 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:
These lawmakers sit in the Hospital's pocket and want to legislate the end of Laurelon.

• Goodman from 45th District
• Rodney from 5th District
• Armstrong 12th District
• Shindler 4th District. [This crazy woman dared to claim: “One person is holding out on this deal.” Our question: Aren't there consequences for lying to the State Legislature?]
• 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-- Please Help Us Stop This Bill!

This info was just passed on to us:

"House Bill 3071 is still stalled in the House Rules Committee as of 11:30 p.m. tonight [Thursday]. This is likely due to the all of the calls to the Legislative Hotline, your emails and letters to our legislators in the 46th District, and the letters from LCC and the Northeast District Council opposing the bill. ... please call the Legislative Hotline at 1-800-562-6000 and leave a message for our legislators. It’s easy and takes less than a minute and will make a major difference. "

Please help us keep up the pressure. Email addresses for our 46th District Legislators are at the top of this page. Here's an example letter shared with us by a neighbor:

"Hello Representatives McIntire and Kenney, Speaker Chopp and Senator Jacobsen,

I am strongly opposed to Children’s Hospital’s efforts to obtain Laurelon Terrace without the permission of residents. Please vote NO on HB3071 and encourage your colleagues to do so. Allowing a private corporation to take over homes without the full willingness of residents is just plain wrong. This verges on the exercise of eminent domain on behalf of a private entity.

The hospital is putting residents in an impossible position. By laying out a development plan beyond the wildest dreams of long-time residents, it is using intimidation and scare tactics to strong-arm residents into selling their homes. Remember, the underlying zoning at the Hospital site is single-family residential, not high-rise.

Many residents of Laurelon are elderly and bought their homes with the expectation that they would live out many of their last years there near their families. Where will they go? The fifth floor of a high-rise apartment building in the U-District? No grass and trees and sunlight there. Yes, high-rises are right for some people, but not for all, especially elderly individuals who find stairs hard. We need all types in our city, not just hardened city slickers.

Laurelon is part of our community and an irreplaceable resource. You know what sort of housing units are being built now. They aren’t garden apartments that sell for about $250,000 in a residential neighborhood on a non-busy street.

The people living in Laurelon should not be strong-armed into giving up their homes by either HB3071 or the Hospital’s excessive development plans.

Further information on community opposition to HB3071 is available on www.childrensaction.com. In particular, see the following posts:

• ACTION NEEDED: Stop House Bill 3071
• More on HB3071

Please help us stop HB3071. Thank you."

More on HB3071

This is going to make your blood boil. When you're done reading, please call or write your state representatives to help us STOP HB3071 (see contact info here).

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.

Persons Testifying: Representative Goodman, prime sponsor; and Mike Ryherd, Joe McCarthy, and Jan Kirkwood, Laurelon Terrace.

According to her professional bio, Jan Kirkwood is a lawyer who:

"... represents manufacturers of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, ... physicians in professional liability matters and issues facing today's practitioner."

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.

Please help us stop HB3071!

ACTION NEEDED: Stop House Bill 3071

If you care about keeping moderately priced housing in NE Seattle, we need your help.

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.

Action Needed: Please urge your friends and neighbors to call the Legislative Hotline to urge our state representatives to vote NO on House Bill 3071. It’s a toll free number —1-800-562-6000— and only takes a moment. Please tell legislators you would like to leave a message for state reps in the 46th District urging them to vote NO on 3071. Numbers will make a big difference.

Email addresses for our House Representatives here in the 46th District:

• Jim McIntire – mcintire.jim@leg.wa.gov
• Phyllis Kenney – Kenney.phyllis@leg.wa.gov

Additional addresses:

• Speaker Frank Chopp (43rd District) -- chopp.frank@leg.wa.gov
• 46th District Senator Ken Jacobsen -- jacobsen.ken@leg.wa.gov

We have one unanswered question: How broadly does this bill apply? Would HB3071 allow any corporation to terminate any condominium complex after buying only 80% ownership? No answer there yet-- we'll more when we get more info. HB3071 does not mention Laurelon specifically, so the bill's impenetrable legalese probably does apply broadly. [Update: Yes, it does apply broadly. See the staff summary-- this bill would apply to all condos built before 1990.]

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 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:
Parcel #... Building #... Unit #... Full Report… Sale Date… Sale Price
4220700080 03 4014 Sale Date 1/8/2008 Sale Price $292,000
4220700140 04 4009 Sale Date 1/18/2008 Sale Price $243,000
4220700180 04 4019 Sale Date 1/7/2008 Sale Price $285,000
4220700320 07 4602 Sale Date 10/31/2007 Sale Price $377,500
4220700330 07 4604 Sale Date 1/15/2008 Sale Price $239,000
4220700430 08 4624 Sale Date 10/15/2007 Sale Price $240,000
4220700490 09 4644 Sale Date 12/10/2007 Sale Price $380,000
4220700650 10 4668 Sale Date 1/22/2008 Sale Price $257,000
4220700740 11 4008 Sale Date 10/31/2007 Sale Price $243,000
4220700820 12 4609 Sale Date 1/9/2008 Sale Price $281,000
4220700850 13 4615 Sale Date 1/2/2008 Sale Price $300,000
4220700960 15 4637 Sale Date 11/20/2007 Sale Price $243,000
4220701110 16 4667 Sale Date 12/28/2007 Sale Price $236,000
4220701150 16 4675 Sale Date 10/23/2007 Sale Price $280,000
4220701180 17 4681 Sale Date 12/3/2007 Sale Price $248,000
4220701220 17 4689 Sale Date 10/17/2007 Sale Price $230,000
4220701220 17 4689 Sale Date 1/9/2008 Sale Price $236,000
4220701250 18 4706 Sale Date 1/14/2008 Sale Price $253,000
4220701310 19 4718 Sale Date 1/7/2008 Sale Price $228,000
4220701330 19 4722 Sale Date 12/28/2007 Sale Price $244,000
4220701350 19 4726 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)
4323 NE 45th St	6/12/2007	$858,375	"Available Now" -- $2850 (see craigslist ad)
4736 44th Ave	9/28/2007	$960,000
4335 NE 45th St	10/10/2007	$960,000	"Application Pending" -- $2550 (formerly listed on craigslist)
4205 45th St	11/19/2007	$617,000	"Available Now" -- $2,275 (see craigslist ad)
4702 44th Ave NE	12/17/2007	$727,000
4315 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

Laurelon Before & After Photos

While reviewing the conclusions of the Preliminary Draft EIS, you might find it handy to review a few before/after photos too. Many more of these photo pairs are available in the 10 megabyte Powerpoint Deck from the CAC's tour of the Hospital site.

Here's one view of Laurelon today:

Here's Laurelon after construction of the Hospital's preferred Alternative #3:So much for daylight...

Excerpts from the Preliminary Draft EIS

In case you're hesitant about downloading 25 pages of the Preliminary Draft EIS and you haven't made it to one of the 4 in-person viewing sites for this doc, we've transcribed a few key passages. The sections excerpted below appear on pages 1-23 through 1-25, where the Hospital's consultant summarizes significant adverse impacts. Highlighting and our brief comments (in red) have been added.

Noise

Even with the mitigation measures identified above, construction noise would result in short-term and temporary significant unavoidable adverse impacts.

Hospital administrator Ruth Benfield predicts continuous construction from 2009-2022. Is 13 years really short-term?

Update: Hospital architect Karl Sonnenberg told a neighbor that the Hospital's current buildings will have exceeded their useful lifetimes by the time the new towers are finished. Thus, by 2022, these existing buildings will require replacement. This will add (roughly) another 10 years of continuous construction, for a ballpark total of 23 years.

Housing

Currently there are 649 multi-family units in the Laurelhurst/Sand Point Way CRA. Multi-family or attached housing provides a more affordable hosing option for many of Seattle’s residents. Through the loss of 136 units at Laurelon Terrace, Alternative 4 would reduce the available amount of multi-family housing in the Laurelhurst/Sand Point CRA by approximately 21 percent. This would be a significant loss of moderately priced housing available in the area that would be difficult to replace.

To put this another way, 1 out of 5 multifamily (aka moderately-priced) housing units in the Laurelhurst/Sandpoint area would be eliminated.

Transportation

The build alternatives would accommodate additional amounts of future development at Children’s and the Hartmann site, which would contribute to additional travel demand and congestion along arterial corridors including Sand Point Way, NE 45th Street, and Montlake Boulevard. The additional development also would increase traffic accessing and circulating in the area. This added congestion would contribute to measurably poorer performance of the transportation network, in terms of increased delays along several of the corridors and at some specific intersections. The increase in traffic and pedestrian and bicycle activity due to development would result in more conflict points and increased hazards to safety.

Traffic Volumes
Future (2030) growth in the area would result in increases in regional and local traffic within the study area both without and with the project. In addition, the build alternatives would increase area-wide and local traffic on routes serving the site. Although Children’s would implement strategies to reduce its overall traffic, this impact is considered a significant and unavoidable adverse impact since Children’s would likely not be able to reduce its traffic volume contribution to zero, and therefore, would increase traffic volumes on roadways even with mitigation. While strategies to reduce travel demand and related impacts have been identified, a residual increase in traffic to the street system attributable to Children’s is likely.

Traffic Operations
Vehicle delays and queues along access arterials (i.e., Sand Point Way NE, NE 45th Street, and Montlake Boulevard) would increase due to additional Children’s traffic. Implementation of mitigation measures such as traffic signals and signal timing optimization would reduce Children’s impact at several locations (e.g., Montlake Boulevard/NE 45h Street, 40th Ave NE/NE 55th Street, and 40th Avenue NE/NE 65th Street). However, impacts to the intersections would be significant and unavoidable because mitigation measures would not be feasible, or would be out of the control of Children’s. There are no feasible mitigation measures to implement at the NE 45th Street/Union Bay Place NE intersection; however, reduction of Children’s SOV traffic would reduce impacts at this intersection by decreasing traffic. Mitigation of the Montlake Boulevard/Eastbound SR 520 Ramp intersection would require approval and implementation of the SR 520 Project; the timing and funding of this improvement is unknown at this time.

Congestion would increase along key corridors providing access to Children’s, with or without the expansion of Children’s, including Sand Point Way NE, NE 45h Street, and Montlake Boulevard. Even with the mitigation measures reducing Children’s traffic within these corridors, there would still be some increase in delay and queues due to Children’s. Future regional growth in traffic volumes both with and without the addition of Children’s expansion traffic would result in increased congestion, longer travel times, and reduced speeds along these corridors. In addition, due to congestion along major corridors, it would likely become increasingly difficult for traffic on side-streets at unsignalized intersections to enter the traffic stream.

Traffic Impacts from page 1-13
Children's traffic would increase by approximately 8,400 vehicle trips per day; 850 trips during AM peak hour and 680 trips during PM peak hour.

The numbers speak for themselves. 8,400 more vehicle trips.

For Rent on Craigslist: The Hospital's Purchases

Updated: Additional Laurelon purchases were reported in Ruth Benfield's letter distributed at the January 9th CAC meeting.

The Hospital has started to use Craigslist to rent the residential properties it has purchased. So much for the story that it bought these houses for its doctors. Total known purchases in 2007: 11 14. According to Ruth Benfield (1/09/08), an additional 13 are in the process of closing, giving a grand total of 27.

As we've said before, instead of acting in the spirit of the law (SMC 23.69.032) and working to ensure "livability and vitality of adjacent neighborhoods," the Hospital is simply eliminating its neighbors.

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.

Location	Sold Date	Price	Rental (listed by Dave Poletti & tara@davepoletti.com)
4323 NE 45th St	6/12/2007	$858,375	"Available Now" -- $2850 (see craigslist ad)
4736 44th Ave	9/28/2007	$960,000
4335 NE 45th St	10/10/2007	$960,000	"Application Pending" -- $2550 (formerly listed on craigslist)
4205 45th St	11/19/2007	$617,000	"Available Now" -- $2,275 (see craigslist ad)
4702 44th Ave NE	12/17/2007	$727,000
9 Laurelon Condos. An additional 13 are in the process of closing, for a total of 22 condos.	Through 1/09/07	NA	A possible craigslist ad for one of them
4315 NE 45th St	1/25/2008	$1,012,500

Update: One more sale added. Total through February 1, 2008: 15. According to Ruth Benfield (1/09/08), an additional 12 are in the process of closing, so the grand total is closer to 27.

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