Fuck laurelhurst
Fuck laurelhurst
Fuck laurelhurst
Fuck laurelhurst
Fuck laurelhurst
Fuck laurelhurst

@8 seriously. It's easy to bitch about how the poor kids are gonna die because laurelhurst didn't want medi-choppers coming in, but where were you when it mattered? boozing in belltown? yukking it up at the dead baby bicycle race (see what I did there)? One crazy lady could (and did) take on the entirety of Seattle since apparently no one else cares enough to spend more than 15 seconds putting the finishing touches on an angry blog comment after the fact...

"Get in cheap and live life the Pasco way."

Now with extra radiation!

And no fair piling on me for hating babies. I think Children's could and will thrive however this ends up, though I think they'll probably opt to stick around and come to some compromise with Jeannie and her imaginary LLC friends. Unless, of course, someone starts a letter-writing campaign (that involves an argument besides 'fuck laurelhurst') and puts up some money for a 3rd-party review of the facts surrounding the case.

"Now with extra radiation!"

Beats the mercury from China's coal plants that wafts over Puget Sound every day...

#33

Problem: You'd have to live in Pasco

There's a good reason houses are so much cheaper there

"There's a good reason houses are so much cheaper there"

Well, they're easier to move also. Just unhook the two halves, load them on a truck and you're off!

One of the Laurelhurst demands is funding to replace the 136 low-to moderate income housing units that would have to be demolished by the expansion.

One of the requirements coming out of the HE decision will be (if Council accepts the recommendation) that Childrens only has to provide the "gap financing" to make existing market rate housing affordable to the renters at Laurelon Terrace. The City Director of Office of Housing says: "the payment of 2.5 times the market value of the units also would enable the moderate income owner-occupants at Laurelon Terrace to secure equivalent replacement housing."

This, from where I sit is majorly messed up because the City already requires relocation assistance payments to displaced by demolition low-moderate income renters of about $3,000.

The HE is using the OH standard it says because of "limited legislative history available in this case provides no guidance on its (replacement housing) meaning."

I wrote: "if Council accepts the recommendation" I meant - if Council rejects HE recommendation, and instead grants Children's expansion and enforces the recommended HE conditions.

Hey you folks saying Laurelhurst residents should move and Laurelhurst residents don't care about low income people - do you get that 136 low to moderate income Laurelhurst families will have to move because of the expansion and that this is one of the reasons that Laurelhurst opposes the expansion because they don't want these people to have to move?

Nearly 200 of the beds Children's wants are for psychiatry patients (ages 0-21). Few of the other top pediatric hospitals in the country have their psychiatric campus at the same place as their medical campus. In fact, inpatient psychiatric care for kids is so much a last resort and terrible for children and families, that Children's certainly shouldn't get to overbuild for a 19th century mode of care. Even its head of psychiatry stated at a public meeting that they have to bring many youths to the Laurelhurst campus in handcuffs - and so this ambitious 200 bed psych hospital would be bringing them in from all over the state because the Children's plan asks city officials to let it duplicate the four other pediatric psych hospitals that already exist across WA. And, considering the age range it wants to treat, the patients age 21 could be returning veterans or could be offenders too old to be in juvy etc. Those are not children - and they can certainly be treated in adult hospitals!!

If you want to believe everything Children's tells you, consider putting this big unneeded psych hospital downtown where folks can get there by bus or in an urban village where density is permitted. Most psych care is outpatient and Children's has made no comment on where all that is going to be provided. Have you ever tried to get to Children's by bus when you are on your meds?

I can't wait to see the legal gyrations that the City Atty's office has to go through to trash Sue Tanner's decision..... hahahahaha this will be hilarious to see the City piss all over her decision....

LCC is not representative of Laurelhurst; that much we know. LCC has been publicly challenged on this. And now, interestingly, their own meeting minutes from April 2009 show their lawyer has been directed to legally redefine LCC as "The Board of Trustees" rather than the "2300 (or whatever number they've pulled out of their hats this month) households" within their self-styled boundaries.
Hmmm...so, the plot thickens. They know they're on the ropes with their own community, many of whom have publicly complained that LCC does not represent them, that LCC did not poll the community as to how to proceed with the Children's issue, that LCC is not transparent in its decision-making process about the case, and LCC is not forthcoming about finances raised and spent on their legal battles. Seattle Times and Stranger readers need to know that many, many residents in Laurelhurst are completely opposed to how the LCC has handled this issue. They are disgusted with the "leadership" of the LCC and it's time many of them were voted out for good.

All that money spent fighting this issue, and look what good it could've done instead, in terms of programs for kids and the elderly, etc....instead it's been spent on lawyers and experts on behalf of a few disgruntled people in the LCC.

The Seattle Times article of August 13 neglected to mention that the Hearing Examiner, in LCC's appeal of the DPD Director's decision of adequacy of the Final EIS, found LCC's arguments to be inappropriate. I have a copy right in front of me. The Decision says: "The Director's determination that the EIS issued for the proposal is adequate is AFFIRMED." YOU LOST, LCC. You lost. You lost. You lost.

i am a resident of laurelon terrace and have been for many years. the hospital never bothered me because 1. its actually very quiet, 2. there are trees everywhere around the property so you really don't notice is that much 3. i knew what i was doing when i moved in. there was a hospital there already - how could i complain, right? when the opportunity to sell came about i thought that 1. don't get my hopes up, it might never happen and 2. things like this just don't happen to people right? i mean, this is life changing. to be able to buy a house with a yard has been a dream for me. we did end up selling only after many people sold - because now over 100 units have been sold to Children's and that has depreciated the value of the houses so that we needed to sell before this whole deal has gone through. so now, i am renting back from the hospital. my lease ends in november. to go from being a long time owner to renting and now living out of a suitcase somewhere isn't how i pictured how i would be living. i don't think i was being selfish by selling, i think i did the right thing by getting the most i could for my place. but this has been a really emotional roller-coaster for me and my neighbors. our lives have been on-hold for so long now that i'm frustrated and don't know what i can do to "move on". it sucks but it is what it is.

hey everybody. read the last page of Tanner's recommendations.

among other things, the city is just trying to get more money (at least $4M) out of the hospital. it sounds mostly like extortion to me.

http://assets.bizjournals.com/cms_media/…

http://assets.bizjournals.com/cms_media/…

try again

I hope the LLC is proud of themselves. Great job of stopping Medivac Helicopters from bringing in critically ill children. I wonder where you will bring your children when they are ill??? It's not like they are Medivacing in CLOWNS!!!

I for one will be more than happy to show up in City Council chambers when the time comes, to voice my SUPPORT for Seattle Children's expansion plans. The need is REAL, folks. This region must move forward.

And it's about time time this city stopped being held hostage by these particularly rogue groups posing as "Neighborhood Councils." It seems LCC represents nobody but a tiny band of their own insular, short-sighted, and grumpy trustees.

Thank you, Seattle Times, for today's editorial asking that the City Council disregard the Hearing Examiner and instead, support the plan for Children's --a plan FOR ALL CHILDREN, regardless of their ability to pay.

And LCC -- get over yourselves. Stop giving a great neighborhood a bad name.

According to a supporter organization, called Friends of Children's Hospital (friendsofchildrenshospital dotorg) there will be a rally in support of the hospital on Wednesday, August 19 from Noon to 1:30 on the steps of Seattle City Hall. Address: 600 4th Avenue, Seattle. West side, public plaza area.

THANK YOU, TERRYMAND.
Thank you for being so rational.
Thank you for helping those kids and their families. You're a true hero.

This community need NOT be fearful of a psych unit having a home at Children's. Those patients require coordinated medical care. Nuff said!

People, rid yourselves of stereotypes. Lose the fear.
And If you live in Laurelhurst, do like many of us are now doing -- put a sign in your home's window declaring your support for the hospital.

Yes you are entitled to your opinion, that is what you get paid for. But did you do your homework before you wrote that pathetic piece of journalism? I never saw you at one single CAC (Citizen Advisory Council Meeting) for 2 years. I didn't see you at either of the Public Hearings held this month. It doesn't appear as if you have read the hospital Master Plan, the Environmental Impact Statement or most importantly the Hearing Examiner's Document just issued to which your rant refers to. If you read all that, then you are entitled to such ranting. But you have not educated yourself and it shows.

This is not so black and white and simple as you write. All buildings, including hospitals most follow city codes. Hospitals are not exempt, no one is, regardless of the service they perform for the community.

Also Sue Tanner, the Hearing Examiner made the decision not the Laurelhurst Community Club! You are just using LCC as a scapegoat. They made one appeal a few months ago but the HE has made the decision. They are two separate entities. Ms. Tanner wrote the document, she has the authority to make the decision that now goes to the City Council. LCC had nothing to do with her decision. Read the HE document Ken!

Let me tell you other people you can criticize instead of LCC. First, the people who were actually decision makers in the very long process - CAC members who oppposed the expansion. Also you can criticize the Viewridge and Bryant Community Clubs. Bryant will be severaly affected by the expansion as they will be looking at it from across the hill. They were very vocal in the 2 year process. Really Laurelhurst is no longer that affected since the development will happen at Laurelon Terrace. It will no longer be in Laurelhurst proper.

So really you are way off base with your demeaning and critical comments of one of many neighborhoods in Seattle. As a public "official" to a sense being on the TV, how can you criticize the city that you were hired to cover. Especially without doing your homework? It is offensive how you criticize your fellow community members.

Also vocal was the NE District Council - another group for you to criticize and demean. They attended numerous CAC meetings. As not only will this expansion affect Laurelhurst, but Bryant, Viewridge, Sandpoint, and commuters who don't even live in the area and use the corridor and drive though the area every day. Also affected hospital patients and families, fire and paramedic staff who will have a hard time getting to the hospital and emergency response personnel trying to get to homes due to the increased traffic from the hospital. So Ken it's not black and white and so simple.

Also you say Laurelhurst is a bunch of "whiners." How can an entire neighborhood be whiners? Certainly in your the neighborhood in which you live, you are not all one voice. Everyone has different opinions in a particular neighborhood. You probably differ from your neighbor on some issues and another neighbor on other issues. An entire neighborhood is not in agreement on one issues. Just can't be. Really, think about it.

So take Laurelhurst, not everyone is for the expansion, not everyone is against the expansion. Some people are for the expansion, like LCC, but to a lesser degree. One that complies with City Codes. Some neighbors like you are for the expansion and know nothing about City codes, just use the words "sick children" a lot and don't educate themselves. Some people are completely against any type of expansion. Again, Laurelhurst are not all clones. For you to lump every single resident into one bucket calling them "whiners" shows lack of thought and intelligence.

And for you to say everyone there is "upper crust" is not true. We, for example,live in a 1000 square foot home in the area. Our entire block and neighboring blocks are small homes. Every neighborhood has small homes, medium homes and large ones. Have you driven around Laurelhurst? Especially around the streets surrounding the hospital? Actually those streets have very modest homes. The large homes, to which you are referring, are a few miles south of the hospital on the other side of Laurelhurst Park.

Ken - here are just a few excerpts from the Hearing Examiner report to which you referred. You should also check out the Laurelhurst Community Website which documents all their reports, many done by independent analysts. And check out the hospital website, and familiarize yourself with their Master Plan, and other Hospital documents. There are many pices to this issue, not just attacking one group of people.

Report:
36. As discussed above in the section on development standards and transitions, the requested rezones are inconsistent with two of the Code's zoning principles and two of the criteria that must be used to select appropriate MIO height districts.
37. The single-family and low-rise multifamily residences along Northeast 45th Street and 40th Avenue Northeast, respectively, ate adjacent to well established low-rise zoning and development. The impact of rezoning that property to MIO 1601140 and MIO 1601125, and the anticipated corresponding development, cannot be minimized by the use of transitions in height, upper level setbacks and 20-40 foot setbacks. See SMC 23.34.008 8.1. Similarly, height limits at the MIO 160ll\410 140 and MIO 160/\410 125 district boundaries would not be compatible with the adjacent single-family and lowrise multifamily and commercial heights. See SMC 23.34.124C.2. Although transitional height limits of MIO 37 and MIO 50 would be provided on the south, and MIO 50 on the west, they are of insufficient depth to reduce the impact of the adjacent 140-foot and 125- foot towers
38. Although greater than 40 feet, the proposed MIO 160/140 and MIO 160/125 districts may be considered outside an urban village, but only if the proposed heights would be consistent with an adopted neighborhood plan, a major institution's adopted master plan, or the existing built character of the area. SMC 23.34.008 8.4. Laurelhurst is outside an urban village and has no adopted neighborhood plan. The proposed heights are not consistent with Children's adopted MIMP, which caps heights at 74 feet. And the proposed heights are not consistent with the area's existing built character, which consists of one-and two-story single-family residences, lowrise multifamily development, and a small amount of lowrise commercial development. The only non-institutional development in the area that is not lowrise is the 100-foot nonconforming condominium west of Sand Point V/ay and south of Hartmann. However, that building is an anomaly, and is not immediately adjacent to any single-family or lowrise multifamily development. From the west and south, impact of towers 95 to I l0 feet taller than the adjacent single family or lowrise development will be stunning
Balancing
41. Once a small hospital, Children's has grown into a regional medical center that has greatly expanded on its main campus, to other facilities within the area, in addition to maintaining a presence in other parts of the City and in neighboring cities. It now seeks to incorporate the 7-acre Laurelon Terrace site and 1.7-acre Hartmann site into its MIO.
42. Children’s was part of the Laurelhurst neighborhood when the Council designated urban centers and urban villages during the comprehensive plan process in the 1990s, yet the Laurelhurst area was not designated as an urban center or village.
43. lt is apparent from the FEIS Land Use section that Children's expansion under the proposed MIMP is inconsistent with the city’s urban village strategy' flth3ugh major institutions are permitted outside urban villages/centers,- Children's seeks heights that exceed those of any other major institution located outside an urban village or center' Exhibit 22, Attachments H *ã l. The significant, unmitigated traffic, and height, bulk associated with Children's proposed expansion result largely from the fact that the MIMP proposes development outside an urban village at an intensity that is designed for development within an urban village. Children's is asking that the proverbial "square peg" forced into a "round hole," but it does not fit.
44. The city's general policy toward significant, unmitigatable traffic impacts stresses enhancement of non-SOV travel modes that could increase the person-carrying capacity of the transportation system without necessarily increasing vehicular capacity. However, the amount of time it takes to get to work and back, to shop, and to complete the other tasks of daily life, either by bus or by car, is a component of the vitality and livability of an area. When a major institution that produces thousands of daily trips during peak hours is located in an area with two severely congested transportation corridors that are utilized by 50 percent of its employees, it may be necessary to explore a less ambitious expansion. The same is true with respect to the significant height; bulk and scale impacts of the proposed MIMP at the west and south boundaries of the Laurelon Terrace site' as discussed above.
45. The MIMP approved for Children's may well be viewed as precedential by other institutions located outside urban growth areas. It may also send a signal to the owners of property at the perimeters of those major institutions about the stability of neighborhood zoning. It will clearly shape the character of the Laurelhurst neighborhood. And it will decide the future of some of the properties adjacent to the perimeter of the expanded campus.' See Exhibit 22, Attachment G.
46. In this situation, it is essential to scrutinize need relative to alternative development scenarios. Children's has avoided this scrutiny by not providing any alternatives that would afford less than 2.4 million square feet of development area. The Code provides that "appropriate" institutional growth within boundaries is to be permitted while minimizing associated adverse impacts. SMC 23.69.A02 A. And the major institution's ability to change, and benefits associated with that change, are to be balanced with the need to protect the livability and vitality of adjacent neighborhoods. SMC 23.69.002 B. The Code does not dictate what that balance should be. Therefore, even if Children's could demonstrate that it should absorb the entire statewide need for specialty pediatric care, it is not necessarily entitled to this intensity of development, in this place, at this time.
______

As a seasoned journalist, it is appaling how you use your position to throw your weight around regarding such an important, contentious and extremely sensitive issue. Of course, everyone wants sick children to have a place to heal. This is not an emotional issue, this is a land-sue issue. This issue is not just who is for and against helping sick children, it is about much more - following City codes, doing endless reports such as the Environmental Impact Statement, the city Traffic Dept doing lots of analyses on traffic patterns in the NE area and much much much more.

This process, including all the reports ,various timelines, is all spelled out by the Deparment of Land Use and Department of Neighborhoods. Laurelhurst Community Club does not control the outcome of this decision. They are one voice, like many hundreds of others, who weighed in on this issue. But it is a city mandated process just like you see when you pass many other buidings under construction. They all went through a smiliar process.

I hope you will rethink the next article you write or the next story you cover on television. We have watched you for years and have always found your pieces insighful and informative. They always appeared to be balanced, well-thought out, well researched and well-written. However this piece of journalism you did has erased your credibility and caliber of professionalism. as it shows no thought about educating yourself, being balanced and choosing words that enhance your profession.

The Laurelhurst Community Club has always supported the reasonable expansion of Children's. The Hearing Examiner's decision was based on days of complicated testimony from Children's Hospital lawyers, patients, traffic experts and consultants. She reviewed the CAC report (a group hand picked by the hospital) that also recommended that the height, bulk and scale of their plan be reduced. She studied the EIS. Her decision was independent from the LCC. It was based on the law and the facts. To dismiss her decision as "narrow minded" and blame the neighborhood is naive at best and completely irresponsible at worst. Children's needs to follow the rules along with every other institution in this city. We are either going to have zoning, or we are not. Are you aware CH has purchased 9 homes around Laurelhurst and turned them into rentals? Do you think that's a way to build neighborhoods? And don't you think the eastside should have a Children's Hospital? Are you aware that Children's tried to block Swedish from adding pediatric beds to their expansion in Issaquah stating that they "weren't needed?" Today there is no room for staff parking. They are shuttled between different parking lots. If they double in size, patients and families will have to be charged to park. There simply isn't enough room. It is clear that you did not read the EIS from your comment about Sandpoint Way. That was the one area that the DPD agreed could not be mitigated - traffic. It was predicted that this expansion will create roadways already deemed LOS D to fall to E or F. How do you think patients and families will manage this? Not to mention the staff. Our leaders need to come together and work with Children's on some real solutions. Solutions that follow the law, make pediatric healthcare more accessible to all children and keep our neighborhoods intact. Bashing Laurelhurst is a cop out when you don't have the facts.