http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/08/12/childrens-hospital-may-have-to-leave-seattle Comments On: Children's Hospital May Have to Leave Seattle by Dominic Holden en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Sun, 19 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Sun, 19 May 2013 05:30:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss The examiner clearly noted that the current infrastructure does not support this size of a facility, leads to variances in numerous code provisions and needs to be mitigated. It doesn't mean that Childrens can't expand or has to leave Seattle (another big PR bully move), but simply that they, like the rest of us have to abide by regulations that have been established by the city.
Too bad people don't see how the hospital is using its goodwill to lead the largest whine of all, backed by tens of thousands of dollars in PR from their operating budget, to rail against the northend communities. Childrens would be better served by being a good citizen and scaling their plans to meet the regulations the rest of us have to live by.
Posted by real stuff]]> Thu, 03 Sep 2009 21:29:03 -0700 The Stranger Posted by pue]]> Tue, 18 Aug 2009 22:43:55 -0700 The Stranger Posted by smileythedog]]> Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:19:30 -0700 The Stranger
Yes.

After the Council approves this, Children's will be sued by LCC.

That much is given. (Assuming LCC hasn't squandered even more money on Peter Feckless.)

And the more that LCC pursues this line, the further and further they sprint away from their political base and source of funding. This is Jeannie Hale's last fight, because it is a fight she cannot win.

You conveniently fail to note that the DPD and CAC overwhelmingly approved the plan. To say that the CAC was "loaded" with hospital proponents is to ignore the large number of LCC members that were on the CAC, and spoke vehemently in favor of the plans at the hearings.

Jeannie's shrill "no growth" agenda has worn thin, and this process is going to play-out miserably for her. Not in recent time have the individual leaders of one group been so universally loathed by the population of this City.

The beauty of the Internet is that Jeannie Hale, Stan Sorscher, Marian Joh, Maggie Wiessman, Colleen McAleer, Leslie Wright, et al -- are now eternally enshrined in Seattle's history as the people who put self before the health of the community. Their grandchildren's children will be able to search their family history and find nothing of which to be proud. Nothing.

To think that opposition to LCC is the manifestation of a public relations agency is delusional - at best. The LCC is going down under the weight of its own immorality.
Posted by Zok]]> Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:10:16 -0700 The Stranger
The CAC was loaded with Children's Hospital proponents and appointments from a politically motivated executive, the mayor and his staff. Of course the political folks want to be seen supporting Children's regardless of reason. Look how many "know nothings" on here have an opinion with no facts whatsoever and I bet they voted this week. Why do you think the law was written to protect the City Council from the public relations machines of every hospital in town that has to go through this same zoning process? What elected official wants to be seen being "against children" or "against sick people" as the hospital so blithely turns to your emotions rather than common sense. The city has zoning laws, every entity has to follow those. Sue Tanner just applied the law. If the City Council doesn't follow her recommendations they will be sued for breaking the law and who wants that to go on forever? As she said, they never offered one single alternative to their 2.4 million square feet. An irresponsble and arrogant strategy and it is coming back to bite them.
Posted by sighs]]> Mon, 17 Aug 2009 21:20:33 -0700 The Stranger
What I can't understand is how one person, examiner Sue Tanner, can have such a different opinion than the Department of Planning and Development as well as the 15 member Citizen Advisory Committee, both of which have recommended the hospital expansion. Hopefully the city council will see that the importance and contribution of the hospital to the community is more valuable than the limited concerns of the very few in a neighborhood with so much to be thankful for.
Let's give the sick and injured children and their families something to be thankful for as well.

Jeannie Hale should hope the hospital does not leave the neighborhood.
Perhaps the empty building can provide shelter for the homeless - I am certain there would be less traffic and noise !
Posted by good2go]]> Sun, 16 Aug 2009 00:33:36 -0700 The Stranger

Posted by Land Use Issue Not an Emotional Issue]]> Sat, 15 Aug 2009 17:21:39 -0700 The Stranger
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.

Posted by The Real Facts]]> Sat, 15 Aug 2009 17:19:44 -0700 The Stranger 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.
Posted by Keep Building The Miracle House]]> Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:44:52 -0700 The Stranger Posted by McFish]]> Fri, 14 Aug 2009 23:15:34 -0700 The Stranger Posted by ooorrr]]> Fri, 14 Aug 2009 22:01:25 -0700 The Stranger
I know that the idea of kids with emotional and psychiatric needs is scary, but talk to the families who have been helped. These are not some drugged out, gang-banger families from other places. Its people like you and me, all kinds of families, primarily from Seattle. Kids who have problems in school or at home - depression, eating problems, self esteem issues, learning disabilities, attention problems - as well as some heavy duty stuff - that have their families and teachers stumped.

I have worked with these kids, felt pretty much safe and secure doing it, and have seen the great successes and satisfactions and benefits to our community in helping these kids and families get on the road to recovery and productive adulthood.
Posted by terrymand]]> Fri, 14 Aug 2009 18:54:39 -0700 The Stranger Posted by SchmuckyTheCat]]> Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:12:10 -0700 The Stranger

Posted by Keep Building The Miracle House]]> Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:46:43 -0700 The Stranger You, NE Seattle, may want to retract your statement because it is libelous and can be refuted by Dixie, her lawyer, the LCC lawyer, the court record and by the trustee who accompanied Dixie.

Uh ohs! Forensic Accountant is going to take anonymous poster NE Seattle to e-court and sue him/her for 10,000 internet dollars!
Posted by Gomez]]> Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:01:21 -0700 The Stranger
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.
Posted by Keep Building The Miracle House]]> Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:23:30 -0700 The Stranger
Dixie withdrew her lawsuit and "claimed victory" when all LCC could produce was a mailing list of 3,000 +/- "members" all with the same name, "Laurelhurst Neighbor"

Dixie does have in her possession this list of "members". This membership list, according to LCC bylaws, is available to the public at anytime.

You, NE Seattle, may want to retract your statement because it is libelous and can be refuted by Dixie, her lawyer, the LCC lawyer, the court record and by the trustee who accompanied Dixie.

It's unfortunate that the LCC has claimed to represent to the community and courts that they represent 2,800 "members" they unable or unwilling to identify unless you think "Laurelhurst Neighbor" is sufficient.

It's also unfortunate that the Hearing Examiner, Sue Tanner, accepted the LCC's claim of standing based on the LCC's 2,800 "members".


Posted by Forensic Accountant]]> Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:32:52 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Help the Children]]> Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:50:26 -0700 The Stranger
Ultimately, LCC needs to zip it and let the hospital expand on their property, but I'm not a fan of the passive-aggressive way Seattle Children's is handling this.
Posted by Gomez]]> Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:40:13 -0700 The Stranger
Clearly Pasco is not all that you claim. Or you wouldn't be spending all your time on a Seattle blog commenting on Seattle issues.
Posted by glasshalffull]]> Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:03:42 -0700 The Stranger
Clearly Pasco is not all that you claim. Or you wouldn't be spending all your time on a Seattle blog commenting on Seattle issues.
Posted by glasshalffull]]> Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:03:27 -0700 The Stranger
Checking in on the comments this morning, seeing it now among the most commented list. Gotta say, the spicy combo of rabidity and gullibility on display by some Slog regulars in this thread is why whenever there's a Slog Happy I always think better of going. Not that I'm usually much fun at things like that, except after my gag reflex disappears.
Posted by gloomy gus]]> Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:31:24 -0700 The Stranger
It's a CITY. Cities have NOISE. Maybe people who can't deal with that should go move to Ritzville or Tonasket or something.
Posted by Geni]]> Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:24:23 -0700 The Stranger
try again
Posted by MWM]]> Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:15:35 -0700 The Stranger
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/…
Posted by MWM]]> Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:14:12 -0700 The Stranger