Neighbors Concerned That Talaris Doing Maintenace Work Too Close To Eagles Nest

 

 

Sprinkler system work last month at Talaris

near eagles nest

 

 

 

Baby eagles on Talaris property 

July 2013

 

The Laurelhurst Blog recently received several emails from concerned neighbors living near Talaris (4001 NE 41st Street) that maintenance work looked too close to the well-known eagles nest on the property, located just off NE 41st Street. In March, several nearby resident observed adult eagles in the nest .

In April, a concerned neighbor wrote that she was "hearing dump trucks and seeing a digging machine too close to eagles nest.  Where do I report this?"

The Laurelhurst Blog Staff followed up with Erin Doherty, with the City's Landmarks Preservation Board, who said:

I communicated with the Owner’s representative and he said that they were “grinding and repaving a portion of the asphalt driveway that has several cracks and potholes in it”.   

 

Dave, DPD’s Chief Building Inspector, was subsequently sent to the site to see what activity was occurring around that time and said:

We observed a sprinkler system water line being installed, which did not require a plumbing inspection or permit. 

The work we observed is well away from the Eagle nest location.  We estimated about a quarter mile.

Seth, a DPD Planner, said about the eagle regulations:

The State Department of Fish and Wildlife no longer requires local jurisdictions to implement eagle protection measures when they issue development permits therefore DPD does not have a point person for this issue.    

The requirements under WAC 232-12-292, which we used to implement, are only effective “when the bald eagle is listed under state law as threatened or endangered.” Bald eagles were reclassified by the state from “threatened” to “sensitive” in Washington back in 2008, which made WAC 232-12-292 no longer in effect (see

The USFWS currently runs a permit system for potential “take” of bald eagles under authority of the Bald Eagle Protection Act but it is separate with different requirements from the former state program; they also can cite people/entities for unlawful take of eagles.

 

 

 Mark Miller, the contact at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for the Pacific region said:

Bald and golden eagles are protected under the (Federal)  Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.  The US Fish and Wildlife Service has developed guidelines for activities near eagle nesting territories.   

However, when the Service reviews activities that will be conducted near an eagle nest, we consider the specific circumstances of that eagle nesting territory and then make a determination whether that activity might disturb the eagles and whether any measures are necessary to minimize the probability of disturbing the eagles.  

I am not familiar with the specific circumstances regarding the eagle nest in question.  The eagle guidelines are general guidance and can be tailored to the specific circumstances of a particular eagle nest.   It is the responsibility of the landowner to ensure that their activities do not disturb eagles or obtain a eagle disturbance/take permit from the FWS. 

The recommended buffers are 330' and 660' but it depends on the specific circumstances of each particular eagle nest.  In most instances, activities are allowed within those recommended buffers.

 

Concerns about disruption to nesting eagles should be directed to the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s Washington Eagle Contact Line at (360) 534-9304 or on-line.   

Mark Miller  can be reached 360-534-9347 or by email at , Mark_Miller@fws.gov. 

Sprinkler work at Talaris

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Sprinkler photos courtesy of DPD)



Latest Talaris Re-Development Status And Send Your Comments Now To Laurelhurst Community Club



 
The Laurelhurst Community Club recently published an in-depth update about the Talaris re-development update in their recent Laurelhurst newsletter.

In addition, LCC is also asking for comments regarding the issue and specifically about the fence the Talaris owner, Bruce McCaw, also referenced as Chairman Emeritus of Pistol Creek, put up in September along with a chain link fence, main driveway barricade, fence on northwest side and a surveillance camera. 
 
Comments can ben sent to jeannieh@serv.net.
 
Here are comments the Blog Staff has received
http://thelaurelhurstblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/dont-miss-citys-talaris-public-comment.html
http://thelaurelhurstblog.blogspot.com/2013/09/talaris-new-four-foot-fence-is-up.html
http://thelaurelhurstblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/tonight-king5-reporter-does-story-on.html
http://thelaurelhurstblog.blogspot.com/2012/11/update-from-recent-meeting-with-talaris.html
http://thelaurelhurstblog.blogspot.com/2013/11/neighbor-comments-and-lccs-legal-letter.html
 
And here are several of the many posts published by the Laurelhurst Blog:
 
Talaris Re-Development on KIRO-TV
Talaris Submits Retroactive Certificate of Approval After Violation Cutting Down Tree
Talaris Violates Landmark Ordinance
Batelle Site Granted Landmark Historic Status
No Trespassing Signs Could Result In Fine Or Jail Time
 
More Laurelhurst Blog posts can be found here.

Here is the Laurelhurst Community Club article:

What’s the Talaris Redevelopment Status?

Introduction

The 18-acre Talaris (formerly Battelle) site in the heart of Laurelhurst has been a focus of LCC concern for over three decades. Commencing in the 1980s, neighbors objected to Battelle’s increasing impacts on the neighborhood and its advertisement of the site for hotel and catering services open to the general public. In 1991, LCC and Battelle negotiated a Settlement Agreement binding Battelle and its successors to limitations on development, an agreed landscape plan, and legally enforceable “covenants running with the land,” keyed to the site’s single-family zoning and barring major institution (such as UW or Children’s Hospital) use of the site.

By 2004, the current owner had acquired the property, renamed Talaris. The owner now wants to redevelop the site. Despite the history of agreements with LCC, the Talaris owner has chosen to try to work around rather than with LCC. This can best be understood by reviewing the milestones in the current Talaris episode, which are listed below.

Tell LCC How the Talaris Fence Impacts You

The owner’s representatives have not responded positively to repeated LCC requests to negotiate. They have made it clear that the fence will not be removed and that they may even “padlock” the site. In considering what to do about this, LCC needs to hear from you. How you have used the site over the years?

Comments we have heard range from daily dog walking to baseball and soccer games, duck watching, and regular strolls to enjoy the vegetation and landscape design. Please send us an email telling us how and for how long you have used the site! Let us know how best to follow up and reach you. And if convenient, please email photos of your use.
Send email to jeannieh@serv.net.

Timeline of Talaris Events

July 29, 2013: Talaris makes unilateral proposal to eliminate the site’s single-family designation. Responding to LCC concerns, including about lack of consultation with neighbors, Seattle City Council rejects the proposal.

September 15-17, 2013: Without approval, Talaris commences installation of
a chain link fence surrounding the site. Long-standing public access is cut off, surveillance cameras are installed, and trespassing signs are posted threatening prosecution for those brave enough to  enter the site. These actions violate the 1991 Settlement Agreement with LCC as well as City Ordinance.

November 5, 2013: Talaris files an application with the City to redevelop the site with an 82-lot single family subdivision.

November 6, 2013: Despite Talaris opposition, the Landmarks Preservation Board votes unanimously to designate the Talaris site and structures as a landmark. Under the City’s landmarks law, the adoption of the nomination means there can be no alterations on the site without Board approval. The designation starts a period in which Talaris and the Board are supposed to negotiate “controls and incentives” for preservation of the site. 

November 25, 2013: The Talaris owner files Superior Court lawsuit against City to invalidate the November 6 historic landmark designation and to establish that the subdivision application vested. Talaris and City attorneys almost immediately cut a deal to stay the lawsuit for nine months, leaving it hanging over the City agencies as they consider what to do about Talaris’ subdivision application and the landmark designation.

December 13, 2013: LCC files a Motion to Intervene in the Talaris Superior Court lawsuit, noting that it has a legal stake and a long-time interest in the status and disposition of the site.

January 7, 2014: Despite absence of support from City Attorney and opposition by Talaris the Superior Court grants LCC intervener party status.

January 22 and February 11, 2014: LCC and historic preservation representatives meet with Talaris owner representatives to explore potential agreement on redevelopment. Talaris representatives suggest they have a concept  for an expanded hotel and conference center, but refuse to release specifics in response to LCC request. Talaris subsequently refuses to negotiate further with LCC.

February 27, 2014: In response to a request by LCC, the City holds a public comment meeting about the Talaris redevelopment at the Laurelhurst Community Center. At the meeting, LCC urges adoption of a moderate proposal for redevelopment of the site in place of the extreme concepts advocated by Talaris and others.

March – May 2014: LCC learns through documents obtained from City under Public Records Act that Talaris and City agencies have arranged a meeting about potential changes to the Land Use Code to accommodate possible Talaris hotel and conference center expansion plans.

July 2, 2014: Talaris requests a six-month extension from the Landmarks Board on negotiation to guide future development consistent with the landmark designation. There is no indication that negotiations have even commenced. LCC objects and notes neighbor comments that the owner is meanwhile degrading the site. The owner’s representative tells the Landmarks Board that the neighborhood is “obstructionist” and threatens that the site owner might “padlock it…with no further maintenance being done, and the natural state would take over.” The Board rejects the request for a six-month extension and reluctantly grants a three-month extension.

Two Options Under Consideration
LCC’s focus is on ensuring that any redevelopment of the site is based on compatible land uses, preventing adverse impacts, and preserving as much public access and open space as possible. LCC is concerned that the two development proposals most often mentioned for the site – the 82-lot subdivision and the possible expanded hotel/commercial/office development – represent extreme propositions.

While a subdivision could offer a permanent answer to the question of the site’s future, the particular subdivision laid out by Talaris maximizes density, inappropriately impinges upon important site features and amenities, and does not make use of clustering and other Land Use Code alternatives for development.

On the other hand, excessive expansion of hotel/office/conference center use would result in the kinds of neighborhood impacts that first prompted community objections thirty years ago. And, in the absence of a new binding settlement agreement with LCC, it would leave portions of the 18-acre site targeted for even more development down the road.

About Landmark Status
Although not widely acknowledged during the landmark process, a landmark designation unfortunately does not prevent and may even facilitate intensive redevelopment of the site. LCC nonetheless generally supported the landmark nomination, but cautioned that there was more to consider than whether the existing buildings would be preserved.

As neighbors have now seen, landmarking also does not maintain public access to the site. It has been fenced off and no trespassing signs posted, apparently enforced with surveillance cameras. Through its counsel, LCC has warned the Talaris owner that fencing off the site is inconsistent with the 1991 Settlement Agreement with LCC and potentially with the neighborhood’s legal prescriptive rights to access. To date, neither the City nor the groups listed by the Landmarks Board as sponsors of the landmark designation have taken formal positions demanding that the Talaris owner roll back cut-off of public access.

Bottom Line

LCC has invested a tremendous amount of money and its trustees have devoted many, many hours over the years to ensuring compatible, responsible development and use of the Talaris site. They are disappointed by the Owner’s current approach.

LCC is not the driver of any development option and did not put the property in play. LCC does, however, have a legally binding Settlement Agreement and a stake in the use of the parcel in the heart of its neighborhood.

LCC will continue, as it has over the past decades to work for a long-lasting, neighborhood-friendly solution that respects the quality of life in an established single-family zoned community. 

Here are additional comments the Laurelhurst Blog has received:

Is it just me, or is the developer pushing past regulations, agreements and conventions to produce a worst case in order to let all the neighbors accept something less bad with a sigh of relief? Say, like Childrens spreading further into the property, or a shopping mall?

I  just wanted to give my two cents so far on the proposed development at Talaris. I'm sure LCC is staying on top of the issue and will be great for guiding the community and neighborhood through this change. It appears as though Bruce McCaw and the developers are here to make the most money as they can.  I am suspicious of their push to rezone for the apartment units.  It feels like they are threatening the 90+ single family home development in order to get the neighborhood to allow for a rezone to a "seemingly" lower impact apartment building organization. But really, the apartments will bring in more people. 

I think the lowest impact to the neighborhood and environment is to have the least amount of development and people move into that area, and to protect the existing landscape, especially the trees and wildlife. And I think that means higher end homes or condos, and to be fair, some smaller units. It would be great to have some commercial spaces perhaps below the condos since Laurelhurst could use a "village" where neighbors can walk to meet for lunch/dinner or coffee, although I'm not sure if it is zoned for this. 

My concerns include traffic and the school enrollment numbers at Laurelhurst and the already over-extended middle schools, and just the general impact of that many people moving into this area. It seems as if the developer is purposely ignoring this very important issue. 

Getting in and out of our neighborhood is already challenging as it exists now. The new light near the new development at Children's is slow. NE 41st Street  is our main route for getting out of the neighborhood and both development plans will slow that street down as well. We all know how difficult it already is to get through the Montlake cut and the U district during rush hour. I can't imagine what additional delays will be created by the influx of cars and people to the area. 

I grew up next door to this beautiful green space. To believe that the city would allow such a neighborhood landmark to be simply bulldozed and graded would be such an unbelievably shocking loss for this space that has been so much a part of Laurelhurst. I hope the landmark status holds up.

Still Time To Submit Comments Regarding Talaris Proposed Re-Development



There is still time to send in public comments through next month, regarding the proposed re-development of the Talaris property.  

Though the formal comment period ended on February 27th as discussed at last month's public meeting at the Community Center, hosted by the City's Department of Planning and Development(DPD), the public can send comments after that deadline.

Lindsay King, DPD's Senior Land Use Planner, told us:

As we mentioned at the Scoping Meeting, the required comment period for scoping ended on February 27th but we will continue to accept comments until the end of the scoping period.

Unlike the required comment period for scoping, the scoping period itself doesn’t have a fixed end date. We will continue to take comments unit we begin the DEIS preparation, probably in April.

Comments can be sent by to PRC@seattle.gov or by regular mail to DPD, Attention: Lindsay King, 700 5^th Avenue, Suite 2000, P.O. Box 34019, Seattle, WA 98124-4019. The project number 3015404 should be included for easy reference.

In this month's Laurelhurst Community Club (LCC) "Laurelhurst Letter", it was stated that 75 neighbors attended the meeting and more than 12 people addressed concerns at the meeting, more than 112 people submitted written comments as of February 28th, with more being submitted daily.  The written comments can be read by searching for the permit number here.

LCC wrote in the Laurelhurst Letter :

LCC continues its efforts to achieve the best possible Talaris alternative for our community.  

The owner’s representatives have consistently talked about their interest in preservation of the site, yet have submitted an application for an 82-lot subdivision that would essentially destroy the open space and tree canopy.

The recent construction of chain link fencing around the site violates the terms of the Settlement Agreement with LCC, as does failing to provide required notice to LCC on this and other actions taken. The 1991 “Settlement Agreement and Covenants Running with the Land” includes a series of covenants, explicitly enforceable by LCC, that continue to bind Battelle’s successors, including the current owner.  

The owner’s representatives have indicated their real interests are a new hotel, commercial uses, and office development and have said that such development is the only path for site preservation. But, the owner has not disclosed specifics of what that proposed development would involve and has not submitted an application for those uses.  

That sets up a false choice for the community and DPD. Intensive hotel, office, and commercial redevelopment has the potential for consuming and impacting large portions of the site, despite the landmark designation, with impacts on the surrounding community as bad or worse than those from an appropriate residential development that respects current site amenities.  

Any lease or control of the property by major institutions such as Seattle Children’s Hospital or the University of Washington — something prohibited by the Land Use Code — must be disclosed and studied. The owner has indicated that those institutions are likely the only parties who could readily afford the rent.
To date, the owner has refused to withdraw the subdivision application and has sued to invalidate the site’s historic designation. The owner also has disregarded the rules requiring consultation with the Landmarks Board before filing the subdivision application and cutting trees.  

LCC is interested in an environmentally responsible development that is compatible with the surrounding community. Neither the 82-lot development nor the hotel/commercial/office space scenarios accomplish these goals. These, as well as other more moderate alternatives, must be included in the draft EIS. Impacts on the wetlands, nesting eagles, riparian corridor, parking, traffic, transportation infrastructure, and the cumulative impacts of other development in the area must be studied.   

Nothing should be left to assumption or chance in DPD’s review. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be a careful and comprehensive study of the subdivision application, alternatives to it, impacts associated with the subdivision and with alternative development plans, and mitigation.    

Other alternatives should be studied in the draft EIS as well. A separate single-family alternative that would preserve the maximum amount of open space and tree canopy, protect and enhance the wetlands, safeguard the habitat of the nesting eagles, and preserve public access to which the public is legally entitled should be included in the draft EIS. A clustered single-family development — or planned residential development — would  provide incentives for site preservation, can be developed to achieve the goals the owner is ascribing to in its 82-unit subdivision proposal, and should be included as an alternative.  Any option that will be presented to the Landmarks Board during the controls and incentives process should be disclosed and studied in the draft EIS. 

The owner should be required to submit a plan for daylighting the underground pipe to improve the riparian corridor and protect and restore the natural creek at Yesler Creek and this should be studied in all alternatives.. This would include appropriate setbacks and shoreline habitat protection. 
The draft EIS must also disclose and analyze the potential effects of the owner’s lawsuit to invalidate the site’s historic designation.

Last month, LCC sent out a mailing detailing the two proposals put forth by the owner representatives, as well as giving history of the property in relation to working with LCC and the neighborhood.

"Talaris Living" the website put up by the owner representatives in January of last year  curiously now says "webpage expired."

And last month, Nathan Rimmer, one of the representatives for Talaris owner, Bruce Mc Caw under the name 4000 Property LLC, sent out a mailing to a select distribution list telling the Blog Staff that "the update was sent to people with whom we'd spoken with personally or whom had been identified by their neighbors as interested parties."

Unfortunately most of the residents who live around Talaris didn't receive the mailing, and thus were frustrated about not getting the latest update directly from the owner representatives.

For more information on the proposed development and neighbor comments as covered in the Laurelhurst Blog go here.

Batelle/Talaris Historic Landmark Designation Status To Be Decided Tomorrow At Public Hearing

Talaris Campus (courtesy of Talaris website)

 

 

 

The City's Landmarks Preservation Board will hold a designation hearing tomorrow to announce their decision to approve or not the Historic Landmark Designation for the Battelle Memorial Institute Seattle Research Center / Talaris Conference Center (4000 NE 41st Street).

The public hearing and announcement should start around 4:15 at the Seattle Municipal Tower (700 5^th Avenue, 40th Floor, Room 4060).  Attendees should arrive a little early as agenda item timing is an approximation. 

 

At this meeting the Board "will receive evidence and hear arguments as to whether the site, building or object meets the standards for designation. If the Board does not designate the property, the proceedings terminate and the property can't be considered for designation for five years, except at the request of the owner."

In September the Landmarks Preservation Board voted unanimously to accept the Landmark historic nomination for the Talaris property. Many Laurelhurst residents as well as the Friends of Battelle/Talaris and others presented information.

 

Friends of Battelle/Talaris, a group of Laurelhurst residents who have an avid interest in preserving and protecting the Battelle/Talaris site, landscape and buildings based on their unique modernist design and intact original character, submitted the nomination to seek formal recognition of the property’s historic, cultural and architectural significance.

"Recent development proposals may adversely affect the integrity of the site," the group said in a recent press release.

 

The designation standards for a site mandate that it must be at least 25 years old and must meet at least one of the six criteria for designation outlined in the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (SMC 25.12.350).  At the September meeting, the site met four out of the six at outlined here:

a) It is the location of, or is associated in a significant way with, a historic event with a significant effect upon the community, City, state, or nation; or



b) It is associated in a significant way with the life of a person important in the history of the City, state, or nation; or



c) It is associated in a significant way with a significant aspect of the cultural, political, or economic heritage of the community, City, state or nation; or



d) It embodies the distinctive visible characteristics of an architectural style, or period, or a method of construction; or



e) It is an outstanding work of a designer or builder; or



f) Because of its prominence of spatial location, contrasts of siting, age, or scale, it is an easily identifiable visual feature of its neighborhood or the city and contributes to the distinctive quality or identity of such neighborhood or the City.

Although the Landmarks Preservation Board does not have to cite specific criteria at the nomination stage, there was discussion that the Battelle/ Talaris site meets standards c,d,e and f.

The City website says of the designation step being discussed tomorrow:

This section requires a Certificate of Approval for alterations or significant changes to the features proposed for preservation. Following Board approval of the nomination (or designation) the owner may give written notice of a desire to confer and consult with the Board and Board staff to reach agreement on specific features to be preserved and methods to achieve such preservation. A timetable is established by Board, Board staff and the Owner. This written request by the Owner is the only procedure which may alter the time requirements or the public meeting on designation. If the Board designates a property, the next step is the Controls and Incentives Agreement for the landmark, which is negotiated by the Board staff with the property owner. Once an agreement is reached and signed, it is then sent to the Landmarks Preservation Board for approval at another public meeting.

The City website says that "controls define those features of the landmark to be preserved and outline the Certificate of Approval process for changes to those features. Incentives may include, but are not limited to, zoning variances, building code exceptions, and financial incentives."

After the agreement on the Controls and Incentives has been reached with the property owner and approved by the Landmarks Preservation Board, a designating ordinance is sent to the City Council for approval.

Once landmarks have been approved and gone through the process they are then subject to protection by city ordinance, as stated on the City's Landmark and Designation website.

Here is the nomination for Talaris/Batelle posted on the City's Landmark nomination website, City Project # 3015404, which includes pre-application analysis to understand the nomination for designation prohibiting the owner from making changes to the property until the nomination is approved or denied. The owner has submitted plans to potentially subdivide the 7.8 acre parcel into single family lots, tracts for open space, utilities, and private roads.

For more information on the City's nomination process go here and here for the City's ordinance pertaining to the nomination, designation, and Controls and Incentives process and appeal procedures.

To contact Friends of Battelle/Talaris email preservetalaris@gmail.com or go to their Facebook page or website.

 

The Landmarks Preservation Board is coordinated by the Seattle Department of Neighborhoods Historic Preservation Program. The Historic Preservation Program handles the identification and protection of more than 400 historic structures, site, objects, and vessels, as well as eight historic districts throughout Seattle.

 

The Friends of Batelle/Talaris told us "We invite all our neighbors and supporters of the site to join us at the important meeting tomorrow.

 

City's Landmarks Preservation Board Has Two Openings

New members  are being sought for the Landmarks Preservation Board, a 12-member Board, that makes recommendations to Seattle City Council for landmark designation and reviews proposed physical alterations to designated features of landmark properties.

The Board is composed of two architects, two historians, one structural engineer, one representative each from the fields of real estate and finance, one member from the City Planning Commission, a Get Engaged member, and three members at-large.

The deadline to submit a letter of interest and resume is Monday by email to mailto:Sarah.Sodt@seattle.gov,  reference Landmarks Preservation Board in the subject line. All appointments are made by the Mayor,  and subject to City Council confirmation.   Applicants must be Seattle residents.

Board members serve without compensation and meet on the first and third Wednesdays of each month at 3:30pm. Board members must commit approximately 10 hours per month to Board business.

For more information, call Sarah Sodt at (206) 615-1786. .

Sand Point Naval Air Station Recently Designated A Historic District

The Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board designated the Sand Point Naval Air Station as a historic district last week. It has been 23 years since the  last historic district,  Fort Lawton Landmark District, was designated as historic. 

The Friends of Naval Air Station Seattle Historic District, a group of community members and neighbors, spearheaded the effort starting last year, to get the historic buildings, structures, and the site recognized as a local landmark district.

With the designation as a historic district, any changes to the outside of the buildings and site elements will have to be reviewed by the Landmarks Preservation Board to ensure the integrity of the district.

The press release says:

The Sand Point Naval Air Station Historic District was designated because of its unique contribution to the history of not only Seattle, but to the nation as well:

· It was the first naval aviation facility established within the Thirteenth Naval District prior to WWll.
· It is the site of the first around-the-world flight.
· As Seattle’s first Municipal Airport from 1920-1926, it was important to the early development of the Boeing Company.
· Its buildings comprise a large collection of WPA built colonial Revival, Art Deco and Art Moderne architecture, and the site has rare examples of pre-WWII aviation hangers.
· As one of only four Naval Air Stations in the nation during WWll, it was important as a supply, training, and maintenance facility for the Pacific front.



The historic district is also listed in the National Register of Historic Places,  along with photos and a map.

Seattle has seven other preservation districts. Visit the  Seattle’s Historic Preservation Program for more information on the program.

The Friends of the Naval Station Historic District has a complete history, along with photos and much more on their website.

(photo courtesy of the UW photo collection)