Comment Now On Talaris Proposal To Build Homes And Demolish Buildings

Talaris Campus (courtesy of Talaris website 

since taken down)

The Laurelhurst Community Club is encouraging the community to submit comments regarding the most recent Talaris proposalby tomorrow at 5pm to the Department of Construction (SDCI).  

LCC said in a recent newsletter:

The Talaris owner is pursuing the same subdivision proposal, apparently without Quadrant's participation. SDCI is taking comments on the application, which is to to subdivide the entire 18-acre site into 67 single-family home sites of 5,000 square feet each, and seven large tracts of land to be offered separately, and with different uses than the earlier proposal. 

Two of the existing buildings, Building G, (the cascading building nearest to NE 41st Street) and the Lodge, Building E, (at the end of the eastern driveway) would be demolished. 

Of the current 455 trees, only 184 are proposed for retention with the remaining 271 proposed for removal - about 60 percent. 175 of those to be eliminated are "exceptional" per City standards. All of the proposed exceptional tree removals are needed to accommodate the proposed single-family home footprints and required infrastructure as shown on the plans. 

Compounding the harm from wholesale elimination of trees and building demolition, the layout for the single-family home development is oblivious to the site's integral landscape design and would impinge on protected areas and buffers (e.g., wetlands).

Send comments to prc@seattl.gov and erin.doherty@seattle.gov including these points: 

• The landmark designation (November 2013) includes not just the building exteriors on the site, but also the site's landscape designed by world-renown Richard Haag (also designed Gasworks Park). The proposal would undermine those features, packing a suburban subdivision design into a landmarked urban site.
• The City has been unable to provide a coherent explanation on why it is processing an application for redevelopment as if the site were not a designated landmark, for which development must first be approved by the Landmarks Board. So, why is the SDCI process preceding the Seattle Landmark Preservation Board (SLPB) approval process? The process is "out of order" and wasting the City's limited resources.
• Why is the City's Department of Construction and Inspections facilitating the establishment of a false economic value for the property owner for a full-site subdivision plan that may never be approved by the SLPB? 
• The property was designated a landmark 5 years before this subdivision application was submitted to SDCI in 2018. Any development of the property after 2013 is subject to SLPB approval - well known standard procedure.
• Tree retention is a tenet of the Seattle Municipal Code for subdivisions.  The City has committed to increasing its tree canopy by 30 percent to mitigate climate change impacts, such as reducing rising land temperatures and cleaning pollutants from  increasingly contaminated air. The proposed redevelopment would remove 72% of the trees, undermining a Citywide goal.
• Wetlands/buffers and wildlife habitat will be adversely impacted and encroached upon by the scale of the proposed subdivision. The drastic removal of landmarked, mature urban tree canopy and wetlands can never be fully replaced by new plantings.
• SDCI should require preparation of a full environmental impact Statement (EIS) on this significant project and ensure that it is circulated for public review and comment before issuing it in "final" EIS form.
• As with any subdivision, and particularly one proposed for a site that is entirely landmarked, the City should be especially careful to make sure that any plan approved is in all respects in the public interest. That is a requirement for any subdivision in the City. 

The application is here  referencing 3030811-LU.  Go to "Attachments," which lists the entire list of activity.   

The most recent set of plans that SDCI will use in the permitting process is here on page 10 "Plan Set-Land Use_Cycle2.pdf" submitted on September 11th. 

LCC told the Laurelhurst Blog that Bruce McCaw's company, Pistol Creek, managed by Greg Vik, the President, is using the original Quadrant team of consultants to move the project forward. 

LCC added:

The Pistol Creek people are not developers who build these suburban type home subdivisions. Thus, it would appear that Pistol Creek, is going through the City of Seattle's SDCI process to achieve approval for its plans. If that would occur, then it likely  (not certain)  it would be re-sold to another home builder/development operator. 

It is not known if, and who,  that entity would be, but the entitlement approvals from the City of Seattle would allow the property to be flipped again. 

The important issue is that moving these plans through the SDCI system without FIRST being approved by the Seattle Landmark Preservation Board, is "out of order". and creating a false economic value for something that may never be able to be compatible with its landmark status.  It is utilizing taxpayers' scarce resources at SDCI on something that may never be approved. The City would be more efficient to require and receive the SLPB approval, then submit an acceptable plan to SDCI for any approval and issuing a MUP (Master Use Plan).

A neighbor recently contacted the Landmarks Preservation Board about how the  landmarked buildings can be demolished, saying "I thought that’s why there are landmarked so that they are preserved. I understand the change of use on 5 of them but how can they be demolished? Please explain. This does not seem proper. "

The Land Use Planning Supervisor responded to the neighbor saying:

Yes, there is landmark protection on the site. The applicant has applied for a Certificate of Approval from the Landmarks Board (administered by the Department of Neighborhoods - DON) to demolish some of the structures as part of their bigger project.  Evidently, the Certificate of Approval can be approved for demolition in certain circumstances but DON would need to provide any further information about that.  

SDCI is reviewing the development proposal and is generally not allowed to issue a demolition permit for a landmarked structure unless the Certificate of Approval is granted.  This is a complex project with many regulatory issues for the applicant to resolve.  

As part of the review by SDCI, we ask for comments about anticipated impacts of the proposal.  You can also comment on whether the proposal meets the criteria of approval for the decisions that need to be made by SDCI.  If an appeal of an SDCI decision is received, the final decision, along with the decision on the actual full subdivision, will be made by the City Hearing Examiner.  Quite a bit of review still needs to be completed prior to any decisions being made.

The property was designated with landmark status in November 2013, which dictates that specific controls define certain features of the landmark to be preserved and a Certificate of Approval process is needed for changes to those features. Some incentives and controls included in the City's ruling are zoning variances, building code exceptions, and financial incentives, which are protected, as stated on the City's Landmark and Designation website.

The site, built in 1967, was originally owned by Battelle Memorial Institute. In 1997 Era Care Communities purchased the property for $6,125,000 and it was developed into Talaris Institute which focused on infant and early learning research of the brain. In 2000, Bruce Mc Caw under the name 4000 Property LLC of Bellevue, purchased the property for $15,630,000. The county has assessed the property at $14 million and sold in 2000 for $15.6 million.

The property, when sold several decades ago, included an underlying Settlement Agreement in which Battelle Neighbors and the Laurelhurst Community Club (LCC) are partnered together with the land owners of the parcel. The Settlement Agreement specifically states that major institutions can't operate within this property (no hospitals, colleges, etc). And the Settlement Agreement has specific restrictions attached which specifies the use of the property to protect the quality of life in the adjacent neighborhood.

For decades, neighbors were free to stroll the grounds, until 2013, when Talaris suddenly put up "No Trespassing" signs and installed a four feet chain link fencing in 2013, as well putting up a main driveway barricade, fence on northwest side and a surveillance camera. Neighbors were no longer allowed to use the large grassy meadow area where generations of kids practiced soccer and the past few years the grounds facing NE 41st Street are often neglected and grass not consistently mowed. The Laurelhurst Community Club, has been involved with the site for over 30 years, working to ensure the property is well integrated with the neighborhood by closely monitoring proposed development. LCC has also worked with current owners in lobbying for better property maintenance. 

The Laurelhurst Blog recently posted about the owners of Talaris violating the landmarks agreement with the City, by installing a chain link fence last month at the 7.8 acre Talaris campus (4000 NE 41st Street).
Shortly after, the Landmarks Preservation Board listed on their meeting agenda for Talaris: "proposed perimeter fencing- retroactive."

The Laurelhurst Blog contacted the Landmarks Preservation coordinator about the outcome of this agenda item and they said:

The owner’s representative attended the meeting on December 13. They were asked by Board members to look at a more comprehensive security plan for the campus, in addition to, or in lieu of the new 6’ fence. 

To be responsive to this request, the owner requested to table the item, so it was not considered by the Landmarks Board at their meeting on December 18th. 

When work is done without approval we assess the situation and attempt to remedy the issue. In this case, we’ve asked the applicant to seek approval, so they have started that process.  

They are currently planning to return to the Landmarks Board meeting on January 15, 2020. 

The code does not address numbers of retroactive applications.  I cannot speculate on the property owner’s motivations.  

We are enforcing the code by requiring the property owner to acquire a Certificate of Approval from the Landmarks Board.  Had the owner not started the application process they would have received a Notice of Violation from Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections.

In 2018, Talaris removed a large oak tree with proper approval from the Landmarks Preservation Board and asked for retroactive Certificate of Approval from the City, violating the Landmarks agreement.

And in April 2016, Talaris again cut down trees without proper approval from the City Landmarks Board and after the trees were cut down, then requested a retroactive Certificate of Approval from the City.

And again, in November 2013, Talaris also cut down another tree with approval from the Landmarks Board and then suddenly got a retroactive certificate in place after the trees were cut down.