Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-06-26 - AGENDA REPORTS - MC 04-325 HMNMH MP (2)Agenda Item: a I CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Approval: Item to be presented by: Lisa Hardy DATE: June 26, 2007 SUBJECT: MASTER CASE 04-325 - HENRY MAYO NEWHALL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN PROJECT DEPARTMENT: Community Development RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council receive staff presentation and public testimony, provide direction to staff, and continue the public hearing to the August 28, 2007, City Council meeting. BACKGROUND On June 12, 2007, the City Council opened the public hearing for the proposed Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan project. At this meeting, the City Council received a three-part staff presentation, a presentation by the applicant, and public testimony, both in favor and in opposition to the project. During the course of the public hearing, a number of issues and questions were raised regarding the entitlement process, the environmental impacts and mitigations, the findings of the KSA independent study, hospital services and operations, and the relationship between HMNMH and G&L Realty. Response to Issues & Questions Per the Council's request, attached to this agenda report is a comprehensive, list of issues and questions raised during this meeting. Given the volume of questions and issues, staff is still in the process of preparing responses and will include these as part of the Council's August 28, 2007, agenda packet. However, as part of tonight's meeting, staff felt it was important to clarify the public hearing process for the proposed master plan, the conditional use permit, and the development agreement. Attached is a memo prepared by the City Attorney's Office which reviews the steps of the entitlement process, including the applicant's appeal of the Development Agreement before the City Council. StA la I o, oWl - j-AkCn4- 8 SCUSSJ KJ ,ehlnrennle'x iSSue Contlnaed Yo: Kurt Salmon Associates (KSA), the consultants who prepared the independent study for the City, will be present for the August 28, 2007, City Council meeting to address the issues and questions raised at the June 12, 2007, meeting. A written report from KSA will also be included as part of the City's response in the August 28, 2007, agenda packet. The applicant is also preparing responses to questions and issues raised at the public hearing that are specific to hospital and medical office operations. These responses will be distributed to the City Council and made available for public review upon their submittal to the City. Community Meeting Facilitation The City Council requested that City staff facilitate a meeting between community members and the applicant team. Staff is working to secure a date and time for this meeting. At the time this agenda report was prepared, several dates in July 2007 were being held as possible community meeting dates. Staff will coordinate with community members and the applicant team to confirm meeting dates and times. Prior to the August 28, 2007, City Council meeting, it may be necessary to conduct more than one community meeting. Revised Development Agreement At tonight's City Council meeting, Joe Montes, Assistant City Attorney, will review the major components of the revised Development Agreement with the City Council. Included in this discussion will be a review of City requirements to control the sequencing of on-site improvements, restrictions on the use of the medical office building space, the expedited completion of traffic improvements, the delivery timeline for specific medical services, requirements for a parking study to determine the future need for Parking Structure 4, and HMNMH participation in the establishment of a long-term transitional care unit facility in the Santa Clarita Valley. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Other action as directed by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT No direct fiscal impact will occur as a result of the proposed project, or the recommended action before the City Council this evening. ATTACHMENTS Revised HMNMH Development Agreement - May 31, 2007 HMNMH Master Plan - June 12, 2007 City Council Meeting Issues & Questions Letters & Documents received by the City Council at the June 12, 2007, Meeting City Attorney's Office Response to Questions Raised at the June 12, 2007, City Council Meeting Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan Project Issues & Questions Raised at the June 12, 2007, City Council Meeting Entitlement Process ■ Because the master plan has been reduced from the project recommended by the Planning Commission and the Development Agreement has been revised, the matter should be remanded to the Planning Commission for further review prior to City Council consideration. ■ Is the appeal process for the Development Agreement still valid if a new revised Development Agreement has been requested and supersedes the original document? ■ The entitlements for the HMNMH buildings and the G & L Realty buildings should be split into two applications. Why has the City not considered this? ■ Per the Planning Commission and City Council's direction, competing providers were to be engaged by Kurt Salmon Associates to determine the intent of other medical providers to locate in the Santa Clarita Valley. Hospital Operations • The HMNMH Governing Board shall work with the City to explore the feasibility of identifying an alternative satellite campus within the eastern Santa Clarita Valley. • HMNMH to respond to the 1,000 square feet per bed issue versus the 1,900 square -foot industry standard. Is this adequate space to allow for quality medical care? ■ How are HMNMH and G&L Realty sharing the cost of project mitigations? ■ How does HMNMH benefit from G&L Realty's participation? Does G&L Realty provide any funds to HMNMH? ■ What provisions will be in place to ensure that on -campus parking is free for the public? ■ Why are the HMNMH rehabilitation beds not full? Why are these beds not used for acute care purposes? ■ Describe the reciprocal parking agreement between HMNMH and G&L Realty. ■ Provide a list of G&L Realty partnerships statewide. ■ What is the current number of HMNMH operating rooms? How many operating rooms will be provided through the master plan? ■ Is there a recycling program for the HMNMH campus? Please describe the components of this plan. HMNMH Master Plan Project Issues & Questions from the June 12, 2007, City Council Meeting Page 2 ■ What is the original deed for the HMNMH? Are there restrictions? ■ How many physicians are currently housed on the HMNMH campus? How many doctors will be, on campus with the master plan expansion, assuming 20-21 percent of physicians are on -campus? How many physicians are located within the adjacent medical buildings to the north that are not on the HMNMH campus? ■ How much will it cost to construct Inpatient Building A? ■ Explain HMNMH's relationship with the medical office buildings to the north of the campus. Does HMNMH have a master lease on one of the buildings? • Why were the medical office buildings to the north of the HMNMH campus not included as part of the master plan? • Why is there no restriction on G&L Realty to mandate that these medical office buildings are used for medical purposes? ■ Why can't Inpatient Building A be lowered in height? Thirteen feet added to the length and width of the building would reduce the height of the building by one story. ■ Why would HMNMH lease 89,000 square feet of medical office space for support services when their 113,000 square foot administration building was removed? At an estimated $300;000 per month of non -depreciable rent, they have forced tenancy and increased medical office building demand. ■ G&L is seeking to add high rent medical office space in Santa Clarita with no commitment to expanded and enhanced hospital services. Land Use & Environmental Issues ■ The size, bulk and heights of buildings have not changed. The requests that building heights be reduced or lowered from the February 2006, September 2006 and October 2006 hearings were never addressed. ■ If HMNMH were to go away, what would happen to G&L Realty? Would they be allowed to proceed with the construction and operation of office buildings? • Why was only hospital space reduced in the new revised master plan? ■ Why is the square footage of the parking structures not included in the overall square footage of master plan development? Is it common practice to include this square footage in the overall calculation of development for other projects? How does this compare with the Town HMNMH Master Plan Project Issues & Questions from the June 12, 2007, City Council Meeting Page 3 Center Mall Expansion project currently under review by the Planning Commission? • Does the Environmental Impact Report comply with L.A. County Fire Department requirements to describe the total covered area? Are square footage totals in the Environmental Impact Report correct? • Is the campus on a single means of access? Does the project meet L.A. County Fire Department requirements? ■ Are General Plan Amendments required for this project? ■ The master plan expansion will have a large, adverse impact on the infrastructure of the area. The traffic generation is too intense due to the size of the project. ■ What is the floor area ratio (FAR) for the Granary Square shopping center, the single-family residential neighborhood across from McBean Parkway, and the two churches located on McBean Parkway? ■ What is the current vacancy rate in office buildings within the Santa Clarita Valley? ■ Provide a comparison of HMNMH campus with other hospitals in similar residential/suburban settings. Provide the campus acreage, height of the buildings and aerial photos. ■ What is the status of the Golden Valley Ranch project urgent care facility? ■ Will a solid waste plan be required for recycling during construction? ■ Review the intersection of McBean Parkway and Orchard Village Road with the movement of Medical Office Building 1 away from this intersection. Does this allow for greater flexibility in addressing the traffic issues at this intersection? ■ Review the intersection of McBean -Parkway and Avenida Navarre - can there be an alternative design for improved accessibility? ■ There are traffic impacts to the Calle Arbor residential neighborhood as it is in proximity to the Orchard Village Road / McBean Parkway intersection. ■ Local roadway cut -through traffic analysis through the Summit neighborhood was never provided. ■ Does the City make a distinction between HMNMH and G&L Realty with regard to mitigation measures and conditions of approval? HMNMH Master Plan Project Issues & Questions from the June 12, 2007, City Council Meeting Page 4 ■ The project violates the zoning code, the height limitations and fails to address the cumulative effect of already approved and proposed development in the project area. • The hospital is an inappropriate land use in the Residential Low (RL) zone. ■ The entire HMNMH campus should be brought up to the City's current code. ■ Will the City require recycling of construction materials? Master Plan Modifications A. Building Placement & Parking ■ Eliminate Medical Office Building 2 and Medical Office Building 3. Reduce Medical Office Building 1 from 80,000 square feet to 60,000 square feet. • Reduce the height of Parking Structure 1 and Parking Structure 4 to 2.5 levels above ground. They can be one structure or two structures. ■ Eliminate Parking Structure 4 from the master plan. This will further reduce the number of on -campus parking structures from five structures (as originally proposed) to three structures. • Relocate Medical Office Building 1 away from main Hospital entrance into the location originally planned for Parking Structure 4 so that it is immediately adjacent to Parking Structure 1. ■ Medical Office Building I should have at least one level of subterranean parking provided underneath the building. ■ Parking Structure 1 should have multiple levels of subterranean parking to avoid the need for Parking Structure 4 in the future. ■ Medical Office Building 1 and Parking Structure 1 should have direct pedestrian access which provides a connection between the parking structure and the east fagade of Medical Office Building 1. ■ The surface parking area adjacent to the main hospital entrance (former location of Medical Office Building 1) could have a single, elevated deck of parking that would be heavily landscaped and blend with surroundings (in lieu of Parking Structure 4). This deck structure would include a semi -subterranean level of parking and a slightly elevated deck (4-5 feet above grade approximately). This deck structure would be designed in a way to support outdoor, community events. HMNMH Master Plan Project Issues & Questions from the June 12, 2007, City Council Meeting Page 5 ■ Medical Office Building 2 should be moved away from the southwest corner of the site and closer to the existing two-story medical office building. An atrium connecting MOB 2 with the existing building should be considered. The buildings shall be complimentary in architectural design, which will require a fagade enhancement for the existing two-story medical building. Moving Medical Office Building 2 will free -up 30-50 feet at the southwest comer of the site for green space. • Medical Office Building 3 and Parking Structure 3 should have direct pedestrian access which provides a connection between the parking structure and the north fagade of Medical Office Building 3. B. Architectural Enhancements ■ Provide a more significant cornice on both Medical Office Building 1 and Parking Structure 1. ■ Bring the textures and quality of the architecture on Parking Structure 1 up to the standard that is characteristic of the Valencia neighborhood. C. Landscaping ■ Provide additional greenery at the southwest corner of the property (adjacent to Medical Office Building 2 and within the parking area) • Make the green screen on Parking Structure l more decorative and artistic so that as the vines grow in a way to drape the structure. Tubular steel lattice can be designed into art forms. • Install planters on the parking structure roofs to allow vines to grow down the structure facades. • Ensure that appropriate irrigation infrastructure is provided to support the landscaping on the green screens and the planters. ■ Do not plant Eucalyptus trees — use Cedar Deodar, Sycamore or Beefwood trees instead. Use appropriate trees from the City's existing plant palette that maximize shade. ■ Enhance the rear slope planting to ensure that open areas are filled-in and that viewsheds from specific properties are not adversely affected by building construction. A minimum 24" box trees shall be used. ■ Preserve the maximum number of McBean Parkway street trees as possible and replant trees (2:1) along this corridor to create a densely landscaped edge with minimum 24" box trees. HMNMH Master Plan Project Issues & Questions from the June 12, 2007, City Council Meeting Page 6 D. On -Site Amenities ■ Preserve the Santa Clarita community holiday tree at its existing location. ■ Provide a "healing courtyard" or space that promotes well-being and peace near the main hospital building. This space should have a water feature. Kurt Salmon Associates (RSA) Independent Study ■ How many Centers of Excellence are proposed for the HMNMH campus? ■ What percentage is considered "full capacity" for hospital bed usage? ■ Did KSA include the square footage of the medical office buildings just to the north of the HMNMH campus in their calculations? ■ How much does it cost to build a hospital in today's dollars? ■ What is the status of Holy Cross' expansion? How much will the Holy Cross Hospital expansion cost and do they have the funds to build a new hospital in the Santa Clarita Valley? ■ How has health care delivery changed over the years (i.e. procedures and surgeries that were once done on an inpatient basis are now outpatient)? ■ Why are the Centers of Excellence the best way for HMNMH to remain viable? ■ How does HMNMH and the Santa Clarita community benefit from HMNMH already complying with earthquake retrofitting? Transitional Care Unit (TCU) • Explore feasibility of keeping the Transitional Care Unit open on the HMNMH campus until a long-term, permanent home is found for this facility. ■ The provision of a transitional care unit in the Santa Clarita Valley carries great immediacy and time is of the essence. The following conditions will assist in the TCU Committee's efforts to reach its goal in an expeditious timeframe. • The Hospital has agreed to contribute $250,000 to the TCU Committee to assist in the siting and development of a transitional care unit facility in the Santa Clarita Valley. As part of the Development Agreement, the Hospital should expand its financial contribution up to $ 500,000. HMNMH Master Plan Project Issues & Questions from the June 12, 2007, City Council Meeting Page 7 ■ The Hospital shall pursue a relationship with another entity to support long-term TCU services in the Santa Clarita Valley. ■ The City and the Hospital shall explore the feasibility of establishing a hospital district to support the development and long-term operation of a transitional care unit in the Santa Clarita Valley. ■ The Hospital shall continue its involvement with the TCU Committee, working toward its goal of establishing a transitional care unit in the Santa Clarita Valley. Development Agreement • What are the commitments in the revised Development Agreement? What are the changes to the revised Development Agreement from the original Development Agreement acted upon by the Planning Commission? ■ Does the revised Development Agreement provide for the sequencing of buildings? ■ Does the revised Development Agreement give the City the ability to review the master plan at each implementation phase? ■ The revised Development Agreement speaks to a "no obligation to develop" on the part of the developer. Please explain why this provision exists and why the City would then have no right to terminate the Development Agreement or take any action against the developer. • Provide a guarantee on hospital beds. ■ Provide timeline and guarantees on medical services associated with the master plan expansion. ■ Require that a Minor Use Permit be required for City Council consideration for any HMNMH campus parking fee. ■ Preclude ability to use eminent domain for McBean Parkway widening. See attached letters and materials submitted to the City Council at the June 12, 2007, City Council meeting for further issues and questions. Please note that some of the questions and issues raised in the attached documents have been incorporated into the above list. TO: FROM: DATE: RE: I zwft B I)KE. WILLIAMS (. SCd?EHS'.:P1. UP MEMORANDUM Mayor McLean and Councilmembers Joseph Montes June 20, 2007 CC: K. Pulskamp, K. Striplin, P. Brotzman, L. Hardy, F. Folistad Response to questions raised at the June 12, 2007, City Council meeting regarding the HMNMH Master Plan The following information is provided for the Council's benefit in response to questions raised at the first City Council hearing on the Henry Mayo Master Plan project. This document is intended to be a public record and a part of the hearing materials. 1. Given the revisions to the scope of the project and the Master Plan, does the project have to be referred back to the Planning Commission? The Planning Commission serves as the recommending body for the Master Plan. Nothing in the City's municipal code requires a referral back to the Planning Commission if revisions are made to a Project once it is before the City Council. The City Council has the discretion to refer the Project back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. 2. Is it appropriate for the Council to consider the Development Agreement appealed from ' the Planning Commission as well as a revised Development Agreement? Procedurally, the City Council must address the Development Agreement, as it was appealed from the Planning Commission. The City Council has several options in this regard: A. The Council can uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the Development Agreement, direct staff to prepare written findings for denial and adopt those by resolution; or B. The Council can approve the Development Agreement. Because the Project applicant has reduced the scope of the Project, the Development Agreement must be revised to reflect the present description of the Project before it can be approved. Further, because the LA #4826-7071-6673 v2 Honorable City Council June 20, 2007 Page 2 Development Agreement is a contract with the Applicant, the Applicant must agree to the revisions to the Agreement. it is my understanding that the revised Development Agreement is Staffs attempt at such a revision, but that the Applicant has not yet agreed to all of the revised terms. Thus, prior to approving a revised Agreement, the Applicant would have to Indicate its support for the revisions. C. The City Council could refer the Development Agreement back to the Planning Commission to finalize the revisions. The Council has the discretion to refer any Development Agreement revisions back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. Before selecting this option, we would advise obtaining concurrence from the Project Applicant that the Applicant wishes to pursue negotiations to revise the Development Agreement and is willing to defer a ruling on its appeal, or is willing to withdraw its appeal. 3. Why not split the entitlement applications for the HMNMH buildings and the G&L Realty Buildings? Based upon the described Project currently before the Council, the HMNMH and G&L buildings are linked by parking, use, design and phasing. Splitting the buildings into two projects at this point could give rise to a project splitting challenge under CEQA—a project cannot be broken into smaller components to minimize the analysis of the environmental impacts of the project. LA #4826-7071-6673 v2 NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, at its regular meeting held June 26, 2007, continued a public hearing on ITEM 17 Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital and G&L Realty 23845 through 23929 McBean Parkway within the community of Valencia in the City of Santa Clarita MASTER CASE NUMBER MC 04-325 Master Plan/Conditional Use Permit 04-022 Development Agreement 06-001 A Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit are requested for the approval of a series of improvements on the HMNMH campus. The applicant, Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital and G&L Realty, propose a master plan to guide future development of the campus facilities. Approval of Master Plan 04-022 would allow the construction of the following facilities: one six -level inpatient building (five levels above ground); three three- story medical office buildings; four multi-level parking structures; reconfiguration of existing hospital space for 20 intensive care unit beds; the demolition of the 8,000 square -foot Foundation building; construction of a central plant facility and two helipads; and the removal of surface parking. A Conditional Use Permit is requested to allow specific buildings and parking structures to exceed 35 feet in height. A Development Agreement is also requested by the applicant. to July 10, 2007. The continued public hearing will be held at or after 6:00 pm. in the Council Chamber at 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, California. Dated this 27th day of June, 2007. SHARON L. DAWSON, CITY CLERK *************************************************************** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) SHARON L. DAWSON, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that she is the duly appointed and qualified City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita and that on June 27, 2007, she caused the above notice to be posted at the door of the Council Chamber located at 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, California. R. SHARON L. DAWSON, CITY CLERK Santa Clarita, California PubHrg/contph.doc