Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2007-07-10 - AGENDA REPORTS - MC 04-325 HMNMH MP (2)
Agenda Item: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Approval: Item to be presented by: Lisa Hardy DATE: July 10, 2007 SUBJECT: MASTER CASE 04-325, HENRY MAYO NEWHALL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN DEPARTMENT: Community Development RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council receive staff presentation regarding the CEQA process for the Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital (HMNMH) Master Plan project, receive public testimony, provide staff with any further issues that need to be addressed prior to the next City Council meeting, and continue the hearing to the August 28, 2007, City Council meeting. BACKGROUND At the June 26, 2007, City Council meeting, the Council continued the public hearing for the HMNMH Master Plan project and directed staff to return to the July 10, 2007, meeting for a discussion on environmental issues associated with the project. The staff presentation will provide a brief overview of the CEQA process. In addition, a representative from RBF Consulting, who prepared the CEQA documents for this project, will be available for questions. 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. Codnued b: �r Ad bd 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 applicant. to July 10, 2007. The continued public hearing will be held at or after 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, California. Dated this 27th day of June, 2007. J/ Qu_'V� - % SHARON L. DAWSON, CITY CLERK ++****+*******s****+++++*+ss««*ss++++*+***sss«**+++++**s«****** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 1 SHARON L. DAWSON, being fust 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. SHARON L. DAWSON, CITY CLERK Santa Clarita, California PubHrg/contph.doc 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 July 10, 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 August 28, 2007. The continued public hearing will be held at or after 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, California. Dated this 11th day of July, 2007. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF SANTA CLARITA V" a g SHARON L. DAWSON, CITY CLERK SS. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING 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 July 11, 2007, she caused the above notice to be posted at the door of the Council Chamber located at 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, California. aQ SHARON L. DAWSON, CITY CLERK Santa Clarita, California PubHrg/contph.doc 40 Smart Growth SCV July 10, 2007 Mayor McLean and Members of the City Council City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 SUBJECT: WRITTEN LIST OF ISSUES FOR STAFF RESPONE AT AUGUST 28, 2007 CITY COUNCIL HEARING REGARDING G&L/HENRY MAYO EXPANSION MASTER CASE 04-325 (MASTER PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04-022) Mayor McLean and Honorable Members of the City Council: Attached is Smart Growth SCV's written submission of issues we would like to have addressed prior to the August 28, 2007 City Council hearing on the G&L Realty/Henry Mayo Hospital Expansion. We hereby request that these issues be addressed in full by city staff, and ask that an adequate period for review of the response before be given prior to the next hearing. On behalf of.now more than 1,500 residents across Santa Clarita, I would like to say thank you for requiring staff to respond to these relevant concerns. We look forward to their response. _ David J. 9�Ony Chairman, Smart Growth SCV (818) 612-8440 Car david@smartgrowthscv.org cc: Ken Pulskamp, City Manager Ken Striplin, Assistant City Manager Paul Brotzman, Director of Community Development Lisa Hardy, Planning Manager Carl Newton, City Attorney RECEIVED AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT 7'to Lo" 1 MEETING ITEM NO. 122 FROM: 90,01-0 661.670.9690 1 661.554.0212 eFax I P.O. Box 55734 Valencia, CA 91385-0734 1 www.smartgrowthscv.org No Hospital, No Community Benefit Justification for the Development Agreement proposal had a false presumption -- that the master plan for G&L Realty and the nonprofit hospital was by itself a sufficient community benefit to the community. A further false presumption was that this master plan would be Santa Clarita's only health care option. We now know that this assumption is wrong. The City must not give for-profit G&L Realty a Development Agreement unless they meet the same standards imposed upon every other for-profit developers who bring plans to the city. Approval of this Development Agreement, will set a precedent that can be exploited by every other developer in the future. Development Agreement Rejection The city's own polices require that Development Agreements only come to the city council after public hearings before the Planning Commission. There are now two Development Agreements: the first was denied by the Planning Commission and is on an appeal promoted by G&L Realty; the second is a totally new document on a much different project— it has never been seen by the Planning Commission. Return this case to the Planning Commission to get a recommendation from them that is now lacking. This is a new Development Agreement and a new project. No City Benefits in Agreement The city has approved approximately 20 Development Agreements in its history and in each of those there was a base of drawbacks and advantages that were part of the underlying project. In each and every case, the Development Agreement gave the city substantially increased additional benefits (huge increases in road fees, park land, trails, school benefits, open space donations, etc.) The planning commission unanimously rejected the fust of the expansion plan's two Development Agreements on a 5 to 0 vote because no similar package of benefits to the city was included including no promised hospital expansion. This revised brand new Development Agreement contains this same fatal flaw. Don't Vote On Basis of Rumors This case is clouded with a long list of rumors. Among them are: Providence Hospital is attempting to drive Henry Mayo out of business, Providence wants this'master plan denied so they will have less competition, Providence wants Henry Mayo to be damaged so that Providence may buy Henry Mayo at a steep discount, and despite Providence's publicly declared intention to move ahead with a new hospital, they are lying. The public is not immune: one rumor states that the opposition to this inappropriate master plan is grounded in the selfish demands of narcissistic yuppie NIMBY's willing to sacrifice the good of the community for their limited self interest. Another is that the many doctors who have decried the plan as detrimental to health care are somehow doing this with some vengeful agenda against the hospital's CEO. The city council may only base its decision on information that is presented to it and the public as part of a legally noticed public hearing. Unless the council introduces, discusses, and verifies baseless rumors, it should disregard them. Rumors must be left out of the approval process. No C.U.P. Language Posted Prior to Hearing Every Conditional Use Permit that has proceeded to this advanced stage has made all the project specifics available to the general public and to the city. Included in every other proposal for a conditional use permit, have been conceptual architectural renderings, precise layout plot plans, project specific environmental studies, detailed landscape concepts, drainage concepts, and more. In this case, none of the important details for a conditional use permit are before the council or the public. None of the internal uses on the site are specified. It has not been made public about how health care will be divided between the "for-profit" G&L Realty buildings and whatever remains of the old, nonprofit community hospital. This must be corrected. Independent Study Inconclusive The city council and the community were promised an independent study (done by XSA) to determine the "appropriateness" of medical office building space on this campus. The study was also to determine whether other providers were looking to build in Santa Clarita within the next 20- 25 years. The study is inconclusive. Its conclusion states that: "Medical office space is deficient, adequate, or excessive depending on how space is allocated." "It will require detailed facility planning to identify the optimal balance of physician office space and other hospital/clinical program space to meet the hospital's strategic goals. . A Conditional Use Permit also requires specifics. The current plan does not include the specifics required by law or even the specifics required to determine appropriate use of space! Until the hospital answers are presented, and enforcement mechanisms are established in writing, the council must not act. The community's needs, not G&L Realty's, are the city's responsibility. Third Contract Revision The hospital plan and the G&L Realty plan are in their third revision. No concrete written guarantee for hospital expansion with all of its specifics can yet be found. The community would be far safer if two separate cases were submitted, one for the nonprofit and the other by the for- profit G&L Realty. No clearly documented legal and financial data has ever been submitted for planning commission, staff, city council, and public review to explain why this so-called plan has not been submitted as two cases. Without a complete exploration of the financials in this project, no special favors or gifted public fund equivalents are warranted for this G&L office development. There is nothing in the plan that suggests this expansion will improve the financial condition or quality of care at this facility. If the hospital falls again into bankruptcy, or the land is sold with entitlements to a third party, only the office space is guaranteed. The potential failure of the hospital is highlighted in the published findings of KSA's independent study: the hospital portion of the plan is "considerably undersized" and the `competitiveness of the hospital may be impacted." The city is precluded from making value judgments on a for-profit project. Please justify the rationale for recommending otherwise. G&L Realty — Who Are They? G&L Realty has attempted to hide behind the nonprofit public benefit corporation of our community hospital. Before any action occurs, the council and this community deserve to know who these people are. The principals of G&L should be called to answer these requests: • The names of the owners of G&L Realty A present and former tenant list for G&L's other projects. The City Council and the comraunity deserve references and recommendations The presence of a company principal at the City Council hearing's podium • An explanation on why G&L hasn't proposed the usual package of benefits to the community in order to earn a Development Agreement • The reason G&L hasn't chosen to speak on its own behalf as every other major developer always does? • The number of G&L's parking lots that require paid parking. What percentage is that of all the parking lots they own? • A list of the kinds of support they have provided for the community's betterment. G&L is supposed to have been part of this community since at least 2003. Other developers contribute regularly to the community's nonprofit and charitable organizations. G&L Appearance Throughout the city's history every major developer who comes before the city has appeared personally. Newhall Land & Farming Company, American Beauty Homes, the Golden Valley Ranch Project, and every other major developer has had their company owner or company chief executive present themselves to the City Council. G&L Realty should be challenged to meet this same standard of honesty, openness and transparency. Only company principals, not hired advocates, can deliver on project specks. Land Use Decision This project has been pushed by G&L Realty as a health care issue and not a land use decision using the false assumption that this huge master plan was Santa Clarita's only health care option. This is a land use decision. In addition to the fact that an estimated 60% of Santa Clarita's residents use other hospitals, at least one of those providers, Providence, has publicly stated their intention to build a hospital here. Historically, the city never gets involved in the inner -business workings of development proposals. Resist the temptation to become enmeshed in a business plan, view this as a land use issue. City Not in Hospital or Any Other Business Many times in the city's history, developers have appeared asking the city to restrict competition. Although this is a land use proposal, G&L Realty is asking the city to make a decision based not primarily on land use issues but on business criteria having to do with healthcare. In reality, the Development Agreement, in its third incarnation, makes no commitment to build any hospital expansion. The justification for asking for city involvement with this business decision was the false notion that this proposal was Santa Clarita's only health care option. It is now common knowledge that Henry Mayo has other options to allow them to provide their portion of good health care for Santa Clarita. The premise that City Council can violate the historic barriers that prevent the city from getting involved in an applicant's business isn't valid here. As the city attorney has told the council before with other developments, it is not required, and in many instances not allowed, to consider viability of a proposal. EIR Square Footage Disclosure Among the technical EIR defects are the concerns expressed by the city's fire department about the safety of this proposal. In the initial EIR preparation, the fire department submitted the following testimony, "It appears that the stated total square footage of proposed buildings does not include the parking structures. The EIR should specify the floor area of all roofed structures." The developer's response states, "As relates (sic) to the. revised draft EIR, the onsite parking structure floor area, as proposed, would be approximately 909,000 square feet. However, the parking structure area to be constructed does not affect the nature or significance of environmental impacts associated with the project. As such, the text in the revised draft EIR will not be changed to include this description of proposed parking area, and no further analysis is required." This significant flaw in the EIR remains - the square footage is off by 100%! In all other city development projects, the total square footage of the proposal has always carefully and publicly disclosed the amount of covered parking and development usages. They have almost always been presented as a grand total of square footage, which is then divided into covered parking and use categories. An example of this right now, is the Valencia Town Center mall expansion. Project Too Dense for Site Even with the recent reductions, the "new hospital master plan" is still more than one million two hundred thousand square feet of covered structure on 30 acres. The existing Valencia mall is about this same size, but on 80 acres, fronting on three major streets. This would be, by far, the densest, most intensive land use ever approved in Northern Los Angeles County by either the City of Santa Clarita or even by the county of Los Angeles - in a Residential Low zone. By using standard city project evaluation protocol this project is not 650,000 sq. ft. Again, it is more than 1.2 million sq. ft. This density is more than Dan Palmer's "Los Lomas Proposal" in Newhall Pass. This council is publicly opposing Los Lomas. Approving the HMNMH expansion plan in a Residential Low zone is dangerous for planning and medical care. Developers: G&L vs. Dan Palmer Developer Dan Palmer has proposed the "Los Lomas" project — 2,300,000 sq. ft of commercial development on 555 acres — larger than the Valencia Town Center mall, the Golden Valley Ranch shopping center, and the Valencia Marketplace combined. Also included is a six -hundred room hotel, a subterranean MetroLink station, an offsite parking structure for the station, a performing arts center, a second Newhall railroad tunnel, a new on and off ramp south of Calgrove on Interstate 5, a senior high school, a junior high school, two elementary schools, and 5,800 residential dwelling units. All told, this proposal is about 10 million square feet. It is an example of a complete abuse of planning density on the available land. In comparison, if Dan were to adopt the G&L Realty density model, parking requirements, and design standards, the size of his project would increase from 10 million square feet to over 22.2 million square feet. The City is opposing Los Lomas because it is far too dense for the site. At more than double the density of the Los Lomas project, G&L Realty is setting a new density standard for Santa Clarita Valley and is placing it in a "Residential Low" zone. Visual Impact The Valencia Town Center mall expansion was not allowed to proceed further without a condition that a public hearing on the appearance of the mall -buildings was held before the planning commission. So far, G&L Realty has not provided even a vaguely conceptual architectural rendering of build -out to allow this community and City Council to understand anything about its appearance. This project must be revised to conform with the general plan. Have G&L show this community how their massive project looks. This lack of speck visual information is even a violation of the California Environmental Quality Act. An EIR requires the most specific information that an applicant can provide about how a project will affect the environment, specifically including visual impact analysis. Planning Commission Recommendation The planning commission voted three to two to approve a master plan vastly different from the current one. The planning commission also voted unanimously to deny the Development Agreement because, unlike all other city Development Agreements, it contained no significant benefits to the city. The planning commission action on the master plan was swayed by an idea put forth by G&L Realty. This idea was that no other options for good health care in SCV will be available for the next 25 years. G&L Realty persuaded members of our community that it was not possible for another hospital to be built in Santa Clarita. We now know that this is false. Had the Planning Commission known then that another major hospital plans to locate in Santa Clarita, they would have upheld good land use planning principles and denied this so called "master plan." How Good is the Hospital? The quality of health care at Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital, either good or bad, has no bearing on a decision which should be made on a land use issue. Hospital Cut Too Much; Offices Saved The KSA study finds that inpatient space per bed has been cut back so badly that it is now fifty percent of average. It finds that it is "considerably undersized compared to similar sized hospitals." Certainly, G&L Realty's latest 40% reduction of patient beds and the hospital's Administration building didn't help this. The consultant's study also says the following: "the [hospital] facility expansion does not provide enough hospital space for inpatient services given the number of inpatient beds and current planning standards. If this is not addressed adequately, the competitiveness of the hospital may be impacted." The majority of the campus buildings no longer belong to the nonprofit hospital and the proposed expansion has no promise of enhanced inpatient medical care. In the proposed project, the built -out neonatal intensive care unit, operating rooms, a full cath lab, and other important facilities are absolutely not guaranteed. They can't be, as the building that supports them isn't guaranteed. Concern for good health care must override the concerns of developers who don't even make themselves available to this community. Project Not Consistent with SCV's General Plan There are nearly 300 goals and policies in the City's general plan. The law says that a real estate development such as the HMNMH expansion plan must be consistent with most of them. Nowhere in the entire document is there mention of how this project meets a majority of these goals and policies. In fact, the project violates most of them. This plan violates the city's general plan giving the community offices and no genuine health care. Gift of Public Funds The city of Santa Clarita has legal latitude with concessions given to a nonprofit public benefit tax exempt corporation such as our community hospital. As an example, the city could offer land that it owns for a dollar per year anywhere in Santa Clarita for the construction of a real hospital. But what it might do for a nonprofit, it cannot do for an out of town for-profit developer. These same kinds of concessions would be unprecedented, inappropriate, and perhaps illegal if extended to a private for-profit development company. That is why the "for-profit" G&L Realty has been trying to hide behind our community hospital. City staff, the hospital's many loyal supporters and some members of the general public have been deluded -- many of the concessions offered to G&L Realty are so unusual and so unprecedented that they may constitute a "gift of public funds" to a private development interest. Request separate proposals and separate Development Agreements from these two very different applicants. Missing Information A Development Agreement rides with the land and can be conveyed to successors in interest that may buy the nonprofit hospital and/or the for-profit G&L Realty holdings. Conspicuous by their absence, are certain copies of the deeds for these properties. Of particular interest, is the original deed to the hospital which would include restrictions on the use of the land. This is missing from the City's public record and the County records office. No one knows the precise relationship between G&L Realty and the "nonprofit" hospital. Copies of all of the deeds should be in city hands and made available to this community so everyone may determine whether this case is appropriate among the nonprofit hospital, the for-profit developer, and the public agency of the city of Santa Clarita. Earthquake Safety Impaired The hospital and G&L proponents argue that this huge office building proposal overloading this one small location is necessary because residents won't be able to drive "over the hill" to get medical care in an emergency. G&L cites the Northridge earthquake as justification. The city must not forget that immediately after the Northridge earthquake of 1994, a portion (between Goldcrest and Arroyo Parkway) of the only access road to the hospital, which is McBean Parkway, was covered with oil from the tanks located above it. Other roads from the rest of Santa Clarita to the hospital were closed from one day to one week for safety inspections because of fire, floods, and oil spills. Putting all the valley's health care services in one location accessed by a single road does not make us safe. There is also a possibility that in a disaster such as this, the entire hospital could be destroyed. All our health care service in one location is bad planning and is dangerous. Disaster Plan If the city of Santa Clarita becomes involved in the business plan for health care services, it will be different from its historic approach to land use. The city has never weighed in on the internal workings or competitive stance of shopping centers, business parks, housing projects, and more. G&L Realty's large proposal is on a single road. City codes require that a project of this size have not one, but three means of access. This project is about the same size as the Valencia Town Center shopping mall on a site one third the size of the mall. Imagine the mall traffic if two of its three roadways were stripped away. A one -road access project is going to be impossible to reach in many disaster scenarios. Roads from Saugus, Newhall, Canyon Country and Castaic will probably be blocked, as they have been in past emergencies. Most importantly, the only road to this hospital, McBean Parkway, will not be passable in many disaster scenarios. That is why Santa Clarita City should plan for other facilities in other locations. "Calle Arbor" Safety The 20th anniversary of the city of Santa Clarita serves to remind everyone why the city was formed — to avoid the errors imposed on this valley by the county of Los Angeles. One case in point is a community which is a few feet from the hospital on Callie Arbor Street. These 250 homes inherited a very significant safety hazard from the county — they have only a single means of access. The county should have required three; they included only one. This single point of access terminates into. Orchard Village Road just a few feet from the intersection that the traffic study indicates must be widened to mitigate traffic caused by the hospital project. Even though any mitigation will require taking of homes through eminent domain, congestion created by the project is so severe that the safety of the roughly 900 residents on "Calle Arbor" and the entire Valencia community is still threatened. Eminent Domain The HMNMH expansion project creates dangerous traffic conditions which, in turn, causes significant air pollution. The congestion is so severe that routine as well as emergency vehicle access will be delayed significantly. The EIR states that the only way that this dangerous congestion can be addressed is if roadways are increased in capacity. The project's solution to traffic congestion is the adoption of a "statement of overriding considerations of public benefit" or "S.O.C." In expensive mailings, G&L Realty has stated that the adoption of an "S.O.C." somehow resolves the congestion nightmare and the threat of eminent domain. Without the widening of the roads, the traffic congestion remains unbearable — even dangerous. The only way to even slightly improve the traffic conditions is to remove homes to widen the roads. G&L Realty asked to be relieved from widening the roads based on the false statement that its office building project is somehow a community benefit. Uphold the city's general plan and good planning principles. It is not necessary to create dangerous and even illegal traffic conditions. Santa Clarita has options that provide good health care and good planning, including medical office buildings constructed within a few miles of the hospital. A statement of overriding considerations of public benefit for this project is no longer possible or necessary. More Than One Choice for Healthcare When this project began, G&L Realty tried to convince everyone who supports a hospital that this hugely inappropriate project was SCV's only choice for health care. Providence Health System has publicly committed to building a full hospital in SCV. It already has a large medical office building open and operating just a few feet from city hall. This large office complex will serve its new hospital, but be several miles away from the new hospital location The SCV will have other choices for health care. Santa Clarita does not have to violate everything it believes for good health care to be available. Consultant Study must be revised The Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the Development Agreement. In a 3-2 vote, the Planning Commission said that the entire Master Plan would be subject to extensive revision, based on the findings in a study they would never see. This KSA study was supposed to be an accurate assessment of how much office space is typically located on the same physical campus as an actual hospital. However, KSA decided to include office space in other hospitals located as far as one-third mile off the hospital campus in their study -- regarding them as if they were located on the hospital property itself. The study therefore does not help the council or the community in understanding the proposal before you. If G & L's office buildings were located away from the hospital campus, the traffic studies, the visual impact analysis, the light and glare, and the noise studies would not apply to this proposal. The consultants did not ask the City Council, the Planning Commission, or the community if they could make this huge change for the basis of their study. Please direct the consultants to redo their study. In this new study, make sure KSA only analyzes the amount of office space actually located on a hospital campus and make this study available to the public at least two weeks before the next hearing on this issue. Competition Study Invalid When checking to see if any other hospital was interested in locating in the Santa Clarita Valley, the consultants at KSA indicated that they only contacted companies that they knew when preparing their report. Providence Health Care has stated in a television interview and in numerous newspaper articles that they intend to build a hospital in Santa Clarita Valley as soon as possible. The consultants never contacted Providence. Many of the other major health care providers in Southern California similar to Providence were also not contacted. No Hearing on Development Agreement Appeal Both the city and the two applicants agreed that two different development agreements about two different projects were at issue at the June 5, 2007 City Council hearing. The first was the agreement denied by the Planning Commission. The second development agreement was a brand new document never seen by the Planning Commission. It is city policy that development agreements come to the City Council after complete public hearings by the Planning Commission, along with a recommendation. No appeal hearing on the first development agreement has happened. No recommendation from the Planning Commission on the second agreement has occurred. G & L admits that the second agreement is new. Send this new document and the revised project it represents to the Planning Commission, according to city of Santa Clarita rules No Development Agreement Benefits Since the city began, it has been city policy to issue development agreement contracts only if an underlying project offers substantial benefits beyond the project itself. Primary among the reasons for the Planning Commission's rejection of the first development agreement is that no benefits to the public were in the agreement. The second new development agreement is no better; with one inadequate exception - G & L Realty proposes to give $250,000 to the city for a new TCU. Before approval, G & L Realty must include outstanding community benefits in the agreement. This is an example of why two separate development agreements, one for the non-profit hospital, and one for the for-profit private developer are so appropriate. Before these projects return, please secure two projects, two CUP's, and two development agreements. Development Agreement Costs City its Control The fact that all city control over the project was relinquished for 25 years was a central reason for the Planning Commission's five to zero vote for denial of the first development agreement. The second, completely new agreement is no better. All control is taken from the city. Please send this second agreement to the Planning Commission to discover its recommendation about this new document. That is what city procedures have always required. Splitting the "For Profit" and "Non Profit" Cases Everyone supports a single EIR for this case. What Smart Growth does not support is the blending of the very different requirements of a non-profit, tax exempt, and public benefit corporation with those of a private for profit developer. Two CUP's, and two development agreements, along with the other permits are clearly necessary. What the city can and should do for our local non-profit hospital are very different from what they can and should do for an out-of-town, unknown, for profit developer. Appeal of Planning Commission Recommendation Smart Growth SCV had a long list of reasons explaining why the action taken on the master plan by the Planning Commission in a three to two vote was improper — a full public hearing covering all the facts and the law involving this plan is necessary to demonstrate the defects in this action. The city's procedures for moving a Master Plan Request form the Planning Commission to the City Council with a recommendation are precise. To secure our rights, Smart Growth SCV filed a timely appeal, with full payment of all fees, which was accepted by the City of Santa Clarita. We looked forward to proving beyond all doubt that the recommendation action was premature, incomplete, out of compliance with city policy and precedent, and far more. More than a week after our appeal was accepted by the city, our appeal fees were returned, and our timely, filed appeal was rejected. As a result, our rights have been compromised and damaged. Please direct city staff to restore our appeal so that we may present our case to the City Council. EIR Comments Please keep the final certification of the project EIR open. The project has been substantially revised. Whether or not the pew project is comparable to any of the project alternatives listed in the pending EIR has not been evaluated. The new revised project presents significantly different issues for visual impact analysis, view shed effect, traffic analysis, noise, architectural compatibility, and more. An EIR supplement, or at very minimum, an addendum is necessary under CEQA. Please require this additional required CEQA analysis before this case advances. Clarifications on the Draft "Issues and Questions from the June 12th 2007 City Council Meeting" report On behalf of everyone in the community who seeks the best health care for Santa Clarita, Smart Growth thanks the City Council for its initial list of the issues raised at the first hearing on these two proposals. The following are some clarifications and additions: - 1. The draft should say, "Where are the original deeds? Please produce them." For over a year and a half we have been told that the deeds are missing. G & L Realty must have them. They could not have closed escrow without them. 2. The draft report makes reference to a "revised" development agreement. One thing accomplished at the first hearing was that everyone agreed that there is a second, new development agreement. Please take the appropriate action accordingly. 3. The report mischaracterizes the testimony about access to the G & L property. Testimony verified that this massive project is located on a single means of access. That access is McBean Parkway. Orchard Village Road does not qualify as an additional means of access. 4. The Santa Clarita City General Plan has precise language within it that defines Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital as a community hospital exclusively. The HMNMH expansion plan attempts to transform our community hospital into a regional hospital. This cannot be done unless the City General Plan is amended as a result of a General Plan amendment request. No such request has been submitted by either G & L or the hospital. Unless such a request is filed this case cannot proceed. Additional Clarifications and Additions to the Issues List At the first hearing, the community development director incorrectly referred to the Henry Mayo, G & L Realty proposal as an infill project. The designation of "infill" refers to vacant land surrounded by existing development. Such vacant land is "infilled" with development that is compatible with its surroundings. This site is already fully developed in accordance with its designation in the general plan as a community hospital. The proposal before City Council is not infill -- it is a massive, vertical expansion that is more dense in its coverage by far than even the Dan Palmer Las Lomas outrage. If approved, it would be the densest proposal in Northern Los Angeles County located in any government jurisdiction. Parking Structure Mitigation Before this project returns, please require that the parking structures be placed under ground instead of thrusting into the sky. G & L Realty is a for-profit developer. In Beverly Hills, where it owns multiple medical office buildings miles away from any hospital, the City of Beverly Hills has required that for-profit development place the majority of its parking structures below ground. What is good enough for Beverly Hills might -well meet Santa Clarita's requirements. Smart Growth SCV July 10, 2007 Mayor McLean and Members of the City Council City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 SUBJECT. TRANSCRIPT FROM G&UHENRY MAYO EXPANSION MASTER CASE 04325 (MASTER PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04022) COUNCIL HEARING OF JUNE 269 2007 Mayor McLean and Honorable Members of the City Council: At the conclusion of the June 26, 2007 City Council hearing, city staff was directed to address a substantial list of concerns; including issues raised by the public and the City Council. Smart Growth SCV has included a transcript of key portions of the meeting to ensure that each issue raised can be addressed adequately. Common sense and good faith dictate that hearings should not reconvene until these a complete response is prepared. The public would further request an adequate period for review of staffs response before the item is heard again. On behalf of now more than 1,500 residents across Santa Clarita, I would like to say thank you for requiring staff to respond to these relevant concerns. We look forward to their response. R ds, David J. Gsy Chairman, Smart Growth SCV (818) 612-8440 Car david@smartgrowthscv.org cc: Ken Pulskamp, City Manager Ken Striplin, Assistant City Manager Paul Brotzman, Director of Community Development Lisa Hardy, Planning Manager Carl Newton, City Attorney 661.670.9690 1 661.554.0212 eFax I P.O. Box 55734 Valencia, CA 91385-0734 1 www.smartgrowthscv.org a 1 ORIGINAL 2 3 4 5 . 6 7 8 9 10 TRANSCRIPT OF VIDEO -RECORDED 11 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 12 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 13 JUNE 26, 2007 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Hutchings Number: 164373 22 23 24 25 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 (Video -recorded meeting 6-26-07; Section 1) 2 3 MAYOR MCLEAN: We now have Mr. David Gawny. And you A have -- we gave you 30 minutes but if you don't take it, 5 we wouldn't mind. 6 MR. GAWNY: You never know. Bottom right -- thank 7 you Madame Mayor and members of the Council. I truly do 8 appreciate the opportunity to speak this evening. I'm 9 going to be close to 30 minutes, unfortunately, and I 10 don't -- I can't break it up over several people but I'll 11 try to keep it interesting. 12 I just want to start off by saying I agree with 13 pretty much everything that was just said. I know we need 19 a hospital. I even agree that we need medical office 15 space in Santa Clarita Valley. I think the question is do 16 we need it all on this site? And I don't know that that 17 is the case and I hope to dispel that myth here tonight. 18 I wanted to start off -- if you could continue on 19 there, Tony. Smart Growth SCV, you guys are pretty 20 familiar with it by now; it's a group of 1900 citizens. 21 We are definitely not a NIMBY group. These are people 22 from across the Valley that are deeply concerned. No, we 23 don't have the money to market and send out colorful 24 flyers and speak in vague references like some of the 25 flyers we've seen from the hospital, but the people that 2 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.327.0 1 understand the facts about this plan are deeply concerned 2 about what it includes. 3 I want to make it clear that we're pro -expansion. 4 Since the start of this project we have always understood 5 -- the local residents have always understood that this 6 expansion is needed. There is some expansion at the 7 hospital that is needed. We understand there is 8 helicopters. We understand there is noise. No, we don't 9 like it, but we accept it as something the community 10 needs. We're asking for something reasonable and we have 11 not seen it yet in this plan. 12 Go ahead. I'm going to kind of go through this part 13 quickly here. As we know, G&L Realty bought this land for 14 about $3.5 million dollars from Henry Mayo in 2003. Roger 15 Seaver made a comment recently that that land is actually 16 valued at about $8000 -- excuse me, $8 million dollars. 17 In truth, in checking on tax records, the tax assessed 18 value on that is closer to $18 million dollars and that's 19 generally about 30 percent below actual market value. So 20 that piece of property is probably somewhere between $20 21 and $25 million dollars. It's definitely a nice gain for 22 G&L Realty from Beverly Hills. 23 Go ahead. This is the hospital plan that was 24 proposed here coming into the Council until May when a 25 reduction was made of 190,000 square feet. 3 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 Go ahead. What the hospital actually took from that 2 plan was 40 percent of their patient tower that they were 3 proposing, the administration building that was going to 4 house their staff, and also a parking structure that is 5 no longer needed after that reduction. I want to make it 6 clear Smart Growth SCV and the neighbors around the 7 neighborhood, if you want to talk about the NIMBY folks, 8 did not advocate taking hospital space from this plan. 9 We've advocated taking medical office space, and in fact 10 we're concerned about this reduction. 11 Go ahead. In total, 60 percent of the hospital space 12 has been removed from the plan. G&L Realty gave up 13 absolutely nothing from their buildings. 14 Go ahead. Traffic, even after this reduction, still 15 fails at the main entrance to the hospital. This Council 16 will have to make a decision whether to authorize eminent 17 domain on these homes or they will do a Statement of 18 Overriding Considerations to ignore this. This is a good 19 indication of how significant this problem was at full 20 build -out when the hospital was proposing that. There are 21 major traffic problems at this intersection and we're 22 going to cover that a little bit later in another 23 speaking point. 24 The project is 1.2 million square feet total. Tt's 25 going to quadruple the density of the site. This is 4 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 actually larger than Valencia Town Center on a parcel of 2 land three-eighths the size. And what does Santa Clarita 3 Valley get? They get a 50 percent increase in beds, they 4 get three times the office space on this campus, and a 5 hospital portion that is not guaranteed in the plan. And 6 I think this is one of our big sticking points here 7 lately. I agree with Mr. Broadson [ph] there is a lot of 8 confusion about the plan, and this is a big part of it. 9 Go ahead. I want to talk about just the history of 10 how this has been presented. In 2005 the residents really 11 -- I have not spoken -- I can say this honestly, I have 12 not spoken to a resident that ever received notice on 13 this when this was first at the Planning Commission. A 14 few residents showed up at an open house that the 15 hospital noticed, or just sent out and said, "Come to see 16 our open house." And those few residents, myself 17 included, started to understand that there was an 18 environmental report here of a million square feet of 19 usable square footage inside the hospital and office 20 buildings, and only included 55 beds in the total 21 project. The CEO came back at that Planning Commission 22 meeting and said that that was an error; they were going 23 to correct it. 24 2006 in September they came out with a new 25 environmental report that did correct that. They then 5 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 followed up with an 11th hour Development Agreement, that 2 25 -Year Master Plan Contract that again said no 3 obligation to develop a hospital in this. The CEO called 4 this oversight. 5 In 2007, then, we have the 190,000 square foot 6 reduction of hospital space. G&L cut nothing. 7 Go ahead. And now we've got a new Development 8 Agreement that's been proposed and it again offers no 9 commitment to a hospital. The answer now is that the CEO 10 -- according to CEO Roger Seaver is they cannot really 11 determine the demand. I find this really hard to believe 12 from a $140 million dollar organization that they don't 13 know when we're going to need a hospital building and 14 when we're going to need office building services there. 15 I find it also difficult to believe that the independent 16 study has said that they've cut the space back so badly 17 in the hospital that the competitiveness of the hospital 18 itself is going to be impacted by this. I think that's 19 extremely concerning. 20 Specifically, and I know probably nobody can read 21 that, the average hospitals that they made the 22 comparisons to, there were about 7.2 or 15 there, said 23 that there were about 2000 square feet per bed. Henry May 24 now has about half of that and it's going to get worse 25 with the Master Plan. So many of the in-patient services, 6 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 the operating rooms and things that they suggest they're 2 going to offer -- many people say they're going to offer 3 tonight are not in writing. There's no trigger 4 mechanisms, and quite frankly in my opinion it's not 5 ready for a hearing yet if these things aren't in the 6 Plan. 7 Go ahead. The hospital's future -- I'm going to have 8 to read this over here. The conclusions of the study, 9 "Existing in-patient facilities are considerably 10 undersized compared to similar sized contemporary 11 hospitals. The facility expansion plan does not provide 12 enough hospital space for in-patient services given the 13 number of in-patient beds. If this is not addressed 14 adequately, the competitiveness of the hospital may be 15 impacted." 16 This whole plan is supposed to be a hospital plan, 17 and already we're looking at the new hospital and 18 wondering if it's actually going to meet its goals of 1.9 being here and providing for the community. I love to 20 hear that we're going to get healthcare, but we've cut 21 the very part of the plan that we're supposed to be 22 getting for all the residents of Santa Clarita Valley. 23 On the contrary, the medical office buildings, 24 they've had an attitude of keep it at all costs. KSA says 25 that -- the independent study found the office space is 7 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 either deficient, adequate, or excessive; totally 2 inconclusive in their findings. 3 We came up with the Centers of Excellence. I'm not 9 going to bring up the secret memos again, but there are 5 hidden numbers and hidden uses that have suddenly come 6 in. Nobody can actually see that. Again, there's no 7 triggers, there's no enforcement mechanisms for that. 8 We've talked to the City Staff about it and I guess this 9 is still being worked out. But that is extremely 10 concerning. 11 It seems that there are great pains to justify the 12 medical office space while the hospital is the first 13 thing to be punted out of this plan. 14 Next. We know about the Development Agreement's 15 largely. I'll kind of go through this quickly. This was 16 originally proposed by a G&L Realty attorney, not written 17 by our non-profit hospital. 18 Go ahead. In it, as I've mentioned, there's no 19 commitment to a hospital. They are a sole discretion to 20 build out office space immediately. They have a very, 21 very loose -- loosely worded commitment now that they 22 will issue a contract for the in-patient building and 23 begin construction. But after that happens, everything 29 else starts for the rest of the build -out on the plan. 25 There's no refusal of permits; the City can't stop 8 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 I this for the next 20 years. No slow growth initiatives 2 can stop this. No Council, present or future, can stop 3 it. And the new contract offers pretty much the same 4 thing, all the reasons why the Planning Commission 5 rejected this. 6 Go ahead. I want to just take a quick look at some 7 comparative hospitals in size to what Henry Mayo is 8 promoting now as a downsized project. What we see 9 already, as I mentioned, eminent domain requirements at 10 the main intersection. If the hospital is built it's 11 going to serve less than 40 percent of the Valley. We 12 know that that is not the majority, certainly, and is 13 probably going to be far less now with their new 14 reductions. And it's impossibly large for the site. 15 If you can go ahead, Tony. I want to start off with 16 just -- this is a hospital that has -- this is Las 17 Robles, has 265 beds. They just completed a $120 million 18 dollar Master Plan expansion. They added 200,000 square 19 foot hospital, not 125. So almost double the size. 20 They're only putting 90 beds into it. Henry Mayo is 21 suggesting that they're going to have 125,000 square foot 22 facility with 120 beds. And, I'm sorry,- Las Robles had 90 23 beds in it; I think I mentioned that. 24 The things that are interesting here is this 25 hospital is only three stories tall. It's the most -- I HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 Planning Commission found this most similar to the 2 community as Henry Mayo. It's the one that's most similar 3 of the hospitals that were compared. And they were kept 4 to three stories. It's designed to add a fourth story, to 5 be added when funding becomes available. It can be done. 6 We've heard from the hospital that is just not possible. 7 Also, their parking structures are two levels below 8 ground, something else that Henry Mayo has flatly said 9 that we just could not possibly do. 10 I want to throw in just quickly here something I 11 meant to mention. I've got a handout here I wanted -- 12 there's a couple of issues here with General Plan and 13 requests from the residents, and also requests from the 14 Planning Commission that were brought up. And I've 15 included the developer's response to those comments and 16 you can see there is a pretty uncaring attitude back from 17 the developer about the issues that impact the community 18 here. 19 Go ahead, Tony. This hospital is 290 beds. As you 20 can see it's getting a little bit more now where we're 21 looking in commercial and industrial uses. This has homes 22 on one corner of it, but definitely in a commercial and 23 industrial zone. 24 Go ahead. This is Glendale Memorial Hospital. This 25 has 334 beds. Again, Henry Mayo is going to have 350. 10 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 This is clearly four-sided access. All these hospitals 2 have four-sided street access around them, immersed in a 3 commercial and industrial zone. 4 Go ahead. This is Antelope Valley Medical Center. 5 This has 341 beds. They have the luxury of a lot of room 6 to expand there. It's a good site for a hospital, I would 7 say. There's roads all the way around it and it sits 8 right on the 14 freeway. 9 And then we look at Henry Mayo and you can see that 10 there's just thousands and thousands of homes in this 11 picture. There are no commercial enterprises in this 12 picture except for Facey Medical Center and Sunrise 13 Assisted Living. These homes -- when we hear -- I read in 14 the paper someone on our staff had said that there were 15 six homes that were significantly impacted. There are 16 thousands of homes. Avenida Navarre that comes up -- all 17 those cars have to go up to McBean to get out of their 18 neighborhood. They sit there waiting for the signal to 19 change every morning and every night. It's the same thing 20 down on Calle Arbor and Orchard Village. There are 21 residences there that are very difficult to get out of 22 their neighborhoods. So the logic behind the plan is a 23 little bit difficult to believe. 24 Keep going, Tony. Thank you. When you zoom in, you 25 can see there's no room to expand this street. It's got 11 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 one-sided street access. The only solution for this will 2 be eminent domain, and whether we postpone that to some 3 future Council we can do that and everybody can say 4 there's no responsibility, but at some point that is 5 going to be the answer here and it is the only solution 6 moving forward. 7 Keep going. Couple of little fuzzy facts that we 8 hear from the hospital. They've reduced their plan; it's 9 now 650,000 square feet as we brought up last week. They 10 are refusing to include parking in that. That is a 1.2 11 million square foot project. It's actually increased from 12 their 900,000 square foot project they were talking about 13 before. It adds 120 new hospital beds, we hear, but the 14 plan will actually include 55 beds from reallocated 15 space, some of those from a closed TCU and that'll be in 16 the next decade. And after that, there's no promises for 17 anything. 18 The eminent domain is not required. I just addressed 19 that; 1 won't go over that again. 20 Go ahead, Tony. I think one of the things that's 21 most concerning to all of us, outside from the healthcare 22 issue, is that this is a 25 -year master plan precedent. 23 How we vote on this project is pivotal to how development 24 will get done in this city for the next 25, 30, 50 years. 25 Every developer will come with 25 -year Development 12 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 Agreements and want these things from the City. So far 2 G&L has produced $250,000 dollars for a TCU. That is the 3 size of a -- it's going to be a TCU in a pantry, it would 4 seem. That is so small and so miniscule for the amount of 5 money they're making on this deal. I think it's pathetic. 6 Go ahead. In conclusion, this is a $140 million 7 dollar a year organization with a 10 percent profit. They 8 know exactly what demand is and when it will be needed. 9 They say that it's going to be tough to get approvals; 10 they can't promise anything. Approvals are not a mystery. 11 There are other hospital administrators I've talked to 12 that are very clear on how it's done and how long it will 13 take and when it'll be done. 14 Go ahead. Right now what we are being asked to do is 15 make a financial speculation on an arrangement between 16 these two for-profit and non-profit entities, with an 17 arrangement that really only guarantees the for -profit's 18 interests. The hospital has promised nothing and it 19 promises nothing back to the community. Deeply 20 concerning. The City cannot engage in for-profit 21 financial plans; that is they are precluded -- the City 22 is precluded from that. And I don't want to get on legal 23 issues. I think I really want to attack more from a 24 common sense issue. There are a lot of dangers with this 25 project and there is a lot of confusion. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 NOTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 That ends the -- that's the end, pretty much, I think. Go ahead and click one. Yeah, that's fine. Ends the visual part of my presentation. I wanted to address just a couple of other issues that I think need to be addressed. The independent study was, I think, wisely suggested by this Council, and I believe Councilman Kellar had ordered that, to look at the appropriateness of office space on this campus. The Planning Commission appended their findings. When we looked at all these impacts they 11 had deep concerns about the impacts of this project. And 12 what they said is, "Well, this is our only hope for 13 medical care and, you know, let's look at that 14 independent study and based on that we will recommend it 15 for approval." It was a meager 3-2 vote. 16 The Council. -- or, excuse me, the independent 17 consultant came back this last hearing and talked about 18 the appropriateness. And I want to mention just a couple 19 things about that. I think what Mayor Marsha McLean 20 brought up was very key, that they did not use sites that 21 were consistent at all with this development. They 22 brought up things that were -- they used inner city 23 campuses in sometimes -- the density was not even 24 relevant to the type of zoning we're comparing to. 25 The numbers were pumped up using the Centers of 14 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 Excellence strategies. I don't understand why the 2 hospital won't come forward if the consultant will not. I 3 don't understand why the hospital won't come forward with 4 the Centers of Excellence memo that is client privileged, 5 especially when the public paid for part of that study. 6 They also pumped up numbers, and this was hard to 7 catch, the comparative hospitals, physicians that were 8 within a third of a mile of their campus were considered 9 to be on site at those campuses. That's three or four 10 city blocks. That's 1600 feet away at medical office 11 buildings that were four blocks away from hospitals that 12 they just added into the numbers. I don't remember the 13 Council or anybody giving them the latitude to do that. 14 So it really skewed up the numbers. I mean, I think 15 they're probably so skewed that the study should be found 16 invalid on that count. 17 I think the other thing that I want to bring up on 18 the second portion, identifying competing providers, it's 19 very interesting. Actually, one of our members talked to 20 them afterwards and I've confirmed this personally, they 21 did not contact Providence Holy Cross. The only provider 22 that has publicly said they were going to come here to 23 build, they did not contact. And when I asked him about 24 that, he said, "Well, we only contacted hospitals that 25 had a relationship with, and therefore we didn't really 15 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 contact Providence. We didn't contact a couple of others 2 that are local here also." I personally am offended that 3 we've paid $15,000 dollars as tax payers for that portion 9 of the study. I don't know what these guys did for the 5 money. 6 All the land use findings that the Planning 7 Commission passed on based on this study are totally 8 inconclusive and invalid. We lost that whole opportunity. 9 And it goes back to the title of the presentation, by the 10 way, I didn't make that clear but it's "Backwards Looking 11 Forward." The plan is backwards. We now can't go back to 12 the Planning Commission and look at the findings and 13 readdress those issues. It's now here and we've got an 14 inconclusive study to look at. 15 Secondly, no hospital expansion included in the 16 plan, I know I've hammered on this a bit. I just want to 17 mention, you know, it's interesting how specific we are 18 about the need for offices, how many offices are needed; 19 all that stuff's laid out very clearly. But we can't 20 determine demand for the hospital. Our concerns is that 21 if they can't determine that demand right now, then they 22 won't 20 years from now when that time comes. 23 I want to take a quote from Roger Seaver out of his 29 "Newsmaker" interview. It says -- this is in response to 25 talking about building the hospital -- "It's a Master 16 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 I Plan of 'what if.' Let's say Kaiser builds a hospital in 2 the Santa Clarita Valley and they're delivering 35 3 percent of the need. Or maybe they go up to 50 percent 9 and that's the second hospital. We may still need to 5 build out what's in the Master Plan because of the non - 6 Kaiser need for healthcare in the Valley. But if somebody "7 else builds a hospital and the demand isn't there, it 8 never gets built. It's a plan to the ultimate size, but 9 it's not a commitment." 10 You are betting thousands of homes on a Master Plan 11 of "what it's." I think it's a very, very dangerous 12 precedent for this city to engage in. The impacts that 13 you are overlooking on this project, or that is being 19 suggested that you overlook, are based on the fact that 15 we're going to have a hospital in the Plan, and the CEO 16 is already carving out a strategy to never build that 17 hospital. I think that is appalling. 18 The problem with going backwards is we don't have a 19 hospital in the Plan. We have a bunch of office buildings 20 first, and all of the things that KSA found about 21 detailed facilities planning is not here yet. So I don't 22 even know what we're talking about in terms of the public 23 benefit. I don't see any here. This is not a group that's 29 trying to protect a snow owl habitat. This is a group 25 that's trying to protect people's homes from being torn 17 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 out, and I don't see the alarm to stop the things that 2 are not in this Plan, or to bring up the things that are 3 not in this Plan. 9 We heard Roger Seaver at the last hearing say, "We 5 have every intention to build a hospital." This has been 6 heard now by the Planning Commission and this Council 7 going on two years, and they're still working out the 8 language to include the hospital in the Plan. I think 9 it's time that stopped. It's time to have some clarity on 10 that issue. 11 Finally, the conditional use permit. We have no 12 conditional use permit and the reasoning is that we are 13 going to -- still a work in progress. "We're working out 19 the details of it." This was the same reasoning we heard 15 at the Planning Commission and the problem continues here 16 at the City Council. The whole application is for a 17 conditional use permit. It's not spelled out. The public 18 can't see it. The Council can't see it. We talk in kind 19 of hazy figures and facts and then we say we're going to 20 add these things into the document, but I don't know. 21 Without this document, what are we actually hearing on 22 this evening? How can the Council and the public discuss 23 a project that is not clearly defined? 24 And here's the problem that results when we go 25 backwards like this: the Staff Report in the final vote 18 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 for the Planning Commission contained a paragraph -- and 2 by the way, I'm not accusing -- this is not an accusation 3 or collusion or anything. I'm not saying that, but I'm 4 just reading -- this is a problem that occurs. The Staff 5 says that, "Contained within the draft Conditions of 6 Approval of the conditional use permit is a very unique 7 condition PL -4. Staff has included a requirement that 8 prohibits the build -out of the project without future 9 build -out studies and possible need for further 10 environmental review. If the studies find that the future 11 traffic conditions are unacceptable and that no 12 acceptable mitigation measures are possible, then the 13 City Council may amend or deny the final Master Plan 14 build -out." 15 That sounded really good. I sat down at coffee and I 16 also heard this same thing, that this was going to be 17 included in the conditional use permit. 18 Here's what the conditional use permit item PL -4 19 actually said: "The build -out studies will determine if 20 the build -out final phase will have one or ore 21 significant effects not discussed in the environmental 22 report, or one or more significant effects that will be 23 substantially more severe than what was shown in the 29 environmental report." 25 So all of the concerns the Planning Commission had 19 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 about eminent domain and the parking and all the things 2 at Phase 3 build -out were exempted. And it was totally 3 misleading in the Staff Report. So again -- and again, 9 I'm not saying it's intentional but that's what happened. 5 And then the documents were handed out on Friday of Super 6 Bowl Sunday weekend, 120 pages -- 125 pages of them, and 7 the Commission voted on them on Tuesday. 8 This group, our group, filed a formal appeal. We 9 paid our fees to appeal for this reason and many others 10 and we were rejected a hearing. And I think -- I don't 11 know. It's -- it's kind of difficult to hear that that's 12 how the result of this came out. I want to be careful on 13 what I say here. 14 The COP at this point needs to be made available 15 immediately to the public before we have another hearing. 16 First, define the project. Then we have a discussion 17 about it. Smoke and mirrors and vague suggestion are not 18 how you plan a city or how we plan healthcare. 19 In conclusion I want to say this; the problems here 20 cannot be overlooked. Regardless how conflicted the 21 Council is about our need for a hospital, there are 22 substantial problems here. There's no hospital included 23 in the Plan; it's based on financial speculation. The 24 only promised gain in the Plan is a for-profit 25 developer's office building. 20 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 The City should engage other providers. I read in an 2 article here, I think it was in the "Daily News," Paul 3 Broadsman said it's "overreaching" for the City to do 4 that. It's "overreaching" for the City to engage private 5 enterprise -- or, excuse me, hospitals. But we engage 6 private enterprise all the time. I know that happens with 7 retailers, it happens with stores and malls and all the B things that we do. That's a huge function of the City. 9 I feel like we're bending over backwards to rush the 10 approval of this project and nobody is picking up the 1.1phone to just see if Providence got a phone call about 12 this issue. I don't understand. I don't want to say 13 there's an agenda, but there's just a real fall down on 14 what was supposed to happen when this study was entered 15 into and the agreement was entered into, and really on 16 behalf of the people that should be looking out for the 17 protection of the citizens here. 18 Finally I want to say that the City needs to split 19 the Master Plan. I don't see another solution to it; I'm 20 open to others. I've never been invited to have a 21 dialogue with the hospital in the last year and a half. I 22 understand they've given tours of their campus. I would - 23 - am so open, I can't even tell you, to trying to 29 understand the facts; our entire steering committee is. 25 But what we have are misleading stats and secrete memos 21 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 and hasty approvals, and I think really the reason is, is 2 that this is a for-profit development that is 3 masquerading as something underneath our hospital. And 4 we're going to get some healthcare here and I don't see 5 it in the Plan. We need to split that. We need to protect 6 the City. We need to protect our citizens. 7 Thank you very much. 8 MAYOR MCLEAN: Thank you. Please, no applause. One 9 side can't do it; the other can't either. 10 UNKNOWN: Thanks a lot. 11 MAYOR MCLEAN: Well so did you, so now you're done 12 with that; right? 13 Okay. I have had a request to -- by one of our 14 Council members to have Kerry Carmody come up. Is that -- 15 would you like to have that happen now? Is that the rest 16 of you? 17 Okay. Kerry Carmody, would you mind coming up, 18 please? He did submit a card, so it's all legal. 19 MR. CARMODY: My name is Kerry Carmody. I live in 20 Santa Clarita. I'm the Administrator and Chief Executive 21 of Providence Holy Cross Medical Center. 22 My purpose here is -- was really to come and address 23 a couple misstatements that were made at the original 24 proposal, but first of all I want to make very clear I've 25 worked with Roger Seaver; I respect Roger and his team. I 22 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.69'1.3210 1 respect Dr. Assomull and the Board, worked with them for 2 many years. Any hospitals that are building additional 3 capacity should be commended. There are only two doing 4 that, one is Holy Cross and one is Henry Mayo. It is a 5 very difficult business so let's make that very clear. 6 What I wanted to address are two things and one was 7 -- Mr. Gawny just discussed. At the presentation it was 8 mentioned that Providence had been called and had 9 expressed no interest. That's not true. I have stated to 10 the press when they call me and to anybody else, 11 including the physicians on staff at Holy Cross, which 12 include Dr. Assomull, that we have an interest up here. 13 And that interest is long term just as is Henry Mayo's. 14 And if you look at the study that was presented -- 15 first of all, I was never contacted and no one that I 16 know with in the Providence -- Holy Cross or Providence 17 Health and Services was contacted. So they may have 18 contacted somebody; I didn't know anything about it. I 19 was called by the press regarding that and so I sent a 20 letter to be very clear on what our long term plans are 21 for the Santa Clarita Valley. 22 The project as it was presented, is what -- I 23 believe by the consultants, confirms what our internal 24 analysis in 2003-2004 stated. As we begin our 129,000 25 foot expansion of Holy Cross in six months, that 23 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 expansion will be completed in two years and will be 2 filled almost immediately. Why? Because hospitals are 3 closing. Hospitals have closed in the San Fernando Valley 4 and the Santa Clarita Valley continues to grow. So our 5 internal analysis mirrored what the -- what the 6 consultant has showed, that in a five, ten, 15, 20, 25 7 year plan, Henry Mayo's expansion goes full board there 8 is still a significant need for additional acute care 9 beds in this Valley, and that's what we're here to 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 address. We have been in discussions. In the letter I stated when those were. We have nothing firm, but the plan is, once we do locate property wherever that would be, that we would begin a process for -- and that takes, as Roger pointed out, seven to eight years to be done. That's common knowledge. The other thing I wanted to discuss real briefly is the discussion on the cost of hospital construction. There's only two people in this room who really are experts at that and that's Roger and myself. In our new construction with 101 beds it is $1.35 million per bed, including the infrastructure to support it. A green field hospital, which is a hospital that is -- that is being built on a new -- on new land, or a new area, not contiguous to another hospital, is anywhere from $1.6 to 24 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 $2 million dollars per bed, and that is -- an example 2 would be UCLA. UCLA is building an all brand new campus; 3 it's $1.5 million dollars for that new expansion. So as 9 we look at opportunities, our commitment is looking at 5 $1.6 to $2 million per bed and we're committed to do 6 that, otherwise I wouldn't say so. 7 Thank you. Yes? 8 MR. FERRY: Your hospital -- you're my boss, by the 9 way. lie's on my school board at Alemany so he sort of has 10 the ability to tell me what to do so this is one of this 11 situations where it's always fun. 12 MR. CARMODY: It's never worked. 13 MR. FERRY: It's never worked. Right. You have a 14 relationship with G&L. I see that they're in a medical 15 building on -- 16 MR. CARMODY: Yeah. They've been -- G&L has been a - 17 - on a -- across from our campus for approximately 20 18 years, before I got to Holy Cross. I've been there 11 19 years. The building was -- is completely full so they 20 provide a good service to our physicians on campus. 21 MR. FERRY: Do you find them to be a credible 22 company? 23 MR. CARMODY: Oh, absolutely. I mean, we work with 24 other companies. Our building that is here in Valencia, 25 which our services are actually on our hospital license. 25 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 So that is Providence Holy Cross Medical Center there. 2 That is -- that is another very reputable building. So 3 there are a number of individuals. G&L we've always had a 9 very collegial. relationship. 5 MAYOR MCLEAN: Are there any other questions that 6 the Council would like to ask Mr. Carmody? Kerry, you 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 haven't located a site yet? MR. CARMODY: No. We have not. MAYOR MCLEAN: If you located a site tomorrow would it take you seven, eight years? MR. CARMODY: Well it depends on the site and the entitlement process, whether it's in the city, whether it's outside the city, and so forth. Once the property would be purchased, it is exactly as Roger stated. It takes six years to seven years. It's a two year process through OSHPD and it's at about three, four years at least in the planning stages. So you have to design everything from the ground up and if there's no utilities at the site where you're -- where you want to build, which includes, you know, water, power, and so forth, that's additional time and effort. So it just depends on the site. MAYOR MCLEAN: Would you be looking on the Canyon Country side right now? MR. CARMODY: We're actually -- between 30 and 38 26 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 acres is what we are looking for. We have not been able 2 to identify a site yet. We have -- we're working with -- 3 talking to, not working with, local developers and what 4 comes forward we'll take a look at. 5 I think there's -- another thing and I apologize 6 because this is just setting the record straight and it 7 has nothing against the Henry Mayo acute bed'expansion, 8 which is extremely needed. There's another player in the 9 Valley that's not represented and that's Kaiser, and they 10 send all their patients to Panorama City. So as we look 11 for an additional -- when we have that discussion, there 12 should be three hospitals involved in that. I don't know 13 what their plans are. 14 Our plans are to build a facility with another 15 emergency room serving this Valley, and let's say it's 16 six to ten years until we get the property. But that is 17 our commitment to the community. I live here and I 18 wouldn't stand in front of you unless it was true. 19 MAYOR MCLEAN: Kerry, in your letter you said that 20 you had 16 percent of the in -patients at Providence Holy 21 Cross of Santa Clarita, and I think Henry Mayo has 40 22 percent of the local service to the community. So that 23 means, like, 60 percent are going out to other hospitals. 24 MR. CARMODY: Some of those are Kaiser and I think 25 Roger has identified that appropriately. And some of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 27 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS. LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 those patients will go to other facilities whether they be UCLA, whether they be St. Joe's, Valley Price, or Northridge. MAYOR MCLEAN: Yeah. I understand Kaiser's planning on going into Palmdale. But what I wanted to ask you, is there some particular -- when you look at you have 16 percent and Henry Mayo has 40 percent, now is there some particular percentage that when a hospital looks to go spend that $1.5 million to $2 million dollars in beds that you have to look at having in order to -- MR. CARMODY: We're looking at long term. We're looking at growth of seven to nine percent per year in an aging population and the number of babies being born. And we project with our expansion at Holy Cross being completed in approximately 30 months we will be at -- right now we're at 100 percent occupancy every day. We'll be at 100 percent. The Valley is growing at 1.5 percent per year, that's San Fernando Valley. But that's on a 19 base of 1.5 million people. There are no new hospitals 20 beds being built in the San Fernando Valley. 21 MAYOR MCLEAN: Sounds to me like overall 22 mathematically every hospital is going to be crunched and 23 they're all going to need to expand because of population 29 growth. 25 MR. CARMODY: Yeah. And there's only two that are 28 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 talking about it. 2 MAYOR MCLEAN: That -- you and Henry Mayo. 3 MR. CARMODY: [inaudible] 9 MAYOR MCLEAN: Well thank you both for your vision. 5 Thank you. 6 MR. CARMODY: Thank you. 7 MR. BOYDSTON: I have some questions. First, is Holy 8 Cross -- is that a non-profit organization as well? 9 MR. CARMODY: A not-for-profit Catholic healthcare 10 system, Providence Health and Services. Roger is correct 11 -- or, the board member is correct that our system 12 offices are in Seattle, but we're a California 13 corporation. Money doesn't leave here. We have a local 14 board. Capital decisions are made locally and Dr. 15 Assomull can attest to the process that we go through so 16 -- and others. 2 MR. 17 We share 147 physicians between our two campuses, so 18 there's -- from a medical staff standpoint we work very 19 well with -- with them, as does Roger. 20 MR. BOYDSTON: And you say that you're interested in 21 looking at a site up here and if the -- I know that 22 another Council person here and myself have both 23 expressed the idea that we -- if we were able to find 29 land, possibly even land that's controlled by the City, 25 to put a second campus on the east side, would you be 29 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 interested in talking to us about that? 2 MR. CARMODY: Well we're interested in working and 3 talking to everybody. We haven't, obviously -- the 4 discussions are still happening. Nothing's been decided 5 upon. We'll work with the City, we'll work with the 6 County, and any local developers as well. 7 MR. BOYDSTON: And just one more while -- just to 8 tap your expertise. You say you're 100 percent -- your 9 beds are 100 percent filled -- 10 MR. CARMODY: Yes. 11 MR. BOYDSTON: -- in your facility. When you say 100 12 percent, what does that constitute actually? 13 MR. CARMODY: Well we have 254 beds. I'll give you 14 an example, Thursday -- last Thursday we were at 285 15 patients. Our midnight census runs 97 percent, so on a 16 daily basis when you add your operating rooms, your ER -- 17 we are also in our ER expansion. Really the process is 18 that the facilities are taking are very similar. 19 MR. BOYDSTON: So what is the census count? 20 MR. CARMODY: The census count, on our acute side we 21 have 204 acute beds, our average daily census is 197. 22 MR. BOYDSTON: The average census is 197? 23 MR. CARMODY: At midnight it's 197. 24 MR. BOYDSTON: 197 for 204 beds? 25 MR. CARMODY: Yes. 30 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 I MR. BOYDSTON: Okay. Thank you very much. 2 MAYOR MCLEAN: Any other questions, Council? Okay. 3 4 5 (Video -recorded meeting 6-26-07; Section 2) 6 7 MAYOR MCLEAN: We will now hear from those opposed. 8 Genie Ray, followed by Barbara MacImmel [ph], followed by 9 Tony Newhall. 10 MS. RAY: Mayor, Council members, I have been 11 listening to the touting of the laurels of Henry Mayo 12 Hospital's care and healing abilities at every meeting. I 13 don't think it's relevant to this procedure. Isn't that 14 what is expected of a hospital, sensitive and excellent 15 care? Remember, there is always another side to the 16 picture. 17 If you will look behind me you will see many of our 18 citizens. How many others do you think are not here 19 tonight because of children, work, or illness, but would 20 like to be? How many citizens do you think each one of us 21 represents who could not be here tonight and feel as we 22 do? Do you realize that we're serious, we are not a joke? 23 G&L would like you to believe that we are. 24 They want you to think we are just NIMBYs not to be 25 listened to and our reasons are frivolous. They go around 31 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 and eat up communities such as ours and then go back to 2 their empires and count their bucks. 3 There is nothing wrong with medical office buildings 4 on a hospital campus so that it is convenient for 5 physicians to get to their patients, but not on a small 6 campus such as Henry Mayo's in the middle of a 7 neighborhood of family homes and with only one access 8 road. 9 There are serious problems with our Master Plan. 10 They have eliminated the TCU which seniors desperately 11 need. They have cut beds, they have cut hospital, just so 12 the medical office buildings could stay, hoping they 13 would get your approval because they scaled down. There 19 is nothing in their plan that guarantees that hospital 15 space will ever be built. It is worded so that it will be 16 built at their discretion. 17 Tell me, now that the hospital has been cut back, 18 just where are all of these specialist physicians, who 19 are expected to do business on campus, going to put their 20 patients? It just doesn't make sense. 21 Thank you. 22 MAYOR MCLEAN: Thank you. Barbara MacImmel, followed 23 by Tony Newhall. 29 MS. MACIMMEL: Good evening Mayor and Council 25 members. My name is Barbara MacImmel. I live in Valencia 32 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 I and I again thank you for your diligence regarding this 2 project. 3 I have a couple of points to bring up which haven't 9 been mentioned before. The first one is parking structure 5 mitigation. Before this project returns, please require 6 that the parking structures be placed underground instead 7 of thrusting into the sky. G&L Realty is a for-profit 8 developer in Beverly Hills where they own multiple 9 medical office buildings, miles away from any hospital. 10 The City of Beverly Hills has long required that for - 11 profit development place the majority of its parking 12 structures below ground. What is good enough for Beverly 13 Hills might well meet Santa Clarita's requirements as 19 well. 15 Item number two, additional clarifications and 16 additions to the issues list. At the first hearing, the 17 Community Development Director referred to the Henry Mayo 18 G&L Realty proposal as an in -fill project. This is not a 19 correct depiction of this situation. The designation of 20 in -fill refers to vacant land surrounded by existing 21 development. Such vacant land is in -filled with 22 development that is compatible with its surroundings This 23 site is already fully developed in accordance with its 29 designation in the General Plan as a community hospital. 25 The proposal before you is not in -fill. It is a massive 33 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 I vertical expansion that is more dense in its coverage by 2 far than even the Dan Palmer Las Lomas outrage. If 3 approved, it would be the densest proposal northern Los 4 Angeles County located in any government jurisdiction. 5 Clearly there is no reason to destroy more than 10 6 neighborhoods and place hardship on over 2000 residents. 7 I urge you to vote no on this expansion. 8 Thank you. 9 MAYOR MCLEAN: Thank you. Tony Newhall followed by 10 Joanne Timberman. 11 MR. NEWHALL: Madame Mayor, City Council members, 12 City Staff, members of the audience, my name is Tony 13 Newhall and I have been a resident of this community for 14 40 years. 15 I think in the interest of expanding the hospital we 16 ought to consider splitting the entitlement applications 17 of the hospital from G&L Realty buildings. The Staff 18 Report for tonight's hearing states that because the 19 hospital and G&L buildings are linked by parking use, 20 design, and phasing, dividing the applications into two 21 interests may violate the California Environmental 22 Quality Act. That Act states that a project cannot be 23 broken into smaller components to minimize environmental 24 impacts. But this rule does not apply here. 25 Everyone supports a single EIR for everything. What 34 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 we do not support is mixing together the very different 2 requirements of the entities. On one hand we have a non - 3 profit, public benefit hospital; and on the other hand a 4 private, for-profit real estate developer. What is 5 necessary here are two CUPS, conditional use permits, and 6 two Development Agreements along with other permits. What 7 the City can and should do for our local non-profit 8 hospital are very different from what they can and should 9 do for an out of town, unknown, for-profit developer. In 10 other words, one EIR is fine. Everything else should be 11 split into two separate applications and each should be 12 evaluated on its own merits. 13 Thank you very much. 14 MAYOR MCLEAN: Thank you. Now I called -- it's 15 Joanne Timberman but I see that this was to be in 16 support. Is Joanne still here? Would you like to speak? 17 MS. TIMBERMAN: Madame Mayor and Council members, 18 thank you for letting me speak. I will just take a moment 19 of your time. 20 I've lived in this Valley for 40 years, ten of them 21 I've been a volunteer at Henry Mayo Hospital. I'm very 22 fortunate in I get to work in the ER, and in that 23 particular division we now have holding for patients that 24 have been through the emergency room but are not ready to 25 go to a bed because we do not have beds. So they're being 35 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 held in this short pattern. We also have, because we are 2 an emergency trauma hospital, we don't exclude anyone. So 3 through those doors come a great many people who are a 4 long way away from being trauma patients, but they get 5 the care and they get it immediately. 6 I've had an advantage also in that I've been able to 7 give at least concern and express wishes for their 8 feeling better, or bring a warm blanket, or do a few 9 things that will let them know that they are appreciated 10 and needed and that we're doing the very best we can with 11 a limited space. 12 So I ask you, please, if you would be on our side in 13 this issue and vote for our Master Plan. 14 Thank you. 15 MAYOR MCLEAN: Thank you. Okay. Now we're back to 16 the oppose. Richard North followed by Linda Pederson. 17 MR. NORTH: Mayor and Council persons, my name is 18 Richard North. I'm a 41 year resident of Santa Clarita. 19 At the last City Council hearing, after extensive 20 discussion, some of the confusion about the two 21 Development Agreements for G&L Realty and Henry Mayo 22 Hospital was clarified. Both the City and the two 23 applicants agreed that two different Development 24 Agreements about two different projects were at issue. 25 The first was the Agreement denied by the Planning 36 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 Commission. The second Development Agreement was a brand 2 new document, never seen by the Planning Commission. 3 The City and the public deserve an orderly, thorough 9 process that plays by the rules. It is City policy that 5 Development Agreements come to the City Council after a 6 complete hearing by the Planning Commission, along with a 7 recommendation. No appeal hearing on the first 8 Development Agreement has happened. No recommendation 9 from the Planning Commission on the second agreement has 10 occurred. Please make G&L Realty play by our -- by your 11 rules. G&L admits that the second Agreement is new. Send 12 this new document and the revised project it represents 13 to your Planning Commission. Your rules are good; even 19 G&L Realty should follow them. 15 Secondly, please keep the final certification of the 16 project Environmental Impact Report open. The project has 17 been substantially revised. Whether or not the new 18 project before you now is comparable to any of the 19 project alternatives listing in the pending EIR has not 20 been evaluated. The new revised project presents 21 significantly different issues for visual impact 22 analysis. View shed, effect, traffic analysis, noise, 23 architectural compatibility, and more, and EIR 24 supplements are at very minimum an addendum that's 25 necessary under a CEQA. Please require this additional 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 37 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 and necessary CEQA analysis before the case advances. Thank you. MAYOR MCLEAN: Thank you. Linda Pederson followed by Kathy Perez. MS. PEDERSON: My name is Linda Pederson. I, too, am a 41 year resident of the Santa Clarita Valley, and I am one of those who is opposed to the Plan, and it is not because my view will be affected. My opposition comes from the fact that this is a land use problem, not an argument against hospital expansion. Tonight we have heard impassioned pleas for 12 such things as neo -natal units, surgery suites, and more 13 cardiac and women's health services. But as I read the 14 Developer's Agreement posted on the City's website I 15 found none of those provisions listed. What I did see 16 were statements that the developer is not obligated to 17 build anything and development is solely at the 18 discretion of the developer. 19 Lastly, I wonder what sense it makes to put a mega - 20 medical complex in the midst of a low residential zone 21 with only one road providing access. It makes me wonder 22 how Newhall Land can use the slogan "Built as Promised" 23 and at the same time offer support for a plan that 24 destroys the very nature of the residential friendly 25 neighborhoods it has been touting for 40 years. 38 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 MAYOR MCLEAN: Thank you. Kathy Perez followed by 2 Rena Newhall. 3 MS. PEREZ: Good evening. Thank you very much for 4 your patience. I'm only a 23 year resident with a little 5 hiatus in the middle, but I wanted you to know that. 6 I am in the healthcare profession and my specialty 7 is healthcare compliance and ethics, so I do have some 8 background in hospitals and medicine. I'm a homeowner on 9 the Summit and a trustee at Valencia United Methodist 10 Church. Our main campus, as you know, is directly across 11 the street from the hospital, and we also own a pastor's 12 residential property about three doors down from the 13 hospital -- or, I'm sorry, from the church. So again, 14 directly across the street from the hospital. 15 What I'm concerned about is that you don't have all 16 the facts necessary to vote on this issue. And I realize 17 you won't be voting this evening, but this is important 18 for consideration. 19 It's important you're aware that Roger Seaver made a 20 comment last week on SCVTV that G&L's expansion plan had 21 been substantially reduced. He went on to suggest, "If 22 people take the emotions out of the decision and look at 23 the true impacts of the project, they would see that the 24 impacts are really very minimal." 25 We know that the recent reductions of the project 39 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 came by slashing -- and I estimated -- about 90 percent 2 of the new hospital patient tower and the hospital's 3 administration building. G&L really gave up no office 4 buildings. But many people don't realize the extent of 5 the traffic problem that remains at the hospital's main 6 entrance. 7 The Environmental Impact Report still projects the 8 traffic utterly fails even at this reduction. 9 Specifically, it describes in these terms, "Operations at 10 this level are volatile. Any disruption of the traffic 11 stream such as vehicles entering from a ramp or a vehicle 12 changing lanes can establish a disruption wave that 13 propagates throughout the upstream traffic flow. At 14 capacity the traffic stream has no ability to dissipate 15 even the most minor disruption, and any incident can be 16 expected to produce a serious breakdown with extensive 17 queueing. Maneuverability within the traffic stream is 18 extremely .Limited and the level of physical and 19 psychological comfort afforded the driver is poor." And 20 that's from the Environmental Impact Report. 21 Mentioning public benefits that are not even written 22 in the Plan, City Staff recommends a Statement of 23 Overriding Considerations to ignore this traffic problem. 29 If not, eminent domain or removal of potentially homes is 25 still required. 90 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 Mr. Seaver also stated in the interview that the 2 Plan must be approved this way or there will be no 3 expansion. Quite contrary to his comments previously, by 4 holding the City hostage the decision becomes entirely 5 emotional and the facts are obscured. 6 I also do not agree with Mr. Seaver's assessment 7 that this traffic issue is a "minimal impact." It affects 8 thousands of homes -- we've demonstrated photographs -- 9 and many more commuters, not to mention emergency access 10 to this facility. Is this minimal of. concern? You'll have 11 to think about that. 12 Council members, I really urge you to not vote on 13 emotion and the suggested benefits that are not in 14 writing. You represent many people who don't have the 15 true facts, and the facts are reprehensible. They don't 16 pass the litmus test for good planning or for good 17 medical care. This Plan in its present form must not be 18 approved. 19 Thank you. 20 MAYOR MCLEAN: Thank you. Rena Newhall followed by 21 Mario Anuadi [ph] -- I'm sorry about that. 22 MS. NEWHALL: He said Anaudi [ph]. 23 MAYOR MCLEAN: Anaudi? Okay. 24 MS. NEWHALL: Madame Mayor, City Council members, 25 City Staff, and esteemed members of our audience, my name 41 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 ] is Rena Newhall and I, too, am a resident long term, 90 2 years. 3 In a meeting with the City Staff on June 7th we 4 asked the Staff if it was at the City's request that the 5 hospital submit a Master Plan. Mr. Broadsman answered, 6 "Absolutely not." At the last City Council meeting on 7 June 12th, Mr. Broadsman changed his answer and stated 8 that, yes, the City had requested that the hospital 9 submit a Master Plan. I don't understand this change of 10 opinion in just five days. It either requested a Master 11 Plan or it didn't request a Master Plan. 12 This indicates the difficulty in this controversy. 13 Whether the answer is yes or no, the fact remains that 14 granting a 20 -year Master Plan to a for-profit developer 15 is a mistake. The City would set a dangerous precedent. 16 Other developers in the future could hide behind a non - 17 profit entity in order to profit from the non-profit 18 affiliation. By approving the 20 -year Master Plan the 19 City Council essentially gives G&L a carte blanche to 20 build office buildings with no provision or guarantee of 21 hospital beds. More importantly, the City Council 22 relinquishes direct control over the process and has 23 little or no recourse to change things once the Plan is 24 set in motion. I fear that established neighborhoods will 25 be sacrificed only to find themselves with no hospital. 42 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 I think this is a wake-up call. This community needs 2 a consortium of concerned citizens to join with Henry 3 Mayo, Providence, Kaiser, and other healthcare providers 4 to come together to study and enact a long term plan that 5 will address the healthcare needs of this community for 6 at least the next 25 years. Only you as our City Council, 7 the representatives of our local citizens, can mandate a 8 study that will explore the alternatives and remedies to 9 this current critical healthcare dilemma. For the 10 betterment of the community, let's set aside our 11 differences and make something happen. 12 Thank you. 13 MAYOR MCLEAN: Thank you. Mario Anaudi followed by 14 Lynn Vogel. 15 MR. ANAUDI: Madame Mayor, City Council members, 16 City Staff, fellow citizens, my name is Mario Anaudi and 17 I'm actually the odd man out here because I'm from Saugus 16 and I've only lived here eight years, not the 40 years or 19 30 years that we've been hearing. 20 I rise in opposition in part because of the slick 21 campaign that was posted to all of us by G&L. They seem 22 to be muddying the waters and that has been made very 23 clear to me tonight. For example, the City was told by 29 G&L that no other hospital would choose to locate. We've 25 heard tonight that Providence will be seeking to locate 93 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 here. However, as previous speakers has noted and the CEO 2 of Providence noted, your own consultants never contacted 3 them. 9 So what I'm afraid of is that you are acting without 5 full facts. You should ask your consultants to correct 6 the omissions in the reports, then you'll have something 7 to work off. There have been glimmerings of truth in the 8 reports. Have the courage to follow those lights. 9 Santa Clarita does need good healthcare. Do not 10 destroy neighborhoods with an ill-advised office building 11 proposal which may net only a phantom hospital. 12 Thank you. 13 MAYOR MCLEAN: Thank you. Lynn Vogel followed by 19 Alan Right. 15 MS. VOGEL: Good evening Council members, Mayor. 16 I've heard a lot about G&L Realty and my question to 17 you -- to everybody, is who is G&L Realty? Who are they? 18 G&L Realty has attempted to hide behind the non-profit 19 public benefit corporation of our community hospital. 20 This is inappropriate. Before any action occurs, the 21 Council and the community deserve to know who these 22 people are. This is not an unreasonable request. On the 23 contrary, it is amazing that they have remained hidden at 24 this ].ate juncture. Therefore, for your benefit, for the 25 community's benefit, the principles of G&L should be 44 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.321.0 1 called to this podium. Why hasn't G&L chosen to speak on 2 their own behalf as every other major developer has done? 3 G&L stated that 63 percent of their office buildings 4 have fee-based parking lots. Interestingly, exactly 63 5 percent of the office buildings have parking lots. For 6 clarity, of all the parking lots they own, what 7 percentage requires pay for parking? 8 Please provide -- G&L, please provide a present and 9 former tenant list for all the other projects. The City 10 Council and the community deserve references and 11 recommendations. What are the names of the owners of G&L 12 Realty? I'm surprised G&L Realty has not beenhereto 13 speak for themselves. Why hasn't G&L proposed the usual 14 package of benefits to the community in order to earn a 15 Development Agreement? 16 And finally, G&L is supposed to have been part of 17 this community since 2003. Other developers contribute 18 regularly to our non-profit and charitable organizations. 19 What kind of support have they provided for our 20 betterment? 21 Thank you. 22 MAYOR MCLEAN: Thank you. Alan Right followed by Cam 23 Nultimyer [ph]. 24 MR. RIGHT: Mayor McLean, Council members, I'm Alan 25 Right. I've been out here in Valencia for about 32 years. 45 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL, LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 One of the underlying arguments that the hospital 2 has pushed is that the approval of the Master Plan was 3 essential to provide the community with quality 4 healthcare. This is the theme that resonates throughout 5 their slick newspaper ads and opinion pieces. No doubt 6 the lobbyists they've hired are espousing the same thing. 7 In the two years since the Master Plan was proposed, 8 an Environmental Impact Report has been completed, 9 numerous issues presented and debated. The Master Plan 10 has been modified several. times to increase setbacks, 11 reduce some in scope, but wait. This is not a Master Plan 12 -- a hospital Master Plan. It's a development plan. Where 13 is the hospital Master Plan? I haven't seen one yet and I 19 don't think you have either. 15 We have heard and it's been very exciting to hear 16 the hospital describe all these wonderfulthings that 17 they're going to put in, the cath labs and the neo -natal 18 units and all of the other wonderful things. And these 19 are good things and believe me, I really support all 20 that. But this has never been put down in paper in a 21 Master Plan. 22 As an architect I prepared and participated in the 23 preparation of many Master Plans for various building 29 programs. A good Master Plan is a document that should 25 contain in as much detail as possible the elements needed 96 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 to fulfill the mission of the organization. My definition 2 of that is you begin with a list of the things that you 3 want to do in your plan, in accordance with the mission 9 that you want to accomplish. You put those down on paper. 5 You have a certain amount of square footage you need for 6 that and you have certain other infrastructure 7 requirements to support that. Ideally, you would have 8 that located in a place that was most productive for the 9 hospital itself. 10 I think all the -- I think the hospital actually 11 knows what those things are. They keep telling us, we 12 hear it from everybody that speaks in this room, but they 13 have never put it into a Master Plan that I know of, 14 which really gets down to the basic point. If you don't 15 get it in writing, you're not going to get it. 16 I really applaud the Council members for trying to 17 get this very important information before they vote on 18 the project. I believe the Planning Staff to be an honest 19 and competent group and I've worked with some of the 20 Planning Staff people in the past. Okay. 21 MAYOR MCLEAN: Thank you, sir. Cam Nultimyer 22 followed by Jonathan Krout. 23 MS. NULTIMYER: Cam Nultimyer. 24 Actually, the last speaker made a very good point. 25 Actually, you noticed two Master Plans, two conditional 47 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 use permits, and now we have two Development Agreements. 2 And T know that a lot of people stood up here and said,. 3 "Approve the Master Plan." Which Master Plan? Which 4 Development Agreement? Which conditional use permit? What 5 are the conditions? And I haven't heard any of them 6 address any of that. 7 It isn't an emotional issue. It is a planning issue. 8 It is a Master Plan, a conditional use permit, and you're 9 proposing a Development Agreement, the Development 10 Agreement that was not approved by. the Planning 11 Commission. They have appealed; that is still before you. 12 You have direction from your City Attorney; I read it. 13 Now you have to determine, and it has to be done 14 publicly, whether they are giving up the appeal on that 15 Master -- Development Agreement. Have they agreed to your 16 new Development Agreement? Are you revising the new 1.7 revised Development Agreement? 18 A few concerns that I have with your -- both of your 19 Development Agreements, that they state that the City 20 acknowledges that the hospital has applied to subdivide 21 the hospital property to create a separate legal parcel 22 for Medical Office Building 1. And the City agrees to 23 process the application. When did that happen? Who agreed 29 to it? And was it done publicly? That is in both 25 Development Agreements. 48 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 Under Restriction of Use, interesting, in your 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 revised Development Agreement, Medical Office Building ]. is excluded in being used for hospital use. The questions that come up -- there is no one that can sort through this until you come up with one Master Plan, one conditional use permit, one Development Agreement, and then let the people come and say, "Yes, I'm for it," or "am I against it." But the Development Agreements that you have before you don't even require any development to be done, and it also excludes any future Council for the next 25 -- depending on which one you adopt -- or 20 years from ever having any ability to do anything about it. Make it clearer what you want. In your Development Agreement you're allowed to exclude 439 spaces in Parking Structure 4, yet those 439 spaces are required to meet your parking requirements in the Master Plan. It is this type of "put it here, take it away there" that is going on with this Development Agreement. This Development Agreement gives every right to the developer and nothing to the City. MAYOR MCLEAN: Okay. Thank you. Jonathan Krout followed by Martha Wilman. MR. KROUT: Mayor McLean and members of the City Council, my name is Jonathan Krout. I'm a resident of Fair Oaks Ranch. 49 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 I In the City's 20 years there is much to be proud of. 2 However, there is the impression that this Council, 3 whether deliberately or unintentionally, is promoting a 4 less than clear understanding of the Henry Mayo 5 expansion. I'm asking that our needs for 'trust, clarity, 6 and transparency be met. 7 To help you with this process, I have some 8 suggestions. I would also like to know the position of 9 the individual Council members, maybe at some other time 10 if you have a chance to write these down and get back to 11 me or the public later. First is there seems to be a lack 12 of hospital planning in writing. We'd go a long way to 13 have a Henry Mayo expansion plan in writing. I'd like to 14 know who on this Council would be in favor of that. We 15 already have one promoting office space, which is very 16 clear. 17 Second is there is a new Development Agreement and I 18 don't know who authorized that Agreement, where it came 19 from, who was part of writing the Agreement, or who paid 20 for it. So I'm wondering if there could be some 21 clarification as to how that second Development Agreement 22 came to pass. 23 Third, we all agree to honor our healthcare 24 professionals, many of whom spoke very clearly and 25 passionately tonight that there is more healthcare needed 50 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 in our Valley. Can you tell me how the for-profit 2 development somehow contributes directly to Henry Mayo 3 and their financial well being? Does any money from the 4 office space translate directly or go directly to Henry 5 Mayo? 6 And finally, my impression is that this Council was 7 compelled by having no other choices than Henry Mayo for 8 medical care. As of tonight we see that there are other 9 choices. I would like to know who on the Council is 10 interested in embracing those choices and who would not 11 be in favor of that at this time. 12 Thank you. 13 MAYOR MCLEAN: Thank you. Martha Wilman followed by 19 Carlie Henderson. 15 MS. WILMAN: Good evening. I'm Martha Wilman. I've 16 lived in Santa Clarita for 31 years and I'm speaking on 17 behalf of Smarth Growth SCV. 18 When the Planning Commission voted 3-2 recommending 19 approval of this Master Plan, Smart Growth had a long 20 list of reasons as to why the action taken was improper. 21 The City's procedures for moving a Master Plan request 22 from the Planning Commission to the City Council are 23 precise. We wanted to have a full public hearing covering 24 all of the facts and the law, which we feel would have 25 demonstrated to you the defective nature of the Planning 51 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 Commission action. 2 To secure our rights, Smart Growth filed a timely 3 appealand paid all fees, which were accepted by the City 4 0£ Santa Clarita. We looked forward to proving beyond all 5 doubt that the recommendation action was premature, 6 incomplete, out of compliance with City policy and 7 precedent, and far more. 8 More than a week after our appeal was accepted by. 9 the City, an astounding thing happened. The Planning 10 Department returned our fees and rejected our appeal. As 11 a result, our rights have been compromised and damaged. 12 Please direct City Staff to restore our appeal so that we 13 can present our case to you. When we have had that 14 opportunity, we are confident that you will return this 15 case to the Planning Commission so that the defects we 16 will identify can be addressed and corrected. 17 Thank you for your cooperation. 18 MAYOR MCLEAN: Thank you. Carlie Henderson followed 19 by James and Ann Turpin [ph]. 20 MS. HENDERSON: My name is Carlie Henderson. I live 21 in Saugus and I'm a student at College of the Canyons. 22 I just wanted to share my experience at Henry Mayo. 23 T was recently admitted there for emergency surgery and 24 spent about eight days. I just wanted to share my 25 experience because I think it gives kind of an idea of 52 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 the quality of care received. 2 My first night there -- let's see, it too me two 3 hours just to get a pillow, two or three hours. The first 4 nurse who came to finally give me my IV well after the 5 doctor asked for it was fumbling around with the 6 equipment; she didn't know what buttons to press. She 7 dropped the IV bag which made me really nervous, and she 8 actually said that she didn't have experience on this 9 equipment ever before because she was just a substitute. 10 So pretty much I felt extremely unsafe. 11. Let's see. Something happened just about every day. 12. One of the times I pressed the nurse call button it took 13 me an hour and ten minutes, I watched the time, just to 14 have someone come in and respond and see what was wrong. 15 Maybe if I was in serious danger or needed something to 16 drink, I don't know. 17 But let's see. My boyfriend's grandmother was 18 actually just down the hall. They forgot to put her 19 diaper on, which obviously caused some embarrassing 20 issues, caused the family a lot of grief. She pressed her 21 call button. The person actually said, "What? I can't 22 hear you," and never bothered to come and check on her 23 after that, so she couldn't eat her lunch. 29 Let's see. I'm sorry, I'm kind of nervous but this 25 just kind of, I think, expresses to me that maybe we need 53 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 to look internally at the quality of care before we put 2 our focus on expansion. And I just want to say that if 3 there was another provider in the area I would be there 9 immediately, in a second, in a heartbeat, before going 5 back to Henry. Mayo because I really felt unsafe with the 6 current care. The doctors were amazing but the quality of 7 care and the attention I received was really lacking and 8 made me feel unsafe. So pretty much I think before 9 looking at expansion we need to look at having another 10 provider in the area to better care for our community. 11 That's all. Thank you. 12 MAYOR MCLEAN: Thank you. James and Ann Turpin, are 13 you here? 14 Mary Parks followed by Roxanne McMannis. 15 MS. PARKS: Good evening Madame Mayor and Council 16 members. Thank you for your patience for being here so 17 long to hear all of these things. My name is Mary Parks 18 and I, believe or not, have lived here since 1964, that's 19 43 years. When we first moved here we lived in Canyon 20 Country, and then we moved to Saugus, and then in 1987 we 21 moved over to Valencia. 22 The reason we moved to Valencia was I worked in the 23 Valley and we lived way up Bouquet Canyon. I would get 24 off the freeway at Valencia Blvd. and it got to the point 25 where it was taking me a half an hour exactly to get from 54 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 just the off ramp up to my house. And I finally came home 2 one evening and I said, "We're moving. We are going to 3 live next to the freeway. T can't stand this." And the 4 traffic was horrible. 5 If you have lived out here very long, you know that 6 -- and it's still bad at Bouquet and Soledad; it's 7 terrible. If this hospital -- which I am not against the 8 hospital expanding. I think all these ideas are wonderful 9 and we do need good care at the hospital and many of 10 these things are imperative. They would be wonderful to 11 have. But our site is just too small to cram so much 12 wonderful healthcare in just a little bitty spot because 13 at that point we will have gridlock. 14 I've lived in two places, Canyon Country and Saugus, 15 where there was one way in and one way out. That 16 hospital, like many hospitals -- or, it's unlike a lot of 17 hospitals that have entrances on two or three different 18 streets. You can almost go around them in a block. And 19 just -- the traffic will be horrible. I don't even know 20 how an ambulance will get through. There are times now 21 when ambulances have to go on the other side, and 22 sometimes I'm expecting them to go on the sidewalk 23 because there is no space for them to go. It's -- traffic 24 is filled up. 25 And you can sit through several lights at Orchard 55 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 and McBean now as it is, let alone have all these doctors 2 there that people are going to come see. And if they're 3 great, that's wonderful; but if you can't get to them, 4 and if the ambulance can't get there, that's not going to 5 be very good. 6 I also agree with everything that David Gawny has 7 said, and a lot of these people. I think that it is 8 imperative that we have a lot of these things in writing. 9 I mean, we all know whenever we go to buy something new 10 and somebody says, "Oh, you're going to have this, this, 11 and this," well if it doesn't say so in the contract, 12 what good is that? You have to have it in writing that 13 this is what they're going to do in the hospital to 14 provide certain services for us. Otherwise, we may never 15 get any of these things. 16 The other issue that I'm concerned about is open 17 space. We've been hearing a lot about that lately and we 18 are getting a lot of mail from you about the open space. 19 If Henry Mayo is allowed to build these buildings the way 20 it is right now, I really would wonder about your desire 21 to have open space because it will totally ruin McBean 22 Parkway; it will just be awful to drive down it. And I 23 think that all of the parking structures should be 24 underground, and I would urge you not to vote for this 25 until other things are in place. 56 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 MAYOR MCLEAN: Thank you. Roxanne McMannis followed 2 by Alan Hadley. 3 MS. MCMANNIS: Good evening Mayor and Council 4 members. 5 On behalf of everyone in the community who seeks the 6 best healthcare for Santa Clarita, thank you for your 7 initial list of issues raised at the first hearing on 8 these two proposals. Following are some clarifications 9 and additions. 10 The draft should include where are the original 11 deeds? Please produce them. For over a year and a half we 12 have been told that the deeds are missing. G&L has to 13 have them because they could not have closed escrow 14 without them. 15 Secondly, the Draft Report makes reference to a 16 revised Development Agreement. Many people have talked 17 about this. One thing accomplished at the first hearing 18 was that everyone agreed that there is a second new 19 Development Agreement. Please take appropriate action 20 accordingly. 21 Number three, the report mischaracterizes the 22 testimony about access to the G&L property. Testimony 23 verified a simple fact; the massive project is located on 24 a single means of access. That access is McBean Parkway. 25 Orchard Village Road does not qualify as an additional 57 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 means of access. 2 Number four, the Santa Clarita City Plan has precise 3 language within it that defines Henry Mayo Newhall 4 Hospital as a community hospital exclusively. The 5 inappropriate proposal attempts to transform our 6 community hospital into a regional hospital. This cannot 7 be done unless the City General Plan is amended as a 8 result of a General Plan Amendment Request. No such 9 request has been submitted by either G&L or the hospital. 10 Unless such a request is filed, this case cannot proceed. 11 Thank you. 12 MAYOR MCLEAN: Thank you. Alan Hadley followed by 13 Lisa Robertello. 14 MR. HADLEY: Good evening Mayor, City Council 15 members, audience. My name is Alan Hadley and I live in 16 Valencia. 17 I moved here with my family 40 -plus years ago and so 18 I've seen a lot of growth and changes in this area. One 19 of the biggest downsides of it has been the traffic 20 congestion. And now residing in the central valley area 21 of Valencia I am acutely aware of the traffic on McBean 22 Parkway during peak rush hours. And if there's the 23 littlest thing that happens to disrupt the flow of 24 traffic, it can be -- it can be a major, major time 25 commitment just getting from the freeway to my home. 58 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 I understand the need for the additional. hospital 2 space and I am -- I am supporting that. But one of the 3 things that went along with my -- when I first came her 4 40 years ago was there were two hospitals here -- I think 5 Henry Mayo was just being built -- that were in 6 commercial areas. And I can see why they wouldn't be 7 practical, at ].east one of them now, for any kind of 8 expansion, but that I think is one of the things that has 9 to be looked at as far as building a hospital of this 10 size as to where it's located. 11 And I know that this has been already brought up, 12 but I just think it's worth repeating. This is a major 13 development and that throughout the City's history, all 14 the major developments have come before you and have 15 appeared, including Newhall Land and Farming Company, 16 American Beauty Homes, the Golden Valley Ranch project, 17 and every other major developer has had their company 18 owner or company chief executive present themselves to 19 you. We challenge G&L Realty, whoever they are, to meet 20 this same standard of honesty, openness, and 21 transparency. We are not talking about hired advocates. 22 We want to see company principals. Only company 23 principals can deliver on project specifics. Don't take 24 action on this project unless you and our entire 25 community can take the measure of the for-profit 59 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 development principals of G&L Realty. 2 Thank you. 3 MAYOR MCLEAN: Lisa Robertello followed by Pauline 9 Hart -- Hardy. 5 MS. ROBERTIELLO: Good evening. My name is Lisa 6 Robertello and I live in Valencia. 7 I think it would be helpful to just review how this 8 Master Plan has arrived before us all from the Planning 9 Commission. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to 10 deny the original Development Agreement. The Master Plan 11 was approved on a very shaky 3-2 vote. Even this weak 12 vote was based on an unprecedented action. The Planning 13 Commission said that the entire Master Plan would be 14 subject to extensive revision based on the findings in a 15 study they would never even see. 16 The study was supposed to be an accurate assessment 17 of how much office space is typically located on the same 18 physical. campus as an actual hospital. NSA made a change 19 in their work product which renders the study you have 20 seen useless in answering the key question that was 21 proposed to them. KSA decided to include office space in 22 other hospitals located off of the hospitalcampus in 23 their study. At the beginning of their presentation they 24 indicated that physicians located as far as one-third of 25 a mile from the hospital would be regarded as if they Ell HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 were located on the hospital property itself. The study 2 therefore does not help the Council or the community in 3 understand the proposal before you. 4 If G&L's office buildings were located away from the 5 hospital campus, this entire proposal would be very 6 different. The traffic studies, the visual impact 7 analysis, the light and glare, and the noise studies 8 would not apply to this proposal. 9 The consultant did not ask the City Council, the 10 Planning Commission, or the community if they could make 11 this huge change for the basis of their study. Please 12 direct this consultant to redo their study. In this new 13 study, make sure that they only analyze the amount of 14 office space actually located on a hospital campus. That 15 was the information they should have supplied. That was 16 the information requested by the Planning Commission. 17 That is the information you and the public must have 18 before an accurate decision can occur on this huge office 19 building proposal. It would be greatly appreciated if the 20 results of this new study are made available to the 21 public at least two weeks before the next hearing on the 22 issue. 23 In conclusion, the existing study must be rejected 29 because it does not respond to the answers -- to the 25 questions it was supposed to answer. 61 HUTCHTNGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 Thank you. 2 MAYOR MCLEAN: Thank you. Pauline Hardy followed by 3 Alan Ferdman [ph]. 9 MS. HARDY: Marsha -- Mayor McLean. I'm sorry, I'm 5 half asleep here. Mayor McLean, Council members, I'm just 6 going to concentrate on one issue and that is the issue 7 0£ the parking structure. 8 G&L has neglected to include the square footage of 9 the parking structure. They were issued a Notice of 10 Declaration by the Los Angeles County Eire Department in 11 2006. We need to find out why they will not include the 12 square footage of these parking structures, which would 13 bring the hospital expansion up considerably. 14 There has been so much dishonesty and I urge you to 15 oppose this. There's just too much dishonesty. They lie 16 from one end to the other. When they are asked to change 17 something they simply move the objectionable part into 18 another area. Nothing has changed except that we're 19 getting less hospital. And that's another big objection. 20 This is all about a land use issue and it's all 21 about G&L making money on office space, not the hospital. 22 So I urge you to say no to this and find out why and when 23 we are going to get the square footage from the hospital 24 -- from the parking structure included in the square 25 footage. 62 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 Thank you. 2 MAYOR MCLEAN: Thank you. Alan Ferdman followed by 3 Dr. Gene Dorio tph]. 4 MR. FERDMAN: Hello again. My name is Alan Ferdman. 5 I'm a resident of Canyon Country. 6 Over the past few months the community, City Staff, 7 and now City Council have been looking at the pros and 8 cons of the proposed Henry Mayo expansion project. 9 Certainly proponents of. the Plan site Santa Clarita 10 shortage of hospital beds and medical services, and those 11 opposed talk about the Plan's excessive amount of medical 12 office space and overpowering building profiles. But as 13 this debate rages on, the make up of medical services 14 provided in the Santa Clarita Valley is changing. 15 Currently local urgent care facilities are 16 advertising their services in competition with hospital 17 emergency rooms. Major retailers are -- major retailers 18 such as CVS and Wal-Mart are planning open clinics in 19 their retail outlets siting lower costs than using 20 hospital facilities. And the best news, Providence Holy 21. Cross is openly stating that they are looking to provide 22 hospital services in the Santa Clarita Valley. 23 All of these additional capabilities will help ease 24 our healthcare issues, and in the near future Henry Mayo 25 will. not be our only service provider. Why then would it 63 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 make sense to give Henry Mayo an economic advantage and 2 minimize competition by allowing the construction of 3 buildings exceeding the current Master Plan and 4 disrupting the sanctity of local neighborhoods? Why would 5 it make sense to accept an implementation plan that does 6 not guarantee the construction of hospital facilities and 7 provides no timeline for completion? Why would it make 8 sense to trust the integrity of a medical facilities 9 management structure that encourages staff to make 10 decisions based upon a patient's financial contribution 11 status or friends of the hospital, as opposed to purely 12 medical rationale? 13 I believe that when you give this proposal careful 19 consideration you will agree that it does not make sense 15 to provide those economic advantages to Henry Mayo. What 16 does make good business sense and shows concern for 17 public safety is to send Henry Mayo and G&L management 18 back to the drawing board to generate an expansion plan 19 that maximizes hospital space, is right sized for their 20 facility footprint, allows them to remain a good 21 neighbor, and most importantly provides a prioritized 22 timeline for completion of their project. 23 Thank you. 24 MAYOR MCLEAN: Thank you. Dr. Dorio followed by 25 Bruce McFarland. 64 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 DR. DORIO: Good evening. I'm Dr. Gene Doric. I'm a 2 physician here in Santa Clarita. I'm on staff at Henry 3 Mayo Hospital. 9 Some of my patients have memory problems, but let me 5 assure you that it's riot contagious. The hospital feels, 6 thouqh, that I am confused and has attempted to discredit 7 my opinion and insist i am misinformed. There are many 8 facts against the Master Plan but I will give you a 9 salient few. 10 Number one, Centers of Excellence. We're noL 11 associated with the building of medical office space on 12 the Henry Mayo campus until the last City Council 13 meeting. With the hospital administration conveniently 19 revealing their plan for developing these centers, I 15 found it interesting that only physicians supportive of 16 their Master Plan were included, and other competent 17 specialists have not -- either not been asked or have 18 been excluded. My hope is that the city Council sees 19 through this public relations facade. 20 Second, a connecting corridor between the hospital 21 and the nursing pavilion was recently opened. Take a tour 22 on the second floor, then note how difficult it is for 23 the transporters to push the patients up the incline in 29 gurneys into the hospital. Visitors who use wheelchairs 25 will have a difficult time negotiating this incline. The 65 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 design has the potential to be a disaster. 2 Thirdly, there is still no satisfactory answer to 3 the lack of operating rooms available to our surgeons. 9 The hospital expects to attract specialists to this area, 5 but once the surgical specialists realize that they will 6 be doing their elective cases at 3:00 o'clock in the 7 morning, they will. dismiss their intent on coming here. 8 Between now and August 28th, ask any surgeon in this 9 community about the dismal schedule they have because of 10 this unaddressed operating room deficiency. 11 The City Council must realize that the Master Plan 12 is not the only Plan that will allow expansion of Henry 13 Mayo Hospital. Hospital floors with acute care beds and 14 surgical suites must be built now. The glitch in the 15 Master Plan is the injection of building medical office 16 spaces under the guise of enriching the community, but 17 which instead enriches a Beverly Hills developer. Giving 18 a 20 -year entitlement to planners that don't look to the 19 needs of operating room availability, builds a corridor 20 that has serious flaws, and manipulates public opinion 21 leaves one to one to worry about their future decision 22 making without input from the City Council and the 23 community. 29 Thank you. 2.5 MAYOR MCLEAN: Thank you. Bruce McFarland followed 66 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 by David Lutnes [ph]. And did Carolleave as well? Okay. 2 MR. MCFARLAND: Hi there. Bruce McFarland. Just for 3 a little change of pace, I actually have no problem with 9 anybody. As a matter of fact, I even like this plan. I 5 think it's sort of great plan. I mean, the hospital likes 6 it and G&L likes it. Unfortunately, it's in the wrong 7 place. And I think the City Council is doing the right 8 thing because they haven't voted yes on it yet. So I like 9 all of you. 10 A couple of -- I appreciate what Mr. Gawny has said 11 and he said it much more organized, and all other people 12 that spoke did have a lot of good details. And I really 13 don't have a lot of -- I have one little thing that is 19 interesting to me. I'm wondering if Henry Mayo has some 15 sort of written contract with G&L and what that states. 16 And I haven't heard anybody talk about that, what their 17 arrangement_ is and how it will benefit Henry Mayo. 18 And just from what has happened and what I've seen 19 in the progression of this so-called hospital Master 20 Plan, 1 Lhink -- and this is just a hypothesis -- I think 21 somehow Roger Seaver and somebody from G&L got together 22 and they said, "Hey, we can help each other. We build 23 medical office buildings and we have a hospital; we need 24 funds and we need something to get together to make 25 something happen." And G&L came up with a plan and there 67 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 wasn't a lot of input form the hospital. They just said 2 they're going to benefit from it because there's goinq to 3 be an influx of cash. 4 So somewhere down the road the hospital folks 5 figured that they had to try and come up with something 6 that was going to show how the plan would benefit them, 7 and G&L, seeing that this thing wasn't going to just roll. 8 over on the City Council quite as easily as they 9 expected, they started addressing those issues and came 10 up with ideas. 11 I don't think anybody here is really -- I mean, 12 everybody's saying, "Where is the hospital plan? The 13 hospital people are doing great work. They want all these 14 things, they need all these things." So I have one 15 solution. 16 We have a piece of property, a 237 acre Civic Center 17 Master Plan. I think we should just dump Henry Mayo, take 18 the whole thing, build it, give them 50 acres in that 19 plan, build a new hospital. Tear down Henry Mayo, make it 20 into an open space. You can use the open space funds for 21 that. It's a win-win situation. The community gets what 22 it needs. We have a hospital. Everybody's happy. We don't 23 overbuild the area. 29 That's it. Thanks. 25 MAYOR MCLEAN: Carol Lutnes, please. 68 HUTCHINGS COORS' REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL ].LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.321.0 1 MS. LUTNES: Good evening, Mayor and Council. 2 members. I'm Carol Lathes, Chair for the SCV Clean Money 3 for Better Government Committee, a bi-partisan 9 organization dedicated to restoring the balance between 5 the people's needs and special interests' wants through 6 voluntary public campaign financing and strong ethical 7 policies. 8 Doubts about this policy, as well as the current 9 open space proposal, reflects the deterioration of the 10 people's trust in their elected officials because of the 11 obvious control of our elected officials by big money. 12 This medical office building parking lot proposal is an 1.3 issue of public good versus private profit. The story I 19 tell myself is that when the hospital was in financial 15 trouble, G&L "rescued" the hospital with the 16 understanding that they be able to use their 90 percent 17 to build highly profitable parking garages and medical 18 offices, ka-ching, ka-ching. Beware of mercenary rescuers 19 extracting enormous profit for their "good deed." 20 The smoke screen of a vague unenforceable plan for 21 hospital beds is nothing but a bait and switch ploy. 22 Contrary to the previous testimonies, our committee is 23 having no problems getting signatures for our petition in 24 opposition of this plan. The public's distrust of this 25 project is because there is the appearance of evil as 69 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 evidenced by conflict of interest issues such as G&L's 2 $350 dollar campaign donation in September of '05 to 3 Frank Ferry and the recent disclosure of questionable 4 emails that if we had had an ethics commission would 5 certainly be viewed as an ethical violation. 6 I would like to give this pamphlet for your review 7 from the County of Los Angeles on their lobbyist 8 ordinance. It's okay. We could do better. 9 The Bible tells us that man cannot have two -- serve 10 two masters. City Council needs to decide who do you 11 serve? We the people, or developer interests? 1.2 MAYOR MCLEAN: I have a card which is neutral, Jim 13 Bevis [ph], are you -- okay. And then I have two cards 19 that have nothing marked. One is Carl Boyer [ph] and the 15 next is Lynn Plambeck [ph]. 3 16 MR. BEVIS: Mayor McLean, Council members, I'm respond to 17 calling myself neutral not because 1 lost my mind. I have 18 some strong opinions. I think we're asking some of the 19 wrong questions. I've listened to testimony for two years 20 now and with one noted exception nobody's arguing that we 21 don't need hospitals. I'll defer to the experts on both 22 sides that we have a consensus that a hospital bed costs 23 at least $1.35 million dollars and everybody says we need 29 them. 25 I've also been tracking this from inception and from 70 HOTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 day one the Planning Commission came back with three 2 immediate recommendations where the applicants -- I'm not 3 dividing anybody into good and bad guys -- were asked to 9 respond to concerns about alternative expansion of office 5 buildings and the need to expand to the extent of office 6 buildings in that area, and also was part of the 7 rejection of the Development Agreement for several 8 reasons. And now I've heard recommendations from the 9 Council. And what T'm suggesting is that we need to see 10 some kind of serious response to the requests and 11 recommendations of both of those entities. 12 And we had some excellent suggestions on the part of 13 Council member Laurene Weste as far as just one of many 14 the adjacent communities; I happen to be involved in a 15 couple of them, adjacent property. I'm one of those 16 people that don't exist in the Village Homes north. And 17 you very objectively pointed out a whole number of 18 suggestions I would like to be -- excuse me, I'm tired. I 19 would love them to be given serious consideration. 20 And in that same spirit we have our next meeting 21 coming up in August and I would like to see all sides 22 focus on how we can come together and respond to the 23 requests and concerns of the Council and the surrounding 24 communities. I think we all want the best information, 25 the best -- the best Development Agreement and Master 71 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1. Plan, and the best solution for Henry Mayo Hospital 2 expansion. 3 Thank you. 9 MAYOR MCLEAN: Thank you. Carl Boyer. Carl, are you 5 here? Okay. Lynn Plambeck? 6 MS. PLAMBECK: I just forgot to mark the box. I'm 7 representing the Santa Clarita Organization for Planning 8 and the Environment, and we're opposed to the current 9 proposal, not to the hospital facilities. And we've tried 10 to make it really clear that we need hospital facilities. 11 We also need them in other locations besides Valencia and 12 itwould help a lotif things weren't centralized in 13 Valencia. 14 You know, Lisa Harding spoke about -- this is the 15 same way we did it for River Park, same way we did it for 16 Synergy, it was very confusing and incorrect to do it 17 that way then. Making it wrong two times isn't an excuse 18 for having it wrong a third time. We need to know what 19 proposal we're really .looking at and it needs to be clear 20 so that the public can really address the issues to you 21 and not be asking a lot of questions when we should be 22 able to just bring the issues to you. 23 We strongly oppose a 2.5 -year Development Agreement. 24 I think we've stated that several times too, but I want 25 to reiterate it. Not even the County of Los Angeles would 72 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 ]. approve a 25 -year Agreement when considering Newhall 2 Ranch because it's just too long. It doesn't give the 3 Council any latitude. It doesn't give the community any 4 latitude to come back and say something's wrong. And it 5 takes away any planning priorities from the next 6 generation. Twenty years is the next generation; it's 7 just not fair to do that to people. 8 We really had a lot of problems with this 9 Environmental. Impact Report. And of course we've looked 1.0 at a Lot of them and this is not one of the better ones 11 we've seen. And I just want to give you an example of 12 some of the issues. If you look at the land use 13 consistency in this plan, it's consistent with 14 everything. It says it's -- it's consistent with 15 everything. Well if that's the case, then why are they 16 building buildings that are higher than the height 17 restrictions? Why do they need special permission for a 18 hel.ipad? Because it's not consistent. It's not consistent 19 with the noise element and the traffic element. 20 1just want to read you some of the things that I 21 found really absurd. It lists all the goals and policies 22 of the General Plan. And I'll read just a couple of them 23 to you so you can see the absurdities for yourself. 24 "Parking facilities. To provide for and ensure an 25 adequate supply of off-street private and public parking 73 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 to meet the needs of local residents and visitors to the 2 City in the planning area. it's consistent." 1 don't 3 think so. 4 "To reduce vehicle emissions through traffic flow 5 improvements. It's consistent." 6 "I's develop and implement traffic flow improvements 7 in order to reduce congestion, conserve energy, and 8 improve air quality. It's consistent." No, it's not. No, 9 it's not. It's level P. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So I mean, you don't even have a document that you can look at that's giving you the honest evaluation of the Plan. So I think that somebody needs to go back and fix this stuff before you make any approvals. Thank you. MAYOR MCLEAN: Thank you. That was our last speaker. (Video -recorded meeting 6-26-07; Section 3) MAYOR MCLEAN: Okay Mr. Boydston, go ahead. MR. BOYDSTON: These are questions I have specifically on the Development Agreement. The first question I have is last time we were here together and it was -- well, it was later than this so I'm feeling good. But I had asked Mr. Seaver if he was willing to forego 74 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 Development Agreement number 1, the tenants and 2 conditions of the Development Agreement number 1, to have 3 it replaced by Development Agreement number 2. So I was 4 wondering if you had time the last two weeks to do that? 5 MR. SEAVER: We do have that in the response and I'm 6 trying to answer very consistently. For my purposes, 7 we're talking about number 2. The disposition of number 1 8 has to be handled, I think, between the City and the 9 applicant. But we're on number 2; that's the only one we 10 need to focus on. 11 MR. BOYOSTON: As far as you're concerned that 12 number 1 is dispensed with. Okay. And I understand after 13 speaking with Carl that it is appropriate for us to be 14 able to talk about number 2 as a modification for number 15 1? 16 MR. SEAVER: Yes. That's correct. 17 MR. BOYDSTON: Okay. Great. Sorry. I had a couple of 18 general questions and first, that there's been this 19 question that has been batted around and stuff, and can I 20 get a definitive answer? Who decided that we should have 21 a Development Agreement from our Staff? Who was that 22 person? Who actually wrote the Development Agreement 23 we're looking at, number 2, and who's paying for it? Can 24 I get a definitive answer on those three questions, 25 1 2 please? 75 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.69'7.3210 that. MR. FERRY: Let me have Paul Brattsman [ph] address 3 MR. BOYDSTON: Thank you, sir. 4 MR. MONTEZ: Madame Mayor, members of the City 5 Council, Joe Montez, the Assistant City Attorney, I'll 6 try to answer as many of the Development Agreement 7 questions as I can. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 With regard to the -- I guess what we're referring to as the second Development Agreement, which I would characterize as a revision to the first Development Agreement, under your municipal code what it says is if a Development Agreement is denied by the Planning Commission and appealed, it goes to the City Council for either denial, approval., or modification. So the Development Agreement was appealed by the applicant from the Planning Commission. It was moved on to the City Council in that procedural posture. 1n the intervening time between the Planning Commission's consideration the City Council's consideration there was a reduction in the scope of the project by the project applicant. It was in that context 22 that I believe Staff engaged in discussions with the 23 developer with respect to making modifications to the old 24 Development Agreement to see if there was a modified 25 Development Agreement that could be generated that would 76 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 be palatable to both the Council and the applicant. I 2 think the hope on the part of Staff was that that could 3 be completed. in advance of your June 12th meeting so that 4 you would have a "revised" Development Agreement for you 5 to consider, as opposed to simply the Development 6 Agreement that had been presented to the -- as presented 7 to the Planning Commission. However, the negotiations for B those revisions were not completed in advance of your 9 June 12th meeting. 10 So I think the discussion with regard to revising 11 the Development Agreement was initiated by Staff. In 12 terms of who drafted the revisions, I was the drafter of 13 the initial revisions, and then in some negotiations with 19 the developer back and forth there were subsequent 15 revisions made back and forth to the point where the 16 document was released on the June 1st, I think, but had 17 not yet -- the negotiations have not yet finalized. 18 MR. BOYDSTON: Okay. And are we paying for it? 19 MR. MON=,': I'm not aware of who's paying for it. 20 I'm aware that we're billing the City for it. Whether 21. those bills are being reimbursed by the developer, I'm 22 not aware. 23 MR. BOYDSTON: Does anyone know? 24 MR. BRATTSMAN: The City Code currently allows the 25 City to bill the developer for those expenses. 77 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LI.,C — GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 MR. BOYDSTON: So we're going to bill the developer 2 for these expenses? 3 MR. BRATTSMAN: Unless the Council decides 4 otherwise, that would be the intent. 5 MR. BOYDSTON: All right. 6 MAYOR MCLEAN: Which developer-? Paul, which 7 developer? G&L or the hospital? 8 MR. BRATTSMAN: It would be the applicant in this 9 case, which I believe is kind of a combined effort on the 10 -- 11 MAYOR MCLEAN: Both of them. 12 MR. BRATTSMAN: -- part of the hospital and G&L. 13 MAYOR MCLEAN: Okay. Thank you. 14 15 16 (Video -recorded meeting 6-26-07; Section 4) 17 18 MR. BOYDSTON: Okay. That. completes my questions, 19 comments on this Development Agreement, other than to say 20 -- the comment is that as this is written it is not worth 21 the paper that it is written on and I think that it would 22 be a great disservice to the people of Santa Clarita if 23 we sign anything close to this, because I don't believe 24 it gives the City anything, but gives the developer in 25 this case everything. And I'm not talking about the 78 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 hospital here. I'm talking about the G&L Realty and the 2 hospital office space. 3 MAYOR MCLEAN: Okay. Who would like to go next? 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Laurene? MS. WESTE: Thank you Mayor. At the last Council meeting I gave Staff an extensive list of changes and -- including screening, transitional care unit issues, architectural changes to compliment the neighborhood, building changes, parking structure changes, and i would like -- and I need responses to those items when Staff 11 goes out to start working on this. So you already have 12 that, but I just wanted to reference it. 13 You know, this is the only Santa Cla,rita Valley 14 hospital and while 60 percent of us do leave this area to 15 go to other hospitals, I do believe that -- that this 16 hospital, as well as like Holy Cross, are expanding 17 because there is definitely population increase and I 18 think that it's clear that the intent of the hospital is 19 to increase the beds to 370. They show that they're doing 20 that by transferring services from the existing hcspitai 21 to Medical Building 1. 22 But I did want to state, you know, there is nothing 23 that. the Staff has had in a formative direction from the 24 City Council as yet on a Development Agreement to 25 actually draft and structure the connectivity for -- for 79 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 7 this. So when we go through this document sitting in the 2 book, that the Staff has not been directed yet to 3 actually go perform the work and create the connectivity. 4 So I'll give my comments. I know Staff is eagerly 5 awaiting for all the information they get from the public 6 and from us. 7 1: know the hospital needs hospital beds and the, 8 well, the community has said that. We need women's 9 services and the community has referenced that. Neo -natal 10 intensive care is certainly an extremely necessary item. 11 And there's a lot of discussion about, I think it's STEMI 12 unit for cardio. 13 I don't need you to stand there, Mr. Montez. Thank 19 you. 15 And we need the TCU issue resolved in Santa Clarita 16 Valley. And when I ask for that resolution, that means we 17 continue to work on that. I gave references in my notes 18 at the last meeting, but we need to resolve the 19 transitional care unit here in the Santa Ciarita Valley. 20 There are a lot of concerns for residents to make 21 sure the hospital services are built. And they're looking 22 to -- they actually -- I've not heard anyone say they 23 didn't want the services, they're just more concerned 24 that the services aren't going to happen. So we need to 25 address that. 80 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 I would ask that all traffic issues and improvements 2 must be done upfront and that we have triggers and 3 linkages between the hospital services, what the 4 community has said they need, and the expansion of the 5 office building expansions, of the hospital 6 administration office building, the Centers of Excellence 7 medical service office building, and the one doctors' 8 office building. 9 1 would ask that the hospital space that is 10 definitely needed and supported by the community, that we 11 have triggers and guarantees, or a plan be in place. ]n 12 other words, so that Lhe commitment is clear. There has 13 to be a clear path that when you come back and you read 14 the document that you can see how this works and what 15 connects to what. So we need a solid and clear agreement 16 to come back to Council so there's one document, and that 17 there -- that the community has specificity. 18 I would like to know that the operating room issue 19 is addressed, however that needs to be addressed. I 20 certainly don't know what kind of operating rooms are 21 needed, have no clue, but there has been discussion about 22 that and their availability. 23 We need a clearly written Development Agreement that 24 can give assurances to the medical needs discussed, and 25 we need assurances because of the trust issues. I think 81 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 there's got to be a dialogue what Staff has, that -- 2 through the connectivity that gives the community the 3 trust that they need because there's a lot of confusion. 9 We need to get guaranteed services in the new in - 5 patient facility that's been talked about multiple times, 6 and so that really needs to be addressed. 7 We need a guarantee that all medical buildings are 8 not built if they're -- if there is no in-patient 9 building. Did I get that clear, Ken? Okay. Because that's 10 one of the major triggers. And I'm sure you need to 11 discuss these triggers at length with the hospital. 12 Let us get all of the community issues out there and 13 listed and let's get answers for them. So let's have a 19 list of community issues. You've already started on that 15 in this Council agenda, and then let's get them answered 16 to that when we come back that that is done. 17 I think it's time that the Council actually give 18 Staff the direction to do the work, the extensive work, 19 to come back with a Development Agreement. If truly the 20 community and the Council want to have guarantees that 21 there's going to be the quality of medical care and the 22 different things that have been discussed, that a 23 Development Agreement can be the mechanism to do that. It 29 has to be clearly defined and it has to have a1.1 of the 25 linkages and triggers legally put in place so it's a very 82 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 800.697.3210 definitive document. It should have consequences and guarantees for performance. Is that clear? I would -- I would say that there has been extensive dialogue here and I just like to bring up the fact that I know we're continuing to August 28th, but I think that the public -- it might be possible to close the public hearing except that all new information that the public would have. And I don't know how you do that but itwould seem to me that we can't keep going through the same dialogue. We need to get all of this answered and all of these things that have come out over the past however long it's been. And when this comes back to the Council, we deal with new information and the public would have a clear and definitive document. And I would also ask that the -- after we do that or at the point where that's done and we're moving on, that we get_ the hospital together with the Smart Growth and the community people and discuss the documents that are clearly defined and have clearly answered the questions and address the issues that have been brought up. That way, we come into an arena where we've distilled this down and the community actually has substantive documents that they can work from, because right now there's just - - there's just too much going back and forth. Did I get that out there clearly? 83 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 MR. PULSKAMP: Mayor, if I could ask you a question, 2 would that be in lieu of what we heard last meeting was 3 going on meeting with the community, at the Council 4 meeting with Smart Growth? 5 MAYOR MCLEAN: Well, I think you have your community 6 here. I think going out and meeting with the community is 7 basically getting the parties at interest together. That 8 is the community. The community members that have been 9 coming to the meetings, and then certainly the Smart 10 Growht people that Mr. Gawny is representing the 11 .neighborhoods around that, that's the community. 12 MR. PULSKAMP: So get the council and Smart -- or 13 the hospital. and Smart Growth together? 14 MS. WESTE: Yeah. And I think you do that by getting 15 all of these documents put together and distilled. We're 16 certainly not working from a set of working documents 17 that's got all of their questions answered, that's got 18 all of the linkages put together. And then -- then if 19 we've closed the public hearing to all information, then 20 we're just dealing with new information and new concerns 21 and that way we have brought this issue into a narrower 22 focus. And -- and I think for the moment that covers what 23 I wanted to bring up. 24 MAYOR MCLEAN: Okay. Bob, did you have anything to 25 say? 84 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 MR. KELLAR: Honestly, it's already been brought out 2 very well by the public. I remain [inaudible] facts on 3 this. I would -- at the next meeting I'm going to be 4 reviewing it [inaudible] updates or any additional 5 information relevant to the traffic concerns I'd be very 6 interested. 7 MAYOR MCLEAN: Frank? 8 MR. FERRY: One thing I do want to make sure -- 9 clarity of facts, is that Kerry Carmody coming forward 10 tonight, he states that both hospitals are needed in this 11 area, which completely confirms what KSA, our consultant, 12 said stating that he did a study in 2003 that actually 13 confirmed what our consultants just stated. 14 Both hospitals are needed in this Valley. 15 Competition is good. It will improve the overall 16 healthcare of our Valley. It's not an issue of one or the 17 other; you need both. And so I don't think anyone is 18 served to pit Mr. Seaver versus Mr. Carmody. I don't 19 think it's any -- it doesn't serve our community well to 20 pit -- pit Henry Mayo versus Holy Cross. 21 One son of mine was born at Holy Cross, one was born 22 at Henry Mayo. They're great kids. I've had two surgeries 23 at Henry Mayo and I've had two surgeries at Holy Cross 24 and I'm still here to be able to chew out Tim Ben at any 25 given moment. I mean, both institutions did a great job. 85 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 So I don't think we serve anyone well other than to say 2 we need both institutions here. 3 I agree somewhat with Lynn Plambeck; 25 years is a 4 long time. I do believe that similar to Councilmember 5 Weste, there needs to be triggers or benchmarks within 6 the Development Agreement. I do have concerns when you 7 talk about neo -natal care, women's health services, all 8 the different areas of excellence that there needs to be 9 some language other than "if/then" or -- there needs to 10 be some triggers. 11 My concern is just from a common sense approach, if 12 I build offices with doctors in them and I don't have an 13 equitable number or ratio of beds, all I'm doing is I'm 14 creating patients for doctors that are going to end up 15 having to go to Holy Cross for a bed because the beds 16 aren't being built in equity with each other. So there 17 has to be some business plan or some equity between 1.8 office space and beds only because it seems that people 19 are being driven to these doctors up here, that doctors 20 are going to want to have their patients in a bed close 21to their office. But the beds aren't available because 22 they're not triggered by the need, then they're going to 23 have to go somewhere else. 24 So i do think that we need to look at some -- 25 similar to what Council member West was saying -- some 86 NOTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.691.3210 1 trigger between the two, that there are some guarantees 2 that you need the neo -natal, you need the health, you 3 need the beds. I would like KSA to give me some ratio for 4 operating rooms; I do want that to be a non -issue at the 5 end of the day, on what this Valley, based on 50 percent 6 of the need -- you can't expect Henry Mayo to provide 100 7 percent of the need of operating rooms for our Valley. 8 However, if they're providing 50 percent of our care or 9 40 percent of the care, what is 40 percent of the care 10 operating needs? I need to know that from KSA. 11 Traffic definitely is a concern for myself. 1 don't 12 see myself truly at this time using eminent domain, or 13 considering eminent domain for homes in that area. So 14 once again, I do need to see what are my other options 15 for traffic model there? Is eminent domain something, 16 once again, based on a future traffic model for a future 17 Council to decide, "Okay, we're at that point?" But I 18 think within the Development Agreement you can decide 19 what that model is or what triggers that discussion other 20 than at this time. 21 Parking structure, I want to know the cost. I mean, 22 we heard about underground. I need to know the cost. I 23 mean, this is all driven by money. Everything we do in 24 this community is driven by -- all I keep thinking is the 25 Cross Valley Connector, how similar this is to the Cross 87 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1. Valley Connector. 2 I mean, in 1990 the state was going to pay for $110 3 million. Northridge came out in force, like this 4 community here. They said, "Don't build it." Okay, we 5 didn't build it at that time. We built it ten years later 6 because the need has driven it. Now it's a $250 million 7 dollar project. The exact same road got built. And that's 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 what we're sort of doing here. We've got another Cross Valley Connector situation. The healthcare is going to drive the needs of this community. We're going to need this hospital plus, so you make a good decision today so you're not reacting eight years from now when everyone's yelling at the Council then, "Why didn't you do it then?" I would like to see parking structure. I want to know underground costs versus above ground costs. I mean, it might be exorbitant. I at least want the numbers so I can say it costs x for above ground, below. I want to know from Staff -- it might not even be doable underground. I don't know. I don't know. I'd like to at least have that answered. I think I mentioned, KSA, give me bed ratio to office space, someway to trigger that. I don't have a problem right now with building -- looking back here, I don't have a problem with building - 88 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 - I was looking back there. I don't have a problem 2 looking at MOB -1, 2 -- I honestly don't have a problem 3 with four if that's what this community needs. I don't 4 have a problem with the hospital coming back to us if 5 needed to have to get approvals if they don't meet a 6 certain benchmark. I also have a problem with the 7 hospital coming back in the future -- I want to see MOB - 8 1,2 built, the in-patient thing built. I don't have a 9 problem with them coming back to a future Council saying, 10 "Okay, now there's a need for MOB -3. So whether t=hat's 11 true, that that needs to happen at a later date, I want 12 to at least have that discussion. 13 I did throw in here as a recipient of a beriatric 1.9 surgery I'm sure it's much more than a Jenny Craig, so 1 15 just want to throw that out there. [inaudible] with 16 diabetes, heart and medication that I think it's a little 17 more than Jenny Craig, so I just want to throw that out 18 to you. 19 1 am going to throw Ken Stripland [ph] under the 20 bus. Ken, you're outstanding with community groups. It's 21 something you've been doing well. here for a decade. The 22 Council has a lot of faith and trust in you. I think if 23 we say hospital, go make nice; or the community go make 29 nice, I think it's going to take someone like you that 25 represents us to see what the issues are and what you can 89 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 1'2 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 do to make it happen. So that's up to your boss, but you Have an expertise in that and I just think that 1'd feel very comfortable that if you tell me this is what it is based on what you objectively here, then I'm going to take that into strong consideration. So I hate to volunteer you, but I think l just did. Let me go down David Gawny's thing real quick because I think he had some good points. I think the enforcement of the D.A., Development Agreement, 1 think we do need to beef that up and take out some of the subjective language. 'Phe eminent domain issue I agree with at this time. fie mentioned too large for the site. I've heard Council member Boydston make that statement. I've heard Council member Kellar and I've heard Mayor McLean. In order to keep up with our healthcare needs in this Valley, that's why I think I'm okay with MO -1, MO -2 and then it coming back later and seeing, "Okay, those worked here at the site. Now we have a future need for MO -3." And does it work? I mean, I don't want to get us into a point of similar to what a Council did doing a Development Agreement out with Whittaker-Bermite and then later we're saying, "Okay, things have changed 20 years later." So I'm okay with not giving everything where later something can come back. 90 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 I Let's see, hold on a second. Let me get through my - 2 - yeah, I think I got through that list. I guess the 3 point is, I mean, some people are saying only the 4 hospital and not the beds. I mean, you're still going to 5 need the doctors. I mean, I think so you can build the 6 beds but you need doctors to serve them. I mean, here 7 this lady's doing five 12 -hour shifts. You're still going 8 to need -- one doctor can only serve so many beds. You're 9 going to need a balance. 10 I mean, this is purely a financing mechanism. You've 11 got a hospital that just raised $14 million. They're 12 going to try to raise $25 million towards their $7.00 13 million. They're looking for someone else's to use their 14 capital to help benefit their complex. That's very 15 similar to -- everyone's saying, "Who's G&L?" Well I can 16 say, "Who's Cherokee SunCal?" 17 And everyone in the room is like, "I don't know." 18 Well the reality is we're doing the exact same thing 19 with the Whittaker-Bermite project in order to get six 20 wells cleaned up to get our water cleaned up to get a 21 site to -- we do this similarly all the time. 22 Who is John Jameson? No one in the room knows John 23 Jameson. Well he's a guy who's developing retail over in 24 Canyon Country so the Canyon Country residents don't have 25 to travela half hour to get over on this side of town, 91 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL, LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 gave us 1000 acres to open -- so I mean, there's -- we do 2 this all the time. And private investors who provide a 3 community benefit, they get a return on their money. 4 So basically what you have here is the same thing we 5 deal with with all our issues. You've got a private 6 investor who's willing to give capital up to the hospital 7 with Mr. Seaver to do x, build a parking structure, bring 8 doctors into our community. In exchange, he gets a 9 return. It's no different than what we do with everyone I.0 else in a land use or Development Agreement. 11 The difference here is this is a healthcare issue, 12 and really that -- I mean, that ultimately at the end of 13 the day is what's going to drive I think everyone's 14 decision once they're comfortable is that you're going to 15 want to make sure as mom that when your kid is hit by a 16 car that there's a plastic surgeon specialist there. ]7 You're going to want to make sure that when your husband 18 has a heart attack there's going to be a specialist 19 there. I mean, I could just keep going down the list. I 20 mean, that is it. Neo -natal. And you can see the 21 disparity between parts of the town. 22 Jody and I moved there -- and I was quoted in the 23 paper and Chris was right when he -- he quoted what I 24 said, that the value of the neighborhoods increased. I'm 25 not saying for Mr. Gawny. I know Mr. -- I'm not an idiot. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 92 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 I know Mr. Gawny doesn't feel any more value to his neighborhood. Well I'll sure tell you that any PTA moms that live in the central valley area feel a heck of a lot better about their kids being near the hospital than someone who lives over in Canyon Country of north of Saugus. That's a reality. If you don't think people feelbetter being near a hospital, bull. There's a huge difference Mr. Kellar and Mr. Boydston feel being in Canyon Country being to a hospital than here. So it's clear the disparity. We need something in Canyon Country someday because Canyon Country don't feel the same security as I have in central valley, that when I need it I'm there. And that did drive my decision when I helped -- bought a house. And the people in the Summit, I understand you're upset but I know you have the same security that when you need the hospital, it's there. So the question is, how do we deal with the land use 19 impacts of that? I'm going to decipher my notes once 20 again as much as I can if I have any more for this 21 evening, but is that clear the direction I'm trying to 22 look for, for you guys? Questions for me or no, we're 23 good? 24 MAYOR MCLEAN: I'm good. I'm just waiting to make my 25 comments. 93 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 Okay. First of all, I appreciated the proponents of 2 the project coming and making their impassioned pleas. I 3 want exactly what they want. I want the hospital to 4 expand. I want the neo -natal unit. I want the cath lab. I 5 want all the services that the hospital wants and needs. 6 And if this Plan were on a piece of property not in the 7 middle of a residential neighborhood and on a larger plot 8 of land, we wouldn't be having this debate. There would 9 be no debate. We'd say, "Go for it." Okay. 10 One of the things is I asked the question about how 11 Mr. Gawny's property and some of those other closest to 12 the hospital would be impacted. And i was told by Mr. 13 Brattsman that if you were standing in Mr. Gawny's 14 backyard and there's a helicopter coming in to land on 15 the parking structure, it is at eye level to his 16 backyard. 17 Now I can't imagine living under those 18 circumstances. So my question is, is there mitigation 19 planned for those residents that live right there that 20 are going to be most impacted? I haven't heard about that 21 at all. So I would like to know if that's being 22 addressed; that's one of the questions I would like to 23 have answered. 24 I also would like to know -- they talk about the 25 decibel level not being any more -- or much more at a 94 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 discernible level than when they were landing before. But 2 what is the decibel level of the helicopters when they're 3 landing? I would like to know that. I don't know if 9 that's listed in that EIR or anywhere. I couldn't find 5 it. 6 Okay. Going down my list, I -- okay. I am concerned 7 with the density, and the square footage of the parking 8 structures absolutely needs to be included when you're 9 considering this project because it adds too many 10 hundreds of thousands of square feet to this project if 11 you don't add that. You're not getting the true picture 12 of the impact of this project. So that absolutely needs 13 to be included. 14 I have no problem with MOB -1 at all, except for I 15 would like to have the suggestions that Laurene made as 16 to how to make it much more aesthetic and having it 1'/ pushed back. And the parking structure, obviously is 18 needed. But we have to have -- if we're going to have a 19 Development Agreement, it has to be much more definitive. 20. We have to know exactly what we as a city are going to be 21 able to have input on and power over. Right now we -- if 22 we signed this today we would be like in a situation 23 where we would have no say about anything. And I can't -- 24 I cannot agree to that. 2S A Master Plan, I agree with having a Master Plan so 95 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 that the hospital can plan what it needs to do, so I 2 agree with a Master Plan. But we have to know what we're 3 getting when, and right now we don't -- we don't have 4 that ability in anything that I've seen. 5 And I guess I would like to know, I had asked the 6 questions about the study on those hospitals that we were 7 given and I truly want to see pictures of where those -- 8 kind of neighborhoods those are situated in and did they 9 actually use statistics on those buildings that are 10 supposed to be on the campus and they're one-third of a 11 mile away? I want to know that for sure, because if they 12 did that then that -- it's just not right. The study is 13 not good. 14 And if the Master Plan were approved, but we prefer 15 not to do a Development Agreement for 20 years, let's say 16 for five or ten -- well, ten years out, I'm assuming 17 that, Mr. Seaver, you can design your 120 bed in-patient 18 building; there's nothing to preclude you from doing 19 that. If you have the Master Plan and you have the 20 Development Agreement for a long enough time to cover 21 that one, there's no reason you can't do that; right? 22 MR. SEAVER: I think the technical answer is yes. 23 There's no reason. The reason the Development Agreement 24 is helpful to the hospital is in our financing. Without 25 that we have less certainty on financing. 96 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 MAYOR MCLEAN: Okay. So if you have the Development 2 Agreement for a long enough period of time to get you the 3 financing for your in-patient, then you're okay; correct? 4 Okay. Thank you. 5 1 a concerned that you're only going to be able to 6 -- you have four operating rooms now and you're only 7 going to be able to have five for any specific length of 8 time, and then possible six maybe, what? Fifteen years 9 from.now. and that doesn't sound like it's enough to 10 accommodate all of the doctors you want to bring with all 11 of those office buildings. So I need some more 12 information on that. 13 I'm not going to go over every fine point that Tim 14 Ben did, but I'm just going to say the Development 15 Agreement needs to be much more definitive before I can 16 agree to it. We cannot give away everything. 17 Frank mentioned Whittaker-Bermite. I had written 18 that down here as well. We got into trouble by doing a 19 Development Agreement that we could possibly be stuck 20 with that is outdated and is not a good -- it's not a 21 good use for that property. So I want to make sure that 22 we're very careful about that. 23 And sequencing, I think that's an important thing to 24 have. I like definitive sequencing as well, and timing of 25 what -- what's going to happen. I have a problem with the 97 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 MOP for the parking decisions when it's not clear who's 2 going to be able to make the final decision on that and I 3 think that needs to -- we have to be very careful that 9 we're not giving away our power on that parking business 5 so that at some point it does go -- they can start 6 charging. 7 Okay. On the questions, this list of questions, I 8 think that you -- you did pretty much put everything that 9 we asked for in here, but when you're giving the answers, 10 they pretty.-- they need to be definitive answers to 11 these questions so that when a question is asked it's not 12 one or two words. Please be very careful that we're given 13 really good information on these. There's a lot of things 19 here and that's going to be a lot of work for you to do, 15 and I understand that, but I think we do need that. 16 1 want to make sure I give you everything. I do 17 believe that we're going to have to come back and talk 18 abut this on the llth. I don't see how we're going to get 19 away from doing that -- the 10th. The 10th. But I agree, 20 we have listened to proponents of the hospital twice. 21 We've listened to proponents twice. And I don't know if 22 we can put them on the honor system and say when we come 23 back on the 11th, please we just can't do another two and 29 a half hours of testimony and get through everything we 25 need to get through. So I don't know -- I'm not sure if I 98 NOTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 I want the public hearing closed because that -- on, do you 2 have -- okay, thank you. 3 MR. NEWTON: I would suggest that we cannot close 4 the public hearing at this time if you're receiving 5 additional information. 6 MAYOR MCLEAN: Okay. 7 MR. NEWTON: It's appropriate, however, for you to 8 suggest to participants on the 10th of July that they 9 restrict their comments to issues involving the EIR. 10 MAYOR MCLEAN: Right. Because I think if we get that Il many speakers again, I think we as a Council -- we would 12 have the ability to limit them to one minute or -- or 13 limit their time. I don't like to do that. If anyone new 1.4 comes forward and they have new information, that's one 15 thing, but -- Laurene? 16 MS. WESTE: I have a couple questions. One mostly 17 for the City Attorney. One, I don't know what we would be 18 doing on 10th of July because right now with the amount 19 of work that all of us have generated and what the 26 audience has generated, there needs to be a tremendous 21 amount of negotiation and legal research done to develop 22 documents that are clear, concise and anchored to all the 23 requests of what the public asked for and what we've 24 asked for. And I don't think there's anything you're 25 going to bring back on the 10th of July to deal with. I 99 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 mean, there just -- there just isn't. 2 And the second thing, Carl Newton, is that I think 3 the only information at this point of what's going to 4 happen is that when Staff comes back with all the work, 5 and I'm assuming Henry Mayo is going to agree to -- to 6 dealing with the issue. I mean, I feel fairly confident 7 they're going to want to -- they're going to want to work 8 through this process now with Staff. But assuming all of 9 that work takes place, in closing the public hearing the 10 only thing we would want to hear would be the new 11 information that would be brought up as to what is now 12 developed through the process. But all of this other 13 stuff that we've gotten down, I mean the community has 19 done a really good job and I think the Council has too at 15 distilling down all the questions. 16 MR. NEWTON: If you plan to receive new information, 17 you would have to re -notice the hearing for the purpose 18 of allowing the public to comment upon the new 19 information. So it's -- it's more effective for you to 20 continue the hearing with a restriction, for instance on 21 the 10th of July, to deal with Council member Boydston's 22 request that it include [inaudible] of environmental 23 issues. He had a list of questions, he said, and you 29 could request that all public participants limit their 25 comments to environmental issues. 100 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 MAYOR MCLEAN: Well are you coming back on the July 2 10th to just discuss environmental issues and then close 3 the public hearing and the move forward? Because you've 9 got to give -- you've got to give Staff an opportunity to '5 work with all the issues that community has brought up 6 and actually distill down and create documents. We don't 7 have documents. 8 MR. NEWTON: Yes. But you're not really going to 9 have documents or changes of substance that are presented 1.0 to you until the meeting of the 28th of August. 11 MAYOR MCLEAN: Well that's why I'm wondering why you 12 want a July 10th meeting. I mean -- 13 MR. BOYDSTON: Because I have questions that I want 19 answered and I want to give information in a public forum 15 as is my right as a Council person, I think. 16 MAYOR MCLEAN: Well -- 17 MR. NEWTON: Subject to the balance of the Council. 18 MR. BOYDSTON: Of course. 19 MR. NEWTON: Approving that. 20 MAYOR MCLEAN: Well it would seem like a lot of the 21. EIR questions could be dealt with outside of the Council 22 and then distilled down. 23 UNKNOWN: [inaudible] 24 MAYOR MCLEAN: No. Because I don't think we can 25 because we don't have the -- we're not looking -- we 101 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 don't have any documents yet to even look at. 2 MR. FERRY: The point is, the only purpose of July 3 10th is for Tim Ben's EIR [inaudible] hearing. 4 MAYOR MCLEAN: That's right. 5 MR. BOYDSTON: Well it's EIR questions. I have a few 6 on the bankruptcy agreement and some on the Staff Report. 7 I was trying to -- I was trying to consolidate. If 8 we could actually limit, and I think that the public 9 would be understanding if we limited the amount of public 10 participation to a smaller amount. I've see the Council Il do that in the past when something has rolled on. Maybe a 12 one minute per person, that could keep it down. You could 13 let me go first, then allthe public would know that it 14 would be many hours before they get to speak, then there 15 will probably be less of them. 16 MAYOR MCLEAN: Well we could also just call a 17 special -- 18 MS. WESTE: we could also call a special meeting so 19 that you could do that. 20 UNKNOWN: I think you can close the public hearing 21 MAYOR MCLEAN: Well -- 22 UNKNOWN: [inaudible] we leave the public meeting 23 open. 29 MAYOR MCLEAN: Yeah. I think we're going to have to 25 do that and I think we can limit -- if we get 90 people 102 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 that want to speak again, we're just going to limit the 2 time that they can speak. That's all there is to it. 3 Because I think we've given everyone a chance to speak 9 their mind and I can almost guarantee that they're going 5 to be very respectful of our time on that night so that 6 we can get those questions answered in the public and 7 Staff can then set to work and get this stuff done over 8 our hiatus I would assume. 9 MS. WESTE: I'm hoping they will get it done over 10 our hiatus or as close to after as possible 11 MAYOR MCLEAN: Right. But you -- I think you know 12 where we're going with this. We want a pretty ironclad 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Development Agreement, as short as possible, because I agree with Frank. After one -- you know, one and two are built, if they want more they have to come back to us. That's all there is to it. MR. PULSKAMP: Mayor, can I read back kind of the five things that I think you want us to do? Before I do, I want to make sure the public and the Council know we have yet to bring a Development Agreement to the Council that has Staff recommendation. Before we spend a lot of time on that, we want a direction from the Council as to whether or not you wanted the Development Agreement, what types of things you wanted in the Development Agreement, we got a lot of that tonight. 103 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 We also wanted to hear from the public and see what 2 those issues were. We heard a lot on June 12th, we heard 3 some more this evening. So I think we have a better 4 ability to sit down with the hospital, conceptualize 5 this, and come up with a Development Agreement that 6 reflects the Council's desires. 7 That being said, the five things I see that we're 8 doing is we're going to put an item on the agenda for 9 July 12th -- 10 MAYOR MCLEAN: 10th. 11 MR. PULSKAMP: For July 10th that focuses on the 12 FLR. We're going to have the hospital and Smart Growth 13 meet and see if their issues can be at least whittled 14 down. We will attempt to negotiate a Development it Agreement with the applicant addressing as many of the 16 issues raised as possible. Fourth, we will get the 11 information that has been requested tonight, as well as 18 the information that's identified in this evening's 19 packet, the issues and the questions that are noted in 20 there. And then finally we'll bring all the information - 21 - we'll attempt_ to bring all the information requested to 22 the Council on August 28th. 23 MAYOR MCLEAN: I just wanted to mention I had one 24 thing written down that I forgot to mention. A site 25 visit. I wonder -- I would like to have a site visit. I 104 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 want to see what -- what those residents are going to 2 have to -- to put up with. 3 MR. PULSKAMP: We can do that at your leisure, 4 Mayor. 5 MAYOR MCLEAN: Okay. 6 MR. PULSKAMP: Whenever you want. 7 MAYOR MCLEAN: I would hope that other Council 8 members would want to do that as well. 9 MR. KELLAR: I'll go with you, Marsha. I was just 10 over there today. I like to go over there every now and 11 again. 12 MR. NEWTON: Could I mention just a couple things? 13 Is -- Roger, are you okay with having this meeting with 14 the Smart Growth people and sitting down? 15 Great. 16 The -- I wanted to say that I also want to say what 17 the Mayor said in that we need to include the square 18 footage of the parking structures in the project, 19 regardless. I mean, they're big buildings, okay? And they 20 take up a lot of space and they look like buildings. 21 They're tall like buildings and they should be included 22 in -- 23 We might have Staff look at giving us a presentation 29 the next time looking at the ability to use a conditional 25 use permit to give you the same sort of things you would 105 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 1 get under a Development Agreement, you know, and -- with 2 the Master Plan as well. But combining the Master Plan 3 with the conditional use permits, seeing if we can 4 achieve the same thing without making a very, very long - S - but guaranteeing that those things are in place. Just 6 so you would speak to us about what the advantage or 7 disadvantage that and that would be all. Thanks. 8 MAYOR MCLEAN: Okay. So are we okay now with 9 continuing this hearing to July 10th? 10 UNKNOWN: So moved. 11 UNKNOWN: Second. 12 MAYOR MCLEAN: Roll call? 13 MR. NEWTON: I think you might add to that with the 14 expressed intent of reviewing environmental issues only 15 that evening. And with the intent also to continue the 16 public hearing to the 28th of August. 17 MAYOR MCLEAN: That's fine, but if we do that and if 18 any one of us has another question regarding a 19 Development Agreement or -- would we be precluded from 20 doing that? 21 MR. NEWTON: No. You wouldn't be. 22 MAYOR MCLEAN: We could bring that up? 23 MR. NEWTON: Yes. 24 MAYOR MCLEAN: Okay. All right. 25 MR. BOYDSTON: Yes. I just wanted to say it was very 106 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 I polite of the G&L gentleman to actually be here and I was 2 hopeful he could come back the next time so that I could 3 actually ask those questions. Thank you. 4 MAYOR MCLEAN: Okay. Roll call? 5 MS. DAWSON: Council member Ferry? 6 MR. FERRY: Yes. 7 MS. DAWSON: Council member Weste? 8 MS. WESTE: Aye. 9 MS. DAWSON: Mayor Pro -Tem Kellar? 10 MR. KELLAR: Yes. 11 MS. DAWSON: Council member Boydston? 12 MR. BOYDSTON: Yes. 13 MS. DAWSON: Mayor McLean? 14 MAYOR MCLEAN: Yes. 15 MS. DAWSON: Motion carries. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 107 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.32.10 I, April. Naaden, a transcriber, hereby declare under penalty of perjury that to the best of my ability the above 107 pages contain a full, true and correct transcription of the video recording that I received regarding the event listed on the caption on page 1. I further declare that I have no interest in the event of the action. July 6, 2007 April Naaden (719) 335-1695 29 25 108 HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES 800.697.3210 y 4 U SCOPE Santa Clarita Organiz(.a'tT�bnllf�ol�11gn� thCe Enviro�n�ment TO PROMOTE, PROTECTANIPRE ETH' 11,0 i1 �ih, ievLCx,Y AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE SANTA CLARMA VALLEY POST OFFICE bbA4 d2O, S *dmm CA 21 3i 7-9-07 RECEIVED RECEIVED -`;' Ct-ERKS OFFICE,,, . ,ICS OFFICE City Council ,, `_) City of Santa Clarita RECEIVED AND MADE A o -< 23920 Valencia Blvd. PART OF THE RECORD AT �,i Santa Clarita, CA 91355 2 110 (0-7 MEETING � C o ITEM NO. RE: Master Case Number MC 04-325 FROM: L.a NF LoMl gec-K c:,) o Conditional Use Permit (not available to the public) Development Agreement Final (not available to the public) r Ln a Project Applicant: Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital and G&L Realty Project Location: 23845 through 23929 McBean Parkway within the community of Valencia in the City of Santa Clarita Please Copy to ail Council members Dear Council Members: We have submitted extensive comments on this project on the EIR, the Master Plan and the Development agreement, including letters dated 9-18-06,10-16-06,1-8-07, 2-5-07, 6-6-07 and 6- 11-07. Only one of these letters appears in the Draft Final EIR Although not all this correspondence is related to the EIR, we request that it ALL be included as it is helpful for public discussion for everyone to see each other's comments on all aspects of this approval. Further, there is NO final EIR at the Library for public review as indicated in the document. We are unsure whether there is a new final EIR on the changed project or whether the City is relying on the FEIR, that was before the Planning Commission. If it is not the same FEIR that was before the Planning Commission, the document should be re -circulated, and we hereby formally request to receive a copy. We continue to assert that community has a need for expanded medical facilities, and we support addressing these needs. However, this location cannot accommodate the scope of this proposed project that is, in fact, mainly a medical office space expansion.. (The additional 327,363 square feet of mostly office space will increase the square footage of the existing office&ospital complex by 100•/0.) Nor will it serve the medical needs of this community for the 25 years that is requested for buildout of the project. Since medical facilities are urgently needed in the Canyon Country area, we remain concerned that granting this proposal may stifle any realistic approach to solving the medical needs of the entire valley. This project is located in a Master Planned Community that is zoned Residential Low. One third of the proposed project is owned by a for- profit corporation, G&L Realty. As presented, this project will severely impact a master planned residential community by adding SCOPE Comments Henry Mayo Office Expansion FEIR 2 extensive unplanned office space. Neither the height, nor the traffic generated by this additional commercial project was envisioned in the City's general plan and is not consistent with that plan, as erroneously stated in the EIR. Yet the EIR has the unmitigated gall to claim on page 5.1-12 that this proposal is consistent with goal 6 of the City General Plan "To protect and enhance the integrity of existing residential neighborhoods and to provide for affordable housing." The high density, high rise, commercial projects as proposed for the G&L Realty portion of this project do not legally belong in residential zoning, but rather require a commercial office zoning that they do NOT currently have. Although a facilities area was designated for the hospital, no zoning exists that would allow the office space expansion to be consistent with the General Plan without Commercial Office zoning. Therefore, this proposal is inconsistent with the City's General Plan and the EIR is incorrect where it claims in Chapter 5.1 that it is consistent. Additionally, there is nothing in this proposal that requires G&L Reality to restrict their development to medical needs. Regarding the City's Unified Development Code - In the approval by the planning commission they state that: "That the proposed location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the projects proposed use is in accordance with the purpose of the City's Unified Development Code, the purpose of the zone in which the project site is located, the Santa Clarita General Plan and the development policies and standards of the City." Their reasons are: "Valencia Master Plan included regional serving institutions. The II1 ROi ffl campus was one of these regional serving institutions. " However, the general plan for Valencia just says a hospital, not a hospital campus. A CUP was required to have the hospital in the RL Zone by LA Co. It was for the hospital only not medical office buildings. CUP 234{5). The CUP only approved construction of an Education/Conference Center in 1983 and a skilled nursing facility in 1985 both under a CUP and both for hospital use. The City approved the medical office buildings tZ using a minor use permit. (Information per City Clerk's office, correspondence dated Feb. 28 , 2007).They said the project was consistent with the RL designation as result of obtaining an approved minor use permit, which allows for a modification of the originally approved conditional use permit. The Hospital asked for a CUP when they requested relocation of the heliport to the 32' structure next to the emergency room. The City planning department changed it to a minor use permit. This abbreviated public process should not be continued. We have copies of these CUP's and the Minor Use permits and request that they become part of the administrative record for this project since they are within the knowledge of the planning Dept. and City Council. The Planning Commission also stated that: "The Permitted Use Chart (Section 17.13.040) in the City's Unified Development Code categorizes "Hospital Services" as a "Public or Semi Public Use Type " "Hospital Services" is an allowed use in the Residential Low zone with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. For this reason, the master plan proposal and the use of SCOPE Comments Henry Mayo Office Expansion FEIR 3 the property for hospital services do not present a conflict with the zoning of the property or the requirements of the Unified Development Code, provided that the use meets the requirements set forth in the project conditions of approval and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program." However, there is no condid0nal use permit. So, in order to gain consistency, the developer is now trying to obtain that consistency by obtaining a CUP for the entire master plan. This requires a zone change, not a CUP. The current proposal appears to be an abuse of the conditional use process that, in addition, will promote weak enforcement action. Further, it is interesting that in the Conditions of Approval by the Planning Commission GC9 states that "All conditions of approval contained within this document shall be considered as requirements unless modified by an approved Development Agreement." Such a statement is a violation of the CUP. Although the EIR states that the project will be consistent with the General plan, the applicant is requesting a shared parking agreement, which would allow for a reduced number of parking spaces in future phases. In direct contradiction to this fact, the EIR erroneously states on page 5.1-18 that it is consistent with the City's policy Goal 4 on parking facilities — "To provide for and ensure an adequate supply of off-street and public parking to meet the needs of local residents and visitors to the planning arca". This request, being made despite the proposed construction of five multiple story parking structures, makes it clear that the requested density is beyond reason. McBean Parkway is already one of the most impacted sheets in our community. The cumulative impact of this project and other approved and proposed projects in the area would create'a congestion problem that would be a monument to the poor planning process of the city. Because of the increase in traffic, this proposal is also inconsistent with the General Plan under the noise and air quality sections. The noise decibel level as indicated in the EIR of a heliport that would now be on eye level with residents living on the hillside far exceeds the decibel level allowed in the noise element of the City General Plan. Further, the EIR claims that all the noise of the increased traffic stops at the street and will not affect the backyards or homes of the residents that live adjacent to McBean Pky, Old Or chard Rd. and Rockwell Cyn Rd. Noise level readings are taken for homes located several streets in from these roadways. We can find no noise readings for homes that are immediately adjacent to these roadways. Therefore, besides the fact that the noise just stopping at the street is patently absurd, there is no documentation that would confirm such an assessment. We believe that this proposal is not consistent with the General Plan and request that accurate noise surveys be conducted. If noise levels will be increased beyond general plan limits (which were already increased in the 2000 update), then mitigation to reduce noise should be offered to homeowners. For example, the developer should replace existing single pane windows with duel pane windows to reduce the noise level. Further, regarding noise levels, under Condition of Approval #5 by the Planning Commission "the project shall comply with the Title 16 and 17 of the Unified Development Code including, but not limited to, the Commercial and Industrial Development Standards." But the medical arke space is not in a commercial zona D is in a residential low tone. This is SCOPE Comments Henry Mayo Office Expansion FEIR 4 an arbitrary and capricious relaxation of the General Plan requirements. The Commission did the same thing with the noise level from the helicopters. When it is over the residential limit, they jump to the commercial limit. However, the kospkd does not have commercial zoning. As summarized above, the logistical problems with this location are glaring: It 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 sheer number of problems that cannot be mitigated should bring this proposal as presented to a speedy and final end. Finally, the changes to the project described in what the City calls an "Errata" document are NOT "errata". This word is normally used for grammar errors, numbers that are obviously incorrect, spelling errors, etc. The changes described do not fit this definition. For example, the re -striping of McBean Parkway (page 10) will require the removal of the beautiful Eucalyptus trees that now line this roadway. A re -striping proposal several years ago brought strong community opposition and was later dropped. This is NOT a minor and inconsequential error. The revised traffic generation figures described on page 11 substantially increase the trips per day. This will also change the air pollution and noise generated by this traffic. This is NOT a minor change. In fact, one might suppose that these traffic generation figures were disguised in the EIR and that the developer is now trying to avoid the legal problems created by this failure to disclose by using this inappropriate "Errata" structure. The fact that the Valencia truck sewer line has a 6.7mgd capacity, and was at 5.lmgd in 2003 with no more recent measurement than that (page 14) is NOT insignificant This "Errata" document is merely an illegal and inappropriate effort to get around the providing the public with the information they need to make relevant comments on these changes. This document should be circulated to all identified interested parties as a supplemental EIR in order to comply with CEQA regulations. This same document eliminates the project phasing (page 1). Again, this is a major change that should require re -circulation of the FEIIL Phasing is required to ensure that conditions are adhered to and that the building occurs in a logical manner as described in the DERL We wish to conclude be re -iterating our support for additional hospital facilities in this valley. Without the excessive development proposed by G&L Reality, the Hospital should have sufficient space for development within the current planning restrictions. A reasonable plan should be submitted that would comply with the law and reflect that of a community hospital. We also want to remind the City that those facilities are especially needed in the Canyon Country Part of our community. Allowing medical facilities to be focused in the western area of the Valley creates a severe access and traffic problem. We recommend that the City work with the developer to see if a location on the east side of the valley can be located for this proposal. "OLCle- Sin rely, /,,r� e Plambeck President Cc: Fred Folstad Attached for the Council's review, SCOPE comment letter dated 2-J-07 on the EIR y 6 � 2-5-07 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 2691 JUL 10 P 2: 4b RECEIVED ";TY C'..--FKS OFFICE SCOPE Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment TO PROMOTE, PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENT, ECOLOGY AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE SANTA CLARITA VALLEY RECEIVED PLANNING DIVISION FEB 0 6 2007 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA POST OFFICE BOX 1182, SANTA CLARITA, CA 91386 ' RECEIVED AND MADE A Planning Commission PART O THE RECORD AT City of Santa Clarita 'l 1. ( n 7 EETING 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 ITEM N0: LY#3 1i e tSCz rL Re: Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan FF.1R: Master Plan/Conditional Use Permit 04-022 Dear Planning Commissioners: We wish to preface our comments, as we have in the past, by stating that we do not oppose the expansion of hospital facilities. Our concern is the enormous and unwarranted addition of office space in a low-density residential neighbor hood, the height variance for these buildings and the additional traffic they will cause in a residential neighborhood. We also believe the medical offices should be sited in other parts of the Santa Clarita Valley such as Canyon Country that currently have a deficit of such facilities. General Comments We do not support amtentitlement period of 25 years due to the many changes that will occur during such a long period of time. A 25 -year approval is unnecessary, reduces flexibility and precludes the next generation from being involved with the development of their own community. Several developers in the County area (specifically for the Newhall Ranch project) have attempted to get approval for a comparable time period. The County has never allowed it. The City shouldn't either. One hundred and twenty pages of documents were made public on Friday. Although we realize you have technically complied with the Brown Act, obviously, it is not possible for the community to provide you with a comprehensive review of these issues in that Au�y� time period. We therefore request a 30 -day delay to review the documents. Further, the commission closed the public hearing on Nov.21, 2006. No CUP or conditions of approval were available at that meeting. We believe that the conditions for this very controversial project should be open to public discussion. We understand that certain design criteria have changed. We do not believe it is procedurally correct to change the project after closing the public hearing and then not to allow additional public comment on these changes. Violation of the California Environmental Ouality Act Per the staff report, the Conditions of Approval contain a very unique Condition PIA. This condition states that the EIR for the Project does not address certain mitigations for the Project as the anticipated timing of the Build -out Phase makes such mitigation too speculative at the time of the adoption of the Master Plan/CUP. Therefore, prior to the issuance by the City of the first building permit for a Project Building in the Build -out Phase of the Project, the following new studies will be performed for the Project Buildings in the Build -out Phase pursuant to CEQA requirements by consultant selected by the City and funded by the applicant. etc. Further, the Master Plan Conditions state "Although the EIR prepared for the project analyzes all the buildout phase of the HMNMliospital MasterPlan project. Mitigation measures are not assigned to the build -out phase of project implementation for traffic impacts given that mitigation for traffic impacts at the build -out phase are too speculative at this time. Traffic impacts and appropriate mitigations at the build -out phase cannot be assigned as they are beyond the life of the current traffic model for the Santa Clarita Valley." . Elsewhere, this document also makes similar statements for impacts to sewer and storm drain facilities. . The conditions also state that if new information and significant effects are more severe than in the EIR then "the appropriate level of additional CEQA review shall be undertaken by the City and funded by the applicant." It than allows for contributions of fair share of costs in lieu of actually performing such building phase mitigation. How is giving the City money a mitigation for traffic impacts? This proposal not only does not comply with CEQA, but also is a disservice to the community. For CEQA purposes, the City must assume that an approved project will be built out and My address the impacts and the mitigation for those impacts in the environmental review. The below citation refers to water supply, but is equally applicable to traffic, sewer and storm drain facilities. "Nor can the unanalyzed impacts of unknown wat r sources be mitigated by providing that if water proves unavailable, the\ jest's future . phases will not be built: "While it might be argued that not leding a portion of the project is the ultimate mitigation, it must be bo a is mind that the EIR must address the project and assumes the project w ill be built" ((Stanislaus Natural Heritage, at p. 206.) In other CEQA cases the appellate court held the EIR inadequate for not disclosing possible alternative water sources and their impacts. ". the EIR "cannot simply label the possibility that they [water supplies] will not materialize as `speculative,' and decline to address it. The County should be informed if other sources exist, and be informed, in at least general terms, of the environmental consequences of tapping such resources." (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.AppAth at p. 373.) "Decision makers must, under the law, be presented with sufficient facts to "evaluate the pros and cons of supplying the amount of water that the [project] will need." (Santiago County Water Dist. v. County of Orange, supra, 118 Cal.App.3d at p. 829.) Again, although these cases refer to water supply, the concepts are equally applicable to traffic and other infrastructure needs. The City must disclose and provide possible alternatives for the impacts to traffic, and sewer and storm drain' facilities. If mitigation is not feasible, the City must be informed of the consequences. Eminent domain proceedings against homeowners for road widening right of way appears to be one consequence not clearly identified. Another consequence would be severe pollution of the Santa Clara River from insufficient facilities resulting in impacts to water quality and potentially severe fines for pollution to. the City. Not to disclose such impacts and ' possible alternatives is a violation of CEQA as well as a disservice to the decision -makers and the community. Impacts to traffic, sewer and storm drain facilities are reasonably knowable based on data for project approvals in the City and available from the County of Los Angeles through its Development Monitoring System. Even if this project were tiered (which it is not), these impacts must be disclosed. A the recent Supreme Court Decision, Vineyard Citizens v County of Rancho Cordova made abundantly clear that the City may not proceed with this proposed action. Mitigation for known impacts or impacts that are reasonably knowable cannot be deferred. This Supreme Court decision even cites extensively to a case involving a prior approval by the City of Santa Clarita as well as mase in the immediate vicinity approved by the County of Los Angeles. Page 16 "While,proper tiering of environmental review allows agency to defer analysis of certain details of later phases of long-term linked or oomplex projects until those phases are up for approval, CEQA's demand for meai{il information "is not satisfied by simply stating information will be\pngfurovided in the future." (Santa Clarita, supra, 106 Ca1.AppAth at p. 723.) As the',CEQA . Guidelines explain: "Tiering does not excuse the lead agency from�d uately analyzing reasonably foreseeable significant environmental impacts of the project and does not justify deferring such analysis to a later tier EIR or negative declaration." (Cal. Code Regs', tit. 14, § 15152, subd. (b).) Tiering is properly used to defer analysis of environmental impacts and mitigation measures to later phases when the impacts or mitigation measures are not determined by the first- tier approval decision but are specific to the later phases. " Pages 30-31 "To the extent the FEIR attempted, in effect, to tier from a future environmental document, we reject its approach as legally improper under CEQA..... CEQA's informational purpose "is not satisfied by simply stating information will be provided in the future." (Santa Clarita, supra, 106 Cal.AppAth at p. 723.)" Therefore, the City's attempt to defer evaluation of knowable and predictable traffic impacts, sewr impacts and storm drain problems to a future document is not allowed under CEQA. General Plan and Zoning Consistency Issues Conditions of approval -Planning Division #15 Setbacks and heights would allow the following height increases: Phase 1 Inpatient Building A Height P' to parapet, 100' to top o windsock and elevator shaft. Buildout inpatient building B height 85' to parapet, 100' to elevator shaft. Buildout Administration Building height 85' to parapet, 100' to elevator shaft Medical Office buildings heights 45.5' to top of parapet, 51.5' top of screen and roof access We do not believe that these height increases are appropriate for Residential Low zoning Conditions of Approval #5 state the.project will comply with Title 16 and 17 of the UDC, the Commercial and Industrial Development Standards, those allowing these height increases. We oppose the City's approval of arbitrarily granting the hospital a commercial designation when the current zoning is Residential Low and question the legality of this condition. Again, conditions of Approval #8 state that the building will conform to Commercial/Industrial standards. This condition is a de facto zone change. We don't believe that the City may legally change its zoning by adding a cottdition onto a project approval. The project must go through a zone change process that\ thus far not occurred. Resolution No. P07- 02 Section 2 Findings for Master Plan/Condition� states impacts from Phase 1 and Phase 2, traffic to two intersections Mc Parkway/Orchard Village Rd and Valencia Blvd./Magic Mountain Park reduced to less than significant without, as stated in the EIR, the use of Impacts to these two intersections are significant and unavoidable. We it is clear that this project is not consistent with the City's General Plan Element. A Statement of Overriding Consideration by the City is not ap use permit iv. can not be tent domain. ;fore believe ue or 6, warranted to avoid traffic impacts at these intersections. The City must be consistent with its General Plan. Lastly, we do not support the findings for this project that would warrant a Statement of Overriding Consideration in the areas of air quality, solid waste, traffic and visual character. We believe the City has not sufficiently investigated alternatives, nor has it fully explored mitigation for these specific impacts by making an effort to reduce them to a less than significant level. The Planning commission may deny a project with significant unavoidable impacts. We therefore request that the City deny this project in its current form. Sincerely, Lynne O am6eck Lynne Plambeck President Cc: Fred Follstad 0 B 0 N � J 4UJ 4 .tet W o� uj W W CC � 4 ci VE �F 0 N in V. �O 00 N ¢N� evpn� eyt oyf dq�' et b�L DA OA & v �M OD ed Qq 00 W pp a. a aaWd aamV Q. a a G 7 fJ� [z, a , O U :N W , W F � � 7 Q C7 c o .Zo q° O N o 00 v o c v U° U° yy y .r `- gig32a�' u QE od�iowsl �o ox�� to W 'aria'� o`c` U 0 "�ZS2�'S. cd CZ .'� ��+ N R• N_ $•fn of y v� C v u 0 r1 °, >0 -Z 40. �w c o_> VA �It :4� °U �pp a 3 y�❑CUyU0"� 40. .G b vI .� G• � � '� � O, y d •C a" of � .r�U,� FAN' C •Sd � N vii � 7 o EU a �v a $ o v c y u v w �rr� e.?'510 0 ��p$�3 ovai� v $Zv �± $av ''� � �,� �•�� � $sa as c � �' V f5.•> ...pp m w •p ani .`3 v� •C `r'�.. ,, •G pG U D c"a yo�3q> 2 a,y c42 3 .oda � U u'� i3 •Uy� C7 RNl Cp) `° U�eC+ �o,ip•�U °0 C lu � "9 1p� �yi 1d R 3 0 V) o .� U O w w C b o C 9 V)V E CE ° E E'c ° s�Co�E Xi o ci` `�E`2 c'E � 3w 0 O N� •p .. U O d IS N 'S7 TLS". •�� °» fan. Oc.4? O cC'-d '=' G.0 ' to ' C -� Uyea C U u -Eo;0.w U V �'N o Cp , G 011 VE 00 a OA;4 9 � W y 0 C'd .L b •� ��• N ��' aa4QE d Q a N Cn "' itl E0 0 'C `�' N .. E w ,N ,7 . 0¢ Q t7 w U w0 cj ' on �X c �,�NE� 0 .0 .� q N C CEz y N +-• � � '-0.2, - o �o •� a y�, •�rte„ � a�...' td.� •> a C C N d C] N C- E •mow ; ,� Y K c`°1'-� •�b "idU v S>+a% 3c �0 3 u �'=vo C� E yy N c2�?L�w°Q E��oE�+u Eoc gvC+.i a3bw �i Vim[ 4-°'Y3a3 °vgo C 1 + vOq .� O c`ni �i' `9�VQ� '[yy U Q y•Lj �' W 'N •N f�A VJ y� •'' � ��+ O ��" co •vim•• ° a •� bA.O .� N I R 6) Na�®it1o�i� so rn 'y y >1 Ny �V. N U C) p y d V y Cf) V [! 0 o y N cd � C OVCp N Q N 00 y IQ O O�.00bb '•dam-�a4� o, y y y EoCC��CC e +°�3 cOi N In t� C 3 's Cgn U oM N ap � rr a � g N y^ A NN ; VI V N N it 4) C -1 S +' V pppM 8M g N W C3. •fl. bp� � �'�"� 00 0 2 y c 8 v c x.°aywAcn6� x W C "•�� U 000�EU > > > 0 — v m a 40 - um LaAC �u°�i y W W W Fi oAonQ o 0 0 009 ca 0 0 0 Q 3 3 3 V `n o U U U V y 0 2 N y w U d� .�'��� O O O.S W W� N u� w � v v � a a0i d a°a°O3�5 Va0 ¢`�xv�i>d • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 ed Y .o I C Ig ta a V ani° ° �a x,>,a.0 o o � 2 .itwwwxxxaeae.S.aaa.S y o a.. Oa (=A >1 U a9g� ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ v ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ o S >"�,'�, Vo >odys, Gi oV L7',^_ u 0 p 40-U O0. i�. U x O 'O,• 6 '6p 'd O W Ow`4r a T pp •-• d N 'dam �� d Oi � W �a � °'�C4 O �.� gZU OD 8 _¢� b vC° �H �U`nv�°°A �c5ocvi z •� •'y O O O N N td IL " O 0464- x o �3 O 0 axi axi QN 31 5.Arn3 c �. �•.°7 fn y •O � w„ w p 'O '�Oy pip Ver] . �+ '0 t"g. ya0„ SNC CL• O o iTi W_ iW=U • y.td 'ca 0 0 �. C.% N O.0 O' d c c7xaea� z d�d�aaUUUUUUft�a 0 N_ Oy O U4) y •-E V ILEv V _ O�a x� Uu��3w 155 o ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ V d V V � sa �x U ,o u x 0 07 4, p U lbu' aCa 3IM ��nx�•� O .= � -E v,,lit �V>C7�t.E ani °' w V o0*U oZ4 N .Sj > Z Z Z ZOCL. c.a. N R C=d• 'y > A C [� E E;V N �! C U c U UAid 41 E Q U >y+ 0r� 3n'pa w caco c ap U x c °� o ° d C y. 3 � � � E abi � � aAi �, S8A_ .�.a�U 4 0 Uw id U=U d0d' 30 0 c �s� � �»�• y�ogj+�•o �yU�-•x��pw'�� ldJ5N 4 '•' 'in ° .OA Sr G "' V 'l�' 'E •d V C x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N a V ,CO E O •p O ?� 3 d a a k 5 in O C 3 E '3 o c �' 0.0 o O Z w V p Ute' •y U C E v> > • a3 a°Ni v y It era x E cV oUo > NIn Ace o U ra U� N c t`�� H �'�c°n'w°_ �UUx °A `opU Q O ,E ._ ' W cd O C U x aas °' yu k E U �v�7U «: 9b�aU-2:, � 10 0 U °' o o 0 C "'• .'a) ' 1:4•O ,� w -C_ �j `d rL� cosi q > U w nS k 7 .'E 0 .E �i PG C Chi H co N a G C�'' Q ,� C C 'O ._ . 0., O N '••� � '� .� � CLU U U �,•°C''a�i,EwF'vT.W°.�ca�vC�l.� a• x 7 td V w b N E C `�i E�'i O �' c s :C :4 • p ° ¢¢¢¢aaCOE= UUUUUuUUUUUUU N Vl y [•'• ydj 'y'7 y '' GO u �v c° � �Z y y5 ?, bx. v� �Vyva^ 'vaU:z Eons v ° a[iU �.r a Uw - (- o o 0 v v vi U "gg a>i v a�'i ani a>i ani x aci o > e� °C' o c3 Q ,, ioTa is ev iia d� o o a� ai o o ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ oU o� 1. 46 u 7!g �3 ga.�% A � y � b 0 ;�( y '° -a v :9 E ami Op W d o a w Or- 4) w,Ux U C, 0 o o a U o > c o V UP.r a [ j o � 4 x� �o, U� Q 0 � UwpCa ° °' o b�� °•��W. ovi ogu e `ZJ ¢az.5 uuuu c wwwwc7c7xxxxxxa a Sc.Sa� E o H 0 F- CDwoommomom 0 Mai of r'i of is ui M of • 7sj 0 Q M M N N N N�- aV a'q S�wEssEsss 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O fOV 00 C 000 000 O O t O m NN N O �t'iOM MNNS , ®® E ®®®Q ®® Figure 2. Los Angeles County Children 0-17 years old below 200% of Federal Poverty Level Agencies Serving Children 0-17 years old SPA 2 Sen Penendo µ IN q to, u• "14 neer ftat q e On Is to ii� * ; miles q ,mq no SPA S West Ar, �`,n YAi 102 Oen WbW K `'`4 }u a'k r MW S 120 +iw �d n2. FSPA O T Se PAI 4 mV a � Source: Population Estimation and Projection System, 2002 LAC Urban Research Division (Poverty Estimates for 2002 based on census 2000). Agency Zip Codes provided by VCCC; Agencies are mapped to the Zip Code Centroid. LAC DHS Office of Planning, August 9, 2004 LEGEND GWdnn 0.17 yam old under M% per wneue trao . 1,200 b greeter ' 900101,200 800 to 900 so0 to e00 0 to 300 a Agency B*rAn Plemin0 Ane Sou darks San Fernando Valley f Santa Clarita Valley Community Needs Assessment September 2004 12 Figure 3. Los Angeles County Adults 19-64 years old below 200% of Federal Poverty Level Agencies Servina Arludrs 4R—AA ..t- Source: Population Estimation and Projection System, 2002 LAC Urban Research Division (Poverty Estimates for 2002 based on census 2000). Agency Zip Codes provided by VCCC; Agencies are mapped to the Zip Code Centroid. LAC DHS Office of Planning, August 9, 2004 LEGEND Adults I" Mrs old Wrier 200% FPL per amus treat * 2.000 to greater e4 1.500 to 2.000 1,000 to 1,500 500 to 1.000 0 to son -Agency Service Planning Am 9neltlades Figure 4. Los Angeles County Seniors 65+ years old below 200% of Federal Poverty Level Agencies Serving Seniors 65+ years old Source: Population Estimation and Projection System, 2002 LAC Urban Research Division (Poverty Estimates for 2002 based on census 2000). Agency Zip Codes provided by VCCC; Agencies are mapped to the Zip Code Centroid. LEGEND Seniors 06. yun old urnlar 2aSX FPL weensus tract. X9 600 b greater 400 to 600 20010400 100 to 200 LAC DHS Office of Planning, August 9, 2004 I 010100 :,..-Agency XMICS Planning Ane Boundaries Figure 5. Los Angeles County Low -Income Population Under 200% of Federal Poverty Level Agencies Serving Low Incomp pnnisla+ ^n- Source: Population Estimation and Projection System, 2002 LAC Urban Research Division (Poverty Estimates for 2002 based on census 2000). Agency Zip Codes provided by VCCC; Agencies are mapped to the Zip Code Centroid. LAC DHS Office of Planning, August 9, 2004 Assessment LEGEND POPUINO nunar 200% ITL For wnw tenet 2,000 to greeter 7,500102,000 1,000 to 1,500 500 to 1.000 0 to 500 ,t,- -Apry i-rvia Punning Arte BourMuhs � \\» Ron ER ®wRR 200 t. I 0@ " 0 a 0. w ai e ^���ge ga No O� V tit u x�. C tn N �M � m !vi�O o� o0 0vt c3 � 3 3 QQ U>zav'ia � ,C = o \ryb�g O �MC Ch 0 O C4...." U0z>za, N 0 U>uv 0 o e o rl•-iC�n� 0 tl � Ntnrl vii vt I>z e kn en C M M Z' bc°"`rte.�`�o en 00 tnlkm 0 0 0 kn M oho V i M N a0 o p O o �p V 104 N � v 'C N coo oo d U o pp, d f] C, O ++ c� rn 0 u > &�s w O O b y«f 4 O C � v �w w U saw' vii vii o �Me p a o0 h v� O e1• h ee-�• (•� �p 0. W) 't et MN 'OI 00 r% N 7 cd "z neve a � c • 7 :S •y U v N m td O �' DC7 \ o ••�\° \ �1 .�.' e o �.j yy1 O e Qgo a qqee � e ♦e M V h 00 �d v, a r tai ni a o �o ry o 0 o iy ,) MN p o �p OC .0 �NNMMM o M b� H •O OA d w ~noallon Irl; c00 o$ °°�°FaMMn o-. o M Wl, N ..O � N .r. pn W) O N ti O w ca I�u Q] s lz! u m � w M ti U cn 4 n § KK %§ 0 ��oobSoF? H 0 g�f1ga d�rl. 3 Xzx'9 U>z4E55 ZIP 8�* st O N N en N N 000 N N Obi �IC7, 00 S 2 t w O y N(4 r— 00 M�i c u v � 7B 4 oil tll�ON00m A� ON 00 00 ws 1 v W Q 3 Eaci enc 'sU.. �o$ co Q a7 _y U oc Ir 40- tw V v C v40 ,cam C � b G � •~�.• �" y� Sj N � •O F w Eva Ea°cio.:° �'aa a •o E. 3 O viG O ebb o�E 0'°� $>,0E a,.�41 z3w^ vISA -8 ci toi.. w o c 9 $ v3 o p o 3j a! :suo�, oc -,q .E A2 &U U E 2 w afi u tae o E o cd 4a ao .. sl m o O `" T E 01 a b Z LD 4- 0 cla U < V!i:l 'Q" �L •fir.. •_' •f/�{y�n Q� > C w v a) CGapr pa c Z • • s • • cUri.S �ELU«f �v, 0 to I I cn .9 io u 0 '� c °' •� v° a'v 3 > > C a, V) to aw 4�i � � N � �" 'V cd •� � d C .4 II c c 2a g c O 3 V wU .c 4 NQ •U.. :p' Lu C ois 12.2 Z C � .B � A• N °'� C p .sem, � C N OZfS.Wa1, �Q�,Z � �•�� O ��� R1 N M. t0 v� a `' o Q C Sd � d�QSOFVd�EB' C+� Z>zx o4rn z V ° _ � M cl •3 ;� CV rn di C C p ... ul c - 3 � O M c E E a d Q Q ¢sy 1 11 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 Fi i. i N a 0 00 O k w f� r a u bz 's O E c •a.V o$¢04w i.n L d V� N N U o` tr.$wo o? � ° � o � •E �,o aon b C y 3 0400 b o'Sr • C c w C .O E Li. apj �i Gn ^ .� 379 .D y � 5 .0 3 .� p M •+�- g y it o � a �� v a••cV�w°��� E y too O soca= 0 oHa�oi=o 'b EI •y � fJ C td C N � + 6� ��p' � ,��„ O x cn aourc� cg E— .o�o.acZ E E� Ff' .0 v Ff' w o 3 xti y U ��Gii f V y rA 0. � �w •C � y 5 7010• > �p '0 V 0 ENO c' 5 C�58� 3as ° E U y b y t; $ C p u 7) >2 p G 77. ~O sp» 0 'fl 00 'C s to 40. OE 3>, 3 0 o �GQ 5 � O. •Up '� '� � O � 6q � Qi g1 T p 3 �i .Yy ,Cp Q E����°" 1-9 b ya 0 `c N rg '7y1 wqq ..• V v E y C .0 ,2 a oE� �b c `°w71071 0 9 W 0 b 'n +. of 00 M �i O -r y N rn 1 53,"1 y� � csNA �N O •O ~! 10 ���v .�ayoCg �V Z F"z v O C ed v C p d v cCC 4? O� d� Ot� eV z>> z C7 0> c7 z s b c7 z »� v »> Q»> q`s»> q»»> O s YJ •ra � � w �b 3 ed NA cqj .3 Q 'C •vi c � bap to • e y w v oe\eo 00 �i o Q� N 8 of •; �•'• g 4C O U C OElm mai •� to 7 i. O Coif 7 n. C aa. 3 3 `° fs a v .5 3 rs! v ,i� y 3 ❑ o O 3 N uv y .0 oj c O e, N 6) E E O M p Y: R. •g •p E 40. C H o h Y> V u y o a w vii cm CO .... 0 N Q S C Gt; Cn N N ICE �3 �p to g'�b or' a v o pc .ei O 'C0. •Ltl C N � N '[ •� � •7 v Cq R a N .� m e -� c 'o o vC�+ U C� C V N d '� ` C d 2 .. g � vi � y 7 TWO O p'C p7Q p--� C e U 6b c�i C n. -= 'C O O�' 'CO r N tC U ' 9t C 0 'O i .8 .- w�,,. �1 (.-,r• U E c oil s O a x tw V 8 d O -'�C O t� a� 9 y C S& C 0 k s 3 � e x�'•, c b 0 E Ab3 N •J�. ... � b a� N a C O M w E cl u'r d E N4 O o U c a0 Cn N E a H b 0-'0 y °c y� b a, -p E O � d •y G 'q0 > H .0 � > E � •C e�� � � v° g ° o O N C ,cry c� LE pR p IN) -p •[ T b C b O C v c o e eq v ^� 3 w � N y C O N y°y O m 'c U[ C •C Q 'O G �M ate+ U 7 5 ovoc 8 0 « c N 000 d M u W C y '� � .O y O �' �•N � C � c� d y �'NY.o o ^ 3 Eads 'pd�� .o 420 Fc' C� vv c> c� v G .� OU U 'G Ea T� a o•C v �.'o'E o° ;y to w o Rud o e y o 0 noE 3 �g v•� ��o m `IS CW d'O C O. eC U C N 0 .`1." 0 o -a 0 � £ ƒk £ § _ =w+¥ ±�©2 g«\§ eeew § � « § Q ■ Q al x 7 � c go \ kPC $ � t t 9 � � a V) ƒ ƒ $ � ƒ � k 5 $ z % � � # § / w _ § J \ / k � £ ƒk £ § _ =w+¥ ±�©2 g«\§ eeew § « ■ Q ■ 2IV al x x go kPC k C6 � £ ƒk £ § _ =w+¥ ±�©2 g«\§ eeew V b U p 8 SUP �Oy Vl pp pN 1/pp1 app eQ{ 00 p pM M O 0 "00 0 %r= t e{ �D '7 � V N N N Ain N M lr r r r r r r Vaolo+arnao+a`a,rnaa,rnao�a4,aarnao�ma a 43 �, G5 G�a'o z v A n V 16 m�zi u oho N n V Nn Zo n n My10 �S1�1c �o� oOrr r rr r r r r r r r r r r N rn as o+o+v+crraao+o�aa v a 9 y Jil _'•� =p.n3 3vn > U" A a v y O C oq bD !a y abtov � •cs 3 Y ;a � � HH Z V Uay>•Z Z� Z O O O O O O O O O O O O O L •pip ma�a Z C O o 4. � VI K fA V1 � R •Q w" O � C6 � R �'j V yN• .�.' d ffi OD O A go R O O P. F• O gt O yy is Q. �• d .00 aw V O d CL 'r0. a' •p eR O V •� r^' C F A .R hffi0 R R O �' /• •�" i+ V R R %'� •fl 'R '(;i .. .. w w R i7 ED W .:. a+ 01 R o d v a 3 V $raa 3o3aV.V3a�.�,AVVCmV O •L O � 3oa AC?+ Lei fV t f+1 N d s V W C C6 E C b 4z OD cC C V c N 0 .0 E 0.0 b� C b O 8 it L 7 3 -4 m f`! --d: V1 v E 0 0 A *a w 72 46 24 c' O O O ��p O (� O O o V1 F a Cl. p O y O .5 'Q C C V � � O U C � � 3 c � � r o d 6 � c b � •i o '� w C O n' cV Qy 3 5 � O N W CQO •U W i�l. � �Uyi r: r c 6L v c N 4. N r 0 3 d� all G .4 N M d v E 0 0 A *a w 72 46 24 c' O O O ��p O (� O O o V1 F fV I �I C V 0 d N w O R 4. 1 3 x O N 0 w v_ i k w ayye it 8' �w o U 0 art b N r it � y 0 0 T o a u m P tV M ± k § \ » � � k � § § k / g t k 2 ƒ. $ 2 ? � 3 k \ J k © \ & §\ § . g ce /G \� / as 77 § k c� 'd /I 2 E_ # F