Barring some compelling new information or developments, the issue of Henry Mayo campus expansion will be decided on November 19, 2008. The more cynical among us may say this issue was decided months or even years ago, and the vote on the 19th will be nothing more than a formality. I tend to agree, and I've made up some numbers to prove why.
Likelihood They'll Say "Yes" to the Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan:
MAYOR KELLAR: 87%
MAYOR PRO-TEM FERRY: 100%
COUNCILMEMBER ENDER: 100%
COUNCILMEMBER MCLEAN: 94%
COUNCILMEMBER WESTE: 0%*
*Will say "Aye" instead of "Yes"
G&L Realty and Roger Seaver & Co. have performed some amusing tricks to try and win the councilmembers over. They reduced by a hundred-thousand square-feet here, threw in a healing garden there, but most of the changes have been superficial. The project remains far too ambitious and offers no guarantees of the new Inpatient Building we so desperately need. The proposed expansion will not enhance but diminish quality of life in Santa Clarita.
But, at the risk of stating the obvious, it's the City Council that has all the power. The C.C. has just as much right to say "No!" as "Yes!" to the Master Plan. It doesn't matter if there has been money spent to make new EIRs and draft new plans. If the project remains unacceptable--and it does--the City Council should show that they mean business and send G&L Realty back to the drawing board.
Over the days leading up to the big vote, I will be giving my top ten reasons to say no to the HMNMH Master Plan.
REASON TEN: Peters and Barstis (Arrogance and Condescension)
On September 23, the people of Santa Clarita had the distinct displeasure of listening to Craig Peters, Senior V.P. of Industrial Properties at CB Richard Ellis. (He also happens to serve on the hospital board). In his speech before City Council, Peters was arrogant and condescending. He presented the "argument" that if everyone in SCV knew as much as he did about commercial real estate, we'd understand why the Master Plan doesn't promise an actual hospital and why so many medical office buildings are going to be built. Our opposition to the expansion, he explained, grew out of ignorance.
On October 13, things got even uglier. In one of the most self-important and insulting letters ever published in TMS[1], Dr. John Barstis wrote "Community activists do not, in fact, have as much expertise as health care professionals and city planners. Thus the whole debate has been hijacked." The opinions of "community activists" were deemed inexpert and unwanted. Never mind logical arguments about conflicts of interest and the need for outside perspective. Barstis was none too keen on hearing what the unwashed masses had to say against the campus expansion he so desperately championed.
Why have Master Plan proponents been so condescending? Quite simply, they know the people of Santa Clarita aren't on their side. If we were in favor of the Master Plan, they would say things like "the people of SCV know what's best for their community, and we should listen to them!" But we aren't in favor. Thus, Peters and Barstis tried to convince the City Council that their opinions counted for more than ours. This is wrong, and it's the #10 reason to say "No!" to the Master Plan.
[1]Read it here, if you have the stomach.
Showing posts with label HMNMH. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HMNMH. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
PSA*: Claritans Need More Medical Office Space...NOW!
*Public Service Announcement
On the HMNMH campus. Taken 9/18.
Just across from City Hall. Taken 9/22.
Near the Lyons/Wiley intersection. Taken 9/22.
Hospital beds and operating rooms can wait. The people of Santa Clarita need more medical office space. And they need it now.
It’s time we get together as a community and support the Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan. G&L Realty will ensure that two enormous medical office buildings are built before a new inpatient building is even considered. The longer we wait, the longer people will be forced to schedule elective medical procedures at inconvenient times.
Please, show your support on Tuesday, September 23 at 6pm, when the City Council assembles to discuss the Master Plan. We can't afford to wait any longer.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Happenings: I Scream, You Scream...(Henry Mayo & Ice Cream)
If you'd like some background on the plan to cram too many buildings into too little space for the benefit of G & L Realty, just type "HMNMH" in the search box--I've written lots.
Ice cream given out by a hospital? Delicious irony! Of course, the real irony is that Roger Seaver is using the quintessentially small-town “ice cream social” to win favor for a hospital expansion that’s anything but. Indeed, stop by Henry Mayo on Saturday, August 9th from 2-4 to get re-introduced to the same old mega-expansion ideas…but this time with ICE CREAM.
Perhaps Roger Seaver and Andie Bogdan (HMNMH Director of Planning, Marketing, & Public Relations) are hoping for a reaction like this:
Then again, maybe things will play thusly:
RESIDENT: I heard you guys are giving out ice cream?
SEAVER: [brandishing frozen confection] We sure are! But first, I have a question for you.
RESIDENT: [quizzically] OK…
SEAVER: [sing-songy] What would you do for a Klondike bar?
RESIDENT: Uh, seriously?
SEAVER: Would you let me build some office buildings and parking structures?
RESIDENT: Yeah. OK. [takes bar]
CHORUS: For that chocolaty coated, ice-cream loaded, big and thick, no room for a stick, what would you do-o-o… [motions for cement truck to come in]
The folks at HMNMH aren't counting on the ice cream social alone, though, to earn the approval of the community. There's also a brand new website[1] crafted to extol the virtues of a plan to expand the Henry Mayo campus.
The welcome page is absurd. Some designer had the brilliant notion of shoving an enormous face directly in our faces–literally a third of the web page is devoted to facial real estate. The comely giantess to whom the over-sized visage belongs is Charanjet Saroa, M.D., and she tells us that "Supporting this master plan will help ensure more services in a quality oriented, first class environment."[2]
1. "Interactive Map"
The interactivity consists of having text bubbles appear when you hover the mouse over various parts of the master plan. It looks almost identical to the last incarnation of the hospital plan we saw. I've laid out three selections below, the most recent on the right.
My favorite part is how they dealt with Parking Structure 4. This is the lot that would require the felling of our Community Holiday Tree, a conifer with whom I've conducted several interviews on the topic of hospital expansion. The sneaky artist barely outlined where lot 4 would go so you think it's been removed from the plan. But hover your mouse over the hatch-mark outline and they begrudgingly offer the truth: "If needed, this is the last parking improvement in the 15-year plan, with two subterranean levels and one on the surface. 316 spaces. This preserves the traditional 'community tree.'"
I am unappeased. The tree needs to stay, or I may just have to phone John Quigley.
2. "Environmental Impact"
Directs one here.
3. "FAQ"
This was actually fairer than I expected. There were no questions like “Why does the cruel David Gauny want to keep sick little children from getting treated in nice, clean new medical office buildings?” or “Which will be more beautiful and beloved by the community: the luxuriant, expansive healing-garden-with-bench or the alluringly boxy office buildings?”. Rather, they posed and answered some questions that I have no doubt are frequently asked.
There is still evasion, though. The site says that the medical staff has formally supported the expansion, but we know of several prominent dissenters (e.g., Dr. Gene Dorio). Happily, one knows that spin is about to happen after reading the words "in fact." Case-in-point:
"Will that cause the removal of some trees?
Unfortunately, yes. But we will then be adding trees throughout the new campus, which will actually result in a net gain of trees. The entire campus, in fact, is being designed to not only meet all required environmental impact studies but to balance our need for growth with neighborhood quality of life issues such as noise, traffic and lighting..."
Yes, this project is nothing if not "balanced."
I also found this question/response rather amusing:
"Won't the enlarged campus mean additional traffic on McBean Parkway?
McBean Parkway is a major street connecting the freeway with local houses, the mall, the hospital and other businesses. As a result, traffic on McBean will likely continue to increase as our community grows regardless of what happens with the hospital..."
4. "Top 10 Reasons"
This page offers more of the same sales pitch, David Letterman style. One wonders how sincere they are about reason #1:
"The overwhelming majority of community leaders along with the medical staff of the hospital itself supports this project because they know that it is good for the community and will enhance both quality and accessibility of care."
5. "How to Support Us"
Here, the now Master-Plan-lovin' Claritan is instructed on how to give the appearance of support for the Master Plan. The tactics advocated are certainly on track--write The Signal, speak before the City Council, email Kellar et al... Remember that these avenues may also be used to oppose the project.
Thoroughly Unbiased Summary:
The Master Plan map flaunts a sequencing of improvements. For example, Medical Office Building 3 could not be occupied until construction on the new Inpatient Building has begun. We've been here before.
Being presented the same plan is tiresome.
I think we need an alternate event on August 9th. Instead of an ice cream social, let's have a tour. We could begin by asking everyone parked in HMNMH to drive on McBean at once to simulate increased traffic; Seaver could then hack down one of the dozens of stately sycamores that will have to make way for parking; next we'd walk to one of the houses just across the street and visualize what a few million more cubic-feet of concrete will look like. Last, we could leave imagining how such an over-built campus would change the feel of this part of Valencia forever.
One frightfully simple solution remains: get serious about building a second hospital in SCV.
[1]Start your exploration here
[2]Methinks they're missing a hyphen or two.
Ice cream given out by a hospital? Delicious irony! Of course, the real irony is that Roger Seaver is using the quintessentially small-town “ice cream social” to win favor for a hospital expansion that’s anything but. Indeed, stop by Henry Mayo on Saturday, August 9th from 2-4 to get re-introduced to the same old mega-expansion ideas…but this time with ICE CREAM.
Perhaps Roger Seaver and Andie Bogdan (HMNMH Director of Planning, Marketing, & Public Relations) are hoping for a reaction like this:
Eddie Murphy, Delirious, circa 1983
Then again, maybe things will play thusly:
RESIDENT: I heard you guys are giving out ice cream?
SEAVER: [brandishing frozen confection] We sure are! But first, I have a question for you.
RESIDENT: [quizzically] OK…
SEAVER: [sing-songy] What would you do for a Klondike bar?
RESIDENT: Uh, seriously?
SEAVER: Would you let me build some office buildings and parking structures?
RESIDENT: Yeah. OK. [takes bar]
CHORUS: For that chocolaty coated, ice-cream loaded, big and thick, no room for a stick, what would you do-o-o… [motions for cement truck to come in]
The folks at HMNMH aren't counting on the ice cream social alone, though, to earn the approval of the community. There's also a brand new website[1] crafted to extol the virtues of a plan to expand the Henry Mayo campus.
The welcome page is absurd. Some designer had the brilliant notion of shoving an enormous face directly in our faces–literally a third of the web page is devoted to facial real estate. The comely giantess to whom the over-sized visage belongs is Charanjet Saroa, M.D., and she tells us that "Supporting this master plan will help ensure more services in a quality oriented, first class environment."[2]
The comely giantess.
After the introduction, there are five more important pages to explore!1. "Interactive Map"
The interactivity consists of having text bubbles appear when you hover the mouse over various parts of the master plan. It looks almost identical to the last incarnation of the hospital plan we saw. I've laid out three selections below, the most recent on the right.
[sing-songy, again] All of these things are just like the others...
My favorite part is how they dealt with Parking Structure 4. This is the lot that would require the felling of our Community Holiday Tree, a conifer with whom I've conducted several interviews on the topic of hospital expansion. The sneaky artist barely outlined where lot 4 would go so you think it's been removed from the plan. But hover your mouse over the hatch-mark outline and they begrudgingly offer the truth: "If needed, this is the last parking improvement in the 15-year plan, with two subterranean levels and one on the surface. 316 spaces. This preserves the traditional 'community tree.'"
I am unappeased. The tree needs to stay, or I may just have to phone John Quigley.
2. "Environmental Impact"
Directs one here.
3. "FAQ"
This was actually fairer than I expected. There were no questions like “Why does the cruel David Gauny want to keep sick little children from getting treated in nice, clean new medical office buildings?” or “Which will be more beautiful and beloved by the community: the luxuriant, expansive healing-garden-with-bench or the alluringly boxy office buildings?”. Rather, they posed and answered some questions that I have no doubt are frequently asked.
There is still evasion, though. The site says that the medical staff has formally supported the expansion, but we know of several prominent dissenters (e.g., Dr. Gene Dorio). Happily, one knows that spin is about to happen after reading the words "in fact." Case-in-point:
"Will that cause the removal of some trees?
Unfortunately, yes. But we will then be adding trees throughout the new campus, which will actually result in a net gain of trees. The entire campus, in fact, is being designed to not only meet all required environmental impact studies but to balance our need for growth with neighborhood quality of life issues such as noise, traffic and lighting..."
Yes, this project is nothing if not "balanced."
I also found this question/response rather amusing:
"Won't the enlarged campus mean additional traffic on McBean Parkway?
McBean Parkway is a major street connecting the freeway with local houses, the mall, the hospital and other businesses. As a result, traffic on McBean will likely continue to increase as our community grows regardless of what happens with the hospital..."
4. "Top 10 Reasons"
This page offers more of the same sales pitch, David Letterman style. One wonders how sincere they are about reason #1:
"The overwhelming majority of community leaders along with the medical staff of the hospital itself supports this project because they know that it is good for the community and will enhance both quality and accessibility of care."
5. "How to Support Us"
Here, the now Master-Plan-lovin' Claritan is instructed on how to give the appearance of support for the Master Plan. The tactics advocated are certainly on track--write The Signal, speak before the City Council, email Kellar et al... Remember that these avenues may also be used to oppose the project.
Thoroughly Unbiased Summary:
The Master Plan map flaunts a sequencing of improvements. For example, Medical Office Building 3 could not be occupied until construction on the new Inpatient Building has begun. We've been here before.
Being presented the same plan is tiresome.
I think we need an alternate event on August 9th. Instead of an ice cream social, let's have a tour. We could begin by asking everyone parked in HMNMH to drive on McBean at once to simulate increased traffic; Seaver could then hack down one of the dozens of stately sycamores that will have to make way for parking; next we'd walk to one of the houses just across the street and visualize what a few million more cubic-feet of concrete will look like. Last, we could leave imagining how such an over-built campus would change the feel of this part of Valencia forever.
One frightfully simple solution remains: get serious about building a second hospital in SCV.
[1]Start your exploration here
[2]Methinks they're missing a hyphen or two.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Happenings: On Trusting Ken Pulskamp
NOTE: Sorry I've been bad about posting this month. It is the breeding season for the animals I'm studying and I've been busy trying to keep tabs and grab data. Expect more regular posts soon, though, and know that I am resenting my study species for tearing me away from that which is truly important: hearting SCV.
Did you hear it—that bellow of rage and distress just a shade more desperate than the noise a mammoth would have made after wandering into a tar pit to be devoured by cave lions? Well that was me. To be more precise, that was me after Mayor Bob Kellar announced that there were going to be SEVENTEEN speakers on the Smiser Ranch property development[1]. Of course it’s a horrible idea to build densely on the Smiser property, I yelled at the commenters on the screen, But you don’t need to remind me every week! I begrudgingly concede that such displays of opposition can be important. Indeed, we know that Jeff Lambert talks to folks at City Hall when we’re not around to listen, so hearing from the public on a week-to-week basis may legitimately reinforce the magnitude of opposition in the minds of City leaders. Lambert, incidentally, was appropriately villainized during comments and would do well to stay clear on Southern SCV.
Before comments about the Avenue project, though, public participation had focused on the closure of the Transitional Care Unit at Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital. The planned closure would leave the citizens of Santa Clarita without a TCU for at least 18-months, which Mayor Kellar described as an “optimistic” estimate of how long the wait would be.
Everyone in the City and on City Council was upset by this issue and wants to see something done about it. For an in-house opinion, HMNMH's own Dr. Gene Dorio showed up to say that most admissions to Henry Mayo are old people (although I believe he phrased it “senior patients”) who derive a lot of benefit from having a TCU available to them. Public speakers agreed, oft regaling us with tales of ailing mothers using the facility or how they may be in need of it in the near future.
All of these comments could only do so much. “As a council, we have no power over the hospital to tell them what to do…I get very frustrated…that we can’t do anything about it” said Councilmember Marsha McLean. She suggested contacting state agencies to see if there was some way to step in and intervene. McLean also proposed investigating whether a partial, as opposed to full, closure of the TCU was feasible. Councilmember Laurene Weste suggested partnerships with in-city groups like the Senior Center to drive the relatives of TCU patients to visit their loved ones in facilities out of town. Laurie Ender agreed that transportation-based solutions might be the best option assuming there was no way around a closure.
It was Mayor Bob Kellar who took action—at least on paper. He proposed a letter be drafted that said something to the effect of “The closing of the TCU…is an inappropriate course of action.” The agreement to write and send such a letter garnered applause from the masses and settled the issue for the time being.
Next, we heard some bickering over landslides and soil stability and house foundations and heritage oaks that was far too tedious to coalesce into anything meaningful in my mind. If you’re worried about the particulars, well, that’s too bad.
Adoption of the City Code of Ethics and Conduct proved slightly more bearable an agenda item. There were a number of speakers on this issue, one that has been floating around since last year. Claritans agreed that the Code of Ethics[2] was a good start (or an “OK but impotent start” if they were feeling less generous) but that a more aggressive code would be needed. Several called for an Ethics Commission, but the City Attorney noted that such a group would not have the power to enforce or control ethical conduct.
Instead, everyone pointed to an existing hierarchy of what-to-do-when-ethics-are-violated that essentially leads to City Manager Ken Pulskamp. Got a grievance and want to take it to the top? See Ken. Need to report a breach of ethics but afraid of confronting your direct superior? See Ken. All of this led Annette Lucas, among others, to say “I just think we need somebody to check Ken Pulskamp.” [Yikes.]
Everyone on Council was more or less OK with the code, though some tweaking (e.g., a list of who to contact) was needed[3]. The fine-tunings shall come, I think, but until then, it’s a matter of how much you believe Bob Kellar’s closing speech. In it, he expressed how frustrated he is that people harass a City that employs so many quality individuals. “This council and this city lives by a high ethical standard,” he said. If so, I guess there’s really nothing to worry about.
[1]This is the proposal to build about two-million square feet of retail, residential, etc… on a parcel that is clearly much too small to accommodate a project of that scale. Read more about it in my posting here, which also has helpful links.
NOTE: Also check out the site put up by the Calgrove Corridor Coalition. This group arose in response to the proposed Avenues Project, and they have a nice side-by-side of potential City seals.
[2]Read the Code of Ethics and Conduct
[3]Mayor Pro Tem Frank Ferry was a little upset by the issue of ethics even being raised, as was Mayor Kellar.
Did you hear it—that bellow of rage and distress just a shade more desperate than the noise a mammoth would have made after wandering into a tar pit to be devoured by cave lions? Well that was me. To be more precise, that was me after Mayor Bob Kellar announced that there were going to be SEVENTEEN speakers on the Smiser Ranch property development[1]. Of course it’s a horrible idea to build densely on the Smiser property, I yelled at the commenters on the screen, But you don’t need to remind me every week! I begrudgingly concede that such displays of opposition can be important. Indeed, we know that Jeff Lambert talks to folks at City Hall when we’re not around to listen, so hearing from the public on a week-to-week basis may legitimately reinforce the magnitude of opposition in the minds of City leaders. Lambert, incidentally, was appropriately villainized during comments and would do well to stay clear on Southern SCV.
Before comments about the Avenue project, though, public participation had focused on the closure of the Transitional Care Unit at Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital. The planned closure would leave the citizens of Santa Clarita without a TCU for at least 18-months, which Mayor Kellar described as an “optimistic” estimate of how long the wait would be.
Everyone in the City and on City Council was upset by this issue and wants to see something done about it. For an in-house opinion, HMNMH's own Dr. Gene Dorio showed up to say that most admissions to Henry Mayo are old people (although I believe he phrased it “senior patients”) who derive a lot of benefit from having a TCU available to them. Public speakers agreed, oft regaling us with tales of ailing mothers using the facility or how they may be in need of it in the near future.
All of these comments could only do so much. “As a council, we have no power over the hospital to tell them what to do…I get very frustrated…that we can’t do anything about it” said Councilmember Marsha McLean. She suggested contacting state agencies to see if there was some way to step in and intervene. McLean also proposed investigating whether a partial, as opposed to full, closure of the TCU was feasible. Councilmember Laurene Weste suggested partnerships with in-city groups like the Senior Center to drive the relatives of TCU patients to visit their loved ones in facilities out of town. Laurie Ender agreed that transportation-based solutions might be the best option assuming there was no way around a closure.
It was Mayor Bob Kellar who took action—at least on paper. He proposed a letter be drafted that said something to the effect of “The closing of the TCU…is an inappropriate course of action.” The agreement to write and send such a letter garnered applause from the masses and settled the issue for the time being.
Next, we heard some bickering over landslides and soil stability and house foundations and heritage oaks that was far too tedious to coalesce into anything meaningful in my mind. If you’re worried about the particulars, well, that’s too bad.
Adoption of the City Code of Ethics and Conduct proved slightly more bearable an agenda item. There were a number of speakers on this issue, one that has been floating around since last year. Claritans agreed that the Code of Ethics[2] was a good start (or an “OK but impotent start” if they were feeling less generous) but that a more aggressive code would be needed. Several called for an Ethics Commission, but the City Attorney noted that such a group would not have the power to enforce or control ethical conduct.
Instead, everyone pointed to an existing hierarchy of what-to-do-when-ethics-are-violated that essentially leads to City Manager Ken Pulskamp. Got a grievance and want to take it to the top? See Ken. Need to report a breach of ethics but afraid of confronting your direct superior? See Ken. All of this led Annette Lucas, among others, to say “I just think we need somebody to check Ken Pulskamp.” [Yikes.]
Everyone on Council was more or less OK with the code, though some tweaking (e.g., a list of who to contact) was needed[3]. The fine-tunings shall come, I think, but until then, it’s a matter of how much you believe Bob Kellar’s closing speech. In it, he expressed how frustrated he is that people harass a City that employs so many quality individuals. “This council and this city lives by a high ethical standard,” he said. If so, I guess there’s really nothing to worry about.
[1]This is the proposal to build about two-million square feet of retail, residential, etc… on a parcel that is clearly much too small to accommodate a project of that scale. Read more about it in my posting here, which also has helpful links.
NOTE: Also check out the site put up by the Calgrove Corridor Coalition. This group arose in response to the proposed Avenues Project, and they have a nice side-by-side of potential City seals.
[2]Read the Code of Ethics and Conduct
[3]Mayor Pro Tem Frank Ferry was a little upset by the issue of ethics even being raised, as was Mayor Kellar.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Happenings: Feinstein's Ideas Enthusiastically Rejected, Other C.C. Notes
At this first City Council meeting of 2008, CEMEX mining has again moved to the forefront of Clarita’s collective consciousness[1]. It’s the headache that keeps on aching; we’ve been talking about CEMEX since the last millennium (i.e., 1999)! Tonight, however, we got a special treat. It was a discussion of two brilliant suggestions to resolve the conflict between CEMEX and the City of Santa Clarita provided by none other than United States Senator Dianne Feinstein.
As it stands, the City wants to prohibit mining in excess of historical mining levels. That is, only 300,000 tons of material can be removed each year. Senator Dianne Feinstein, devoted environmentalist, asked the City to consider increasing this level by a factor of five. After all, CEMEX has a God-given right to turn a profit on the land, and CEMEX claimed it would need to extract 1,500,000 tons of sand and gravel each year for its project to be “economically viable.” That translates into 757 smoggy, sand-dropping, road-clogging truck trips a day for decades to come.
An even better idea was the option of saddling taxpayers with a $170 million bond to buy out CEMEX’s lease. It would have to be approved by voters, but it’s an option. The thing is, the Bureau of Land Management would still own the sand and gravel mineral rights on the land in question and could actually sell them again. I’ll say that one more time: taxpayers could buy out CEMEX and the BLM could then re-sell the mining rights to someone else. Inexplicably, this perfect little solution was dismissed by the Council!
Councilmember TimBen Boydston responded appropriately. In a composed, mini-tirade he remarked: “I was under the impression that she [Feinstein] was trying to help us. […] Is someone on her staff smoking particulates from mining? […] This is not help in any way.” Speakers like Andrew Fried and Pauline Harte agreed that CEMEX must be continue to be fought. Thus, Santa Clarita remains opposed to the mining.
Boydston also made some interesting remarks about another favored issue, the Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital expansion project. By Paul Brotzman’s estimate, it won’t be discussed again until May because of hold-ups with the hospital’s revised Environmental Impact Report. Boydston noted that Roger Seaver et al. had been pushing hard for a timely resolution to the expansion but that “Now, suddenly, it doesn’t seem to be quite so important.” He knows what’s up. As SCVTalker J-to-the-Wilson and other Claritan commentators have wryly noted, waiting for a new, presumably Boydston-less Council after the April elections might make it easier for HMNMH to get its plans approved. This new tack means SCV’s 2007 buzzword of “collusion” must now be replaced with buzzphrase “strategic, quasi-slimy, manipulative delays". That’s not quite as catchy, is it?
In an unusual show of restraint, Cam Noltemeyer spoke only about half a dozen times this evening. Her resounding theme was that more building—in the form of a new Civic Center, HMNMH’s expansion, the Westfield mall expansion, the 21,000 units in Newhall Ranch—would exacerbate already existing problems. Apparently, forcing too much stuff into too little space can actually decrease quality of life and increase traffic congestion. Obviously, we must temper Cam’s views with what we have to gain from all the new building— 60,000 new neighbors and a Cheesecake Factory.
Apart from CEMEX and development, the Council discussed and approved Mayor Kellar’s pet initiative, a $40K investment in a year-long series of informative safety months. This was quite timely, as Old Orchard resident Edith Coranzo had expressed concern over increased gang activity earlier in the evening. In Kellar’s own words, “important information on issues of importance” will be disseminated to the public.
The evening closed with a discussion of a chance to build a new Civic Center to improve the current, out-dated courthouse and Sheriff's department. Ken Pulskamp could scarcely contain his giddy enthusiasm for the prospect of uniting State, County, and City into one grand, centralized center. In infomercial-like fashion, he noted this was a limited-time opportunity. After the Council and public offered comments, a bold, daring plan of action was approved:
“RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss and allow the City Manager to continue discussions with Los Angeles County Supervisor Antonovich's Office.”
Indeed, discussions shall be allowed! Rejoice at will.
*NOTE: Laurene Weste wasn’t at the meeting tonight because she was in a traffic accident on the way to the meeting. We hope she’s alright and wish her the best.
[1]A good place to get background on this issue is this interview that covers one chapter of the ever-evolving CEMEX affair. Complex issues of land ownership, mineral rights, leasing, air quality, etc… are discussed in relation to Stonecrest—remember that?
[2]Senator Feinstein’s website. Be sure to click on “Breakfast with Dianne”. Sounds like a bad sitcom, no?
As it stands, the City wants to prohibit mining in excess of historical mining levels. That is, only 300,000 tons of material can be removed each year. Senator Dianne Feinstein, devoted environmentalist, asked the City to consider increasing this level by a factor of five. After all, CEMEX has a God-given right to turn a profit on the land, and CEMEX claimed it would need to extract 1,500,000 tons of sand and gravel each year for its project to be “economically viable.” That translates into 757 smoggy, sand-dropping, road-clogging truck trips a day for decades to come.
An even better idea was the option of saddling taxpayers with a $170 million bond to buy out CEMEX’s lease. It would have to be approved by voters, but it’s an option. The thing is, the Bureau of Land Management would still own the sand and gravel mineral rights on the land in question and could actually sell them again. I’ll say that one more time: taxpayers could buy out CEMEX and the BLM could then re-sell the mining rights to someone else. Inexplicably, this perfect little solution was dismissed by the Council!
Councilmember TimBen Boydston responded appropriately. In a composed, mini-tirade he remarked: “I was under the impression that she [Feinstein] was trying to help us. […] Is someone on her staff smoking particulates from mining? […] This is not help in any way.” Speakers like Andrew Fried and Pauline Harte agreed that CEMEX must be continue to be fought. Thus, Santa Clarita remains opposed to the mining.
Boydston also made some interesting remarks about another favored issue, the Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital expansion project. By Paul Brotzman’s estimate, it won’t be discussed again until May because of hold-ups with the hospital’s revised Environmental Impact Report. Boydston noted that Roger Seaver et al. had been pushing hard for a timely resolution to the expansion but that “Now, suddenly, it doesn’t seem to be quite so important.” He knows what’s up. As SCVTalker J-to-the-Wilson and other Claritan commentators have wryly noted, waiting for a new, presumably Boydston-less Council after the April elections might make it easier for HMNMH to get its plans approved. This new tack means SCV’s 2007 buzzword of “collusion” must now be replaced with buzzphrase “strategic, quasi-slimy, manipulative delays". That’s not quite as catchy, is it?
In an unusual show of restraint, Cam Noltemeyer spoke only about half a dozen times this evening. Her resounding theme was that more building—in the form of a new Civic Center, HMNMH’s expansion, the Westfield mall expansion, the 21,000 units in Newhall Ranch—would exacerbate already existing problems. Apparently, forcing too much stuff into too little space can actually decrease quality of life and increase traffic congestion. Obviously, we must temper Cam’s views with what we have to gain from all the new building— 60,000 new neighbors and a Cheesecake Factory.
Apart from CEMEX and development, the Council discussed and approved Mayor Kellar’s pet initiative, a $40K investment in a year-long series of informative safety months. This was quite timely, as Old Orchard resident Edith Coranzo had expressed concern over increased gang activity earlier in the evening. In Kellar’s own words, “important information on issues of importance” will be disseminated to the public.
The evening closed with a discussion of a chance to build a new Civic Center to improve the current, out-dated courthouse and Sheriff's department. Ken Pulskamp could scarcely contain his giddy enthusiasm for the prospect of uniting State, County, and City into one grand, centralized center. In infomercial-like fashion, he noted this was a limited-time opportunity. After the Council and public offered comments, a bold, daring plan of action was approved:
“RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss and allow the City Manager to continue discussions with Los Angeles County Supervisor Antonovich's Office.”
Indeed, discussions shall be allowed! Rejoice at will.
*NOTE: Laurene Weste wasn’t at the meeting tonight because she was in a traffic accident on the way to the meeting. We hope she’s alright and wish her the best.
[1]A good place to get background on this issue is this interview that covers one chapter of the ever-evolving CEMEX affair. Complex issues of land ownership, mineral rights, leasing, air quality, etc… are discussed in relation to Stonecrest—remember that?
[2]Senator Feinstein’s website. Be sure to click on “Breakfast with Dianne”. Sounds like a bad sitcom, no?
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Happenings: Did Somebody Say Commitment?
If you need to be brought up to speed on the Henry Mayo Master Plan issue, I suppose you could read this Signal article[1].
Despite hopes for the contrary, there wasn't a whole lot of "new" at tonight's hospital-centric City Council meeting--just alarming overuse of the word commit in all its various forms[2].
Sure, the new-ish Development Agreement was discussed. Paul Brotzman fearlessly led us through a summary of the document and pointed out potential benefits provided by its so-called "sequencing of improvements." For example, G&L Realty wouldn't be issued the building permit for Medical Office Building 3 until they began construction of the new Inpatient Building--the one demanded by the community at large. As many speakers would later note, however, G & L Realty could still get away with building only medical office buildings and parking structures under the Development Agreement per a "no obligation to develop" clause.
Overall, the Development Agreement inspired a lot of hypotheticals regarding what the city could withhold (e.g., the certificate to occupy a building, building permits) in order to compel construction of the Inpatient Building, sufficient parking, and other perceived necessities. By 11:30, Mayor McLean and Roger Seaver were talking very frankly about what would have to happen in order to assure the elusive "third vote" in favor of the Master Plan.
Still, the status quo prevailed. Tonight, as ever, HMNMH CEO Roger Seaver said that signing an agreement to build the new Inpatient Building--and not just medical office buildings--was an impossibility. And tonight, as ever, David Gauny[3] and other opponents said that just wasn't good enough. Gauny reported hearing "no", per usual, in response to his group's many well-defined and reasonable negotiating points.
That not much new was said at the City Council meeting didn't diminish its importance, however. It was an opportunity for both sides to present their cases in polished, practiced form. When the time came for public comments, Roger Seaver and Reena Newhall were the effective figureheads for those for and against expansion, respectively . Despite having only three minutes to speak and no PowerPoint to back her up, Reena was the clear winner in this match-up. I'll give you a break-down in a very long aside:
[KEY PHRASE:
Roger - "We are committed" was said eight times in as many minutes. It worked remarkably well as ammunition for the opposition to aim squarely back at Seaver, as in "Where's the commitment to a new hospital, Mr. Seaver?"
Reena - "Appeasement du jour" was coined to describe laughable concessions made by the hospital in an attempt to appease the community. Reena takes this round.
FAVORED RHETORICAL DEVICE:
Roger - Emphatic repetition was not limited to "we are committed." Roger also singled out each City Council member by name and rattled off the same set of rhetorical questions at them. Roughly, it was "[Council member], I'm asking for your commitment. I'm asking for your commitment to the full master plan. I'm asking for you to commit to the residents of Santa Clarita..."
Reena - Speaking in a bracingly sardonic style, Reena eviscerated the appeasement du jours. I was particularly fond of her ode to "the melodious sound of helicopters" and "therapeutic" gasoline fumes awaiting those in the planned healing garden.
INTERACTION WITH THE COUNCIL:
Roger - Despite singling out each council member with the "I'm asking for your commitment" schpeel, I think most members were left wondering "Is he going to do that to all of us?" rather than feeling personally addressed.
Reena - How nice it is to have someone who is not afraid to call out City Council members by their first names. In particular, she got Laurene Weste's attention by mocking the proposed healing garden's open space dedication.
AUDIENCE SUPPORT:
Roger - He drew yawns and sighs. It didn't help that HMNMH's own Dr. Gene Dorio came forward with 62 letters signed by hospital staff concerned with the immediate need for more operating rooms--not office space.
Reena - She drew guilty giggles and amused gasps with her pluck and sarcasm.]
One thing was made amply clear at tonight's City Council Meeting: it's time for a decision about the Henry Mayo Master Plan. As Council Member Laurene Weste said, "If we don't move ahead ... we're gonna be dog-gone in trouble as a community." The decision is still several months away, however; the Council won't likely discuss it again until January 8, and even that date's tentative. In the interim, the new E.I.R. will be circulated and there will doubtless be many meetings. Of course, neither of these actions will change the situation very much at all.
If I'm reading the prevailing tides correctly, Roger Seaver and G&L are going to get approval of their master plan early next year. There will be some kind of clause that sort of forces construction of the Inpatient Building--perhaps before the second Medical Office Building can be occupied--in order for G&L to get the rest of their desired M.O.B.s. The community around the hospital will suffer more than was anticipated as a too-big project is forced into a too-small space. City Council members may remember with some regret that they were under no obligation to do G&L favors--this when construction of the Inpatient building is delayed or complicated. At that point, of course, progress will have begun and will not be stopped.
Oh yeah, and we'll be spending $60,000 to fix the configuration and angle of parking in Newhall; Jeff Wilson of SCVTalk lobbied for dogs-sans-leash; and I'm tired and not writing very well so I'm off to bed with heart-felt apologies for a lack of clarity. Thank God the meeting only went until 12:35 a.m.
[1]"Hospital Plans Are Front and Center", by Jerry Berrios in the Sunday, September 23 edition.
[2]To be fair, Frank's restrained manner was new.
[3]Of SmartGrowthSCV
Despite hopes for the contrary, there wasn't a whole lot of "new" at tonight's hospital-centric City Council meeting--just alarming overuse of the word commit in all its various forms[2].
Sure, the new-ish Development Agreement was discussed. Paul Brotzman fearlessly led us through a summary of the document and pointed out potential benefits provided by its so-called "sequencing of improvements." For example, G&L Realty wouldn't be issued the building permit for Medical Office Building 3 until they began construction of the new Inpatient Building--the one demanded by the community at large. As many speakers would later note, however, G & L Realty could still get away with building only medical office buildings and parking structures under the Development Agreement per a "no obligation to develop" clause.
Overall, the Development Agreement inspired a lot of hypotheticals regarding what the city could withhold (e.g., the certificate to occupy a building, building permits) in order to compel construction of the Inpatient Building, sufficient parking, and other perceived necessities. By 11:30, Mayor McLean and Roger Seaver were talking very frankly about what would have to happen in order to assure the elusive "third vote" in favor of the Master Plan.
Still, the status quo prevailed. Tonight, as ever, HMNMH CEO Roger Seaver said that signing an agreement to build the new Inpatient Building--and not just medical office buildings--was an impossibility. And tonight, as ever, David Gauny[3] and other opponents said that just wasn't good enough. Gauny reported hearing "no", per usual, in response to his group's many well-defined and reasonable negotiating points.
That not much new was said at the City Council meeting didn't diminish its importance, however. It was an opportunity for both sides to present their cases in polished, practiced form. When the time came for public comments, Roger Seaver and Reena Newhall were the effective figureheads for those for and against expansion, respectively . Despite having only three minutes to speak and no PowerPoint to back her up, Reena was the clear winner in this match-up. I'll give you a break-down in a very long aside:
[KEY PHRASE:
Roger - "We are committed" was said eight times in as many minutes. It worked remarkably well as ammunition for the opposition to aim squarely back at Seaver, as in "Where's the commitment to a new hospital, Mr. Seaver?"
Reena - "Appeasement du jour" was coined to describe laughable concessions made by the hospital in an attempt to appease the community. Reena takes this round.
FAVORED RHETORICAL DEVICE:
Roger - Emphatic repetition was not limited to "we are committed." Roger also singled out each City Council member by name and rattled off the same set of rhetorical questions at them. Roughly, it was "[Council member], I'm asking for your commitment. I'm asking for your commitment to the full master plan. I'm asking for you to commit to the residents of Santa Clarita..."
Reena - Speaking in a bracingly sardonic style, Reena eviscerated the appeasement du jours. I was particularly fond of her ode to "the melodious sound of helicopters" and "therapeutic" gasoline fumes awaiting those in the planned healing garden.
INTERACTION WITH THE COUNCIL:
Roger - Despite singling out each council member with the "I'm asking for your commitment" schpeel, I think most members were left wondering "Is he going to do that to all of us?" rather than feeling personally addressed.
Reena - How nice it is to have someone who is not afraid to call out City Council members by their first names. In particular, she got Laurene Weste's attention by mocking the proposed healing garden's open space dedication.
AUDIENCE SUPPORT:
Roger - He drew yawns and sighs. It didn't help that HMNMH's own Dr. Gene Dorio came forward with 62 letters signed by hospital staff concerned with the immediate need for more operating rooms--not office space.
Reena - She drew guilty giggles and amused gasps with her pluck and sarcasm.]
One thing was made amply clear at tonight's City Council Meeting: it's time for a decision about the Henry Mayo Master Plan. As Council Member Laurene Weste said, "If we don't move ahead ... we're gonna be dog-gone in trouble as a community." The decision is still several months away, however; the Council won't likely discuss it again until January 8, and even that date's tentative. In the interim, the new E.I.R. will be circulated and there will doubtless be many meetings. Of course, neither of these actions will change the situation very much at all.
If I'm reading the prevailing tides correctly, Roger Seaver and G&L are going to get approval of their master plan early next year. There will be some kind of clause that sort of forces construction of the Inpatient Building--perhaps before the second Medical Office Building can be occupied--in order for G&L to get the rest of their desired M.O.B.s. The community around the hospital will suffer more than was anticipated as a too-big project is forced into a too-small space. City Council members may remember with some regret that they were under no obligation to do G&L favors--this when construction of the Inpatient building is delayed or complicated. At that point, of course, progress will have begun and will not be stopped.
Oh yeah, and we'll be spending $60,000 to fix the configuration and angle of parking in Newhall; Jeff Wilson of SCVTalk lobbied for dogs-sans-leash; and I'm tired and not writing very well so I'm off to bed with heart-felt apologies for a lack of clarity. Thank God the meeting only went until 12:35 a.m.
[1]"Hospital Plans Are Front and Center", by Jerry Berrios in the Sunday, September 23 edition.
[2]To be fair, Frank's restrained manner was new.
[3]Of SmartGrowthSCV
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Happenings: Mayo and Ferry and Plans, Oh My!
What follows are observations from the live-televised City Council meeting that began on August 28 and stretched nearly an hour into August 29. It was, of course, the Henry Mayo Master Plan[1] that was responsible for the long meeting and for such memorable quotations as “This is my turn! I get to have my turn!” (see paragraph 6). For some background on the current HMNMH issue, read this and the first section of this.
Last night’s City Council meeting began with an utterly bizarre anecdote by Tim Ben Boydston. It involved Simon Wiesenthal, Nazi death camps, and lending a Jewish holy book for payments of food. The story suggested that one should focus on the many people in this world that do good over the few people that do evil—I think.
Some two hours later, the Council finally opened the floodgates and let a torrent of public comments on the hospital master plan flow. Those in favor of the plan went first. Roger Seaver shocked the crowd by suggesting that his hospital’s expansion project was a good idea, and he was backed up by a couple of residents who anticipated a need for more expansive hospital services. It seems that offering free meals to any hospital employee willing to speak at the council meeting—an allegation of the hospital made by at least two speakers against the plan—had proved unsuccessful.
Fittingly, it was David Gauny, chairperson for Smart Growth SCV[2] who began the comments in opposition of the hospital’s revised master plan. He came off as articulate, informed and—dare I say it?—righteous in his three-minute oration. He stated very clearly that he and those in his group needed to be assured that the project would expand the hospital and not just build medical office buildings. He added that this was the portion of the project Seaver had been reluctant to fully commit to. Furthermore, he noted that key elements of the plan, like a development agreement, were unacceptably missing.
Before he had returned to his seat, Mayor McLean let out an exasperated moan-sigh and challenged Gauny directly, asking him for exactly what he wanted (how many buildings, etc…). Gauny again cited flaws in the plan at the most fundamental level that prevented him from being able to make such specific requests. Ferry got his turn to be exasperated next, but he would save his largest outburst for later.
The remainder of the twenty-five opposing comments focused on the sentiment that it would be unfair for residents to lose trees and endure more than a decade of construction all so G&L Realty[3] could profit. Carole Lutness summed it up best: “What I want is a hospital, not a way for G&L to make a lot of money.” Former Mayor Carl Boyer put things a bit more directly when he called the proposal “rotten on a number of counts.” Of course, even he was outdone by a soft-spoken, accented Ms./Mrs. Pinkerton (I missed her first name) who called those associated with the plan “a diabolical lot.”
When the City Council finally got to weigh in (after 11pm), Frank Ferry’s comments stood out just a smidgen. At first, he seemed to be making a startling amount of good sense, noting how medical office buildings now provide services once exclusive to hospitals. He said that allowing non-hospital medical buildings would be a positive thing for the valley (unfortunately ignoring the fact that this could be done within existing zoning laws). Summoning up passion impressive for the late hour he said “When I get a stroke […] I want to be fixed freakin’ now so I’m not six-feet under.” By this point he was standing up, shouting about being selfish when it came to medical care, and gesticulating with gusto. McLean interjected “Excuse me, excuse me, hey!” to no avail. Ferry could not be stopped and was now accusing David Gauny of keeping “secrets” about what he and Smart Growth SCV wanted from the Council. After an intense minute or two, Mayor McLean began again “Excuse me, Frank” but was answered by Ferry with “This is my turn! I get to have my turn!” Comments/questions by Weste and McLean were decidedly tamer.
The whole issue wrapped up by not being wrapped up. The Council weighed in on the prospect of G&L charging to park on the campus (most were against), the need to recirculate/deal with the EIR (Environmental Impact Report), getting hospital drawings to be more satisfactory, and other issues that my sleep-deprived mind can’t quite summon at the moment.
To close, I have some news for the Community Holiday Tree. Tree?
Last night’s City Council meeting began with an utterly bizarre anecdote by Tim Ben Boydston. It involved Simon Wiesenthal, Nazi death camps, and lending a Jewish holy book for payments of food. The story suggested that one should focus on the many people in this world that do good over the few people that do evil—I think.
Some two hours later, the Council finally opened the floodgates and let a torrent of public comments on the hospital master plan flow. Those in favor of the plan went first. Roger Seaver shocked the crowd by suggesting that his hospital’s expansion project was a good idea, and he was backed up by a couple of residents who anticipated a need for more expansive hospital services. It seems that offering free meals to any hospital employee willing to speak at the council meeting—an allegation of the hospital made by at least two speakers against the plan—had proved unsuccessful.
Fittingly, it was David Gauny, chairperson for Smart Growth SCV[2] who began the comments in opposition of the hospital’s revised master plan. He came off as articulate, informed and—dare I say it?—righteous in his three-minute oration. He stated very clearly that he and those in his group needed to be assured that the project would expand the hospital and not just build medical office buildings. He added that this was the portion of the project Seaver had been reluctant to fully commit to. Furthermore, he noted that key elements of the plan, like a development agreement, were unacceptably missing.
Before he had returned to his seat, Mayor McLean let out an exasperated moan-sigh and challenged Gauny directly, asking him for exactly what he wanted (how many buildings, etc…). Gauny again cited flaws in the plan at the most fundamental level that prevented him from being able to make such specific requests. Ferry got his turn to be exasperated next, but he would save his largest outburst for later.
The remainder of the twenty-five opposing comments focused on the sentiment that it would be unfair for residents to lose trees and endure more than a decade of construction all so G&L Realty[3] could profit. Carole Lutness summed it up best: “What I want is a hospital, not a way for G&L to make a lot of money.” Former Mayor Carl Boyer put things a bit more directly when he called the proposal “rotten on a number of counts.” Of course, even he was outdone by a soft-spoken, accented Ms./Mrs. Pinkerton (I missed her first name) who called those associated with the plan “a diabolical lot.”
When the City Council finally got to weigh in (after 11pm), Frank Ferry’s comments stood out just a smidgen. At first, he seemed to be making a startling amount of good sense, noting how medical office buildings now provide services once exclusive to hospitals. He said that allowing non-hospital medical buildings would be a positive thing for the valley (unfortunately ignoring the fact that this could be done within existing zoning laws). Summoning up passion impressive for the late hour he said “When I get a stroke […] I want to be fixed freakin’ now so I’m not six-feet under.” By this point he was standing up, shouting about being selfish when it came to medical care, and gesticulating with gusto. McLean interjected “Excuse me, excuse me, hey!” to no avail. Ferry could not be stopped and was now accusing David Gauny of keeping “secrets” about what he and Smart Growth SCV wanted from the Council. After an intense minute or two, Mayor McLean began again “Excuse me, Frank” but was answered by Ferry with “This is my turn! I get to have my turn!” Comments/questions by Weste and McLean were decidedly tamer.
The whole issue wrapped up by not being wrapped up. The Council weighed in on the prospect of G&L charging to park on the campus (most were against), the need to recirculate/deal with the EIR (Environmental Impact Report), getting hospital drawings to be more satisfactory, and other issues that my sleep-deprived mind can’t quite summon at the moment.
To close, I have some news for the Community Holiday Tree. Tree?
Hi there. I wanted to let you know that you were a full outline point in Lisa Hardy’s presentation last night! Unfortunately, it seems that you are still going to have to die. It will be pretty late into the project and they’re going to plant your replacement first, but ultimately your demise is just about certain. According to Hardy, the replacement Holiday Tree will be “up and running” (I didn’t know trees could run!) by the time you meet a chainsaw.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
