Colette Meunier, Planner, presented the project to the Commission, concluding by noting the supplemental written public comment and the Wind Impact Report submitted by Donald Ballanti, as listed in the supplemental staff report.
Commissioner Iwasa questioned if the smaller revised project recently submitted by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation would allow the Foundation to have the option to increase to the original project size.
Colette Meunier, Planner, indicated the option was available but PAMF would have to amend the Development Plan for any substantial changes. She noted that as a project moves from the design stage to construction plans, there are often small refinements in the buildings and site improvements.
Commissioner Iwasa asked if the square footage can change as well.
Colette Meunier, Planner, responded that the square footage may change a little as the construction plans are prepared, for example to comply with a Building Code requirement.However, these changes would be minor, say 100 to 500 square feet total.The project will also require an Architectural Review Permit from the Planning Commission, so the Commission would have an opportunity to review the design and any minor changes.
Commissioner Iwasa questioned whether the square footage alterations could change the parking calculations.
Colette Meunier, Planner, indicated that parking would be required in compliance with Condition 11-D. The parking spaces would be determined based on the final proposed square footage and number of beds.
Commissioner Iwasa stated that was why the parking spaces in the garage differed on different documents.
Anna Shimko, special counsel to the City explained the Development Plan itself per the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 3.5 parking spaces per hospital bed, and that any changes would be subject to the Community Development Director’s approval. IF the Director determines that a change is not minor, then it would require Planning Commission and City Council approval as amendments to the Development Plan.
Commissioner Thompson questioned who would determine what is a minor change.
Anna Shimko, special counsel to the City, indicated the Community Development Director will do so initially.
Commissioner Thompson asked if the Planning Commission could act on their own if they do not agree with the Community Development Director’s initial decision.
Greg Rubens, Deputy City Attorney, explained the City’s Municipal Code does not have provisions for appeal by the Planning Commission, thus leaving the Commission to rely on staff’s recommendation.
Commissioner Iwasa asked what would happen to the payments to the City, included in the Development Agreement, if PAMF were to sell the San Carlos Campus.
Anna Shimko, special counsel to the City, advised that the Development Agreement would be binding on any successor and that the transfer of the responsibility is subject to The City’s approval.
Commissioner Iwasa questioned the possibility if Sutter Health no longer existed but PAMF did.
Anna Shimko, special counsel to the City, indicated that if PAMF could not make the payments Sutter Health must; the Sutter Health inclusion is just a back up guarantee. She noted that there would be a $9,000,000 fund established which would be controlled and administered by a trustee entity and the City would receive its payments as proceeds from this fund. PAMF and Sutter Health are guarantors in the eventuality that the proceeds from the fund are less than provided for in any particular year.
Commissioner Iwasa questioned the square footage of the Central Utility building as indicated in the Staff Report as 12, 500 sq. ft. versus in the Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report.
Colette Meunier, Planner, indicated that plans had been revised somewhat from those reviewed for preparation of the Addendum.Subsequently, she further clarified that the footprint of the building was approximately 12,500 square feet and is the height of a two story building.There may be mezzanines or catwalk areas to provide access to equipment for maintenance and operation.That is why the square footage is shown in the Addendum to the EIR and in the Development Plan as 21,400 square feet.
Commissioner Thompson asked for clarification on the fiscal arrangement for payment of the $600,000 a year.
Anna Shimko, special counsel to the City, stated the fund will be held by a community foundation or other trustee entity and this entity will invest and manage the fund to generate revenue which will be paid to the City annually.
Commissioner Thompson questioned whether the interest was assumed to be 8% or 9%.
Brian Moura, Assistant City Manager, indicated the interest was projected to be an average of 7% a year over the 50 years of the fund’s existence.
Anna Shimko, special counsel to the City, added if the 7% interest was not generated then the foundation would pay the City and PAMF would make up the difference.
Commissioner Thompson asked if PAMF is going to be required to participate in funding street improvements. He then asked why they would not be responsible for improvements to Industrial Road.
Parviz Mokhtari, Director of Public Works indicated that per the Environmental Impact Report traffic analysis, there was no significant traffic impact on the roadway between the Brittan and Holly intersections but that the intersections would be affected. PAMF would be required to contribute to the improvement of the intersections.
Commissioner Thompson inquired about the Addendum to the EIR, Section 3-18, regarding an increase in parking.He then asked what basis is used for determining the parking increase.
Anna Shimko, special counsel to the City, clarified the increase would be over the existing conditions on the site when the EIR process was started in 2005.
Cecilia Montalvo, applicant, made a presentation of the proposed project outlined as follows;
Explained the vision of the project and the goal has remained unchanged, the opportunity to serve the citizens with the best healthcare.
Providing Quality Healthcare, benefits, and research within San Carlos.
The Development Agreement was created based on the goals of the community. This project would generate more benefit than alternative uses of the site.
Rich Dallon, project architect representing NBBJ Architecture, made a presentation on the landscape and the design of the proposed project, as follows;
Major open landscape has been reoriented.
Vertical elements such as the elevator and stair towers provide articulation and help to orient visitors to the facility. These will be lit at night to give off a soft glow, enhancing their usefulness for orientation.
The Center is designed to be a landmark to the community. The San Carlos Center’s materials came from the San Carlos train station with the courtyard being structured after the San Carlos cafes.
The traffic flow on-site is a continuous one way loop, offering clarity in the vehicular and pedestrian flow.
The reorientation of the buildings provides for better control of solar heat gain, to make the buildings more energy efficient.
40% of the landscape would be native vegetation and drought resistant vegetation and available as usable outdoor space.
Solar panels would provide 50% of the hot water
He concluded the presentation with a brief animation slide show, showing the growth of the landscape, with views from the green roofs and the entry approach.
Cecilia Montalvo, applicant, recognized those who had raised issues about the project. She stated that with the revised, smaller project will have less traffic as stated in the Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report. She also noted a California Healthcare Foundation study of San Mateo County stating that the population of people aged 65+ years will more than double in the next thirty years and that the county could face a shortage in healthcare facilities in the next 20 years. She pointed out that healthcare costs will increase mainly due to new technology, and concluded on the subject of nursing, pointing out that there has been an increase in nursing applicants, and that the healthcare providers are working to encourage and recruit more staff.
Commission to open Public Comment.
Michelle Bacigalupi spoke in opposition of the project, expressing concern that the traffic issue was not adequately addressed.
William Nack, 1153 Chess Dr. Foster City, spoke in support representing the Building & Construction Trades Council.
Neil Chichizola, 1379 Geneva Ave, spoke in support of the project.
Ron Collins, 1662 Chestnut St., spoke in support noting that more hospital beds are needed.
Phil Maresca, 299 Loma Rd., spoke in support stating there will be no mass exodus of the 65+ generation.
Dr. Bernhard Votteri, 3260 Melendy Dr., spoke in opposition. As an avid cyclist, he feels the traffic from PAMF would make crossing the Holly intersection a death defying experience.
Ruth Nolan, 2020 Francis Way, spoke in opposition of the project.
Dr. Sidney Marchasin, 2908 Franciscan Ct., spoke in opposition noting hospital stays have shortened, and that PAMF would be a duplication of Sequoia Hospital.
Fred Koehler, 120 Mesa Verde Way, spoke in support of the project.
Charlie Getz, 42 Madera Ave., spoke in support and noted the CEQA process had provided a lot of information and evaluation of the project.
Tony Egan, 958 Orange Ave., a business owner spoke in support of the project.
Dick Cesarian, 1138 Royal Lane, spoke in support, expressing this was an excellent location for a hospital.
JoAnn Kemist, representing Sequoia Hospital, spoke in opposition stating the redundancy in hospitals.
Michael Takamoto, 221 Manor Drive, spoke in support of the project.
Charles Yirchott, 11 Trillium Lane spoke in support.
Linda Drew, 791 Crestview Dr., spoke in support of the project.
Pam Gallant, 1800 Carmelita Dr., spoke in support stating her preference for this type of use compared to a Wal-Mart at this location.
Ed Pullen, 109 Coventry, spoke in support questioning the naysayers and special interest groups.
Sol Kutner, 633 Elm St., spoke in opposition noting there is no need for a second hospital and that he is concerned with the Holly interchange expansion.
Margery Ranch, 3 Trillium Lane, spoke in support of the project.
Jocelyn Won representing the AFSCME, a union of the hospital staff, spoke in opposition stating this will impact insurance premiums.
Bob Friday, 80 Amber Ct., spoke in opposition of the project due to traffic impacts.
Fred Catero, 1301 Chestnut St., spoke in support stating Sequoia Hospital is not enough.
April Carlson, 104 Mesa Verde Way, spoke in support indicating PAMF is a supporter of San Carlos’ schools.
Stephen Jigger, 10 Iris Lane, spoke in support noting that a world class medical center would be an anchor to the community.
Bruce Hamilton, representing HIP Housing, took no stand on the project, instead questioning whether PAMF would provide affordable housing to its employees.
Steven Howard, M.D., 1620 San Carlos Ave., spoke in support noting that in most areas the city would have to pay a hospital to come into the community.
Diana Mann, 169 Edgehill Dr., spoke in support stating the County is in need of more healthcare.
Jane Lockwood, 775 Chestnut St., spoke in support noting that PAMF has proved itself to San Carlos.
Connie Trevin of San Mateo spoke in opposition commenting that seniors are moving out of the county reducing long term healthcare demands.
Dr. Allen Rosenberg, 3003 Melendy Dr., #4, spoke in opposition of the project.
Roselyn Robertson of Belmont spoke in opposition noting the impact of maintaining safe staff ratios mandated by the State in two hospitals.
Mike Tiernan, 2113 Eaton Ave., spoke in support stating PAMF was a perfect fit for the community.
Joanne Jung, representing the California Nurses Association, spoke in opposition expressing concerns with Sutter Corporation’s failure to follow through on commitments it had made to other communities, such as Marin County and Santa Rosa.
Stan Paresa, 371 Fairfield Dr., spoke in opposition expressing concerns with noise and traffic in the surrounding residential neighborhood.
Pam McGee, 1951 Birch Ave., spoke in support stating the traffic issue is not due to the project.
Horst Jung, 52 Coronado Ave., spoke in support noting there will always be traffic.
Susan McKee, 307 Old County Rd., spoke in opposition due to pollution, noise and chemicals. San Carlos would lose its small town feel.
Bob Black, 585 Dartmouth Ave., did not have a position on the project, only commenting that he would like PAMF to offer a skilled nursing facility.
Chet Moore, 2721 Debbie Ct., spoke in favor noting that this as a Land Use issue and many opponents are bringing up matters, like business models and competition which were not land use issues.
Colette Meunier, Planner, addressed some clarifying issues brought up during the Public Comment period as outlined.
She discussed the issue of the size of the Central Utility Building.
She pointed out that the transportation impact analysis evaluated 10 interchanges including the one at Old County Road and San Carlos which a speaker had questioned.
She reiterated that the proposed conditions include PAMF’s fair share participation in funding Improvements of Industrial Road at Holly St.
Anna Shimko, special counsel to the City, noted that Sol Kutner’s comments included a reference to the condemning of land for the Holly Street Interchange improvements. She noted that this would be true for Brittan Avenue improvements for a small landscaped area, but that the Holly Street improvements could occur within the existing right-of-way. Also, she noted that PAMF has two small hospitals in the Santa Cruz and Menlo Park communities, in response to speakers who raised the issue that PAMF did not have experience operating a hospital.
Commissioner Iwasa commented she had received two calls from the Public;
Janice Dickson speaking of her opposition to the project, noting the nursing shortage.
Julie Nodson, of Brittan Heights also in opposition of the project.
M/S Divney/Phillips to close Public Comment; the Commission voted unanimously 5:0.
Commissioner Thompson asked staff if the commission could require a skilled nursing facility as part of the project.
Anna Shimko, special counsel to the City, advised that this is a land use issue and the Development Plan would in effect establish the permitted uses for the site.
Commissioner Iwasa questioned staff whether a business could be required to contribute to affordable housing.
Anna Shimko, special counsel to the City, noted that the Environmental Impact Report included an extensive analysis on the impact of new employees on housing demand and supply, and found that the project did not result in any significant environmental impact since there would be sufficient housing available for project employees. So, from a CEQA standpoint, there is no impact to be mitigated. She did note that the general fund monies the City would receive under the Development Agreement could be allocated in part to affordable housing, if the City so chooses.
Colette Meunier, Planner, indicated that the City is undertaking a General Plan Update and is currently participating in the overall region’s requirements to update the Housing Elements of every Bay Area community.This would also be a place to address housing needs.
Commissioner Thompson requested clarification from the applicant on the number of pedestrian crossings of the site’s roadways.
David Jury, applicant, noted two crossings.
Commissioner Divney asked about emergency vehicle access.
David Jury, applicant, indicated that there would be three driveways but noted that in the case of emergencies, the emergency vehicles often make their own paths as needed.
Commissioner Divney discussed Dr. Votteri’s concerns with bicycles on Industrial Rd.
David Jury, applicant, made reference to the robust bicycle program PAMF will be offering.
Commissioner Iwasa asked the applicant of any interactions with other hospitals, such as referrals.
Cecilia Montalvo, applicant, indicated that PAMF is a health care provider not a membership organization. The referrals are made on the basis of what is best for the patient, not on referrals within a certain group of facilities. She also responded to Mr. Bob Black’s request regarding convalescent care noting that this is not PAMF’s area of expertise and they would not be able to meet a requirement to provide this type of care.
Chair Royce indicated his amendments to the Resolutions, as follows:
Exhibit B, item# 25 should expand to any traffic calming devices, signage is not enough.
In Item# 23 regarding the hotline with voicemail from 6 p.m. to 8 a.m. should have a real person during this time.
Exhibit C would recommend that the artwork would be approved by the Arts & Culture Commission.
Colette Meunier, Planner, suggested that the changes to Condition #23 should be put into later permits, such as the Architectural Review Permit or the grading permit, because what is being approved now is the zoning for the site which will apply in the long term.The specific details about a hotline should be part of the permit related to specific developments.
Commissioner Thompson identified in Condition TR6-1-C that PAMF would pay its fair share to improve Industrial Rd. intersections but not the roadway between the intersections of Holly St. and Brittan Ave.
Anna Shimko, special counsel to the City, advised that the Environmental Impact Report did not identify any significant impacts for this portion of Industrial Avenue.
Commissioner Iwasa questioned the Shuttle service offered which she felt was limited, with the lunch hour being too short from noon to 1 p.m.
Commissioner Divney questioned the applicant if this was due to shift changes.
Cecilia Montalvo, applicant, indicated the hospital would operate a shuttle when it best served hospital staff and that PAMF would make adjustments with the help of the City.
Anna Shimko, special counsel to the City, clarified the information from the Director of Public Works regarding the impacts to Industrial Road.
The Planning Commission unanimously supported staff’s recommendations with the typographical corrections set out in the supplemental staff report and two changes to the Resolution regarding the P-C District rezoning, as follows:
1. Add Traffic Calming programs to sign programs in Condition No. 25.
2. In the Design Guidelines, under Section D. “Public Art,” the selection of public art is to be by the Arts and Culture Commission. Artwork to be approved by the Arts & Culture Commission.
M/S Phillips/Divney to make Motion 1, recommending to the City Council adoption of Resolution 1 regarding CEQA findings. Motion passed 5:0.
M/S Divney/Phillips to make Motion 2, recommending to the City Council adoption of Resolution 2 regarding the General Plan Amendments. Motion passed 5:0.
M/S Thompson/Iwasa to make Motion 3, recommending to the City Council adoption of Resolution 3 regarding the rezoning to the P-C District, with an amendments as outlined above.Motion passed 5:0.
M/S Iwasa/Thompson to make Motion 4 regarding the Development Agreement recommending to the City Council adoption of Resolution 4. Motion passed 5:0.
