Out of SCOPE: Judge Rejects Henry Mayo Expansion Lawsuit

By Venturan — John B.

Image not recovered3739703b-6c18-4ce2-943d-fc9b3b94c54e.jpg

SFVBJ and KHTS are reporting an important development in the HMNMH expansion project:

A Los Angeles Superior Court Judge rejected a lawsuit against the City of Santa Clarita over the approval of the Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital master plan expansion, on Thursday, concluding that “The petitioner has not established that there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion.”

The lawsuit had been filed by Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment (SCOPE) and Community Advocates for Health Care SCV. It challenged the adequacy of the project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

There have been heated debates for and against the expansion, leading up to the expansion acceptance in November 2008. City Council candidate David Gauny gained notoriety for his vehement opposition to the plan, which includes a new parking structure, helipad, neo-natal ICU, 120 additional beds and more.

I’ve been on both sides of this issue and appreciate the NIMBY stance and funny business that was and is a factor in this plan. Recently though, a close friend had some complications with her labor at Henry Mayo and was forced to be airlifted to Valley Presbyterian’s neonatal ICU in Van Nuys. That one hit close to home and left me shaken – why don’t we have a NICU in our town? I’ll take the good with the bad on this one.

Comments (13)

FredFebruary 12, 2010 at 6:24 pm

It just sort of seems reasonable that if we are living in a growing city, we would want to let the hospital invest in expanding into a good place to go when we need it. Hospitals tend to be good things that you want around.

David GaunyFebruary 12, 2010 at 7:56 pm

My understanding is that a parking structure will be the first thing built with a helipad on top of that. Following the plan, we will then see the first medical office building (aka MOB1). I have always supported the hospital portion of this project (and even MOBs) but let me reiterate my concerns: 1) No guarantee of a new hospital building or substantial new beds (“120 new beds” was in the PR but never once in their contract) 2) G&L’s obligation to mitigate the traffic in front of the hospital was removed by shoving about $1.5 million to taxpayers – and there remains no explanation of a fix. 3) Our city has delayed much-needed discussion for a real regional medical center for another decade. We should have approved a modified version of this project AND began lobbying a regional provider to start drawing a regional plan. This little site simply cannot support our valley’s care in the long term. From a city standpoint, we gave everything to G&L in this deal with a mere hope that a hospital will be built. Like every community hospital, HM struggles to balance a very tight budget with quality care, which in turn makes commercial and bond financing much more expensive than that of regional providers. These higher rates make operating margins for community hospitals virtually impossible to maintain which is why countless community hospitals are going under. This is precisely why the city should have contractually guaranteed that the hospital was well under construction before G&L got their 3rd and final building. That didn’t happen. This is not a NIMBY issue and if it were it would never have been four years under review. Three incumbents and one G&L-financed council seat hurt us on this one, folks. Let’s hope we don’t see G&L money come into this year’s race too. It is bad for our city. I sincerely hope the hospital itself will be successful in this master plan. I have always wanted more beds for our community and hope they deliver on this. Although I was not involved in the lawsuit against the plan, I understand the concerns of those who were. I have no intention of thwarting the master plan moving forward and wish the best for Henry Mayo – for them and our community.

lvogelFebruary 12, 2010 at 9:45 pm

When I went to the first meeting years ago at the hospital regarding the ‘hospital’ expansion…yeah, right!, I asked if the new hospital would have a pediatrics ward. That was one of my first questions; why, because I had (younger) kids at that time and I knew of two families in my neighborhood who’s children had to be hospitalized down in the SFV. I understand NickelDime, how you felt for your friends. When I asked that question, I was told with no hesitation, NO! When I questioned further, I was told there are not enough pediatric ‘surgeons’ or specialists in this valley to support such a ward. When I saw the renditions of this ‘master plan’ I was amazed with how much that was NOT hospital! I happen to live right next door to the hospital, and through the years (and still) I take advantage of it! I’ve been hospitalized on 3 occasions at HMNMH and I have to go to a Dr. every 4 months. I walk there; it’s great. The morning of my youngest childs birth, I walked. I like having the hospital right next door. I like having the hospital we have NOW right next door, not a bunch of buildings (medical office buildings) pretending to be part of the hospital. These office buidlings have nothing to do with the hospital and they are all FOR PROFIT! We need a bigger hospital, there is no denying. This should have been planned years ago, as our population kept increasing. I believe it’s been bad city management not to have thought about the need for this a long time ago!

CCFebruary 12, 2010 at 9:55 pm

This is a travesty of a plan. The hospital should be first. Thank you David for taking this fight to the Council. Your issues were on point and logical. Too bad that our council was more interested in re-election.

mikeFebruary 12, 2010 at 10:43 pm

Reminds me of the David Gauny we once loved. This is a viewpoint that the council needs. Future Dave, how do we prevent Present Dave from committing political suicide on the 27th?

GangFangFebruary 12, 2010 at 11:12 pm

Let Gauny hang himself, he’s a big boy.

need for involved citizenryFebruary 13, 2010 at 6:53 am

I hope G&L feels the pain of the high vacancies and market gluts and eats their shorts on the MOB expansion. Seaver is a spokesman for the worst kind of spin and 4 of the 5 City Council members ought to be ashamed of their “discretion”.

David GaunyFebruary 13, 2010 at 10:58 am

I found another speech from that radical Bob Kellar… his comments explain very clearly the concerns with this plan: http://bdyoutube.com/video/cwvVN2Qhwlg/Henry-Mayo-Hospital-Expansion-Mayor-Kellar-s-Speech.html Back in those days, people who spoke like Kellar were attacked as “NIMBYs” (akin to “racist” in some peoples’ minds). But this is a prime example of what (and who) needs changing on our City Council.

lvogelFebruary 13, 2010 at 3:56 pm

Um David, with all do respect, I’d never compare calling myself a ‘NIMBY’ to ‘racist’. I’ve never considered myself a NIMBY, even though I’ve stood against this ‘plan’ for more MOB’s. I moved next door to a busy trauma hospital complete with a helipad 22 years ago. I knew what was in my backyard. Just as I’ve known all my life that my next door neighbor may be an immigrant…legal or otherwise. I’m afraid that my neighbor is going to be the one paying the price for these rallies and not the businesses that are making the profit off their labor. Heck even our law enforcement is benefiting from illegal immigrants: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-informant12-2010feb12,0,7837884.story This particular ‘illegal’ has been working for the ‘law’ doing undercover work for about $10,000.00 a year, for the past 14 YEARS! Now he’s being threatened with deportation back to El Salvador, where he will surely be killed! I heard that one of these ‘tea party’ individuals spoke at a convention and suggested that ‘literacy’ tests be given to voters…hmmm that sounds familiar; oh yeah, some suggested that same ‘test’ to be given to our African American citizens during the civil rights era! I wish those groups would take it to Sacramento or Washington, where the changes are truly made; not here where their presence will only bring negative media coverage to this ‘city’.

David GaunyFebruary 13, 2010 at 8:36 pm

lvogel: my apologies – I probably should have left the comment out. My point with the “racist” vs “NIMBY” argument is that people choose to use such words in order to neutralize a group of people that often have valid views. It neuters the entire group wholesale and that’s unfair. My belief is that the “NIMBYs” in the G&L case had real arguments that were never heard by the public as a result of this marginalizing word being applied to the entire group. Similarly, I wish some on this site would try harder to sift rational arguments out from people we increasingly refer to as “racists” here. I am in agreement that lax business enforcement is a key part of the problem. As usual, the answer is probably in the middle somewhere.

lvogelFebruary 13, 2010 at 9:34 pm

Thanks for the reply David, but no apologies needed. My concern is extremism. The hospital ‘master plan’ (thanks to you) was held in the correct forum. You were vital in how our concerns were voiced, and heard. It was done ‘civilly’. You and others spoke about what the concerns were with the expansion as they should have been; directed to those who would utimately decide (City Council) on this ‘city’ matter. What is being planned in our valley regarding this very serious matter (ILLEGAL immigration), concerns me. Those ‘extremists’ that want their voices heard, will be using this opportunity and it will be done using the “proud to be a racist” statement, in mind. I ask this of you; if you are involved and have a voice in this ‘rally’, I hope that you can bring a civil tone to it and encourage others to do the same. Thanks again for the reply.

Kevin D. KorenthalFebruary 15, 2010 at 2:12 pm

I drive to Providence Holy Cross before I dial 911 to be taken to HM. I find the service at HM impersonal and of low quality. At Holy Cross, I have always had exemplary service and with their recent (smart) expansion, will continue to send my sicknesses to them.

lvogelFebruary 15, 2010 at 3:19 pm

My experiences with HMNMH are quite different from yours, it appears Kevin. I have never had a problem with the hospital. I’ve never had a problem with the staff. I would never stand in way of the hospital. Heck, most of the expansions that have taken place throught out these years, I’ve never even been aware of until they have an ‘open house/grand opening’ event, that is usually written up. Again, it’s the number of MOB’s and not hospital that I have a problem with. I drive around the valley and see all thes offices AVAILABLE, that it just boggles the mind that they want to cram so much into a small area….I will place a bet right now, that if these 3 bulidings and 3 or 4 parking structures get built in that area, there will be BIG problems for the city later. Traffic, sewage, polution. And remember, they have not ruled out eminent domain, so after they get this started if they find a home or two or three are in the way, oh well. This has been toted as something that benefits the citizens!

FredFebruary 12, 2010 at 6:24 pm
It just sort of seems reasonable that if we are living in a growing city, we would want to let the hospital invest in expanding into a good place to go when we need it. Hospitals tend to be good things that you want around.
David GaunyFebruary 12, 2010 at 7:56 pm
My understanding is that a parking structure will be the first thing built with a helipad on top of that. Following the plan, we will then see the first medical office building (aka MOB1). I have always supported the hospital portion of this project (and even MOBs) but let me reiterate my concerns: 1) No guarantee of a new hospital building or substantial new beds (“120 new beds” was in the PR but never once in their contract) 2) G&L’s obligation to mitigate the traffic in front of the hospital was removed by shoving about $1.5 million to taxpayers – and there remains no explanation of a fix. 3) Our city has delayed much-needed discussion for a real regional medical center for another decade. We should have approved a modified version of this project AND began lobbying a regional provider to start drawing a regional plan. This little site simply cannot support our valley’s care in the long term. From a city standpoint, we gave everything to G&L in this deal with a mere hope that a hospital will be built. Like every community hospital, HM struggles to balance a very tight budget with quality care, which in turn makes commercial and bond financing much more expensive than that of regional providers. These higher rates make operating margins for community hospitals virtually impossible to maintain which is why countless community hospitals are going under. This is precisely why the city should have contractually guaranteed that the hospital was well under construction before G&L got their 3rd and final building. That didn’t happen. This is not a NIMBY issue and if it were it would never have been four years under review. Three incumbents and one G&L-financed council seat hurt us on this one, folks. Let’s hope we don’t see G&L money come into this year’s race too. It is bad for our city. I sincerely hope the hospital itself will be successful in this master plan. I have always wanted more beds for our community and hope they deliver on this. Although I was not involved in the lawsuit against the plan, I understand the concerns of those who were. I have no intention of thwarting the master plan moving forward and wish the best for Henry Mayo – for them and our community.
lvogelFebruary 12, 2010 at 9:45 pm
When I went to the first meeting years ago at the hospital regarding the ‘hospital’ expansion…yeah, right!, I asked if the new hospital would have a pediatrics ward. That was one of my first questions; why, because I had (younger) kids at that time and I knew of two families in my neighborhood who’s children had to be hospitalized down in the SFV. I understand NickelDime, how you felt for your friends. When I asked that question, I was told with no hesitation, NO! When I questioned further, I was told there are not enough pediatric ‘surgeons’ or specialists in this valley to support such a ward. When I saw the renditions of this ‘master plan’ I was amazed with how much that was NOT hospital! I happen to live right next door to the hospital, and through the years (and still) I take advantage of it! I’ve been hospitalized on 3 occasions at HMNMH and I have to go to a Dr. every 4 months. I walk there; it’s great. The morning of my youngest childs birth, I walked. I like having the hospital right next door. I like having the hospital we have NOW right next door, not a bunch of buildings (medical office buildings) pretending to be part of the hospital. These office buidlings have nothing to do with the hospital and they are all FOR PROFIT! We need a bigger hospital, there is no denying. This should have been planned years ago, as our population kept increasing. I believe it’s been bad city management not to have thought about the need for this a long time ago!
CCFebruary 12, 2010 at 9:55 pm
This is a travesty of a plan. The hospital should be first. Thank you David for taking this fight to the Council. Your issues were on point and logical. Too bad that our council was more interested in re-election.
mikeFebruary 12, 2010 at 10:43 pm
Reminds me of the David Gauny we once loved. This is a viewpoint that the council needs. Future Dave, how do we prevent Present Dave from committing political suicide on the 27th?
GangFangFebruary 12, 2010 at 11:12 pm
Let Gauny hang himself, he’s a big boy.
need for involved citizenryFebruary 13, 2010 at 6:53 am
I hope G&L feels the pain of the high vacancies and market gluts and eats their shorts on the MOB expansion. Seaver is a spokesman for the worst kind of spin and 4 of the 5 City Council members ought to be ashamed of their “discretion”.
David GaunyFebruary 13, 2010 at 10:58 am
I found another speech from that radical Bob Kellar… his comments explain very clearly the concerns with this plan: http://bdyoutube.com/video/cwvVN2Qhwlg/Henry-Mayo-Hospital-Expansion-Mayor-Kellar-s-Speech.html Back in those days, people who spoke like Kellar were attacked as “NIMBYs” (akin to “racist” in some peoples’ minds). But this is a prime example of what (and who) needs changing on our City Council.
lvogelFebruary 13, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Um David, with all do respect, I’d never compare calling myself a ‘NIMBY’ to ‘racist’. I’ve never considered myself a NIMBY, even though I’ve stood against this ‘plan’ for more MOB’s. I moved next door to a busy trauma hospital complete with a helipad 22 years ago. I knew what was in my backyard. Just as I’ve known all my life that my next door neighbor may be an immigrant…legal or otherwise. I’m afraid that my neighbor is going to be the one paying the price for these rallies and not the businesses that are making the profit off their labor. Heck even our law enforcement is benefiting from illegal immigrants: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-informant12-2010feb12,0,7837884.story This particular ‘illegal’ has been working for the ‘law’ doing undercover work for about $10,000.00 a year, for the past 14 YEARS! Now he’s being threatened with deportation back to El Salvador, where he will surely be killed! I heard that one of these ‘tea party’ individuals spoke at a convention and suggested that ‘literacy’ tests be given to voters…hmmm that sounds familiar; oh yeah, some suggested that same ‘test’ to be given to our African American citizens during the civil rights era! I wish those groups would take it to Sacramento or Washington, where the changes are truly made; not here where their presence will only bring negative media coverage to this ‘city’.
David GaunyFebruary 13, 2010 at 8:36 pm
lvogel: my apologies – I probably should have left the comment out. My point with the “racist” vs “NIMBY” argument is that people choose to use such words in order to neutralize a group of people that often have valid views. It neuters the entire group wholesale and that’s unfair. My belief is that the “NIMBYs” in the G&L case had real arguments that were never heard by the public as a result of this marginalizing word being applied to the entire group. Similarly, I wish some on this site would try harder to sift rational arguments out from people we increasingly refer to as “racists” here. I am in agreement that lax business enforcement is a key part of the problem. As usual, the answer is probably in the middle somewhere.
lvogelFebruary 13, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Thanks for the reply David, but no apologies needed. My concern is extremism. The hospital ‘master plan’ (thanks to you) was held in the correct forum. You were vital in how our concerns were voiced, and heard. It was done ‘civilly’. You and others spoke about what the concerns were with the expansion as they should have been; directed to those who would utimately decide (City Council) on this ‘city’ matter. What is being planned in our valley regarding this very serious matter (ILLEGAL immigration), concerns me. Those ‘extremists’ that want their voices heard, will be using this opportunity and it will be done using the “proud to be a racist” statement, in mind. I ask this of you; if you are involved and have a voice in this ‘rally’, I hope that you can bring a civil tone to it and encourage others to do the same. Thanks again for the reply.
Kevin D. KorenthalFebruary 15, 2010 at 2:12 pm
I drive to Providence Holy Cross before I dial 911 to be taken to HM. I find the service at HM impersonal and of low quality. At Holy Cross, I have always had exemplary service and with their recent (smart) expansion, will continue to send my sicknesses to them.
lvogelFebruary 15, 2010 at 3:19 pm
My experiences with HMNMH are quite different from yours, it appears Kevin. I have never had a problem with the hospital. I’ve never had a problem with the staff. I would never stand in way of the hospital. Heck, most of the expansions that have taken place throught out these years, I’ve never even been aware of until they have an ‘open house/grand opening’ event, that is usually written up. Again, it’s the number of MOB’s and not hospital that I have a problem with. I drive around the valley and see all thes offices AVAILABLE, that it just boggles the mind that they want to cram so much into a small area….I will place a bet right now, that if these 3 bulidings and 3 or 4 parking structures get built in that area, there will be BIG problems for the city later. Traffic, sewage, polution. And remember, they have not ruled out eminent domain, so after they get this started if they find a home or two or three are in the way, oh well. This has been toted as something that benefits the citizens!