Broadlands Hospital

Here's a copy of the letter regarding COPN change. Put's to rest the inaccurate statements the Inova people have been spreading.

______________________________

From: Erik Bodin [mailto:Erik.Bodin@vdh.virginia.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 5:27 PM
Subject: Significant Change Process

As we have discussed recently it appears there may be some
misconceptions regarding the significant change process, specifically in
regards to the process as it applies to the "Broadlands" project. I
have attempted to contact Loudoun County Planning Commissioner Sandra
Schlu (sp) to return her calls but have missed her on all occasions.
She had called with questions regarding the COPN significant change
process as well. I would like to provide some clarity from the DCOPN's
standpoint.

Regulations pertaining to the Virginia COPN law provide that there is a
35-day review process for obtaining a significant change to a COPN.
Although clearly aspirational, the 35-day timeframe is not mandatory and
in fact is frequently exceeded as a result of circumstances peculiar to
a given request.

Regarding a change of site, relocation to a site across the street is
one thing, proposing a site which involves a change in service area, a
different, potentially smaller service area population, and possible
encroachment on the service area of providers who were not impacted by,
and who did not take an active role in, the initial COPN, is another
matter entirely. In such instances, particularly for a project as large
and complex as a new hospital, review by neither the Health Planning
Agency nor DCOPN would be expected within the 35-day window. Much of
the review that led to the original, site specific, approval would need
to be repeated looking at the new site.

With regard to a change in the BRMC site to Route 50, if a request was
received, we would review it against the same current criteria used to
determine need for any new hospital placement, including population,
geographic access, impact on existing providers, etc... There are
already letters of objection to such a move in the file from Prince
William Health System and Fauquier Hospital that would be considered.
Within the past year, the Health Systems Agency of Northern Virginia in
reviewing a request from Reston Hospital for a CT service near the
intersection of Route 50 and 659 argued that neither a CT service or the
proposed and unregulated emergency service was needed, noting that the
population of the area is comparatively small. This argument does not
support the notion that a site change to Route 50 via the significant
change process is a viable option for BRMC.

 

My thought on this was, and still is: when the pro-Hospital crowd, and the hospital itself, makes concessions to compromise, the opposition then uses that as ammunition against them.

No helipad!

OK, no helipad.

No helipad? Then no hospital! hospitals need helipads!

... WTF?

I can see why the one side doesn't want to compromise any more.... Whether or not I agree, I can understand.

 

OH WAIT, it gets better!

I "think" I read where Rhonda Paice of CCB (maybe) said that in the future HCA WILL ask for a helipad and infered that residents should not approve as one of its reasons.

 

... or, as the flight EMT mentioned during his two minutes at the mic... if a helicopter needs to land, they'll find a place to land.

When I lived nearby helipad-equipped hospitals, I don't think I saw very many flights into the hospital at all... a few a month, maybe a little more in busy season.

What's 105 cover, two or three years? :rolleyes3:

 

More fear-mongering and less than factual if not out right lies from the CCoB/Inova crowd. If this (BRMC) application is turned down - It will takes years if not DECADES for another hospital to be built in Loudoun...so Inova, who wrote the CPAM (espouse for the PC & BoS) to follow is turing tail since HCA has met the criterion as spelled out in the CPAM that Inova wrote.

 

What you state is correct. The issue we had was people coming up behind the bus, passing it, and turning left into the school admin building while the bus was stopped and its lights were flashing. Last time I looked, that was against the law.

 

As if there isn't already enough evidence, here's another Inova/CCoB connection:

I attended the Planning Commission work session last night. The topic was BRMC. There is no public input at these meetings. About an hour was spent discussing traffic, traffic studies, traffic impacts, etc. Then there was a break.
After the break, the Chairwoman mentioned that Rhonda Paice with the CCoB had traffic data they wanted presented.
This guy gets up and starts taking about medical office building traffic and that the Planing Commission should consider what MIGHT get developed on other property around the area if BRMC is approved. It was pointed out that the PC is not charged with looking at that type of impact, there was no data to support the comments made, and medical office building is a by-right use.
One Planning Commissioner then asked him who he represented, since his documents had no letterhead. He then said that he did traffic analysis for Inova. No mention that he "worked" for CCoB, which is what was represented to the Chairwoman.

 

I don't think this puts the issue to rest at all. This is one more example of HCA exercising their influence in Richmond. They have already shown that they can get their COPN approved despite recommendations against it by both the HSA of Northern VA and the state adjudicator. The same was true for their two significant change applications to extend the COPN even though no significant progress had been made toward building the hospital. In both instance HSA recommended against granting the change, yet the state approved it anyway. If HCA was really serious about providing the best service to the majority of Loudoun Coutny residents, then I am convinced they could get the change of site approved in Richmond. The fact that two hospitals are against the Rt 50 location doesn't really pass the common sense test. Both those hospitals are more than 30 minutes away from the Rt 50 location.

Sure, traffic and other studies would need to be done. In fact the $12 M HCA (and I applaud them for it) is preferring for road improvements might be better utilized in resolving some of the traffic issues along the Rt 50 corridor that you mention. Their road improvements along Belmont Ridge -- which only go as far as Brambleton, may actually exacerbate the bottleneck at Belmont Ridge and Evergreen Mills.
But given HCA's track record in getting favorable COPN decisions, I believe they could get a Rt 50 change to their COPN approved!

 

I have an easier response. They don't want to build it on Rte 50.
They have many stated many reasons why they don't. They are the same reasons that Inova has said that a hospital there isn't warranted for many years to come. They would be thrilled to have their competition build in an area that is not yet viable to support a hospital.
And your assumption about how easy it would be to move the COPN provides no response to what Mr. Bodin wrote.

 

Anybody know why this public hearing does not show in the webcast? I would really like to watch what happened? I will probably contact LoCo myself.
http://loudoun.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=31

 

I think because it was at Eagle Ridge as opposed to the Government Center building.

 

I, too, was at the work session earlier this week. I spoke with the county traffic engineer and asked if he thought that a medical/dental office complex would be built if the hospital did not go in. He stated that he felt the property would likely revert to general office park use if the hospital was not there and the traffic would be reduced from 16,000 to 6,000 trips per day. He also suggested that we should challenge the fact that BRMC has not accounted for the additional 400,000 square feet of hospital/medical offices that BRMC would retain the right to build that were not accounted for in the traffic study.

Another observation I made was that the by-rights site plan presented by BRMC -- and found on both the BRMC and Broadlands residents for BRMC websites (no connection between those two organizations????) Just because an office complex can go onto the site by rights, does not mean they don't have to conform to the county zoning ordinances. The zoning ordinances provide a significant amount of protection to the residents of Broadlands. The site plan presented by BRMC for an office complex would not meet the zoning requirements, which include the following:

Office Park district is established primarily for administrative, business and professional offices and necessary supporting accessory uses and facilities, designed with a parklike atmosphere and environmentally sensitive design to accommodate and complement existing natural features including extensive landscaping, low ground coverage by buildings, buildings of moderate height, and careful attention to such aesthetic considerations as location and size of signs, lighting, parking and service areas and the like.


[FONT=&quot] No building, outdoor storage, areas for collection of refuse, or loading area shall be permitted closer than (100) feet to any agricultural district, any existing or zoned residential district, or land bay allowing residential uses. No parking shall be permitted closer than fifty (50) feet to any such area. [/FONT]


Landscaped open space on any individual lot shall not be less than .20 times the buildable area of the lot.



Within any PD-OP district, landscaping, buffering, and screening shall be used to screen outdoor storage, areas for collection of refuse, loading areas and parking from streets, agricultural and residential uses.


Some other red flags came up during the work session as well:


In response to a question about a potential heliport, BRMC representatives stated that they could not offer any legal guarantee that one would not be built in the future.


BRMC also explained that they are not ceding the parcel of land next to Clydes to the Broadlands HOA. We had been led to believe (by both BRMC and our HOA board) that they would provide that to the HOA for our use. At the meeting they indicated they would retain ownership and intended to build a "healing garden" that would be open to Broadlands residents -- a lot different than providing it to the HOA for our use. In additon, they implied that they would want to be able to use our trails systems for their patients. They also stated that they would retain the building square footage allowed on that parcel and transfer it to the rest of their property -- allowing the same amount of square footage as would be allowed by a by-rights office complex. But medical offices generate approx three times the traffic of a general office park!


I know that many of the people who respond to this forum live in areas of Broadlands that will not be negatively impacted by a Hospital across the street. When many of you fought against a fast food establishment on Truro Parish, I supported you, even though it didn't impact us. I ask the same consideration on this issue.


Thanks.

 

Very constructive points. Are they factual, maybe. Will they be disputed, probably. Thank you Spaceguy. No nasty talk, only positive in support of NO BRMC. I like that. You can leave the nasty talk to me. I am now crossing back over to support my neighbors who do not want a hospital built in Broadlands.

 

Thanks spaceguy for taking the time to write that. You bring up excellent points, and as Concretere said, your post was clear and unemotional.

That's what we need more of on this board concerning this issue.

 

Since you spoke with the county traffic engineer, did you ask him where the figure of 16,000 trips per day came from? I've seen nor heard any reliable source quoted on this number except CCoB/INOVA, so I suspect the numbers. I'm willing to accept them if I can see proof from an independent, unbiased party. I would count HCA as biased, too, for these purposes. I'm not happy with their figures, either, and would agree they're probably lowballing. But I think INOVA/CCoB's 16,000 is very high, based on my experience.

Unlike CCoB and it's proven ties to INOVA (founded by an INOVA employee, bankrolled by INOVA), there is no connection between BRMC and Broadlands for BRMC. BforB was founded by Broadlands residents, who have at every turn been willing to identify themselves by name (CCoB's officers have never done this), and who fund their efforts from their own pockets. They do not get paid by HCA to believe what they believe. So, correct, "no connection between those two organizations".

The plans on BRMC's site and BforB's site is (from what I've heard) one example of three that are on-file with the county. You can probably gain access to all of them via the county office, or via BforB, or I think or HOA has them, too? I can't speak for them though, I don't know that for sure. I thought I heard Cliff say last week that the HOA resident members reviewed all three plans.

The plans for the office park appear conform to all of the restrictions you describe, to the best I can tell.

Look, we all know a "good neighbor" developer MIGHT build a nice, residential-friendly development in that space instead of BRMC's hospital plan. But as Stevens Miller said on Wednesday -- he's seen residents successfully challenge what they believed to be a bad plan, just to see something worse in its place. I'm not willing to make that gamble, seeing some of the office developments that have gone up around the area. I am not that brand of optimist.

Nor should they.
I guess in the interest of full disclosure, I'm actually in favor of a helipad, should the hospital be approved and built (commence firebombing and slanderous insulting now). As explained - multiple times at multiple forums - a trauma helicopter that needs to get a patient to a hospital WILL get them to a hospital, with or without a helipad. I happen to believe strongly that a helipad is therefore the SAFEST method for doing so, both for our trauma helicopter pilots and crews, and for the patients.
That being said, I'm also not opposed to the lack of a helipad in the plan, and think it's omission is a ridiculous reason for opponents of BRMC to say the hospital shouldn't be built. But hey, it's a nice little Catch-22 that the opponents of BRMC backed BRMC into, isn't it?

That is different than what we've been hearing. Can anyone on the HOA, even in an unofficial capacity, talk about what's going on here? Is it possible that HCA recently changed their plan and the HOA doesn't know about it yet?

They shouldn't even need to imply this. Our trails are not limited to resident-use-only. They're already open to the public, aren't they?

 

Let me clarify some inaccuracies and misunderstandings.

Do you have any written data to support your assertion of 6000 trips for an office park? Quite frankly, I don't believe it. How could a 1,200,000 office park that could support over 5000 workers generate only 6000 trips?

And yes, contrary to your comment, BRMC DID account for the other 400,000 square feet. They discussed adding up to an additional 200,000 square feet and showed where they envisioned it would be built. They also clearly stated they would NOT build the remaining potential 200,000 square feet.

Wrong again. The by-right plan presented, and it was clearly stated as such, was A PLAN CREATED BY LOUDOUN COUNTY STAFF. Therefore, it complied with county guidelines. It was presented by the county during one of the hearings about the previous lawsuits.
So all the things about that plan, which you also don't like, are what the county envisions for that site.

A whole bunch of errors here.
First, the 3.8 acre parcel will have an easement use with the Broadlands HOA. That means BRMC cannot use it. They cannot take it back. They cannot build on it. Period. BRMC does retain ownership of the actual property. The Broadlands HOA will determine how the property is used. BRMC gave one example of a healing garden. That is an idea. The HOA will have final say. And this is ALWAYS how the HOA has represented this point.
They mentioned that they will build a path/trail system around their property and put trails within their property.
Will some people go for walks during the day and use some of our trails? That's quite possible. I know for a fact that several employees of the School Admin Building do that as well.
I clarified above about the remaining square footage.

 

Regarding traffic trips. I have the comparison in front of me for 392,000 square feet of office space versus the same size space for a 164 bed hospital.
The results are calculated by using ITE Trip Generation, 6th edition.
General Office total trips: 3793.
Hospital total trips: 2119.

If 392,000 sq ft of General Office creates 3793, I don't see how Spaceguy1's claim that 1,200,000 sq ft generate only 6000 trips.
It would seem that it would generate at least 3793 times 3, around 12,000 trips.

 

Only if it scales that way. Does the model you are using address the relationship between square footage and trips and how it scales? These things don't always scale linearly.