More Deception from Loudoun Hospital

They are at it again! Recently another email was sent out with more lies referencing Loudoun Hospital’s position against our new hospital.

The entire email is full of mis-statements, incorrect assumptions, and convoluted twists.

In this forum it would be impossible to point out every misconception. Therefore, three have been chosen to be representative. Three data points make a trend and these three definitely illustrate the trend of B.S. If this is the best the email tactic has to offer the remainder content of the email has absolutely no credibility.

BS 1. “Many of you have also asked about the recent $8 million that HCA has promised towards RT. 659 and expanding that road. Please keep in mind that as a builder that money is a requirement. Each builder/developer has to contribute money into proffers for road improvements, etc and that is their contribution. While it appears that HCA donated that money freely as a good faith gesture, it was a county requirement that they do so, and one of the reasons the planning commissioners gave for their denial.”

BS 2. “While many of you have asked what happens next, HCA needs to get approval from the Board of Supervisors on their zoning for this or another site before they can start to build. If they do not get approval after this meeting they will need to start at the very beginning and present a new application for this site. They would also loose their state approval.”

BS 3. “As you are aware the CPAM passed: meaning healthcare facilities will be strategically placed throughout the county and this site was not included in that plan (because this site did not make sense).”

Each statement is twisted with falsehoods. Designed to mislead. Corporate greed at its finest.

One correct thing was found in the email, and that is June 22nd is the public hearing. Another stop on the continuing saga of expanding and enhancing healthcare for Loudoun County.

 

Golly, I'd hoped you were going to talk about the computer generated petition, but that was BRMC/HCA.

Reading this, I don't know what straw you're grasping at: Rezonings do have proffer guidelines, and developers are required to mitigate their traffic impact. Since the traffic issue is squishy because of the way they filed the bundle of applications (i.e. filing the med office under a by-right use for a portion of the split-zoned site), you've raised a very good question on whether this new proffer will in fact mitigate the impact of the traffic generated in the community by the complex, if it seems to be focused on bringing people more effectively to Broadlands.

You may be right, in that if denied it will probably go to court. That is a pretty long process, and will go back through our process (albeit in a streamlined fashion) if it wins or settles. So you and this e-mail may both be right.

As for the petition, I was very impressed when I saw the gentleman from Ashburn Farm and Mr. Dearing at the BoS meeting with the dolly stacked with petitions. However, it all made sense as to why the PEC has begun speaking of the fake election day petition as if it were real again when I later saw that the dolly stacks were computer-printed cardstock like political mailers, with a computer printed name on each. No address to verify they live in Loudoun or are registered to vote here, no contact info to verify, no nothin. I have to hand it to PEC in the petition issue: they spent time cutting those handwritten scribbles up by hand, and pasting them by hand. How on earth much did it cost HCA to print 6000 color cardstocks with a bunch of unverifiable names?

Barbara Munsey, from South Riding.

 

Before this gets spun into some PEC rant, let's go directly to the video tape. (go to the source for the truth, not some convolted BS)

NEWS FLASH **** THIS JUST IN:

Loudoun County Staff finishes extensive evaluation, sides with citizens and recommends BRMC approval.

"Staff supports approval of the applications based on consistency with land use policies for location of institutional uses and health care facilities, subject to the applicant’s proffer statements and staff-recommended special exception conditions of approval. Staff further recommends that the applicant’s transportation contributions be discussed in a committee worksession to determine to what extent the contributions can be applied to the area road network."

Source: http://inetdocs.loudoun.gov/bos/doc...062205_/item01zcpa20040/office2k/office2k.htm

 

Below is a direct quote from the County report addressing BS 3 that I outlined in my introductory post to this thread.

"Based on review of the Countywide Health Care Facilities Policies, the proposed Broadlands Regional Medical Center complies with the service and location criteria given the regional nature of medical centers as specified in the County’s recently adopted land use policies for health care facilities. Its location is central to the regional population and provides an additional choice of medical care services. While County policy states that consideration should be given for locating a full-service hospital near the Route 50 corridor, State and County approvals are not in place to consider such a site at this time. Approval of this facility would not preclude consideration of other proposals for medical facilities in the Route 50 corridor, Leesburg or other underserved areas."

 

I don't see where your post is completely without convoluted BS.

 

You're entitled to your opinion. I respect that. If you don't like mine then go to the report. Read the report, and form your own.

 

BRMC certainly has handwritten petitions from Loudoun County residents! While the paper itself may or may not be computer generated, on that form is the persons name, address, signature, etc. Along with that is where they checked that they support BRMC.

 

I know petitions have been submitted both for and against as this issue has unfolded. What I'm talking about occurred at the last Board of Supervisors meeting, where the CEO and others presented with great fanfare a handcart full of boxed petitions, 6000 in support of BRMC. It was very impressive, until it turned out that they were in fact NOT legitimate petitions with all of the criteria you cited--they were individual identical printed advertisements of support, with printed names in the same typeface as the brief text. IOW, not a real petition.

Barbara Munsey, from South Riding.

 

You forgot the part just above it:

"The Planning Commission recommends denial of the applications based on general incompatibility of the hospital to the surrounding neighborhood and because of inadequate transportation access."



Neil Z.
Resident since 1999

 

The PC report wasn't new news Neilz. Therefore, not worthy of the "This just In" tag. I am glad you're reading the report, there's more new stuff in there!

By the way, your reply post of quoted PC content leads to significant insight.

The PC made their opinion on two things, according to this statement. One being the "inadequate transportation access". I guess eight million dollars in transportation proffers fixed that problem. I wonder how the PC would have voted with that hurdle addressed? Things have changed since their opinion was published.

 

Neil,

That reference is to a previous review by the commission. The NEW staff report comes to the opposite conclusion based on all of the latest information some of which was not available to the planning commission. Directly below your quote it says:

"Staff supports approval of the applications based on consistency with land use policies for location of institutional uses and health care facilities, subject to the applicant’s proffer statements and staff-recommended special exception conditions of approval. Staff further recommends that the applicant’s transportation contributions be discussed in a committee worksession to determine to what extent the contributions can be applied to the area road network."

The staff report also clearly states that the hospital would NOT generate more traffic than a by-rights office park which the land is already zoned for. This is a key point which Donna Fortier completely misrepresents in her letter.

The staff report also makes the obvious point that BRMC is proposing this location because it does make sense and complies with the CPAM. I found the following quotes:


"Staff concludes that there is a reasonable justification for a medical care facility at this location."

"The Broadlands Regional Medical Center is consistent with the Countywide Health Care Facilities policies of the Revised General Plan when considering the regional market for location of a medical care facility."

"Based on review of the Countywide Health Care Facilities Policies, the proposed Broadlands Regional Medical Center complies with the service and location criteria given the regional nature of medical centers as specified in the County’s recently adopted land use policies for health care facilities. Its location is central to the regional population and provides an additional choice of medical care services. While County policy states that consideration should be given for locating a full-service hospital near the Route 50 corridor, State and County approvals are not in place to consider such a site at this time. Approval of this facility would not preclude consideration of other proposals for medical facilities in the Route 50 corridor, Leesburg or other underserved areas."


Just read the findings for approval and you will clearly see that the staff experts agree that BRMC is a needed facility, that the location is the right one and that HCA has done everything necessary to meet zoning requirements for the special exception.

You can't interpret this document as anything other than a recommendation for approval. The planning commission recommendation is 9 months old and is not based on todays facts. If the BOS denies the application, it will clearly be a political decision.

skins fan

 

I have done a first reading, and the staff-ese seems to say that there are transfers of existing proffers, and conditional ones. It still does not seem to address the by-right office traffic issue in concurrence with the planned facility, and the phasing is pretty big. Most of the new resolved issues seem to revolve around buffering and screening. Also, the conditional 8M seems to take it to Brambleton. Across the street and south of Broadlands, and not the only community in the county. I will read again, but staff recs are not binding. Just as the Planning Commission rec is not binding on the BoS. We'll see.

Barbara Munsey, from South Riding.

 

My point is that the Planning Commission did recommend denial ... since this is going to the BoS ... that recommendation still stands. Should be an interesting meeting ...

Neil Z.
Resident since 1999

 

The two big issues that were of concern to the Planning Commission when they denied the application were:
1) Access from the south; specifically from the Greenway to where 659 relocated begins in Brambleton. They were not overly concerned about Brambleton and south since existing construction and proffers would cover this in a few years.
HCA's additional $8,000,000 proffer solves this.
2) Concern that if the hospital was to expand, they could only go up in height and a few commissioners were concerned about a 15 story hospital towering over the community.
This just displays the ignorance of these planning commision members. The hospital is already at it's maximun height. County zoning does not allow the building to exceed 100 feet. The entire zoning ordinance would have to be changed to allow this. HCA also showed on their map where all there future expansion would go, and vertical was not even an option.
A planning commission member then read off a list of 14 objections (most likely prepared for him by LHC) to the project.

 

Can we get a copy of this letter?

Maybe Donna would feel comfortable proactively offering to share it for review? I would think if she truly believes in the content, she wouldn't have a problem posting it here.

I don't think she visits this board as much as she use to. If some one can contact here and ask her for it that would be helpful.

 

Barbara-
The reason that staff did not address the by-right medical office building use is because it is just that.....by-right. Since there would not need to be any staff review or approval for a by-right use, they didn't look at it.
A point that was made by staff that even though medical office buildings are a by-right use, in the future the county may want to review them.

 

I remember you clarifying that for me back during one of the traffic study discussions, Cliff, and it explains how traffic could still be an issue. There was no reason to repeat a just-done traffic study (how long ago now?) for by-right office, but filing by-right for the med office in the bundle was really slick because med offices generate significantly more traffic than vanilla offices. Taken as part of the whole hospital app, a by-right med office could significantly skew traffic data. I will remain more concerned about location and general access from the county at-large, but the folks in your community who are concerned about traffic from the complex still have a legitimate concern if by-right office traffic generation data is allowing med office traffic to slide in under the radar. What was that in AFGM's link about transferred traffic proffers?

Anybody read the hard copy of this week's Leesburg Today, and the petition article?

Barbara Munsey, from South Riding.

 

Broadlands Hospital Public Hearing Wednesday 6:30 pm Broad Run High School.

 

This was posted in the comments section of Leesburg 2 Day.

LET'S KEEP IT REALLY SIMPLE - We need a Rt. 50 Hospital and HCA's Broadlands Project would kill that (06/21/05 at 03:17 AM)

As the Board of Supervisors found out in the Health Care Comprehensive Plan amendment, the citizens of the South Riding-Arcola-Rt. 50 Corridor want a hospital on Rt. 50, preferable out of the politically-sensitive Transition Zone. Approval of HCA's Broadlands Hospital would kill that opportunity. NOTE TO HCA AND MR. LOONEY: I MOVED UP HERE TO SOUTH RIDING FROM RICHMOND WHERE I LIKED YOUR HOSPITALS. PLEASE GO FIND A GOOD SITE ON THE RT. 50 CORRIDOR WHERE WE WANT YOU, ABANDON THE BROADLANDS LOCATION, AND PUT AWAY YOUR ZONING CHECKBOOK. PLEASE LISTEN TO SUPERVISOR SNOW. HE SPEAKS FOR OUR COMMUNITY. YOU ARE A FINE APPLICANT, BUT HAVE CHOSEN A BAD SITE.

-- Anne DeMinet

 

I agree it's a stupid site. Another hospital in the area would be great, just space them out a bit more IMO