dev.citrusheightssentinel.com

Tag: MOB

Lawsuit filed against Citrus Heights over MOB, new hall

A lawsuit was filed against the City of Citrus Heights last week by a group alleging “noncompliance” with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on a recently approved new city hall and three-story medical office building (MOB) project.

The lawsuit, initiated by the nonprofit group “Preserve Our Civic Center,” asks the Sacramento County Superior Court to declare the City’s approval of the new hall and MOB project to be “invalid and void,” and that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the project “fails to satisfy the requirements of CEQA.” It also asks the court to order a “new legally adequate” EIR for the project, and require suspension of all contracts related to construction on the project until alleged violations of CEQA are addressed.

The $53 million project was unanimously approved by the city council on March 26, authorizing the aging city hall to be torn down and replaced with a 68,000 square feet Dignity Health medical building. A new $22 million city hall would then be built next to the Post Office down the street on the 10.9-acre Stock Property, paid for in part by a 15-year lease agreement with Dignity Health.

In legal filings, Preserve Our Civic Center identifies itself as a group “composed of persons whose economic, personal, aesthetic, health, and property interests will be severely injured if the adoption of the Project is not set aside pending full compliance with CEQA and all other environmental laws.”

The lawsuit alleges “deficiencies” in the City’s several-hundred page EIR, including “an inadequate project description, and an inadequate analysis regarding impacts to transportation and circulation, air quality, biological resources, land use, and noise.” The lawsuit alleges that such deficiencies will result in “significant environmental impacts.”

The CEQA-required EIR is a detailed analysis of potential environmental effects for certain projects, with “significant” effects being required to be adequately mitigated, reducing the effect to “less than significant.” The Report must also include an analysis of alternatives to the project, assessing if other options may create less effect on the environment.

Citrus Heights resident Norman Hill, who heads up the group filing the lawsuit, said the EIR “seemed to be designed to understate the effects, so that the City would not have to deal with mitigation.”

[Read the final version of the EIR and traffic study here: http://www.citrusheights.net/836/Environmental-Impact-Report]

Citing the legal complaint filed by Hill’s group, Monica Alejandrez with the city manager’s office referred comments to City Attorney Ruthann Ziegler, who was unable to be reached by phone or email on Friday.

City council members were aware of the likelihood of a lawsuit prior to their vote to approve the final EIR and authorize the project to go forward, as Hill had threatened litigation previously.

“Mr. Hill, I’m sorry that you feel the way you feel,” Councilman Jeff Slowey told Hill during the March 26 council meeting. “But threats, they don’t bother me in the least bit. If you wanna go to court I say bring it on — but bring your checkbook.”

[Prior story: Council votes 5-0 for new city hall & MOB; lawsuit threatened]

Hill said the council “just blew off anything that called for a reduction of the impacts,” and should have done more to address issues like aesthetics, traffic, and glare, highlighting concern for neighbors who would see “this three-story monstrosity” from their homes and neighborhoods. He acknowledged the City made an improvement by switching the new hall location away from a previously proposed site on Antelope Road, but said it “unfortunately” seems that lawsuits are “what people have to do to be heard by this City.”

[Related: New City Hall Site Option Draws Support, While Medical Building Criticized]

Hill, a retired environmental attorney, said he looks forward to a CEQA-required settlement conference between his group and the City, hoping City officials will be “willing to talk.”

“Ideally we’d like to see the MOB back on the Stock Property, but I’m not sure how much success we’d have with that,” said Hill, who has also proposed an alternative two-story MOB design. “I think there may have to be some give-and-take between us and the City.”

*Editor’s note: this story will be updated with comments from the city attorney, if reached. For more context on this story, see: Council votes 5-0 for new city hall & MOB; lawsuit threatened

[follow text=”Get local news updates:”]

May 3, 2015
Council votes 5-0 for new city hall & MOB; lawsuit threatened

An artistic rendering of the new $22 million Citrus Heights city hall, to be located just North of the Post Office. // Courtesy, Capital Partners Development Co.

Updated Mar. 27, 2:26 p.m. —
Citrus Heights council members voted unanimously Thursday night to approve a long-debated $53 million proposal to tear down and relocate the City’s existing hall and replace it with a three-story medical office building (MOB) — rejecting a proposal and lawsuit threat by a resident group proposing a less-imposing two-story design.

“Mr. Hill, I’m sorry that you feel the way you feel,” Councilman Jeff Slowey told Norman Hill, who heads the resident group Preserve Our Civic Center. “But threats, they don’t bother me in the least bit. If you wanna go to court I say bring it on — but bring your checkbook.”

Hill, a retired environmental attorney, has promised litigation in the past and reiterated his “compromise” offer Thursday night, which seeks to lessen the environmental and visibility impacts of the proposed medical building by increasing the setback away from Greenback, and lowering the height. He said by adopting his proposal, the City could avoid litigation and still get a new hall and two-story medical building.

“I recommend that you take a hard look at this proposal, or we will meet again to discuss it at a settlement conference in a CEQA lawsuit,” Hill told council members prior to the vote, referencing requirements in the California Environmental Quality Act he says the City hasn’t met.

City staff and council members believe the City has followed CEQA requirements, with environmental consultant Katherine Waugh addressing findings covered in a several-hundred page Environmental Impact Report on the project. Waugh told council members the report found “no significant effects” to the environment on either of the building projects – as long as a list of mitigation measures are followed.

Hill’s proposal was given significant discussion during the three-and-a-half-hour hearing Thursday night, but City staff said it wouldn’t work for parking, due to the larger footprint being required to maintain the building’s square footage with a two-story design. Legally, the City requires one parking spot per 225 square feet, and staff said that doesn’t allow for enough parking with Hill’s proposal.

Hill said the City could gain extra parking needed by utilizing its new Green Parking Lot and modifying the police department parking area, although Police Chief Christopher Boyd told the council such an arrangement would not be “workable” or safe for his department’s need for secured parking.

[See renderings of the new city hall here: GALLERY: Artistic Images of Proposed New City Hall]

Although about half-a-dozen residents spoke out against the project during the hearing, Councilman Steve Miller said public comment has “flipped” from being 9-out-of-10 opposed to the project, after the City switched its focus away from a smaller hall location on Antelope Road last year.

Lead opponent Tim Schaefer commented in past meetings that the new 10.9-acre Stock Property is “a super-positive development” for the hall proposal, and others have commented favorably that the new location would keep City services in close proximity off Fountain Square Drive. The Stock Property is located just a half-block away from the existing hall, and staff say it’s large enough to allow for a utility yard and future expansion.

[From last year: New City Hall Site Option Draws Support, While Medical Building Criticized]

Concerns about increased traffic, a shrinking $26 million City reserve, and construction noise have continued to be raised by opponents, while supporters have billed the project as good for jobs and a cost-efficient way to replace an aging hall without incurring debt. The project was supported Thursday night by representatives from the Citrus Heights Chamber of Commerce and the Sunrise Marketplace business improvement district.

“I think the time is right, the price is right,” said Councilman Miller prior to casting his vote in favor of the proposal, adding that it’s still an “emotional” decision for him. “I imagine if we bring this place down I’ll shed a few tears, but this is an opportunity for growth for our city and renewal.”

Miller acknowledged the new three-story medical building would make for a “stark” transition from Greenback Lane’s residential zone into its commercial zone, but said “I think this is just too good of a deal to pass up.”

That deal was described by Monica Alejandrez, assistant to the city manager, as “an extremely rare opportunity” for the City, resulting in a “direct investment” of $53 million into Citrus Heights. She said the hall is estimated to cost “no more than $22 million,” with Dignity Health’s new medical building costing about $31 million.

Under the terms of the deal approved Thursday, Alejandrez said the net impact of the new hall to the City’s general fund will only be about $8.9 million after 15 years, largely due to $6.9 million in lease payments coming from the medical building, as well as projected energy savings from a new, more efficient facility.

[Read the lease terms here: http://www.citrusheights.net/844/Project-Documents-and-Reports]

That $6.9 million lease payment from Dignity Health, as well as the promise of 170 new medical-related jobs, has been a significant consideration factor since the deal began being discussed in 2013.

“When you can get more than a fourth of [the new hall] paid for, I think that’s a good deal,” said Councilman Slowey during the meeting. He added that the new hall wouldn’t be under consideration at this point without the Dignity Health lease offer being made on the City’s property. Staff said the assessed value of the existing hall has dropped from a high of over $5 million, to a most recent low point of under $2 million in 2014.

[For background on this story, see: “Planning Commission votes 5-1 for new hall & MOB; lawsuit threatened]

Council members acknowledged both pros and cons to the project, but Mayor Sue Frost said she “doesn’t see how the negatives even stack up” in comparison.

“I think the positives way outweigh the negatives for our City to bring Dignity [Health] to Citrus Heights,” said Frost, although acknowledging that feedback from residents has helped improve the project’s design and location.

“I do want to thank all of our residents who have engaged in the public process,” said Frost, referencing comments received since discussion began about the project more than a year ago. “Without you it wouldn’t have the face that it has, and it wouldn’t be as good as it is.”

The new hall will be constructed by Capital Partners Development Co. and is estimated to take 12 to 14 months to complete, according to Rod Johnson, who initially proposed to develop the Stock Property for the City.

Following Thursday’s vote, Frost said leases will be executed and City staff will begin searching for a temporary location, with demolition and construction work beginning as early as this summer.

[follow text=”Follow local news:”]

March 27, 2015
Planning Commission to consider proposed new city hall, MOB

Updated Mar. 9, 10:26 a.m. —
Beginning with a Planning Commission hearing on Wednesday, a final decision is set to take place this month on the proposal to move city hall and allow Dignity Health to construct a 68,000-square-feet medical office building (MOB) in its place.

An artistic rendering of a proposed new design for city hall by Capital Partners Development Co.

Leading up to a scheduled March 26 vote by the city council, planning commissioners will take up the proposal on March 11, with a council “study session” set for the following day. The commission will also make a recommendation to the council as to whether it should approve, or deny, the recently published final version of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the proposal.

[Related: GALLERY: Artistic Images of Proposed New City Hall]

The Planning Commission held an initial hearing in January on a draft version of the EIR, where several complaints were made about increased traffic, noise and an “inadequate” environmental review. Although the commission’s role did not include responding to comments received during the hearing, the final version of the EIR is required to have responses to each comment received during the 45-day draft review period, which ended January 26.

[Read the final version of the report here: http://www.citrusheights.net/836/Environmental-Impact-Report]

Discussion of the proposal came about last year when City officials said Dignity Health proposed a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” for Citrus Heights to get a new hall for a net cost of about $5 million, after 15 years. Due to changes in the new $22 million hall’s proposed location, that net cost is now estimated at $8.9 million, according to Monica Alejandrez, assistant to the city manager.

Cost benefits to the City would come primarily from income brought in by the proposed Dignity Health lease, as well as from projected energy and repair savings coming from a more efficient new city hall building, according to City Manager Henry Tingle.

The city council had previously selected a location on Antelope Road last year as the “preferred site” for a new hall, but council members voted unanimously to switch plans to a closer, larger parcel that came available late last year. The new 10-acre “Stock Property” enjoys greater public support, and is located next to the Post Office — just several hundred feet from where the existing hall sits on Fountain Square Drive.

[Related: New City Hall Site Option Draws Support, While Medical Building Criticized]

Upcoming March 2015 meetings:
March 11, 7 p.m. — The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider the final EIR, design review permit, and associated actions. Ultimately, the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council to either approve or deny the final EIR, design review permits, and other associated actions related to the proposed Medical Office Building and City Hall Project.

March 12, 5 p.m. — A study session will be held by the city council to discuss the two draft ground leases related to the proposals.

March 26, 7 p.m. — A public hearing and vote will be held by the city council to consider approving the final EIR, design review permit “and other associated actions related to the proposals.” The council will also decide whether or not to authorize the city manager to enter into the proposed ground leases associated with proposals.

*All meetings are scheduled to take place in the Citrus Heights City Council Chambers, at 7117 Greenback Ln.

March 4, 2015
City Takes Heat from Residents Over Controversial New City Hall Proposal

A conceptual view of the proposed 3-story medical office building at Greenback Lane and Fountain Square Drive, which some residents say doesn’t fit with the “small-town” character of the city. // Courtesy of Dignity Health

*Editor’s note: As this story is now several months old, a more up-to-date story can be viewed by clicking here.

Controversy erupted at a community meeting this week over a proposal to bring a new 3-story medical office building to the existing Citrus Heights city hall location, and move the hall to Antelope Drive.

In a full room of about 200 people, public comments from the audience were largely critical or skeptical of the proposal, although Board Chairman Evan Jacobs from the Citrus Heights Chamber of Commerce announced the Chamber had recently taken a unanimous vote in support of the proposal.

The meeting was the sixth in a series of evening sessions designed by the City to inform the community about the proposal and invite feedback from residents — and during the evening’s four separate Q&A times, many residents expressed concern over building size, construction noise, traffic, location choice and cost.

Event Facilitator Wendy Hoyt sought to keep the meeting moderated and on schedule, but audience members shouted accusations of “cutting off” speakers when she tried to close comments while a few hands were still up in the room.

“Many assumptions have been made in the financial scenarios made by the City-hired consultant,” said Joan Bippus, during one of the evening’s question times. “There are still too many unanswered questions for these proposals to be accepted as gospel.”

The 40-year resident also said the 68,000 square feet medical building would not be in keeping with the City’s General Plan, which lists a community development goal of “Preserv[ing] the unique character of Citrus Heights” and its “small-town attributes.”

City Manager Henry Tingle responded to some of the concerns by calling the Dignity Health medical building proposal a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity,” where the City could get an $18.9 million new hall for an estimated net cost of about $5 million — primarily due to income from leasing land for the medical building, as well as projected energy and repair savings coming from a new city hall.

Built in the 70’s and previously used by a nursery, the City has said the existing hall buildings are in need of major repairs and upgrades. Additionally, City officials have emphasized that the current city hall was always considered to be a temporary solution when the City first incorporated in 1997.

If the City were to reject the Dignity Health proposal, it estimates a cost of $11.9 million to provide “necessary improvements” to the existing hall structures, although it had previously reported a lower repair and upgrade cost of $5.5 million earlier this year.

Reacting to the cost estimates, one resident called the numbers presented by the City “a shell game.”

“They only give the information they want to give,” said Susan Howell, who also lives nearby the proposed medical office building location. She also expressed concern about construction noise, and adding more traffic to an already-busy Greenback Lane.

Presenters from both the City and Dignity Health sought to calm tensions by calling the proposal a “win-win” for everyone involved, saying the new medical office building would help serve Citrus Heights’ aging residents, bring in jobs, help pay for a new city hall and boost business in the Antelope Road area.

A packet handed out to attendees also included a list of ways Dignity Health had responded to community input at past meetings, including decreasing the size of the building by 25 percent, adding more trees, and agreeing to retain most of the existing palm trees.

Varying reactions to the proposal have also been seen across the city.

Notably, both of the neighborhood associations representing residents around the Antelope Road and Fountain Square sites have avoided taking a position on the proposal, citing conflicting opinions of residents and unknown impacts.

The City acknowledged there are still unknowns about the proposal, with environmental and traffic impacts among those brought up and currently being studied.

Environmental unknowns will be reviewed, and findings will be released for public review in June, followed by a final decision on the proposal in July by the council, according to Citrus Heights Planning Manager Colleen McDuffee. She added that a final decision date is tentative, as it is dependent on environmental review findings.

A full traffic report is also expected to be available in June by Fehr & Peers, but a representative from the company said it was already “clear” that a new traffic light would have to be installed if city hall were moved to the proposed 7625 Antelope Rd. location.

The agenda for the evening also allowed for an “open house” one-on-one opportunity at the end, and Hoyt made it clear to attendees that city staff and architects wouldn’t be leaving until everyone had an opportunity to ask questions and get answers. Conversations continued until about 9 p.m., well after the main session was scheduled to close at 8:20 p.m.

Although the April 30 event was the final community meeting, residents will still have an opportunity to voice their opinion when the planning commission and city council take up the issue this summer.

The City welcomes questions and comments about the proposal via email at publicinfo@citrusheights.net, or by phone at (916) 725-2448.

May 3, 2014