This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Last week, in the middle of the night, she pulled all of her tubes off her nose and soon we were having a conversation about whether she would need to go into surgery in order to implant a feeding contraption.
None of this would have happened if Regional's Trauma center had not been gutted, and HCA actually focused on providing patient care.
Please support deferring this item to enable proper conversations with community members and in-depth staff analysis.
Regards,
Rosie Zepeda, MS Ed.
11/5/24, 1:29 PM Mail - City Clerk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/id/AAQkAGJiNDY2NWI3LTY1ODktNDczNy1iYjdkLWZlNWFjYmFmNmQ3ZQAQACXJNSX… 2/2
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
For questions and clarification call Frank Aliotto at
11/6/24, 9:02 AM Mail - City Clerk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/id/AAQkAGJiNDY2NWI3LTY1ODktNDczNy1iYjdkLWZlNWFjYmFmNmQ3ZQAQAIInCA%2… 2/2
November 5, 2024
(“SB”) 1953 (codified as California Health and Safety Code §§ 130000 et seq.). Failure to meet this deadline will result in Good Samaritan closing.
The Project will not only bring Good Samaritan into conformance with SB 1953, but also will modernize the hospital to allow patient rooms to fit modern medical equipment, comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and upgrade the central utility plan to meet current medical demands. The Project will be constructed in three phases to ensure no disruption in providing critical services. The most critical of the phases is Phase 1, which is necessary to meet SB 1953 and includes demolishing the existing bed tower to construct a new Structural Performance Category (SPC) 5-rated hospital wing. Because Phase 1 of the Project is expected to take approximately 5.8 years, there is no time to delay. (Good Samaritan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”), pp. ES-1–ES-2.)
2. Good Samaritan And The City Conducted Community Outreach
Councilmember Ortiz suggested that the Project required more community outreach. The City has offered multiple opportunities for the public to comment on the Project, including two meetings in 2022 and a public scoping meeting. In addition, the public had an opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation and the Draft EIR, which the City circulated for 46 days specifically to solicit public feedback. Tellingly, the City received only seven comments on the Draft EIR, with none from Good Samaritan’s immediate neighbors.
Other than delaying the Project, which is an effective denial due to the deadline imposed by SB 1953, it is unclear why Councilmember Ortiz wants more community outreach. Almost no commenter at the Planning Commission hearing expressed concerns about the Project and the Planning Commission itself expressed none. Thus, it is unlikely that additional community outreach would materially alter the Project, particularly when Good Samaritan’s design already reflects community feedback as seen in the proposed transportation improvements and thoughtful landscaping.
3. The Planning Commission’s General Plan Inconsistency Findings Are Not Based O
n Substantial Evidence
At its hearing on October 23, 2024, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council deny the Project based on alleged inconsistencies with General Plan policies. As discussed below, the Planning Commission’s inconsistency findings are not based on substantial evidence or any attributes of the Project, and instead improperly rely on the identity of the Project’s owner.
General Plan consistency is not judged on a policy-by-policy basis. (See General Plan, p. 1-4 [policies “must be considered together when making planning decisions”].) Instead, a project is consistent with the General Plan, if, considering all its aspects, the project will further the objectives and policies of the General Plan and not obstruct their attainment. (Pfeiffer v. City
November 5, 2024
of Sunnyvale City Council (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1552, 1563.) Perfect conformity with the General Plan is not required. (San Francisco Tomorrow v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 498, 514.) Courts have recognized that “it is nearly, if not absolutely, impossible for a project to be in perfect conformity with each and every policy set forth in the applicable plan . . . . It is enough that the proposed project will be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the applicable plan.” (Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1510–1511.)
Conformity determinations must be based on the actually proposed project and not conjecture or speculation about how the project may unfold. (Cf. Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1119 [emphasizing that a project is not evaluated based on “unapproved activities that opponents assert will be necessary”].) It is an abuse of discretion for the decision-making body to rely on findings not supported by substantial evidence for its inconsistency determination. (Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 717.)
a. The Project is Consistent with the General Plan
Here the Planning Commission fixated on the Project’s alleged noncompliance with Policies ES-6.1 and ES-6.3 and failed to consider the General Plan as a whole. (As discussed in Section 3.b, below, the Project is consistent with these two policies.) When the General Plan is considered as a whole, the Project is consistent with it, including the applicable land use designation and numerous objectives and policies.
The Property has a General Plan land use designation of Neighborhood/Community Commercial (“NCC”). The NCC land use designation allows for commercial uses serving communities in neighboring areas, including general offices and hospitals. (General Plan, p. 5-
10.) The Project, which proposes to maintain and expand the existing hospital uses, would continue to serve the neighboring communities and City at large by providing critical medical care for the City’s residents. The Project’s hospital uses are also expressly called out as permitted under the General Plan’s land use description.
Further, as described in the Draft EIR, the Project is consistent with numerous General Plan policies. (E.g., Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-9–4.11-10.) Exhibit 1, attached hereto, provides a more robust analysis of the Project’s consistency with the General Plan.
b. The Project is Consistent with General Plan Goal ES-6 and Its Supporting Policies
General Plan Goal ES-6 encourages facilities that “[p]rovide for the health care needs of all members of the San José community.” (General Plan, p. 4-42.) The Project, which will allow Good Samaritan to continue providing for the health care needs of all members of the San Jose community after 2030 supports this goal.
November 5, 2024
Goal ES-6 is supported by 14 policies, six of which were raised during the Planning Commission hearing. Although the Planning Commission mainly relied on General Plan policies ES-6.1 and ES-6.3 to justify its recommendation, in written comments submitted just prior to the Planning Commission hearing and during oral comments at that meeting, representatives from certain organizations also suggested that the Project did not comply with Policies ES-6.6, ES-6.7, ES-6.10, and ES-6.12. For completeness, we address each policy below.
i. Policy ES-6.1
Policy ES-6.1 states: “Facilitate the development of new and promote the preservation and enhancement of existing health care facilities that meet all the needs of the entire San Jose community.”
Consistent with Policy ES-6.1, the Project both facilitates the development of new and promotes the preservation and enhancement of an existing health care facility—the Good Samaritan Hospital. The Project provides necessary seismic upgrades, modernizes the hospital to better serve the community, and increases healthcare services with new and medical office buildings. Without the Project, Good Samaritan will shutter in 2030, which is inconsistent with Policy ES-6.1.
The Planning Commissioners and commenters focused on the last few words of Policy ES-6.1 regarding “all the needs of the entire San Jose community.” They claimed that because Good Samaritan’s parent, HCA Healthcare, choose to transition an inpatient psychiatric facility in Los Gatos to an outpatient facility that could serve more patients and sell Regional Medical Center to the County of Santa Clara, HCA Healthcare (not the Project) was not meeting all the needs of the entire San José community.
First, for a jurisdiction as large as the City, no one healthcare facility can meet the needs of the entire community. But if the Project is denied and Good Samaritan closes, then the community members around Good Samaritan would lack easy access to acute care facilities.
Second, and more importantly, HCA Healthcare’s decisions regarding the Unrelated Facilities have nothing to do with whether the Project will help to meet the needs of the San José community and therefore is not substantial evidence about the Project that could support an inconsistency determination. (Cf. Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 925 [substantial evidence does not include “lay observations unrelated to similar projects in the past”].) As discussed above, the Project would serve the needs of the community by allowing Good Samaritan to offer critical acute care after January 1, 2030, as well as by enabling Good Samaritan to modernize its care.
November 5, 2024
ii. Policy ES-6.3
Policy ES-6.3 states: “Recognizing that health care is a regional issue that crosses jurisdictional boundaries, work with the County, non-profits, and other governmental and non- governmental organizations to ensure that adequate, affordable health care facilities are available for all San José residents.”
Consistent with Policy ES-6.3, the Project helps the City ensure that adequate, affordable health care facilities are available for all City residents. The Project allows Good Samaritan to continue to operate an acute care hospital in the City that provides free or discounted care to uninsured patients who earn up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level (often called “Charity Care”), consistent with California law. In 2023 alone, Good Samaritan provided $127 million in Charity Care. Project denial would result in closure of Good Samaritan, leaving not only City residents, but also residents of neighboring cities, such as Los Gatos, without adequate health care facilities, which would have detrimental effects on the well-being of the region.
The Planning Commission and commenters did not provide any reason to find the Project inconsistent with Policy ES-6.3. Specifically, the Planning Commission rested its inconsistency finding on the Unrelated Facilities, which have nothing to do with the Project. The Project is a massive investment in the community to ensure that Good Samaritan remains available for all and nothing in the record suggests Good Samaritan would undermine that investment.
iii. Policy ES-6.6
Policy ES-6.6 states: “Encourage the location of health care facilities and hospitals in areas that are underserved and lack adequate health care facilities.”
Consistent with Policy ES-6.6, the Project ensures that the area around Good Samaritan remains served by a good health care facility and does not become an area that is underserved and lacks adequate facilities. Without the Project, Good Samaritan will be forced to close, leaving a large swath of City residents without adequate health care facilities.
Commenters urged the Planning Commission to find the Project inconsistent with this policy because “HCA has a pattern of divesting in these specific underserved areas in San José,” citing to the Unrelated Facilities that have nothing to do with the merits of the Project. With the Project, Good Samaritan is proposing to invest heavily to allow Good Samaritan to not just continue but to improve its operations. Further, as noted above, although the area where Good Samaritan exists is not currently underserved, without the Project, it would become underserved.
November 5, 2024
iv. Policy ES-6.7
Policy ES-6.7 states: “Discourage health care facilities or hospitals in areas where their operations can have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or where surrounding uses can have adverse impacts on health care facility patients, workers, or visitors.”
Consistent with Policy ES-6.7, the Project is located on a site that has had a hospital for decades. To better serve patients, workers, and visitors, the Project is located adjacent to a freeway, which reduces cut-through traffic compared to facilities located in the center of residential neighborhoods. The Good Samaritan campus also provides a buffer between the freeway and residential uses. The Project would improve Good Samaritan’s circulation, aesthetics, and landscaping to further reduce impacts on the immediately surrounding community. The uses surrounding Good Samaritan mainly consist of other medical services, offices, and residential uses, none of which emit toxics or would otherwise cause adverse impacts on the hospital, patients, workers, or visitors.
Commenters claimed HCA Healthcare is inconsistent with Policy ES-6.7 because its actions at the Unrelated Facilities “have clearly impacted patients, workers, and the surrounding communities,” and suggested that HCA Healthcare may cut services at Good Samaritan. This argument highlights why the Project is consistent with Policy ES-6.7—the Project allows Good Samaritan to continue offering acute care services for its patients, and the community would be adversely affected if the Project is denied, and Good Samaritan must close. Moreover, nothing in the record suggests that after investing heavily in Good Samaritan, HCA Healthcare would then cut services there.
v.
Policy ES-6.10
Policy ES-6.10 states: “Encourage potential hospital facilities to consider the impacts of a new facility on existing hospitals’ service areas, demands, and capacities.”
Consistent with Policy ES-6.10, Good Samaritan considered the impacts of its proposed Project on the existing hospitals’ service areas, demands, and capacities. The Project is carefully phased to ensure no loss of services during construction. In addition, the Project will give Good Samaritan the space it requires for the machines now used to treat people and an upgraded facility plant that can support modern medical technology.
Commenters claimed that the Project is inconsistent with Policy ES-6.10 because of HCA Healthcare’s decisions related to Regional Medical Center, which according to the commenters, harmed residents on the east side of the City. Even if true that HCA Healthcare’s sale of Regional Medical Center to Santa Clara County had an adverse impact on that hospital, that sale has nothing to do with the Project. For the reasons discussed above, the Project is consistent with Policy ES-6.10.
November 5, 2024
vi. Policy ES-6.12
Policy ES-6.12 states: “Consider strategies and incentives to attract hospitals and other health care and medical service facilities to areas of San José where a demand for those services is demonstrated in analyses prepared by county, state, or professional consultants.”
Consistent with Policy ES-6.12, the Project allows Good Samaritan to continue to serve City residents and prevents a currently served area of the City from becoming underserved. The City’s approval of the Project could help attract hospitals and other health care and medical facilities to the City by showing that the City supports its health care providers.
Commenters claim that HCA Healthcare’s actions at the Unrelated Facilities were inconsistent with Policy ES-6.12. The Unrelated Facilities, however, are not the project at issue and no one claimed that the Project itself is inconsistent with Policy ES-6.12.
c. The Planning Commission’s Inconsistency Determination is Unsupported by Substantial Evidence
In sum, the Project is consistent with Goal ES-6 and its supporting policies. Had the Planning Commission considered the Project rather than the Unrelated Facilities, it would have reached the same conclusion. Because the Planning Commission’s recommendation is based on factors unrelated to the Project, including unsubstantiated conjecture about HCA Healthcare’s motives and business practices, it is unsupported by substantial evidence. (Cf. Hilltop Group, Inc., supra, 99 Cal.App.5th at p. 921 (substantial evidence “is not argument, speculation, unsubsta
ntiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous”].)
4. The Planning Commission Acted Unlawfully When it Based its Project Recommendation On Unrelated HCA Healthcare Actions And Not The Project’s Merits
The Planning Commission’s decision to recommend that the City Council to deny the Project was not based on the merits of the Project, which were barely discussed at the hearing.
Instead, the Planning Commission’s recommendation was improperly based on animus towards the owner of the Project, HCA Healthcare, making its decision arbitrary and discriminatory.
A Planning Commission is prohibited from acting in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner, including out of animus towards a particular applicant. (Maintain Our Desert Env’t v.
Town of Apple Valley (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 430, 447; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656, 673; see Arnel Dev. Co. v. City of Costa Mesa (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 330, 336 [“[the] principle limiting judicial inquiry into the legislative body’s police power objectives does not bar scrutiny . . . of
November 5, 2024
discrimination against a particular parcel of property”].) “A public agency may not engage in conduct based upon personal, group or political animus without implicating constitutional concerns.” (Maintain Our Desert Env’t, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at p. 447, citing the following:
Galland v. City of Clovis (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1003, 1034–1036; Friends of Davis v. City of Davis (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1013 [“a city does not have carte blanche to exclude a retail merc
hant that it, or some of its residents, do not like”]; Roman Cath. etc. Corp. v. City of Piedmont (1955) 45 Cal.2d 325, 330–334 [zoning scheme that discriminates between otherwise identical public and private schools is arbitrary and unconstitutional].) Moreover, neighborhood opposition is not “itself a ‘rational basis’ for a local government body to forbid” a project because “[i]f public opinion by itself could justify the denial of constitutional rights, then those rights would be meaningless.” (Ross v. City of Yorba Linda (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 954, 964.)
At the hearing, one Planning Commissioner noted that the Project was very similar to another hospital project proposed by Kaiser and recently recommended for approval. Other Planning Commissioners agreed that the Project and Kaiser’s project were similar, except for the fact that Kaiser had community support while the some in the community and the majority of Planning Commissioners disliked HCA Healthcare’s actions at the Unrelated Facilities. This comparison shows that the Planning Commission acted out of unlawful animus towards the Project’s owner, improperly treating Kaiser and Good Samaritan differently solely based on the identity of a corporate parent.
The Planning Commission acted arbitrarily and unlawfully when it based its decision to recommend Project denial solely on the identity of HCA Healthcare and its purported actions with respect to the Unrelated Facilities. Just as a “a city does not have carte blanche to exclude a retail merchant that it, or some of its residents, do not like” (Friends of Davis, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th
at p. 1013), the City also does not have carte blanche to exclude a hospital provider that it, or some of its residents, do not like. But that is exactly what the Planning Commission did when it decided to recommend Project denial because it disliked some of HCA Healthcare’s past business decisions.
In short, the Planning Commission’s decision, which will result in the closure of a regional hospital, “is not rationally related to the general regional public welfare.” (See Arnel Dev. Co., supra, 126 Cal.A pp.3d at p. 337 [rezoning to prohibit affordable multifamily housing not in the region’s interest].) Like the housing crisis at issue in Arnel, California is having a hospital crisis, with “one out of every five” in “risk [of] closure amid mounting financial challenges.” (Cathie Anderson, Dozens of California hospitals at risk of closure, industry leaders warn amid call for state aid, The Sacramento Bee (Apr. 14, 2023).1) In such a situation, “[w]hen considering how best to protect consumers . . . a big part of the equation should be the health consequences of leaving residents without emergency or acute-care services.” (Id.) Yet not one Planning Commissioner discussed this very real possibility should the Project be unduly delayed or denied.
1 Available at https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/health-and-medicine/article274242050.html
November 5, 2024
5. Conclusion
Good Sama
ritan asks the Committee to schedule the Project for a hearing before the City Council without delay. Delay could result in Good Samaritan being unable to timely replace its non-compliant bed tower, resulting in the loss of a regional acute care facility. Such a result is not in the public interest, and we urge you not to let it happen.
Sincerely,
Linda
C. Kl
ein
EJS
Attachment: Exhibit 1, General Plan Consistency Chart
Cc: Margo Bradish, Esq.
Catherine O’Mara
Nate Gilmer
Kristina Kleist
Christopher D Tran, MD
Radiologist
11/12/24
San Jose City Council
City Hall
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
Dear San Jose City Council Members,
Subject: Support for Item 10.2 PDC22-132 & ER23-041 - Planned Development Rezoning of the Good Samaritan Hospital Site on Certain Real Property Located at 2333 and 2425 Samaritan Drive.
I am writing to express my strong support for the seismic retrofitting proposal for Good Samaritan Hospital. As a doctor with 20 years of experience with this facility. It is critical that this proposal is approved in order to keep Good Samaritan Hospital open and in service to the San Jose community.
My family and extended family all have received exemplary care from Good Samaritan Hospital for years. My father with multiple myeloma has been taken good care of by many exceptional physicians at this hospital. If the project is not approved, my father’s condition as well as many other patients’ will be adversely affected.
The proposed retrofitting aligns with state requirements aimed at enhancing the safety and structural integrity of healthcare facilities, ensuring that we meet mandated standards.
I strongly urge you to approve this proposal. By doing so, we not only comply with state requirements but ensure the hospital remains operational for the residents of San Jose.
Thank you for your commitment to the residents of San Jose.
Sincerely,
Christopher D. Tran, MD
November 13, 2024
The Honorable Mayor Matt Mahan
San Jose City Council
City Hall
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
Subject: Support for Item 10.2 PDC22-132 & ER23-041 — Planned Development Rezoning of the Good Samaritan Hospital Site on Certain Real Property Located at 2333 and 2425 Samaritan Drive
Dear Mayor Mahan and San Jose City Council Members:
The California Hospital Association (CHA) is writing in strong support of the seismic retrofitting proposal for Good Samaritan Hospital and asks that the San Jose City Council approve the construction proposal at your meeting next week.
As a statewide organization dedicated to advocating on behalf of more than 400 member hospitals and health systems throughout California on state and federal policy issues, CHA rarely weighs in on local matters. However, seismic compliance and its associated challenges are of critical importance to the patients California’s hospitals care for every day. To that end, we are writing to provide reasons why local support for seismic compliance projects, like the Good Samaritan project, are so important for California’s communities.
It is important to remember that patients and health care workers are safe. After more than two decades of work and billions of dollars invested, more than 95% of hospitals, including Good Samaritan, have met the state’s 2020 deadline to ensure hospitals meet the life safety standard and can withstand a major earthquake. Now, hospitals must comply with another standard that requires them to be fully operational after a major earthquake by 2030.
While hospitals are working to meet these requirements, many will simply not be able to complete the work needed by the 2030 deadline and will be forced by state law to close. Nearly two-thirds of all hospitals — the primary centers for health care and among the largest employers in communities — continue to work to comply with the 2030 seismic requirements. At this time, 259 hospitals and over 750 buildings in nearly every community in California must be retrofitted, modified, or replaced. These upgrades are estimated to cost hospitals more than $100 billion statewide, further straining the resources that would otherwise go to patient services.
Further, nearly all hospitals (98%) report that if they or a neighboring hospital must close or reduce services due to the construction needed to meet these requirements, patient access to care will be at
risk. If Good Samaritan were to close, the impact to the San Jose community would be significant.
Patients would experience longer wait times at the hospitals that remain open as there would be less hospital capacity across the community. Also, many patients may have to travel farther for specialty services and emergency department care.
In addition, after supporting communities through the COVID-19 pandemic, California’s hospitals have experienced new and significant financial and operational challenges, which have affected construction plans and the overall financial capacity of hospitals to comply with seismic requirements. In light of these challenges, CHA has been advocating to provide legislative relief and additional time to help hospitals get on a more realistic path to meet seismic requirements. In 2024, CHA sponsored SB 1432, legislation that would have provided a workable timeframe for hospitals to comply with California’s 2030 seismic standards and take into consideration the impact of statewide construction on access to patient care and a hospital’s ability to finance seismic related construction work. Unfortunately, after passing through the legislature without a single no vote, Gov. Newsom vetoed that legislation in October 2024, creating a real risk that many hospitals will not make the 2030 deadline and be forced to close.
Your Community Needs Your Help
It now falls to hospitals and community leaders like you to work together to ensure as many as possible are able to meet seismic requirements while continuing to provide critical services in our communities.
Unlike many cities that will likely have to deal with hospital and major service line closures, San Jose is in a position to support its hospitals, like Good Samaritan, which are actively undertaking the work to meet the compliance deadlines and stay open beyond 2030.
We hope you will support Good Samaritan’s project and all the hospitals in your communities.
Sincerely,
Carmela Coyle
President & CEO
November 13, 2024
San Jose City Council
City Hall
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
SUBJECT: PDC22-132 & ER23-041 - Planned Development Rezoning of the Good Samaritan Hospital Site on Certain Real Property Located at 2333 and 2425 Samaritan Drive Dear members of the San Jose City Council,
As a regional association that provides leadership, advocacy, training, and tools to empower California's hospitals and health systems, Hospital Council of Northern & Central California is writing to express that it is imperative the San Jose City Council approve the Good Samaritan Hospital seismic retrofit and expansion proposal — this project is important to our health care community and the patients we care for.
Good Samaritan Hospital plays a vital role in our community, serving as a key provider of medical services. If the project does not go forward, this would destabilize the entire San Jose and Santa Clara County health care landscape and affect the more than 55,000 patients this hospital serves annually.
As you know, California state law mandates that to remain open and operational, all hospitals must be compliant with the seismic design and safety standards by 2030. So, without your approval, Good Samaritan Hospital would be forced to close. Each of our hospitals either has gone through or will go through the process of retrofitting existing infrastructure or completely rebuilding facilities to comply with state standards — and Good Samaritan Hospital should be no different.
The proposed seismic retrofit will enhance the hospital’s structural safety, ensuring that it remains operational during a seismic event. Not only is this the law, but it is also crucial for maintaining residents’ access to care during emergencies.
Undergoing a seismic retrofit is also essential for ongoing support of the South Bay’s wider healthcare ecosystem; the interconnected nature of our hospitals means that one facility’s strength and readiness directly impacts the others — and the ability to transfer patients, share resources, and collaborate effectively hinges on the stability and reliability of every facility involved.
Good Samaritan Hospital’s seismic upgrade will safeguard patients and staff, contribute to the long-term sustainability of health care services in our area, and enhance our capacity to provide
high-quality care — all of which ensure that San Jose remains a safe and healthy place for its residents.
For all of these reasons, we respectfully urge the San Jose City Council to approve the seismic retrofit project to keep Good Samaritan Hospital open and caring for the people in this community.
Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter. We appreciate your dedication to the health and safety of our residents.
Sincerely,
Jo Coffaro
Regional Vice President
Hospital Council — Northern & Central California
Certainly, here’s an enhanced and more formal
version of your letter:
[Date]
Re: Urgent Support for Seismic Retrofitting of Good Samaritan Hospital Dear Members of the San Jose City Council,
I am writing to express my unequivocal support for the seismic retrofitting proposal for Good Samaritan Hospital (GSH). As a physician with over 16 years of experience at GSH and as a former patient, I am acutely aware of the hospital’s indispensable role in our community. I urge you to approve this critical proposal to ensure that Good Samaritan Hospital remains a beacon of healthcare excellence in San Jose and throughout Northern California.
Good Samaritan Hospital: A Pillar of the San Jose Community For more than 60 years, Good Samaritan Hospital has been a cornerstone of healthcare in Northern California, offering nationally recognized care and specialized services. Its longstanding commitment to the community has made it a trusted institution, relied upon by thousands of residents for its exceptional quality of care. The hospital’s closure would create a significant void in healthcare access that no other facility can fill, given its unique capabilities and expertise.
The Essential Impact of Good Samaritan’s Services on Patients, Families, and the Region
My own experience as a patient at GSH reflects the exceptional standard of care this hospital provides. Furthermore, in my role as a physician, I see firsthand how Good Samaritan serves as a critical resource for patients across five Northern California counties. Our services include highly specialized tertiary care in cardiology, pulmonology, and neurology, which are essential to the region’s healthcare infrastructure.
Good Samaritan Hospital is a primary referral center for complex cardiac, respiratory, and stroke cases. Without the seismic retrofitting required for continued operation, the loss of these services would severely strain an already overburdened healthcare system. The absence of GSH would not only jeopardize timely access to life-saving treatments but would also disrupt the lives of countless families and patients who depend on the hospital’s comprehensive care.
The Imperative of Seismic Retrofitting
This proposal is not merely an operational upgrade; it is a legal and moral obligation to meet state-mandated safety standards that safeguard the well-being of patients, staff, and visitors. By approving this retrofitting initiative, the City Council will be taking a decisive step toward protecting the lives of San Jose’s residents and ensuring the longevity of a vital healthcare institution.
The authority to secure the future of Good Samaritan Hospital rests with this Council.
Inaction or delay could result in the permanent loss of a critical healthcare facility, with devastating consequences for Northern California’s healthcare access and delivery.
A Call to Action
I respectfully urge the City Council to prioritize the health and safety of our community by approving the seismic retrofitting of Good Samaritan Hospital. By doing so, you will not only ensure compliance with state requirements but also affirm your commitment to preserving healthcare access for the people of San Jose and the surrounding region.
Thank you for your steadfast dedication to the welfare of San Jose’s residents.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Title and Affiliation]
Baldev Singh MD
November 14th, 2024.
San Jose City Council
City Hall
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
Dear San Jose City Council Members,
Subject: Support for Item 10.2 PDC22-132 & ER23-041 - Planned Development Rezoning of the Good Samaritan Hospital Site on Certain Real Property Located at 2333 and 2425 Samaritan Drive.
Re: Urgent Support for Seismic Retrofitting of Good
Samaritan Hospital
Dear Members of the San Jose City Council,
I am writing to express my unequivocal support for the seismic retrofitting proposal for Good Samaritan Hospital (GSH). As a physician with over 16 years of experience at GSH and as a former patient, I am acutely aware of the hospital’s indispensable role in our community. I urge you to approve this critical proposal to ensure
that Good Samaritan Hospital remains a beacon of healthcare excellence in San Jose and throughout Northern California.
Good Samaritan Hospital: A Pillar of the San Jose
Community
For more than 60 years, Good Samaritan Hospital has been a cornerstone of healthcare in Northern California, offering nationally recognized care and specialized services. Its longstanding commitment to the community has made it a trusted institution, relied upon by thousands of residents for its exceptional quality of care. The hospital’s closure would create a significant void in healthcare access that no other facility can fill, given its unique capabilities, location and expertise.
The Essential Impact of Good Samaritan’s Services on
Patients, Families, and the Region
My own experience as a patient at GSH reflects the exceptional standard of care this hospital provides. Furthermore, in my role as a physician, I see firsthand how Good Samaritan serves as a critical resource for patients across five Northern California counties. Our services include highly specialized tertiary care in cardiology, pulmonology, and neurology, which are essential to the region’s healthcare infrastructure.
Good Samaritan Hospital is a primary referral center for complex cardiac, respiratory, and stroke cases. Without the seismic retrofitting required for continued operation, the loss of these services would severely strain an already overburdened healthcare system. The absence (or delay ) of GSH would not only jeopardize timely access to life-saving treatments but would also disrupt the lives of countless families and patients who depend on the hospital’s comprehensive care.
The Imperative of Seismic Retrofitting
This proposal is not merely an operational upgrade; it is a legal and moral obligation to meet state-mandated safety standards that safeguard the well-being of patients, staff, and visitors. By approving this retrofitting initiative, the City Council will be taking a decisive step toward protecting the lives of San Jose’s residents and ensuring the longevity of a vital healthcare institution.
The authority to secure the future of Good Samaritan Hospital rests with this Council. Inaction or delay could result in the permanent loss of a critical healthcare facility, with devastating consequences for Northern California’s healthcare access and delivery.
A Call to Action
I respectfully urge the City Council to prioritize the health and safety of our community by approving the seismic retrofitting of Good Samaritan Hospital. By doing so, you will not only ensure compliance with state requirements but also affirm your commitment to preserving healthcare access for the people of San Jose and the surrounding region.
Thank you for your steadfast dedication to the welfare of San Jose’s residents.
Sincerely,
Baldev Singh MD FCCP
Immediate Past Chief of Staff GSH.
November 14, 2024
San Jose City Council
City Hall
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
Re: Item 10.2 PDC22-132 & ER23-041 - Planned Development Rezoning of the Good Samaritan Hospital Site on Certain Real Property Located at 2333 and 2425 Samaritan Drive
As a local resident, taxpayer and healthcare industry professional, I am unequivocally supportive of the plans for rebuilding Good Samaritan Hospital to conform with seismic retrofitting requirements.
The proposed retrofitting aligns with state standards aimed at enhancing the safety and structural integrity of healthcare facilities.
As such, this project is vital to ensuring the presence of Good Samaritan Hospital in our community. I strongly encourage you to vote in SUPPORT of the above-referenced item.
I am a biotech executive and have been a member of the San Jose / Los Gatos community for over 25 years. My family – including my wife, who is an operating room nurse, and my four children – has had numerous positive experiences at Good Samaritan Hospital. I am also a member of the Board of Trustees of Good Samaritan Hospital, so I have first-hand working knowledge of the dedication and commitment of the owners, administrative executives and medical professionals at Good Samaritan Hospital.
Good Samaritan Hospital is a vital element of the healthcare infrastructure for our area. Approval of the proposal is critical to keep Good Samaritan Hospital open and in service to the San Jose community. The impact if it is not approved would be catastrophic – including an adverse economic impact (reduced jobs, reduced tax base) and a reduced availability of quality healthcare services.
Sincere regards,
Paul A. S
tone
Member, Board of Trustees, Good Samaritan Hospital
November 14th, 2024
San Jose City Council
City Hall
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
Dear San Jose City Council Members,
Subject: Support for Item 10.2 PDC22-132 & ER23-041 - Planned Development Rezoning of the Good Samaritan Hospital Site on Certain Real Property Located at 2333 and 2425 Samaritan Drive.
I am writing to express my strong support for the seismic retrofitting proposal for Good Samaritan Hospital. As a hospital executive who oversees the Facilities Management department and aware of the need to make structural improvements, it is critical that this proposal is approved in order to keep Good Samaritan Hospital open and in service to the San Jose community.
Without this approval, patient care will be negatively impacted and would potentially prevent life-saving care such as this patient experience. Earlier this year, Good Samaritan Hospital’s Labor and Delivery department faced a medical emergency when a mother experienced a stage III postpartum hemorrhage after giving birth. The rapid response team was immediately summoned and the L&D nurses, physicians, blood bank, pharmacy and lab worked together seamlessly to provide top-quality care to the patient in need.
“Seeing the staff work in harmony, the communication and response were seamless with everyone as they saved my wife's life,” said the patient's husband. The patient's best friend also sent a heartfelt letter thanking the entire team for their quick actions during the crisis. She said, "For someone to lose nearly 5 liters of blood and walk out of the hospital with a healthy baby just three days letter is a testament to ALL OF YOU. So I wanted to say thank you to everyone in L&D, CVICU and ANTE for saving her life."
The proposed retrofitting aligns with state requirements aimed at enhancing the safety and structural integrity of healthcare facilities, ensuring that we meet mandated standards.
I strongly urge you to approve this proposal. By doing so, we not only comply with state requirements but ensure the hospital remains operational for the residents of San Jose.
Thank you for your commitment to the residents of San Jose.
Sincerely,
Paulina Tam
Vice President, Operations
David Kohanchi MD
Cardiac Anesthesiologist
11/14/2024
San Jose City Council
City Hall
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
Dear San Jose City Council Members,
Subject: Support for Item 10.2 PDC22-132 & ER23-041 - Planned Development Rezoning of the Good Samaritan Hospital Site on Certain Real Property Located at 2333 and 2425 Samaritan Drive.
I am writing to express my strong support for the seismic retrofitting proposal for Good Samaritan Hospital. As a doctor with 6 years of experience in this facility. It is critical that this proposal is approved in order to keep Good Samaritan Hospital open and in service to the San Jose community.
Patient safety and well being are at the forefront of every medical provider. We work tirelessly to diagnose, treat, and manage patients in the most efficacious way possible. To that end, access to care WILL ALWAYS be important.
Good Samaritan Hospital (GSH) represents the pinnacle, in my opinion, of high-level medical care in the privatized setting. It’s location in Silicon Valley, its reputation as an esteemed and well recognized facility, and its world class physicians are second to none.
Doctors move here with the sole purpose of working at GSH (myself included, in spite of the cost of living).
Again, ACCESS TO CARE is the goal. GSH is among the only hospitals in the area with a robust labor and delivery service. Which includes in house Anesthesia services, Neonatal services, NICU capabilities, and multiple dedicated L+D operating rooms. It is also one of the only hospitals with a 24/7 functioning emergency access cath lab and stroke center.
There are no hospitals in the area with a cath lab as functional as ours; a quick discussion with the nurses, techs, and medical providers would provide that insight. We also have electrophysiology procedures virtually every operative day, because of 3-4 Cardiology Electrophysiologists (a subspecialty in high demand with very few providers nationally, comparatively Kaiser has around 7 -8 in the state). Effectively that means that if you have a life threatening arrhythmia, GSH and its providers can help diagnose and treat your condition with far superiority to most places in the country. Others wait years to have ablation procedures (afib ablation, svt ablation, VT ablation, aflutter ablation) that we do with relative frequency. The importance of this role in the community cannot be overstated, for it is truly life altering for the local community. Oftentimes, certain academic surgeons operate at GSH because it provides faster access to care for their patients. I can’t tell you how often we perform breast cancer resection and spine surgery on patients that can’t get into Stanford’s OR schedule. These are Stanford surgeons and their patients that come into our community because we have FASTER ACCESS TO CARE.
As a Cardiac Anesthesiologist, I’m called to GSH often for emergent cardiac surgery. GSH has an entire dedicated Cardiac nursing team, Cardiac Anesthesia line (8 providers) , 3 surgeons, and 2 on - call Perfusionists at all hours of day. These providers work tirelessly to perform lifesaving procedures on a weekly basis. With very few exceptions, we are among elite hospitals to manage tertiary and quaternary emergent cardiac surgery. If someone in the community were to have an Aortic Dissection, GSH is one of only a select few hospitals that could save your life. If someone were to have any variation on acute coronary syndromes, I am firm in the belief that coming to GSH significantly increases your likelihood of survival relative to other hospitals (if any) in the area.
Within the last 3 years, I brought my daughter into the ED multiple times for emergencies.
She had a febrile seizure as an infant that could have changed the course of her life and ours, but due to the skill and access to care at GSH changed the outcome. She also had a URI with superimposed pneumonia requiring inpatient hospitalization that I truly belief went favorably because of the GSH staff. The nurses were superb and the providers were second to none.
San Jose attracts the best minds in the world. Those minds are smart and attentive to details. Having access to some of the best medical care in the country is at the top of their lists of needs. REMOVE GSH from that equation and healthcare suffers a tremendous irreparable loss. Not to mention one of the driving forces to the most educated physicians in the country (Stanford, Harvard, UCSF grads all want to come here) and worldly thinkers that care to live in communities with access to care for their loved ones.
The proposed retrofitting aligns with state requirements aimed at enhancing the safety and structural integrity of healthcare facilities, ensuring that we meet mandated standards.
I strongly urge you to approve this proposal. By doing so, we not only comply with state requirements but ensure the hospital remains operational for the residents of San Jose.
Thank you for your commitment to the residents of San Jose.
Sincerely,
David Kohanchi MD
Frieda Gebremichael
Medical Social Work Manager
11/14/2024
San Jose City Council
City Hall
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
Dear San Jose City Council Members,
I am writing to express my strong support for the seismic retrofitting proposal for Good Samaritan Hospital. As a Medical Social Work Manager with 7 years of experience at Good Samaritan Hospital and a total of 22 and a half years with HCA Healthcare, including the remainder of my career as a social worker, I believe it is critical that this proposal is approved in order to keep Good Samaritan Hospital open and in service to the San Jose community.
Good Samaritan Hospital has always been a beacon of hope for some of the most vulnerable members of our community, including those experiencing homelessness. I’ve witnessed firsthand how the hospital provides not just medical care, but a compassionate environment where individuals facing homelessness receive life-saving treatments. One case that stands out is of a homeless patient who came to the ER severely ill. The team not only provided emergency care but also worked diligently to connect the patient with vital social services, offering a path to stable housing and continued medical support.
Approximately a year ago, I had a patient who was waiting for her housing voucher and needed care that could only be provided by her daughter, who was also experiencing homelessness. The patient needed to stay in a safe place for about three months while awaiting the arrival of her voucher. Hospital administration had no hesitation in covering the costs for both the patient and her daughter to stay at the Extended Stay America for three months, paid for by HCA Healthcare. This level of compassion and support went beyond medical care and provided the patient with a safe, stable environment as she navigated the challenges of homelessness.
In another instance, many young patients who arrived in San Jose with nowhere to go expressed a desire to return to different parts of the United States to be closer to their families. Good Samaritan’s administration stepped in, covering transportation costs for these patients to travel via Amtrak, Caltrain, and other public transportation options of their choice. This allowed them to reunite with their families, ensuring they received continued care and support in a familiar, nurturing environment.
Good Samaritan Hospital plays a crucial role in providing emergency, surgical, and specialized care. If the retrofitting is not approved, it may force the hospital to limit its services or even close certain departments, which would leave many patients without access to the care they need. This could have a devastating impact on the local population, particularly for those with chronic health issues or in need of urgent medical care.
The proposed retrofitting aligns with state requirements aimed at enhancing the safety and structural integrity of healthcare facilities, ensuring that we meet mandated standards. I strongly urge you to approve this proposal. By doing so, we not only comply with state requirements but also ensure that Good Samaritan Hospital remains operational for the residents of San Jose, continuing to provide vital care to our community.
Thank you for your commitment to the residents of San Jose.
Sincerely,
Frieda Gebremichael (MSW)
Jennifer Poblete
November 14, 2024
San Jose City Council
City Hall
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
Dear San Jose City Council Members,
Subject: Support for Item 10.2 PDC22-132 & ER23-041 - Planned Development Rezoning of the Good Samaritan Hospital Site on Certain Real Property Located at 2333 and 2425 Samaritan Drive.
I am writing to express my strong support for the seismic retrofitting proposal for Good Samaritan Hospital. As a critical care nurse for 36 years and a nurse leader at Good Samaritan Hospital for the last 19 months I am 100 % supportive of this initiative. It is critical that this proposal is approved in order to keep Good Samaritan Hospital open and in service to the San Jose community. The question as to why Good Samaritan Hospital is an essential resource for the San Jose community what I would like to strongly answer with this support letter.
Emergency and health services are essential services to maintaining a heathy community. Likened to the presence of Fire Departments, and Police departments, whereas there is no set distance as required by law, the ideal placement aims to ensure that at any point within the city can be reached within reasonable response time around 4-8 minutes. If the SJFD and SJPD is expected to respond within those time frames, is it not equally imperative that Good Samaritan Hospital remains open to receive these patients and provide the highest quality of health care services especially to our patients requiring medical emergencies such as Cardiac Arrests, and Strokes as we are a comprehensive Cardiac and Stroke center? Our doors have been open to respond to these emergencies, 24/7, in the last 19 months, we never diverted any single resident of our community, and nearby cities and towns requiring medical attention.
From my own personal perspective both as a leader, a clinician, and a member of the community, the presence of Good Samaritan will prevent delay in provision of care due to inability of EMS to reach hospital in a timely manner. This project , when approved, which I believe you will agree in con census to proceed, will greatly promote a healthy community.
As a Good Sam employee, I can speak boldly of what my department has done for the communities you and I serve, my honorable city council members.
For the last 11 months, we performed at least 150 open heart surgeries due to severe heart conditions requiring extensive heart surgeries to repair and replace valves or heart bypass , this number does not include the stents implanted for those who suffered from STEMI, and the Brain surgeries our teams performed, and excellent care that our hospital GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL afforded our communities to allow them to go back home to their families and workplace. Those 150 recipients of extensive heart interventions could have been you, your loved ones, your friends, and staff. Good Sam does not only treat our patients - your families, and friends, co workers, and staff – we prepare them to maintain a healthy, functional life so that they can go back to you in their community and their loved ones. Don’t you want to be part of that decision for them? TO have a hospital within their reach? Our presence in this community does not only their clamor for health care ACCESSIBILITY, it also allows families to care for their loved ones within their neighborhoods.
I attest that we provide excellent care. I do not only speak for myself, it is what our patients say about the care we provide. Good Samaritan hospital ranks in Top 100 hospitals for Critical Care ( I can only speak for what I am passionate about – being in critical care for the last 25 years.) My Cardio-Vascular ICU ranks in the 91st percentile rank for patient experience as of to date based on the Press Ganey scores. Like myself, I believe you want to have excellent care within the reach of the population who trusted us to look after their care. When approved, we do not only collaborate to promote a healthy community, but also ensure that we are authentically present for our communities, in health and in sickness. Good Samaritan is actively involve in community services and activities too., We are here, we are visible, and we are a part of the San Jose City family. We provide jobs, and opportunities to the people you serve too., The proposed retrofitting aligns with state requirements aimed at enhancing the safety and structural integrity of healthcare facilities, ensuring that we meet mandated standards.
I strongly urge you to approve this proposal. By doing so, we not only comply with state requirements but ensure the hospital remains operational for the residents of San Jose.
Thank you for your commitment to the residents of San Jose.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Poblete
Cynthia Abalos
Nurse Director for Inpatient Acute Rehab and Wound Care Center November 14, 2024
San Jose City Council
City Hall
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
Dear San Jose City Council Members,
Subject: Support for Item 10.2 PDC22-132 & ER23-041 - Planned Development Rezoning of the Good Samaritan Hospital Site on Certain Real Property Located at 2333 and 2425 Samaritan Drive.
I am writing to express my strong support for the seismic retrofitting proposal for Good Samaritan Hospital. As a [nurse/doctor/patient/volunteer/key stakeholder] with 23 years of experience as an employee of this facility. It is critical that this proposal is approved in order to keep Good Samaritan Hospital open and in service to the San Jose community. “I am residence of this community for 32 years and Good Samaritan Hospital is our families go to hospital. I have 3 children, I delivered my first child at Kaiser Hospital, second child at Good Samaritan hospital and my third one at Community Hospital of Los Gatos. Among this 3 hospitals Good Samaritan Hospital was the only hospital that exceeded our expectation. I had excellent experience, the nurses, doctors ,nursing assistant and housekeepers make me felt like their own family when they took care of me, my baby and that care and compassion was exceeded to my husband and my immediate family members. When my husband had surgery, same experience was rendered to him, the staff are very compassionate, thoughtful and every staff member were very respectful. My family had experienced the care from emergency room to being an inpatient and both situation the care was excellent and we were treated like a family.
It will be a great loss for this community if the project is not approved. I don’t want to see the staff being displaced, who have worked to this hospital for many years to serve the community where they live and the patient they loved. Good Samaritan Hospital provides excellent care to all the people they served. As a nurse leader working here, multiple times patient comes to me how they like the accessibility of the hospital, the excellent care they received and the family atmosphere.
My plea is to approve this project for the community that Good Samaritan serve like myself, my family, friend and the surrounding neighbors.”
The proposed retrofitting aligns with state requirements aimed at enhancing the safety and structural integrity of healthcare facilities, ensuring that we meet mandated standards.
I strongly urge you to approve this proposal. By doing so, we not only comply with state requirements but ensure the hospital remains operational for the residents of San Jose.
Thank you for your commitment to the residents of San Jose.
Sincerely, Cynthia Abalos
14 November 2024
San Jose City Council
City Hall
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
Dear San Jose City Council Members,
Subject: Support for Item 10.2 PDC22-132 & ER23-041 - Planned Development Rezoning of the Good Samaritan Hospital Site on Certain Real Property Located at 2333 and 2425 Samaritan Drive.
A resident of San Jose since 1965 and retired nursing counselor at Evergreen Valley College for 34 years, I am writing to express my strong support for the seismic retrofitting proposal for Good Samaritan Hospital. I have been a patient for 24 years with Good Samaritan Hospital, my three children were born there and hundreds of my former nursing students interned at the hospital.
On 10 September 2001 while participating in an Evergreen Valley College conditioning class, I experienced an episode of sudden mental disorientation. Fearing a possible stroke my wife rushed me to Good Samaritan Hospital where I was treated in its renowned Comprehensive Stroke Center. The inability to process any memory function lasted 6 hours. Diagnosis was Transient Global Amnesia. Thanks to the superb and prompt care of Dr. Harmeet Sachdev and the Comprehensive Stroke Center medical staff, I recovered fully and have continued preventative care to this day.
Put simply if you or a loved one were to experience a sudden brain disorder, your chances of survival and recovery are exponentially enhanced if taken quickly to Good Samaritan Hospital.
One of the advantages of living in our area is the advanced medical care available. We enjoy an essential community asset that should not be taken for granted but protected and enhanced. The prudent decision is to approve the proposed seismic retrofitting that will improve the structural integrity and safety of our hospital in the event of a projected future major earthquake.
I strongly urge you to approve this proposal.
Sincerely,
Richard Baiardo
Allison Souza
November 14, 2024
To: The San Jose City Council
Re: Subject: Support for Item 10.2 PDC22-132 & ER23-041 - Planned Development Rezoning of the Good Samaritan Hospital Site on Certain Real Property Located at 2333 and 2425 Samaritan Drive.
Dear San Jose City Council Members,
I apologize that I may not be there in person to show my support for Good Samaritan Hospital. I wanted to express my concern that you would consider NOT approving the Seismic retrofitting of the hospital. I no longer live in the area, but this hospital is a key to keeping the community safe! While there are other hospitals in the area, the service that Good Samaritan Hospital provides is second to none.
Thirteen years ago, I suffered a brain aneurysm at home in Campbell. These are typically life ending events. But the Neurology team of Good Sam not only saved my life, they were able to keep my life intact, so that today, I am able to compose a letter to present to you with no deficits.
The only moment I recall being lucid after the paramedics arrived and stabilized me, was the moment they were taking me out to the ambulance. The Fire Capitan asked my husband which hospital he wanted me to go to. He said, “I guess O’Connor.” I yelled out, “No! Good Sam!” The Capitan said, “Well, I guess she knows where she wants to go.” Had I not been brought to the skilled Team of Good Sam, I am positive I would not be here today.
To NOT maintain a hospital of Good Samaritan’s caliber would not only be a huge loss to the community but the lives of so many people would suffer. So many lives would be lost without this hospital. It takes years to assemble teams in all areas of medicine that provide the great service of this hospital.
By NOT approving a project of this importance would be devastating. They are only asking that you let them move forward to make the hospital as safe as possible for future staff and patients. By simply approving the permit, will allow them to move forward to meet the time requirement mandated by the state and provide continued service and care to the Greater San Jose area. San Jose will continued to be
known for their unmatched medical services and a community that takes care of their residents and businesses.
While I no longer live in the area, the Silicon Valley is a great place and extremely important part of this nation. You must help to keep San Jose on the cutting edge.
Thank you for your time!
Sincerely,
Allison Honjiyo-Souza
November 15, 2024
Honorable Mayor Matt Mahan and San Jose City Councilmembers,
Good Samaritan Hospital has to meet the state’s seismic updates by 2030, and San Jose has to address its mental health crisis. This should not put the hospital and city at cross purposes.
CEO Patrick Rohan told city councilmembers, “Deferring the decision is not just a delay. It effectively ensures that a vital community hospital will close, leaving this area of San Jose without access to acute care. ”
We ask CEO Rohan to step off the bully pulpit and stop these catastrophic threats, especially since this project was already delayed before a deferral was requested. Instead, work with San Jose to help restore the mental health services parent company, HCA Healthcare, stripped away last year because psychiatric care doesn’t enhance the corporation’s bottom line.
The hospital and city must find a way to align the proposed expansion in concert with the community it serves, and we would like to offer a suggestion to the San Jose City Council.
HCA is planning to construct two new hospital wings totaling 750,000 square feet. We would like HCA to consider carving out a very small portion, perhaps 11,000 square feet, barely over 1% of the total project for an 18-bed acute care psychiatric unit. This would restore what was lost when HCA closed the Mission Oaks facility last August.
We know it can be done because such a project was completed in Northern Michigan. And if not in the new facility, then restore the services at Mission Oaks.
It’s also important to note that HCA plans to construct 200,000 square feet of medical office space. The average rent for medical office space can range from $30 to $50 a square foot in San Jose. At the low end that would bring in about $6 million per year, at the high end $10 million for new offices. That steady revenue stream would certainly help offset psychiatric costs.
The loss of those 18 beds might seem inconsequential to HCA, which occurred after Santa Clara County declared a mental health crisis last year. But in San Jose, a city with about half of the county’s nearly two million population, every inpatient psychiatric hospital bed
can save a life. It can prevent someone from landing in jail or on the streets in mental health crisis. It can help many homeless residents in San Jose who suffer from severe mental illness.
The recommended ratio is 50 beds to 100,000 people, according to the California Hospital Association. Our county is already short more than 900 beds, according to the association’s most recent annual psychiatric bed report.
Of course we want Good Samaritan to be up to code. But a corporation that brings in billions annually needs to give too. HCA is touting that the project will result in a net increase of 958 new jobs. We want some of those nearly 1,000 jobs to last beyond construction and end up in the hands of mental health clinicians and doctors, who care for some of our city’s most vulnerable and voiceless residents.
We are asking City Councilmembers and HCA to find a mid-point on this issue. Please do not allow this loss of psychiatric beds to remain. Consider our option, find a way to repurpose some of the hospital space or restore the Mission Oaks facility. There is still time as the hospital begins work on the parking garage first.
A hospital can make a profit, but it can’t be at the ongoing expense of the community it serves. Good Samaritan used to be viewed as a whole person care community hospital. It has been part of the West Valley and the entire region for generations. We have a chance to bring that back.
The hospital needs to help all, especially those who are unable to help themselves. We are counting on City Councilmembers to work it out with HCA and do the right thing for its residents. Thank you.
Sincerely,
NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness) Board of Directors