Letter to the Tattler: City Council Should Reconsider Approval of the Sutter Hospital Proposal at Hollis Street Site
The Tattler offers citizens with news worthy stories about Emeryville to submit letters for publication for the 'Letters to the Tattler' feature.
Judith Timmel, a 34 year Emeryville resident and co-founder of the former resident activist group Residents United for a Livable Emeryville (RULE), opines about the proposed billion dollar Sutter Health 325 bed hospital proposed for a 12 acre site on Hollis Street (at 53rd). Sutter recently purchased the former bio-tech site by use of a City Council initiated change to Emeryville’s charter. The hospital and its administration complex will host the tallest building in Emeryville if Sutter completes its build out. The “temporary infusion of cash into our city coffers” that Ms Timmel refers to is the $11 million one time real estate transfer tax the City imposed upon the sale.
To the City Council members-
I attended the meeting Sutter recently held regarding their proposed project. I have to say I was shocked and dismayed to find that the city council members had given a preliminary approval to this totally unacceptable development in our neighborhood. What I appreciate about my neighborhood is livability and small-scale development which fosters community and a sense of safety. This project is totally outside of any precepts in the General Plan and the hopes I have for our community that I thought that you all shared.
The looming presence of a huge tower would destroy our sunlight, our sense of neighborhood and aesthetics that we now enjoy. The ambulances, shuttles and helicopters, not to mention the 4 years of construction noise, would destroy our peace and quiet, seriously disrupt our streets and destroy our bike boulevard. Students going to and from school on 53rd St would be endangered and residents become even more inconvenienced by the increased traffic. The streets surrounding the proposed project are not meant for this level of traffic and would become over-burdened.
It seems you have been swayed by the temporary infusion of cash into our city coffers. I submit that this gain is short-lived and short-sighted. What will be gained by the city after the project’s completion? Sutter’s non-profit status renders them exempt from many taxes.
I support Sutter’s taking over and re-purposing the existing buildings for medical uses. I would support a small-scale building on the vacant property. What I will not support is a huge hulking monstrosity wedged into an inappropriate space in an incongruous neighborhood.
Alternative location for this hospital? Why not Site B? Could a trade be made? As long as the height is reduced, and it could be with a larger footprint, it seems a more accessible and less disruptive location.
I urge you to reconsider, and I will be spending considerable time and energy to inform the residents of Emeryville of this impending disruption in their lives.
Respectfully submitted,
Judith T, resident
 |
| Sutter hospital site at Hollis and 53rd Street looking northwest. |
Judith, thank you for this thoughtful letter and for speaking up for Emeryville.
ReplyDeleteAs your public advocate and representative on the Emeryville City Council, I take these concerns seriously, especially around neighborhood livability, traffic, scale, public safety, and the long-term impacts of this proposed project.
I will be reaching out to you directly.
Once again, thank you for standing up for Emeryville and for reminding all of us that development decisions must serve the people who already call this city home.
Kalimah Priforce
Councilmember
City of Emeryville
Seems as though a big influx of working people- docs, nurses, techs, visitors could generate some lunch trade, flower shop, other associated businesses and bring more density, making transit connections more critical. On the other hand, it feels shitty to get this because Berkeley NIMBYs chased away Alta Bates by forbidding modernization. The city should require helicopters buzz Berkeley for ten mins on each non critical trip
ReplyDeletein response to Ms Timmel that site was designated for high density development in city general plan. The purchase price and the project was conceived under that premise. If the city was to oppose the project it would likely be sued for damages. the city attorney would need to evaluate that. The impact of traffic congestion is unavoidable. As you may or not be aware the state has substantially undermined local land use authority. Its now possible to build new high rise residenial development almost anywhere designated for housing in the general plan. Over the next decade the city is going to change dramaticly in the next decade. It seems the state has limited the need for envuronmental impact reports. You should check with the city attorney to see what the ability is to object to the project and then decide whether or not to try and stop. it. Site B should not be used for retail to generate general fund money and is not an appropriate location for non profit development.'
ReplyDeleteAll the above references to the State forcing this development are erroneous. The commenter is speaking about state laws that provides immunity for corporate developers with residential development proposals from people in the community, not hospitals. The City of Emeryville, representing the will of the people in the city, could refuse this hospital development or parts of it. This is not inevitable. Further, 'Site B', the tract of land to the north of the Bay Street Mall on Shellmound Avenue, could be developed into a hospital complex or mixed use commercial/residential or residential only or almost any manner of other uses.
DeleteThe site would be best utilized as a public cemetery, especially considering that Emeryville has lost its historical burial mound from earlier centuries. Additionally, the revenue generated from the sale of gravesites could help offset the financial losses incurred from previous poor decisions made by the city council.
ReplyDeleteInnovative concept
Deletekudos to Brian and Kalimah for being the only people who are standing up for the people. We know the
ReplyDeleteIt is illegal for councilmembers to publicly oppose the project outside of a public meeting as it could jeopardize negotiations. Kalimah needs to be careful or he could be barred from discussing the project or be faced with Sutter lawyers.
DeleteThanks for the news tip! I'll investigate and if its true the Council member broke the law when he commented on this project at May 25, 2026 at 12:49 PM (above), I will report this in a future Tattler story. If it's not illegal, there will be no story. Thanks again, Tattler reader, we're always looking out for government corruption and malfeasance here at the Tattler.
DeleteThe man he would reach out to her and take her issue seriously. He didn't say anything about his thoughts or views about the project. And from what I know, councilmembers have a “right and obligation” to discuss vital public issues with constituents," according to to the Brown Act. What a punk.
DeleteBrian Kalimah Judith thank you taking stand CANCEL SUTTER HEALTH. City council and city attorney try to silence you with their fake lawsuits and fake censures but we the people we never intimidated one voice for the people by the people.
ReplyDeleteThe destruction of the bike boulevard is a small price to pay for this. And the streets need not become overburdened. They can just be widened. Add more lanes to take the increased traffic. Problem solved. Please stop all the drama.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous lost me with “NIMBY,” bless their heart.
ReplyDelete
That word is doing way too much work for a little five-letter insult.
Yes, Sacramento has narrowed local control on housing. Nobody missed the memo. But the Housing Accountability Act is not a magic wand for every corporate land deal, especially when we are talking about a massive hospital complex. CEQA did not pack up and move to Reno. Public hearings are still a thing. See Gov. Code § 65589.5, Pub. Resources Code § 21082.2, and Gov. Code § 65905.
So when Ms. Timmel asks about traffic, small businesses, displacement, community benefit, and whether this Sutter project actually belongs on that site, she is not being some cartoon Berkeley villain shaking a cane at apartments.
She is asking the questions people ask before another deal gets gift-wrapped and dropped on the neighborhood like a surprise piano.
And this is why “NIMBY” has gotten so tired.
It gets tossed at tenants fighting eviction, Black and Brown homeowners fighting deed theft, Chinatown and Mission merchants trying to survive “revitalization,”
Cancer Alley families trying to breathe, Standing Rock water protectors, Kanaka Maoli protecting Mauna Kea, Wet’suwet’en land defenders.
Atlanta residents opposing Cop City, and Palestinians in Gaza facing genocide while Kushner, Trump, and Netanyahu talk about waterfront land like they are flipping condos.
Should I go on?
I suppose if you are standing between capital and the land it wants, somebody will call you unreasonable.
The people being moved are always told to calm down about “progress.” The people making money from the moving always seem to have a rendering, a consultant, and a very serious face.
So no, I do not hear “NIMBY” as serious planning language anymore. I hear it like “blight” or “urban renewal.” Pretty words that usually mean ordinary people are about to get managed, displaced, or talked over.
Any politician who throws that word at residents asking basic questions about traffic, displacement, environmental impacts, and community benefit is saying more than they think.
Maybe they should be a lobbyist.
Thanks ChatGPT.
DeleteThoughtful comments (maybe especially if they're coming from the other tribe) are no longer possible you say. That's pretty convenient. But how about you? Do you have any thoughts on Ms Timmel's letter?
DeleteInsane to try to stop residents from having access to medical care
ReplyDeleteThat’s why emeryville needs at least four hospitals: one for the northern part of town and three others for the other compass directions. Anything less than that would be medical care denying insanity.
ReplyDeleteThe above, a brainwashed, fear-mongering, DUMB "comment."
ReplyDelete