HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-04-13 - RESOLUTIONS - FINAL SUPPL EIR HMNH (MC 17-193) (2)1
RESOLUTION NO.21-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH No. 2004111149) FOR MASTER CASE
NO. 17-193, INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT, AND ADOPTION OF
THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council does hereby make the following
findings of fact:
a. The approximately 29.77-acre Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital ("HMNH") campus is
generally located north of the intersection of McBean Parkway and Orchard Village
Road, east of Interstate 5 (I-5) in the City of Santa Clarita ("City") in northern Los
Angeles County. The HMNH campus is located at 23845 McBean Parkway (Assessor's
Parcel Numbers 2861-073-010, 2861-073-11, and 2861-073-012). The HMNH campus
includes hospital and emergency service buildings owned by the HMNH, as well as
other non-HMNH-owned, hospital -affiliated medical office buildings that house
physical specialists, outpatient services, and programs providing continuing medical
education to physicians, hospital staff, and other clinical professionals in the Santa
Clarita Valley. The HMNH campus currently comprises 578,000 square feet of building
area, including 377,415 square feet of hospital and related uses (including the new five -
story inpatient building (IP-1 Building)), 24,425 square feet of support facilities, and
176,160 square feet of medical offices;
b. The City adopted a Master Plan and Development Agreement for the HMNH in 2008 (for
which a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") and a Final EIR were prepared) and
a Specific Plan, Amendment to the Master Plan, and an amendment to the Development
Agreement for the HMNH in 2016 (for which an EIR Addendum was prepared). As a
result of the 2016 Specific Plan, the General Plan and Zoning designation for the HMNH
campus was changed from Public/Institutional (PI) to Specific Plan (SP);
c. The areas immediately adjacent to the HMNH campus include the following uses:
North and Northeast: Land uses consist of. detached single-family residences along Bellis
Drive; medical office buildings; the Sunrise at Sterling Canyon facility (beyond the
medical office buildings), which is a senior living facility that provides independent
living, assisted living, and hospice care; townhomes along McBean Parkway, north of
Sunrise at Sterling Canyon; and Valencia United Methodist Church, east of McBean
Parkway and north of Avenida Navarre.
Page 1 of 10
East and Southeast: Land uses consist primarily of single-family residences (developed
in 1969), which are located east of McBean Parkway.
West and Northwest: Land uses consist primarily of single-family residences
(developed in 1987), along Anzio Way, Parma Court, Milano Lane, Tossano Drive,
and Sardinia Court, and open space.
• South and Southwest: Land uses consist primarily of single-family residences located
south of McBean Parkway (constructed in 1969), as well as single-family residences
(constructed in 1978) north of McBean Parkway along Dalgo Drive, Empalmo Court,
and Alegro Drive.
d. An application for Master Case 17-193, the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan
Second Amendment, was filed by Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital ("Applicant") with the
City on October 11, 2017. The application includes amendments to the HMNH Specific
Plan, Master Plan, and Development Agreement (Project) for the following purposes:
1. To have the 2021 Amended HMNH Specific Plan replace the Specific Plan adopted
in 2016 in its entirety. The 2021 HMNH Specific Plan does not change the maximum
number of beds (368) permitted under the 2016 Specific Plan and the 2008 Master
Plan;
2. To add 200,000 square feet of hospital building area consisting of the 115,700 square -
foot Inpatient Building No. 2 ("IP-2 Building") and the accessory 84,300 square -foot
Diagnostic and Treatment Building ("D&T Building");
3. To add up to 292 parking spaces to PS-4 through the construction of up to three new
levels to the existing structure;
4. To construct a second central plant within the basement and on the roof of the D&T
Building;
5. To modify the parking plan to allow for parking resources, if necessary, including
paid parking; and
6. To extend the term of the Development Agreement by 10 years.
e. Environmental conditions on the Project site have been altered substantially by existing
and historical uses of the property. The location of the proposed hospital buildings
comprises existing surface parking lots (Parking Lot D, Lot I, and a portion of Lot H).
When the Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report ("SEIR") was issued in 2018, Lot D was occupied by hospital -affiliated
temporary trailers and temporary construction trailers used by the contractors for the
construction of IP-1 Building. With the completion of the IP-1 Building, these trailers
were removed, and Lot D was returned to a use as a surface parking lot. Construction of
the proposed hospital buildings would also require removal of Lot I (eight parking spaces
located immediately south of the Nursing Pavilion), and a portion of Lot H (located
immediately south of Lot D). The location of the proposed aboveground parking structure
Page 2 of 10
is currently that of a subterranean parking structure (PS-4), which comprises three levels
of subterranean parking and a partially covered surface parking level;
f. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA;" Pub. Resources
Code, §21000 et seq.), the City is the lead agency and the City Council is the decision -
making body for the HMNH Master Plan Second Amendment. The City's Planning
Commission is a recommending body for the Project;
g. The City determined an SEIR must be prepared for the Project, and that the following
areas must be addressed in the SEIR for the Project: aesthetics, air quality, energy,
greenhouse gas emissions, noise, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities
(wastewater and water supply);
h. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15163(b), the supplement to an EIR need
contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the
Project as revised;
i. An NOP for the Project was submitted to the State Clearinghouse and filed with the Los
Angeles County Clerk on August 21, 2018, with the 30-day review period ending on
October 1, 2018. The NOP was also circulated to affected agencies, pursuant to CEQA
and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.). Agencies
that received the NOP include, but are not limited to, the County of Los Angeles, Los
Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and
Wildlife, South Coast Air Quality Management District, law enforcement agencies,
school districts, waste haulers, water agencies, and transportation agencies serving the
Santa Clarita Valley in accordance with CEQA's consultation requirements. Comments
from eight public agencies were received in response to the NOP;
j. A scoping meeting was held at the City Hall in the Century Conference Room on
September 13, 2018, to obtain information from the public as to issues that should be
addressed in the SEIR. Notice of the scoping meeting was published in The Signal
newspaper on August 28, 2018, and was mailed to all property owners within 1,000 feet
of the Project site, in addition to approximately 79 agencies, interested parties, and
individuals who requested to be notified of the Project. No agencies, interested parties,
or members of the public attended the scoping meeting;
k. The City prepared a Draft SEIR for the HMNH Master Plan Second Amendment that
addressed all comments received on the NOP. The Draft SEIR was distributed for public
review, and a Notice of Availability ("NOA") and Notice of Completion ("NOC") were
filed with the State Clearinghouse on November 20, 2020. A 60-day review period, began
on November 23, 2020, and ended on January 22, 2021. The NOA was filed with the Los
Angeles County Clerk on November 24, 2020. The NOA was also mailed to all property
owners within 1,000 feet of the Project site, in addition to approximately 36 agencies,
interested parties, and individuals who requested to be notified of the Project. Written
comments received on the Draft SEIR have been fully responded to, and those comments
received after the Planning Commission's review of the Project will be fully responded to
prior to certification and approval of the Project by the City Council, if granted;
Page 3 of 10
1. The HMNH Master Plan Second Amendment was duly noticed in accordance with State
and local laws and was advertised in The Signal, by on -site posting 21 days prior to the
hearing, and by direct first-class mailing to property owners within 1,000 feet of the
Project site;
m. The Final SEIR, incorporated herein by reference, includes the Draft SEIR by reference,
written comments on the Draft SEIR, responses to written comments on the Draft SEIR,
an errata and clarifications to the Draft SEIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program ("MM"");
n. The Draft SEIR was presented to the Planning Commission on December 1, 2020,
January 19, 2021, and the remaining Final SEIR documents were prepared and provided
to the Planning Commission at the March 2, 2021, meeting;
o. The Planning Commission considered the Final SEIR prepared for the HMNH Master
Plan Second Amendment, as well as information provided in staff reports;
p. At the public hearing on March 2, 2021, the Planning Commission adopted Resolutions
P21-04 and P21-05, recommending the City Council certify the Draft Final SEIR and
approve Master Case 17-193, by a vote of 4 to 0 (with one abstention);
q. The Draft Final SEIR was presented to the City Council on April 13, 2021. A copy of
the responses to comments from the Final SEIR were sent to each agency and individual
who submitted comments on the Draft SEIR on March 26, 2021;
r. The City Council has considered the Final SEIR prepared for the HMNH Master Plan
Second Amendment, as well as information provided in staff reports;
s. The City Council also considered staff and applicant presentations, staff reports,
applicant presentations, and information presented to the Planning Commission to assist
its understanding of the Project, the SEIR, and public comments on the Draft SEIR;
t. Based upon staff and applicant presentations, staff reports, and public comments, the City
Council finds that the HMNH Master Plan Second Amendment will not adversely affect
the health, peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the area, will not be
materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property in the vicinity of
the Project Site, and will not the jeopardize, endanger, or otherwise constitute a menace
to the public health, safety, or general welfare, since the Project conforms with the zoning
ordinance and is compatible with surrounding land uses. The Project proposes the
extension of all utilities and services to the Project site. Currently, all required utilities
and services are available within the HMNH campus; and
u. The location of the documents and other materials, including the 2008 Master Plan EIR
and 2016 Specific Plan Addendum documents, that constitute the record of proceedings
upon which the decision of the City Council is based for the Master Case 17-193 Project
file is with the Community Development Department, specifically in the custody of the
Director of Community Development.
Page 4 of 10
SECTION 2. CEQA REQUIREMENTS. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita
does hereby make the following findings of fact:
a. CEQA provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are
feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially
lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" (Pub. Resources Code,
§21002, emphasis added.) The procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist
public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed
projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or
substantially lessen such significant effects." (Ibid.).
b. CEQA also provides that "in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other
conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures,
individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects" (Pub.
Resources Code, §21002.). CEQA provides that a public agency has an obligation to
balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social
factors, and in particular the goal of providing a decent home and satisfying living
environment for every Californian. (Pub. Resources Code, §21081; Cal. Code Regs., Tit.
14, § 15021(d).) CEQA requires decision -makers to balance the benefits of a proposed
project against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, and, if the
benefits of a proposed project outweigh the significant unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts, the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts may be
considered "acceptable" by adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations. (Cal.
Code Regs., Tit. 14, § 15093.) The Statement of Overriding Considerations must set forth
the project benefits or reasons why the lead agency is in favor of approving the project,
and must weigh these benefits against the project's adverse environmental impacts
identified in the Final SEIR that cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level.
c. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15163(b) notes that the supplement to an EIR need
contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the
project as revised.
d. CEQA's mandates and principles are implemented, in part, through the requirement that
agencies adopt findings before approving projects for which SEIRs are required. For
each significant environmental effect identified in an SEIR for a proposed project, the
approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible
conclusions:
1. "Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the Final EIR,"
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency," or
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible
Page 5 of 10
the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR." (Cal. Code
Regs., Tit. 14, §15091.)
e. CEQA defines "feasible" to mean capable of being accomplished in a successful manner
within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social,
and technological factors. (Pub. Resources Code, §21061.1; Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 14,
§15364.).
f. The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular
alternative promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. "Feasibility" under
CEQA, then, encompasses "desirability" to the extent that desirability is based on a
reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological
factors.
g. CEQA requires that the lead agency exercise its independent judgment in reviewing the
adequacy of an SEIR and that the decision of a lead agency in certifying a Final SEIR
and approving a project not be predetermined. The City Council has conducted its own
review and analysis and is exercising its independent judgment when acting as herein
provided.
h. CEQA requires decision -makers to adopt an MMRP for those mitigation measures
identified in the Final SEIR that would mitigate or avoid each significant impact
identified in the SEIR and to incorporate the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, including all mitigation measures, as a condition of project approval.
i. CEQA requires that the responses to comments in the Final SEIR demonstrate good
faith and a well -reasoned analysis, and not be overly conclusory. In response to several
of the comments received, portions of the Draft SEIR have been revised. Although new
material has been added to the Draft SEIR through preparation of the Final SEIR, this
new material provides clarification to points and information already included in the
Draft SEIR and is not considered to be significant new information or a substantial
change to the Draft EIR or to the Project that would necessitate recirculation.
State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15003(c) and 15003(i) note that State courts have held
that the purpose of an EIR is to inform other governmental agencies and the public
generally of the environmental impacts of a proposed project. CEQA does not require
technical perfection or exhaustive treatment of issues in an EIR but, rather, adequacy,
completeness, and a good -faith effort at full disclosure.
SECTION 3. CEQA FINDINGS. The City Council finds that the Final SEIR for Master
Case 17-193 identifies and discloses Project -specific impacts and cumulative Project impacts.
Environmental impacts identified in the Final SEIR, findings, and facts in support of findings
are herein incorporated as "Findings Required by CEQA," referred to as Exhibit "A" (attached),
and identified as follows:
a. The Final SEIR identifies one significant unavoidable adverse impact of the Project
related to construction noise, as set forth in Section 7.0 of Exhibit "A." Changes or
Page 6 of 10
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that will avoid or
lessen certain aspects of this Project impact but that will not avoid or reduce all of the
potential impact to a less -than -significant level. This remaining significant impact is
balanced against Project benefits and is found to be overridden by the Project benefits,
as stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section 6, below.
b. The Final SEIR also identifies one significant but mitigated impact related to cumulative
traffic, as set forth in Section 5.3 of Exhibit "A." Changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the Project that will avoid or reduce this potential
impact to a less -than -significant level.
c. The Final SEIR also identifies less -than -significant impacts, as set forth in Section 5.2
of Exhibit "A."
d. As issues that are noted in Section 3(c), above, have no significant environmental
impacts and require no mitigation, those issues also will have no contribution to
cumulative impacts.
e. The MMRP, included in the Final SEIR and incorporated herein by this reference, is
required to mitigate Project impacts.
SECTION 4. CONSIDERATION OF A REASONABLE RANGE OF
ALTERNATIVES. Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including the HMNH
Master Plan Second Amendment Final SEIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence
received at the public hearings held on the Project and the Final SEIR and otherwise, upon
studies and investigation made by the City Council, and upon reports and other transmittals
from City staff to the City Council, the City Council further finds that the Final SEIR addressed
the environmental effects of alternatives to the Project and adequately evaluates the
comparative merits of each alternative.
a. The objectives of the Project are specified in the Draft SEIR and Section 2.2 of Exhibit
"A." These objectives are used as the basis for comparing the Project alternatives and
determining the extent that the objectives would be achieved relative to the Project.
Only those impacts found significant and unavoidable are relevant in making the final
determination of whether an alternative is environmentally superior or inferior to the
Project. The Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to on -
site construction noise.
b. Alternative 1 — No Project/No Build Alternative. This alternative is required by the State
CEQA Guidelines and compares the impacts that might occur if the Project Site is left in
its present condition with those that would be generated by the Project. Under this
alternative, no development would occur beyond what exists today.
The No Project/No Build Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable
impact related to on -site construction noise identified in the Draft SEIR and most other
identified significant impacts, and, therefore, is considered environmentally superior to
the Project.
Page 7 of 10
This alternative would not attain any of the objectives of the Project. Therefore,
this alternative is infeasible and also would not provide any of the Project benefits.
Alternative 2 — Reduced Size (80-Percent) Alternative. Alternative 2 proposes similar
buildings and uses to the Project but reduced by approximately 20 percent. More
specifically, both the new D&T Building and IP-2 Building would be reduced by one
level. The proposed D&T Building under this alternative would contain approximately
63,225 square feet of space and would be approximately 40 feet in height. The proposed
IP-2 Building, under this alternative, would contain approximately 96,417 square feet of
space, with approximately 74 beds, and would be approximately 60 feet in height.
Similar to the Project, the proposed buildings under this alternative would include a
basement. In addition, as with the Project, the existing hospital's main entry would be
relocated in front of the D&T Building, which would also require removal of 16 parking
spaces from Lot H. Under this alternative, the proposed parking addition to PS-4 would
be partially reduced (i.e., approximately half of the top level would not be needed) when
compared to the Project. Alternative 2 would add approximately 233 new parking spaces
to PS-4 through the construction of 2.5 aboveground levels on top of the existing
subterranean structure/surface parking lot.
In comparison to the Project, Alternative 2, would be considered environmentally
superior to the Project as it would have a slightly lesser level of impact during
construction (e.g., energy, GHG emissions, and utilities) than the Project due to a shorter
construction duration and overall reduction in building size and during operation (e.g.,
air quality, energy, GHG emissions, and utilities) due to an overall reduction in energy
and utility consumption and overall daily trips generated by the addition to HMNH
campus. However, the significant unavoidable impact related to on -site construction
noise would not be reduced or eliminated with Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 would attain all of the Project's objectives, with the exception of the second
Project objective related to implementing a long-term plan for expansion of the existing
HMNH campus that would help meet the expected growth in demand for health care
services and allow the hospital to apply for State -required approvals, as shown in Section
5.5 of Exhibit "A".
SECTION 5. FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL SEIR. Based upon
the above recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the HMNH Master Plan
Second Amendment Final SEIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the
public hearings held on the Project and the Final SEIR, upon studies and investigation made by
the City Council, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the City Council,
the City Council finds that:
a. The Final SEIR for the Project is adequate, complete, has been prepared in accordance
with CEQA, and should be certified on that basis.
b. The City Council has independently reviewed and considered the Final SEIR in reaching
its conclusions.
Page 8 of 10
c. The Final SEIR was presented and reviewed prior to taking final action to recommend
certification of the Final SEIR and approval of the HMNH Master Plan Second
Amendment.
d. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093, the Final SEIR
includes a description of each potentially significant impact and rationale for finding
that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as detailed in Exhibit
"A." The analyses included in the Final SEIR to support each conclusion and
recommendation therein is hereby incorporated into these findings.
e. In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091, changes and alterations have been required and incorporated into the
Project that avoid or substantially lessen its significant environmental effects because
feasible mitigation measures, including those in the MMRP, are made Conditions of
Approval for the Project.
f. The Statement of Overriding Considerations identifies and weighs the Project's
significant impact that cannot be mitigated to a level below significant against the
community benefits from this Project, and concludes, based on substantial evidence in
the record, that the Project's benefits outweigh its one unavoidable significant impact.
g. The Final SEIR reflects the decision -maker's independent judgment and a_naysis.
h. An MMRP has been prepared and is recommended for adoption to enforce the
mitigation measures required by the Final SEIR and Project approvals.
i. The documents and other materials, including the 2008 Master Plan EIR and 2016
Specific Plan Addendum documents, which constitute the record of proceedings on
which this decision is based, are under the custody of the Director of Community
Development and are located at the City of Santa Clarita, Community Development
Department, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, California 91355.
SECTION 6. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. Based upon the
above recitals and the entire record, including the Final SEIR, oral and written testimony and
other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Project and the Final SEIR and
otherwise, upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission, and upon
reports and other transmittals from City staff to the City Council, the City Council further
finds that there is substantial evidence that supports the conclusion that the HMNH Master
Plan Second Amendment will result in community benefits, including specific economic,
legal, social, technological, and other benefits, that outweigh the one significant effect of the
Project on the environment that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant.
a. One significant unavoidable impact relates to on -site construction noise, as further
described in Exhibit "B."
b. The benefits of the HMNH Master Plan Second Amendment outweigh the one significant
Page 9 of 10
unavoidable impact that cannot be mitigated to a level below significant. These benefits
are listed in Section 7.3 of Exhibit "B."
SECTION 7. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Final SEIR (SCH No.
2004111149), and hereby determines that it is adequate and in compliance with CEQA. In
compliance with Public Resources Code Section 12081 and State CEQA Guidelines Section
15093, the City Council considered the Project benefits as balanced against its one unavoidable
adverse environmental effect, and hereby determines that the benefits outweigh the one
unavoidable adverse environmental effect; therefore, the City Council determines that the one
unavoidable adverse environmental effect is considered acceptable. The City Council hereby
certifies the Final SEIR and associated documents, and adopts the MMRP and Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 13`h day of April 2021.
ATTEST: `
CITY CLERK
DATE:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Mary Cusick, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. 21-13 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa
Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 13`h day of April, 2021, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS: Smyth, McLean, Weste, Gibbs, Miranda
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Page 10 of 10
clmllel���
CITY CLERK
1
I
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
EXHIBIT A
C
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
HENRY MAYO NEWHALL
HOSPITAL
MASTER PLAN SECOND
AMENDMENT
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Prepared for:
City of
SANTA CLARITA
SCH No. 2004111149
Prepared by.
INTERNATIONAL
DAVID PETERSON, ASSOCIATE PLANNER 3760 KILROY AIRPORT WAY, STE 270
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA LONG BEACH, CA 90806
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
23920 VALENCIA BOULEVARD, SUITE 302
SANTA CLARITA, CA 91355
EMAIL: DPETERSON@SANTA-CLARITA.COM
PHONE: (661) 284-1406
FEBRUARY 2021
This page intentionally left blank.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
1
1.0 Introduction...................................................................................1-1
1.1 Project Summary ..............................................................................................1-1
1.2 Public Review Process.....................................................................................1-2
1.3 Review and Recommended Certification of the Final SEIR...............................1-3
1.4 Organization of this Final SEIR.........................................................................1-3
2.0 Comments on the Draft SEIR and Responses ............................2-1
2.1 List of Commenters...........................................................................................2-1
2.2 Comments and Responses to Comments.........................................................2-1
3.0 Errata and Clarifications to the Draft SEIR.................................3-1
3.1 Changes to the Draft SEIR in Response to Public Comments ...........................3-1
3.2 Staff -Initiated Changes to the Draft SEIR..........................................................3-1
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ...........................4-1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1-1 List of Commenters on the Draft SEIR.................................................................2-1
utry or Santa ciarita
February 2021
Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
i Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
This page intentionally left blank.
Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment City of Santa Clarita
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2021
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document is the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Henry Mayo
Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment Project (Project). This document, together with the
Draft SEIR and its technical appendices, comprise the Final SEIR. The document has been prepared
by the City of Santa Clarita, acting as lead agency, in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines
(California Code Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq.).
The Final SEIR is required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 to include the Draft SEIR, comments
received on the Draft SEIR, the responses of the lead agency to significant environmental issues raised
by those comments in the review and consultation process, and any other relevant information added
by the lead agency (including minor changes to the Draft SEIR). A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP) is also required; it can be a separate document or, as in this case, included in this
Final SEIR.
This document provides revisions to the Draft SEIR made in response to comments and/or as initiated by
the lead agency. These revisions correct, clarify, and amplify the text of the Draft SEIR, as appropriate,
but do not alter the conclusions of the Draft SEIR.
1.1 Project Summary
The Project is located on the approximately 29.77-acre Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital (HMNH) campus,
located at 23845 McBean Parkway, north of the intersection of McBean Parkway and Orchard Village
Road and approximately 0.9 mile east of Interstate 5 (1-5) in the City of Santa Clarita.
The HMNH proposes an amendment to its 2016 Specific Plan and a second amendment to its 2008
Master Plan and Development Agreement to permit the development of up to 200,000 square feet of
building area for a Diagnostic and Treatment (D&T) Building, another Inpatient Building (Inpatient
Building No. 2 (IP-2 Building)), and clinical services, plus the addition of three aboveground parking
stories (four levels, including rooftop parking) to the existing PS-4 parking structure. With the proposed
amendments, the total buildout capacity of hospital and medical office space within the Specific Plan
and Master Plan area would increase from 698,000 square feet to 898,000 square feet.
The proposed amendments to the 2008 Master Plan, 2016 Specific Plan, and Development Agreement
involve the development of two new buildings that would be located on existing parking lots (Parking
Lots D and I, as well as part of Lot H) bounded by the Main Hospital Building on the south, the new
Inpatient Building No. 1 (IP-1 Building) completed in 2019 on the west, the Nursing Pavilion on the north,
and an internal access road on the east. The proposed amendments would also involve the addition of
aboveground levels to an existing underground parking structure/surface parking lot PS-4, located
immediately to the north of the main entrance to the HMNH campus; modification to the parking plan to
permit both paid and assigned parking and adopt the HMNH Parking Demand Study that establishes
the parking requirements for the campus; and various amendments, including a 10-year extension to
the Development Agreement. Together, Lot D, Lot I, portion of Lot H, and PS-4 encompass the Project
Site. There would be no change in the maximum number of beds (i.e., 368 beds) permitted under the
approved 2008 Master Plan and 2016 Specific Plan. Approximately 92 beds would be relocated from
the existing Main Hospital Building to the proposed Inpatient Building. The Project would also involve
the relocation of the main entry/drop off area from its present location adjacent to the existing Main
Hospital Building to an area in front of the proposed D&T Building. The area within the existing Main
Hospital Building currently containing the 92 beds would be converted to office uses, other
administrative uses, and/or clinical/hospital support services. These improvements are necessary to
bring the HMNH hospital rooms up to current
City of Santa Clarita Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
February 2021 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
standards established by California's Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD)
and comply with applicable provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The proposed new buildings would be designed and constructed to incorporate environmentally
sustainable design features. Sustainability features may include energy -efficiency measures, recycling
infrastructure, enhanced indoor air quality, and water conservation measures. By integrating sustainable
features into the design and construction of the new buildings, the Project would reduce energy and
water usage and waste generation. The Project would provide such features in compliance with code
requirements, including the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen).
The Project would require the following discretionary actions from the City: (1) certification of a
Supplemental EIR to the 2008 Master Plan EIR; (2) amendment to the 2008 Master Plan and
Development Agreement for the HMNH; and (3) amendment to the 2016 Specific Plan for the HMNH.
1.2 Public Review Process
The City prepared the Draft SEIR to inform decisionmakers and the public of the potential significant
environmental effects associated with the Project. The Draft SEIR was circulated for public review and
comment for 60 days, from November 23, 2020 through January 22, 2021. A Public Notice of Availability
(NOA) of the Draft SEIR was mailed to all organizations and individuals previously requesting notice
and was published in the Signal Newspaper on November 10, 2020. The City submitted the complete
Draft SEIR with appendices to the State Clearinghouse. In addition, the City presented the Project at
two City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission meetings on December 1, 2020 and January 19, 2021
to solicit comments from the public and the Planning Commission on the Draft SEIR. The presentation
provided an overview of the CEQA process, description of the Project, identified environmental impacts,
required mitigation measures, and alternatives to the Project that were evaluated in the Draft SEIR. No
public testimony was received regarding the Project at either of the Planning Commission meetings. The
Draft SEIR and Final SEIR, and associated appendices were made available for review online at:
https://www.santa-clarita.com/city-hall/ departments/community-development/planning
division/environmental-impact-reports-under-review/ hen ry-m ayo-newhall-h ospital-master-pla n and a
limited number of CDs and hard copies of the Draft Supplemental EIR were available at the Planning
Counter. The video presentations for the two Planning Commission meetings are also available at
http://santaclaritacityca.igm2.com/Citizens/
SplitView.aspx?Mode=Video&MeetingID=2210&Format=Agend a (December 1, 2020 meeting) and
http://santaclaritacityca, igm2. com/Citizens/SplitView. aspx?Mode=Video&Meeting I D=2525&Format=
Agenda (January 19, 2021 meeting).
Interested persons and organizations had the opportunity to submit their written, comments on the Draft
SEIR during the 60-day public review period. Comment letters received on the Draft SEIR, reproduced
in their entirety, and responses to those comments are provided in this Final SEIR.
Section 15088(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines specifies that the focus of the responses to comments
shall be on the disposition of significant environmental issues. Responses are not required for comments
regarding the merits of the Project or on issues not related to potential physical environmental impacts
and/or the Draft SEIR's analysis of such impacts. Comments on the merits of the Project or other
comments that do not raise environmental issues are nevertheless included in the administration record
for consideration as part of the Project's approval process. The responses address environmental issues
and indicate where issues raised do not pertain to environmental impacts or analysis. In the latter
instance, no further response is provided.
Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment City of Santa Clarita
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2021
1-2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Only minor changes to the text of the Draft SEIR have occurred since public circulation, and none of
the changes constitute "significant new information," which would require its recirculation. "Significant
new information" is defined in Section 15088.5(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines as follows:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation
measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation
measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
(3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously
analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project's
proponents decline to adopt it.
(4) The Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that
meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
None of these circumstances have arisen from comments on the Draft SEIR; therefore, recirculation is
not required.
1.3 Review and Recommended Certification of the Final SEIR
As required by PRC Section 21092.5 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b), at least 10
days before consideration of the Final SEIR for certification by the City of Santa Clarita City Council,
the City provided written responses (hard or electronic copy) to each public agency that submitted
written comments on the Draft SEIR. In addition, responses are also being distributed to all
commenters who provided an address. The Final SEIR is available for public review at the following:
❑ City of Santa Clarita, Community Development Department, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite
302, Santa Clarita, California, 91355: Attn: David Peterson, Associate Planner
• City's website: https://www.santa-clarita.com/city-hall/departments/community-development/
planning-division/environmental-impact-reports-under-review/henry-mayo-newhall-hospital-
master-plan
1.4 Organization of the Final SEIR
This Final SEIR is organized into four sections as follows:
Introduction. This section (above) provides introductory information about the Project and the
CEQA review process.
Comments on the Draft SEIR and Responses. This section presents all comments received by
the City during the 60-day public review period for the Draft SEIR (November 23, 2020 through
January 22, 2021), as well as responses to those comments.
Errata and Clarifications to the Draft SEIR. This section consists of minor revisions and
clarifications to the Draft SEIR in response to comments received, as well as minor staff edits.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This section provides the full MMRP for the
Project. The MMRP lists the mitigation measures by environmental topic and identifies the method of
review verification, responsible agency, and timing for each measure.
City of Santa Clarita Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
February 2021 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
1-3
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This page intentionally left blank.
Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment City of Santa Clarita
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2021
1-4
1
E
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SEIR AND RESPONSES
1
This section provides a list of commenters and copies of the comments received with responses to
those comments.
2.1 List of Commenters
Table 2.1-1, List of Commenters on the Draft SEIR, assigns a number to identify the commenter
and notes the general topic area covered by each comment letter.
Table 2.1-1
List of Commenters on the Draft SEIR
Lette r
No.
Individual/Signatory
Affiliation
Date
Comment Topics
1
Ronald M. Durbin
County of Los Angeles
12/22/2020
Fire Protection Services,
Chief, Forestry Division
Fire Department
Erosion Control,
Prevention Services Bureau
Watershed Management,
Biological Resources,
Cultural Resources, Oak
Trees, and Hazardous
Materials
2
Rick Vasilopulos
Santa Clarita Valley
01/12/2021
Water Supply
Associate Water Resources
Water Agency
Planner
3
Adriana Raza
Los Angeles County
01/22/2021
Wastewater Collection
Customer Service Specialist
Sanitation Districts
and Treatment Facilities
Facilities Planning Department
4
K. Michael Farnsworth
Individual
11/18/2020
Noise, Traffic, Aesthetics,
Alternative Site
2.2 Comments and Responses to Comments
This subsection includes copies of the comment letters received on the Draft SEIR, as identified in
Subsection 2.1, List of Commenters, with the comments numbered for reference and responses to
the comments.
City of Santa Clarita Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
February 2021 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
2-1
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SEIR AND RESPONSES
This page intentionally left blank.
L_l
Ll
Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment City of Santa Clarita
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2021
2-2
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SEIR AND RESPONSES
Cou TY�B►.Es
FIRE DEPARTMENT
1320 NORTH EASTERN AVENUE
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90063-3294
(323)881-2401
www, fire, lacou n ty.gov
"Proud Protectors of Life, Property, and the Environment"
OARYLL,OSBY
FIRE CHIEF
FORESTER 6 FIRE WARDEN
December 22, 2020
David Peterson, Associate Planner
City of Santa Clarita
Planning Division
23920 Valencia Boulevard
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Dear Mr. Peterson:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
HILDA L. SOUS
FIRST DISTRICT
HOLLY J. MITCHELL
SECOND DISTRICT
SHEILA KUEHL
THIRD DISTRICT
JANICE HAHN
FOURTH DISTRICT
KATHRYN BARGER
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT, "HENRY MAYO NEWHALL HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN SECOND
AMENDMENT PROJECT," THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 2008 MASTER
PLAN, 2016 SPECIFIC PLAN, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT INVOLVE THE
DEVELOPMENT OF TWO NEW BUILDINGS THAT WOULD BE LOCATED ON EXISTING
PARKING LOTS, BOUNDED BY THE MAIN HOSPITAL BUILDING ON THE SOUTH, THE
NEW INPATIENT BUILDING NO.1 COMPLETED IN 2019 ON THE WEST, THE NURSING
PAVILION ON THE NORTH, AND AN INTERNAL ACCESS ROAD ON THE EAST,
LOCATED AT 23845 MCBEAN PARKWAY, SANTA CLARITA, FFER 2020009247
The Notice of Availability Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report has been
reviewed by the Planning Division, Land Development Unit, Forestry Division, and Health
Hazardous Materials Division of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department.
The following are their comments: I1-1
PLANNING DIVISION:
7.12.1 Fire Protection Services
The paragraph under this section of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
should correct the nearest and the next closest fire stations to the Project Site. The nearest 1-2
fire station to the Project Site is LACoFD Station 73, located at 24875 North Railroad Avenue,
approximately 1.8 miles southeast of the Project Site, The next closest fire station is
SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF:
AGOURA HILLS
ARTESIA
CARSON
CLRRITOS
EL MONTE
GARDENA
INGLEWOOD
LAWNDALE
PICO RIVERA
SIGNAL HILL
AZUSA
BALOWIN PARK
CLAREMOHT
COMMERCE
GLENDORA
IRWINDALE
LA CANAOA•FLINTRIDGE
LOMITA
LYNWOOD
POMONA
RANCHO PALOS VERGES
SOUTH EL MONTE
SOUTH GATE
BELL
COVINA
HAWAIIAN GARDENS
HAWTHORN El
LA MORA
MALIBU
ROLLING HILLS
TEMPLE CITY
BELL GARDENS
CUDAHY
HERMOSA SEACH
LA MIRADA
LA PUENT£
MAYWOOD
NORWALK
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
VERNON
BELLFLOWER
BRADBURY
DIAMOND R
BA
DUARTE
HIDDEN HILLS
LAKEWOOD
PALMDALE
ROSEMEAD
SAN DIMAS
WALNUT
WEST HOLLYWOOD
CALABASAS
HUNTINGTON PARK
INDUSTRY
LANCASTER
PALOS VERGES ESTATES
SANTA CLARITA
WESTLAKE VILLAGE
PARAMOUNT
WHnT1ER
City of Santa Clarita Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
February 2021 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
2-3
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SEIR AND RESPONSES
Letter No. 1 (Continued)
David Peterson, Associate lanner
December 22, 2020
Page 2
LACoFD Station 126, located at 26320 Citrus Street, which is approximately 2.1 miles north
of the Project Site. 1-2
(Continued)
For any questions regarding this response, please contact Kien Chin, Planning Analyst, at
(323) 881-2404 or Kien.ChinCcDftre.lacounty.gov.
LAND DEVELOPMENT UNIT:
The development of this project must comply with all applicable code and ordinance
requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants.
Specific fire and life safety requirements will be addressed by the submittal of plans to tt; 3
Fire Department.
The Land Development Unit appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Should
any questions arise, please contact Wally Collins at (323) 890-4243 or
Wally.Collins _fire.lacounty.gov.
FORESTRY DIVISION — OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS:
The statutory responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Forestry
Division include erosion control, watershed management, rare and endangered species,
vegetation, fuel modification for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, archeological and
cultural resources, and the County Oak Tree Ordinance. Potential impacts in these areas
should be addressed.
Under the Los Angeles County Oak tree Ordinance, a permit is required to cut, destroy,
remove, relocate, inflict damage or encroach into the protected zone of any tree of the Oak
genus which is 25 inches or more in circumference (eight inches in diameter), as measure 4
1l2 feet above mean natural grade.
If Oak trees are known to exist in the proposed project area further field studies should be
conducted to determine the presence of this species on the project site.
The County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Forestry Division has no further comments
regarding this project.
For any questions regarding this response, please contact Forestry Assistant, Joseph Brunet
at (818) 890-5719.
HEALTH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISION:
The Health Hazardous Materials Division of the Los Angeles County Fire Department has no
comments or requirements for the project at this time. 1-5
Please contact HHMD senior typist -clerk, Perla Garcia at (323) 89OA035 or
Perla.garciaCa.fire.lacounty.gov if you have any questions.
Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment City of Santa Clarita
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2021
2-4
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SEIR AND RESPONSES
LJ
David Peterson, Associate P(LnA,etter No. 1 (Continued)
December 22, 2020
Page 3
If you have any additional questions, please contact this office at (323) 890-4330.
Very truly yours,
RONALD M. DURBIN, CHIEF, FORESTRY DIVISION
PREVENTION SERVICES BUREAU
RMD:ac
city or Santa warita
February 2021
Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
2-5 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SEIR AND RESPONSES
Letter No. 1
Ronald M Durbin Chief,
Forestry Division
Prevention Services Bureau
County of Los Angeles Fire Department
1320 North Eastern Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90063-3294
Comment No. 1-1
This comment acknowledges receipt of the Notice of Availability of a Draft SEIR for the Project and
introduces specific comments from the different divisions within the County of Los Angeles Fire
Department (LACoFD).
Comment No. 1-2
This comment corrects the information presented in the Draft SEIR regarding the nearest fire station
to the Project Site, In addition, as part of a staff -initiated change, the information regarding LACoFD
facilities was updated to reflect recent comments submitted for another project in the City (i.e.,
MetroWalk Specific Plan Project). The second, third, and fourth sentences under Subsection
7.12.1, Fire Protection Services, on page 7.0-12 of the Draft SEIR have been revised as follows
(see Section 3.0, Errata and Clarifications to the Draft SEIR, of this Final SEIR, for this revision):
Specifically, 4-6-15 fire stations with 4-5-14 engine companies, 5 paramedic squads, 1
hazardous materials squad, and 2 ladder trucks serve the Santa Clarita Valley. The
nearest fire station to the Project Site is I-AGe-FE-) Station 73, IGGated at 24875 North
Ra'!Foad Avenue, whiGh is approximately 1.3 miles scwthea6t of the PFGjeGt Site ,
4 26320 Citrus Street approximately 1 .2 miles nerth of- the -PrGjeGt Site The next
Glesest fiFe 6tat;Qnis LACoFD Station 73, located at 24875 North Railroad Avenue,
which is approximately 4-3-1_8 miles southeast of the Project Site. The next closest
fire station is LACoFD Station 73 located at 24875 North Railroad Avenue, which is
approximately 2.1 miles southeast of the Project Site.
This change does not result in the Project creating any new or increased significant environmental
impact that is not already identified in the Draft SEIR.
Because the Project is involves a proposed expansion of an existing hospital facility, the Project
will be designed to meet the fire flow requirements of the California Office of Statewide Health
Planning and Development (OSHPD) and LACoFD. As identified in Subsection 7.12.1, Fire
Protection Services, on page 7.0-12, of the Draft SEIR, LACoFD submitted a response letter to the
Notice of Preparation, which has been included as Appendix A of the Draft SEIR. As acknowledged
in the Draft SEIR, the LACoFD Land Development Unit listed a number of code and ordinance
requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants, which are to be
incorporated into plans submitted for plan check and building permits. The Project would be required
to comply with all LACoFD standards prior to the issuance of City of Santa Clarita building permits
and certificates of occupancy.
Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment City of Santa Clarita
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2021
2-6
E
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SEIR AND RESPONSES
Comment No. 1-4
This comment identifies the statutory responsibilities of LACoFD's Forestry Division, including
erosion control, which was addressed Sections 7.5, Geology and Soils, and 7.7, Hydrology and
Water Quality, of the Draft SEIR; watershed management, which was also addressed in Section
7.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft SEIR; rare and endangered species and vegetation,
which were addressed in Section 7.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft SEIR; fuel modification for
VHFHSZ, which was addressed Section 7.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft SEIR;
archaeological and cultural resources, which were addressed in Section 7.4, Cultural Resources,
of the Draft SEIR; and oak trees, which were addressed Section 7.3, Biological Resources, of the
Draft SEIR. There are no oak trees existing on the Project Site.
Comment No. 1-5
This comment acknowledges that LACoFD has no comments or requirements for the Project
related to hazardous materials.
City of Santa Clarita Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
February 2021 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
2-7
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SEIR AND RESPONSES
This page intentionally left blank.
L
C
Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment City of Santa Clarita
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2021
2-8
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SEIR AND RESPONSES
CV
Letter No. 2
AL S Department of Water Resources 26501 Summit Circle, Santa•Clarita, CA 91350-3049
WATER (661) 297-1600 l yourSCVwater.com
January 12, 2021
City of Santa Clarita
Planning Division
Attn: David Peterson, Associate Planner- HMNH Draft SEIR
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Re: Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the
Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment Project (State
Clearinghouse #2004111149)
Dear Mr. Peterson:
The project applicant is proposing to develop two additional buildings, up to 200,000 square
feet total, on the Newhall Henry Mayo Master Plan site and an additional above ground parking
structure. Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency would like to submit the following comments
regarding the NOA. 2-1
On June 8, 2016, the former CLWA Board of Directors and the former Board of Directors of
Newhall County Water District (the forerunners of the SCVWA) adopted the 2015 Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP). This document serves as the basis for the evaluation of water
supply impacts in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the proposed 2-2
development and in any Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the project (if required).
The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report notes that the project will have a less
than significant environmental impact to Utilities and Service Systems. The final assessment
should evaluate the following potential impacts to water utilities:
1. Prior to evaluating whether the new water supply required for the project will have a less
than significant environmental impact, an estimation of the anticipated demand from the
project should be determined with assistance from the SCVWA. Per California Water Code
Section 10912, if the project has a demand equal to, or greater than, a 500-unit residentia?-3
project, the preparation of Water Supply Assessment (WSA) must be requested by the City
of Santa Clarita. SCVWA will prepare a WSA within 90 days of receipt of request, though it
may extend the time if needed. If the demand is less than that of a 500-unit residential
project, no WSA is required, though an evaluation of the project's water demand is still
required to determine the proposed project's impact to water supply.
City of Santa Clarita Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
February 2021 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
2-9
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SEIR AND RESPONSES
Letter No. 2 (Continued)
2. The proposed project site is within the SCVWA's Valencia Water District (VWD) service
area and the evaluation of impacts should address any needed new facilities either onsite
or offsite to serve the proposed project. The needed facilities should be included in the final
project description and included in the evaluation of the proposed project's impacts in the
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report.
3. To avoid any potentially significant environmental impacts, mitigation measures should
be required in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the payment of all
water supply related fees prior to the issuance of building permits. The project's conditions
of approval should also reflect these requirements. 2-5
The 2015 UWMP states that potable water demand be reduced from both existing and future
users by no less than 20 percent in response to the State of California Urban Water Use
Targets for SBX7-7. Therefore, it is critical, if the project is to avoid significant cumulative
impacts to water supply, that it incorporates water conservation measures into the project
design. To ensure this occurs, the entitlements should include water conservation measures as
conditions of project approval.
In particular, all manufactured slopes and newly landscaped areas should incorporate 2-6
appropriate Irrigation Best Management Practices as recommended by the Irrigation
Association Water Management Committee in the revised 2014 Landscape Irrigation Best
Management Practices document. These measures can include, but are not limited to:
• Irrigation system design efficiently uses water resources.
• Install the irrigation system to meet the design criteria.
• Manage landscape water resources to maintain a healthy and functional landscape.
SCVWA appreciates your consideration of these comments and requests that we be provided a
copy of all notices related to this project.
2-7
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at (661) 705-7912.
Sincerely,
Rick Vasilopulos
Associate Water Resources Planner
cc: Steve Cole, Assistant General Manager
Dirk Marks, Director of Water Resources
Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment City of Santa Clarita
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2021
2-10
1
1
1
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SEIR AND RESPONSES
Letter No. 2
Rick Vasilopulos
Associate Water Resources Planner
Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency
26501 Summit Circle
Santa Clarita, CA 91350-3049
Comment No. 2-1
This comment acknowledges receipt of the Notice of Availability of a Draft SEIR for the Project and
introduces specific comments from Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency (SCVWA). No response is
required.
Comment No, 2-2
This comment states that the SCVWA 2015 Urban Water Management Plan was adopted in June
2016, which serves as the basis for evaluation of water supply impacts for new developments and
preparation of Water Supply Assessments (WSA) for projects that are subject to the Senate Bill
(SB) 610. According to California Water Code Section 10912, projects subject to CEQA requiring
preparation of a WSA include the following:
❑ Residential developments of more than 500 dwelling units;
❑ Shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having
more than 500,000 square feet of floor space;
❑ Commercial office buildings employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000
square feet of floor space;
❑ Hotels, motels, or both, having more than 500 rooms;
❑ Industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park of more than 40 acres of land,
more than 650,000 square feet of floor area, or employing more than 1,000 persons;
❑ Mixed -use projects that include one or more of the above -identified categories; or
❑ A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to or greater than the amount of
water required by a 500-dwelling unit project.
The Project does not propose residential units. In addition, as presented in the Draft SEIR, the
Project's water demand is estimated to be 41,400 gallons per day (gpd), which is less the water
demand of a 500-unit residential development, which would be approximately 78,000 gpd'. Since
the Project would neither involve development of residential units nor demand an amount of water
equivalent to or greater than the amount of water required by a 500-dwelling unit project,
preparation of a WSA is not required.
Consistent with the assumption in the Draft SEIR, it was assumed that the water demand for a 500-unit residential development
would be approximately equal to its wastewater generation. Based on a wastewater generation rate established by the Los Angeles
County Sanitation Districts (https://www.lacsd orq/civicax/filebank/blobdload aspx?blobid=3531) of 156 gpd for five or more
residential units, a 500-unit residential development would generate approximately 78,000 gpd of wastewater.
L.rty yr oanra utanra Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
February 2021 2-11 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SEIR AND RESPONSES
Comment No. 2-3
As discussed in response to Comment No. 2-2 above, the Project is not subject to the requirements
of California Water Code Section 10912. In addition, as presented in Section 4.8, Utilities, of the
Draft SEIR, the 2008 Master Plan EIR Water Section established that the completed HMNH
campus would have a demand of 205 acre-feet per year (afy) during a normal year and 226 afy
during a dry year. The 2008 Master Plan determined that the Valencia Water Division would be
able to supply water to the HMNH campus with the existing facilities, even during multiple dry years
occurring consecutively.
As stated on page 4.8-18 in Section 4.8, Utilities, of the Draft SEIR, while the Project would add
200,000 square feet of building space, the beds and diagnostic and treatment uses that would fill
the proposed buildings would originate from the existing Main Hospital Building on the HMNH
campus. Accordingly, water consumption by these uses has already been accounted for in the
2008 Master Plan EIR. As a result, the increase in water consumption associated with the Project
would be from the area within the existing Main Hospital Building containing the 92 beds that would
be backfilled.
As identified in the Draft SEIR, the projected water demand for the Project would be 41,400 gpd,
which is a conservative estimate considering that the Project must adhere to required State and
local water conservation measures when retrofitting the Main Hospital Building. The Draft SEIR
considered the information in the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and determined
this amount of water usage by the Project would represent approximately 0.07 percent, 0.1 percent,
and 0.12 percent of the water surpluses projected by the 2015 UWMP for 2020, 2025, and 2030,
respectively. Accordingly, SCVWA and Valencia Water Division would be able to supply water to
the Project without having to expand, construct, or relocate water facilities, during normal and
multiple dry years occurring consecutively. Because the Project would result in a minor increase in
water demand and sufficient water supplies are available to serve the Project, the Project would
have a less -than -significant impact related to water supply and would not result in any additional
impacts beyond those identified in the 2008 Master Plan EIR.
.-t
As discussed in Section 4.8, Utilities, of the Draft SEIR, the two new buildings would connect to the
HMNH campus' existing internal network of water service lines. These lines connect to an existing
12-inch water line operated by SCVWA, located in McBean Parkway. As such, while the Project
would require connections to the internal water line network within the HMNH campus, the impacts
from this connection are included in the analysis of construction impacts for the proposed
structures. Therefore, no further analysis of impacts associated with water line connections is
necessary.
Comment No. 2-5
CEQA only requires mitigation measures if substantial evidence exists of potentially significant
environmental impacts. In particular, Section 15126.4(a)(4)(A) of the CEQA Guidelines states that
there must be an essential nexus between the mitigation and a legitimate government interest (i.e.,
potential significant impact). As discussed in response to Comment No. 2-3 above, because the
Project would result in a minor increase in water demand and sufficient water supplies are available
to serve the Project, the Project would have a less -than -significant impact related to water supply
and would not result in any additional impacts beyond those identified in the 2008 Master Plan EIR,
and no mitigation measures are required. The only improvements required for
Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment City of Santa clarita
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-12 February 2021
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SEIR AND RESPONSES
1
the Project are on -site connections to the infrastructure systems in place within HMNH campus'
existing internal network, which are subject to connection fees imposed as part of the required
clearance from SCVWA prior to the issuance of building permits.
Comment No. 2-
As discussed in response to Comment No. 2-3 above, the Project would have a less -than -
significant impact related to water supply and would not result in any additional impacts beyond
those identified in the 2008 Master Plan EIR, and no mitigation measures are required. As
described in Section 4.8, Utilities, of the Draft SEIR, the Project would incorporate water
conservation features, such as low -flow fixtures and water conservation measures required by
State and local regulations. In addition, since the Project Site would primarily be occupied by the
proposed buildings, landscaping and associated irrigation would be limited.
Comment No. 2-7
SCVWA will be provided a copy of all notices related to the Project
City of Santa Clarita Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
February 2021 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
2-13
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SEIR AND RESPONSES
This page intentionally left blank.
1
Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment City of Santa Clarita
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2021
2-14
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SEIR AND RESPONSES
Letter No. 3
-J Robert C. Ferrante
LOS ANGELES COU Chief Engineer and Genera! Manager
SANITATION DISTRICTS 1955 Workman Mill Road, Whittier, CA 90601-1400
Converting Waste Into Resources Mailing Address: P.O. sox 4998, Whittier, CA 90607-4998
(562) 699-7411 - www.facsd.org
January 22, 2021
Ref. DOC 5982155
Mr. David Peterson, Associate Planner
HMN1-1 Draft ST IR
Planning Division
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard. Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Dear Mr. Peterson:
SIEIR Response for
Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment Proiect
The Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District (District) received a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report for the subject project on November 23, 2020. The proposed project is located within the jurisdictional
boundary of the District. Previous comments submitted by the Districts in correspondence dated
September 27, 2018 (copy enclosed), to Mr. Patrick Leclair of your agency, still apply to the subject project with
the following updated information: 1.1
I . Wastewater Collection and Treatment Systems, page 4.8-1, first paragraph - The District's Santa Clarita
Valley Joint Sewerage System currently processes an average flow of 19.6 million gallons per day (mgd).
2. Wastewater Collection Systems, page 4.8-2, first paragraph -- The Districts' 18-inch diameter Valencia -y
Trunk Sewer conveyed a peak flow of 2.9 mgd when last measured in 2018.
All other information concerning Districts' facilities and sewerage service contained in the document is
current. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (562) 908-4288, extension 2717 or at
araza iNacsd.org. 1
3-3
Very truly yours,
Adriana Raza
Customer Service Specialist
Facilities Planning Department
AR:ar
Enclosure
cc: A. Schmidt
A. Howard
L. Smith
DOC 6043524.SCVll
City of Santa Clarita Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
February 2021 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
2-15
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SEIR AND RESPONSES
Letter No. 3 (Continued) I I.
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
OF LUS ANGELES COUNTY
0,,, 1 14 0
id eJ 0 4 9 le W C G & GRACL ROBINSON HYDL
FA X "'t
September 27, 2018
Ref. Doc, No,; 4712660
Mr. Patrick 1-cclair, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard. Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Dear Mr. I-cclair:
NOP Response to Master Case No. 17-193
for the Henry Mavo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Project
The Santa Clarita Valle}' Sanitation District (District) received a Notice of Preparation of a Draft
Enviromnetital Impact Report (NOP) for the subject project on August 31, 2018. The proposed project is
located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the District. We offer the follooN ing comments regarding
sewerage service:
I The proposed project may require an amendment to a District's permit for Industrial Wastewater
Discharge. Project developers should contact the District's Industrial Waste Section at
(562) 9084288, extension 29(K), in order to reach a determination on this matter. If this update is
necessary, project developers will be required to forward copies of final plans and supporting
information for the proposed project to the District for review and approval before beginning
project construction.
1 The additional wastewater flow originating from the proposed project will discharge to a local
sewer line, which is not maintained by the District, for conveyance to the District's Valencia Trunk
Sewer, located in a private right of way along the western side of McBean Parkway just north of
Avenue Navarre. The District's 18—inch diameter trunk sewer has a capacity of 6,8 million gallons 3-4
per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak flow of 5 mgd when last measured in 2012.
3. Availability of sewer capacity depends upon project size and timing of connection to the
sewerage system. Ncause there are other proposed developments in the area, the availability of
trunk sewer capacity should be verified as the Project advances. Please submit a copy of the
project*s build -out schedule to the undersigned to ensure the project is considered when planning
future sewerage system relief and replacement projects,
4, The District operates two water reclamation plants (WRPs), the Saugus WRP and the Valencia
WR-P, which provide wastewater treatment in the Santa Clarita Valley, These facilities arc
interconnected to form a regional treatment system known as the Santa Clarita Valley Joint
Sewerage System (SCVJSS), The SCVJSS has a capacity of"S. I mgd and currently produces an
average recycled water flow of 18.5 mgd.
DW 414SOX2 SC VD I
Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
City of Santa Clarita
February 2021
2-16
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SEIR AND RESPONSES
Letter No. 3 (Continued)
Mr. Patrick Leclair -'- September 27, 2018
5. The expected increase in average wastewater flow from tine project, described in the notice as an
84.300 square foot Diagnostic and Treatment Building and an 115,700 square foot Inpatient
Building, is 40.000 gallons per day. For a copy of the District's average wastewater generation
Factors, go to www.lacsd or!, Wastewater & Sewer Systems, click on Will Serve Program, and
click on the Table I oa ings for Each Class of Land Use link.
6, The District is empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee for the
privilege of connecting (directly or indirectly) to the District's Sewerage System for increasing
the strength or quantity of wastewater discharged from connected facilities. This connection fee
is a capital facilities fee that is imposed in an amount sufficient to construct an incremental
expansion of the Sewerage System to accommodate the proposed project, Payment of a
connection fee will be required before a permit to connect to the sewer is issued. For more
information and a copy of tine Connection Fee Information Sheet, go to www.laesd.ort=,
Wastcwatcr & Sewer Systems, click on Will Serve Program, and search for the appropriate link.
in determining the impact to the Sewerage Systenn and applicable connection fees, the Districts'
Chief Engineer and General Manager will determine the user category (e.g. Condominium, Sind
Family home, etc.) that best represents the actual or anticipated use of the parcel or facilities }7�
the parcel. For more specific information regarding the connection fee application procedure iD
fees, please contact the Connection Fee Counter at (562) 908-4288. extension 2727.
7. in order for the District to conform to the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the
capacities of District wastewater treatment facilities arc based on tine regional growth forecast
adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG). Specific policies
included in the development of the SCAG regional growth forecast are incorporated into clean air
plans, which are prepared by the South Coast and Antelope Valley Air Quality Management
Districts in order to improve air quality in time South Coast and Mojave Desert Air Basins as
mandated by the CCA. All expansions of District facilities must be sized and service phased in a
manner that will be consistent with the SLAG regional growth forecast for the counties of Los
Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura., and Imperial. The available capacity of
District treatment facilities will, therefore, be limited to levels associated with the approved
growth identified by SLAG. As such, this letter does not constitute a guarantee of wastewater
service, but is to advise you that the District intends to provide this service up to the levels that
are legally permitted and to inform you of the currently existing capacity and any proposed
expansion of District facilities.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (562) 908-4288, extension 2717.
Very truly yours,
*-
qV
Adriana Raza
Customer Service Specialist
r\R:ar Facilities Planning Department
cc: L. Smith
A. Schmidt
A. Howard
WC a 7-1408: SCVI)
%,iry U1 Oar►[a trarrra Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
February 2021 2-17 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SEIR AND RESPONSES
Letter No. 3
Adriana Raza
Customer Service Specialist
Facilities Planning Department
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
1955 Workman Mill Road
Whittier, CA 90607-4998
Comment No. 3-1
This comment acknowledges receipt of the Draft SEIR for the Project and refers to specific
comments from the Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District (District) regarding sewerage service
that were submitted in response to the Notice of Preparation dated September 27, 2018. This NOP
response from the District was included in Appendix A of the Draft SEIR.
Comment No. 3-2
This comment updates the information presented in Section 4.8, Utilities, of the Draft SEIR, as
follows:
❑ The last sentence in the second paragraph on page 4.8-1 has been revised as follows (see
Section 3.0, Errata and Clarifications to the Draft SEIR, of this Final SEIR, for this revision):
SCVJSS
has a nnmhiRed Lei teF treatment GapaGity of 28.1 rngd 'ink currently predUGes
processes an average flow of 13.5-19.6 mgd.3
3 Correspond ence—betweeri—Adriana Raza, Customer Service Specialist, Facilities Planning Department,
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County and Stephanie ZiRn, ProjeGt Managef—, s e `Rg neeFin^ re'.
westfel SEIR Response for Henry
Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment Proiect January 22, 2021.
❑ The full last sentence in the last paragraph on page 4.8-2 has been revised as follows (see
Section 3.0, Errata and Clarifications to the Draft SEIR, of this Final SEIR, for this revision):
According to the Sanitation Districts, the 18-inch-diameter Valencia trunk sewer has
a capacity of 6.8 mgd and conveyed a peak flow of 6-2_9 mgd when last measured
in20122018.'
Sanitation Districts Adriana
Raza, Customer Service Specialist, Septernbef'�, �, 44°.Facilities Planning Department Sanitation Districts of
Los Angeles County SEIR Response for Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Proiect January 22, 2021.
These revisions do not result in the Project creating any new or increased significant environmental
impact that was not already identified in the Draft SEIR.
Comment No. 3-3
This comment acknowledges that all other information concerning Districts' facilities and
sewerage service presented in the Draft SEIR is current.
Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment City of Santa Clarita
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2021
2-18
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SEIR AND RESPONSES
1
Comment No. 3-4
The information previously submitted by the District was reviewed, considered, and incorporated
into the Draft SEIR as pertinent under CEQA. As presented in response to Comment No. 3-2, some
of the information previously submitted as part of the NOP response has been updated. These
updates do not result in the Project creating any new or increased significant environmental impact
that was not already identified in the Draft SEIR.
The Project would be required to pay a fee to connect to the local sewer network. The City would
not issue connection permits to the sewer system if it cannot be demonstrated that sufficient
capacity exists to serve the Project.
The comment regarding the District's conformance to the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act
does not pertain to the Draft SEIR. The comment is primarily made to inform the Project applicant
that the District intends to provide sewerage service up to the levels that are legally permitted based
on existing capacity and any proposed expansion of District facilities. The comment is noted for the
administrative record and forwarded to the decision makers for consideration.
City of Santa Clarita Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
February 2021 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
2-19
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SEIR AND RESPONSES
Letter No. 4
November 18, 2020
Jason Crawford, AICP
City Clerks Office
City of Santa Clarita City Hall
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Jason Crawford and Others To Whom it May Concern:
My name is Michael Farnsworth, and I am writing In response to the Notice of Public
Hearing that arrived via post. My family and I have lived in Valencia, on Via Helina, for 27
years. Of course, we are happy to have quality medical and hospital services available in
our community, but there is definitely a downside to living this near. 4-1
As the hospital campus has evolved over the years, the noise (helicopters, ambulances,
and other emergency vehicles) and traffic have increased. Recently, the parking structure
was added, and now, according to the letter, new planned additions include one building
"60 feet in height," and an even taller one "80 feet in height." This growth is becoming an
eye sore (on top of the "ear sore"), and could have potential effect on our jeal estate 4-2
value. Many of our neighbors share the concerns.
Has a secondary campus ever been considered, possibly off the 12.6? There is certainty a
growth of residential areas there. Maybe the original site could be become more of an
elective surgical center, non -trauma in -patient treatment, etc. And the regional trauma
center can be located in northern Santa Clarita, or another area in the Santa Clarita Valle
that is centrally located but more in a business or industrial zone, rather than a residentiab
area.
Sincerely yours,
l;�_fr�
K, Michael Farnsworth
Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
City of Santa Clarita
February 2021
1
2-20
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SEIR AND RESPONSES
Letter No. 4
K. Michael Farnsworth
25852 McBean Pkwy, 827
Valencia, CA 91355
Comment No. 4-1
This comment acknowledges receipt of the public hearing notice on the Draft SEIR for the Project
and introduces specific comments regarding the Project, as addressed in Comment Nos. 4-2 and 4-
3 below.
Comment No. 4-2
This commenter expresses concerns about existing conditions at the HMNH Campus, including
noise from the helicopters, ambulances, and other emergency vehicles and increased traffic. It also
asserts that the addition of the two buildings would cause an eye sore and could have potential
effect on real estate value.
As discussed on page 4.5-13 in Section 4.5, Noise, of the Draft SEIR, the Project would not include
a new helipad, and the applicant does not anticipate any increase in the amount of helicopter traffic
as a result of the Project. Accordingly, no changes to the use of the emergency helipad at the
HMNH campus and the corresponding noise associated with its use would result from
implementation of the Project. In addition, on page 4.5-20 of the Draft SEIR, it was acknowledged
that the Project, along with future regional growth and other projects to be developed within the
Project vicinity, would result in the addition of vehicle trips that would increase traffic noise.
However, as calculated in Table 4.5-6 of the Draft SEIR, the Project would result in traffic noise
increases of well below 1 dB CNEL on each of the examined roadway segments, when comparing
existing to existing plus Project noise levels, which is below the significance threshold of 3 dB
CNEL. More specifically, the closest examined roadway segments to Via Helina were McBean
Parkway between Valencia Boulevard and Orchard Village Road and Orchard Village Road
between McBean Parkway and Wiley Canyon Road. No noise increase was estimated under both
the Existing plus Project condition and Opening Year plus Project condition along the McBean
Parkway segment, and an 0.1-dB CNEL noise increase was estimated under both the Existing plus
Project condition and Opening Year plus Project condition along the Orchard Village Road segment.
As discussed on page 4.1-17 in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, Light, and Glare, of the Draft SEIR, the
Project would not significantly alter the visual characteristics of the HMNH campus from the
surrounding area, including from McBean Parkway, Avenida Navarre, and Orchard Village Road
and the residential uses immediately to the west and northwest of the HMNH campus. The only
portion of the Project that would change the appearance of the HMNH campus would be along the
McBean Parkway frontage at the main entrance to the campus at Orchard Village and would be
limited to the addition of three aboveground stories (four parking levels) to the existing subterranean
parking structure north of the McBean Parkway and Orchard Village Road intersection. The
proposed addition would be screened with existing vegetation, such as ground cover, shrubs, and
trees planted along the northwest side of McBean Parkway and the entrance to the campus, as
well as by a proposed metal trellis on the street -facing fagade of PS-4. This trellis would be similar
to the trellis on the street -facing and northern fagades of PS-1 and would allow vines to grow on
the outside of the parking structure, creating a vegetative screen on the structure's street -facing
fagade.
City of Santa Clarita Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
February 2021 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
2-21
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SEIR AND RESPONSES
Views of the proposed IP-2 Building (80 feet in height) and D&T Building (60 feet in height) would
be obstructed from motorist and pedestrian view along McBean Parkway and Avenida Navarre by
the existing 28-foot-tall Nursing Pavilion Building directly north of Lot D; the existing 37.5-foot- high
PS-1 and 51-foot-high MOB-1; and by mature trees lining McBean Parkway between Avenida
Navarre and PS-4. Motorists and pedestrians could view the proposed structures on Lots D, H, and
I through the gap in between the existing MOB-1 and PS-1; however, these views would be fleeting
and currently consist of the Main Hospital Building and the newly constructed 84-foot- high IP-1
Building. Views of the interior of the HMNH campus from pedestrians and motorists along McBean
Parkway southwest of the intersection with Orchard Village Drive would be obstructed by the 26-
foot-tall MOB-1 southeast of the campus entrance and by the proposed parking structure at PS-4.
Therefore, the addition of the IP-2 Building and the D&T Building would not have greater massing or
be greater in height than existing buildings within the HMNH campus and, thus, would not
substantially alter the visual character of the HMNH campus or the surrounding area.
Comment No. 4-3
This comment enquires about the possibility of an off -site alternative. Section 5.0, Alternatives to
the Proposed Project, of the Draft SEIR, includes a discussion of an alternative location off -site. As
discussed in Subsection 5.2.4, Alternative Location Off -Site, of the Draft SEIR, an off -site location
was one of the alternatives that were considered but rejected. Construction of a new D&T Building
and a new IP-2 Building at an alternative location off -site would not achieve the Project objectives
related to expansion within a single HMNH campus environment. The new buildings are intended
to enhance and expand the HMNH to provide patients with personalized care, state- of -the -art
medical technology, and a professional staff within a single HMNH campus environment. Locating
the Project off -site would inhibit the ability for patients and staff to immediately and readily access
other necessary existing uses within the HMNH campus, such as the nursing pavilion, emergency
room facilities, and medical offices, without having to take a shuttle or generate a vehicular trip to
and from the Project Site. Because of the inability of this alternative to meet the basic Project
objectives, and because the HMNH does not own and cannot reasonably acquire, control, or have
access to an adequate site within a functional distance of the existing HMNH campus, an off -site
alternative was rejected.
1
Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment City of Santa Clarita
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2021
2-22
3.0 ERRATA AND CLARIFICATIONS TO THE DRAFT SEIR
This section identifies minor edits and changes to the Draft SEIR in response to public comments
received, as well as minor staff edits, to revise or clarify the information in the Draft SEIR. The
changes provide clarification and additional information for the Draft SEIR but do not alter the
analysis or conclusions of the document.
Changes were made to the Draft SEIR pages as noted below and are identified with revision marks
(underline for new text and strike through for deleted text).
3.1 Changes to the Draft SEIR in Response to Public Comments
The last sentence in the second paragraph on page 4.8-1 in Section 4.8, Utilities, of the Draft SEIR,
has been revised as follows:
SCVJSS
currently praduses
processes an average recycled wate-r-flow of 4Z-.5-19.6 mgd .3
3 Serrespea Adriana Raza, Customer Service Specialist, Facilities Planning Department,
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County eying —ram
SEIR Response for Henry
Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment Proiect January 22 2021.
The full last sentence in the last paragraph on page 4.8-2 in Section 4.8, Utilities, of the Draft SEIR,
has been revised as follows:
According to the Sanitation Districts, the 18-inch-diameter Valencia trunk sewer has
a capacity of 6.8 mgd and conveyed a peak flow of 5-2_9 mgd when last measured
in 2012 2018.1
3
Adriana
Raza, Customer Service Specialist, September 27, 2ga g,Facilities Planning Department Sanitation Districts of
Los Angeles County SEIR Response for Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Project, January 22 2021.
The third and fourth sentences on page 7.0-12 in Subsection 7.12.1, Fire Protection Services, of
the Draft SEIR, have been revised as follows:
The nearest fire station to the Project Site is
LACoFD Station 73, located at 24875 North Railroad
Avenue, which is approximately 4-.-3-1_8 miles southeast of the Project Site. The next
closest fire station is LACoFD Station 73 located at 24875 North Railroad Avenue
which is approximately 2.1 miles southeast of the Proiect Site.
3.2 STAFF -INITIATED CHANGES TO THE DRAFT SEIR
The first sentence on page 7.0-12 in Subsection 7.12.1, Fire Protection Services, of the Draft SEIR,
has been revised as follows:
Specifically, 4 -15 fire stations with 45-14 engine companies, 5 paramedic squads, 1
hazardous materials squad, and 2 ladder trucks serve the Santa Clarita Valley.
City of Santa Clarita Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
February 2021 3-1 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
3.0 ERRATA AND CLARIFICATIONS TO THE DRAFT SEIR
The following discussion regarding solid waste, which was inadvertently omitted from the Draft
SEIR, has been added to Section 7.14, Utilities, of the Draft SEIR:
While the Project would add 200,000 square feet of building space, the beds and
diagnostic and treatment uses that would fill the proposed buildings would originate
from the existing Main Hospital Building on the HMNH campus. Accordingly, solid
waste generated by these uses has already been accounted for in the 2008 Master
Plan EIR As a result the increase in solid waste generation associated with the
Project would be from the area within the existing Main Hospital Building containing
the 92 beds that would be backfilled. Nonetheless, most of the space in the existing
Main Hospital Building would be backfilled with support uses (e.g., storage, waiting
areas etc) or uses already occurring within the HMNH campus (e.g., administrative
office space from the existing MOB-1 that would be shifted to the Main Hospital
Building) Accordingly, no significant increase in solid waste generation would occur
as a result from Project implementation and the Protect would not generate solid
waste in excess of the capacity of the existing solid waste collection and disposal
infrastructure.
LJ
1
Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment City of Santa Clarita
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2021
3-2
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The environmental mitigation measures identified below in Table 4.1, Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, were incorporated into the approval for this Project in order to reduce
potentially significant environmental impacts. A completed and signed checklist for each
mitigation measure indicates that the mitigation measure has been complied with and
implemented and fulfills the City of Santa Clarita's monitoring requirements with respect to PRC
Section 21081.6. The mitigation measures are numbered as presented in the Draft SEIR.
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
Environmental
Method of
Review
Responsible
Status of
Issue
Mitigation Measure
Verification
Agency
Timing
Implementation
NOISE
Mitigation
During all site excavation and
Issuance of
City of Santa
Pre -
Measure N1
grading, the Project applicant shall
applicable
Clarita Public
construction
require the Project contractor(s) to
building permit
Works
and
equip all construction equipment,
and field
Department/
construction
fixed or mobile, with properly
inspection sign-
Development
phases
operating and maintained mufflers,
off
Services
consistent with manufacturers'
Division
standards.
Mitigation
The Project applicant shall require
Field inspection
City of Santa
Construction
Measure N2
the Project contractor(s) to locate
sign -off
Clarita Public
phase
equipment staging in areas that
Works
would create the greatest distance
Department/
between construction -related noise
Development
sources and noise -sensitive
Services
receptors nearest the Project Site
Division
during all Project construction, to the
extent practicable.
Mitigation
The Project contractor shall place all
Field inspection
City of Santa
Construction
Measure S-N1
stationary construction equipment so
sign -off
Clarita Public
phase
that emitted noise is directed away
Works
from sensitive receptors nearest the
Department/
Project Site.
Development
Services
Division
TRANSPORTATION
%,riy ur aanra Vianra Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
February 2021 4-1 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation
Orchard Village Road/Wiley
Review plans at
City of Santa
Pre -
Measure S-TR1
Canyon Road: The existing traffic
plan check
Clarita
construction
signal phasing shall be modified to
Department of
include a right -turn overlap phase
Public Works
to the westbound approach of
Wiley Canyon Road. The right -turn
phase proposed for Wiley Canyon
Road shall overlap with the existing
left -turn phase provided for the
southbound Orchard Village Road
approach. No physical
improvements to the existing lane
configurations are required.
[1
City of Santa Clarita Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amenamenr
February 2021 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
4-1
44.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
G
L
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
Environmental
Issue
Mitigation Measure
Method of
Review
Verification
Responsible
Agency
Timing
Status of
Implementation
Mitigation
Orchard Village Road/McBean
Review plans at
City of Santa
Pre -
Measure S-TR2
Parkway: The southbound Orchard
plan check
Clarita
construction
Village Road approach to the
Department of
phase
McBean Parkway intersection shall
Public Works
be reconfigured to be consistent
with the lane configuration in the
City approved design plans for this
intersection.
Henry mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment City of Santa Clarita
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2021
4-2
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. I
EXHIBIT B
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FOR
THE
HENRY MAYO NEWHALL HOSPITAL MASTER
PLAN SECOND AMENDMENT PROJECT
SCH NO. 2004111149
Lead Agency:
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa
Clarita, CA 91355
April 13, 2021
n
City Council Statement of Facts and Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS.....................................................................
1
2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
....................................................................................................
3
2.1 Description of Project Proposed for Approval......................................................
3
2.2 Statement of Objectives
......................................................................................
4
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.................................................
6
4.0 INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND FINDING..................................................................
8
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS..............................................................
9
5.1 Effects Determined To Have No Impact in the SEIR............................................
9
5.2 Effects Determined To Be Less Than Significant
Without Mitigation in the SEIR...........................................................................
15
5.3 Effects Determined To Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.................18
5.4 Environmental Effects Which Remain Significant and
Unavoidable After Mitigation and Findings.........................................................
19
5.5 Alternatives to the Proposed Project..................................................................
20
6.0 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR...........................................................................
27
6.1 Findings.............................................................................................................27
6.2 Conclusions.......................................................................................................27
7.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS..................................................
28
7.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................
28
7.2 Significant Unavoidable Impacts........................................................................
29
7.3 Overriding Considerations.................................................................................
29
April 2021 i
City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
1.0 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a Lead Agency issue two sets of
findings prior to approving a project that would generate a significant impact on the environment: a
Statement of Facts and Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. In the Statement
of Facts and Findings the Lead Agency identifies the significant impacts, presents facts supporting
the conclusions reached in the analysis, makes one or more of three potential findings for each
impact, and explains the rationale behind the agency's findings.
The following statement of facts and findings has been prepared in accordance with CEQA,
specifically Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a) provides that:
No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been
certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project
unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those
significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each
finding.
The three findings available for the Statement of Facts and Findings pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091 are as follows:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such
other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision
of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
The Statement of Overriding Considerations is the second set of findings. Where a project would
cause unavoidable significant impacts, the Lead Agency may still approve the project where its
benefits outweigh the adverse impacts. Further, as provided in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, the Lead Agency sets forth specific reasoning by which benefits are balanced
against effects, and approves the project. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is presented
in Section 7.0.
The City of Santa Clarita (City), the CEQA Lead Agency, finds and declares that the Henry Mayo
Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report (SEIR) has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City
Council finds and certifies that the SEIR was reviewed and information contained in the SEIR was
considered prior to approving the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
herein referred to as the "Project."
1
April 2021
11
City Council Statement of Facts and Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Based upon its review of the SEIR, the City Council finds that the SEIR is an adequate assessment
of the potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project, represents the independent
judgment of the City, and sets forth an adequate range of alternatives to this Project.
The SEIR for the Project is composed of the following elements:
• Final SEIR for the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
(February 2021)
• Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (dated November 2020) by reference only
• Draft SEIR Technical Appendices by reference only (November 2020) by reference only
• Final EIR for Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan (November 2008) by
reference only
April 2021
City Council Statement of Facts and Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL
DECRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The Project is located on the approximately 29.77-acre Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital (HMNH)
campus, located at 23845 McBean Parkway, north of the intersection of McBean Parkway and
Orchard Village Road and approximately 0.9 mile east of Interstate 5 (1-5) in the City of Santa
Clarita.
The HMNH proposes an amendment to its 2016 Specific Plan and a second amendment to its
2008 Master Plan and Development Agreement to permit the development of up to 200,000 square
feet of building area for a Diagnostic and Treatment (D&T) Building, another Inpatient Building
(Inpatient Building No. 2 (IP-2 Building)), and clinical services, plus the addition of three
aboveground parking stories (four levels, including rooftop parking) to the existing PS-4 parking
structure. With the proposed amendments, the total buildout capacity of hospital and medical office
space within the Specific Plan and Master Plan area would increase from 698,000 square feet to
898,000 square feet.
The proposed amendments to the 2008 Master Plan, 2016 Specific Plan, and Development
Agreement involve the development of two new buildings that would be located on existing parking
lots (Parking Lots D and I, as well as part of Lot H) bounded by the Main Hospital Building on the
south, the new Inpatient Building No. 1 (IP-1 Building) completed in 2019 on the west, the Nursing
Pavilion on the north, and an internal access road on the east. The proposed amendments would
also involve the addition of aboveground levels to an existing underground parking
structure/surface parking lot (PS-4), located immediately to the north of the main entrance to the
HMNH campus; modification to the parking plan to permit both paid and assigned parking and
adopt the HMNH Parking Demand Study that establishes the parking requirements for the campus;
and various amendments, including a 10-year extension, to the Development Agreement.
Together, Lot D, Lot I, portion of Lot H, and PS-4 encompass the Project Site. There would be no
change in the maximum number of beds (i.e., 368 beds) permitted under the approved 2008 Master
Plan and 2016 Specific Plan. Approximately 92 beds would be relocated from the existing Main
Hospital Building to the proposed Inpatient Building (IP-2 Building). The Project would also involve
the relocation of the main entry/drop off area from its present location adjacent to the existing Main
Hospital Building to an area in front of the new D&T Building. The area within the existing Main
Hospital Building currently containing the 92 beds would be converted to office uses, other
administrative uses, and/or clinical/hospital support services. These improvements are necessary
to bring the HMNH hospital rooms up to current standards established by California's Office of
Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) and comply with applicable provisions of
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The proposed new buildings would be designed and constructed to incorporate environmentally
sustainable design features. Sustainability features may include energy -efficiency measures,
recycling infrastructure, enhanced indoor air quality, and water conservation measures. By
integrating sustainable features into the design and construction of the new buildings, the Project
would reduce energy and water usage and waste generation. The Project would provide such
April 2021 3
City Council Statement of Facts and Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
features in compliance with code requirements, including the California Green Building Standards
Code (CALGreen).
AGREEMENTS, PERMITS, AND APPROVALS
As the public agency with the principal responsibility of approving the project, the City of Santa
Clarita is the lead agency for the purposes of CEQA. Approvals required for implementation of the
Proposed Project include, but are not limited to, the following:
❑ Certification of a Supplemental EIR to the 2008 Master Plan EIR
❑ Amendment to the 2008 Master Plan and Development Agreement for the HMNH
❑ Amendment to the 2016 Specific Plan for the HMNH.
In addition to the specific discretionary actions listed above, other discretionary and ministerial
permits and approvals may be or will be required, including, but not limited to, grading permits,
excavation permits, foundation permits, and building permits.
2.2 STATEMENT. OF OBJECTIVES
The HMNH Specific Plan and Master Plan, as amended, are intended to guide the long-term
buildout of an integrated, efficient, comprehensive health care facility to help serve the growing
Santa Clarita Valley by achieving the following objectives:
• Help meet the health care needs of Santa Clarita Valley's existing population and planned
future population growth.
• Implement a long-term plan for expansion
meet the expected growth in demand for
apply for State -required approvals.
of the existing HMNH campus that would help
health care services and allow the hospital to
• Enhance and expand the HMNH to provide patients with personalized care, state-of-the-
art medical technology, and a professional staff within a single HMNH campus environment.
• Accommodate expansion that would bring two new buildings online over time as needed
while ensuring the continuance of existing operations and enabling further expansion of
needed facilities.
• Maintain the viability of the hospital on a site that would continue to be centrally located
within the HMNH's 680-square-mile service area as the communitygrows.
• Implement a well -planned HMNH Master Plan campus that is attractive and promotes
quality development consistent with the visual character of the Project area.
• Establish a campus that would attract and retain physician specialists and establish Centers
of Excellence, which are defined as highly specialized health care services via
April 2021
w
City Council Statement of Facts and Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
physician or hospital -authorized providers or hospital collaboration around a disease
category.
• Develop a medical campus designed with patients in mind by linking inpatient services and
medical buildings in a single setting, providing safe access and transit opportunities.
• Minimize visual impacts of the HMNH campus using enhanced building design and
landscaping and focusing more intensive development near the center of the site.
• Apply land use buffering techniques between the two new buildings (including required
parking) and adjacent residential uses through use of building setbacks and enhanced
landscaping.
• Continue to modernize and upgrade the HMNH campus and other on -site supportive
mechanical facilities to ensure the long-term viability of existing and new buildings.
• Implement an efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation system that ensures ease of
movement throughout the site.
• Ensure that future development of the HMNH campus is served by adequate on -site parking
facilities to accommodate patients, visitors, and medical staff.
0
April 2021
�l
City Council Statement of Facts and Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City of Santa Clarita conducted an extensive review of this Project, which included a Draft
SEIR and a Final SEIR, including technical reports, along with a public review and comment period.
The following is a summary of the City's environment review of this Project:
❑ Pursuant to the provision of CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, as amended, the City of Santa
Clarita circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to public agencies, organizations, and
members of the public who had requested such notice for a 30-day period. The NOP was
submitted to the State Clearinghouse and filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk on August
31, 2018, with the 30-day review period ending on October 1, 2018.
❑ The NOP public review period ran for 30 days. The City received eight comment letters from
State, regional, and local public agencies; these comment letters were included in Appendix A
of the Draft SEIR.
E. A scoping meeting was held at the City of Santa Clarita City Hall, Century Conference Room
on September 13, 2018, to obtain information from the public as to issues that should be
addressed in the SEIR. Notice of the scoping meeting was published in The Signal newspaper
on August 31, 2018 and was mailed to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the Project Site,
in addition to approximately 79 agencies, interested parties, and individuals who requested to
be notified of the Project. No agencies, interested parties, or members of the public attended
the scoping meeting.
❑ The Draft SEIR was distributed for public review, and a Notice of Availability (NOA) and Notice
of Completion (NOC) were filed with the State Clearinghouse on November 20, 2020, to
commence a 60-day review period, beginning on November 23, 2020 and ending on January
22, 2021. The NOA was filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk on November 24, 2020. The
NOA was also mailed to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the Project Site, in addition to
approximately 36 agencies, interested parties, and individuals who requested to be notified of
the Project.
❑ The Planning Commission held three duly -noticed public hearings on the Project on December
1, 2020, January 19, 2021, and March 2, 2021. A hearing was also held before the City Council
on April 13, 2021. These hearings were held at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa
Clarita, California.
❑ The City received a total of four comment letters on the Draft SEIR from public agencies and
the public. The City prepared responses to all written comments. The comments and responses
are contained in Section 2.0, Comments on the Draft SEIR and Responses, of the Final SEIR.
❑ In accordance with CEQA, the City provided written responses to the public and public agencies
that commented on the Draft SEIR on March 26, 2021
April 2021
City Council Statement of Facts and Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
4.0 INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND FINDING
The City solicited proposals from independent consultants to prepare the HMNH Master Plan
Second Amendment and SEIR. Subsequently, the City selected and retained Michael Baker
International, Inc. (Michael Baker) to prepare the HMNH Master Plan Second AmendmentSEIR.
Michael Baker prepared the SEIR under the supervision and direction of the City of Santa Clarita
staff. All findings set forth herein are based on substantial evidence in the record as indicated with
respect to each specific finding.
FINDING:
The SEIR for the project reflects the City's independent judgment. The City has exercised
independent judgment in accordance with PRC Section 21082.1(c)(3) in retaining its own
environmental consultant and directing the consultant in the preparation of the SEIR. The City has
independently reviewed and analyzed the SEIR and accompanying studies and finds that the report
reflects the independent judgment of the City.
The City Council has considered all the evidence presented in its consideration of the Project and
the SEIR, including, but not limited to, the Final SEIR and its supporting studies, written and oral
evidence presented at hearings on the Project, and written evidence submitted to the City by
individuals, organizations, regulatory agencies, and other entities. On the basis of such evidence
the City Council finds that with respect to each environmental impact identified in the review
process the impact (1) is less than significant and would not require mitigation; (2) is potentially
significant but would be avoided or reduced to a less -than -significant level by implementation of
identified mitigation measures; or (3) would be significant and not fully mitigated but would be, to
the extent feasible, lessened by implementation of identified mitigation measures.
The Final SEIR identifies certain significant adverse environmental effects of the Project which
cannot be avoided or substantially lessened. Prior to approving this Project, the City Council adopts
a Statement of Overriding Considerations which finds, based on specific reasons and substantial
evidence in the record (as specified in Section 7.0), that certain identified economic, social, or other
benefits of the Project outweigh such unavoidable adverse environmental effects.
April 2021
1
1
City Council Statement of Facts and Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS
5.1 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO HAVE NO IMPACT IN THE SEIR
The HMNH Master Plan Second Amendment SEIR found that the Project would have no impact
on a number of environmental topic areas, as listed below. A detailed analysis of these topic areas is
provided in Section 7.0, Effects Found Not to be Significant, of the Draft SEIR.
FINDING:
The SEIR for the Project reflects the City's independent judgment. The City has exercised
independent judgment in accordance with PRC Section 21082.1(c)(3) in retaining its own
environmental consultant and directing the consultant in the preparation of the SEIR. The
City has independently reviewed and analyzed the SEIR and accompanying studies and
finds that the report reflects the independent judgment of the City.
Aesthetics
a) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
primary/secondary ridgelines, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
a) Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
b) Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c) Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d) Would the Project result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to non -forest
use?
e) Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or
conversion of forestland to non -forest use?
April 2021
8
City Council Statement of Facts and Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
a) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species
in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, including oaktrees?
f) Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural
community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
g) Would the Project affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or Significant Natural Area (SNA)
as identified on the City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map?
Cultural Resources
a) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
b) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c) Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
1
n
April 2021 9
City Council Statement of Facts and Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Geology and Soils
a) Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Would the Project result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, either
on- or off -site?
c) Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
f) Would the Project result in a change in topography or ground surface relief features?
g) Would the Project result in earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more?
h) Would the Project involve development and/or grading on a slope greater than 10% natural
grade?
Would the Project result in the destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic
or physical feature?
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
a) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving explosion or the release of
hazardous materials into the environment (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides,
chemicals, fuels, or radiation)?
April 2021 10
City Council Statement of Facts and Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
c) Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the Project area?
g) Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
i) Would the Project expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards (e.g.,
electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)?
Hydrology and Water Quality
a) Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Would the Project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering
of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c) Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site?
d) Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off- site?
e) Would the Project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Would the Project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
1
April 2021 11
City Council Statement of Facts and Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
g) Would the Project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Would the Project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede
or redirect flood flows?
i) Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee ordam?
j) Would the Project result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
k) Would the Project result in changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and direction
of surface water and/or groundwater?
m) Would the Project impact stormwater management in any of the following ways:
i) Would the Project result in potential impact of project construction and project post -
construction activity on stormwater runoff?
ii) Would the Project result in potential discharges from areas for materials storage, vehicle
or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste
handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or
other outdoor work areas?
iii) Would the Project result in significant environmentally harmful increase in the flow velocity
or volume of stormwater runoff?
iv) Would the Project result in significant and environmentally harmful increases in erosion
of the Project Site or surrounding areas?
v) Would the Project result in stormwater discharges that would significantly impair or
contribute to the impairment of the beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that
provide water quality benefits (e.g., riparian corridors, wetlands, etc.)?
vi) Would the Project cause harm to the biological integrity of drainage systems, watersheds,
and/or water bodies?
vii) Does the Proposed Project include provisions for the separation, recycling, and reuse of
materials both during construction and after project occupancy?
1) Would the Project result in other modification of a wash, channel creek, or river?
Land Use and Planning
a) Would the Project disrupt or physically divide an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)?
b) Would the Project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
April 2021 12
City Council Statement of Facts and Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
c) Would the Project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan, natural community
conservation plan, and/or policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
Mineral and Energy Resources
a) Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be
of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
c) Would the Project use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner?
Noise
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
the exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Population and Housing
a) Would the Project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing)?
c) Would the Project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Public Services
a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
1
1
1
April 2021 13
1
1
City Council Statement of Facts and Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Recreation
a) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
Utilities and Service Systems
c) Would the Project require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities
or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
f) Would the Project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate
the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
5.2 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
WITHOUT MITIGATION IN THE SEIR
The HMNH Master Plan Second Amendment SEIR found that the Project would have a less -than -
significant impact on a number of environmental topic areas, as listed below. A detailed analysis
of these topic areas is provided in Sections 4.1 through 4.8 of Draft SEIR.
FINDING:
The City Council, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Draft
SEIR, the Final SEIR, the Technical Appendices, and the administrative record, finds that
based on substantial evidence in the record, impacts related to the following topics, to the
extent they result from the Project, would be less than significant.
Aesthetics
c) In non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings?
d) Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
Cumulative Aesthetics Impacts
Air Quality
a) Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
April 2021
14
City Council Statement of Facts and Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
b) Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
c) Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
d) Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of people?
Cumulative Air Quality Impacts
Energy
a) Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or
operation?
b) Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
c) Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded
electric power or natural gas facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
Cumulative Energy Impacts
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a) Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emission, either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts
Noise
b) Would the Project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
Cumulative Noise and Vibration Impacts
Transportation
a) Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)?
it
E
C�
April 2021 15
City Council Statement of Facts and Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
c) Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access?
Tribal Cultural Resources
a) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe,
and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k),
or
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Utilities and Service Systems
a) Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded
wastewater treatment facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b) Would the Project have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, requiring new or expanded entitlements?
c) Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
Cumulative Wastewater and Water Supply Impacts
5.3 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT IN THE SEIR
The City Council having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Draft SEIR, the
Final SEIR, the Technical Appendices, and the administrative record, finds, pursuant to PRC
Section 21081 (a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), that changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which would avoid or substantially lessen to
below a level of significance potentially significant environmental effects identified in the Draft
SEIR. The potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that can be mitigated are listed
below. The City Council finds that based on substantial evidence in the record, the impacts
April 2021 16
City Council Statement of Facts and Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
discussed below, to the extent they result from the Project, would be less than significant after
implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Final SEIR.
TRANSPORTATION
The Project's cumulative traffic impacts that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant
are discussed in Section 4.6, Transportation, of the Draft SEIR. Identified cumulative impacts relate
to the exacerbation of the level of service (LOS E or worse) at local intersections. Specifically,
under Future Year (2035) Conditions, the Project was found to create an exceedance of the
evaluation criteria at the intersections of Orchard Village Road and Wiley Canyon Road and
Orchard Village Road and McBean Parkway
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft SEIR.
Facts in Support of Findings
While traffic levels of service (LOS) are no longer used as a metric for determining transportation
impacts under CEQA, they may still be considered to inform decisionmakers on the overall effects of
the Project. Accordingly, the Draft SEIR considered the following conditions to evaluate the Project's
effect on LOS: the Existing (2017) without and with Project Conditions, the Opening Year (2022) without
and with Project Conditions, and Future Year (2035) without and with Project Conditions. Under Future
Year (2035) Conditions, the Project was found to create an exceedance of the evaluation criteria at the
intersections of Orchard Village Road and Wiley Canyon Road and Orchard Village Road and McBean
Parkway. Implementation of Mitigation Measures S-TR1 and S-TR2 would be implemented to reduce
traffic at these two intersections. It should be noted that the previous Development Agreement
associated with the approved HMNH Master Plan required the construction of various traffic mitigation
measures, several of which have already been constructed in accordance with the Development
Agreement, to mitigate impacts associated with the buildout of the Master Plan. Mitigation Measures
S-TR1 and S-TR2 would be in addition to and/or supersede the traffic improvement provisions included
in the previous Development Agreement. Mitigation Measure S-TR1 would modify the existing traffic
signal phasing at the intersection of Orchard Village Road and Wiley Canyon Road to include a right -turn
overlap phase to the westbound approach of Wiley Canyon Road with the existing southern left -turn
phase provided for Orchard Village Road. No physical improvements to the existing lane configurations
are required by the mitigation measure. Mitigation Measure S-TR2 would reconfigure the approaches
to the intersection of Orchard Village Road and McBean Parkway to be consistent with the lane
configuration identified in the City approved design plans for this intersection. Both of these mitigation
measures would reduce the Project's cumulative impacts to less -than -significant levels.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure S-TR1: Orchard Village Road/Wiley Canyon Road: The existing traffic signal
phasing shall be modified to include a right -turn overlap phase to the westbound approach of Wiley
Canyon Road. The right -turn phase proposed for Wiley Canyon Road shall overlap with the
1
April 2021 17
City Council Statement of Facts and Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
existing left -turn phase provided for the southbound Orchard Village Road approach. No physical
improvements to the existing lane configurations are required.
Mitigation Measure S-TR2: Orchard Village Road/McBean Parkway: The southbound Orchard
Village Road approach to the McBean Parkway intersection shall be reconfigured to be consistent
with the lane configuration in the City approved design plans for this intersection.
5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH REMAIN SIGNIFICANT AND
UNAVOIDABLE AFTER MITIGATION AND FINDINGS
The City of Santa Clarita, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Draft
SEIR, Final SEIR, Technical Appendices, and the administrative record, finds, pursuant to PRC
Section 21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), that specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project
alternatives identified in the Draft SEIR, and, therefore, the Project would cause significant
unavoidable impacts related to noise during Project construction, as summarized below.
NOISE
The Project's construction -related noise levels at adjacent sensitive receptors would have the
potential to exceed the City's exterior daytime noise standards. As discussed in Section 4.5, Noise,
of the Draft SEIR the impact relates to the substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in
the Project vicinity in excess of standards during Project construction, exceeding the following
significance threshold:
a) Would the Project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
Findings
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or
substantially less the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft SEIR.
2. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures
or Project alternatives identified in the Draft SEIR.
Facts in Support of Findings
Construction of the Proposed Project would generate noise that could expose nearby receptors to
elevated noise levels that may disrupt communication and routine activities. In examining the PS-
4 construction noise levels at the closest residences, the 2008 Master Plan EIR concluded that
construction noise impacts would remain significant, even after the incorporation of mitigation
measures. In that case, construction noise was estimated to exceed the threshold by 4 dBA. Noise
levels from construction of the D&T Building/IP-2 Building as experienced in the vicinity of the Main
Hospital Building and IP-1 Building would exceed the ambient noise level by up to 35 dBA.
April 2021 18
City Council Statement of Facts and Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Individual noise control methods for construction activities typically achieve a reduction in the range
of 5 to 6 dBA apiece. The suite of noise controls contained in Mitigation Measures N1, N2, and
S-N1, which would include the use of mufflers and locating staging areas and stationary equipment
away from sensitive receptors, would likely be able to achieve an overall reduction of no more than
15 dBA Leq at the fagades of the adjacent Main Hospital Building and IP-1 Building. Feasible
mitigation measures do not exist that would reduce construction noise levels at the Main Hospital
Building and IP-1 Building southeastern fagade by 35 dBA to a level of 65 dBA Leq, 10 dBA above
ambient. Consistent with the 2008 Master Plan EIR conclusions, short-term construction noise
impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. However, Project construction would not result
in any additional impacts beyond those identified in the 2008 Master Plan EIR.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure N1: During all site excavation and grading, the Project applicant shall require the
Project contractor(s) to equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and
maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers' standards.
Mitigation Measure N2: The Project applicant shall require the Project contractor(s) to locate
equipment staging in areas that would create the greatest distance between construction -related noise
sources and noise -sensitive receptors nearest the Project Site during all Project construction, to the
extent practicable.
Mitigation Measure S-N1: The Project contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so
that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the Project Site.
5.5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
As set forth in these findings, the implementation of the Project would result in one significant
impact that is considered unavoidable. CEQA requires that an EIR include an analysis of a
reasonable range of feasible alternatives to a proposed project capable of avoiding or substantially
lessening any significant adverse environmental impact associated with the project. The Draft SEIR
addressed the environmental effects of alternatives to the Project. A description of these
alternatives, a comparison of their environmental impacts to the Project, and the City's findings are
listed below. These alternatives are compared against the Project relative to the identified Project
impacts, summarized in the sections above, and to the Project objectives, as stated in Section 3.0,
Project Description, of the Draft SEIR.
In making the following alternatives findings, the City of Santa Clarita certifies that it has
independently reviewed and considered the information on alternatives provided in the SEIR,
including the information provided in the comments on the Draft SEIR and the responses thereto.
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS IN THE EIR
Alternatives that were considered but rejected during the scoping process for detailed evaluation
in the SEIR are discussed below.
April 2021 19
City Council Statement of Facts and Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Rehabilitation of the Existing Main Hospital Building: Rehabilitation of the existing Main Hospital
Building to upgrade the beds and support services to conform to existing and future OSHPD
requirements was considered. However, this alternative would be costlier than constructing new
buildings. In addition, while this alternative would include the aboveground expansion of PS-4, it would
not adequately achieve the Project objectives related to facility and campus expansion to meet the
expected growth in demand for health care services in the Santa Clarita Valley. To meet the expected
demand, the HMNH is pursuing a project that would construct a new D&T Building and the IP-2
Building, both of which would be developed in compliance with newCBC and OSHPD regulations, in
addition to parking supply and management improvements. The current Main Hospital Building would
subsequently be converted to and backfilled with existing office, administrative, clinical/hospital support
services (e.g., procedure rooms, imaging, magnetic resource imaging, physical/occupational/ speech
therapy), and other support uses (e.g., storage) from other parts of the HMNH campus to meet the
minimum size and space necessary to meet CBC and OSHPD regulations. Because of the failure of
this alternative to meet most of the basic Project objectives, this alternative has been rejected.
Construction of a New Tower at the Existing Main Hospital Building Location: Construction
of a new tower at the existing Main Hospital Building location would involve demolition of the
existing building to accommodate a new, much larger and taller building to meet most of the Project
objectives. This building would be immediately adjacent to the IP-1 Building. Because the 2008
Master Plan EIR identified significant and unavoidable short-term noise impacts associated with
construction of the IP-1 Building, the construction of a new tower at this location is not only
expected to have similar significant and unavoidable noise impacts to the patients receiving in-
patient care in the IP-1 Building, but the demolition activities would create new impacts, including
those related to air quality, noise, and vibration, which would not occur under the Proposed Project.
This alternative would include expansion to PS-4, as well as parking supply management
improvements included in the Proposed Project, and would have similar significant and
unavoidable construction noise impacts to the residences across McBean Parkway. Because of
the inability of this alternative to avoid the significant noise impacts during construction, as well as
the additional demolition -induced impacts it would cause, this alternative has been rejected.
Alternative Location on the HMNH Campus: The HMNH campus is composed of two areas: the
northern portion (north of the main driveway at Orchard Village Road), which is owned and
operated by the HMNH, and the southern portion (south of the main driveway at Orchard Village
Road), which is owned by a separate entity. The northern portion of the HMNH campus is primarily
built out, with the exception of the Project Site. Therefore, no other location on the northern portion
of the HMNH campus is available to accommodate the two new buildings proposed by the Project.
Since the HMNH does not have ownership of the southern portion and cannot reasonably acquire,
control, or have access to the southern portion, the surface parking lots on the southwestern portion
of the campus are not available as alternative locations to the Project Site. Because of the
infeasibility of an alternative location on the HMNH campus, this alternative has been rejected.
Alternative Location Off -Site: Construction of a new D&T Building and a new IP-2 Building at an
alternative location off -site would not achieve the Project objectives related to expansion within a
single HMNH campus environment. The new buildings are intended to enhance and expand the
HMNH to provide patients with personalized care, state-of-the-art medical technology, and a
professional staff within a single HMNH campus environment. Locating the Project off -site would
inhibit the ability for patients and staff to immediately and readily access other necessary existing
April 2021 20
City Council Statement of Facts and Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
uses within the HMNH campus, such as the nursing pavilion, emergency room facilities, and
medical offices, without having to take a shuttle or generate a vehicular trip to and from the Project
Site. Because of the inability of this alternative to meet the basic Project objectives, and because
the HMNH does not own and cannot reasonably acquire, control, or have access to an adequate
site within a functional distance of the existing HMNH campus, this alternative has been rejected.
The following two alternatives were selected for evaluation in the Draft SEIR:
❑ Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative
❑ Alternative 2: Reduced Size (80-Percent) Alternative
Table 1 provides a comparison of environmental impacts for each of the alternatives in relation to
environmental impacts associated with the Project.
Table 1
Summary Comparison of the Impacts of Alternatives
-_
.
Impact Levels
— — __
_
Alternative 1:
_
Alternative 2.--
No Project/No Build
Reduced Size (80-Percent)
Impact Topics
Proposed Project
Alternative
Alternative
Aesthetics
Less Than Significant 1
Less
(No Impact)
Similar
(Less Than Significant)
—
Less
Similar during construction
Air Quality
Less Than Significant j
(No Impact)
Less during operation
(Less Than Significant)
Energy
{ Consumption
Less Than Significant
Less
(No Impact)
Less
(Less Than Significant)
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Less Than Significant
—
Less—
(No Impact)
Less
(Less Than Significant)
Noise
I Significant and
Less
Similar
Unavoidable
(No Impact)
(Significant and Unavoidable)
Transportation
Less Than Significant
Less
(No Impact)
Similar
(Less Than Significant)
'Tribal Cultural
Similar
—_
Similar
I Resources
_ No Impact —
— (No Impact)
_ (No Impact)— _
Utilities
Less Than Significant
Less
Less
(No Impact) —
(Less Than Significant) —
ALTERNATIVE 1: NO PROJECT/NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the No Project/No Build Alternative for a project on an
identifiable property consists of the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) states that, "in certain instances, the no project alternative
means 'no build' wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained." Accordingly, for
purposes of this analysis, the No Project/No Build Alternative (Alternative 1) assumes that no new
development would occur within the Project Site. The Project Site would continue to operate as
paved surface parking lots (i.e., Lot D and Lot I, as well as Lot H) and a subterranean parking
structure (i.e., PS-4).
April 2021 21
1
1
City Council Statement of Facts and Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Findings
Alternative 1 would eliminate the significant and unavoidable on -site construction noise
impact.
2. Alternative 1 would reduce and eliminate the less -than -significant impacts with mitigation or
less -than -significant impacts for aesthetics, air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions,
transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities (wastewater and water supply).
3. Alternative 1 would not meet any of the basic project objectives and is, therefore, rejected as
infeasible.
4. The findings of the Project set forth in this document and the overriding social, economic, and
other issues set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide support for the
Project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration.
Facts in Support of Findings:
Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second
Amendment would not be implemented, and existing Parking Lots D, H, and I, as well as the
existing underground parking structure/surface parking lot (PS-4) would remain. Because no
grading, construction, or new operational activities would occur under this alternative, there would
not be associated impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions,
noise, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities (wastewater and water supply) and, as
such, would eliminate the significant unavoidable impact of the Project related to short-term on -
site construction noise.
However, the No Project/No Build Alternative would not achieve the underlying purpose of the
Project to provide up-to-date hospital beds in the new IP-2 Building in order to comply with current
and future Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) codes and American
with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, offer supporting services in a new D&T Building, and meet
parking demands to provide for the present and future health care needs of the Santa Clarita Valley.
Similarly, the No Project/No Build Alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives, as
identified below.
Alternative 1:
No Project/
No Build
Project Objective
Alternative
Help meet the health care needs of Santa Clarita Valley's existing population and planned future
Does Not Meet
population growth.
Implement a long-term plan for expansion of the existing HMNH campus that would help meet
Does Not Meet
the expected growth in demand for health care services and allow the hospital to apply for State -
required approvals.
Enhance and expand the HMNH to provide patients with personalized care, state-of-the-art
Does Not Meet
medical technology, and a professional staff within a single HMNH campus environment.
April 2021 22
City Council Statement of Facts and Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Alternative 1:
No Project/
No Build
Project Objective
Alternative
Accommodate expansion that would bring two new buildings online over time as needed while
Does Not Meet
ensuring the continuance of existing operations and enabling further expansion of needed
facilities.
Maintain the viability of the hospital on a site that would continue to be centrally located within
Does Not Meet
the HMNH's 680-square-mile service area as the community grows.
Implement a well -planned HMNH Master Plan campus that is attractive and promotes quality
Does Not Meet
development consistent with the visual character of the Project area.
Establish a campus that would attract and retain physician specialists and establish Centers of
Does Not Meet
Excellence, which are defined as highly specialized health care services via physician or
hospital -authorized providers or hospital collaboration around a disease category.
Develop a medical campus designed with patients in mind by linking inpatient services and
Does Not Meet
medical buildings in a single setting, providing safe access and transit opportunities.
Minimize visual impacts of the HMNH campus using enhanced building design and landscaping
Does Not Meet
and focusing more intensive development near the center of the site.
Apply land use buffering techniques between the two new buildings (including required parking)
Does Not Meet
and adjacent residential uses through use of building setbacks and enhanced landscaping.
Continue to modernize and upgrade the HMNH campus and other on -site supportive
Does Not Meet
mechanical facilities to ensure the long-term viability of existing and new buildings.
Implement an efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation system that ensures ease of
Does Not Meet
movement throughout the site.
Ensure that future development of the HMNH campus is served by adequate on -site parking
Does Not Meet
facilities to accommodate patients, visitors, and medical staff.
ALTERNATIVE 2: REDUCED SIZE (80-PERCENT) ALTERNATIVE
Various alternatives were considered in Section 5.2, Alternatives Considered but Rejected, of the
Draft SEIR, with the goal of substantially reducing, if not eliminating, the Project's significant on -
site construction noise impact. This impact would temporarily occur during construction from the
operation of construction equipment. Significant construction noise impacts would be expected to
occur during construction on -site with any development scenario since any scenario would need
to utilize the same construction equipment.
The Reduced Size (80-Percent) Alternative (Alternative 2) has been identified as an alternative
that would attain all of the Project's objectives, with the exception of the second Project objective
related to implementing a long-term plan for expansion of the existing HMNH campus that would
help meet the expected growth in demand for health care services and allow the hospital to apply
for State -required approvals, while shortening the duration of construction impacts when compared
to the Proposed Project. Alternative 2 proposes similar buildings and uses to the Proposed Project
but reduced by approximately 20 percent. More specifically, both the new D&T Building and IP-2
Building would be reduced by one level. The proposed D&T Building under this alternative would
contain approximately 63,225 square feet of space and would be approximately 40 feet in height.
The proposed IP-2 Building under this alternative would contain approximately
1
April 2021 23
1
City Council Statement of Facts and Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
96,417 square feet of space with approximately 74 beds and would be approximately 60 feet in
height. Similar to the Proposed Project, the proposed buildings under this alternative would include
a basement. In addition, as with the Proposed Project, the existing hospital's main entry would be
relocated in front of the D&T Building, which would also require removal of 16 parking spaces from
Lot H. Under this alternative, the proposed parking addition to PS-4 would be partially reduced (i.e.,
approximately half of the top level would not be needed) when compared to the Proposed Project.
Alternative 2 would add approximately 233 new parking spaces to PS-4 through the construction
of 2.5 aboveground levels on top of the existing subterranean structure/surface parking lot.
Findings
Alternative 2 would not reduce or eliminate the Project's significant and unavoidable on -site
construction noise impact and is, therefore, rejected as infeasible.
2. The findings of the Project set forth in this document and the overriding social, economic, and
other issues set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide support for the
Project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration.
Facts in Support of Findings:
In comparison to the Project, Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts relative to aesthetics, air
quality (during construction), noise, transportation, and tribal cultural resources. Alternative 2 would
have slightly less impacts relative to air quality (during operation), energy consumption,
greenhouse gas emissions, and utility consumption due to the reduction in the overall amount of
construction and floor area.
Although the overall amount and duration of construction would be reduced in comparison to the
Project because one less level would be developed in each of the buildings and parking structure
addition, on -site construction activities and the associated noise and vibration levels would be
anticipated to be similar to the Project on those days with maximum construction activities. As a
result, the noise levels during construction, including building construction, which is anticipated to
generate the maximum noise levels, would remain in exceedance of the measured ambient noise
level of 55 dBA Leq near the southeastern corner of the Main Hospital Building by up to 35 dBA but
would occur over a shorter construction duration. Nonetheless, construction noise impacts would
be considered significant and unavoidable. Alternative 2 would also involve the addition of parking
levels to PS-4. Although the construction duration would be shorter, noise levels associated with
this addition would increase the ambient noise level of 70 dBA Leq at the closest residence across
McBean Parkway by 10 dBA, which would also be considered a significant and unavoidable impact.
As identified below, Alternative 2 would meet all of the Project objectives, with the exception of the
second Project objective related to implementing a long-term plan for expansion of the existing
HMNH campus that would help meet the expected growth in demand for health care services and
allow the hospital to apply for State -required approvals.
April 2021 24
City Council Statement of Facts and Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Alternative 2:
Reduced Size
(80-Percent)
Project Objective
Alternative
Help meet the health care needs of Santa Clarita Valley's existing population and planned future
Meets
population growth.
Implement a long-term plan for expansion of the existing HMNH campus that would help meet
Does Not Meet
the expected growth in demand for health care services and allow the hospital to apply for State -
required approvals.
Enhance and expand the HMNH to provide patients with personalized care, state-of-the-art
Meets
medical technology, and a professional staff within a single HMNH campus environment.
Accommodate expansion that would bring two new buildings online over time as needed while
Meets
ensuring the continuance of existing operations and enabling further expansion of needed
facilities.
Maintain the viability of the hospital on a site that would continue to be centrally located within
Meets
the HMNH's 680-square-mile service area as the community grows.
Implement a well -planned HMNH Master Plan campus that is attractive and promotes quality
Meets
development consistent with the visual character of the Project area.
Establish a campus that would attract and retain physician specialists and establish Centers of
Meets
Excellence, which are defined as highly specialized health care services via physician or
hospital -authorized providers or hospital collaboration around a disease category.
Develop a medical campus designed with patients in mind by linking inpatient services and
Meets
medical buildings in a single setting, providing safe access and transit opportunities.
Minimize visual impacts of the HMNH campus using enhanced building design and landscaping
Meets
and focusing more intensive development near the center of the site.
Apply land use buffering techniques between the two new buildings (including required parking)
Meets
and adjacent residential uses through use of building setbacks and enhanced landscaping.
Continue to modernize and upgrade the HMNH campus and other on -site supportive
Meets
mechanical facilities to ensure the long-term viability of existing and new buildings.
Implement an efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation system that ensures ease of
Meets
movement throughout the site.
Ensure that future development of the HMNH campus is served by adequate on -site parking
Meets
facilities to accommodate patients, visitors, and medical staff.
1
April 2021 25
City Council Statement of Facts and Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
6.0 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL SEIR
The City Council declares that no new significant information as defined by the CEQA Guidelines
Section 15088.5 has been received by the City Council after circulation of the Draft SEIR that would
require recirculation.
The City Council certifies the Final SEIR based on the following findings and conclusions.
6.1 FINDINGS
The Project would have the potential for creating significant adverse impacts. These significant
adverse environmental impacts have been identified in the Draft SEIR and will require mitigation
as set forth in the Findings. Significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance after mitigation include noise levels during Project construction.
6.2 CONCLUSIONS
Except as to those impacts stated above relating to construction noise, all other significant
environmental impacts from the implementation of the Project have been identified in the
Draft SEIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated
to a less -than -significant level.
2. Alternatives to the Project, which could potentially achieve the basic objectives of the Project,
have been considered and rejected in favor of the Project.
3. Environmental, economic, social, and other considerations and benefits derived from the
development of the proposed project, as further discussed in Section 7.0, override and make
infeasible any alternatives to the Project or further mitigation measures beyond those
incorporated into the Project.
April 2021 26
City Council Statement of Facts and Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
7.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ,
7.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Santa Clarita (City) is the Lead Agency under CEQA for preparation, review, and
certification of the Final SEIR for the HMNH Master Plan Second Amendment (Project). As the
Lead Agency, the City is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of
the proposed action and which of those impacts are significant, and which can be mitigated through
imposition of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize those impacts to a level of less than
significant. CEQA then requires the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action
against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to
approve the Project. In making this determination, the City is guided by CEQA Guidelines Section
15093, which provides as follows:
a) CEQA requires the decision -making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal,
social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable
environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be
considered "acceptable."
b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant
effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the
agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR
and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be
supported by substantial evidence in the record.
c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be
included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of
determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings
required pursuant to Section 15091.
In addition, PRC Section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds that specific economic,
legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
alternatives identified in an SEIR and thereby leave significant unavoidable effects, the public
agency must also find that overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the
project outweigh the significant effects of the project.
Pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b) and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has balanced
the benefits of the Project against the one unavoidable adverse impact associated with the Project
and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to this impact. The City also has
examined alternatives to the Project, none of which both meet the Project objectives and is
environmentally preferable to the Project for the reasons discussed in the Statement of Facts and
Findings (above).
The City Council, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the HMNH Master
Plan Second Amendment Draft SEIR, the Final SEIR, including responses to comments, and the
April 2021 27
n
City Council Statement of Facts and Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
public record in its entirety, adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations, which balances
the Project's benefits against the one unavoidable adverse impact in reaching a decision on this
Project.
7.2 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Although all potential project impacts have been substantially avoided or mitigated as described in
the preceding findings, there is no complete mitigation for Project impact related to construction
noise. Details of this significant unavoidable adverse impact were discussed in the SEIR and are
summarized or were otherwise provided in the Statement of Facts and Findings (above).
7.3 OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council finds that each of the specific economic, legal, social, technological,
environmental, and other considerations, and the benefits of the Project separately and
independently outweigh this one remaining significant, adverse impact related to short-term on -
site construction noise and is an overriding consideration independently warranting approval of the
Project. The remaining significant adverse impact identified in Section 7.2, above, is acceptable in
light of each of these overriding considerations, and the substantial evidence that supports the
enumerated benefits of the Project can be found in the Statement of Facts and Findings herein,
the Final SEIR, the Project itself, and the record of all proceedings in connection with the approval
of the Project. In the event that any court decision or regulatory action results in a determination
that there are additional remaining significant impacts resulting from the City's approval of the
Project that cannot be avoided even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures into
the Project, the Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
herein shall be deemed to apply to such additional remaining significant impacts.
The specific economic, legal, social, technological, environmental, and other considerations, and
the benefits of the Project that outweigh the one significant unavoidable impact of the Project are:
The Project would achieve various objectives that will provide a benefit to the community,
namely:
• Help meet the health care needs of Santa Clarita Valley's existing population and planned
future population growth.
• Implement a long-term plan for expansion of the existing HMNH campus that would help
meet the expected growth in demand for health care services and allow the hospital to
apply for State -required approvals.
• Enhance and expand the HMNH to provide patients with personalized care, state -of- the -
art medical technology, and a professional staff within a single HMNH campus
environment.
• Accommodate expansion that would bring two new buildings online over time as needed
while ensuring the continuance of existing operations and enabling further expansion of
needed facilities.
April 2021 28
City Council Statement of Facts and Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
• Maintain the viability of the hospital on a site that would continue to be centrally located
within the HMNH's 680-square-mile service area as the community grows.
• Implement a well -planned HMNH Master Plan campus that is attractive and promotes
quality development consistent with the visual character of the Project area.
• Establish a campus that would attract and retain physician specialists and establish
Centers of Excellence, which are defined as highly specialized health care services via
physician or hospital -authorized providers or hospital collaboration around a disease
category.
• Develop a medical campus designed with patients in mind by linking inpatient services
and medical buildings in a single setting, providing safe access and transit opportunities.
• Minimize visual impacts of the HMNH campus using enhanced building design and
landscaping and focusing more intensive development near the center of the site.
• Apply land use buffering techniques between the two new buildings (including required
parking) and adjacent residential uses through use of building setbacks and enhanced
landscaping.
• Continue to modernize and upgrade the HMNH campus and other on -site supportive
mechanical facilities to ensure the long-term viability of existing and new buildings.
• Implement an efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation system that ensures ease of
movement throughout the site.
• Ensure that future development of the HMNH campus is served by adequate on -site
parking facilities to accommodate patients, visitors, and medical staff.
2. The Project implements the goals and policies of the City of Santa Clarita's General Plan,
including, but not limited to, the development of energy -efficient buildings (Land Use Element
Policy LU 7.1.3), the use of low -flow fixtures in all non-residential development (Land Use
Element Policy LU 7.4.2), and protection of public safety (Safety Element Goals S 1 and S4).
3. The Project provides up-to-date hospital beds in the proposed IP-2 Building in order to comply
with current and future Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD)
codes and American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
4. The Project offers supporting services in a new Diagnostic & Treatment (D&T) Building.
The Project provides additional parking to meet parking demands to accommodate the
present and future health care needs of the Santa Clarita Valley. The Project provides an
opportunity to achieve an integrated, efficient, comprehensive health care facility to help
serve the growing Santa Clarita Valley.
77
April 2021 29
1
City Council Statement of Facts and Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital Master Plan Second Amendment
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
6. The Project will be designed and constructed to incorporate environmentally sustainable
design features in compliance with code requirements, including the California Green
Building Standards (CALGreen) Code. These sustainable design features may include
energy -efficiency measures, recycling infrastructure, enhanced indoor air quality, and water
conservation measures. By integrating sustainable features into the design and construction
of the proposed buildings, the Project reduces energy and water usage and waste generation.
Therefore, the City Council, having reviewed and considered all of the information contained in the
Draft SEIR, Final SEIR, and the public record, adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations,
which balances the Project's benefits against the one unavoidable adverse impact related to short-
term on -site construction noise in reaching a decision on this Project.
April 2021 30