HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-11-19 - AGENDA REPORTS - HMNMH MC 04 325 (2)Agenda Item:
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Approval:
Item to be presented by:
DATE: November 19, 2008
SUBJECT: MASTER CASE 04-325: HENRY MAYO NEWHALL
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN, DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT AND FINAL EIR
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council:
1) Receive staff and applicant presentations and public testimony and close the public hearing;
2) Adopt a resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project
and adopting a Statement of Oven -riding Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program;
3) Adopt a resolution approving Master Plan 04-022, subject to the Conditions of Approval
(Exhibit A); and
4) Introduce and pass to second reading an ordinance entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT 06-001 FOR MASTER CASE 04-325 (MASTER PLAN 04-022), FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE 15 -YEAR MASTER PLAN OF THE HENRY MAYO NEWHALL
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN PROJECT IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA."
RECENT BACKGROUND
On September 23, 2008, the City Council conducted a continued public hearing on the proposed
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan, Development Agreement and September
2008 Revised Draft EIR. This was the sixth public hearing before the City Council since June
res° ok -101 Ordinance passed to
40opted: ees6 o9,- io 2 Second reading
2007. The September 23, 2008, public hearing was held during the 45 -day public review period
for the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR, which extended from September 3, 2008 to 5:00 PM
on October 17, 2008. During this hearing, the City Council received a staff presentation, an
applicant presentation and public testimony, both in support of and in opposition to the project.
The Council, asked questions of staff and gave direction regarding informational items to be
brought back 'at tonight's City Council meeting. The Council directed staff to provide responses
to the project issues and environmental concerns raised during the public testimony portion of the
hearing and letters/comments submitted in writing. These issues and concerns have been
addressed in the body of this agenda report, in the agenda report attachments, and in the response
to comments prepared as part of the Final ETR,
HMNMH MASTER PLAN PROJECT
Project Description
A Master Plan entitlement is requested to allow for the 15 -year buildout of the HMNMH
campus. The Master Plan includes the construction of an Inpatient Building, three Medical
Office Buildings, a Central Plant, and four Parking Structures. A total of 2,231 on-site parking
spaces will be provided. In addition to construction of these facilities, the HMNMH Master Plan
proposes to: (1) add nine new beds in the Nursing Pavilion Building; (2) demolish the 8,000
square -foot Foundation building; (3) reconfigure surface parking to provide a total of 308 on-site
spaces; (4) provide helipads on the rooftop of both Parking Structure 1 and the Inpatient
Building; (5) provide right -turn pockets and modify traffic signals along the McBean Parkway
project frontage; (6) reconfigure 9,770 square feet of current administration space in the existing
hospital building to accommodate 18 additional new ICU beds. The current hospital
administrative functions would be relocated to space within Medical Office Building 1; (7)
export up to 93,293 cubic yards of dirt associated with subsurface excavation for the Inpatient
Building and Parking Structures 1, 2, 3, and 4; and (8) dedicate a minimum of 58 feet of public
right-of-way from the centerline along the entire McBean Parkway project frontage plus
additional right-of-way dedication on-site to accommodate a new right -turn lane from eastbound
McBean Parkway to southbound Orchard Village Road to address future traffic conditions
beyond the scope of this project. The HMNMH Master Plan exhibits have been available on the
City's website beginning June 18, 2008, and are attached to the Master Plan- Resolution as
Exhibit A for the Council's consideration.
City -Required Parking
The City's Unified Development Code calculates parking based on square feet/footage, which is
defined as the gross square feet or footage of a building, tenant space, or area, unless indicated
otherwise (Section 17.18.130). The HMNMH Master Plan Parking Summary and Footnote 2
within Table 2-1 of the Appendix K Parking Study Report, which are both included in the
September 2008 Revised Draft EIR, cite the City's Unified Development Code definition of gross
floor area, which was used as the basis to determine the floor area values represented within the
table. This footnote reads as follows, "Floor Area (gross) shall mean the sum of the gross
horizontal areas of several floors of the building measured from the exterior faces of the exterior
walls excluding exterior balconies and porches. Floor area shall riot include stairwells, vertical
shafts and attics and mechanical penthouses provided there are not usable rooms, no windows
and the mechanical penthouse area is used exclusively for mechanical equipment."
As noted in a comment on the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR; the footnote in the two
exhibits listed above does not reflect a recent Unified Development Code amendment that took
effect in February 2007 which removed stairways from the list of gross floor area exclusions. As
a result, the City -required parking, as specified in the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR,
inadvertently did not include the square footage of stairwell space for MOBs 1, 2 and 3 or the
stairwell square footage in existing MOB E.
To correct this omission, the HMNMH Master Plan Parking Summary included as part of the
September 2008 Revised Draft EIR has been revised to include an additional 2,752 square feet of
building space. Specifically, square footage of stairwell space by building is listed below:
MOB 1
800 square feet
MOB 2
800 square feet
MOB 3
800 square feet
MOB E
352 square feet
Total
2,752 square feet
The addition of 2,752 gross square feet of medical office building space, which represents the
total square footage of stairwell space, would increase the project's overall parking requirement
by 14 parking spaces (applying the City's code ratio of one parking space per 200 square feet).
Therefore, the total number of on -campus parking required by the City has been changed from
2,190 spaces to 2,204 spaces (an increase of 14 spaces). Since the project proposes a total of
2,231 parking spaces, the project will continue to meet the City's existing parking requirement of
2,204 and will provide an excess of 27 spaces beyond,the code requirements. This adjustment in
required parking has been reflected in the HMNMHi Master Plan Parking Summary. The total
number of parking spaces to be provided on the hospital campus as part of the HMNMH Master
Plan Project or the conclusions in the EIR will not change as a result of this revision. This
revision has also been described in the Errata to the Final EIR.
Conditions of Approval
Conditions of Approval for the HMNMH Master Plan Project have been drafted that reflect the
revised Master Plan proposal currently before the City Council. These draft conditions have
been available on the City's website since August 7, 2008 and are attached to the Master Plan
Resolution as Exhibit B for the Council's consideration. Seven revisions have been made to the
Conditions of Approval since the September 23, 2008 City Council public hearing; these
revisions are as follows:
L. Deletion of Condition EN4 — this condition is a standard Department of Public Works
(Engineering Division) condition of approval placed on most projects in the City which
require acquisition of easements for roadway improvements or off-site infrastructure
improvements. The language in this condition raised some public concern at the
September 23, 2008, City Council meeting as it references the City's ability to exercise
acquisition of property for easements or right-of-way for public improvements. This
standard condition has been removed from the project Conditions of Approval as the
stormdrain and sewer improvement studies prepared for the project have concluded that
no additional off-site easements are needed.
2. Addition of New Condition Related to Archaeological/Palentological Resources — In
response to a comment received from the State of California Native American Heritage
Commission, the following condition was added to the conditions of approval (new
Condition EN4) as follows:
EN4. Should evidence of archaeological or paleontological resources occur during
grading and construction activities, operations would be required to cease and a
qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to determine the appropriate course of
action. In the event human remains are encountered during earth removal or
disturbance activities, all activities would be required to cease immediately and a
qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor shall be immediately
contacted. The Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to Sections 5097.98 and
5097 99 of the Public Resources Code relative to Native American remains
3. Addition of Three New Conditions Related to Helipad Operations — At the September
23, 2008, City Council meeting, a member of the public voiced concern that specific
conditions of approval for the now expired 2004 Minor Use Permit for the construction
and operation of an elevated helipad structure on the hospital campus were not included
in the HMNMH Master Plan Conditions of Approval. Although these issues are already
regulated by existing federal, state and local mandates, to address this concern, the
following three conditions have been added into the Conditions of Approval, as follows:
PL9. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of OSHPD (Office of
Statewide Health Planning and Development) with regard to operation of the
helipads.
PLIO. The applicant shall conduct a noise study within three months of
construction of the helipad on Parking Structure 1 and the Inpatient Building to
ensure compliance with all applicable Federal, State and local standards. This
noise study shall conform to the standards, methodology and scope of the
Helicopter Noise Analysis conducted for the Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial
Hospital by BridgeNet International.
PL11. The applicant shall store all chemicals in compliance with the applicable
standards relating to the storage of hazardous chemicals and shall obtain the
appropriate approvals from the Los Angeles County Fire Department, OSHPD,
and other affected agencies for the storage of hazardous chemicals relating to a
helipad. ,
4. Addition of Two Conditions of Approval Related to Parking — Appendix K, the
Parking Study Report, included in the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR, contains a
N
number of provisions in which additional parking strategies could be implemented, if
necessary, to maintain sufficient parking. Due to the number of parking -related concerns
expressed in the written comments on the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR and in the
oral testimony received at the September 23, 2008, public hearing, the following
condition of approval has been added to ensure that the supply and demand of on -campus
parking will be evaluated and monitored through each stage of Master Plan
implementation. This condition references the parking and on-site circulation strategies
listed in the Parking Study Report prepared for the project.
PL24. Additional Parking and On -Site Circulation Implementation Strategies listed
in Section 6 of Appendix K, the Parking Study Report dated May 19, 2008, for the
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital EIR shall be implemented in order to
maintain adequate parking for the campus and to avoid any unanticipated impacts to
nearby residential streets during construction and/or project operations. These
strategies shall include applying a "crosscheck" formula prior to each stage of
development, monitoring actual peak parking demands following each stage of
Master Plan development, and may include implementation of electronic wayfinding
displays at strategic locations tied to parking availability monitoring and "real
time " reporting, as deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development.
Also, in an effort to respond to the concerns expressed by a commentator that the
unmarked parking spaces along the internal ring road are not clearly identifiable to
patients, visitors and employees, a condition has been added to the project Conditions of
Approval that requires all parallel parking spaces located along the internal ring road be
marked accordingly.
PL25. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for MOB], all parallel
parking spaces located along the campus ring road shall be marked, subject to
the review and approval of the Director of Community Development.
Findings to Support Master Plan Approval
Per Section 17.03.025 of the City's Unified Development Code, the City Council shall make
findings for the approval of a master plan. The Master Plan findings require that the proposed
use is in conformance with the City's General Plan, the applicable provisions of the Unified
Development Code, the purpose of the zone in which it is located, and the development policies
and standards of the City. Further, the findings require that the location, size, design and
operating characteristics of the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding community and
is not detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. The attached resolution
provides the Master Plan findings with a detailed explanation of how the project satisfies each
finding.
CEQA ANALYSIS
Preparation of Final Environmental Impact Report
The HMNMH Master Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report includes: (1) the
September 2008 Revised Draft EIR with the Technical Appendices and the Final EIR Errata
which describes all revisions to these documents as a result of agency and public comment; (2)
all agency and public written comments received on the environmental analysis; (3) oral
comments from the September 23, 2008, City Council public hearing on the environmental
analysis; (4) responses to written comments from both the June 2008 Revised Draft EIR and the
September 2008_ Revised Draft EIR circulation periods; (5) responses to oral comments from the
September 23, 2008, City Council public hearing; and (6) the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP). The Final EIR also incorporates, by reference, the 2005 Draft EIR
and the 2006 Revised Draft EIR and all agency and public comments received on these
documents with responses to those comments. Prior to November 19, 2008, a response was sent
to each public agency who submitted timely comments on either the June 2008 Revised Draft
EIR or September 2008 Revised Draft EIR. A response was also sent to two local organizations:
Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment (SCOPE); and Smart Growth SCV.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Prog am
As part of the Final EIR, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared which
provides a comprehensive list of all mitigations identified in the September 2008 Revised Draft
EIR and lists the timeframe for implementation and the responsible parties. The Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached as Exhibit B to the CEQA Resolution for the
Council's consideration.
Comments Received & Responses to Comments
Since June 26, 2008, two Revised Draft EIRs have been circulated within two 45 -day circulation
periods. The June 2008 Revised Draft EIR was circulated from June 26, 2008 to August 11,
2008. During this time period, agency comment letters and written comments from individuals
and groups were received. The September 2008 Revised Draft EIR was circulated from
September 3, 2008 to October 17, 2008. During this time period, agency comment letters and
written comments from individuals and groups were received. Also during this time period, a
public hearing on the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR was held on September 23, 2008.
Many of the public comments received in writing or orally at the public hearing have dealt with
project -related issues which were not of a CEQA nature. Many of the comments received
expressed the commentator's personal views of the project. '
A written response has been provided to all comments related to environmental issues, in
compliance with CEQA. Responses to CEQA-related issues are included as part of the Final
EIR, which has been provided to the City Council for its consideration. In addition, responses
have been prepared on all project -related issues of a non-CEQA nature. The responses to topical
CEQA issues and project -related issues are attached as Exhibit A to this agenda report Please
note that the Final Environmental Impact Report incorporates, by reference, all comments'
l
received and responses to comments prepared for the two,prior DEIR circulation periods in 2005
and 2006.
Status Update of Cumulative 2030 Traffic Impact Mitigation
The September 2008 Revised Draft EIR concludes that under the long-range cumulative scenario
(2030), traffic impacts at two intersections would be significant and unavoidable: McBean
Parkway at the Valencia Boulevard intersection; and McBean Parkway at the Orchard Village
Road intersection. These traffic impacts occur after the life of the 15 -year Master Plan and result
from the buildout of the Santa Cla rita Valley ' and all known projects, which includes the
HMNMH Master Plan.
However, these two intersections are geographically located within the joint City -County
Valencia Bridge & Major Thoroughfare Construction Fee District. The City and Los Angeles
County recently prepared an update to the Valencia Bridge & Major Thoroughfare Construction
Fee District which adds these two intersection improvements to the District, along with a number
of other District improvements. The City took action to adopt the District update on September
9, 2008. The signed Resolution 08-89 is attached to this agenda report as Exhibit B for the
Council's reference. With the update of the Valencia Bridge & Major Thoroughfare
Construction Fee District, the payment of B&T fees, per the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program and the project Conditions of Approval, will serve as adequate mitigation for
cumulative impacts at these two intersections and, as a result, will reduce cumulative impacts to
less than significant.
The cumulative traffic impact analysis in the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR for the two
intersections identified above recognizes that should the intersection improvements be
incorporated into a district, fair share paymentshall be considered this project's full compliance
and impacts would be reduced to less than significant. The Errata Final EIR Errata was prepared
describing this update to the Valencia Bridge & Major Thoroughfare Construction Fee District
and clarifying the traffic impact conclusions in the Final EIR. In addition, the Development
Agreement further requires the applicant to construct a portion of the realignment along its
property frontage and provide an additional $500,000 over and above its Bridge & Thoroughfare
fee obligations.
Significant & Unavoidable Impacts
The September 2008 Revised Draft EIR concludes that impacts would occur in three
environmental categories (global climate change is included as part of Air Quality) that, even
with the application of mitigation measures, could not be reduced to a less than significant level.
The categories are as follows:
1. Air Quality (Short -Term Construction -Related Impacts for PM10 and PM2.5
Emissions — Project and Cumulative): Particulate matter (dust) will be generated
during the construction periods, creating a significant impact at both a project level and
cumulatively when considered with other developments in the region.
Global Climate Change (Cumulative): In the analysis of cumulative global climate
change impacts, the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR takes a conservative position in
its determination that project implementation will have a cumulative adverse effect due
to the project's contribution to regional traffic resulting in vehicle emissions. Vehicle
emissions due to increased vehicle trips associated with project implementation,
combined with vehicle emissions generated by other developments in the region, would
create a significant adverse impact. It was determined that any development of this scale
in the Santa Clarita Valley would contribute to cumulative greenhouse gas emissions.
Conversely, an argument can be made that maximizing the use of an existing medical
campus and increasing the type and number of medical services offered could reduce the
number of vehicle trips to other locations throughout the Santa Clarita Valley or in the
greater Los Angeles area. Intensification of the existing medical campus could also
create employment opportunities in proximity to established residential neighborhoods,
creating potential for reduced commuter trips.
2. Solid Waste (Construction, Operational and Cumulative Impacts): The September
2008 Revised Draft EIR follows the City's approach with regard to solid waste impacts
for projects of this scale. The City has historically taken a conservative position with
regard to solid waste impacts and landfill capacity. Because landfill capacity is finite
and is not under the control of the City, solid waste generation due to project
construction, operation and the project's contribution to cumulative solid waste volume
has been determined to be significant and unavoidable, even with feasible and aggressive
mitigation measures in place.
3. Noise (Short -Term Construction -Related Impacts): Noise generated by on-site
construction activities will occur, creating a significant impact.
Statement of Overriding Considerations
As a result of the significant unavoidable impacts of the project, if the City of Santa Clarita
approves the Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan, the City shall be required to
adopt findings in accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines and prepare a
Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA
Guidelines. The Council must find that each of the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts
of the project identified in the section above is outweighed by environmental sustainability,
economic, social, technological, and other community benefits, including, but not limited to the
following:
The proposed HMNMH Master Plan project will provide needed hospital facilities,
including both inpatient and outpatient services to help meet medical service needs of the
Santa Clarita Valley as the population continues to increase. The proposed expansion
would allow for additional acute care hospital beds, additional technologies and medical
service capabilities and specialties such as Centers of Excellence, as defined in the
proposed Development Agreement, and would accommodate an increase in the number
of physician offices available on-site.
2. The proposed HMNMH Master Plan would allow for the development of new, needed
medical services in cardiac care, neonatal and high risk pregnancy care, intensive care and
surgical care.
3. The proposed HMNMH Master Plan would improve the community's readiness for
disaster by adding two rooftop helipads and adding capability for support of other first
responder agencies, increasing safety and accessibility for emergency and air transport
operations.
4. The proposed HMNMH Master Plan project will create 571 new long-term employment
opportunities in a range of professional health care employment positions, such as
doctors, technicians, nurses and aides that will add to the 1,200 people currently
employed by HMNMH, creating a positive economic benefit to the community and
improving the City's jobs/housing balance.
r
5. The proposed HMNMH Master Plan project will provide the City with additional
right-of-way and street improvements to portions of McBean Parkway, a major highway
designated in the City's Master Plan of Highway and Roadway System Map, sufficient to
accommodate future intersection improvements needed to address traffic impacts beyond
the 15 -year buildout timeline associated with development of the project.
6. The proposed HMNMH Master Plan project will provide employment opportunities and
increased medical service capabilities in close proximity to Interstate 5, a major Southern
California transportation corridor.
7. The proposed HMNMH Master Plan project would make monetary contributions for: 1)
the feasibility, siting and construction of a transitional care unit facility or other senior
health care needs; and 2) , future construction of the McBean Parkway realignment.
Monetary contributions shall be paid in accordance with the project Development
Agreement.
8. The proposed HMNMH Master Plan project provides enhanced landscaping along
McBean Parkway and between the hospital campus and existing residential
neighborhoods to further buffer residential units from the proposed hospital campus
buildings.
9. The proposed HMNMH Master Plan project provides architecturally enhanced building
elevations and parking structure designs compatible with the established
Valencia community while upgrading the architectural quality of the existing hospital(
campus.
10. The proposed HMNMH Master Plan project promotes environmental sustainability in
that expansion of an existing hospital campus in proximity to the people served, close to
public transportation, utilizing existing infrastructure systems, locating employment
opportunities and community services within walking distance of a range of housing
types; adhering to energy-efficient building codes, recycling, and minimizing vehicle
idling through appropriate site design which are all components of sustainable
development and build value in a community
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Summary of Development Agreement Terms
At the September 23, 2008, City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to further clarify the
terms of the draft Development Agreement and specify how the Master Plan would be built out.
Staff has provided a summary of the Development Agreement components, as follows. Also, the
Development Agreement and a summary of the terms have been available for public review on
the City's website since August 7, 2008.
In response to City Council direction received in September 2007, the proposed Development
Agreement was revised to provide clear benefits to the community and to ensure that the delivery
of health care services is tied to each component of the project. The term of the Development
Agreement was reduced from 20 years to 15 years and is consistent with the term of the
HMNMH Master Plan. The City's Unified Development Code requires that a Development
Agreement provide a clear and substantial public benefit to the City and/or its residents. Under
the HMNMH Development Agreement, these benefits include the following:
1. Allows development of 120 additional acute care hospital beds plus new, needed medical
services in cardiac care, neonatal and high risk pregnancy care, intensive care and surgical
care;
2. Creates new long-term employment opportunities in a range of professional and
non-professional health care positions;
3. Improves the community's emergency services and disaster readiness by the inclusion of
helipad operations; -
4. Secures a $250,000 payment for a future Transitional Care Unit or other senior health
care needs;
5. Provides sufficient right-of-way dedication and street frontage improvements along
McBean Parkway to accommodate future widening and realignment of McBean Parkway;
and
6. Requires additional payment of $500,000 in five years to be used for future McBean
Realignment improvements.
The major components of the Development Agreement are summarized below. References to
the appropriate sections of the Development Agreement are provided.
A. Sequencing of Improvements
Section 4.7.1 - Timing of Construction of Project Improvements
The issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Medical Office Building 1 requires the
following:
(1) Installation of certain Traffic Mitigation Improvements;
(2) Installation of certain McBean Parkway Realignment Improvements;
(3) Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Parking Structure 1; and
(4) Completion of all applicable conditions of approval for MOB 1 and PS 1 and
CEQA-required mitigations associated with MOB 1 and PS 1.
• The issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Inpatient Building requires the
following:
(1) Certificates of Occupancy for MOB 1 and PS 1;
(2) Installation of certain Traffic Mitigation Improvements;
(3) Installation of certain McBean Parkway Realignment Improvements;
(4) Provision of City -required on-site parking; and
(5) Completion of all applicable conditions of approval for the Inpatient Building and
CEQA-required mitigations for the Inpatient Building and related parking structures.
• The issuance of a Building Permit for Medical Office Building 2 requires the following:
(1) Certificates of Occupancy for MOB 1 and PS 1;
(2) Relocation of certain hospital administrative functions to Medical Office Building 1 to
occupy 40,000 rentable square feet as part of the initial occupancy/leasing of Medical
Office Building 1; and
(3) Provision to City of verification that Inpatient Building plans have been submitted to
OSHPD for approval.
• The issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Medical Office Building 2 requires the
following:
(1) Provision of City -required on-site parking, including that required for Medical Office
Building 2;
(2) Installation of certain Traffic Mitigation Improvements;
(3) Installation of certain McBean Parkway Realignment Improvements;
(4) Completion of all applicable conditions of approval for MOB 2 and CEQA-required
mitigations associated with the construction of MOB 2 and any related parking structures;
and
(5) Written documentation that 20 percent of MOB 2's leasable space has been leased to
HMNMH for Centers of Excellence, or other hospital -related uses.
• The issuance of a Building Permit for Medical Office Building 3 requires the following:
(1) Certificates of Occupancy for MOB 1 and PS 1;
(2) Relocation of certain hospital functions to Medical Office Building 1 to occupy 40,000
rentable square feet as part of the initial occupancy/leasing of Medical Office Building 1;
(3) Installation of certain Traffic Mitigation Improvements;
(4) Installation of certain McBean Parkway Realignment Improvements;
(5) Foundations for the Inpatient Building are to be substantially complete. Either vertical
steel rebar must be in place for the first structural column section, or if a steel structural
frame is to be used, the first vertical steel column section must be in place; and
(6) Issuance of a building permit for Parking Structure 3.
• The issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Medical Office Building 3 requires the
following:
(1) Provision of City -required parking;
(2) Certificate of Occupancy for PS 3; and
(3) Completion of all applicable conditions of approval for MOB 3 and CEQA-required
mitigations for MOB 3 and related parking structures is required.
B. Restrictions on Use
Section 5.1-5.6 — Restrictions on Use
• All G&L property buildings must be leased for medical uses. Doctors must have
privileges to admit and treat patients at HMNMH, unless waived by the HMNMH
(Section 5.1 & 5.2);
• HMNMH has right of first offer to lease or purchase any space in the existing and future
medical buildings on G&L property (Section 5.3 & 5.4);
• HMNMH property and buildings are limited to hospital -related uses (except Medical
Office Building 1 because this building, which will include both hospital administration
uses and medical office uses, is located on HMNMH property) (Section 5.5); and
• 40,000 rentable square feet of Medical Office Building 1 must contain relocated
HMNMH hospital -related uses in initial lease of Medical Office Building 1 (Section 5.6);
C. Expanded Medical Services
Section 5.8 - Expanded Services
• 50% increase in intensive care beds (from 12 beds to 18 beds) in an improved critical care
center in the main hospital within two years of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for
MOB 1.
• Neonatal intensive care services for high risk pregnancies and high risk infants in main
hospital building or within two years following issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for
the Inpatient Building.
• Women's services unit, to include private labor and delivery suites, dedicated operating
rooms, and private rooms within two years following issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the Inpatient Building.
• Minimum 50% increase in inpatient operating room capacity (from four rooms to six
rooms) upon Certificate of Occupancy for the Inpatient Building.
• Additional post coronary care private rooms in the main hospital upon relocation of
hospital services to MOB 1 or following a Certificate of Occupancy for the Inpatient
Building.
0 Expanded post surgical care services with additional private rooms within two years
following issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Inpatient Building.
• Replacement and expansion of campus education facilities within one year, of the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for MOB 1.
D. Future McBean Parkway Realignment
Section 7.3 - Realignment and Widening of McBean Parkway
• Prior to issuance of a building permit for MOB 1 or PS 1, the applicant shall dedicate
property that fronts McBean Parkway for use by the City as right-of-way for the future
McBean Parkway realignment.
• Completion of street improvements to McBean Parkway along the hospital campus
frontage for the future McBean Parkway realignment (as listed in Exhibit K to the
Development Agreement).
• Payment of $500,000 on or prior to the 5th anniversary of the Effective Date of the
Development Agreement to be utilized by the City for the future McBean Parkway
Realignment.
E. Additional Requirements / Restrictions
Section 4.5 — Discretionary Approvals
• Prior to the issuance of building permits for MOB 2 / PS 2 and MOB 3 / PS 3, the
Director of Community Development shall conduct a compliance review of the HMNMH
Development Agreement to ensure that all conditions and mitigations are being met,
including architectural consistency between future buildings and that approved by the
City Council for MOB 1 and PS 1. The findings of the compliance review will be
reported to the City Council for its consideration. Should any compliance issues be
identified, the building permits shall not be issued until the Developer cures or corrects
the items of non-compliance.
Section 4.7.3 - Centers of Excellence
• Centers of Excellence is defined as "the provision of highly specialized health care
services via physician and/or hospital -authorized providers or hospital collaboration
around a disease category (e.g. cancer, heart, maternity or orthopedic or spine) or a
service area (e.g. outpatient imaging) in a central location. Centers of Excellence include
diagnostics, treatment, rehabilitation, nursing, physician, or community educational
programs, clinical research and advanced medical technologies."
Section 5.7 - Parking
• All parking on the HMNMH campus shall be available for all users on campus,
regardless of property ownership.
Section 5.9 — TCU Task Force
• Transitional Care Unit (TCU): HMNMH to continue to participate in' City's TCU Task
Force and contribute $250,000 to the City of Santa Clarita for the feasibility, siting and
construction of a facility or other senior health care needs.
• The sum of $50,000 shall be paid upon the Effective Date of the Development
Agreement, followed by annual installments of $50,000 on the anniversary date of the
Effective Date.
Section 6 — Parking
• A requirement that City Council review and approval be required for any HMNMH
campus parking fee and/or gating of on -campus parking, excluding the existing gated
areas.
Section 7.4 - Eminent Domain
• The use of eminent domain to acquire any residential real property by the City of Santa
Clarita for HMNMH Master Plan traffic improvements is precluded through the
Development Agreement,
The Development Agreement is attached to the Development Agreement Ordinance as Exhibit A
for the Council's consideration. At the September 23, 2008, City Council meeting,
Councilmember McLean requested that the applicant provide clarification regarding certain
provisions of the Agreement and consider modifying specific terms of the Agreement. The
applicant's response to these requests is attached to this'agenda report at Exhibit C.
Findings to Support Development Agreement Approval
Per Section 17.03.010 of the City's Unified Development Code, the City Council shall make
findings for the approvaCof a development agreement. Twelve findings in support of the
HMNMH Master Plan Development Agreement are set forth in the attached Ordinance with an
explanation of how the project satisfies each finding for Council consideration.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
C
1. Request modifications to the HMNMH Master Plan, Development Agreement, or
Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project.
2. Direct staff to prepare documentation to deny the request for the HMNMH Master Plan, as
proposed, and uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the proposed Development
Agreement. '
3. Any other action as determined by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposal is anticipated to generate 571 new permanent jobs in the City of Santa Clarita. As
part of the HMNMH Development Agreement, the applicant will contribute $250,000 for the
feasibility, siting and construction of a facility or other senior health care needs and provide a
payment of $500,000 on or prior to the 5th anniversary of the Effective Date of the Development
Agreement to be utilized by the City for the future McBean Parkway Realignment.
ATTACHMENTS
Table of Contents to Exhibit A, Topical Responses
Exhibit A to Agenda Report - Topical Responses
Attachment 1 to Exhibit A - CBRE Letter Regarding Medical Office Building Space in the
Valencia Area
Attachment 2 to Exhibit A - HMNMH Letter Regarding Operating Rooms
Exhibit B to Agenda Report - Resolution 08-89, Amendment to the Valencia Bridge & Major
Thoroughfare Construction Fee District
Exhibit C to Agenda Report - HMNMH Response to Development Agreement Issues
- Resolution - Final EIR Certification & Findings Required by CEQA (Exhibit A)
--Exhibit B to CEQA Resolution - 2008 Final Environmental Impact Report & Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program
Resolution - Master Plan Entitlement
Exhibit A to Entitlement Resolution - Master Plan Exhibits
Exhibit B to Entitlement Resolution - Conditions of Approval
Ordinance - Development Agreement
Exhibit A to Ordinance - Development Agreement
NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, at its regular meeting
held September 23, 2008, continued a public hearing on
10. MASTER CASE 04-325: HENRY MAYO NEWHALL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
MASTER PLAN, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND 2008 REVISED DRAFT EIR
AND AUTHORIZATION TO MODIFY THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH RBF CONSULTING FOR PREPARATION OF THE HMNMH
EIR - The project applicants, Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital (HMNMH) and G&L
Realty, propose a long-range Master Plan for the buildout of the HMNMH medical campus.
The HMNMH Master Plan will increase the existing square footage of the campus from
340,071 square feet to 667,434 square feet, a 327,363 net square -foot increase over a 15 -year
timeframe. The Master Plan includes -the construction of nine new structures on the existing
30.4 -acre hospital campus over a 15 -year period, which include three medical office buildings,
one inpatient building, a central plant building and four parking structures. Other project
components include the construction of two helipads, landscaping improvements, and traffic
improvements. A 15 -year Development Agreement is also requested. The original public
hearing was opened on September 25, 2007, continued to January 8, 2008, and then continued
to a date uncertain with required noticing to be done.
to Wednesday, November 19, 2008. The continued public hearing will be held at or after 6:00 p.m. in
the Council Chamber at 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, California.
Dated this 24th day of September, 2008.
/4o' "-�
SHARON L. DAWSON, CITY CLERK
***************************************************************
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
SHARON L. DAWSON, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that she is the duly
appointed and qualified City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita and that on September 24, 2008, she
caused the above notice to be posted at the door of the Council Chamber located at 23920 Valencia
Blvd., Santa Clarita, California.
SHARON L. DAWSON, CITY CLERK
Santa Clarita, California
Pubft/contph doc
EXHIBIT A
TOPICAL RESPONSES TO CEQA & PROJECT ISSUES RAISED
DURING THE SEPTEMBER 23, 2008, CITY COUNCIL HEARING
ON THE HENRY MAYO NEWHALL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
MASTER PLAN AND EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 1: CEQA-RELATED TOPICAL RESPONSES - These responses are directly
related to issues raised as part of the public comment process for the CEQA review of the
project and are intended to serve as part of the responses to comments required by CEQA
Guidelines section 15088.
TOPICAL RESPONSE NO. 1: CEQA ISSUE: PARKING DURING
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
1 — Parking During Construction: Where will both employees and visitors park
while construction occurs on the project site?
2 — Parking During Operation: Is there sufficient parking during each phase and
buildout of the proposed project? Does the proposed project comply with the
City's Unified Development Code? Have parking spaces been allocated for the
emergency room? If so, how were the spaces calculated? Are the emergency
room spaces consistent with the City's Unified Development Code?
TOPICAL RESPONSE NO. 2: CEQA ISSUE: PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACTS
AND MITIGATION
3 — Traffic Mitigation/Bridge & Thoroughfare District Fees: What mitigation is
the project applicant responsible for? Are the Bridge & Thoroughfare fees
applicable to the project? Does the project applicant get fee credit for traffic
mitigation/ improvements?
4 — Traffic Impacts: Are they too great and can they be mitigated?
5 — Eminent Domain: Is it required to mitigate traffic impacts?
6 — Site Access: Are the existing access locations off McBean Parkway
sufficient?
TOPICAL RESPONSE NO. 3: CEQA ISSUE: EARTH MOVEMENT AND
SLOPE FAILURE
7 — Slope Failure: Will the project cause slope failure to Summit homes?
8 — Earth Movement: Does the project exceed the 100,000 cubic yard
threshold?
TOPICAL RESPONSE NO. 4: CEQA ISSUE: PROJECT GENERATED NOISE
IMPACTS
9 — Helicopter Noise: Were the noise impacts from helicopters analyzed?
10 - Noise from Air Conditioning Units: Is mitigation required for the units?
TOPICAL RESPONSE NO. 5: CEQA ISSUE: PROJECT LAND USE IMPACTS
11 — Land Use - Is the project consistent with the General Plan and the Unified
Development Code? Is the project compatible with surrounding land uses?
PART 2: NON CEQA-RELATED PROJECT ISSUE TOPICAL RESPONSES - The
following responses are not CEQA-related issues subject to the requirement for written
responses pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15088. However, because many
commentators raised non-CEQA issues in conjunction with their CEQA comments, and
further given the direction of the Santa Clarita City Council that all comments be
responded to, these non-CEQA related topical responses are included herein solely for
the convenience of those who provided comments on the Project.
TOPICAL RESPONSE NO. 6: PROJECT ISSUES REGARDING
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TERMS
1 - The construction of a hospital or provision of additional inpatient care is not
guaranteed in the Development Agreement; only medical offices are guaranteed.
2 — The Development Agreement only guarantees one vertical column of rebar is
erected for the hospital.
3 — The Development Agreement fails to commit to additional operating rooms.
4 — Development Agreement does not provide a substantial public benefit.
5 — There are two development agreements. Which of the two development
agreements is currently being considered, the one the Planning Commission
denied or the August 7`h draft?
6 — There is no commitment for a neonatal facility in the Development
Agreement if another hospital provides one.
7 - The Development Agreement allows G&L to request paid parking in the
future even though the community is opposed.
8 - Co -mingling the for-profit G&L and the hospital, a nonprofit public benefit
corporation, in a contract with the City is bad public policy.
2
9 - The Development Agreement includes giveaways, a gift of public funds or
gives special consideration to G&L in terms of road mitigation fees.
10 - Other developers will request the City similarly honor their development
agreements under the Most Favored Nation clause.
11 - No commitment has been provided to ensure Centers of Excellence.
12 - The Development Agreement violates every public policy in the City's
history and violates all City and state law requirements.
TOPICAL RESPONSE NO. 7: PROJECT ISSUES REGARDING MASTER
PLAN
13 - A hospital is needed on the east side of the City.
14 - Medical office buildings should be constructed someplace else. There is
already enough medical office buildings on the hospital campus and vacant
medical office buildings are located throughout the City, so no additional medical
office space is needed on this hospital campus.
15 - Too much development is proposed on this site.
16 — Medical office space does not need to be located near a hospital to attract
top doctors.
17 - How do medical offices help the hospital?
18 - The medical office buildings take up land that could be used for expanding
the hospital.
19 - The only reduction in the Master Plan that has been proposed is to the
hospital building, not medical office buildings.
20 - The hospital proposes to construct a 100 -foot -high building that is
inconsistent with the proposed Master Plan.
21 - Three operating rooms (a fourth to be added in 2009) for the Master Plan do
not provide appropriate health care for the community. This is less than any
other hospital in northern Los Angeles County. The way to attract doctors is
through operating rooms.
22 - Trauma victims utilizing the parking structure helipad would be unduly
exposed to the elements and take too long to get to the hospital emergency room.
23 - The new cardiac catheterization lab may be archaic because 64 -cut scan
technology may virtually eliminate it before it opens and the cath lab will not do
3
stints or angioplasty, so paramedics will not bring heart attack victims to the
emergency room.
24 - There is insufficient parking. Why is it that the parking studies says that
existing Code requires 950 spaces and that there are currently 1,114 spaces on
site, yet people cannot find a place to park? 11
25 - Cars that cannot find a space and do not want to pay G&L's parking fees
park will park in the surrounding neighborhoods and people will not be able to
park in front of their houses.
26 - In accordance with the UDC, Master Plans must comply with Section
17.03.025.M regarding development standards of the underlying zone,
compatible design to existing and potential development and protection of
surrounding areas in the immediate vicinity.
27 - All access to Henry Mayo Hospital is from McBean Parkway. If that street
is shut down because of something like a broken water main, people cannot get to
the hospital.
28 - None of the requirements addressing noise previously applied to helipad
operations are now being required of the Master Plan.
TOPICAL RESPONSE NO. 8: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES, QUESTIONS &
COMMENTS
1 — The proposed OVOV designation of the hospital site as "institutional" is
inappropriate because the hospital site has always been designated as Low
Density Residential. The new General Plan will only bring rapid growth to a
city that is already landlocked with traffic that cannot be mitigated.
2 — Eminent domain is hidden in the conditions of approval and called a
Resolution of Necessity. Reports reviewed by the state say that eminent domain
is required to mitigate traffic.
3 — Is excluding the requirement for a CUP under the Master Plan legal?
4 — It is clear that when Section L, grounds for revocation of Mater Plans was
drafted in the UDC, the idea that profit and non-profit applicants would never
be co -mingled.
5 — The recent amendment of the Valencia Bridge and Thoroughfare District
gave a 2.2 million dollar gift of public funds to G&L Realty for improvements
to Orchard Village Road and McBean Parkway. There was no staff report or
public testimony on the decision to revise the Valencia B&T District to include
these improvements.
11
6 — True disaster readiness under the Master Plan would be delayed for 10 or 15
years.
7 — In order to get additional beds, Henry Mayo eliminated the Transitional
Care Unit (TCU) and now seniors have to go over the hill to recuperate.
8 — How many total parking spaces will be provided in surface parking lots and
the first level of parking structures?
9 — What are the helipad rules?
10 — Does Alternative No. 3, Reduced Height Inpatient Building, result in
similar environmental impacts as compared to the proposed project?
11 — List all mitigating factors to address impacts on the surrounding
neighborhoods.
W
EXHIBIT A
TOPICAL RESPONSES TO CEQA & PROJECT ISSUES RAISED
DURING THE SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 CITY COUNCIL HEARING
ON THE HENRY MAYO NEWHALL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
MASTER PLAN AND EIR
PART 1: CEQA-RELATED TOPICAL RESPONSES - The following responses are
directly related to issues raised as part of the public comment process for the CEQA
review of the project and are intended to serve as part of the responses to comments
required by CEQA Guidelines section 15088.
TOPICAL RESPONSE NO. 1: PARKING DURING CONSTRUCTION AND
OPERATION
CEQA Issue 1 — Parking During Construction: Where will both employees and
visitors park while construction occurs on the project site?
The September 2008 Revised Draft EIR includes a section specifically on the topic of
parking, Section 5.5, Parkin. The EIR section is based upon a technical report prepared
by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers, dated May 19, 2008 (the technical report is
included in its entirety as Appendix K of the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR). Both
the EIR section and technical report detail what would happen with respect to parking as
new buildings are constructed on the project site. To ensure that sufficient parking is
provided at all times, including during construction periods, mitigation has been
recommended for the project, Mitigation Measure PRKL The mitigation measure is
restated below, and requires the preparation of a Parking Mitigation Plan during
construction phases. The mitigation identifies the type of provisions that are to be
provided in the Plan, and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to
the commencement of construction. The mitigation does identify that during
construction, off-site parking for construction workers as well as on-site medical
employees is an option. If that option is chosen, the Plan must detail where off-site
parking would occur and how construction workers and/or on-site medical employees
would be transported to and from the site.
PRK1 To maximize the on-site parking for non -construction uses, the project applicant
shall prepare and implement a Parking Management Plan during the
construction phases of the project. The Plan may include provisions for: 1) no
construction worker parking on-site, and 2) off-site parking at an existing
facility or facilities with a parking surplus, with a shuttle system, or other
similar transportation method to and from the hospital campus. The Plan shall
be approved by the Director of Community Development prior to the issuance
of any building permit included in the HMNMH Master Plan, which is
identified in Section 3.0, Project Description, of this EIR.
In addition, the Conditions of Approval include a provision in which additional parking
strategies would be implemented in order to maintain adequate parking for the site and
to avoid any unanticipated impacts to nearby residential streets as a part of construction
1
S
of the project as well as during project operations. These strategies include applying a
"crosscheck" formula prior to each stage of development, monitoring actual peak
parking demands following each stage of Master Plan development, and implementation
of electronic wayfinding displays at strategic locations tied to parking availability
monitoring and "real time" reporting. With implementation of Mitigation Measure
PRKI, impacts during construction are mitigated to less than significant levels and
adequate parking will be provided.
CEQA Issue 2 — Parking During Operation: Is there sufficient parking during each
phase and buildout of the proposed project? Does the proposed project comply with
the City's Unified Development Code? Have parking spaces been allocated for the
Emergency Room? If so, how were the spaces calculated? Are the Emergency
Room spaces consistent with the City's Unified Development Code?
Sufficient parking will be provided during each phase and at buildout of the proposed
project. As noted above, a technical report prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan
Engineers and summarized in Section 5.5, Parking, of the September 2008 Revised Draft
EIR, details how the site operates today and how it will operate in the future as new
medical office buildings or the new hospital building are completed. In addition, the
Conditions of Approval include a provision in which additional parking strategies would
be implemented in order to maintain adequate parking for the site and to avoid any
unanticipated impacts to nearby residential streets during project operations. These
strategies include applying a "crosscheck" formula prior to each stage of development,
monitoring actual peak parking demands following each stage of Master Plan
development, and implementation of electronic wayfinding displays at strategic locations
tied to parking availability monitoring and "real time " reporting. The text below
summarizes the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR analysis of both existing conditions
and project impacts.
Existing Parking Supply
Presently, the parking supply exceeds the code requirement for existing site uses and
actual observed parking demands, based upon existing code requirements. Thus, at
present, there is not an overall parking deficit, as demonstrated by the numbers below:
Existing Total Parking Supply: 1,114 spaces
Existing City Code Requirement: 930 spaces
Therefore, the existing parking demand exceeds the Code requirement by 184 spaces.
This information is shown in Table 5-1 in Appendix K.
As part of the Linscott, Law & Greenspan study, actual parking demand was observed on
Wednesday, November 7, 2007 and Thursday, November 8, 2007. The observed demand
on November 7`h was 1,051 spaces and on November 8`h was 1,004 spaces; a 63 -space
and over 110 -space surplus, respectively. The parking demand numbers for November
7 1 and November 8`h reflect that approximately 30 construction workers currently park
on-site. These workers will no longer be utilizing any parking spaces at the completion
of the current construction project; therefore, parking demand will be decreased.
IJ
Although the overall site meets current parking demands, there are parking subareas on-
site that are full at the peak demand time. These areas include the spaces generally
between McBean Parkway and the hospital or medical office buildings. The largest of
these lots has attendant -assisted parking, where a visitor can leave their vehicle with an
attendant even if a space is not immediately or conveniently available. This allows the
parking supply in the various subareas to be efficiently managed . There are other
parking subareas, generally located towards the "back" of the site that were observed to
be slightly less utilized. These less utilized areas demonstrate the existing on site parking
surplus.
Future Parking Supply
With respect of future buildout of the Master Plan, the parking analysis summarized in
Section 5.5 indicates that application of current Code parking ratios will produce a
parking surplus. Calculations for each accumulating milestone of development
compared to the total on-site parking required at each of the milestones is also provided
in the parking analysis (refer to Table 4-2 in Appendix K). Required parking spaces per
each proposed component of the Master Plan are shown in Table 5.5-5, City Code
Parking Calculation Summary. In addition, Section 6.0 of Appendix K suggests a number
of parking management measures that the project applicant can utilize to assure the most
efficient use of on-site parking.
The City's Unified Development Code calculates parking based on square feet/footage,
which is defined as the gross square feet or footage of a building, tenant space, or area,
unless indicated otherwise (Section 17.18.130). The HMNMH Master Plan Parking
Summary and Footnote 2 within Table 2-1 of the Appendix K Parking Study Report,
which are both included in the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR, cite the City's Unified
Development Code definition of gross floor area, which was used as the basis to
determine the floor area values represented within the table. This footnote reads as
follows, "Floor Area (gross) " shall mean the sum of the gross horizontal areas of several
floors of the building measured from the exterior faces of the exterior walls excluding
exterior balconies and porches. Floor area shall not include stairwells, vertical shafts
and attics and mechanical penthouses provided there are not usable rooms, no windows
and the mechanical penthouse area is used exclusively for mechanical equipment. "
As noted in a comment on the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR, the footnote in the two
exhibits listed above does not reflect a recent Unified Development Code amendment that
took effect in February 2007 which removed stairways from the list of gross floor area
exclusions. As a result, the City -required parking, as specified in the September 2008
Revised Draft EIR, inadvertently did not include the square footage of stairwell space for
MOBS 1, 2 and 3 or the stairwell square footage in existing MOB, E.
To correct this omission, the HMNMH Master Plan Parking Summary included as part of
the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR has been revised to include an additional 2,752
square feet of building space. Specifically, square footage of stairwell space by building
is listed below:
3
MOB 1
800 square feet
MOB 2
800 square feet
MOB 3
800 square feet
MOB E
352 square feet
Total
2,752 square feet
The addition of 2,752 gross square feet of medical office building space, which
represents the total square footage of stairwell space, would increase the project's
overall parking requirement by 14 parking spaces (applying the City's code ratio of one
parking space per 200 square feet). Therefore, the total number of on -campus parking
required by the City has been changed from 2,190 spaces to 2,204 spaces (an increase of
14 spaces). Since the project proposes a total of 2,231 parking spaces, the project will
continue to meet the City's existing parking requirement of 2,204 and will provide an
excess of 27 spaces beyond the code requirements. This adjustment in required parking
has been reflected in the HMNMH Master Plan Parking Summary. The total number of
parking spaces to be provided on the hospital campus as part of the HMNMH Master
Plan Project or the conclusions in the EIR will not change as a result of this revision.
Emergency Room Parking
At the time the original hospital was constructed, Los Angeles County code required
parking based on the number of hospital beds licensed by OSHPD for HMNMH.
Following City incorporation, the City added an additional requirement for outpatient
services. At no time has the HMNMH been required to provide a separate calculation for
emergency room beds.
Section 17.18.130 of the City's UDC currently requires that two parking spaces be
provided for each licensed bed. The UDC defines "licensed bed" as a bed for which a
hospital holds a license to operate by the State of California Office of Statewide Health
Planning and Development (OSHPD). Such beds are those intended for an overnight stay
or longer. Emergency room beds are not licensed beds, according to OSHPD
regulations. The definition of licensed bed was recently added to the UDC to provide
clarification to existing parking code requirements. The UDC amendment adding this
definition did not change how parking space requirements are calculated for hospitals.
According to the U.S. Health Department's Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
(AHRQ) standardized definition of licensed hospital bed is "the maximum number of
beds for which a hospital holds a license to operate. " Many hospitals do not operate all
of the beds for which they are licensed.
It is important to note that parking for emergency room space has never been calculated
on a per -bed ratio. Instead, the emergency room is parked based on its square footage.
The HMNMH Master Plan calls out 5,518 square feet of existing emergency room urgent
care space that is parked at a 1:400 ratio, resulting in 18 parking spaces in accordance
with the City's Unified Development Code requirements.
Additionally, the Parking Study Report prepared as part of the Master Plan did not rely
on the Code calculations alone. The extensive field study data and analysis, leading to
the "crosscheck" formula, were developed to assure a parking balance throughout
E
Master Plan implementation. This balance is further assured by Mitigation Measure
PRK2, as provided below, in Section 5.5, Parkin, of the September 2008 Revised Draft
EIR, which requires that the City review of each phase of the project to ensure the
provision of adequate parking.
PRK2 As part of the plan review process for each phase of Master Plan
buildout, the City of Santa Clarita shall ensure that the project applicant
accompanies each development phase with adequate parking, in
compliance with the City's Municipal Code.
TOPICAL RESPONSE NO. 2: PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND
MITIGATION
CEQA Issue 3 — Traffic Mitigation/Bridge & Thoroughfare District Fees: What
mitigation is the project applicant responsible for? Are the Bridge & Thoroughfare
fees applicable to the project? Does the project applicant receive fee credit for
traffic mitigation/ improvements?
The September 2008 Draft EIR identifies mitigation measures associated with project -
related and cumulative projects -related impacts to ensure that impacts are at less than
significant levels (Level of Service D or better). The eight mitigation measures are
restated below.
Project -Related Mitigation
TR1 In order to address impacts along McBean Parkway at the Magic
Mountain Parkway intersection, the following improvements shall be
required:
♦ Add a third through lane for the westbound direction (re -striping).
This improvement shall be implemented in conjunction with the
construction of MOB 1.
♦ Add right -turn overlap phasing for the westbound right -turn movement
(signal modification). This improvement shall be implemented in
conjunction with the construction of MOB 1.
♦ Add a third through lane for the eastbound direction (re -striping). This
improvement shall be implemented in conjunction with the
construction of the Inpatient Building/MOB2.
TR2 In order to address impacts along Orchard Village Road at the Wiley
Canyon Road intersection, the following improvement shall be required:
♦ Add a separate northbound right -turn lane with right -turn overlap
phasing (within existing right-of-way between Wiley Canyon Road
and the Santa Clara River South Fork Bridge). This improvement
shall be implemented in conjunction with the construction of MOB I.
TR3 In order to address impacts along Orchard Village Road at the McBean
Parkway intersection, the following improvements shall be required:
♦ Widen the southbound approach (project driveway) to allow for a left -
turn lane and a second through lane. This improvement shall be
implemented in conjunction with the construction of MOB I.
♦ Add a separate westbound right -turn lane (for project access). This
improvement shall be implemented in conjunction with the
construction of the Inpatient Building/MOB2.
D
♦ Add a separate southbound right -turn lane (project driveway). This
improvement shall be implemented in conjunction with the
construction of the Inpatient Building /MOB2.
TR4 In order to address impacts along Valencia Boulevard at the Magic
Mountain Parkway intersection, the following improvement shall be
required:
♦ Add a second westbound left -turn lane by removing the existing right -
turn lane (re -striping the westbound approach as a mirror image of the
existing eastbound approach). This improvement shall be
implemented in conjunction with the construction of the Inpatient
Building/MOB2.
TR5 The project applicant shall pay fees to the established Valencia Bridge and
Thoroughfare District, in accordance with City policy, in order to provide
a fair -share contribution of funds for future traffic system improvements.
Cumulative Projects -Related Mitigation
TR6 In order to address impacts along McBean Parkway at the Orchard Village
Road intersection, the following improvement shall be required:
♦ Restripe the hospital driveway to reconfigure the first through lane to a
shared left-turn/through lane. This improvement shall be implemented
in conjunction with the construction of MOB3.
TR7 In order to address long-term (2030) impacts along McBean Parkway at
the Valencia Boulevard intersection, the following improvement shall be
required:
♦ Add a fourth westbound through lane (requires the widening of
Valencia Boulevard).
The project's fair share equals 4.3 percent of the cost of this improvement
(refer to Table 5.4-16, Share Summary). If a fair share program has been
adopted or if these improvements have been added to a district, such as a
Bridge & Thoroughfare District, payment of fair share costs shall be made
prior to the issuance of a building permit for MOB3. This fair share
payment shall be considered this project's full compliance of Mitigation
Measure TR7 and, if a funding program is established, would reduce
impacts to less than significant.
TR8 In order to address long-term (2030) impacts along McBean Parkway at
the Orchard Village Road intersection, the following improvement shall be
required:
7
♦ Add a separate eastbound ;right -turn lane (requires the widening of
McBean Parkway).
The project's fair share equals 30.5 percent of the cost of this
improvement (refer to Table 5.4-16, Share Summary). If a fair share
program has been adopted or if these improvements have been added to a
district, such as a Bridge & Thoroughfare District, payment of fair share
costs shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit for M0133.
This fair share payment shall be considered this project's full compliance
of Mitigation Measure TR8 and, if a funding program is established,
would reduce impacts to less than significant.
The project applicant has full responsibility for Mitigation Measures TRI through TRS,
since the mitigation applies to project -related impacts, as well as Mitigation Measure
TR6, since the improvement is on the project site. With respect to Mitigation Measures
TR7 and TR8, the project applicant is responsible for a specified percentage of the
project cost. The installation of the improvements in Mitigation Measures TR7 and TR8
is the responsibility of the Valencia Bridge & Major Thoroughfare Construction Fee
District, of the improvements have been included within a Bridge & Thoroughfare
District. If so, the project applicant is required to pay fees to the District which
constitutes their fair share of the necessary improvements. This latter scenario will apply
to Mitigation Measure TR7 and TR8.
Subsequent to release of the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR, the City of Santa Clarita
amended the Valencia Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Construction Fee District (B&T)
on September 9, 2008 (City Council Resolution 08-89). Pursuant to that Resolution, the
City of Santa Clarita amended the list of improvements, and fees charged, within the
Distract. The Resolution added the improvements for the intersections of McBean
Parkway and Orchard Village Road and McBean Parkway and Valencia Boulevard to
those included in the District.
The amendment to the B&T District will result in a credit of approximately $300, 000 of
street improvements that are required as a part of the proposed project (refer to
Mitigation Measures above). The amendment raised the fees required to be paid to the
District. The proposed project's B&T fees will increase from $450, 000 to more than
$750,000, and as previously noted, the proposed project will receive a credit of $300, 000
toward the payment of the B&T fees. In addition to the B&T fees, the City, pursuant to
the Development Agreement, if at is approved, ,will receive from the proposed project an
additional contribution of $500, 000.
CEQA Issue 4 — Traffic Impacts: Are they too great and can they be mitigated?
Section 5.4 Traffic, of the September 2008 Draft EIR analyzed the traffic impacts of the
proposed project. As noted in CEQA Issue I above, eight traffic -related mitigation
measures have been identified. The eight mitigation measures reduce project- and
cumulative projects -related impacts to less than significant levels and ensure that Levels
of Service would be at D or better.
CEQA Issue 5 — Eminent Domain: Is it required to mitigate traffic impacts?
Eminent domain is not required to mitigate either project -specific or cumulative traffic
impacts. As part of the proposed project, the project applicant will be required to
dedicate a minimum of 58 feet of public right-of-way from the centerline along the
project frontage plus an additional right-of-way dedication to accommodate a new right -
turn lane from eastbound McBean Parkway to southbound Orchard Village Road. This
dedication allows future traffic conditions to be addressed and mitigated without the use
of eminent domain. The project applicant's land dedication on the project frontage
provides adequate land in which to construct future traffic improvements along McBean
Parkway, without the need to acquire properties along McBean Parkway.
Section 7.4 of the Development Agreement includes a provision whereby the applicant
agrees to irrevocably dedicate additional right-of-way along the project frontage needed
to realign and expand McBean Parkway. This section further states that the use of
eminent domain to acquire any residential real property by the City of Santa Clarita for
the HMNMH Master Plan traffic improvements or the McBean Parkway realignment
improvements is precluded.
CEQA Issue 6 — Site Access: Are the existing access locations off McBean Parkway
sufficient?
Currently, access to the project site is provided via three driveways located along
McBean Parkway. Two locations are currently controlled by traffic signals at Orchard
Village Road and Avenida Navarre. A third unsignalized driveway is located
approximately 150 feet east of the westerly property line and allows both right and left
turns onto McBean Parkway.
Section 5.4, Tra is of the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR, analyzed site access
impacts. The EIR concluded that site access impacts would be less than significant with
the imposition of mitigation, specifically Mitigation Measure TR3, listed below.
TR3 In order to address impacts along Orchard Village Road at the McBean
Parkway intersection, the following improvements shall be required:
♦ Widen the southbound approach (project driveway) to allow for a left -
turn lane and a second through lane. This improvement shall be
implemented in conjunction with the construction of MOB 1.
♦ Add a separate westbound right -turn lane (for project access). This
improvement shall be implemented in conjunction with the
construction of the Inpatient Building/MOB2.
♦ Add a separate southbound right -turn lane (project driveway). This
improvement shall be implemented in conjunction with the
construction of the Inpatient Building /MOB2.
The Master Plan has been reviewed by the City, which included a review of site access.
The City has determined that site access is adequate. Both the City and the HMNMH
E
have emergency procedures that can be employed to ensure patients can still access the
hospital site in the event of either a natural or man-made emergency.
10
TOPICAL RESPONSE NO. 3: EARTH MOVEMENT AND SLOPE FAILURE
CEQA Issue 7 — Slope Failure: Will the project cause slope failure to Summit
homes?
All proposed development ' (inpatient building, medical office buildings, and parking
structures) would be located on the flat area of the site, which is the same area that has
been developed for many years. No development is proposed on the slopes in the
northerly portion of the site. Additional landscaping may be added to the slope, but no
buildings. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause slope failure to homes in the
Summit housing development to the northwest and north of the project site. This is
supported by the analysis in Section 5.8, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, in the September
2008 Draft EIR.
The following text is restated from page 5.8-8 (Environmental Setting) of the September
2008 Draft EIR:
"Seismically Induced Landsliding
Because the project area is situated on a relatively flat alluvial plain and lacks any
significant slopes, the hazard from slope instability, from both landslides and
debris flows, is considered negligible. However, slopes to the north of the site
have the potential for landslide movement during a seismic event, which could
impact the project site."
The following text is restated from pages 5.8-13 and 5.8-14 (Impacts and Mitigation
Measures) of the September 2008 Draft EIR:
"Landslides and slope stability
Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact.
Impact Analysis: The majority of the project site is situated on a relatively flat
alluvial plain and lacks significant slopes. Therefore, the hazard from slope
instability, from both landslides and debris flows, is considered negligible. The
California Geological Survey (formerly the California Division of Mines and
Geology) has designated the slopes along the north side of the project site as
having the potential for landslide movement during a seismic event
(emphasis added). However, because the slope was engineered as part of the
housing development above the site and the toe of the slope lies more than 50 feet
from any of the proposed buildings, it is considered unlikely that future landslide
activity on these slopes, if any, would impact the proposed project. In all events,
the development of the project would not impact the slope.
The proposed project would not result in exposure of people or property to
geologic hazards such as landslides resulting from earthquakes. Thus, impacts are
concluded to be less than significant in this regard."
11
In conclusion, the project is not proposing any buildings on the northerly slope area.
Thus, while slope failure could occur as the result of a •seismically -induced event, any
such failure would not result from development associated with the proposed project.
CEQA Issue 8 — Earth Movement: Does the project exceed the 100,000 cubic yard
threshold?
Section 5.8, Geology, Soils and Seismicity of the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR
states that collective earth movement for excavation and overexcavation for HMNMH
Master Plan improvements will exceed 100,000 cubic yards, which is a threshold of
significance per CEQA Guidelines. Because this threshold of significance was met,
potential geological, impacts for the HMNMH Master Plan project were evaluated as part
of the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR. The impacts of earth movement are analyzed
in Section 5.8, as well as in other chapters of the EIR related to construction activity (air
quality, noise, hydrology and water quality). The September 2008 Revised Draft EIR
concludes that impacts related to earth movement would be reduced to less than
significant levels with the implementation of mitigation measures that reduce impacts
associated with grading to less than significant levels.
With regard to the exportation of dirt off the HMNMH campus, the project proposes the
construction of an Inpatient Building, three parking structures (PSI, PS2, and PS3), and
one subterranean parking structure (PS4). Soil excavation and export totaling 93,293
cubic yards over the 15 -year life of the project is required. The following indicates the
amount of soil export required for each of the five structures:
♦ Inpatient Building — 13,100 cubic yards;
♦ PSI —17,700 cubic yards;
e PS2 —11,493 cubic yards; '
♦ PS3 — 9, 000 cubic yards; and
♦ PS4 — 42, 000 cubic yards.
12
TOPICAL RESPONSE NO. 4: PROJECT -GENERATED NOISE IMPACTS
CEQA Issue 9 — Helicopter Noise: Were the noise impacts from helicopters
analyzed?
The noise impacts associated with helicopter operations to the project site were analyzed
in the September 2008 Revised Draft EM, and are specifically detailed in Section 5.7,
Noise. The analysis concludes that the future helicopter operations would be below the
City's 65-dBA CNEL exterior noise standard for residential uses and further utilizes a
24-hour CNEL measurement, for the reasons set forth in the Bridgenet study. 1
Section 5.7.2 of the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR provides a summary of existing
helipad operations. Operations in 2005 averaged 10 to 12 arrivals or departures a
month. Based on the BridgeNet report, monitoring at two sites west/northwest of the
hospital showed that ambient noise levels over a period of 35 days, taken in December
2003 and January and February of 2004 (including helicopter activities), were 59.9 dBA
CNEL (Site 1, which is closer to the existing helipad) and 53.8 dBA CNEL (Site 2, which
is away from the existing helipad); both were below the 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise
standard for residential uses. The majority of the helicopter events measured at these
sites occurred for durations of more than one minute but less than five minutes per hour.
The impact analysis on page 5.7-28 notes that the level of helicopter activity is expected
to increase to 15 to 17 flights a month in the future. The increase in flight activity from
12 to 17 a month represents an increase in the noise exposure level of about 1.5 dBA (in
terms of the 24-hour weighted average scale of CNEL), which is not large enough to be
perceptible.
For example, the increase of the noise level at the two monitoring sites to 61.4 dBA
CNEL (Site I in the BridgeNet report) and 55.3 dBA CNEL (Site 2 in the BridgeNet
report) would not result in the respective noise levels to exceed the City's 65-dBA CNEL
exterior noise standard for residential uses. Therefore, no significant long-term noise
impacts would occur from the helipad operations at the hospital associated with buildout
of the proposed Master Plan.
Cities have very little regulatory authority over helipad operations. California Public
Utilities Code 21662.4(a) specifically exempts cities from regulating the number offlight
departures and arrivals based on the aircraft's noise level. As stated in previous staff
reports prepared for the Master Plan, the Hospital obtained approval of a Minor Use
Permit (MUP) from the Planning Commission in December of 2004 to construct a
temporary elevated helipad at the rear of the existing hospital near the existing
emergency room. That permit expired in 2007. At the September 23, 2008, City Council
meeting, a member of the public voiced concern that specific conditions of approval for
the now expired 2004 Minor Use Permit for the construction and operation of an
elevated helipad structure on the hospital campus were not included in the HMNMH
1 It should be noted that the 65 dBA threshold and the use of the 24 hour CNEL is also consistent
with the methodology utilized to evaluate airport noise by CalTrans under California Code of
Regulations Title 21, section 5000 et seq
13
Master Plan Conditions of Approval. Although these issues are already regulated by
existing federal, state and local mandates, to address this concern, the following three
conditions have been added into the Conditions of Approval, as follows•
PL9. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of OSHPD (Office of
Statewide Health Planning and Development) with regard to operation of the
helipads.
PL10. The applicant shall conduct a noise study within three months of
construction of the helipad on Parking Structure 1 and the Inpatient Building to
ensure compliance with all applicable Federal, State and local standards. This
noise study shall conform to the standards, methodology and scope of the
Helicopter Noise Analysis conducted for the Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial
Hospital by BridgeNet International.
PL11. The applicant shall store all chemicals in compliance with the applicable
standards relating to the storage of hazardous chemicals and shall obtain the
appropriate approvals from the Los Angeles County Fire Department, OSHPD,
and other affected agencies for the storage of hazardous chemicals relating to a
helipad.
CEQA Issue 10 - Noise from Air Conditioning Units: Is mitigation required for the
units?
Rooftop air conditioning units (HVAC) are intended to be placed near the center of the
rooftop on the Medical Office Buildings (MOB). The HVAC unit is approximately eight
feet high, which includes a concrete mounting pad and vibration isolators. The HVAC
units will be fenced in by a 9 -foot, 6 -inch -high barrier screen wall on four sides. The
screen walls are constructed of metal stud framing, structural steel supports and bracing
with exterior plaster finish on both sides of the screen walls. The reduction of dBA level
from inside the screen wall to the outside of the screen wall averages from S to 10 dBA
sound reduction depending upon the type of construction materials.
The approximate distance of the screen wall to the rooftop HVAC unit is 10 feet. The
screen wall is located another 20 feet from the edge of each of the MOB's exterior
parapet walls, and the exterior wall of the building closest to the sidewalk at McBean
Parkway is another 20 feet. The total horizontal distance from the HVAC units to the
vertical planes of the sidewalk is approximately SO feet for MOB] and MOB2. The
distance between the property boundary on the west for MOBS is 93 feet. On the western
property boundary adjacent to MOBS is a heavily landscaped raised berm and screen
wall, which also act as noise barriers. The total vertical distance from the finished grade
to the top of the screen wall is approximately 51 feet, 6 inches.
Based on the manufacturer's equipment data, the HVAC unit's daytime sound level
located at the property boundary or sidewalk is SS dBA without any shielding effects
from a sound wall or rooftop/parapet wall. The rooftop/parapet wall would provide at
least 10 dBA noise reduction for receptors at the sidewalk (SI feet 6 inches below and SO
feet`away). With the 7.5 dBA noise reduction (this is an average assumption in the noise
14
reduction) provided by the 9 -foot, 6 -inch screen wall around the HVAC unit, the noise
level would be reduced to below 40 dBA. Thus, the rooftop HVAC units on MOB] and
MOB2 will be substantially below the City's daytime threshold of 60 dBA and nighttime
threshold of 50 dBA.
For receptors at the western property line, the noise reduction provided by the
rooftop/parapet wall would be less, but the longer distance (93 feet to MOBS, plus the 30
feet from building edge to the units) provides an additional 7.5 dBA noise attenuation.
Total noise reduction would still be over 15 dBA and reduce the rooftop HVAC noise to
below 40 dBA. Thus, the rooftop HVAC units on MOBS will also be substantially below
the City's daytime threshold of 60 dBA and nighttime threshold of 50 dBA.
In conclusion, this range of stationary noise levels is below the City's Noise Ordinance
requirements and no mitigation is required.
15
TOPICAL RESPONSE NO. 5: PROJECT LAND USE IMPACTS
CEQA Issue 11 — Land Use - Is the project consistent with General Plan and the
Unified Development Code? Is the project compatible with surrounding land uses?
General Plan
The project is consistent with the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. The analysis
related to this was specifically detailed in Section 5. 1, Land Use, in the September 2008
Revised Draft EIR. The proposed project's consistency with the General Plan is
articulated in Table 5.1-1, which provides an analysis of the proposed project's
consistency with applicable General Plan goals and policies. As indicated in Table 5.1-
1 the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable goals and policies of the
City of Santa Clarita General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent
with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan, and less than significant
impacts would occur in this regard.
The consistency review encompasses 18 applicable goals and 17 applicable policies in
the Land Use Element, Community Design Element, Circulation Element, Human
Resources Element, Open Space and Conservation Element, and Safety Element. Among
the goals and policies reviewed is Goal 2 of the Human Resources Element of the Santa
Clarita General Plan which states, "Promote the provisions of a broad range of high
quality health care services to meet the existing and future needs of City residents. " The
proposed Master Plan would expand the existing medical and health care services
available to include additional acute care hospital beds, intensive care beds, and
cardiac, high-risk pregnancy and neonatal care, among others. The proposed Master
Plan also implements two policies of Goal 4 of the Land Use Element which states, "To
ensure that development in the City is consistent with the overall community character
and that it contributes in a positive way toward the City's image. " Policy 4.3 states,
"Encourage setbacks, landscaping, or other measures to provide physical and visual
buffers between land uses to minimize potential land use conflicts between dissimilar
uses, " and Policy 4 14 states, "Regulate lighting in new and existing development so that
it does not unduly contribute to nighttime visual pollution and glare, and is compatible
with surrounding land uses. " Building setbacks, stepbacks and height, architectural
design and faVade treatments, enhanced perimeter campus landscaping, pedestrian
amenities, and lighting restrictions comply with the City's General Plan, the Unified
Development Code and the Architectural Design Guidelines.
Unified Development Code
The Permitted Use Chart (Section 17.13.040) in the City's Unified Development Code
(UDC) categorizes "Hospital Services" as a "Public or Semi Public Use Type."
"Hospital Services " is defined in Section 17.12.070 of the Unified Development Code as
"institutions providing and may include associated facilities for outpatient and
emergency medical services, heliports, diagnostic facilities, laboratories, training,
research, administrations and services to patients, employees and visitors. " "Hospital
Services " is an allowed use in the Residential Low zone with the approval of a Master
16
Plan or a Conditional Use Permit. In addition to diagnostic facilities, laboratories
and patient services, medical offices provide primary health services and medical or
surgical care to persons on an outpatient basis and are, therefore, included in the
definition of "Hospital Services. " The medical office buildings on the HMNMH campus
are tied to the overall operations of the hospital and are, therefore, included as part of
the hospital services definition. For this reason, the Master Plan,proposal and the use of
the property for hospital services do not present a conflict with the zoning of the property
or the requirements of the Unified Development Code.
The requirement for a CUP or Master Plan for any land use does not render the use
inconsistent with the Zoning, but instead requires a higher level of review and
discretion when considering the establishment or expansion of the use (emphasis
added).
The Master Plan meets the development standards of the City's Unified Development
Code. As specified in the Section 17.15. 010 of the Unified Development Code, a 25 foot
setback is required for public and semi-public uses within a residential zone from the
adjacent residentially -zoned properties that are developed with residential uses. The
placement of all buildings and parking structures proposed as part of the HMNMH
Master Plan will be set back at distances greater than 25 feet. In addition, a steep hill
with dense, mature trees extends along the northwestern property line and creates a
topographic division between the rear of the hospital campus and adjacent residential
neighborhoods to the west and northwest.
A conditional use permit (CUP) was previously approved by Los Angeles County in 1971
for development and operation of a hospital at this location prior to City incorporation.
The CUP granted by the County determined that the hospital use was compatible with,
and would not adversely affect, adjacent residential uses. The hospital has been
operating at its present location for over 30 years. Pursuant to the UDC, the hospital is
now seeking approval of a Master Plan for the medical campus expansion, buildings that
exceed the UDC's 35 foot height threshold, dirt exportation and two helipads.
Land Use Compatibility
The Master Plan is compatible with surrounding land uses, including development in the
Valencia master planned community. This conclusion is supported by the proposed
project's compliance with the UDC. The adopted UDC contains standards for
transitioning between potentially incompatible uses addressing distance separation
between uses (setbacks), building heights, and landscaping that are intended to minimize
possible impacts. Section 5.1, Land Use and Section 5.3, Aesthetics. Light, and Glare of
the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR include analysis related to these standards,
specifically architecture and landscaping, building setbacks, and noise, details the visual
impacts of the site, including site massing and views from surrounding uses.
Architecture & Landscaping• According to the City's Architectural Design Guidelines,
Valencia is characterized as probably the most urban community in Santa Clarita with its
combination of lush landscaping, urban architecture and sophistication in a suburban
setting.
17
The existing hospital campus would provide planters with mature trees and dense
landscaping along the westerly property line and approximately 200 feet of mature trees
along a steep slope at the back of the -property extending up to the existing residential
neighborhood. Additional discussion regarding proposed landscaping is discussed in
Section 5.3, Aesthetics, Light, and Glare, of the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR.
MOB] and PSI are contemporarily designed structures consisting of a combination of
complementary and contrasting colors and materials to create visual interest and an
attractive appearance of the hospital campus as one travels along McBean Parkway.
The structures are located over 300 feet away from the main entrance to the campus at
McBean Parkway and Orchard Village Road to create a more open appearance to the
site and to allow additional landscaping. A prominent decorative cornice treatment is
included along portions of the fagade on MOB] to enhance the building design and
further reinforcing the Valencia -style architecture of the community on the hospital
campus. Decorative metalwork is included along the three most prominent sides of PSI
to allow vine plantings to grow up the sides of the parking structure, softening its
appearance and adding to the aesthetic appeal of the campus. Subsequent building
facades would be required to maintain this same level of aesthetic quality as the campus
builds out.
Buildin,z Setbacks: UDC Section 17.15.010.A.12 requires a minimum building setback of
25 feet for public and semi-public uses from residential property lines.
The hospital campus contains a large landscaped slope along the rear portion of the
property that topographically separates the hospital use from the Summit residential
neighborhood. The proposed buildings would be set back a minimum of 240 feet from the
Summit residential property lines.
Along the western edge of the campus, adjacent to the Village Homes North
neighborhood, the proposed three-story Medical Office Building 2 would be set back
from the adjacent residential properties 178 feet at the front of the building (facing
McBean Parkway) and 165 feet at the rear of the building
Northwest of MOB2, the proposed three-story structures consisting of MOBS and PS3
would be set back from 75 to 131 feet from the Village Homes North neighborhood to the
west improving land use interface between the two uses. In addition, PS3 would be
designed with no openings along the west side of the structure adjacent to residential
uses to maintain residents' privacy. Residential properties to the east and south are
separated from the hospital campus by McBean Parkway, a designated major highway
on the City's Master Plan of Highway and Roadway System Map, as shown in Exhibit C-
2 of General Plan Circulation Element.
An at -grade helipad located on the northeastern portion of the campus became
operational with the opening of the HMNMH in 1975 and was operational for almost 30
years before service was suspended due to on -campus construction in September 2005.
The Inpatient Building, which would have a rooftop helipad, would be located in the area
previously occupied by the at -grade helipad. At its closest point, the Inpatient Building
helipad would be approximately 350 feet from homes in the adjacent neighborhood.
Instead of landing at surface level, helicopters would land at the rooftop, which measures
85 feet in height. The project also proposes a second helipad on the rooftop of PSI,
which measures 47 feet in height. This helipad location would be approximately 250 feet
from the nearest residence across McBean Parkway.
Noise: Impacts associated with noise are addressed in Section 5.6, Noise, of the
September 2008 Revised Draft EIR. The project will not have noise impacts incompatible
with surrounding development.
In summary, the Master Plan has incorporated a number of features that specifically
address compatibility with surrounding uses, which is supported by the analysis in
Section 5.1, Land Use, and Section 5.3, Aesthetics, Light, and Glare, of the September
2008 Revised Draft EIR, which has been summarized above, and is highlighted by the
examples below.
1. Parking Structure 3. Parking Structure 3 will be a four -level (three levels above
ground and one subterranean level), 278 -space parking structure in the westerly portion
of the campus. The parking structure will be 27 feet to the top of the parapet and 30 feet
to the top of the parking lot lights. This structure will have a minimum setback from the
westerly property line of 75 feet. An architecturally enhanced solid wall will be provided
along the western fagade of the parking structure.
2. Height Zones. The Master Plan includes height zones across the medical campus,
which are is designed to avoid adverse visual impacts to surrounding residential
neighborhoods from the addition of new buildings and parking structures. The no -
development setback areas (Zone 1) and reduced heights at the main hospital entrance
and around the periphery of the campus reduce the overall massing and scale of the
development. The zone designated for 85 foot building heights (Zone 5) is limited in size
and geographically situated in the central portion of the campus and is surrounded by
Zone 1 (zero build along slope area), Zone 3 (35 foot height limit), and Zone 4 (47 foot
height limit). The significant grade differences and landscape buffering that exists along
the northwestern/western edge of the medical campus further buffers visual impacts from
surrounding land uses. The height zones are depicted on Exhibit 5.3-10, Proposed
Building Height Limit Zones, in the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR.
3. Landscaping. Currently, 43 percent of the project site is landscaped with mature
vegetation. Trees and landscaping currently exist throughout the parking lots where
MOB], MOB2, and. PSI are to be constructed, as well as along the hillside area and
along the western property boundary. The proposed project would not remove any of the
landscaping outside of the rear access road and would retain this landscape buffer.
Existing mature trees that would screen parking lots and parking structures would be
retained throughout the campus wherever possible. The Master Plan includes
landscaping plans for McBean Parkway, perimeter landscaping, and on-site landscaping,
which are intended to soften the overall appearance of the built environment. The
specifics regarding landscaping are detailed in Section 5.3, Aesthetics, Light, and Glare,
of the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR.
19
r
In conclusion, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the Unified
Development Code, and is compatible with surrounding land uses.
20
PART 2: NON CEQA-RELATED PROJECT ISSUE TOPICAL RESPONSES - The
following responses are not CEQA-related issues subject to the requirement for written
responses pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15088. However, because many
commentators raised non-CEQA issues in conjunction with their CEQA comments, and
further given the direction of the Santa Clarita City Council that all comments be
responded to, these non-CEQA related topical responses are included herein solely for
the convenience of those who provided comments on the Project.
TOPICAL RESPONSE NO. 6: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TERMS
Project Issue 1 - The construction of a hospital or provision of additional inpatient
care is not guaranteed in the Development Agreement; only medical offices are
guaranteed.
The issue raised does not raise an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA or
applicable to the project Draft EIR. The Development Agreement (DA) specifies a 15 -
year term for construction of the Master Plan and provides a sequence as to how the
individual buildings would be built out. A development agreement can specify that
construction commence within a specified time and that the project or any phase of a
project be completed within a specified time.
The project proponents (Henry Mayo Hospital and G&L Realty) cannot definitively
guarantee, nor can the City guarantee, that any of the medical office buildings or the
Inpatient Building will be constructed until building permits have been secured and
financing is in place. As specified in Section 4.7.1 of the Development Agreement, a
building permit will not be issued for MOBS until foundations for the Inpatient Building
are substantially complete and either vertical steel rebar is in place for the first
structural column section or, if a steel structural frame is to be used, the first vertical
steel column section is in place. With this work, completion of the Inpatient Building is
substantially guaranteed. It should be noted further that if any medical office buildings
are built, parking structures can be guaranteed as part of the DA in that the medical
office buildings would not be issued a Certificate of Occupancy without them.
Paragraph 5 of the Draft DA restricts HMNMH property and buildings to be used for
hospital and hospital -related uses only. Medical office buildings owned by G & L Realty
may only be used for uses such as doctors' offices, pharmacies, diagnostic imaging
facilities, lab specimen collection, doctor billing service and other health care services as
may be provided by doctors or HMNMH.
Project Issue 2 — The Development Agreement only guarantees one vertical column
of rebar is erected for the hospital.
The issue raised expresses the opinions of the commentator. Section 4.7.1 of the
Development Agreement requires that foundations for the Inpatient Building be
substantially complete and either vertical steel rebar in place for the first structural
column section or, if a steel structural frame is to be used, the first vertical steel column
must be in place prior to issuance of a building permit for MOB 3. Based upon estimates
provided by the project applicant, the overall cost of constructing the Inpatient Building
21
is $125,000,000 (excluding equipment financing and entitlements). The level of
construction required prior to issuance of the building permit for MOBS includes the
following activities and equates to approximately 17% of the construction of the Inpatient
Building:
Prepare Architectural and Engineering Plans: $3.75 million
Pay Permit Fees:
6.25 million
Excavation of the site:
15 million
Pour foundations:
18.75 million
Begin erecting steel:
21.25 million
TOTAL:
$65 million
Project Issue 3 — The Development Agreement fails to commit to additional
operating rooms.
The issue raised expresses the opinions of the commentator. The Hospital currently has
four operating rooms in the main hospital that are used for inpatients. One operating
room must be open for trauma cases at all times. One operating room must be available
for emergency c -sections within 30 minutes of the emergency. Additionally, HMNMH
operates an Ambulatory Care Center next to the hospital campus that includes an
outpatient surgical center that also has four operating rooms for their dedicated purpose.
Section 5.8.4 of the Development Agreement contains a provision in which HMNMH is
committed to increase its operating rooms from 4 to at least 6 operating rooms as part of
the Master Plan.
Project Issue 4 - Development Agreement does not provide a substantial public
benefit.
The issue raised expresses the opinions of the commentator. Section 17.03.010 of the
City's Unified Development Code requires that a Development Agreement provide "a
clear and substantial public benefit" to the City and/or its residents. As stated in the
Development Agreement, the following benefits to the public would occur as a result of
development of the HMNMH Master Plan:
1. 120 additional hospital beds plus new, needed medical services in cardiac care,
neonatal and high risk pregnancy care, intensive care and surgical care;
2. Results in approximately 570 additional long-term employment opportunities in a
range of professional and non-professional health care positions;
3. Improves the community's emergency services and disaster readiness by the inclusion
of helipad operations;
4. Secures a $250, 000 payment for a future Transitional Care Unit;
5. Provides additional right-of-way dedication and specific roadway improvements to
accommodate the future McBean Parkway realignment; and
6. A direct payment to the City of $500,000 in five years toward remaining future
McBean Parkway realignment improvements.
22
Project Issue 5 – There are two development agreements. Which of the two
development agreements is currently being considered, the one the Planning
Commission denied or the August 7th draft?
The issue raised expresses the opinions of the commentator. With respect to the
Development Agreement, the denial of which by the Planning Commission has been
appealed to the City Council. Pursuant to Section 17.03.010.D, the Council has the
option of denying or approving the Development Agreement—with modifications if
deemed appropriate. Because it is a negotiated contract between the City and the project
applicant, modifications must also be agreed to by the applicant.
Because the scope of the project has been reduced since it was reviewed by the Planning
Commission, the Development Agreement has been revised to reflect the present project.
The Development Agreement currently before the City Council is the same entitlement
application originally processed with the Master Plan, denied by the Planning
Commission, appealed by the applicant, and modified by the City Council and applicant.
There is only one, and has been only one, Development Agreement entitlement
associated with the Master Plan.
Project Issue 6 - There's no commitment for a neonatal facility in the Development
Agreement if another hospital provides one.
The issue raised provides factual background information only and does not raise an
environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA or applicable to the project Draft EIR
Section 5.8.2 of the Development Agreement specifically relieves HMNMH from
providing a neonatal intensive care service on site within two years of occupancy of the
Inpatient Building if, prior to that time, another hospital locates in the Santa Clarita
Valley and provides those services. It should be noted that HMNMH has already
commissioned the architectural drawings for the 12 -bed neonatal intensive care unit
within the main hospital building. The full construction drawings are anticipated to be
submitted to the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development
(OSHPD) for review and approval in 2009, with anticipated construction in 2010.
Project Issue 7 - The Development Agreement allows G&L to request paid parking
in the future even though the community is opposed.
The issue raised provides factual background information only and does not raise an
environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA or applicable to the project Draft EIR.
The City's Unified Development Code requires the approval of a Minor Use Permit
(MUP) for any vehicular gating. HMNMH and G&L Realty understand this provision
and are not asking for anything more Through the MUP process, the City maintains its
right to approve gated parking, a common device used to implement controlled parking.
Currently, both gated parking and paid parking are restricted as a part of the HMNMH
MasterPlan. Should the HMNMH wish to propose gated parking and/or paid parking at
some point in the future, they will be required to submit a Minor Use Permit request to be
reviewed and approved by the Santa Clarita City Council, per Development Agreement
section 6 This language is restated below:
23
6. Parkin. During the Term of this Agreement, Developer shall not (i) gate
any entrances to surface parking areas (other than the Existing Gated Areas for
physician parking) or Parking Structures on the Campus Property or (ii) charge
any patients or visitors for parking on the Campus Property unless: (a) in the case
of any proposed gating of parking entrances, Developer hereafter files an
application with the City for a minor use permit of such gating, which application
must be submitted to the City Council for its review and approval; and (b) in the
case that Developer hereafter proposes to charge patients or visitors for parking
on the Campus Property, Developer files an application with the City for approval
of the right to institute such parking charges, which application must be submitted
to the City Council for its review and approval.
The Development Agreement requirement for the review and approval of a Minor Use
Permit by the City Council to allow for future gated parking on the hospital campus is
above and beyond the processing requirements for Minor Use Permits as stated in the
City's Unified Development Code. Minor Use Permits require a public hearing before
the City's Planning Commission only if opposition is received during the noticing period.
Consideration of a Minor Use Permit by the City Council would only occur if the matter
is appealed or called up by a councilmember. The Development Agreement for the
HMNMH Master Plan project requires a higher level of discretion in automatically
requiring City Council review and approval for the Minor Use Permit.
Project Issue 8 - Co -mingling the for-profit G&L and the hospital, a nonprofit
public benefit corporation, in a contract with the City is bad public policy.
The issue raised expresses the opinions of the commentator. The City of Santa Clarita
will not incur any cost, liability or expense as a part of the Development Agreement.
Increasing inpatient and medical office facilities to ensure adequate and safe health care,
including upgrading and expansion of existing deficiencies, would provide needed
services to residents of the City and the -surrounding community. Entering into a
development agreement that specifies the nature and timing of such improvements and
services would have a positive communitywide benefit and is one of the goals of the
General Plan Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities Element. The draft Development
Agreement associated with the HMNMH Master Plan helps meet these goals; therefore,
entering into such an agreement is intended to promote and implement responsible public
policy.
Project Issue 9 - The Development Agreement includes giveaways, a gift of public
funds or gives special consideration to G&L in terms of road mitigation fees.
The issue raised expresses the opinions of the commentator. The project proponents are
required by the City to construct street improvements along the frontage of the hospital
campus, including right -turn lanes and bus turnouts. These improvements will be
constructed beyond the right-of-way required to serve the Master Plan in that they would
be built at the "ultimate alignment" needed to accommodate future roadway realignment
improvements for McBean Parkway In constructing these improvements, additional
improvements such as relocating traffic signals would be constructed by the project. In
addition, the project proponents are required to pay their fair share contribution toward
24
B&T fees. Credit toward payment of B&T fees will be given in an amount equal to
improvements constructed beyond those required to mitigate project -generated impacts.
This is not a giveaway or a gift of public funds. If the applicants were to only construct
minimum project -related street improvements along their frontage, those improvements
(right turn lanes, bus turn outs) would have to be torn out and relocated at their ultimate
alignment in the future when the McBean Parkway is realigned. The City feels it is
prudent and more cost-effective to secure the improvements upfront and minimize
construction -related traffic delays in the future when McBean Parkway is realigned.
As noted above, an additional $500, 000 above and beyond the payment of B&T fees will
be paid by the applicants that will be used toward the cost of completing the future
McBean Parkway realignment improvements.
Project Issue 10 - Other developers will request the City similarly honor their
development agreements under the Most Favored Nation clause.
The City received comments stating the previous development agreements approved by
the City contained "Most Favored Project" or "Most Favored Nations" language that
would be impacted by approval of the proposed HMNMH Development Agreement.
These types of clauses provide that if a subsequent developer of a "similar project" gets
a better deal, the City must retroactively afford the first developer the same benefits.
Staff reviewed all of the development agreements approved by the City Council since
incorporation. Currently, the City has seven active Development Agreements with
various entities. Four of the development agreements do not contain the "Most Favored
Project" language. The remaining three development agreements for the Rye Canyon
Business Park, North Valencia II and the Centre Point Business Park contain this
language. However, the "Most Favored Project " clause in these development
agreements is limited to "similar projects."
For Rye Canyon Business Park, a "similar project" is defined as one primarily for
business park uses containing over two million square feet of new construction. For the
North Valencia II agreement, a "similar project" is defined as a project primarily for
residential or mixed uses and containing over 1,000 residential units and 300 acres of
new construction. For the Centre Point Business Park, a "similar project" is defined as
one primarily for business park uses, containing over 500, 000 square feet of new
construction.
As the proposed HMNMHproject does not fall within any of the definitions of a "similar
project" as described above, the Most Favored Project clauses are not implicated by the
proposed HMNMH Development Agreement.
Project Issue 11 - No commitment has been provided to ensure Centers of
Excellence.
The issue raised expresses the, opinions of the commentator. Paragraph 4.7.1 of the
Development Agreement requires that HMNMH and G&L Realty provide written
verification to the City Council that a minimum of 20%, or 12, 000 square feet, of MOB2
25
has been leased to HMNMH for Centers of Excellence. This verification must be
provided prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy foriany portion of MOB2.
Project Issue 12 - The Development Agreement violates every public policy in the
City's history and violates all City and state law requirements.
The issue raised expresses the opinions of the commentator that the Development
Agreement: 1) does not mitigate its adverse effects on the environment and the
community; 2) is premature and should not be approved before approval of the Master
Plan; and 3) does not provide substantial additional public benefits beyond those of the
project.
The commentator is correct in that the environmental areas of air quality, cumulative
global warming, construction -related noise and solid waste cannot be fully mitigated as
identified in the September 2008 Draft EIR. If the City Council wishes to approve the
project, a Statement of Overriding Considerations for each significant, unavoidable
impact would be required.
State law provides that cities may establish procedures and requirements for
development agreements. There are a number of findings for approval of a development
agreement in the City's UDC. These essentially specify that the proposed development:
1) be consistent with the General Plan and the provisions contained in the UDC for the
zone; 2) that it provides for clear and substantial public benefit to the City and/or
residents; 3) that it does not adversely affect people residing or working in the
surrounding area; and 4) that it does not jeopardize public health, safety or welfare. The
Development Agreement has been found to be consistent with each of the criteria. The
substantial public benefits provided beyond project improvements include:
1. Secures a $250, 000 payment for a future Transitional Care Unit;
2. Provides additional right-of-way dedication and specific roadway improvements
to accommodate future McBean Parkway realignment; and
3. Secures a direct payment to the City of $500, 000 in five years toward the
remaining future McBean Parkway realignment improvements.
3 The Development Agreement associated with the proposed Master Plan project may
be approved either at the same time as the Master Plan or later. If the City Council
wishes to approve both the Master Plan and the Development Agreement at the same
public hearing, the Master Plan would be approved by adoption of a resolution,
which would become effective upon adoption. If approved at the same hearing, the
Development Agreement would be approved by ordinance, which requires a second
reading at a subsequent City Council hearing and would be effective 30 days later.
26
TOPICAL RESPONSE NO. 7: MASTER PLAN
Project Issue 13 - A hospital is needed on the east side of the City.
The issue raised restates information contained in the Draft EIR, but does not raise an
environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA. The EIR considered an alternative
where construction of a second hospital campus with medical office buildings would
occur at another location within the community. It was recognized that health care
service needs exist elsewhere in the community as well, particularly on the east side of
the Santa Clarita Valley. This alternative was determined not to be feasible because
HMNMH has significant investment in its current location and is seeking to fully utilize
the capacity of its existing hospital campus and infrastructure systems, which is centrally
located within the Santa Clarita Valley.
Project Issue 14 - Medical office buildings should be constructed someplace else.
There is already enough medical office buildings on the hospital campus and vacant
medical office buildings are located throughout the City, so no additional medical
office space is needed on this hospital campus.
The issue raised expresses the opinions of the commentator. One of the primary
objectives of the HMNMH Master Plan is to design a medical campus with patients in
mind by linking inpatient services and medical buildings in a single setting. Attachment
1 to these Topical Responses contains an analysis prepared by CB Richard Ellis of the
current market for medical office building space in the Santa Clarita Valley.
Project Issue 15 - Too much development is proposed on this site.
The issue raised expresses the opinions of the commentator. The Master Plan makes use
of an existing hospital campus. The proposed expansion of the hospital campus, as well
as the existing hospital and medical office buildings, are capable of being served by
existing infrastructure systems. Sufficient right-of-way exists along the project frontage
to accommodate traffic generated as a result of the project and street improvements, such
as right -turn lanes and bus turnouts are proposed to improve traffic efficiency. All
buildings are set back minimum required distances from each other, the street, and from
adjacent residential uses. Sufficient parking is proposed on-site to support the proposed
use and landscape buffers and setbacks meet stringent City requirements. - Pedestrian,
transit and vehicle access can be accommodated from the public street and throughout
the site in a safe, logical manner. The Fire Department and Sheriff's Department have
reviewed the site plan and have indicated that the proposed Master Plan meets all of
their requirements for access and safety. The size of the buildings and the design of the
site plan meet all applicable City codes and policies; therefore, the size, design and
operating characteristics of the proposed Master Plan uses meet all required
development policies and standards of the City.
27
Project Issue 16 - Medical office space does not need to be located near a hospital to
attract top doctors.
The operating characteristics of medical office uses are well-suited to be located in close
proximity to hospitals. It is important that doctors be able to provide medical service to
their patients in a hospital setting when needed. It is preferable that doctors be in close
proximity to the hospital to better serve their patients and make better use of their time,
rather than spending time traveling between facilities.
At the June 12, 2007, City Council meeting, the Council requested that staff provide
information regarding existing hospital campuses in the Los Angeles area to determine
how they compare with the HMNMH campus. To accomplish this task, City staff visited
16 hospitals in the Conejo and San Fernando Valleys in July 2007, to collect information
regarding the campus characteristics. Using information provided by the Office of
Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), staff selected those hospital
campuses that have a minimum of 100 beds or more and offer emergency care.
Among the data collected for each facility was whether one or more medical office
buildings (MOBS) are located on a hospital campus. This determination was based on
the field inspection, the review of aerial photos, and Los Angeles County Assessor's
information. Medical office buildings were determined to be on -campus if they were
located within the primary area of the hospital facility or on property immediately
adjacent to the hospital. Medical office buildings separated by a thoroughfare from'the
hospital facility were not considered to be on -campus buildings. Of the 16 hospital
campuses evaluated, all of them contain on -campus medical office buildings.
Project Issue 17 - How do medical offices help the hospital?
Medical office buildings provide needed support services that otherwise do not
necessarily need to be offered within a hospital. Although many uses are best located
within a hospital building, not all medical services, such as doctors' offices, diagnostic
imaging facilities, lab specimen collection, doctor billing services and other such health
care services as may need to be located within a hospital. The process for obtaining
building permits is extensive and the cost of constructing hospitals is much higher,
requiring State Office of Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) review and
approval, whereas, medical office buildings require compliance only with local building
codes and are reviewed and approved by the local municipality.
In August 2007, the City's consultant, Kurt Salmon Associates, prepared a response to a
question regarding how health care delivery has changed over the years (i.e. procedures
and surgeries that were once done on an inpatient basis are now outpatient). In their
response, KSA stated that, "Over the last 50 years, the net affect of improved diagnostic
and treatment technologies has been an overall increase in inpatient as well as outpatient
demand. As the technologies improve, many procedures which are performed in the
inpatient setting can be done in an outpatient building ... On the inpatient side, the service
areas that will see high growth are critical care beds, imaging, pharmaceutical services
and lab testing; while on the outpatient side, demand for surgical services, imaging,
chronic care, and outpatient cancer care may similarly experience very high growth. " It
is expected that the existing and future medical office buildings on the HMNMH campus
will help to provide the full range of medical services on one integrated campus.
Project Issue 18 - The medical office buildings take up land that could be used for
expanding the hospital.
The hospital could be constructed in a manner that takes up more ground space than
what is currently proposed; however, as discussed above, without supportive medical
office space in close proximity to the hospital, more of these services would need to be
located within the hospital building at much greater cost. With construction of medical
office buildings as part of the Master Plan, available capital is 'freed up" for the
hospital to maximize its health care delivery to the community, both in terms of new
hospital facilities as well as expanded outpatient services. In addition, many services
and functions typically tied to a hospital are conducted within medical office buildings.
See response to Project Issue 17 above.
Project Issue 19 - The only reduction in the Master Plan that has been proposed is to
the hospital building, not medical office buildings.
This statement is incorrect. Throughout the public hearing process, there have been
multiple revisions and reductions to the proposed HMNMH Master Plan to medical office
buildings, parking structures and hospital buildings. The project has undergone two
major revisions from the original proposed project since the public hearing process
began in October 2005. The original project consisted of the construction of three five -
story inpatient buildings, a six -story administration building, three four-story medical
office buildings, and four parking structures, up to five levels in height, along with other
ancillary buildings over a 25 year time period in two phases. The proposal also included
the removal of 93,020 square feet of on -campus buildings, including the existing Nursing
Pavilion. At full implementation, the total net square footage of the HMNMH Master
Plan would have been 938,799 square feet.
Following the February 2006 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant redesigned
the project and a revised Draft EIR was prepared for public circulation in September
2006. At that time, the project was revised to include three development phases over a
25 year time period to include two four-story medical office buildings, two three-story
medical office buildings, two five -story inpatient buildings, a five -story hospital
administration building, five parking structures and other ancillary buildings. The
project would have required the removal of 29,220 square feet of existing building space.
The total square footage of this revised master plan project would have been 916,611
square feet.
As part of the revised master plan presented to the Planning Commission in September
2006, the applicant made several revisions to both the height and the horizontal setback
of the proposed buildings and parking structures located along the periphery of the
hospital campus. Specifically, along the southwestern edge of the property, Medical
Office Building 2 was reduced in height from four stories to three stories along McBean
Parkway. The horizontal setback of Medical Office Building 2 from the adjacent single-
family residential neighborhood was also increased. In addition, Parking Structure 3
29
was reduced in height, reoriented, and stepped -back to reduce the massing of the
structure and its presence along the periphery of the campus and the adjacent residential
properties. Medical Office Building 3, originally a four-story building proposed toward
the center of the campus, was repositioned as a three-story building adjacent to Medical
Office Building 2.
At the November 21, 2006, Planning Commission meeting, the applicant further revised
the project that was presented in September 2006. The revisions included the removal of
one of the four-story medical office buildings (MOB 4) totaling 90,000 square feet and a
reduction in building height from four stories to three stories for Medical ,Office Building
1. With these revisions, the total net square footage at full Master Plan implementation
would have been 837,211 square feet.
Prior to the start of the City Council hearings in June 2007, the applicant further reduced
the scope of the HMNMH Master Plan by removing one of the parking structures
(Parking Structure 5), one of the five -story inpatient buildings (Inpatient Building B) and
the five -story hospital administration building. Later in 2007, Parking Structure 4 was
redesigned to be a two-level subterranean structure. The current revised 2008 Master
Plan will increase the existing square footage of the hospital campus from 340,071
square feet to 667,434 square feet, a 327,363 net square foot increase over a 15 year
timeframe. This represents a 56 percent decrease in new net square footage from the
2004 Master Plan proposal.
Project Issue 20 - The hospital proposes to construct a 100 -foot -high building that is
inconsistent with the proposed Master Plan.
The 125,363 square foot Inpatient Building is proposed to be 85 feet in height to the top
of the parapet and 100 feet in height to the top of the wind sock and elevator shaft.
Pursuant to Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.03.025, a Master Plan entitlement
can be used for approval of both permitted and conditionally permitted uses within the
underlying zone. Thus, approval of buildings exceeding the City's 35' height threshold
can be approved in the Master Plan. The proposed height of the Inpatient Building does
not pose an inconsistency with the Master Plan.
Project Issue 21 - Three operating rooms (a fourth to be added in 2009) for the
Master Plan does not provide appropriate health care for the community. This is
less than any other hospital in northern Los Angeles County. The way to attract
doctors is through operating rooms.
The hospital currently has four operating rooms in the main hospital that are used for
inpatients. Additionally, the hospital operates an ambulatory care center next to the
hospital campus that includes an outpatient surgical center that also has four operating
rooms and two gastroenterology labs for their dedicated purpose. It is anticipated that
two -to -four additional operating rooms will be added as part of the Master Plan.
The full number of operating rooms that will be needed when the addition is designed has
not been finalized; however, the HMNMH is committed to a minimum of a 50% increase
in the number of inpatient operating rooms. Attachment 2 to these Topical Responses
30
contains a letter from HMNMH dated October 8, 2008 regarding the need for operating
rooms and the hospital campus.
Project Issue 22 - Trauma victims utilizing the parking structure helipad would be
unduly exposed to the elements and take too longto get to the hospital emergency
room.
The first helipad to be built on top of the first parking structure (PSI) will be designed to
land the helicopter on the highest platform ramp, unload the patient directly to a
"covered " transport vehicle, descend down a special transport elevator, exit the elevator
and transport 90 seconds to the emergency room ambulance entrance. The vehicle to be
used is specially designed for this function and is operated at safe speeds that will not be
a danger to the operator, patient, or emergency response personnel.
Project Issue 23 - The new cardiac catheterization lab may be archaic because 64 -
cut scan technology may virtually eliminate it before it opens and the cath lab will
not do stints or angioplasty, so paramedics will not bring heart attack victims to the
emergency room.
HMNMH has evaluated both Coronary Computed Tomography (CCT) and the need for a
Cardiac Cath Lab at HMNMH. Both technologies are in place and the HMNMH
believes both will be needed for the foreseeable future for diagnosis and treatment of
coronary artery disease. Los Angeles County implemented Cardiac Receiving Center
(CRC) criteria in 2007. At this time, HMNMH does not meet the criteria to be a CRC,
but the hospital does intend to apply for this designation in the future.
Project Issue 24 - There is insufficient parking. Why is it that the parking studies
says that existing Code requires 950 spaces and that there are currently 1,114 spaces
on site, yet people cannot find a place to park?
There are certain parking areas within the hospital campus that are now full during peak
times, which is why people believe there is a parking deficit. These parking areas are
located generally between McBean Parkway and the hospital or MOBs and contain the
spaces of first choice. The largest of these lots has attendant -assisted parking that
manages the supply for greater efficiency and convenience of patrons to the hospital
campus. Essentially, a hospital campus visitor can leave their vehicle with an attendant
in this lot even if a space is not immediately, or conveniently available. The lots toward
the "back" of the site are slightly less utilized, which is why there has been determined to
be parking surpluses to varying degrees.
Project Issue 25 - Cars that cannot find a space and do not want to pay G&L's
parking fees park will park in the surrounding neighborhoods and people will not
be able to park in front of their houses.
On -campus parking provided as part of the HMNMH Master Plan is consistent with the
City's Unified Development Code parking requirements and will ensure that employees,
patients and visitors to the campus will be able to find adequate parking A total of 2,231
parking spaces will be provided at project completion, and each stage of Master Plan
31
development is required to meet required parking. In addition, parking for all existing
medical office buildings will be upgraded to meet the current City standard of one
parking space for each 200 square feet offloor area (as defined in the City's UDC) prior
to occupancy of MOBL
Currently, gated parking and paid parking is restricted as a part of the HMNMH Master
Plan. The Conditions PL18 of the project Conditions of Approval for the HMNMH
Master Plan Project states as follows:
PL19. With the exception of the existing 48 gated, surface parking spaces
designated for physician use, no gating of parking spaces is authorized under the
Master Plan approval.
Should the HMNMH wish to propose gated parking and/or paid parking at some point in
the future, they will be required to submit a Minor Use Permit request to be reviewed and
approved by the Santa Clarita City Council, per Development Agreement Section 6. This
language is restated below:
6. Parking. During the Term of this Agreement, Developer shall not (i) gate
any entrances to surface parking areas (other than the Existing Gated Areas for
physician parking) or Parking Structures on the Campus Property or (ii) charge
any patients or visitors for parking on the Campus Property unless: (a) in the case
of any proposed gating of parking entrances, Developer hereafter files an
application with the City for a minor use permit of such gating, which application
must be submitted to the City Council for its review and approval; and (b) in the
case that Developer hereafter proposes to charge patients or visitors for parking
on the Campus Property, Developer files an application with the City for approval
of the right to institute such parking charges, which application must be submitted
to the City Council for its review and approval.
The Development Agreement requirement for the review and approval of a Minor Use
Permit to allow for future gated parking on the hospital campus is above and beyond the
processing requirements for Minor Use Permits as stated in the City's Unified
Development Code. Minor Use Permits require a public hearing before the City's
Planning Commission only if opposition is received during the noticing period.
Consideration of a Manor Use Permit by the City Council would only occur if the matter
is appealed or called up by a councilmember. The Development Agreement for the
HMNMH Master Plan project requires a higher level of discretion in automatically
requiring City Council review and approval for the Minor Use Permit.
Project Issue 26 - In accordance with the UDC, Master Plans must comply with
Section 17.03.025.M regarding development standards of the underlying zone,
compatible design to existing and potential development and protection of
surrounding areas in the immediate vicinity.
The zoning designation for the project site is Residential Los (RL). This zone is intended
primarily for single-family detached homes; however, the RL zone also permits hospitals
and related uses with the approval of a Master Plan. The Master Plan includes a request
32
to accommodate buildings exceeding 35 feet in height. The UDC also specifies that all
structures related to public and semi-public uses, including hospitals, that are located in
or adjacent to residential zones have a twenty-five (25) foot setback from adjacent
developed residentially zoned properties. The proposed project exceeds this standard
with the closest structures ranging from approximately 75' to 240+' from existing homes.
Many of the homes located adjacent to the hospital campus are at a higher elevation,
some up to 80+' higher than the hospital ground level. The enhanced building setbacks,
when considered in conjunction with the higher building heights, meet the intent, if not
the letter, of the City's development standards. Creation of height zones across the 30 4 -
acre campus take into consideration adjacent grade differences. Stepped and reduced
building heights have been provided along the west/southwest edge of the campus. A
solid wall is proposed along the west/southwest edge of the campus for privacy of the
adjacent residential uses along with enhanced perimeter landscaping. Construction
activities will be screened with opaque material as viewed from adjacent residential uses.
With approval of the Master Plan, the proposed HMNMH expansion will be consistent
with the zoning of the site and all development standards required under the City's UDC.
Project Issue 27 - All access to Henry Mayo Hospital is from McBean Parkway. If
that street is shut down because of something like a broken water main, people
cannot get to the hospital.
The HMNMH campus is located on McBean Parkway, a six -lane major highway as
defined in the City's General Plan Circulation Element. The hospital campus does not
have a single means of access as vehicular traffic may enter or exit the campus on
McBean Parkway or Orchard Village Road. Three existing driveways provide access to
the campus at (1) Avenida Navarre, (2) the intersection of Orchard Village Road, and (3)
the far western edge of the campus. Three points of access are also proposed as part of
the Master, Plan.
Project Issue 28 - None of the requirements addressing noise previously applied to
heliport operations are now being required of the Master Plan.
Cities have very little regulatory authority over helipad operations. California Public
Utilities Code 21662.4(a) specifically exempts cities from regulating the number of flight
departures and arrivals based on the aircraft's noise level. As stated in previous staff
reports prepared for the Master Plan, the Hospital obtained approval of a Minor Use
Permit (MUP) from the Planning Commission in December of 2004 to construct a
temporary elevated helipad at the rear of the existing hospital near the existing
emergency room. That permit expired in 2007. At the September 23, 2008, City Council
meeting, a member of the public voiced concern that specific conditions of approval for
the now expired 2004 Minor Use Permit for the construction and operation of an
elevated helipad structure on the hospital campus were not included in the HMNMH
Master Plan Conditions of Approval. Although these issues are already regulated by
existing federal, state and local mandates, to address this concern, the following three
conditions have been added into the Conditions of Approval, as follows:
33
PL9. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of OSHPD (Office of
Statewide Health Planning and Development) with regard to operation of the
helipads.
PL10. The applicant shall conduct a noise study within three months of
construction of the helipad on Parking Structure 1 and the Inpatient Building
to ensure compliance with all applicable Federal, State and local standards.
This noise study shall conform to the standards, methodology and scope of
the Helicopter Noise Analysis conducted for the Henry Mayo Newhall
Memorial Hospital by BridgeNet International.
PL11. The applicant shall store all chemicals in compliance with the
applicable standards relating to the storage of hazardous chemicals and shall
obtain the appropriate approvals from the Los Angeles County Fire
Department, OSHPD, and other affected agencies for the storage of
hazardous chemicals relating to a helipad.
34
TOPICAL RESPONSE NO. 8: MISCELLANEOUS QUESTIONS & COMMENTS
Miscellaneous Issue I — The proposed OVOV designation of the hospital site as
"institutional" is inappropriate because the hospital site has always been designated
as Low Density Residential. The new General Plan will only bring rapid growth to
a city that is already landlocked with traffic that cannot be mitigated.
The hospital campus has not always been designated for residential land use. The
hospital was originally permitted under Los Angeles County jurisdiction in 1971, prior to
the City of Santa Clarita's incorporation in December 1987. At that time, the County
zoning designations for the two properties that comprise the HMNMH medical campus
were Commercial Planned Development and Heavy Agriculture. Following City
incorporation, the City adopted the Santa Clarita General Plan to govern its
jurisdictional area in 1991, and adopted the Unified Development Code in 1992 as an
implementation tool of the General Plan.
J
Upon adoption of the 1991 City of Santa Clarita General Plan, the land use designation
for the two campus properties changed from Commercial Planned Development (CPD)
and Heavy Agriculture (A-2-5) to Residential Low (RL), which is still in place. In
November 1992, the City's Unified Development Code was adopted by the City Council
to serve as the implementation tool of the General Plan. The City's Zoning Map mirrors
the land use designations of the General Plan on a property -specific basis. Therefore, in
order to be consistent with the City's General Plan, the Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial
Hospital campus received a zoning designation of Residential Low (RL). At present, the
City of Santa Clarita does not have an Institutional land use designation; therefore, land
uses such as schools, fire stations, sheriff stations and hospitals are often designated a
residential land use when located in residential areas.
One Valley One Vision is a joint effort between the County of Los Angeles and the City of
Santa Clarita to create a single vision and guidelines for the future growth of the Valley
and the preservation of natural resources. Initiated in 2000, the result of this project will
be a General Plan document and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the buildout of
the entire Santa Clarita Valley. Both the City and County have their own General Plans;
but each has become outdated and no longer addresses the current concerns of the Santa
Clarita Valley, especially as the Valley has grown rapidly during the past decade. As
part of this work effort, a draft land use map has been prepared for the planning area
which offers an Institutional land use designation for uses such as civic and
governmental offices, public works yards, public or private schools, libraries, day care
centers, hospitals, museums, fire stations, police stations, landfills, and prisons. On this
draft land use map, the HMNMH campus is proposed to be designated to reflect the built
conditions and operations of the site. It is important to note that this land use map is in
draft form and has not been formally considered or adopted by the City or County
decision-making bodies at this time.
35
Miscellaneous Issue 2 - Eminent domain is hidden in the conditions of approval and
called a Resolution of Necessity. Reports reviewed by the state say that eminent
domain is required to mitigate traffic.
Eminent domain is not required for the implementation of the HMNMH Master Plan
project or needed to mitigate traffic, impacts along McBean Parkway. At the June 12,
2007, City Council meeting, staff was directed by the City Council to explore additional
engineering options to increase the McBean Parkway right-of-way for this improvement,
without having to affect the existing single-family residences at the southwest corner of
the intersection. Subsequent to this direction, staff concluded that by taking up to 12
additional feet along the HMNMH/G&L properties, McBean Parkway could be realigned
to create space on the southern side for a right -turn pocket onto Orchard Village Road.
For this reason, residential eminent domain is not required for future roadway
improvements.
At the September 23, 2008, City Council meeting, some public concern was raised
regarding the Conditions of Approval, specifically the language in Condition EN 4, a
standard Department of Public Works (Engineering Division) condition of approval
placed on most projects in the City which require acquisition of easements for roadway
improvements or off-site infrastructure improvements. This condition referenced the
City's ability to exercise acquisition of propertyfor easements or right-of-way for public
improvements. This standard condition has been removed from the project Conditions of
Approval as the storm drain and sewer improvement studies prepared for the project
have concluded that no additional off-site easements are needed. The City will have no
need to exercise eminent domain for the HMNMH Master Plan project.
Miscellaneous Issue 3 - Is excluding the requirement for a CUP under the Master
Plan legal?
Given that the Master Plan entitlement covers all proposed requests related to the
hospital use, helipad operation, dirt exportation, and building heights, the Conditional
Use Permit request submitted in August 2004 prior to the City's establishment of a
Master Plan entitlement in January 2005, was eliminated as one of the required
entitlements because it is redundant. This has not changed the scope of the project, but
instead has streamlined the entitlement package. Pursuant to Santa Clarita Municipal
Code Section 17.03.025, a Master Plan entitlement can be used for approval of both
permitted and conditionally permitted uses within the underlying zone. Thus, approval of
buildings exceeding 35 feet in height and helipad operations can be approved in the
Master Plan itself, obviating an additional conditional use permit entitlement. The
Master Plan request is inclusive of the medical campus expansion, buildings that exceed
the Unified Development Code's 35' height threshold, dirt exportation and helipad
operation.
36
Miscellaneous Issue 4 - It is clear that when Section L, grounds for revocation of
Mater Plans was drafted in the UDC, the idea that profit and non-profit applicants
would never be co -mingled.
The provisions for a Master Plan entitlement, as specified in Santa Clarita Municipal
Code Section 17.03.025, do not consider the status of an applicant — whether private,
public or non-profit entity. It would be inappropriate for the City to distinguish between
the for profit and non-profit components of this project. The only requirement is that
persons or entities having a legal interest in property authorize the processing of the land
use entitlements submitted. The City is tasked with processing the entitlement through
the public hearing process, ensuring that it complies with all required codes, standards
and policies. All provisions of the Master Plan entitlement apply to the proposed project,
regardless of the number of applicants involved or their status.
Miscellaneous Issue 5 - The recent amendment of the Valencia Bridge and
Thoroughfare District gave a 2.2 million dollar gift of public funds to G&L Realty
for improvements to Orchard Village Road and McBean Parkway. There was no
staff report or public testimony on the decision to revise the Valencia B&T District
to include these improvements.
On September 9, 2008, the City Council voted on Agenda Item 13 to approve an
amendment to the Valencia Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Construction Fee District
(B&T District). The amendments were necessary to update the District so that sufficient
funds will be collected to construct all of the highway system improvements identified in
the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Improvements funded through the District
include, but are not limited to, new and improved roadways, bridges, intersections and
interchanges. Updating the B&T District provides an equitable financing mechanism by
which new development within an identified area would share the cost of providing full -
mitigation transportation improvements. This type of funding district levies an
assessment in proportion to the estimated number of vehicle trips generated by a new
development.
The 2008 amendment to the B&T District includes, among other things, the realignment
of McBean Parkway at Orchard Village Road in order to accommodate a new eastbound
right -turn lane, as well as a fourth westbound through lane at the intersection of McBean
Parkway and Valencia Boulevard. The Hospital Master Plan will contribute its fair
share toward the cost of these improvements through payment of B&T District fees. In
addition to payment of these fees, all street improvements constructed along the McBean
Parkway frontage by the applicant as apart of the Master Plan would be required at the
ultimate right-of-way location needed to accommodate the future realignment. This
eliminates any "throw away " costs that would otherwise be incurred as a result of
tearing up right -turn lanes and bus turnouts along the project frontage that would be
necessary for the realignment. According to the project traffic study, the McBean
Parkway/Orchard Village Road and McBean Parkway/Valencia Boulevard intersection
improvements are not needed as a result of project -generated traffic. While the project
does contribute to cumulative traffic impacts at these two intersections, including the
improvements in the B&T District is not a gift of public funds; it does, however, provide
37
assurance that a funding source will be in place to pay for the improvements when they
are needed.
Miscellaneous Issue 6 - True disaster readiness under the Master Plan would be
delayed for 10 or 15 years.
The issue raised expresses the opinion of the commentator. HMNMH is one of 13 Los
Angeles County Disaster Resource Centers. The Disaster Resource Program is a model
of Metropolitan Medical Response developed by Los Angeles County Department of
Health Services Emergency Medical Services Agency. It is not enough to plan for a
single event. Flexibility to respond to combinations of escalating events is needed.
Several factors need to be managed to maintain viability and continue to render services.
Those areas are: communication, resources and assets, safety and security, staffing,
utilities management, and the continuation of clinical activities.
The most crucial activities that must take place during an emergency are those related to
patient care, which includes transporting patients. Establishing and maintaining helipad
operations for emergency and disaster preparedness is proposed as part of the Master
Plan. The first helipad would be constructed as a part of Parking Structure 1, which
would be the first structure built under the Master Plan. A second helipad would be
constructed as part of the Inpatient Building, which would provide more efficiency all for
emergency operations requiring this function Once the second helipad is constructed
and in operation, the only time both helipads would be used would be in the case of a
true disaster, otherwise, only the Inpatient Building helipad would be used. Currently,
the City's only hospital contains no such emergency helipad services. Therefore,
construction of the Master Plan would help improve disaster readiness in the City
starting from construction of the veryfirst structure.
Miscellaneous Issue 7 - In order to get additional beds, Henry Mayo eliminated TCU
and now seniors have to go over the hill to recuperate.
The Development Agreement for the HMNMH Master Plan project requires HMNMH to
continue to participate in City's TCU Task Force and contribute $250,000 for the
feasibility, siting and construction of a facility or other senior health care needs.
Specifically, the sum of $50, 000 shall be paid upon the effective date of the Development
Agreement, followed by annual installments of $50,000 on the anniversary date of the
effective date.
In addition, the HMNMH, in August 2007, prepared a series of responses to issues and
questions posed by the Santa Clarita City Council and the public regarding the status of
the Transitional Care Unit. Below are the questions and responses that provide
additional information on this topic:
Explore the feasibility of keeping the Transitional Care Unit open on
the HMNMH campus until a long-term permanent home is found
for this facility.
The Transitional Care Unit (TCU), a licensed skilled nursing unit, is operated
by the Hospital to serve patients who no longer need hospitalization. The space the
TCU occupies in the Hospital's Pavilion building meets the State's stringent
requirements for hospital beds (the Hospital's original intent for that space was
that it eventually be converted to hospital beds at the time the community
needs it).
An analysis completed by the Hospital almost two years ago quantified the need to
convert the TCU to hospital beds, and the Hospital advocates for this conversion in
order to meet the needs of the community's sickest, most fragile patients. The
Hospital continues to monitor the growing need for hospital beds. The Hospital
averaged ten patients per day in the ER during the last six months [in 2007] who
were waiting for a hospital bed for an extended period of time - 2-3 days in some
cases.
Plans for safe transfer of patients needing skilled nursing care were developed.
Public concern arose surrounding the adequacy of local skilled nursing beds - only
one other facility besides Henry Mayo provides such care in the Santa Clarita
Valley. Therefore, the Hospital focused attention on working with the community
to bring other skilled nursing options into the Santa Clarita Valley to provide the
residents with a choice.
How many TCU beds are empty on an average day?
The number of TCU patients at Henry Mayo declined by about 30% in the last 45
years. This decline is due to community-based nursing homes having developed
extensive services that allow longer stays for post -hospitalization, rehab care, and
other providers such as certified Home Health Agencies, outpatient infusion
centers, not previously available. On average, 8-10 beds (of the total 27 beds) are
vacant in the TCU every day.
The TCU Task Force has reviewed the need for and explored the solution of
replacing the TCU in the Santa Clarita Valley. The Hospital participation has
included Hospital Board members, two Foundation Board members and CEO.
Other leaders and interested parties have also served on this Task Force.
The Hospital has been an active supporter of the Task Force. The Hospital initiated
a feasibility study for building a replacement, free-standing TCU and initiated
discussions with known operators and developers of TCU facilities. Other
members of the Task Force also initiated discussions and the Hospital has
willingly shared data and expressed the intent to "partner" with any reputable
owner/developer of a replacement TCU.
Miscellaneous Issue 8 — How many total parking spaces will be provided in surface
parking lots and the first level of parking structures?
A total of 673 parking spaces will be provided on the first level/surface level of parking
throughout the hospital campus. This is comprised of the following:
39
Parking Structure 1 144
Parking Structure 2 95
Parking Structure 3 70
Parking Structure 4 56
Surface Parking (General) 253
Surface Parking (for Physicians — currently gated) 48
Surface Parking (for Emergency Room) _7
TOTAL: 673
Miscellaneous Issue 9 - What are the helipad rules?
The rules and regulations for the placement and operation of a hospital helipad are
controlled by Federal, State and local government. Both the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division
of Aeronautics are responsible for the oversight of the design and operation of the
facility. This includes helipad design, lighting, flight paths and safety measures. In
addition, the State of California Public Utilities Code regulates emergency aircraft
flights for medical purposes. California Public Utilities Code Section 21662.4(a)
specifically exempts emergency aircraft flights from local ordinances adopted by a city
that restrict flight departures and arrivals to particular hours of the day or night or that
restrict the departure or arrival of aircraft based upon the aircraft's noise level. Cities
control land use which is implemented by General Plan policies and zoning criteria that
permit the location and operation of helipad facilities through the entitlement process
Miscellaneous Issue 10 — Does Alternative No. 3, Reduced Height Inpatient
Building, result in similar environmental impacts as compared to the proposed
project?
Alternative 3 consists of construction of MOBS 1-3, plus a four-story Inpatient Building
and supporting facilities, which would include the same number of hospital beds. The
overall height of the Inpatient Building would be reduced from 85 feet to 70 feet. To
account for the decreased building height, an additional 12,800 square feet of building
area would increase overall project site development associated with a larger building
footprint for the Inpatient Building.
Parking requirements would remain the same under this Alternative as the number of
licensed beds and square footage devoted to outpatient services would not change. At 14
vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet of new hospital building area, the increase in square
footage would account for an additional 180 vehicle trips per day, which would be an
increase of 10% in hospital -related trips, or a 2.4% increase per day for the entire
project. Increased traffic would have a corresponding increase in air quality impacts.
However, in reality, recognizing that the hospital operations that would occur within the
four-story inpatient building alternative will not varyfrom those expected to occur in the
proposed five -story inpatient building, the additional square footage will not likely
generate additional traffic. Although square footage is the standard measurement used
to gauge traffic generation, in this case, the functionality of the inpatient building is a
better indicator of vehicle trips. Therefore, there would likely be no increase in vehicle
trips with the four-story inpatient building alternative.
Building setbacks from adjacent property lines would remain unchanged; however, soil
excavation associated with the increased building footprint would increase. The
reduction in building height under Alternative Three would slightly reduce the building's
visual impacts as seen from the rear property line along some residences in the Summit
neighborhood. Noise impacts on nearby residences from helipad operations would
slightly increase due to the additional time needed for helicopters to take off and/or hover
over the area prior to landing.
Utility consumption and solid waste would increase slightly with the additional building
footprint and floor area. Overall, other environmental impacts, including land use,
population and employment, - aesthetics, light and glare, hazards and hazardous
materials, sheriff and fire protection services, and hydrology and water quality
associated with reducing the height of the Inpatient Building would remain unchanged.
In summary, impacts associated with traffic, air quality, noise, solid waste, utilities and
grading under the Reduced Height Inpatient Building would be slightly increased.
Issue 11 - List all mitigating factors to address impacts on the surrounding
neighborhoods.
The Master Plan has been designed to avoid land use impacts on the surrounding
neighborhood through:
(1) Creation of height zones across the 30.4 -acre campus that takes into
consideration adjacent grade differences;
(2) Provision of only subterranean and surface parking at the main entrance to the
hospital at Orchard Village Road in order to reduce building massing;
(3) Reduction of the number of new medical office buildings from four MOBS, one
four-story hospital administration building, two Inpatient buildings and five
parking structures to three MOBS, one Inpatient Building and three above -ground
parking structures;
(4) Reduction of the height of MOBS from four to three stories;
(S) Placement of new buildings and parking structures set back from property lines;
(6) Stepped and reduced building heights along the west/southwest edge of the
campus;
(7) Construction of a solid wall along the west side of PS3 to control vehicle noise
and maintain residents' privacy;
(8) Roof -mounted equipment screening to reduce noise impacts;
(9) Enhanced architectural design on all building and parking structure facades to
soften appearances;
(10) Enhanced perimeter landscaping, including planting of mature trees along the
western property line to screen improvements from existing residences;
(11) Limitation of construction -related traffic on surrounding streets, including off-site
earth moving operations to non peak hours of 9.00 a. m. to 2: 00 p.m ;
(12) Pedestrian access is accommodated from the public street and throughout the site
to minimize unnecessary vehicle trips; and
(13) Provision of screening of construction activities with opaque material as viewed
from adjacent residential uses.
41
Attachment 1: Analysis prepared by CB Richard Ellis of the current market for medical
office building space in the Santa Clarita Valley
Attachment 2: HMNMH response dated October 8, 2008, to questions regarding the need
for operating rooms.
s:CD\Current\2004!\04-325\EIR0608\topicalreponses.doe
42
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES
Craig Peters
Executive Vice President
CB Richard Ellis, Inc
Brokerage Services
Industrial and Office Properties
October 21, 2008
Mr. Roger Seaver
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital
23845 McBean Parkway
Valencia, CA 91355
ATTACHMENT 1
1 1 1 Universal Hollywood Dr , 27" Floor
Universal City, CA 91608
818 907 4616 Tel
818 907 4702 Fax
craig peters@cbre corn
www.cbre corn
RE: MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING SPACE IN THE VALENCIA AREA
Roger:
I wanted to follow up with you from my comments at the City Council meeting on
September 23rd to elaborate on the state of the medical office building market in the Santa
Clarita Valley. The purpose of my follow up is to address several comments that have
been made in regards to my testimony. I want to make sure that there is no
misinterpretation of my comments as well as no misunderstanding by either those in
favor of the plan or in opposition of the plan.
The key issues surrounding the medical office building market are:
1. With a current vacancy of slightly more than 2%, there is an unmet demand for
medical office space in Valencia as well as throughout the Santa Clarita Valley. I
have attached to this letter the current vacancy summary for medical office space in
the Valencia/Santa Clarita market.
2. While retail strip centers could provide space for medical, this is not a realistic
alternative for specialists. Similarly, general office buildings do not offer the
appropriate parking to accommodate medical users.
3. MOB's on the Hospital Campus should be a planning priority to provide
efficiency for those physicians/specialists that need to visit patients or perform
surgery at the Hospital. A physician whose offices are located just 10 to 15 minutes
away and who visits the Hospital twice a day would waste hundreds of hours
driving back and forth to the Hospital.
October 21, 2008
Page 2 of 3
Several of the opponents have commented that with the many buildings available in the
Valencia area, my testimony of a 2.12% vacancy in the medical office building market
must be incorrect. This is not the case. The "many available buildings" referenced by a
handful of opponents are general "office buildings which can not accommodate medical
uses due to the City's parking code and, in many instances, the CC&R's.
I was also questioned regarding our firm's sign referencing 39,975 square feet of medical
space available at McBean and Newhall Ranch Road. I believe I had stated in my
testimony that Southern California Orthopedic Institute ("SCOI") had leased this space.
Regardless„ only 488 square feet are available within this project, Bridgeport
Marketplace. Unfortunately, we don't update our signs immediately upon execution of a
lease so I can understand the confusion. Bridgeport is a perfect illustration of the
supply/demand imbalance that exists for medical office space in the Santa Clarita Valley.
Originally, Bridgeport was planned as a retail and general office mixed use development.
Based on the extraordinarily tight market conditions for medical space, the weak market
'for general office space and the excess parking available at Bridgeport due to the
restricted building area, we modified our plan during construction to focus on medical
uses for the second floor office. It is important to note that no other buildings were
available in the market to accommodate SCOI's needs.
Several comments I received referenced the parking code and a belief that the City would
allow medical uses within general office buildings parked at 4 cars per 1,000 square feet.
City code requires a parking ratio of 5 cars per 1,000 square feet. Perhaps it would be
appropriate to have the City staff clarify this issue at the next hearing.
Regarding the market conditions, the supply/demand imbalance that exists for medical
office space has become so extreme that non-medical buildings are being sought out to
provide alternatives similar to my previous example with SCOI. Examples include retail
spaces and general office buildings with some excess parking being utilized for
medical/dental uses due to the tight market conditions.
Still, we simply do not receive interest from specialists for our buildings which mix
general office and medical office uses. When general office buildings attempt to utilize
excess parking to accommodate some medical uses, the hybrid nature typically limits the
interest to dental/ortho users. Rye Canyon Pointe, which had roughly 20 "excess"
parking spaces above the 4/1000 parking code for general office, converted
approximately 20,000 square feet of space to medical uses. Due to its hybrid nature, the
building only attracted dental uses. In addition, Santa Clarita Professional Center, a new
general office and retail building under construction in Canyon Country, could potentially
accommodate medical office space in a portion of the building by reduce the square
footage of retail/food uses on the 1" floor and thereby gain parking to apply to medical
uses. Regardless, specialists will not consider a Canyon Country office location due to
the +25 minute drive each way to the Hospital.
October 21, 2008
Page 3 of 3
Finally, a number of second and third tier retail centers have utilized their surplus parking
of +511000 to provide spaces for medical related uses. Again, in most instances, the users
attracted to these opportunities were either dental, cosmetic surgery or dermatology
related users. We would not anticipate that specialists would be attracted to retail strip
spaces as they do not provide the desired professional medical atmosphere (i.e. "My
offices are located between Jersey Mike's and the tanning salon").
I've attached a copy of our most recent vacancy summary for medical office space in
Santa Clarita for your review. I will update this summary again prior to the next Council
hearing. Further, I asked two of our top competitors in the Santa Clarita Valley to review
my market information and offer their opinions. Accordingly, I've attached letters from
Jones Lang LaSalle ("JLL") and Colliers International expressing their opinions on the
MOB market and on the accuracy of our market information. Our opinion, along with
those of JLL and Colliers, represent the three most active commercial brokerage firms in
the Santa Clarita Valley.
Should you have any questions on the above or the content of the summary, please feel
free to contact me.
Sincerely,
CB RICHARD ELLIS, INC.
Craig Peters
Executive Vice President
(818) 907-4616
M
Q A zz Q o zz Q A ZZ zZ
Q o
m� ,A m m Z m m R
0
0
m m
d
F Z Z zFF Z z ��
a
Fc-
fAor
C
O
p
N
N N N N N N SNq N M N M M
69 69 69 69 6q 69 ' 69 69 69 69
y
M
69
O 10
a
ry
� 6
6s 11)
's
0
o
e
ti
O
^ O p p O O M O r V O O 0 0 0 M O r -•
as
p
O� O+ N O 'n 00 V 00
'O
h
ja,OO
t
00
a0
(y
Uj
O O
O O
O
O
Ln
O ' ' ' vl I �C V
N M N V N N
h
O.
C
N
�O
N
b"
p
O O
O O
O
O
ti
W
M
M
to
N O
N
•, �r
Do O O O O 00 b^ M N 'n N O V Cl M O O
O
'O
O O
O
(y
'n O, O\ O O ao O O w'1 O^ M M O �O O— O O '/1
O
�y
o0
Gp
O O
O
lO lO M M O lO 'n M N N �O W rn O^ O T O O �o
b
N
N
U
0 0
O
0
O
ch
N
N
c
T
~
_
^ E
O 00 Vt N O U Vt M DD b 00 a0 O O M V1 \O .-- N V
� •�
^_+ E h•
O�
'
W •�
E
.-- O
y0
O V r -- '� -- -- O �--� .-- DD N N V �-. N V M M M
N
7 O
L
�\
� IZI W
✓v
� ar �
�rH.'
� a �
�
V
Q\ r
^I
^
O
G.
U
r N a v n w C7, (7\ p C,^ n n n o r r r w
U
o0
'
U
o o
N•
O ao w m o0 00 00 00 01 O, O\ 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0
O
y
r ool
Vl
C>
,o
c
ca
z
�
T T U oC T
V
u
h"
o m >
Q c
U oo v 3 o v 3 u c v
v
i? >'O cV G 'O > > N •O 'O
a U 0.> T
u
L
O
V
.O Y
V
na
''CO
o>> U .L
Ecn
a
N 3 �¢� �° ��
a
U
a
i e
v D o m o- o= c' T m' �' z z 3
v oao
o o ry T T U T M o o� E u= o o u
U �C F F z
o
F
^
OO ao O ,n h N O� r 00 vl r N O O^
^
L h
O
00 O N O r- O O O M N- O N
00 r 00 00 O, N r M 'n O\ �-- 00 r M 'n N V O
N
M.
7
3 00
U
V
1�J1
Mr Vl N M M Vl v M r r 00 10 M W r r v
N N N N N N N N N N ^ N N N N N N N N NN
r
M
z N
us
•
N
u_
C
Ocl
O
C
'b
O
c
V
as
_OD
v� cNn.o
❑'o
max,
ty >
is o 0 a 3 m w. 3 v 5 E =°
<
r 5
'fl
79 O cC id U U m
U V C U O U
C
Z 00 O U
v T v G v ie O
3 U
'U
��U+
O tFd G U C �U :.0 U U U U •p .�+ p C U U G
q
.'��
y
L
>` O
L.
U 4 C
C
�0 W cn
u
'O
�, o� c -o c ro c c c T y >' -c A E U 3 E
W
�
m��
d
'O`
e y
� s
••�•. C U O U
CnU
ti
Ob
OO ❑
"�.:0.
.•°�'
C h
V
WxUUUT7
J
>ul>V>.-jLL. w.
YUxa
+ Z
C�
J.d
N M In (D h00 O) O
C'7 T (0 W 61 O
N Cl)C
N
N
N N
�
a`
JONES LANG
LASALL&
October 16, 2008
Mr. Craig Peters
Executive Vice President
CB Richard Ellis
10 Universal City Plaza, 27th floor
Universal City, California 91608
Re: Santa Clarita Medical Office
Craig:
Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc
515 South Flower Street, Suite 1300
Los Angeles California 90071
tel +1 213 239-6056 fax +1 213 239-6100
I have reviewed the information you sent me on the status of the medical office market in the Santa
Clarita Valley. Our data is in line with the CBRE research and I agree with your conclusion that
the Santa Clarita Valley is underserved by the current medical office inventory. The greatest need
remains medical office on the Henry Mayo Hospital campus. The lack of alternatives in close
proximity to the Hospital campus limits the desirability of serving this market by the most sought
after specialists. Having specialists scattered throughout the Valley in a variety of commercial and
retail properties is not desirable. Generally speaking, traditional office tenancy and medical users
are not a good mix.
In order to maintain and grow the quantity and quality of the medical specialists serving the Santa
Clarita Valley, additional medical office is needed as part of the Hospital campus. Those buildings
in close proximity to the Hospital remain the most sought after and valuable office buildings of any
type within the market. They best serve both the medical specialists and their patients alleviating
the need for excess driving.
Sincerely,
James F. Lindvall
Managing Director
23929 West Valencia Boulevard, Suite 216
Valencia, CA 91355
Telephone: 661.253.5202
Fax: 661.253.5302
October 20, 2008
Mr. Craig Peters
CBRE
10 Universal City, 27th Floor
Universal City, CA 91608
RE: Medical Office Space
Dear Craig:
I have reviewed your survey of the Santa Clarita Medical Office Market dated September 18, 2008.
While my records vary slightly in some areas, it does not materially affect the overall vacancy rate and
I generally agree with the content of your analysis. I would also like to give you my opinion as to the
medical market in Santa Clarita.
As you know, I have handled the sales and leasing for several of the buildings on your survey including,,
the "Smyth Condos" and two of the medical buildings on Tourney Road, Tourney Medical Suites and
the new medical building currently under construction, Tourney Oaks Medical Plaza. During this
tenure I have been engaged with numerous medical doctors and dentists and have observed some very
specific patterns as to their office requirements.
First of all, there is a distinction to be made between the typical medical user and the typical dental
user. We commonly think of them collectively as the "medical market" because they both have the
same parking requirement, 5/1000. However, their criteria for suitable office locations are very
different. Dental locations are driven by the proximity to an existing client base and proximity to a
dense population base. Thus, it is common to see them in a variety of product types: retail, medical
office, and, if there is sufficient additional parking, general office. Retail is particularly attractive as it
offers high visibility/signage in their target area.
The typical medical doctor, particularly specialists, must be in a close proximity to the hospital and in a
professional environment populated by other complementary specialists. Retail locations, while they
may work from a parking code standpoint, are not suitable as it is not feasible to obtain the desired
massing of specialists. Some medical users, for example cosmetic surgeons and dermatologists, have
made retail locations work but they are the exception.
Colhers International, Inc , an independent member of Colliers International
our Knowledge in your Property
Mr. Craig Peters
CSRE
October 20, 2008
Page 2 of 2
General office buildings, even if they have parking beyond the 4/1000 code, are not suitable for a
variety of reasons: parking pressure, increased demand on water and sewer facilities, insufficient
improvement allowances, impacts on leasing and releasing, etc. Consequently few professional office
buildings mix general office uses with medical office uses.
The only viable solution for medical office space is a well located, dedicated medical office building.
The first two questions I am asked by virtually every doctor I speak to on behalf of the properties I
represent are: How far is it from the hospital?, and Who are the other doctors moving there? I can't
underscore enough the importance of proximity to the hospital. Most doctors need to make frequent
daily trips to the hospital to see their patients, many on a short notice and/or emergency basis.
Expanding the medical office building supply on the hospital campus satisfies the doctors' two most
important criteria and is necessary to attract the medical talent we need for this burgeoning community.
Additionally, I don't see an alternate, or better, solution. As you demonstrated in your survey, the
vacancy rate is very low. There is continuing pressure on the existing supply from internal (Santa
Clarita) relocations/expansions as well as new requirements from doctors in surrounding communities
seeking to bring their services to Santa Clarita. There is little, if any, alternative land to develop
within an acceptable proximity to the hospital.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide my thoughts on this matter.
Sincerely,
COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL
YThiln Erickson
or Vice President
NATtONAL REAL ESTATE
raves oIr
TOP 25 BROKERAGES
Jul 1, 2008 12:00 PM
The Top 25 Brokerages listing is based on responses to NREI's Top Brokerage survey, which
was originally published in April. Brokers were asked to provide the total dollar value of
leasing transactions and investment sales globally during 2007. The totals were combined to
determine the company's ranking.
1. CB Richard Ellis
Total amount of investment sales and leasing transactions: $264.2 billion
11150 Santa Monica Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Phone: (212) 984-8000
Email: investorrelati_ons@cbre.com
Website: www.cbre.com
Officers: Brett White, CEO; Kenneth J. Kay, CFO; Calvin W. Frese, Jr, President, Americas
2. Eastd i I Secured
Total amount of investment sales and leasing transactions: $170.8 billion
40 West 57th Street, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (212) 315-7200
Email: info@eastdilsecured.com
Website: www_ .eastdilsecured.com
Officers: Ben Lambert, Chairman; Roy March, CEO; Mike Van Konynenburg, President
3. Cushman & Wakefield
Total amount of investment sales and leasing transactions: $124 billion
51 W. 52nd St.
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (212) 841-7500
Email: ddohertycushwake.com
Website: www.cushmanwakefield.com
- - - -- --- - -- - ---- - - - --
Officers: Bruce Mosler, President/CEO; John Santora, COO; John C. Cushman III, Chairman
4. Jones Lang LaSalle
Total amount of investment sales and leasing transactions: $116.7 billion
200 East Randolph Dr.
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 782-5800
Email: paige.steers@am.jll.com
Website: www.joneslanglasal_I--e.coment
Officers: Colin Dyer, President/CEO; Lauralee Martin, COO/CFO; Peter Roberts, CEO,
Americas
5. The Staubach Co.
Total amount of investment sales and leasing transactions: $68 billion
15601 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
Addison, TX 75001
Phone: (972) 361-5000
Email: diane.gillas@staubach.com
Website: www.staubach.com
Officers: Roger Staubach, Executive Chairman; Greg O'Brien, CEO; John Gates,
President/COO/President-Corporate Services West
6. Colliers International
Total amount of investment sales and leasing transactions: $63.5 billion
50 Milk St.
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: (617) 722-0221
Email: sarah.wager@colliers.com
Website: www.colliers.com
Officers: Doug Frye, International Chairman; Wally Pinkard, USA Chairman; Ross Moore,
Executive Vice President
7. Newmark Knight Frank
Total amount of investment sales and leasing transactions: $47.6 billion
125 Park Ave.
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 372-2000
Email: in uq iries@newmarkkf.com
Website: www.newmarkkf.com
Officers: Jeffrey R. Gural, Chairman; Barry M. Gosin, CEO; James D. Kuhn, President
8. NAI Global
Total amount of investment sales and leasing transactions: $45 billion
4 Independence Way, Suite 400
Princeton, NJ 08540
Phone: (609) 945-4000
Email: info@naiglobal.com
Website: www.naiglobal.com
Officers: Jeffrey Finn, President/CEO; Ted Parcel, Executive Vice President, Corporate
Services; Rick Kimball, Executive Vice President, The Americas
9. Studley
Total amount of investment sales and leasing transactions: $39.3 billion
300 Park Ave. 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 326-1000
Email: info@studley.com
Website: www.studley.com
Officers: Mitchell S. Suiteir, Chairman/CEO; Michael D. Colacino, President
10. ONCOR International
Total amount of investment sales and leasing transactions: $35.5 billion
1 Campus Drive
Parsippany, NJ 07054
Phone: (877) 466-2674
Email: info _oncorintl.com
Website: www.oncorinti.com
Officers: Paul Van Devender, Executive Managing Director; Michael Miedler, Managing
Director, Americas; Justin Kessler, Managing Director, EMEA
11. GVA Worldwide
Total amount of investment sales and leasing transactions: $35 billion
1569 Sherman Ave., Suite 201
Evanston, IL 60201
Phone: (847) 733-0883
Email: info@gvaworldwide.com
Website: www.gvaworldwide.com
Officers: Michael Corbett, President; Bob Barnett, Vice Chairman; Jean Laurin, Chairman
12. The CORE Network
Total amount of investment sales and leasing transactions: $29.2 billion
15150 Preston Rd., Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75248
Phone: (972) 980-3992
Email: info@corenetwork.org
Website: www.corenetwork.org
Officers: F. Keene Miller, Chairman; M. James Mark, Vice Chairman; Perry S. Morita,
Executive Director
13. Grubb & Ellis Co.
Total amount of investment sales and leasing transactions: $22.3 billion
1551 N. Tustin Ave. Suite 200
Santa Ana, CA. 92705
Phone: (714) 667-8252
Email: corporatecommunications@grubb-ellis.com
Website: www.grubb-ellis.com
Officers: Scott Peters, President/CEO; Richard Pehlke, Executive Vice President/ CFO;
Jeffrey Hanson, President, Grubb & Ellis Realty Investors LLC
14. TCN Worldwide
Total amount of investment sales and leasing transactions: $20.8 billion
400 Chisholm Place, Suite 104
Plano, TX 75075
Phone: (972) 769-8701
Email: info _tcnworldwide.com
Website: www.tcnworldwide.com
Officers: Ross Ford, President/CEO; Neil Siderow, Chairman; David Wagner, Vice Chairman
15. Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services
Total amount of investment sales and leasing transactions: $20.7 billion
First Financial Plaza
16830 Ventura Blvd., Suite 352
Encino, CA 91436
Phone: (818) 907-0600
Email: scorso@marcusmillichap.com
Website: www.marcusmillichap.com
Officers: George M. Marcus, Chairman; Harvey E. Green, President/CEO; William E. Hughes,
Senior Vice President/Managing Director of Marcus & Millichap Capital Corp.
16. Holliday Fenoglio Fowler LP
Total amount of investment sales and leasing transactions: $17.1 billion
9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 700
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 852-3500
Email: mmoren@hfflp.com
Website: www.hfflp.com
Officers: John H. Pelusi, Jr., Executive Managing Director and Managing Member; Mark D.
Gibson, Executive Managing Director; John P. Fowler, Executive Managing Director
17. Coldwell Banker Commercial
Total amount of investment sales and leasing transactions: $15.7 billion
1 Campus Dr.
Parsippany, NJ 07054
Phone: (800) 222-2162
Email: info@cbcworldwide.com
Website: www.cbcworldwide.com
Officers: Rick Davidson, President/COO; Greg Sexton, Senior Vice President, Operations;
Tim Dimond, Vice President, Ownership Services
18. Sperry Van Ness
Total amount of investment sales and leasing transactions: $11.6 billion
18881 Von Karman Ave., 8th Floor
Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: (949) 250-4100
Email: carol.beekman@svn.com
Website: www.svn.com
Officers: Mark Van Ness, Co-founder/CEO; Rand Sperry, Co-founder
19. Apartment Realty Advisors
Total amount of investment sales and leasing transactions: $7.7 billion
6445 Powers Ferry Road, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30339
Phone: (678) 553-9360
Email: Irobinson@arausa.com
Website: www.ARAusa.com
Officers: Gary Kachadurian, Chairman; Doug Andrews, President; Lisa A. Robinson, COO
19. Transwestern Commercial Services
Total amount of investment sales and leasing transactions: $7.7 billion
1900 West Loop South, Suite 1300
Houston, TX 77026
Phone: (713) 270-7700
Email: ContactTW@transwestern_.net
Website: www.transwestern.net
Officers: Robert Duncan, Chairman; Larry P. Heard, President/CEO; Mark Doran, COO
21. Molinaro Koger
Total amount of investment sales and leasing transactions: $4.2 billion
8000 Towers Crescent Drive, Suite 1200
Vienna, VA 22182
Phone: (703) 760-9600
Email: slemon -mkhotels.com
Website: www.mkhotels.com
Officers: Robert T. Koger, President; William Stadler, Managing Director; Eric Kudlak,
Managing Director, Europe
22. Century 21 Real Estate LLC
Total amount of investment sales and leasing transactions: $2.7 billion
1 Campus Drive
Parsippany, NJ 07054
Phone: (973) 407-6004
Email: joseo.perez __century21.com
Officer: Tom Kunz, President/CEO
23. Massey Knakal Realty Services
Total amount of investment sales and leasing transactions: $2.2 billion
275 Madison Ave., 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 696-2500
Email: kneering@masseyknakal.com
Website: www.masseyknakal.com
Officers: Paul Massey, Founding Partner/CEO; Robert Knakal, Founding Partner/Chairman;
John Ciraulo, Partner/Vice Chairman
24. PM Realty Group LP
Total amount of investment sales and leasing transactions: $2 billion
1000 Main St., Suite 2400
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: (713) 209-5800
Email: jqunn .pmrg.com
Website: www.pmrealtygroup.com
Officers: Rick Kirk, CEO; Jimmy Gunn, President, Property Services; Roger Gregory, CFO
25. Mid-America Real Estate Corp.
Total amount of investment sales and leasing transactions: $1.5 billion
One Parkview Plaza 9th Floor
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Phone: (630) 954-7300
Email: nmusica(a-)_midamericagrp.com
Website: www.midamericagrp.com
Officers: Michael George, President; Stanley Nitzberg, Principal; Jeff Kuchman, Principal
City of Santa Clarita-Planning Department
HMNMH Operating Rooms
October 8, 2008
Page 2
Main Hospital Ambulatory Surgery Total
2008
3774
3300
7074
2007
3788
3127
6915
2006
3732
2897
6629
2005
3487
2386
5873
2004
3342
2184
5526
2003
3139
2078
5217
2002
3163
2241
5404
2001
3336
2558
5894
2000
3339
2616
5955
1999
3661
2942
6603
In-house MRI Technology
HMNMH maintains full service MRI capability with two magnets located in the
Tower Imaging Center in the medical building on campus. This location is ideal
for the vast majority of MRI scans, and is a good example of having shared use
technology.
It is recognized that having an MRI for inpatient care and emergency services
would be ideal.
It is a goal of HMNMH to address this desired status and locate an MRI service in
the main hospital or its master plan addition.
' ce ely,
Z64L`4'��
Rogrreaver
President & CEO
Attachment:
0 Page 6, question 9, response to City in letter August 16, 2007.
g. What is the current number of HMNMH operating rooms? How many
operating rooms will be provided through the master plan?
The Hospital currently has four operating rooms in the main hospital that are
used for inpatients. Additionally, 'the Hospital operates an Ambulatory Care
Center next to the hospital campus that includes an outpatient surgical center
that also has four operating rooms and two gastroenterology labs for their
dedicated purpose.
The full number of operating rooms that will be needed when the addition is
designed has not been finalized; however, HMNMH is committed to a minimum
of a 50% increase in the number of inpatient operating rooms.
Below is information previously provided to the City Council in response to
Councilman Boydston's questions about the operating rooms:
Question from Councilman Boydston:
What are the daily usage figures for existing operating rooms?
Answer (March 2007
We have a total of 8 operating rooms — 4 in the main hospital (inpatient and
outpatient surgery) and 4 in the ambulatory surgery center (for outpatient
surgery only).
v One operating room must be open for trauma cases at all times.
• One operating room must be available for emergency c -sections within 30
minutes of the emergency.
These two factors severely limit the number of elective inpatient cases per day.
Total Surgical Cases 2004 2005 2006
4 Cases 5,526 5,873 6,629
Avg. # Per Day 15 16 18
One additional operating room IS currently planned in the current hospital and
architectural drawings were submitted to OSHPD for approval in early August
2007. It is anticipated that two -to -four additional operating rooms will be added
as part of the Master Plan.
6-
EXHIBIT B
____j
RESOLUTION NO. 08 -89
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE
VALENCIA BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE CONSTRUCTION FEE DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on January 12, 1999, the City Council adopted the Valencia Bridge and
Major Thoroughfare Construction Fee District; and
WHEREAS, the Valencia Bridge and Major Thoroughfare District was,developed to
provide an equitable financing mechanism for the new development to share the costs of
providing the necessary roadway improvements. This type of funding district levies an
assessment in proportion to the estimated number of vehicle trips generated by the new
development; and
WHEREAS, the fees currently collected are not sufficient to construct all of the highway
improvements identified in the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the updated District proposes to fully improve all major roadways identified
in the City's and County's Circulation Elements, including intersections and interchanges; and
WHEREAS, the total cost for District improvements is $55,296,900; and
WHEREAS, the "inflation factor" was modified, allowing the fees to be adjusted up to 5
percent annually based on the Los Angeles Regional Construction Cost Index; and
WHEREAS, proceedings have been instituted for these improvements under Section
16.21.190, Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fees, of the Subdivision Code of the City of Santa
Clarita, California; and
WHEREAS, a report by the City Engineer setting the boundaries of the District, the road
improvements to be built, the estimated costs, the method of apportioning costs to the area of
benefit, and other applicable information has been filed with the City Clerk of the City of Santa
Clanta; and
WHEREAS, the formation of the District was a joint effort between the City of Santa
Clarita and the County of Los Angeles; and
WHEREAS, a portion of the property included within the District boundaries is within
the City of Santa Clarita and a portion is within the unincorporated area of the County of Los
Angeles; and
WHEREAS, the formation of the District required mutual consent of the governing
boards of the City and County; and
WHEREAS, the report of the City Engineer has been presented to and duly considered by
the City Council on the 9th day of September 2008; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the District fee establishment does not constitute
a "project" as defined in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guideline 15378(b)(4), in
that the district fee establishment is a financing mechanism that does not involve any
commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant impact on the
environment; and
WHEREAS, there is an identified need for additional highway improvements to serve the
circulation needs of new development expected in the area of benefit; and
WHEREAS, the roads listed in the fee analysis report are identified in the Circulation
Element of the General Plan of the City of Santa Clarita; and
WHEREAS, any future subdivision within the Valencia District will benefit from the
improvement of these thoroughfares; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing in compliance with the State Subdivision Map Act has been
held on September 9, 2008, requesting written and oral comments; and
WHEREAS, such comments did not constitute a majority protest of the landowners in the
area of benefit.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita does hereby resolve as
follows:
SECTION 1. That the area of benefit for the Valencia Bridge and Major Thoroughfare
Construction Fee District described in the Fee Analysis Report incorporated herein by reference,
prepared by the City Engineer, be hereby established.
SECTION 2. That the establishment of the district will be for the funding of construction
improvements designated in the report.
SECTION 3. That the construction fees are the fees shown in the report.
SECTION 4. That the District was fonned with the mutual consent of the City of Santa
Clanta and the County of Los Angeles, and thereby will become effective only upon approval by
the governing boards of each political entity.
SECTION 5. That the District was formed in conformance with Section 16.21.190 of the
Subdivision Code of the City of Santa Clarita and the State Subdivision Map Act.
SECTION 6 That the proposed fee rates will become effective on January 1, 2009.
SECTION 7. That the City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita is hereby directed to record
the adopted Resolution with the County Recorder,
SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
1
2
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 9th day of September, 2008.
JYYR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK -
I
i
I
3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Sharon L. Dawson, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a
regular meeting thereof, held on the 9th day of September, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Ender, Weste, Ferry, McLean, Kellar ;
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None `
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
CITY CLERK
4
City of Santa Clarita — Planning Department
Development Agreement Issues
October 20, 2008
3. Hospital Addition -Steel in the Air.
The inpatient hospital addition will involve the following significant costs and major
activities prior to achieving the "steel in the air" definition.
After approval of the Master Plan, the hospital will:
a. Evaluate, select, and engage an experienced healthcare architectural and
engineering firm.
b. Authorize the design of the hospital addition that will best meet the demand
for healthcare delivery within the maximum available budget.
c. Submit the detailed construction plans and specifications to the State of
California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) for
review and approval. As you know, MOB 2 can not obtain a building permit
until this application has been submitted.
d. After approval by OSHPD, bid out the entire hospital construction project and
award the contract, which is currently valued at $125 million.
e. As shown on the attached exhibit, spend over $20 million by the time "steel is
in the air." (More significant is that the entire project is contractually
obligated.)
These steps show the significant time the Hospital will be expending on its new addition
and the large amount of money it will be expending. The commitment to the hospital
addition is clear and convincing.
4. MOB 3 Certificate of Occupancy
The current Development Agreement Condition that we can not obtain the building
permit for MOB 3 until we have done the above described work is a substantial
guarantee. Since the construction of a MOB will take less time than the Hospital
Addition, making any further changes removes needed flexibility in completing the
Master Plan and as described above will have no impact on hospital addition.
I hope the above information fulfills the request from the September 23, 2008 hearing
at City Council.
Attachments:
• HMNMH Cost Estimate — "Steel in the Air"
• Photograph — Hospital Addition "Steel in the Air" ("For illustration purposes'l
HMNMH "STEEL IN AIR" ESTIMATE
PERCENTAGE
PROJECT BENCHMARKS OF PROJECT SUB -TOTAL
Overall Project Cost
Drawings Issued for Permit
3%
$ 3,750,000
Permit Fees
5%
$ 6,250,000
Excavation
12%
$15,000,000
Foundation
15%
$18,750,000
Steel Erection Start
17%
$21,250,000
* Excludes Equipment Financing and Entitlements
PROJECT COST
TOTAL
$125,000,000
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #
2004111149) FOR THE HENRY MAYO NEWHALL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL MASTER
PLAN 04-022 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 06-001 (MASTER CASE 04-325) IN
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA; INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT AND A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council does hereby make the following
findings of fact:
A. Prior to City of Santa Clarita incorporation in December 1987, the project site was
approved for a hospital in 1971 by Los Angeles County through the approval of
Conditional Use Permit 234-5. The hospital began operation in 1975. Since that
time, the County of Los Angeles and the City of Santa Clarita have issued
approvals for the expansion of the site to its current configuration.
B. The hospital campus is a 30.4 -acre site located in the western part of the City at
the intersection of McBean Parkway and Orchard Village Road within the master
planned community of Valencia. The existing hospital campus is comprised of
235,911 square feet of hospital facilities containing 221 beds and 104,160 square
feet of medical office buildings, for a total of 340,071 square feet of medical uses.
On-site parking is currently limited to surface parking only, with a total of 972
spaces provided, which includes 74 handicap stalls and seven emergency vehicle
stalls. The existing on-site parking supply for the HMNMH campus totals 1,114
spaces, consisting of 968 spaces in surface lots, and 146 parallel parking spaces
along the internal circulation roadways of the site. The hospital campus is
accessed via McBean Parkway, a major highway in the City's Circulation
Element. A large landscaped slope extends along the north/northwestern
perimeter of the hospital campus. All existing hospital and medical office
buildings and structures are located within an existing vehicular loop road that
wraps around the perimeter of -the property, with the exception of Medical Office
Building F, which is located along the McBean Parkway frontage at the primary
campus entrance. The on-site buildings cover approximately 26 percent of the
project site, while on-site landscaping comprises 43 percent of the site. All of the
buildings on the campus are either one- or two-story buildings. The main hospital
building is the tallest existing hospital structure on the campus at a height of 44
feet, while Medical Office Building F is currently the tallest medical office
building on the campus, rising to a height of 33 feet.
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 2 of 60
C. Land uses surrounding the existing Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital
campus include established single-family residential neighborhoods, a church, and
additional medical care facilities along McBean Parkway, a major highway in the
City's Circulation Element. When the hospital opened in 1975, the areas to the
north and west of McBean Parkway consisted of undeveloped vacant land. The
residential uses immediately west and northwest of the hospital campus were
developed in 1978 as part,,of Tentative Tract No. 32078 (Village Homes North
subdivision). The residential neighborhoods to the north of the hospital, built on
what is known as The Summit, were constructed between 1986 and 1988 and are
zoned Residential Low (RL). The Sunrise at Sterling Canyon, a senior living
facility that provides independent living, assisted living and hospice care, is
located north of the project site and was constructed in the 1980s. Medical office
buildings approved by Los Angeles County in 1987 are located immediately
adjacent to the site. To the south and southwest, residential uses were constructed
in 1969 and are zoned Residential Suburban (RS). Between 1969 to 1979, single-
family residential uses were constructed to the east and southeast of the hospital
campus, across McBean Parkway; these neighborhoods are zoned RS. The
United Methodist Church is located on the opposite side of McBean Parkway, at
the Avenida Navarre intersection, east of the project site.
D. On June 25, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-98, adopting the
General Plan of the City of Santa Clarita and certifying the Environmental Impact
Report. The City's General Plan presently designates the project site as
Residential Low. The current zoning for the project site is Residential Low (RL).
Medical services are categorized as conditionally permitted Public and Semi -
Public Use Types in Section 17.13.040 of the City's Unified Development Code
with approval of a Conditional Use Permit in the RL zone.
E. The original Los Angeles County project approvals included provisions for a
helipad for medical emergency transportation. In September 2005, the existing
helipad was removed from service due to construction activities for the hospital.
On December 7, 2004, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution PO4-35
which approved a Minor Use Permit for the relocation of the helipad to a free-
standing, elevated structure located to the rear of the existing main hospital
building. A one-year extension to the Minor Use Permit was approved in 2006.
The Minor Use Permit expired on December 7, 2007.
F. An application for Master Case 04-325, the Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial
Hospital Master Plan project (the "project"), was filed by the project applicant,
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital and G&L Realty (the "applicant"), with
the City of Santa Clarita on August 16, 2004. The entitlement request
(collectively, "Entitlements") included Conditional Use Permit 04-022 for the
approval of. (1) the buildout of the project site; (2) to allow structures above 35
feet in height; (3) to allow for the construction and operation of a helipad; and (4)
to allow for a shared parking agreement.
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 3 of 60
G. On January 25, 2005, the City Council adopted Ordinance 05-01, an update to the
City's Unified Development Code, which included the requirements and process
for a Master Plan. The Ordinance took effect 30 days later. The applicant
subsequently modified the project to include a Master Plan entitlement, which
requires City Council consideration.
H. The original project proposed two development phases over a 25 -year master plan
timeframe. The first phase included a 100,000 square -foot medical office
building and the construction of a parking structure for 700 vehicles along the
western property line with the removal of the existing 8,000 square -foot
foundation building. The buildout phase included the demolition of 85,020
square feet of structures and the construction of three parking structures with
2,710 parking spaces, three hospital inpatient buildings totaling 286,000 square
feet, a 113,400 square -foot hospital administration building, an elevated helipad
and two medical office buildings totaling 190,000 square feet. Access to the site
would be provided from three access points along McBean Parkway.
I. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City
of Santa Clarita is the identified lead agency and the City Council is the decision-
making body for the project. The City of Santa Clarita prepared an Initial Study
for the project, which determined that the project may have a significant effect on
the environment and that an environmental impact report must be prepared. The
Initial Study determined that the following areas must be addressed in the project
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"): land use; geology, soils and seismicity;
hydrology and water quality; traffic; air quality; noise; water supply; solid waste;
natural gas; electricity; schools/education; fire protection services; sheriff
services; hazards and hazardous materials; population and employment; aesthetics
/ light and glare; and wastewater.
J. An initial Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the Entitlements was circulated to
affected agencies, pursuant to CEQA statutes and the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14,
Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000 et seq.), for thirty days, beginning on November 30,
2004, and numerous comments from agencies and the public were received in
response. Agencies that received the NOP include, but are not limited to, the
County of Los Angeles, the Regional Water Quality Control Board - Los Angeles
Region, the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the 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 the consultation
requirements contained in the CEQA statutes and CEQA Guidelines.
K. A scoping meeting was held at the City of Santa Clarita City Hall, Century
Conference Room on December 13, 2004, to obtain information from the public
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 4 of 60
as to issues that should be addressed in the ETR. Approximately 10 members of
the public attended the scoping meeting.
L. On July 19, 2005, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed site tour of
the project site.
M. A Draft Environmental Impact Report for the project ("Draft EIR") was prepared
and circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and
the public, and all issues raised by the Initial Study, and by comments received on
the NOP were considered, in compliance with CEQA. The Notice of
Completion/Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR was filed, posted and
advertised on November 14, 2005, and the public review period extended for 45
days, from November 14, 2005 through December 30, 2005, all in accordance
with CEQA.
N. The project was duly noticed in accordance with the noticing requirements for the
Entitlements. The project was advertised in The Signal newspaper, through on-
site posting 14 days prior to the hearing, and by direct first-class mail to property
owners within 1,000 feet of the project site.
O. , The Planning Commission held duly -noticed public hearings on the project on
October 18, 2005, December 6, 2005, January 17, 2006, February 7, 2006, March
7, 2006, and June 6, 2006. These hearings were held at City Hall, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m.
(1) On October 18, 2005, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing
for the project and received staff and applicant presentations and public
testimony regarding the project.
(2) On November 18, 2005, the Planning Commission was scheduled to
conduct a second site tour of the project site and adjacent residences. This
tour was postponed due, to weather conditions and continued to December
6, 2005. On December 6, 2005, the Planning Commission conducted a
secondary site tour of the project site and adjacent residences.
(3) On December 6, 2005, staff responded to Planning Commission and
public issues/concerns and discussed the contents and conclusions of the
2005 Draft EIR.
(4) On January 17, 2006, the Planning Commission continued the public
hearing to February 7, 2006.
(5) On February 7, 2006, staff and the applicant responded to issues and
concerns raised by the Planning Commission and members of the public.
(6) On March 7, 2006, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing
to June 6, 2006.
(7) On June 6, 2006, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing
to a date uncertain to allow sufficient time for the applicant to submit a
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 5 of 60
revised project and to allow staff and the environmental consultant team
additional time to prepare the 2006 Revised Draft EIR for the,project.
P. In July 2006, the applicant, in response to Planning Commission and public
concerns, submitted a revised project to be developed in three development
phases over the 25 -year master plan timeframe. The first phase included an
80,000 square -foot medical office building, reconfiguration of 9,770 square feet
of hospital space for 20 new beds, the construction of a 125,363 square -foot, 120-
bed hospital inpatient building, and the construction of a parking structure for 750
vehicles and an elevated helipad along the eastern property line. The second
phase included the construction of two 60,000 square -foot medical office
buildings, demolition of an 8,000 square -foot modular building and the
construction of 857 structured parking spaces. The buildout phase included the
demolition of 21,220 square feet of existing structures and the construction of
parking structures with 1,208 parking spaces, a 113,400 square -foot hospital
administration building, a 84,076 square -foot inpatient building and central plant,
and a 90,000 square -foot medical office building. Access to the site was to be
provided from three access points along McBean Parkway, two of which are
currently signalized.
As part of the revised master plan, the applicant made several revisions to both
the height and the horizontal setback of the proposed buildings and parking
structures located along the periphery of the hospital campus. Specifically, along
the southwestern edge of the property, Medical Office Building 2 was reduced in
height from four stories to three stories along McBean Parkway. The horizontal
setback of Medical Office Building 2 from the adjacent single-family residential
neighborhood was also increased. In addition, Parking Structure 3 was reduced in
height, reoriented, and stepped -back to reduce the massing of the structure and its
presence along the periphery of the campus and the adjacent residential
properties. Parking Structure 3 would also be constructed with a permanent
closed wall facing the residential neighborhood so as to limit any noise or light
impacts from parking structure usage. Medical Office Building 3, originally a
four-story building proposed toward the center of the campus, was repositioned as
a three-story building adjacent to Medical Office Building 2.
Q. Due to project redesign, a revised Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the
Entitlements was circulated to affected agencies, pursuant to CEQA statutes and
the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000 et seq.), for thirty
days, beginning on July 12, 2006, and numerous comments from agencies and the
public were received in response. Agencies that received the NOP include, but
are not limited to, the County of Los Angeles, the Regional Water Quality Control
Board - Los Angeles Region, the California Department of Fish and Game, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the South Coast Air Quality Management District,
law enforcement agencies, school districts, waste haulers, water agencies and
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 6 of 60
transportation agencies serving the Santa Clarita Valley in accordance with the
consultation requirements contained in the CEQA statutes and CEQA Guidelines.
R. On August 17, 2006,.. the applicant modified the application to include an
additional entitlement request: Development Agreement 06-001 for the buildout
of the project over a 25 -year term.
S. The project application was deemed complete on August 20, 2006.
T. A 2006 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the project ("Revised
Draft EIR") was prepared and circulated for review and comment by affected
governmental agencies and the public, and all issues raised by the Revised Initial
Study, and by comments received on the NOP were considered, in compliance
with CEQA. The Notice of Completion/Notice of Availability for the 2006
Revised Draft EIR was filed, posted and advertised on August 29, 2006, and the
public review period extended for 45 days, from September 5, 2006 through
October 19, 2006, all in accordance with CEQA.
U. The project was duly noticed in accordance with the noticing requirements for the
Entitlements., The project was advertised in The Signal newspaper, through on-
site posting 14 days prior to the hearing, and by direct first-class mail to property
owners within 1,000 feet of the project site.
V. The Planning Commission reopened the public hearing for the project and
conducted public hearings on September 19, 2006, October 17, 2006 and
November 21, 2006. These hearings were held at City Hall; 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m.
(1) On September 19, 2006, the Planning Commission reopened the public
hearing for the project, received a presentation on the revised project from
staff and the applicant, discussed the contents and conclusions of the 2006
Revised Draft EIR, and received public testimony regarding the project.
(2) On October 17, 2006, staff responded to Planning Commission and public
issues/concerns, discussed the conclusions of the 2006 Revised Draft EIR,
and discussed the components of the requested development agreement
and the shared parking agreement. At this meeting, the applicant
rescinded the request for a shared parking agreement and included a
provision for the ability to request the decisionmakers' consideration of a
future shared parking agreement in the Development Agreement.
(3) On November 21, 2006, staff responded to Planning Commission and
public issues/concerns, and the applicant presented a second major
revision to the proposed master plan in response to the comments received
from the Planning Commission, City staff, and from members of the
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 7 of 60
public. This second revision to the Master Plan removed MOB 4, a
proposed 90,000 square -foot medical office building, from the buildout
phase of the project and eliminated the demolition of 10,600 square feet of
existing medical office buildings. This resulted in a net reduction in
project square footage of 79,400 square feet at buildout. In addition, the
applicant revised the Master Plan to lower the height of Medical Office
Building 1, to be located along McBean Parkway, from four stories to
three stories to reduce its massing along the hospital campus frontage.
(4) As a result of these November 2006 modifications, the revised site plan
proposed a total of 522,839 square feet of new 'campus building
construction (200,000 square feet of medical office building space,
113,400 square feet of hospital administration offices, and 209,439 square
feet of hospital buildings), plus three parking structures.
W. At the October 24, 2006, City Council meeting, the City Council, during the
Councilmember Comments portion of the meeting, made a request of staff to
return with a recommendation for a consultant to prepare an independent study for
the HMNMH Master Plan project. -At the January 9, 2007, City Council meeting,
staff presented a contract to the Council for a consulting firm to prepare the
independent analysis. During the consultant's presentation, a concern was raised
as to the objectiveness and possible conflict of interest of the consultant regarding
the project. As a result, a contract was never culminated with the first consultant
and staff considered additional consulting firms.
A second independent study proposal to be conducted by Kurt Salmon Associates
was brought before the City Council at the March 13, 2007, City Council meeting.
At this meeting, the Council authorized the City to enter into the consultant
contract, with the City funding a portion of the independent study. After that
meeting, the City received a letter from a concerned citizen that the action taken
by the City Council could be considered a violation of the Brown Act, since the
act of funding a portion of the study was not agendized. To avoid an unnecessary
legal dispute, the item was placed on the April 10, 2007, City Council Consent'
Calendar agenda and the City Council took formal action to approve the staff
request. The independent study examined the appropriateness of the
proportionality of hospital space to medical office space for the Council's
consideration.
K At the conclusion of the November 21, 2006, hearing, the Planning Commission
closed the public hearing and directed staff to prepare all of the necessary
documents (resolutions, CEQA findings of fact, mitigation and monitoring
reporting program, conditions of approval, etc.) for its recommendation to the
City Council. This direction included a recommendation of approval to the City
Council of the revised master plan project presented by the applicant at the
November 21St meeting, certification of the 2006 Revised Draft EIR prepared for
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 8 of 60
the project, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and denial of
the proposed Development Agreement.
Y. As part of its recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Commission also
recommended that the City Council consider the conclusions of the independent
study with regard to the appropriateness of the proportionality of medical office
building space to hospital space in its decisionmaking. Specifically, the Planning
Commission directed staff to prepare the required documents to advance the
revised project to the City Council for approval with the following considerations:
1. That if the independent study being prepared for the City Council
demonstrated that the revised project's proposed hospital space
necessitates the proposed level of medical office building space for a
viable hospital campus, that the City Council support the revised master
plan as currently proposed; or,
2. That if the independent study stated that the level of medical office space
exceeds that which is needed for hospital operations, the applicant would
be required to scale back the amount of medical office space to the
satisfaction of the City Council.
Z. At the December 5, 2006, Planning Commission meeting, a representative of
Smart Growth SCV presented a letter to the Planning Commission during the
public comments portion of the meeting related to the proposed Henry Mayo
Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan project. In response, the Planning
Commission directed staff to prepare a memorandum in response to the SCV
Smart Growth letter, dated November 27, 2006.
AA. On December 19, 2006, the Planning Commission continued the item to allow for
the completion of the required documents.
BB. On January 16, 2007, the Planning Commission continued the item to allow for
the completion of the required documents.
CC. A 2007 Final EIR was prepared which included the 2006 Revised Draft EIR and
2005 Draft EIR, comments on the two EIRs, plus the following: responses to
written comments on the two Draft EIRs; modifications to the 2006 Revised Draft
EIR text; and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP").
Prior to January 26, 2007, a copy of the response to comments from the 2007
Final EIR was sent to each agency and individual who submitted timely
comments on the 2006 Revised Draft EIR. The 2007 Final EIR documents were
provided to the Planning Commission on February 2, 2007. The Planning
Commission considered the 2007 Final EIR prepared for the project, as well as
information provided in staff reports, the amended text of the 2007 Final EIR,
information presented to the Planning Commission from technical experts, and
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 9 of 60
information presented in public testimony, including letters submitted to the
Planning Commission following the close of the 2006 Revised Draft EIR public
comment period up to and including November 21, 2006, prior to recommending
approval of the Master Plan, as revised.
DD. The 2007 Final EIR, the MMRP, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the project were prepared and provided in compliance with CEQA.
EE. At its hearings on the project, the Planning Commission considered staff and
consultant presentations, staff reports, applicant presentations, information
presented to the Commission to assist in its understanding of the project, the
HMNMH Master Plan 2005 Draft EIR and 2006 Revised Draft EIR, and public
comments, and public testimony on the project and the 2007 Final EIR for the
project. J
FF. On February 6, 2007, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. P07-01
recommending that the City Council adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for those impacts of the project that cannot be mitigated to less
than significant levels, and certify the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program.
GG. On February 6, 2007, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. P07-02
recommending that the City Council approve the Master Plan and Conditional
Use Permit entitlements for Master Case 04-325, the HMNMH Master Plan
Project, as revised, subject to the project conditions of approval.
HH. On February 6, 2007, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. P07-03,
denying the request for Development Agreement 06-001.
II. On February 15, 2007, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's
denial of the Development Agreement to the City Council for their consideration.
JJ. In May 2007, following the Planning Commission process, the applicant further
revised the proposed HMNMH Master Plan, eliminating all medical office
buildings and hospital buildings from the Buildout Phase of the Master Plan.
Therefore, the overall net increase in Master Plan buildings was reduced from
583,619 square feet proposed at the time of initial project submittal to the current
total of 327,363 square feet. The reduced project limited the Master Plan to the
buildings, structures and other site modifications originally included in Phase 1
and Phase 2 of the proposal, only. The third phase, or Buildout Phase, of the
project was removed from the HMNMH Master Plan.
KK. The formal public hearing process before the Santa Clarita City Council for the
May 2007 Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital (HMNMH) Master Plan
project began on June 12, 2007. Prior to the June 12th meeting, the City Council
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 10 of 60
received the May 2007 Ficial EIR, which included an Amendment to Revised
Project Description and Errata for Final EIR. At the June 12, 2007, public
hearing, the City Council received staff and applicant presentations and public
testimony on the project. The City Council continued the public hearing to June
26, 2007 and directed staff to return with a list of identified issues and concerns to
be addressed.
LL. On June 26, 2007, the City Council conducted a second public hearing on the
proposed project. During this hearing, the City Council asked questions of staff
and the applicant on various aspects of the proposed project and received public
testimony. The Council continued the public hearing to July 10, 2007, to have a
focused discussion on the CEQA process and CEQA findings for the project.
MM. On July 10, 2007, the City Council conducted a third public hearing on the
proposed project. At this hearing, the City Council received staff and applicant
presentations and made inquiries of staff and the consultant regarding the CEQA
process and the Environmental Impact Report findings. The City Council also
received additional public testimony. The public hearing was continued to the
August 28, 2007, City Council meeting to allow time for the applicant to consider
revisions to the project per the Council's direction and for staff to research and
prepare responses to a variety of issues and questions raised at the three City
Council public hearings held in June and July 2007. .
NN. On July 19, 2007, at the direction of the City Council, City staff facilitated a
meeting between the applicants and Smart Growth SCV, a community group, to
discuss issues associated with the HMNMH Master Plan project. Both parties had
an opportunity to ask questions and discuss issues in an informal setting.
00. In response to City Council and public input received during the June 12, June 26
and July 10, 2007, public hearings, the applicant further revised various
components of the HMNMH Master Plan. As part of these modifications, the
applicant reduced the duration of the Master Plan from 20 years to a 15 -year
period. Other Master Plan changes included square footage and building massing
reductions, increased building setbacks, and stepbacks, building relocations and
reduced height. The Master Plan, as revised, contained four buildings and a
central plant, three of which do not exceed three stories in height. Parking
Structure 4, once proposed to be four levels above ground, was redesigned as a
two-level subterranean structure with surface parking to reduce massing along the
McBean Parkway corridor. Enhanced architecture was added to all building and
parking structure facades. The conceptual landscape plan included enhanced
landscaping which focused on the hospital campus perimeter to reduce visual
impacts to surrounding land uses.
PP. The modified HMNMH Master Plan project was presented to the City Council at
the August 28, 2007 continued public hearing. At the August 28, 2007, City
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 11 of 60
Council meeting, the City Council received staff and applicant presentations and
public testimony, provided feedback on the revised Henry Mayo Newhall
Memorial Hospital Master Plan, and continued the public hearing to the
September 25, 2007, City Council meeting for a focused discussion on the revised
Development Agreement.
QQ. On September 25, 2007, the City Council conducted a continued public hearing
on the proposed project with a focus on the proposed Development Agreement.
At this meeting, the City Council received staff and applicant presentations on the
Development Agreement revisions and terms including restrictions to tie the
delivery of health care services with specific Master Plan improvements. Also,
the applicant reduced the term of the Development Agreement from 20 years to
15 years, consistent with the term of the revised HMNMH Master Plan. The City
Council received public testimony and provided staff with direction on further
revisions to the proposed Development Agreement. The City Council continued
the hearing to the City Council meeting of January 8, 2008.
RR. At the January 8, 2008, City Council meeting, the City Council continued the
public hearing to a date uncertain to allow additional. time to conduct technical
studies and prepare the 2008 Revised Draft EIR for the revised HMNMH Master
Plan project.
SS. A June 2008 Revised Draft EIR was prepared to fully analyze the revised project.
The HMNMH Master Plan project description analyzed in the June 2008 Revised
Draft EIR includes an increase of existing square footage of the hospital campus
from 340,071 square feet to 667,434 square feet, a 327,363 net square -foot
increase. Specific project components are detailed below:
New Hospital & Medical Office Buildinas
INPATIENT BUILDING - A 125,363 square -foot, 120 -bed inpatient hospital
building located in the central portion of the campus. This building would be 85
feet in height to the top of the parapet and 100 feet in height to the top of the wind
sock and elevator shaft. This building would also include a rooftop helipad.
MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING 1 - A 80,000 square -foot medical office
building (MOB 1) along the McBean Parkway frontage, east of the main hospital
entrance from McBean Parkway. This building would be 45.5 feet in height to
the top of the parapet and 51.5 feet to the top of the screen and roof access.
MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING 2 - A 60,000 square -foot medical office
building (MOB 2) along the western portion of the campus along the existing ring
road. This building would be 45.5 feet to the top of the parapet and 51.5 feet to
the top of the screen and roof access.
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 12 of 60
MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING 3 - A 60,000 square -foot medical office
building (MOB 3) along the westerly portion of the site along the existing ring
road. This building would be 45.5 feet to the top of the parapet and 51.5 feet to
the top of the screen and roof access.
CENTRAL PLANT — A 10,000 square -foot central plant facility located within
the central portion of the campus adjacent to the Inpatient Building. This building
would be 26 feet in height.
Parking Structures
PARKING STRUCTURE 1 - A 750 -space parking structure (PS 1) along the
McBean Parkway frontage at Avenida Navarre. The parking structure height
would be 47 feet to the top of the parapet, 49.5 feet to the top of the parking lot
lights, and 60.5 feet to the top of the wind sock. This parking structure will also
include a rooftop helipad.
PARKING STRUCTURE 2 - A 579 -space parking structure (PS 2) in the
northwestern portion of the campus. The parking structure height would be 47
feet to the top of the parapet and 49.5 feet to the top of the parking lot lights. A
solid wall along the western facade of the parking structure would be provided
prior to construction of Parking Structure 3. Parking Structure 3 would connect
directly to Parking Structure 2.
PARKING STRUCTURE 3 - A 278 -space parking structure (PS 3) in the
northwestern corner of the campus. The parking structure height would be 27 feet
to the top of the parapet, and 30 feet to the top of the parking lot lights. A solid
wall along the western facade of the parking structure would be provided. This
parking structure would have a minimum setback of 75 feet from the westerly
property line.
PARKING STRUCTURE 4 - A 316 -space parking structure (PS 4) to be located
along McBean Parkway just east of the main campus entry. The parking structure
would be fully subterranean, with at -grade parking at the top level of the structure
and an elevator/stairwell projection for pedestrian access at the surface. Initially,
the area proposed for Parking Structure 4 would be improved as a 71 -space
surface parking lot as part of the construction of Medical Office Building 1. The
construction of Parking Structure 4 would occur as part of the future Master Plan
improvements to meet on-site parking requirements.
Other HMNMH Campus Modifications
i. Add nine new beds in the Nursing Pavilion Building.
ii. Demolish the 8,000 square foot Foundation Building.
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 13 of 60
iii. Reconfigure surface parking to provide a total of 308 on-site spaces.
ii. Provide a helipad on the rooftop of both Parking Structure 1 and the
Inpatient Building.
iii. Provide right turn pockets and modify traffic signals along the McBean
Parkway project frontage.
iv. Reconfigure 9,770 square feet of current administration space in the
existing hospital building to accommodate 18 additional new ICU beds.
The current hospital administrative functions would move to space within
Medical Office Building 1.
v. Export up to 93,293 cubic yards of dirt associated with subsurface
excavation for the Inpatient Building and Parking Structures 1, 2, 3, and 4
vi. Dedicate a minimum of 58 feet of public right-of-way from the centerline
along the project frontage plus additional right-of-way dedication to
accommodate a new right -turn lane from eastbound McBean Parkway to
southbound Orchard Village Road to address future traffic conditions.
TT. Given that the Master Plan entitlement covers all proposed requests related to the
hospital use, helipad operation, dirt exportation, and building heights, the
Conditional Use Permit request submitted in August 2004 prior to the City's
establishment of a Master Plan entitlement in January 2005, was eliminated as
one of the required entitlements because it is redundant. Pursuant to the Unified
Development Code, the Master Plan request is inclusive of the medical campus
expansion, buildings that exceed the UDC's 35' height threshold, dirt exportation
and helipad operation.
UU. A June 2008 Revised Draft ,Environmental Impact Report for the project ("June
2008 Revised Draft EIR") was prepared and circulated for review and comment
by affected governmental agencies and the public, in compliance with CEQA.
The Notice of Completion/Notice of Availability for the 2008 Revised Draft EIR
was filed, posted and advertised on June 26, 2008, -and the public review period
extended for 45 days, from June 26, 2008 through August 11, 2008, in accordance
with CEQA.
VV. Due to a discrepancy in a reference to the circulation date on the Notice of
Completio"otice of Availability for the June 2008 Revised Draft EIR, a
September 2008 Revised Draft EIR was circulated for an additional 45 days from
September 3, 2008 to 5:00 PM on October 17, 2008. Prior to its recirculation,
technical corrections to the technical appendices and the impact analysis sections
of the June 2008 Revised Draft EIR were made and additional analysis was added
regarding project and cumulative global climate change impacts. A list of
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 14 of 60
revisions from the June 2008 Revised Draft EIR to the September 2008 Revised
Draft EIR were included with the revised Notice of Completion / Notice of
Availability for the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR and also inserted into the
front cover of the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR.
WW. At the September 9, 2008, City Council meeting, the City Council conducted a
public hearing on amendments to the Valencia Bridge & Mayor Thoroughfare
Construction Fee District and adopted Resolution 08-89 to approve the
amendments. This amendment added intersection improvements at the McBean
Parkway -Valencia Boulevard intersection and the McBean Parkway -Orchard
Village Road intersection to the Valencia Bridge & Major Thoroughfare
Construction Fee District.
XX. The September 23, 2008 continued public hearing for the HMNMH Master Plan
Project and the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR was duly noticed in
accordance with the noticing requirements for the Entitlements. The project was
advertised in The Signal newspaper, through on-site posting 14 days prior to the
hearing, and by direct first-class mail to property owners within 1,000 feet of the
project site.
YY. On September 23, 2008, the City Council reopened the public hearing for the
project. At the meeting, the Council received staff and applicant presentations
and public testimony regarding the HMNMH Master Plan Project and
Development Agreement as well as comments on the September 2008 Revised
Draft Environmental Impact Report. The Council asked questions of staff and
gave direction regarding informational items to be brought back to the next
meeting and continued the public hearing to the November 19, 2008 special
meeting of the City Council.
ZZ. On September 25, 2008, the City Unified Development Code 2008 amendments
took effect. As part of these amendments, findings for Master Plans were
incorporated into Section 17.03, Permits and Applications of the Unified
Development Code. Previously, Section 17.03.025 Master Plans of the UDC
referred to the Conditional Use Permit findings under subsection G. Findings and
stated that, "The same findings required for a conditional use permit are required
for a master plan." The 2008 UDC amendment eliminates this reference and adds
the text of the findings directly into 17.03.025.G. This amendment did not change
the content of the findings necessary to approve a Master Plan.
AAA. A 2008 Final EIR was prepared which includes the September 2008 Revised
Draft EIR and the technical appendices, comments on the June 2008 and
September 2008 Revised Draft EIRs, responses to written comments on the June
2008 and September 2008 Revised Draft EIRs, responses to oral comments
regarding environmental/CEQA issues received during the September 23, 2008,
City Council public hearing, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
i
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 15 of 60
Program ("MMRP"). The 2008 Final EIR also incorporates by reference the 2005
Draft EIR and 2006 Revised Draft EIR prepared for the project and all agency and
public comments and responses to comments for both documents. Prior to
November 19, 2008, a copy of the response to comments from the 2008 Final EIR
was sent to each agency and individual who submitted timely comments on either
the June 2008 or September 2008 Revised Draft EIR.
BBB. The 2008 Final EIR, the MMRP, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the project were prepared and provided in compliance with CEQA.
CCC. At its hearings on the project, the City Council considered staff and consultant
presentations, staff reports, applicant presentations, information presented in
public testimony, and information presented to the City Council from technical
experts to assist in its understanding of the project. On November 19, 2008, the
City Council considered the 2008 Final EIR prepared for the project, inclusive of
the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR, June 2008 Revised Draft EIR, 2006
Revised Draft EIR and 2005 Draft EIR, prior to taking formal action on the
project, as revised.
DDD. On November 19, 2008, the City Council conducted the public hearing for the
project, received staff and applicant presentations and public testimony on the
project and closed the public hearing. The City Council then adopted a
Resolution, adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts
of the project that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels, and
certifying the 2008 Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program prepared for the HMNMH Master Plan project.
EEE. On November 19, 2008, the City Council conducted the first reading of an
Ordinance for Development Agreement 06-001 for the HMNMH Master Plan
proj ect.
FFF. The location of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of
proceeding upon which the decision of the City Council are in the Master Case
04-325 project file within the Community Development Department and is in the
custody of the Director of Community Development.
SECTION 2. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita does
hereby make the following findings of fact:
A. CEQA Guidelines 15002(a)(1) note that the basic purposes of CEQA are to
inform governmental decision makers and the public about potential, significant
environmental effects of proposed activities and to identify ways that
environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced, and to disclose to
the public reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner
the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved.
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 16 of 60
B. CEQA Guidelines 15126.6 states that an EIR must describe a range of reasonable
alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly
attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially
lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative
merits of the alternatives. Alternatives to the project have been prepared as
described in Section 4 of this Resolution.
C. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et
seq.) requires decision -makers to balance the benefits of a proposed project
against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. 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." This
statement sets forth the project benefits or reasons why the Lead Agency is in
favor of approving the project and weighs these benefits against the project's
unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that cannot
be mitigated to a less -than -significant level. A Statement of Overriding
Considerations has been prepared for the project as contained in Section 6.a.
through j. of this Resolution.
D. CEQA requires decision -makers to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP) for those mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR that
would mitigate or avoid each significant impact identified in the EIR and to
incorporate the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, including all
mitigation measures, as conditions of project approval. The Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Project is shown in Exhibit B
attached hereto and incorporated herein to, this Resolution.
E. CEQA requires that the responses to comments in theTinal EIR demonstrate good
faith and a well -reasoned analysis, and not be overly conclusory. In response to
several of the comments received, portions of the 2008 HMNMH Final EIR have
been revised as noted in the Response to Comments. Although new material has
been added to the 2008 HMNMH Final EIR through preparation of the Final EIR,
this new material provides clarification to points and information already included
in the 2008 HMNMH Final EIR and is not considered to be significant new
information or a substantial change to the 2008 HMNMH Final EIR that would
necessitate recirculation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
Response letters and responses to those comments have been prepared pursuant to
CEQA and are incorporated in the Final EIR.
SECTION, 3. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. The City
Council does hereby find that the Final EIR identifies and discloses unavoidable significant
project -specific and cumulative impacts in the four areas as set forth in the Final EIR and as
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 17 of 60
summarized below. Findings and facts in support of those findings are generally described in
Exhibit A, Section 1, attached to this Resolution.
A. Air Quality: Generates significant and unavoidable short-term construction -
related air quality impacts for PMio and PMz s for both the project and cumulative
development.
B. Global Climate Change: Contributes to a significant and unavoidable impact on
global climate change due to cumulative greenhouse gas emissions from vehicle
exhaust.
C. Noise: Short-term impacts during construction associated with excavation,
grading and erecting of buildings on-site during construction of the project.
D. Solid Waste: Project -level and cumulative impacts for both construction and
operations associated with sending more solid waste to Los Angeles County
landfills, further limiting their finite capacities.
SECTION 4. CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES. The September 2008 Revised Draft
EIR analyzes and evaluates the comparative merits of each of four Project Alternatives,
including the No Project/No Development Alternative which maintains the existing hospital
campus. The 2008 Final EIR found that alternative locations for the Project are infeasible since
a primary intent of the Master Plan is to expand the existing hospital campus in order to increase
health care services that would serve the growing population of the region.
A. The No Project/No Development Alternative assumes the Henry Mayo Newhall
Memorial Hospital Master Plan would not be implemented and the proposed land
uses and other improvements would not be constructed. The project site would
remain unaltered and it is anticipated that the existing hospital and medical office
facilities would continue to operate within their current capacity. This Alternative
was rejected, when compared to the revised project, as it would not meet any of
the project objectives. In particular, it would not result in development of an
expanded hospital campus master plan that would help meet increasing health
care needs for the community in the future. The No Project Alternative would not
allow for emergency and regional medical • services to expand in order to help
meet the medical care demands of the growing Santa Clarita Valley. Although
the No Project/No Development Alternative would eliminate environmental
impacts in the immediately vicinity of the"project site, it would likely require
residents to travel further distances outside of the Santa Clarita Valley for some of
their healthcare needs, increasing overall vehicle miles traveled and associated
environmental impacts.
B. Alternative 1: Inpatient Building and Supporting Facilities Only Alternative,
provides for the construction of the Inpatient Building and supporting parking and
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 18 of 60
ancillary facilities, but does not allow for the construction of three medical office
buildings that would provide additional opportunities to expand both medical
services and facilities on the campus. Many of the project -related environmental
impacts would be reduced under Alternative One due to fewer health care
facilities and services being constructed. This Alternative was rejected, when
compared to the proposed project, as it would not meet most of the primary
project objectives such as development of an expanded hospital campus master
plan that provides closely linked inpatient and outpatient care. Further, this
Alternative, as compared to the proposed project, does not sufficiently meet
project objectives that help meet the health care needs of the Santa Clarita
Valley's projected population growth within a single hospital campus
environment and would likely require residents to travel outside of the Valley for
some of their healthcare needs, increasing overall vehicle miles traveled and l
associated environmental impacts.
C. Alternative 2: MOBs 1 & 2, Inpatient Building and Supporting Facilities
Alternative, provides for the construction of the Inpatient Building, MOB1,
MOB2 and supporting facilities, which would expand both medical services and
facilities on the existing HMNMH campus that would link inpatient and
outpatient services. Under this Alternative, MOB 3 would not be constructed and
the need for parking structures would be reduced proportionately, representing an
approximately 15 percent reduction in project development. Alternative Two
would attain many of the basic objectives of the project to help meet health care
needs of the Santa Clarita Valley and help maintain the viability of the hospital.
This Alternative would still help provide patients with opportunities for
personalized care, state-of-the-art medical technology, and opportunities for
establishment of Centers for Excellence. Because it would result in fewer
environmental impacts in the immediately vicinity of the hospital campus than the
proposed project and meets most of the project objectives, Alternative Two would
be the Environmentally Superior Alternative after the No Project/No
Development Alternative. Alternative Two would, however, likely require
residents to travel outside of the Valley for some. of their healthcare needs,
increasing overall vehicle miles traveled and associated environmental impacts.
D. Alternative 3: MOBs 1-3, Reduced Height Inpatient Building and Supporting
Facilities Alternative, would include generally the same facilities and site layout
as the proposed project; however, the overall height of the Inpatient Building
would be reduced from 85 feet to 70 feet. Under this Alternative, to account for
the decreased building height, an additional 12,800 square feet of building area
would increase overall°project site development associated with a larger building
footprint for the Inpatient Building. Building setbacks from adjacent property
lines, as well as the licensed hospital bed count would remain the same. Parking
is anticipated to be the same as the proposed project. The reduction in building
height under Alternative Three would reduce the building's visual impacts along
the rear property lines for residents living adjacent to the Inpatient Building and
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 19 of 60
would result in similar impacts to land use, population and employment, overall
aesthetics, light and glare, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water
quality. Noise impacts associated with the helipad operations would increase
under this Alternative due to the additional time hovering in the area during
landings and takeoffs. Alternative Three would implement all of the objectives of
the proposed project, which is to provide adequate hospital and medical office
facilities at the existing hospital campus to help meet projected health care service
demand within the Santa Clarita Valley. Although Alternative Three would
similarly meet all of the objectives of the proposed project, based on standard
traffic modeling practices, traffic generated by the project as a result of an
additional 12,808 square feet of building area and associated air quality impacts
would increase as would construction -related noise, solid waste and air quality
relative to the increase in building area. Because Alternative Three would result
in slightly increased project -related impacts and would not eliminate or reduce
any of the significant unavoidable impacts of the project, it was rejected as the
Environmentally Superior Alternative.
E. Significant and unavoidable construction impacts associated with project -related
and cumulative air quality impacts would be eliminated under the No Project/No
Development Alternative and would be reduced under Alternative One (Inpatient
Building Only) or Alternative Two (MOBs 1&2 and, Inpatient Building);
however, while Alternative Two comes closer to meeting most of the project
objectives, none of these Alternatives sufficiently meet the primary objectives of
the project to provide adequate hospital and medical office facilities that will help
meet future health care service demands within the Santa Clarita Valley and the
remainder of the hospital's 680 square -mile service area. On the other hand,
Alternative Three (MOBS 1-3 and Reduced Height Inpatient Building) would
result in an increase in traffic generated by the project. Therefore, associated air
quality impacts would also increase due to increased vehicle emissions; however,
it would meet all of the objectives of the project. The remaining project -related
and cumulative significant and unavoidable impacts related to construction -
related emission from the`project are outweighed by the project's benefits and are
acceptable when balanced against the specific overriding economic, legal, social,
technological and other considerations.
F. Significant and unavoidable impacts to cumulative global climate change
attributable to the project would be eliminated under the No Project/No
Development Alternative and would be reduced under Alternative One (Inpatient
Building Only) or Alternative Two (MOBs 1&2 and Inpatient Building);
however, while Alternative Two comes closer to meeting most of the project
objectives, neither of these Alternatives sufficiently meet the primary objectives
of the project to provide adequate hospital and medical office facilities that will
help meet future health care service demands within the Santa Clarita Valley and
the remainder of the hospital's 680 square -mile service area. Alternative Three
(MOBs 1-3 and Reduced Height Inpatient Building) would result in increased
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 20 of 60
traffic generated from the larger building area for the Inpatient Building and
therefore could also increase cumulative global climate change impacts.
Alternative 3 would meet all of the objectives of the project. The remaining
cumulative significant and unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas
emission are outweighed by the project's benefits and are acceptable when
balanced against the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological and
other considerations.
G. Project -related significant and unavoidable impacts related to construction noise
would be eliminated under the No Project/No Development Alternative and
would be reduced under Alternative One (Inpatient Building Only) or Alternative
Two (MOBs 1 &2 and Inpatient Building); however, while Alternative Two
comes closer to meeting most of the project objectives, none of these Alternatives
sufficiently meet the primary objectives of the project to provide adequate
hospital and medical office facilities that will help meet future health care service
demands within the Santa Clarita Valley and the remainder of the hospital's 680
square -mile service area. Alternative Three (MOBS 1-3 and Reduced Height
Inpatient Building) would result in increase construction -related noise impacts
due to the larger building area for the Inpatient Building. Alternative 3 would
meet all of the objectives of the project. The project -related significant and
unavoidable construction noise impacts are outweighed by the project's benefits
and are acceptable when balanced against the specific overriding economic, legal,
social, technological and other considerations.
H. Project -related significant and unavoidable impacts related to solid waste disposal
would be eliminated under the No Project/No Development Alternative and
would be reduced under Alternative One (Inpatient Building Only) or Alternative
Two (MOBs 1&2 and Inpatient Building); however, while Alternative Two
comes closer to meeting most of the project objectives, none of these Alternatives
sufficiently meet the primary objectives of the project to provide adequate
hospital and medical office facilities that will help meet future health care service
demands within the Santa Clarita Valley and the remainder of the hospital's 680
square -mile service area. Alternative Three (MOBS 1-3 and Reduced Height
Inpatient Building) would result in increased solid waste impacts associated with
the increase in building area for the Inpatient Building. Alternative 3 would meet
all of the objectives of the project. The project -related significant and
unavoidable solid waste impacts are outweighed by the project's benefits and are
acceptable when balanced against the specific overriding economic, legal, social,
technological and other considerations.
SECTION 5. FINDINGS TO CERTIFY THE FINAL EIR. Based upon the above recitals and
the entire record, including the Draft EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received
at the public hearings held on the project and Draft EIR, upon studies and investigations made by
the City Council and on its behalf, and upon staff reports,and other transmittals from City staff to
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 21 of 60
the City Council, the City Council, having final approval authority over the project, hereby
certifies the 2008 HMNMH Final EIR and further finds as follows:
A. That the Final EIR for the project is adequate, complete, and has been prepared in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA
Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines.
B. That the Final EIR incorporates all feasible mitigation, change or alterations
which lessen the significant environmental effects of the project and that even
after imposition of all feasible mitigation measures, significant impacts remain for
project -specific and cumulative air quality, construction -related noise, cumulative
global climate change and both project and cumulative solid waste, as set forth in
the Final EIR and generally described in Section 1 of Exhibit A, attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference.
C. That all feasible mitigation measures, changes and alterations have been required
and incorporated into the project that reduce potential significant environmental
effects to a level less than significant and that all mitigation measures as set forth
in the Final EIR, generally described in Section 2 of Exhibit A, attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference, have been made conditions of approval for
the project.
D. That the project will have a less than significant impact on the environment and
no mitigation is required in the areas as set forth in the Final EIR and summarized
in Section 3 of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
E. That certification of this Final EIR reflects the City Council's independent
judgment and analysis.
F. That a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared
and is hereby adopted to enforce the mitigation measures required by the Final
EIR and project approvals. The mitigation measures are hereby made a condition
of project approval. In the event of an actual conflict in the language of this
Resolution, the EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the
language offering the most environmental protection shall control.
G. That the documents and other materials 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,
Department of Community Development, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302,
Santa Clarita, California 91355.
SECTION 6. FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. With
respect to each impact that cannot feasibly be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 22 of 60
(i.e., the impacts identified in Section 3), the City Council hereby adopts the following statement
of overriding considerations:
A. To the extent that a significant effect of the Project is not avoided or substantially
lessened to a less than significant level, the City of Santa Clarita City Council,
having reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR (which
includes the Responses to Comments), having reviewed and considered the
information contained in the public record, and having balanced the benefits of
the Project against the unavoidable effects which remain, finds such unmitigated
effects to be acceptable in consideration of the following overriding consideration
(in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093)
B. The City Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to
lessen Project impacts to the' greatest extent possible, and furthermore, that
Alternatives do not meet the complete objectives of the Project, or do not provide
the overall benefits of the Project
C. Each of the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the Project identified
in Section 3 above is outweighed by environmental sustainability, economic,
social, technological, and other community benefits, including, but not limited to
the following:
1) The proposed HMNMH Master Plan project will provide needed hospital
facilities, including both inpatient and outpatient services to help meet medical
service needs of the Santa Clanta Valley as the population continues to increase.
The proposed expansion would allow for additional hospital beds, additional
technologies and medical service capabilities and specialties such as Centers of
Excellence, as defined in Section 4.7.3 of the Development Agreement, and
would accommodate an increase in the number of physician offices available on-
site.
2) The proposed HMNMH Master Plan would allow the development of new,
needed medical services in cardiac care, neonatal and high risk pregnancy care,
intensive care and surgical care. '
3) The proposed HMNMH Master Plan would improve the community's
readiness for disaster by adding two rooftop helipads and adding capability for
'support of other first responder agencies, increasing safety and accessibility for
emergency and air transport operations.
4) The proposed HMNMH Master Plan project will create 571 new long-term
employment opportunities in a range of professional health care employment
positions, such as doctors, technicians, nurses and aides that will add to the 1,200
people currently employed by HMNMH, creating a positive economic benefit to
the community and improving the City's jobs/housing balance.
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 23 of 60
5) The proposed HMNMH Master Plan project will provide the City with
additional right-of-way and street improvements to portions of McBean Parkway,
a major highway designated in the City's Master Plan of Highway and Roadway
System Map, sufficient to accommodate future intersection improvements needed
to address traffic impacts beyond the 15 -year buildout timeline associated with
development of the project.
6) The proposed HMNMH Master Plan project will provide employment
opportunities and increased medical service capabilities in close proximity to
Interstate 5, a major Southern California transportation corridor.
7) The proposed HMNMH Master Plan project would make monetary
contributions for: a) the feasibility, siting and construction of a transitional care
unit facility or other senior health care needs; and b) future construction of the
McBean Parkway Realignment. Monetary contributions shall be paid in
accordance with the project Development Agreement.
8) The proposed HMNMH Master Plan project provides enhanced landscaping
along McBean Parkway and between the hospital campus and existing residential
neighborhoods to further buffer residential units from the proposed hospital
campus buildings.
9) The proposed HMNMH Master Plan project provides architecturally enhanced
building elevations and parking structure designs compatible with the established
Valencia community while upgrading the architectural quality of the existing
hospital campus.
10) The proposed HMNMH Master Plan project promotes environmental
sustainability in that expansion of an existing hospital campus in proximity to the
people served, close to public transportation, utilizing existing infrastructure
systems, locating empl6yment opportunities and community services within
walking distance of a range of housing types, adhering to energy-efficient and
standard building codes, recycling, and minimizing vehicle idling through
appropriate site design which are all components of sustainable development and
build value in a community.
D. Any one of these overriding considerations is sufficient to support the City
Council's determinations herein.
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 24 of 60
SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of 52008.
ATTEST:
Sharon L. Dawson, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Sharon L. Dawson, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting
thereof, held on the day of , 2008 by the following vote of the City Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 25 of 60
EXHIBIT A to RESOLUTION
FINDINGS REQUIRED BY CEQA
Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section
15091 (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15091), no public agency shall approve
or carry out a project where an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant
effects on the environmental that would occur if the project is approved or carried out, unless the
public agency makes one or more findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by
a brief explanation of the rationale of each finding. The possible findings, which must be
supported by substantial evidence in the record, are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (hereafter,
"CEQA Finding I").
(2) Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency
(hereafter, "CEQA Finding 2").
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR
(hereafter, "CEQA Finding 3").
For those significant effects that cannot be mitigated to a level below significance, the public
agency is required to find that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other
benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment.
All Final EIR mitigation measures, as discussed below and as set forth in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit B, following), are incorporated by reference into
these findings. In addition, the project revisions set forth in Section 1 of the Resolution, above,
and the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Section 6 (Statement of Overriding
Considerations), above, are incorporated by reference into these findings. In accordance with the
provisions of CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA
Guidelines, the City adopts these findings as part of its certification of the- Final EIR for the
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan project.
-25-
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 26 of 60
EXHIBIT A - SECTION 1
UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
The City Council has determined project design, modifications to the project as originally
proposed, EIR mitigation, and/or conditions of approval imposed on the proposed project will
either avoid or provide substantial mitigation of the project's identified significant environmental
effects; however, the following environmental effects cannot be feasibly mitigated to a level of
insignificance. Consequently, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, a Statement
of Overriding Considerations has been prepared to substantiate the City's decision to accept
these unavoidable significant effects when balanced against the significant benefits afforded by
the project.
This section sets forth the significant unavoidable effects of the proposed project, and with
respect to each significant impact, identifies one or more of the required CEQA findings, states
facts in support of these findings and refers to the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(SOC).
1.1 AIR QUALITY
CONS TR UCTION EMISSIONS
1.1.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Short-term impacts during construction associated
with construction -related dust would exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds for
PM'io and PM2 s during site grading. Construction of the Master Plan project would also result in
a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact in regards to construction -related impacts.
1.1.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 3.
1.1.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The following facts, together with
Mitigation Measures AQ1 through AQ4, as listed below, indicate that the significant effects of
the proposed project have been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible, but that certain
significant impacts on air quality remain, and are thus, unavoidable.
AQ1 During construction, project applicant shall require the contractor to be
responsible for ensuring that all measures listed in Table 5.6-9 Standard Measures
for Construction -Related Emission, are implemented. To achieve the particular
control efficiencies shown, finished surfaces are to be stabilized with water and/or
dust palliatives and isolated from traffic flows to prevent emissions of fugitive
dust from these areas. In addition, the following water application rates are
required:
♦ Roads traveled by autos, rock trucks, water trucks, fuel trucks, and
maintenance trucks: up to twice per hour;
-26-
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 27 of 60
♦ Roads traveled by scrapers and loaders in active excavation areas: up to three
times per hour;
♦ Finish grading areas: up to once every two hours.
AQ2 The project applicant shall require the construction contractor to ensure that all
construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to
reduce operational emissions. The contractor shall ensure that all construction
equipment is properly serviced and maintained.
AQ3 The project applicant shall require the construction contractor to utilize, as much
as possible, pre-coated/natural colored building materials, water based or low-
VOC coating, and coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer
efficiency, such as HVLP spray method, or manual coatings application such as a
paintbrush, hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge.
AQ4 All trucks that are to haul excavated or graded material on-site shall comply with
Stat3e Vehicle Code Section 23114 (Spilling Loads on Highways), with special
attention to Sections 23114(b)(2)(F), (e)(4) as amended, regarding the prevention
of such material spilling onto public streets and roads. Prior to the issuance of
grading permits, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the City of Santa
Clarita how the project operations subject to that specification during hauling
activities shall comply with the provisions set forth in Section 23114(b)(2)(F),
(e)(4).
Implementation of the Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan project will
generate construction -related emissions during development of each structure. Fugitive dust
emissions are generally associated with grading, land clearing, exposure, vehicle and equipment
travel on unpaved roads, and dirt/debris pushing. Mitigation measures AQ1 through AQ4 will
reduce construction -related emissions to the maximum extent feasible. Dust suppression
techniques would be implemented to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off-site.
Implementation of these dust suppression techniques could reduce the fugitive dust generation by
50 percent or more.
During construction activities associated with implementation of the Master Plan, emissions of
particulate matter (10 and 2.5 micron) (PMio and PM2 s) would exceed localized thresholds of
significance recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
This is due to construction -related emissions that exceed the SCAQMD localized significance
thresholds for PMio and PM2 s during site grading. Even with implementation of Mitigation
Measures AQI through AQ4 during construction to minimize impacts of the proposed project,
emissions from construction equipment exhaust and soil disturbance will remain significant and
unavoidable. Based on SCAQMD standard recommendations, the project would also result in a
significant and unavoidable cumulative impact in regards to construction -related impacts.
-27-
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 28 of 60
CUMULATIVE GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
1.1.4 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The project's contribution to cumulative
greenhouse gas emissions from vehicle exhaust are considered to have a significant effect on
Global Climate Change. Construction of the Master Plan project would also therefore result in a
significant and unavoidable cumulative impact in regards to global climate change.
1.1.5 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 3.
1.1.6 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The following facts, together with
Mitigation Measures TR1 through TR4, TR6, and AQ1 through AQ5, incorporated herein by
reference, and Mitigation Measures AQ6 through AQ8, as follows, indicate that the significant
effects of the proposed project have been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible, but that
certain significant impacts on global climate change remain, and are thus, unavoidable.
AQ6 Install light-colored paving and cool roofs where feasible. The paving and roofs
shall be specified on the building plans.
AQ7 Plant shade trees pursuant to City requirements and standards, and shall be
specified on the building plans.
AQ8 Utilize light emitting diodes (LEDS) for outdoor lighting and limit the hours of
outdoor lighting operation to hours of darkness. The location of outdoor lighting
shall be specified on the building plans.
Implementation of the Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan project will
contribute to cumulative traffic -related greenhouse gas emissions generated as a result of
operation of the hospital campus expansion. Vehicle emissions are the largest generator of
greenhouse gas emissions in California. Mitigation Measures TRI through TR4, TR6, and AQ1
through AQ5 would minimize construction and other project -generated vehicle emissions to the
maximum extent feasible by requiring construction equipment to be in good operating condition
through proper servicing and maintenance; by reducing roadway congestion, vehicle idling, fuel
consumption and air emissions; providing needed healthcare services in proximity to the people
served, close to public transportation; and locating employment opportunities and services within
walking distance of a range of housing types all help reduce vehicle miles traveled, thereby
minimizing the project's contribution to global climate change.
1.2 NOISE
CONSTR UCTION-RELA TED NOISE
1.2.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The project would result in a significant and
unavoidable noise impact during short-term construction activities.
1.2.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 3.
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 29 of 60
1.2.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The following facts, together with the
fact that all feasible mitigation measures have been included, indicate that the significant effects
of the project have been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible, but that certain significant
impacts associated with construction -related noise remain, and are thus, unavoidable. All other
impacts related to noise are either at less than significant levels or can be reduced to less than
significant levels with the imposition of mitigation measures.
Noise levels from demolition, grading, and other construction activities for the project may
periodically exceed suggested maximum noise levels. Compliance with the City's construction
hour requirement along with implementation of Mitigation Measures NI and N2, as follows,
would reduce construction noise impacts, but not to less than significant levels:
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.
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..
1.3 SOLID WASTE
PROJECT-RELA TED CONSTRUCTION
1.3.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The proposed project would generate typical
construction debris, including wood, paper, glass, plastic, metals, cardboard, and green wastes.
Because landfill capacity is a finite resource, mitigation measures to reduce the project impact to
less than significant are not available. Until such time as other disposal alternatives adequate to
serve existing and future uses for the foreseeable future are found, construction -related solid
waste would be significant and unavoidable, because landfill space is a finite resource.
1.3.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 3.
1.3.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The following facts indicate that the
significant effects of project -related construction has been reduced or avoided to the extent
feasible, but that certain significant project -related construction solid waste impacts remain
because landfill space is a finite resource, and are thus, unavoidable. The project would be
subject to compliance with the City's Construction and demolition Ordinances, standard
Conditions of Approval, as well as submit a Construction and Demolition Materials Management
Plan for approval by the Environmental Services Division Administrator or designee.
-29-
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 30 of 60
PROJECT-RELA TED OPERATIONS
1.3.4 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The proposed project would generate significant
unavoidable impacts to solid waste services for buildout conditions of the project and cumulative
conditions for operations despite the imposition of mitigation measures. Even with mitigation,
the proposed project would result in project -related operational significant and unavoidable
impacts until such time as other disposal alternatives adequate to serve existing and future uses
for the foreseeable future are found, because landfill space is a finite resource.
1.3.5 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 3.
1.3.6 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The following facts, together with
Mitigation Measures SWI through SW3, as follows, indicate that the significant effects of the
proposed project have been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible, but that certain significant
solid waste impacts remain, and are thus, unavoidable.
SWI The location or recycling/separation areas shall be in proximity to dumpsters for
non-recyclables, elevators, loading docks, and primary internal and external
access points.
SW2 The location of recycle/separation areas shall be convenient for tose persons who
deposit, collect, and load the recyclable materials.
SW3 Recycling containers/bins shall be located to not block access to each other.
As stated above, the project -level impacts have been concluded to be significant. Upon buildout
of the proposed Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan, the Henry Mayo Newhall
Memorial Hospital facility will generate a total of 13,774 lbs/day of solid waste, which will total
approximately 2,514 tons/year, or 47 percent more solid waste per year than the existing
facilities. This quantity represents the proposed project's solid waste generation under a worst-
case scenario without any recycling activities in place. However, the project will be required to
comply with the City's Ordinance, which requires providing adequate areas for collecting and
loading recyclable materials in concert with County -wide efforts and programs to reduce the
volume of solid waste entering landfills.
It can also be assumed that the proposed project will meet the current recycling goals of the
community and only generate approximately 1,257 tons/year of solid waste upon buildout of the
proposed Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan, due to a mandate to divert at
least 50 percent of potential waste disposal.
While recycling and the imposition of Mitigation Measures SWI through SW3 can and will
reduce the amount of solid waste for which disposal is necessary, these measures cannot reduce
the amount of solid waste to a level less than significant because of the finite nature of landfill
space.
-30-
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 31 of 60
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
1.3.7 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Development associated with the proposed project
and related cumulative projects would generate significant unavoidable impacts to solid waste
services for both construction and operations despite the imposition of mitigation measures. Site
preparation activities and, construction activities would generate inert wastes such as wood,
concrete, stucco, piping, wiring, and excavated soil. Even with mitigation, the proposed project
and related cumulative projects would result in project- significant and unavoidable impacts until
such time as other disposal alternatives adequate to serve existing and future uses for the
foreseeable future are found, because landfill space is a finite resource.
1.3.8 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 3.
1.3.9 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The following facts, together with
Mitigation Measures SWI through SW3, as follows, indicate that the significant effects of the
proposed project and related cumulative projects have been reduced or avoided to the extent
feasible, but that certain significant solid waste impacts remain, and are thus, unavoidable.
SWI The location or recycling/separation areas shall be in proximity to dumpsters for
non-recyclables, elevators,"loading docks, and primary internal and external
access points.
SW2 The location of recycle/separation areas shall be convenient for tose persons who
deposit, collect, and load the recyclable materials.
SW3 Recycling containers/bins shall be located so that they do not block access to each
other.
As stated above, the project and cumulative impacts have been concluded to be significant.
Upon buildout of the proposed Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan and related
cumulative projects, 137 tons per day of solid waste or 50,005 ton/year will be generated. This
quantity represents the proposed project's solid waste generation under a worst-case scenario
without any recycling activities in place. However, the projects within the City will be required
to comply with the City's Ordinance, which requires providing adequate areas for collecting and
loading recyclable materials in concert with County -wide efforts and programs to reduce the
volume of solid waste entering landfills.
It can also be assumed that the proposed project will meet the current recycling goals of the
community and only generate approximately 25,003 tons/year of cumulative solid waste, due to
a mandate to divert at least 50 percent of potential waste disposal.
While recycling and the imposition of Mitigation Measures SWI through SW3 can and will
reduce the amount of solid waste for which disposal is necessary, these measures cannot reduce
the amount of cumulative solid waste to a level less than significant because of the finite nature
of landfill space.
-31-
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 32 of 60
SECTION 2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT HAVE BEEN MITIGATED TO A LEVEL LESS
THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City Council has determined that, in certain instances where the Final EIR found the
proposed project would have potentially significant project -level effects, project revisions,
mitigation measures, and conditions of approval will substantially mitigate those environmental
effects, and that, as a result, those effects have been mitigated to a level less than significant.
This section sets forth the potentially significant effects of the project, and with respect to each
such impact, identifies one or more of the required CEQA findings and states facts in support of
these findings.
2.1 AESTHETICS, LIGHT, AND GLARE
SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION AESTHETICS, LIGHT, AND GLARE
2.1.1 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Project construction activities would
alter views across portions of the project site from surrounding locations. Graded surfaces,
storage of construction materials and equipment as well as truck traffic would be visible. Short-
term light and glare impacts associated with construction activity would likely be limited to
nighttime lighting necessary for security purposes. These impacts, though short-term in nature,
could be considered significant unless mitigation is required.
r
2.1.2 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.
2.1.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially
significant impacts associated with short-term aesthetics, light, and glare will be reduced to a less
than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures AES 1 and AES2, as follows:
AES 1 Appropriate screening (i.e., temporary fencing with opaque material) shall be
used to buffer views of construction activities, equipment and material from
adjacent residential uses, existing hospital campus operations, and from McBean
Parkway.
AES2 Construction -related security lighting shall be directed away from adjacent
residential areas and shall consist of the minimal wattage necessary to provide
safety at the construction site.
LONG-TERM AESTHETICS — VISUAL CHARACTER
2.1.4 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Development of the project would
increases the total square footage of the medical campus from 340,071 square feet to 667,434
square feet over the 15 -year life of the project, which could result in significant visual impacts if
-32-
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 33 of 60
not properly mitigated. Given the topographic buffer that currently exists along the northwestern
edge of the campus, the placement of new inpatient and medical office buildings and parking
structures with sensitivity to building height, the use of setbacks and step -backs from the
property edges, requirements for the inclusion of architectural enhancements on building
facades, and requirements for on- and off-site landscaping, the proposed project is expected to
have a less than significant impact on the visual character of the area and the quality of the
campus.
2.1.5 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.
2.1.6 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially
significant impacts associated with long-term visual impacts will be reduced to a less than
significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure AES3, as follows:
AES 3 Prior to issuance of building permits, each structure shall undergo Development
Review (DR) approval in conformance with the adopted Master Plan and
conditions of approval for overall site design and architectural conformity.
LONG-TERM LIGHT AND GLARE
2.1.7 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Light and glare from the proposed
project could create significant impacts on adjacent residential uses if not property mitigated.
The proposed uses would require lighting of building interior and exterior spaces (i.e., entryways
and signs). In addition, the proposed project would include lighting for activity areas involving
nighttime uses, lighting around the structures (security lighting, walkways, and parking
structures), helipad safety lighting, and lighting for the interior of buildings. Lighting from the
two helipads would be installed in compliance with the requirement of the California Department
of Transportation, Aeronautics Division to ensure that the helipads are adequately lit, and that
public health and safety is maintained. All other project lighting must comply with the City's
Unified Development Code, which requires light sources to be directed downward and shielded
from streets or adjoining properties, preventing light spillage onto adjacent residential uses.
2.1.8 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.
2.1.9 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially
significant impacts associated with long-term light and glare will be reduced to a less than
significant level with implementation of conditions of approval requiring use of minimally
reflective lighting, automatic timers and low -intensity exterior lighting as well as compliance
with the City's Unified Development Code.
2.2 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
INTERIM YEAR IMPACTS
-33-
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 34 of 60
2.2.1 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The Interim Year traffic conditions
are based on the Santa Clarita Valley Consolidated Traffic Model (SCVCTM) forecasts. The
proposed Master Plan would generate approximately 7,571 average daily vehicle trips, with
approximately 519 (429 inbound) in the AM peak hour and 715 (554 outbound) in the PM peak
hour over the 15 -year life of the project. During the Interim Year Scenario (approximately 2019)
significant impacts could occur at the following four intersections: McBean Parkway/Magic
Mountain Parkway; Orchard Village Road/Wiley Canyon Road; Orchard Village Road/McBean
Parkway; and Valencia Boulevard/Magic Mountain Parkway unless mitigated. For Interim Year
conditions, the operational analysis shows that when project mitigation is implemented,
conditions are either LOS D or better, or if worse than LOS D, the mitigation improves
operations in comparison to no project conditions. '
2.2.2 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.
2.2.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially
significant impacts associated with intersection level of service at the intersections of McBean
Parkway/Magic Mountain Parkway; Orchard Village Road/Wiley Canyon Road; Orchard
Village Road/McBean Parkway; and Valencia Boulevard/Magic Mountain Parkway will be
reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures TRI through
TR5, as follows:
TRI In order to address impacts along McBean Parkway at the Magic Mountain
Parkway intersection, the following improvements shall be required:
♦ Add a third through lane for the westbound direction (re -striping). This
improvement shall be implemented in conjunction with the construction of
MOB 1.
♦ Add right -turn overlap phasing for the westbound right -turn movement
(Signal modification). This improvement shall be implemented in conjunction
with the construction of MOB 1.
♦ Add a third through lane for the eastbound direction (Re -striping). This
improvement shall be implemented in conjunction with the construction of the
Inpatient Building/MOB2.
TR2 In order to address impacts along Orchard Village Road at the Wiley Canyon
Road intersection, the following improvements shall be required:
♦ Add a separate northbound right -turn lane with right -turn overlap phasing
(within existing right-of-way between Wiley Canyon Road and the Santa
Clara River South Fork Bridge). This improvement shall be implemented in
conjunction with the construction of MOB I.
-34-
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 35 of 60
TR3 In order to address impacts along Orchard Village Road at the McBean Parkway
intersection, the following improvements shall be required:
♦ Widen the southbound approach (project driveway) to allow for a left -turn
lane and a second through lane. This improvement shall be implemented in
conjunction with the construction of MOB1.
♦ Add a separate westbound right -turn lane (for project access). This
improvement shall be implemented in conjunction with the construction of the
Inpatient Building/MOB2.
♦ Add a separate southbound right -turn lane (project driveway). This
improvement shall be implemented in conjunction with the construction of the
Inpatient Building/MOB2.
TR4 In order to address impacts along Valencia Boulevard at the Magic Mountain
Parkway intersection, the following improvement shall be required:
♦ Add a second westbound left -turn lane by removing the existing right -turn
lane (re -striping the westbound approach as a mirror image of the existing
eastbound approach). This improvement shall be implemented in conjunction
with the construction of the Inpatient Building/MOB2.
TR5 The project applicant shall pay fees to the established Valencia Bridge and
Thoroughfare District, in accordance with City policy, in order to provide a fair -
share contribution of funds for future traffic system improvements.
SITE ACCESS
2.2.4 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Access to the site would be
provided by three project driveways located on McBean Parkway. The increase in traffic
volume associated with the project requires improvements to each intersection that provides
access to the hospital as specified in the conditions of approval and Mitigation Measure TR3.
2.2.5 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.
2.2.6 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially
significant impacts associated with access to the project site will be reduced to a less than
significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure TR3, as shown above and
incorporated herein by reference and TR6, as follows:
TR6 In order to address impacts along McBean Parkway at the Orchard Village Road
intersection, the following improvement shall be required:
-35-
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 36 of 60
♦ Re -stripe the hospital driveway to reconfigure the first through lane to a shred
left-turn/through lane. This improvement shall be implemented in conjunction
with the construction of MOB3..
LONG-RANGE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
2.2.7 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The proposed HMNMH Master
Plan project would potentially contribute to significant long-term (2030) cumulative traffic
impacts at the intersections of. 1) McBean Parkway/Valencia Boulevard; and 2) McBean
Parkway/Orchard Village Road that are anticipated to occur beyond the 15 -year Master Plan.
The project will dedicate sufficient right-of-way and make street frontage improvements at the
McBean Parkway/Orchard Village Road intersection to accommodate future improvements
needed to mitigate long-term (2030) cumulative traffic impacts. In addition, there currently are
no right-of-way limitations that would prevent the acquisition of sufficient land in order to make
future improvements at the intersection of McBean Parkway/Valencia Boulevard to mitigate
long-term cumulative impacts at this intersection. The applicant's payment of B&T fees would
mitigate the project's contribution toward long-range cumulative impacts at these two
intersections.
2.2.8 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.
2.2.9 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially
significant long-term (2030) cumulative impacts associated with intersection level of service at
the intersections of Orchard Village Road/McBean Parkway and Valencia Boulevard/Magic
Mountain Parkway will be reduced to a less than significant level with payment of B&T fees, as
listed above in Mitigation Measure TR5, incorporated herein by reference.
2.3 AIR QUALITY
OPERATIONAL IMPACTS
2.3.1 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Operation of the project would
result in significant stationary source emissions from natural gas usage and consumer products
unless mitigated. Vehicle emissions associated with the project would exceed SCAQMD
thresholds for NOx; however, one individual project having an emission exceeding a threshold
does not necessarily result in adverse health effects for residents in the project vicinity. This is
especially true when the criteria pollutant is one with regional effects, such as an ozone precursor
like NOx. None of the ten intersections analyzed in the project vicinity would result in CO
concentrations exceeding Federal or State standards. Therefore, impacts associated with project -
generated vehicle emissions are less than significant.
2.2.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.
-36-
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 37 of 60
2.3.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The Final EIR concludes that
potentially significant impacts associated with stationary source emissions will be reduced to a
less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ5, as follows:
AQ5 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Building Official and/or Division of
the State Architect for the hospital shall ensure the proposed uses be designed to
use low Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) paints and solvents throughout. In
addition, this shall be specified on the building plans.
AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY
2.3.4 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The Henry Mayo Newhall
Memorial Hospital Master Plan project is consistent with the assumptions and objectives of
SCAQMD's 2007 Air Quality Management Plan and will not interfere with the region's ability
to comply with Federal and State air quality standards. The project is consistent with the
anticipated employment opportunities within the region, based on the Southern California
Association of Governments 2004 Regional Transportation Plan/Growth Vision: Socio
Economic Forecast Report (2004 Regional Transportation Plan) and would not exceed growth
projections identified in that Plan. The project is consistent with the City of Santa Clarita's
Unified Development Code and with the City's General Plan.
2.2.5 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.
2.3.6 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The project is consistent with the goals
and policies of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan and the anticipated employment growth for
the region. With implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ2 and AQ5, listed in Exhibit 1 and
above, and incorporated herein by reference.
2.4 NOISE
OPERATIONAL TRAFFIC, HELIPAA & S TA TIONA R Y NOISE
2.4.1 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Residential backyards located off-
site along McBean Parkway and exterior areas on-site would be potentially exposed to high
traffic -related noise. Project -related traffic noise increase along roadway segments in the project
vicinity would be mostly small and negligible and therefore would be less than significant.
Noise attenuation for the medical office buildings along McBean Parkway can only be achieved
with the structure's windows closed. Mitigation requiring mechanical ventilation for on-site
medical office buildings to allow windows to remain closed would ensure that interior noise
level standards would be less than significant.
Potential noise impacts as a result of relocating the helipad northeast of its previous at -grade
location could occur. The location of the flight tracks to and from the helipad is governed
primarily by the prevailing winds at the time of flight. Residences in the neighborhood of the
hospital would initially experience helicopter noise similar to that in 2005, which, at that time
-37-
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 38 of 60
were 10 to 12 flights each month. Based on growth over several years in the past, the level of
helicopter activity is expected to increase to 15 to 17 flights a month in the future, which
represents an increase in the noise exposure level of approximately 1.5 dBA (in terms of the 24-
hour weighted average scale of CNEL), which is not large enough to be perceptible. Therefore,
periodic helipad noise impacts would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels
and would be less than significant.
Stationary noise sources are on-site noises typically associated with operations of the project,
such as building air conditioners, delivery truck loading and unloading, truck movements on
driveways, and other parking lot activities. Because these activities would not occur at distances
closer to any existing residential use in the project vicinity than what currently exists, they would
not exceed identified noise thresholds and would be less than significant. Noise impacts from all
on-site stationary sources would be limited to the project site and vicinity and therefore would
not have the potential to result in cumulatively considerable adverse effects.
2.4.2 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.
2.4.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially
significant impacts associated with operational noise will be reduced to a less than significant
level with implementation of Mitigation Measure N3, as follows:
N3 To meet the 45-dBA CNEL interior noise standard for medical office uses,
mechanical ventilation, such as an air -conditional system, shall be required for
medical office buildings along the southern portion of the project site along
McBean Parkway, in order to ensure that windows can remain closed for
prolonged periods of time.
2.5 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
SEISMIC GROUNDSHA KING
2.5.1 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Groundshaking accompanying
earthquakes on nearby faults is anticipated to be felt within the Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial
Hospital site. The greatest amount of groundshaking at the project site would be expected to
accompany large earthquakes on the Northridge/East Oak Ridge, Santa Susana, Holser, and San
Gabriel faults. Earthquake magnitudes in the range of M6.5 to M7.0 could produce Modified
Mercalli intensities in the range of VIII to XI within the Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial
Hospital site, and maximum horizontal ground acceleration on the order of 1.0g. Despite the fact
that the project site would experience groundshaking as a result of an earthquake along any of
the active or potentially active faults in the region, as is the case in all of southern California,
proposed structures would be required to be designed, engineered, and constructed to meet all
applicable local and state seismic safety requirements, including those of the Uniform Building
Code. Given compliance with applicable seismic safety requirements, impacts on the proposed
development from seismic groundshaking would be less than significant.
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 39 of 60
2.5.2 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.
2.5.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially
significant impacts associated with seismic groundshaking will be reduced to a less than
significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO1, as follows:
GEO1 The project applicant shall have a geologist registered by the State of California
prepare a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) prior to issuance of
grading permits for the Inpatient Building. Any recommendations in the study are
applicable to the Inpatient Building, if required by OSHPD, and shall be
implemented during site grading and construction.
EXPANSIVE SOILS
2.5.4 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The alluvial soils underlying the
project area at two likely foundation elevations consist primarily of granular soils and the deeper
clays that have high moisture content (i.e., 20 to 30 percent) and a high degree of saturation.
These soils are reported to exhibit "low" expansion potential and, therefore, the potential for
expansive soils to impact new buildings is considered low. However, clay soils exposed at the
deeper subgrade level should not be allowed to dry out. Implementation of the recommended
mitigation measure (GE02) would ensure that potentially significant impacts regarding
expansive soils are reduced to a less than significant level.
2.5.5 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.
2.5.6 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially
significant impacts associated with expansive soils will be reduced to a less than significant level
with implementation of Mitigation Measure GE02, as follows:
GE02 If potentially expansive units (i.e., clay soils) are encountered during construction,
they shall be evaluated by the Project Geotechnical Engineer. Special foundation
designs and reinforcement shall be utilized to mitigate expansive material as
specified by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and to the satisfaction of the City.
Specifically, if clay soils are exposed at the deeper subgrade level, the
Construction Contractor shall employ dewatering techniques, as the clay soils
shall not be allowed to dry out.
2.6 PARKING
SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION
2.6.1 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The construction of the on-site
structures could impact on-site parking as parking would be needed for construction crews, on-
site tenants, and visitors. In order to ensure sufficient quantity on the project site to meet
-39-
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 40 of 60
projected needs during the construction period, mitigation has been required to address parking
specifically for the construction period.
2.6.2 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.
2.6.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially
significant impacts associated with short-term construction parking will be reduced to a less than
significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure PRK1, as follows:
PRK1 To maximize the on-site parking for non -construction uses, the project applicant
shall prepare and implement a Parking Management Plan during the construction
phases of the project. The Plan may include provisions for: 1) no construction
worker parking on-site, and 2) off-site parking at an existing facility or facilities
with a parking surplus, with a shuttle system, or other similar transportation
method to and from the hospital campus. The Plan shall be approved by the
Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of any building permit
included it he HMNMH Master Plan.
LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL
2.6.4 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The project would result in an
increased demand for parking due to the construction of new medical office buildings and
hospital facilities.
2.6.5 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.
2.6.6 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The project is required to ensure that
sufficient parking is provided at each stage of construction to meet Municipal Code
requirements. The Master Plan would be in compliance with City requirements for parking, and
impacts would be less than significant upon implementation of Mitigation Measure PRK2, as
follows:
PRK2 As part of the plan review process for each phase of Master Plan build out, the
City of Santa Clarita shall ensure that the project applicant accompanies each
development phase with adequate parking, in compliance with the City's
Municipal Code.
2.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CONSTRUCTION -RELATED HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
2.7.1 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The project site is not included on the list of
hazardous materials sites (Cortese List) compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5. However, building components in structures built prior to 1981 could contain
hazardous materials, such as asbestos, PCBs, lead, and mercury.
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 41 of 60
The proposed project could involve handling hazardous materials in a manner that poses a hazard
to people, animals or plants, if appropriate hazardous materials surveys and safety precautions
are not undertaken. This exposure could constitute a potentially significant impact.
To the extent that the proposed project could remove hazardous materials within existing
buildings, it could be beneficial over the long term. The removal of such materials could reduce
potential health threats and prevent individuals on and off-site from encountering such materials
in the future. Properly handling and disposing of contaminated materials would protect the
environment and prevent potential future adverse health, safety, or environmental effects related
to them. Thus, implementation of the recommended mitigation measure (HAZ1) would reduce
potentially significant impacts in this regard to a less than significant level.
2.7.2 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.
2.7.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially
significant impacts associated with the construction -related hazardous materials will be reduced
to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ1, as follows:
HAZ1 The project applicant shall retain a qualified environmental specialist (e.g., a
Registered Environmental Assessor or similarly qualified individual) to perform
pre -construction hazardous materials surveys to inspect existing building areas
subject to demolition or renovation for the presence of as yet unidentified
asbestos, PCBs, mercury, lead, or other hazardous materials. If found at levels
that require special handling, the Project applicant shall manage these materials as
required by law and according to federal and state regulations and guidelines,
including those of DTSC, SCAQMD, Cal/OSHA, and any other agency with
jurisdiction over these hazardous materials.
2.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
DRAINAGE/HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
2.8.1 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The project would alter drainage
during operation and could result in increase local erosion and runoff during periods of heavy
rains. With incorporation of mitigation measures, the City's Standard Urban Storm Water
Mitigation Plan requirements as conditions of project approval, and Best Management Practices
from Urban Stormwater Management Plans, the net change in impervious area and associated
runoff flow volumes from the project would not result in significant surface drainage impacts on -
or off-site. The project site's major downstream watercourse is on the 303(d) list of the Los
Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. This 303(d) listing raises a significant concern
for chloride and coliform runoff from the site. The general water quality of the project site is not
expected to substantially change as a result of proposed improvements. Expected pollutants
include trash, debris, nutrients, pesticides, herbicides, and oil and grease. Although the proposed
project would not notably increase impervious areas, proposed development could affect
-41-
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 42 of 60
pollutant loading immediately off-site, since the intensity of use on-site would result in increased
vehicle activity and generation of trash and debris. Mitigation measures (HWQ1 through
HWQ3) that address water quality impacts reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Operation of Master Plan improvements, once construction is completed, would likely increase
trash, nutrients, bacteria, pesticides and herbicides, and oil and grease from the increased
intensity of uses on-site. Water quality impacts due to the development of proposed
improvements are considered potentially significant if not mitigated. However, development of
and adherence to a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for project operation, required for
compliance with the NPDES MS4 permit, would effectively preclude substantial adverse impacts
to water quality in receiving water bodies. Implementation of applicable mitigation measures,
including adherence to requirements and recommended Best Management Practices included in
the project's Water Quality Management Plan, would reduce impacts to less than significant.
2.8.2 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.
2.8.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially
significant impacts associated with hydrology and water quality will be reduced to a less than
significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures HWQ1 through HWQ3, as
follows:
HWQ1 The design of the parking structures (PSI, PS2, PS3, PS4) shall include trench
drains and catch basins or similar technology in each level of the structures
where runoff would be directed into an on-site storm drain pipe system and
conveyed to a retention basin.
HWQ2 Estimate the amount of runoff to be retained on-site for each structure prior to
issuance of a grading permit that incorporate storm water retention facilities
equivalent to the 1 inch 1 hour storm and incorporate sediment and oily water
separator BMPs into the drainage design. The retention facilities shall be
serviceable without replacement. The overflow pipe shall provide for sampling
water flows before they enter the McBean Parkway storm drain pipe.
HWQ3 During the detailed engineering design phase and prior to the issuance of
grading permits, the Project Applicant shall prepare an Urban Storm Water
Management Plan (UISMP) for each individual building. The USMP shall be
prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer, Architect, Landscape
Architect or any professional knowledgeable about storm water management
issues and shall comply with post -construction and applicable BMPs, as detailed
in the Los Angeles County Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan
(SUSMP), to address each source of pollutants identified by the Project
evaluation. Possible BMPs include: Bioretention basins, bioswales, catch basin
filters, regular street and parking lot sweeping, porous pavement, roof runoff
controls, efficient irrigation, alternative building materials, stormdrain signage,
-42-
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 43 of 60
trash enclosures, preservation of existing vegetation, hydraulic mulch,
hydroseeding, soil binders, straw mulch, geotextiles and mats, wood mulching,
earth dikes an drainage swales, velocity dissipation devices, slope drains,
polyacrylamide, and stockpile management.
2.9 FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES
CONSTR UCTION-RELA TED FIRE IMPACTS
2.9.1 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The project is planned to be built
over a 15 -year period. Building out the HMNMH Master Plan involves the net addition of
approximately 327,363 square feet of medical office and hospital uses, which includes
demolition of the 8,000 square foot existing Foundation and Administrative Office Building. In
addition, the project includes construction of four parking structures to provide 1,923 spaces and
308 surface parking spaces (totaling 2,231 spaces), and 147 new hospital beds (totaling 368
beds).
Construction activities have the potential to increase fire hazards, resulting in significant impacts
unless mitigated. The City would require specific conditions of approval in order to reduce
construction impacts. In addition, mitigation measures that would reduce construction -related
fire impacts to a less than significant level are required, including the availability of adequate
water to service construction activities, access for emergency vehicles and payment of
development fees. Implementation of the recommended Mitigation Measures FSI through FS3,
would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
2.9.2 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.
2.9.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially
significant impacts associated with construction -related fire protection services will be reduced
to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures FS 1 through FS3, as
follows:
FS1 Concurrent with the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall
participate in the Developer Fee Program to the satisfaction of the County of Los
Angeles Fire Department.
FS2 Adequate access to all buildings on the project site shall be provided and properly
maintained for emergency vehicles during the building construction process to the
satisfaction of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department.
FS3 Adequate water availability shall be provided to service construction activities to
the satisfaction of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department.
-43-
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 44 of 60
OPERA TIONAL-RELA TED FIRE IMPA CTS
2.9.4 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The project would increase demand
on existing fire protection resources in the general area. Additional manpower, equipment, and
facilities are needed in the area now. Thus, the project applicant would be required to participate
in an appropriate funding mechanism, such as a developer fee or an in-kind consideration in lieu
of developer fees, to provide funds for fire protection facilities, which are required by new
commercial, industrial, or residential development in an amount proportionate to the demand
created by the proposed project.
The project shall comply with all applicable Building and Fire Code requirements for such items
as types of roofing materials, building construction, brush clearance, water mains, fire hydrant
flows, hydrant spacing, access and design, and other hazard reduction programs. This would
ensure that project operations would not diminish the staffing or the response times of existing
fire stations in the Santa Clarita Valley, and would not create a special fire protection problem on
the site that would result in a decline in existing service levels in the Valley.
2.9.5 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.
2.9.6 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS. The Final EIR concludes that
potentially significant impacts associated with operational fire protection services will be
reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures FS4 through
FS9, as follows:
FS4 Every building constructed shall be accessible to Fire Department apparatus by
way of access roadways, with an all-weather surface of not less than the
prescribed width, unobstructed, clear -to -sky. The edge of the roadway shall be
within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls when measured by an
unobstructed route around the exterior of the building.
FS5 Commercial development shall require fire flows up to 5,000 gallons per minute
at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for up to a five-hour duration,
unless otherwise deemed appropriate by the Fire Department. Final fire flows
shall be based on the size of the buildings, their relationship to other structures,
property lines, and types of construction used. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 300
feet and shall meet the following requirements:
♦ No portion of lot frontage shall be more than 200 feet via vehicular access
from a public fire hydrant.
♦ No portion of a building shall exceed 400 feet via vehicular access from a
properly spaced public fire hydrant.
♦ Additional hydrants will be required if hydrant spacing exceeds specified
distances.
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 45 of 60
FS6 Turning radii shall not be less than 32 feet. This measurement shall be
determined at the centerline of the road. A Fire Department approved turning
area shall be provided for all driveways exceeding 150 feet in length. All on-site
driveways shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 28 feet. The on-site
driveway is to be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first
story of any building. The centerline of the access driveway shall be located
parallel to, and within 30 feet of an exterior wall on one side of the proposed
structure.
FS7 Any access way less than 34 feet in width shall be labeled "Fire Lane" on the final
building plans.
FS8 The entrance to the street/driveway and intermittent spacing distances of 150 feet
shall be posted with Fire Department approved signs stating "NO PARKING —
FIRE LANE" in three-inch high letters. Driveway labeling is necessary to ensure
access for Fire Department use.
FS9 All proposals for traffic calming measures (speed humps/bumps/cushions, traffic
circles, roundabouts, etc.) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review
and approval, prior to issuance of building permit.
In addition, the payment of developer fees for this as well as cumulative development would
provide the necessary revenues for new equipment and local fire service facilities needed
throughout the community. Therefore, payment of these fees would reduce cumulative fire
service impacts to a less than significant impact.
2.10 SHERIFF SERVICES
CONSTR UCTION-RELATED SHERIFF SERVICES
2.10.1 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. During construction activities for
the Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan, Sheriff's service requirements on the
project site would be increased over existing demands as a result of both increased persons and
the presence of buildings and equipment on the project site. The daytime population would
increase due to the presence of construction workers on the project site. This increase in the
daytime population would vary due to the type of construction activities being conducted (i.e.,,,
site grading, construction of structures, or infrastructure improvements). There is a potential for
increased calls for service to the project site as a result of the increased number of persons at the
project site. Due to the presence of building materials, construction equipment, and related
temporary office buildings, the potential for vandalism and theft is greater; thereby, increasing
Sheriffs calls for service demands for property protection. Implementation of recommended
mitigation measures SSI and SS2, including limiting construction -related truck traffic to
between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 2:00 P.M. in order to avoid weekday peak traffic conditions,
thereby reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
-45-
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 46 of 60
2.10.2 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.
2.10.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially
significant impacts associated with construction period Sheriff services will be reduced to a less
than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure SSI and SS2, as follows:
SS1 During construction, private security patrols shall be utilized to protect the project
site.
SS2 Construction -related traffic, including all off-site earthmoving operations, shall be
limited to between the hours of 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. in order to avoid weekday peak
traffic conditions.
OPERATIONAL SHERIFF SERVICES
2.10.4 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. The County of Los Angeles
Sheriff's Department would have the responsibility to provide general law enforcement,
including traffic control and enforcement, for the project site under the existing contract between
the City and the County. The project would not directly induce population growth requiring
additional Sheriff services; however, potential significant impacts to Sheriff services could arise
as a result of project design, landscape materials and building orientation.
2.10.5 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.
2.10.6 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially
significant impacts associated with operational Sheriff services will be reduced to a less than
significant level with incorporation of Mitigation Measures SS3 through SSB, as follows:
SS3 As final site and building plans are submitted to the City for approval in the
future, Sheriff's Department design requirements which reduce demands for
service and ensure adequate public safety (such as those pertaining to site access,
site security lighting), shall be incorporated into building designs.
SS4 Project design shall landscape the project site with low -growing groundcover and
shade trees, rather than a predominance of shrubs that could conceal potential
criminal activity around buildings and parking areas.
SS5 Project design shall provide lighting around and throughout the development to
enhance crime prevention and enforcement efforts.
.R
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 47 of 60
SS6 Project design shall provide clearly visible (during the day and night) address
signs and/or building numbers for easy identificdtion during emergencies.
SS7 Project design shall provide visibility of doors and windows from the street and
between buildings.
SS8 Concurrent with the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall
participate in the Police Facility Fee Program to the satisfaction of the County of
Los Angeles Sheriff's Department.
2.11 SCHOOLS/EDUCATION
NEWHALL AND WILLIAM S. HART UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICTS
2.11.1 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. Upon buildout of the Henry, Mayo
Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan, the addition of 571 employment positions would be
generated. The specific number of students that could result from new employees relocating into
the City is unknown. Payment of fees by the project applicant pursuant to SB 50 to the Newhall
and William S. Hart Union High School Districts is considered full mitigation for project
impacts.
2.11.2 FINDING. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.
2.11.3 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING. The Final EIR concludes that potentially
significant impacts associated with school services within the Newhall and William S. Hart
Union High School Districts will be reduced to a less than significant level with payment of
school impacts fees as specified in Mitigation Measure SEI and SE2, as follows:
SE1 The project applicant shall pay'the required mitigation fees in place at time of
payment to the Newhall District, prior to issuance of building permit as full
mitigation of project impacts on this district.
SE2 The project applicant shall pay the required mitigation fees in place at time of
payment to the Hart District, prior to issuance of building permit as full mitigation
of project impacts on this district.
-47-
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 48 of 60
EXHIBIT A - SECTION 3
ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS WHERE NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WOULD OCCUR
AND NO MITIGATION IS REQUIRED
The City Council has determined that, where the Final EIR found the proposed project will have
no significant project -level or cumulative effects, the proposed project will have no significant
project -level or cumulative impacts in the following areas and that, as a result, no mitigation is
required.
3.1 LAND USE
SANTA CLARITA GENERAL PLAN
The City of Santa Clarita General Plan is the primary policy -planning document that guides land
uses in the City. Proposed development projects must be consistent with the General Plan in
order to be approved, and therefore must serve to directly implement the goals, policies, and
objectives of the General Plan. The project site is currently designated Residential Low (RL),
which is primarily intended for single family residential uses. The General Plan recognizes the
existing hospital use located on the project site within the master planned community of
Valencia. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a modification to the
existing land use designation. The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable goals
and policies of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan as described in Section 5.1 of the EIR.
Therefore, pursuant to Section 17.03.010, Development Agreements, the proposed project would
be consistent with the applicable goals and policies of all the General Plan elements, and
impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
Project implementation would not result in changes to the existing Residential Low (RL) zoning
designation for the project site. Per UDC Section 17.13.030, Public and Semi -Public Uses, the
RL designation permits medical services with approval of a Master Plan. UDC Section
17.03.025 Master Plans allows permitted and conditionally permitted uses to be included in do
application for a master plan. This section also lists findings that are required for approval of a
Master Plan. According to UDC Section 17.03.060, Development Review, through the
development review process the Director of Community Development will ensure that
development of Master Plan facilities comply with the approved HMNMH Master Plan, the
provisions of the UDC and with the General Plan. Pursuant to Section 17.03.010, Development
Agreements, requires that a development agreement be consistent with the General Plan and
complies with the development code and other applicable ordinances, standards, policies and
regulations, will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of residents or
employees in the surrounding area, provides a clear and substantial benefit to the community as
well as other required findings which have been evaluated as a part of the approval of this
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 49 of 60
Development Agreement. Thus, no adverse impacts relative to project consistency with the UDC
will occur.
CUMULATIVE LAND USE
Development of the project would not result in any cumulative significant land use impacts as
other projects are implemented in the area, The cumulative projects identified in the Final EIR
and located within the City of Santa Clarita are consistent with development anticipated in the
General Plan and Unified Development Code. Each proposed project would undergo the same
project review process as the proposed project to preclude potential land use incompatibility and
planning policy conflicts. It is assumed that cumulative development would progress in
accordance with the criteria set forth within the jurisdiction in which the cumulative
development is located. Each project would be analyzed independent of other land uses, as well
as within the context of existing and planned developments, to ensure that the goals, objectives,
and policies of the General Plan are consistently upheld.
12 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT
The Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan would result in a total of 571
additional employment positions. Given that the City is seeking to expand employment
opportunities within the City, the additional 571 employees are considered to be a beneficial
impact of implementing the proposed project and a beneficial impact to the City. The
jobs/housing ratio for the City of Santa Clarita in 2000 was 0.97:1, while the projected
jobs/housing ratio for the City in year 2020 would be 0.88:1, indicating that the City would
become increasingly housing rich. The original purpose of achieving jobsihousing balance
within the region as outlined in SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (1996) was to
result in a balanced development and a reduction in vehicle miles traveled within a region and,
thereby, a reduction in roadway congestion, fuel consumption, and air emissions. Buildout of the
project would contribute to the SCAG jobs/housing goal of 0.87:1 for the North Los Angeles
County subregion by providing an additional 571 employment positions. Therefore, the project
would have a beneficial employment impact. As the project would not result in a net loss of jobs
in the City, but instead results in a net increase. The project requires no mitigation and would
have a less than significant employment impact and would not exceed official regional or local
projections.
POPULATION
Employment generated by the , proposed project may result in direct growth in the City's
population since the potential exists that future employees (and their families) may choose to
relocate to the City. The increase in population projected by the project would be accounted for
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 50 of 60
in the City's 2020 total estimated population of 211,367, and would not induce substantial
growth or concentration of population. The project would also not exceed North Los Angeles
County subregion population projections of 967,387 persons for the year 2020. The project
would have a less than significant population impact and would not exceed official regional or
local projections. As such, the proposed project requires no mitigation and would have less than
significant population impacts.
CUMULATIVE POPULATIONAND EMPLOYMENT
Implementation of cumulative projects, including the proposed project, would result in additional
population and employment opportunities throughout the Santa Clarita Valley. Cumulative
population, employment, and growth from implementation of related projects and the proposed
project would be 201,087 persons, 30,215 employees, and 64,888 dwelling units, respectively.
The proposed project's anticipated growth of approximately 571 employees would represent 1.89
percent of cumulative employment growth. As such, population and employment impacts
require no mitigation, would be less than significant and not cumulatively exceed official
regional projections.
3.3 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
LOS ANGELES COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program requires that a proposed project
analyze two major subject areas, the CMP highway system and transit, with respect to traffic
impacts. The project was analyzed as part of the master plan entitlement process for the Henry
Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan project. With mitigation, impacts to CMP
facilities would be less than significant, since the traffic increase associated with project
improvements would not meet the criteria for CMP intersections or freeway segments.
The proposed project is forecast to generate a net 7,571 ADT. The conversion to person trips is
accomplished by using the CMP guidelines (multiplying the ADT by an occupancy factor of 1.4),
which results in a total of 10,599 average daily person trips. To estimate the number of transit
trips, the CMP specifies a factor of 3.5 percent, which results in 318 transit trips to be generated
by the proposed project. This represents approximately eight percent of the average weekday
ridership on Routes 5 and 6 that service the site. Transit service impacts would be less than
significant since this increase is within the transit system's capacity. In addition, the proposed
project is providing two bus turnouts along McBean Parkway.
ON-SITE CIRCULATION
Development of the project would create increased traffic generation on internal circulation
roads within the project site. The structured parking to serve the site's existing and future needs
would consolidate multiple access intersections along the "ring road" to fewer locations and
would spread parking throughout the site to serve individual development components. This is a
-50-
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 51 of 60
beneficial impact, reducing turn movement conflicts along the site's internal circulation system.
Project implementation would not require mitigation and would not result in significant impacts.
3.4 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE
No known active or potentially active faults exist within, or extends onto, the proposed project
site. As such, there would be no potential for surface fault rupture of an active or potentially
active fault. No impact would occur in this regard.
CORROSIVE SOILS/SOIL EROSION
Preliminary geotechnical investigations conducted in 2002 for the proposed addition to the
northwest corner of the Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital indicate the upper sandy soils
could be considered as having "mild" to "little" corrosion potential. However, the deeper clay
soils, based primarily on the resistivity tests, would be classified as being moderately to severely
corrosive to metallic pipes, which is a potentially significant impact. Future geotechnical
engineering studies to be performed for the proposed buildings would further evaluate the nature
and extent of the clay, alluvial soils that exist at deeper foundation levels on the site, which are
severely corrosive to, metallic pipes. At a minimum, buried metal piping will be protected with
suitable coatings, wrappings, or seals; a corrosion engineer should be consulted during future,
site-specific geotechnical studies.' Implementation of the recommendations of the geotechnical
studies will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The project site is essentially flat and
does not possess site conditions conducive to erosion; however, unstable earth conditions could
exist during periods of heavy rains. Implementation of best management practices (BMPs) and
mitigation measures, and adherence to the City's Grading Code would reduce soil erosion
impacts to a less than significant level.
LANDSLIDES AND SLOPE STABILITY
The California Geological Survey (formerly the California Division of Mines and Geology) has
designated the slopes to the north of the project site as having the potential for landslide
movement during a seismic event. However, because the slope was developed as part of the
housing development above the site and the toe of the slope lies more than 100 feet from any of
the proposed buildings, it is considered unlikely that future landslide activity on these slopes, if
any, would impact the proposed project. Thus, impacts are concluded to be less than significant
in this regard.
SOIL EROSION
Soil erosion is most prevalent in unconsolidated alluvium and surficial soils, which are prone to
downcutting, sheetflow, and slumping and bank failure during and after heavy rainstorms. Given
that the project site is essentially flat and does not possess site conditions conducive to erosion,
-51-
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 52 of 60
the potential for soil erosion is nil. Thus, impacts are concluded to be less than significant in this
regard.
GRADING
Grading activities associated with the development and construction of new buildings and
associated parking areas would change the current topography very little. The greatest changes
to existing topography would occur from construction of the taller building(s). Thus, impacts are
concluded to be less than significant in this regard.
CUMULATIVE GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
The proposed project would not result in significant unavoidable impacts related to geology,
soils, and seismicity, with implementation of applicable mitigation measures. Furthermore,
geology, soils, and seismicity impacts are site-specific and each development site is subject to, at
minimum, uniform site development and construction standards relative to seismic and other
geologic conditions that are prevalent within the locality and/or region. Because the
development of each cumulative project site would have to be consistent with City of Santa
Clarita requirements for projects in the City, the requirements of the Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works for project sites in unincorporated Los Angeles County, and the
Uniform Building Code, as each pertains to protection against known geologic hazards, and
given the known geologic conditions, impacts of cumulative development would be less than
significant.
3.5 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
HELIPORT -RELATED HAZARDS
The hospital could currently accommodate 10 to 12 helicopter flights each month. However, the
level of helicopter activity is expected to increase to 15 to 17 flights per month in the future.
Given compliance with applicable FAA and Caltrans heliport design and operations
requirements, ongoing helicopter operations would not create a safety risk to on-site or nearby
properties. In fact, subject to review and approval by Caltrans' Division of Aeronautics, the
relocated rooftop heliport would improve the safety of heliport operations on-site, since the
proposed rooftop heliport would alleviate existing hazards associated with at -grade structures
near the previous heliport. As such, no significant impacts are expected to occur, since the
proposed project would not interfere with, or expose people or structures to'substantial risk from,
heliport flight operations.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS USE, STORAGE, AND HANDLING
Although the proposed project would increase the storage and use of hazardous materials at the
hospital, compliance with the hospital's Employee Health Program and Safety Management
Program, as addressed in the facility's Infection Control Manual and Environment of Care
Manual, would minimize the potential for exposure to adverse health or safety effects.
-52-
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 53 of 60
1
Therefore, the proposed project would not involve the use of materials in a manner that poses
any substantial hazards to people, or to animal or plant populations. Furthermore, the hospital
would continue to implement its Emergency Response Plan and the Los Angeles County Fire
Department would continue to provide emergency response services. Therefore, the proposed
project would not interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans
relating to hazardous materials. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in a
significant environmental impact related to the increased storage and use of hazardous materials
by the hospital and would not require mitigation.
HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION
The proposed project would increase the generation of hazardous waste on-site and, therefore,
the demand for hazardous waste disposal services. This increase in demand would, by itself,
have little observable effect on the levels of existing hazards that waste disposal poses to people,
or to animal or plant populations, either near the Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital or
elsewhere. Therefore, the impact of the proposed project would be less than significant, and no
mitigation would be required.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EXPOSURE
With implementation of the proposed project, potential physical safety hazards would exist at the
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital, just as they do now. These hazards would include,
among others, electrical shock hazards from high voltage equipment, safety risks posed by
compressed gas cylinders (including those filled with inert gases), radiation hazards from x-ray
equipment (regulated as radioactive material), and exposure to magnetic fields, intense light, or
lasers. Other more common hazards would include slips, falls, and overexertion. Workers
engaged in activities that present special hazards, such as those mentioned above, are to be
adequately trained in accordance with Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital's Injury and
Illness Prevention Plan (as required under California state law). Although more individuals
would be exposed to physical safety hazards with the project, compliance with occupational
safety regulatory requirements would minimize the potential risks that physical hazards could
pose to people. Accordingly, this potential impact would be considered less than significant, and
mitigation would not be required.
CUMULATIVE HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The health and safety hazards posed by most hazardous materials are typically local in nature.
They generally do not combine in any cumulative sense with the hazards of other projects.
Possible exceptions, however, include potential toxic air contaminant emissions, transportation
of hazardous materials, and waste disposal. The need to respond to hazardous materials
emergencies could also increase as a result of cumulative development. Cumulative
development could increase the overall concentrations of toxic air contaminants in the City of
Santa Clarita, and project -related stationary and mobile emissions sources could contribute to
this increase.
-53-
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 54 of 60
Hazardous materials are transported on virtually all public roads, particularly since all motor
vehicles contain hazardous materials (e.g., fuel) in addition to any hazardous cargo that may be
on board. The proposed project would contribute little to cumulative transportation hazards.
The cumulative effects of transporting hazardous materials would continue to be addressed by
regulatory requirements. Packaging requirements for hazardous materials and wastes established
by DOT, USPS, and EPA minimize the potential consequences of possible accidents during
transport. Also, the vehicle accident rate in California is relatively low compared to other states
and not all accidents release hazardous materials. For these reasons, the cumulative impact of
potential transportation -related accidents would be less than significant.
The proposed project and future development in Santa Clarita could cumulatively increase
demands for hazardous materials emergency response services. The increase would not be
sufficiently large that two major hazardous materials incidents would be substantially more
likely to occur simultaneously. Furthermore, cumulative development would not be expected to
interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. Hazardous materials
emergency response times would be unchanged.
With or without cumulative development, a major catastrophe could generate demand for
emergency response services in excess of available resources, and in Santa Clarita, a major
earthquake is a catastrophe posing realistic concerns. During an earthquake, structures
containing hazardous materials could be damaged. Non-structural seismic safety (e.g., the
potential for falling containers and shelves holding hazardous materials) would be of particular
concern. Chemical spills and splashes could harm individuals working in the vicinity of the
hazardous materials. Safety requirements enforced by the Los Angeles County Department of
Health Services (e.g., securing certain types of containers and installing lips on shelves where
hazardous materials are stored) would serve to minimize such risks. Isolated hazardous materials
incidents would likely pose limited threats because the Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital
operations typically involve relatively small quantities of materials. New construction proposed
as part of the project, built to current code requirements, would be expected to perform at least as
well as, or better than, existing hospital facilities in the City of Santa Clarita. In this way, the
proposed project would likely be an asset to the community following a catastrophe; therefore,
this cumulative impact would be less than significant.
As cumulative development occurs in Santa Clarita and at the state and regional levels, more
hazardous wastes would be generated. Project -related hazardous waste' generation would
contribute to cumulative increases in hazardous waste generation. The incremental
environmental effects of expected increases in hazardous waste generation and off-site hazardous
waste recycling, treatment, and disposal would also contribute to cumulative effects. Hazardous
waste disposal affects the environment by releasing contaminants to land, air, and/or water.
Cumulative increases in waste generation could also contribute to the potential for some wastes
to be mismanaged at any point in the disposal process in a manner that poses potential hazards to
people, or to animal and plant populations. Since the proposed project's contribution to this
cumulative impact would be a small increment, the proposed project's contribution would be less
than cumulatively considerable, and therefore less than significant.
-54-
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 55 of 60
3.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
DRAINAGE
The proposed project would alter drainage patterns due to on-site grading and construction
activities, any proposed new storm drains, and minor increases in the amount of impervious area
relative to existing drainage patterns. This could result in increased local erosion and runoff.
However, given that the project site is currently completely urbanized in areas proposed for
Master Plan improvements, it is anticipated that any changes in impervious surface area would
be minor, if even notable, and the resultant changes in surface drainage would not be substantial.
It is expected that the net change in impervious area and associated runoff flow volumes
resulting from implementation of Master Plan improvements would not result in significant
surface drainage impacts on- or off-site.
HYDROLOGY
The proposed project includes approximately 30.4 acres of urbanized and undeveloped vacant
land (slope areas not proposed for development under the proposed project), with approximately
43 percent of the site area dedicated to landscaping and other pervious surfaces. Because the site
would be improved with structures on existing urbanized land, stormwater flow rates would not
appreciably increase; therefore, existing stormwater conveyance infrastructure is considered
adequate for projected runoff flows. Although various on-site stormwater conveyance
improvements would be constructed as part of the Master Plan development, which include those
required as drainage mitigation, in addition to relocation of existing facilities, as required for
construction, the impacts to on- and off-site stormwater infrastructure would be less than
significant.
CUMULATIVE HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The development projects in the same watershed as the proposed project may impact watershed
drainage, hydrology, and water quality. However, as part of the future environmental process
associated with the development of each of the individual projects, the impacts would be
mitigated on-site in a manner similar to mitigation measures presented in this section to address
project -specific impacts. Generally speaking, each individual project would be required to
comply with the County Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP), City Design
Standards, and City stormwater quality requirements for construction and post -construction Best
Management Practices. As such, impacts due to cumulative project development are considered
less than significant.
-55-
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 56 of 60
3.7 SHERIFF SERVICES
EMERGENCY RESPONSE/EVACUATION PLANS
The City's Emergency Preparedness Plan (Plan) , details the City's specific responsibilities
before, during and after an emergency. The Plan is in compliance with the State Emergency
Services Plan. The proposed development would not impair or physically interfere with the
Plan. The Plan does not identify any emergency access routes, however, McBean Parkway is a
major arterial through the City and provides access to Interstate 5 for emergency evacuation.
With implementation of construction -related traffic impacts would be limited to off-peak hours,
and this impact would cease upon completion of construction. Additionally, it is anticipated that
traffic flow would be temporarily impacted along McBean Parkway during construction of the
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan. Any street closures or temporary
obstruction would be subject to all emergency access standards and requirements, and/or
reviewed by the Los Angeles County Fire Department, thus, reducing impacts to a less than
significant level.
CALIFORNIA HIGHWA Y PATROL SER VICES
Upon buildout of the proposed Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan, demands
for California Highway Patrol (CHP) services on highways surrounding the project site would
increase due to vehicular traffic generated by the project. As a part of the State budget process,
CHP service and staffing needs are evaluated and funded to meet those needs. Based on the
CHP's anticipation to maintain this same level of service, no significant project -related impacts
on CHP services are anticipated.
CUMULATIVE SHERIFF SERVICES
The resident and daytime populations of the cumulative project sites would increase above
current levels upon buildout of the proposed project and related projects. These populations
would be subject to potential emergencies (e.g., earthquake, fire, etc.). However, all
development projects in the Santa Clarita Valley are subject to review and approval by the Los
Angeles County Fire Department, which requires that, among other conditions, adequate access
exists for emergency vehicles. Given that the proposed project and related cumulative projects
would be required to provide adequate emergency vehicle access, cumulative development
would not adversely affect or prevent implementation of any emergency response or evacuation
plans. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
3.8 ELECTRICITY
ELECTRICITY DEMAND
Upon buildout of the proposed Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan, the Henry
Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital facility would have a total demand of 14,484 MWh per year
of electricity. Since electricity demand has not been estimated yet for project buildout, in order
-56-
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 57 of 60
to provide a conservative analysis, total demand for the proposed project has been compared to
the demand estimated for Year 2016. Upon buildout of the proposed Henry Mayo Newhall
Memorial Hospital Master Plan , the total electricity demand would equal 0.006 percent of the
2016 demand (14,484 MWh of 113.4 million MWh). Thus, impacts would be less than
significant.
CUMULATIVE ELECTRICITY DEMAND
Development of the proposed project and related cumulative projects would result in the
consumption of approximately 376,158 MWh of electricity per year. SCE deliveries are
expected to be 113.4 million MWh per year by 2016. As such, the cumulative electricity
demand would represent 0.33 percent of SCE's annual power deliveries. It is expected that the
electrical loads of the proposed project and related projects are within the parameters of
projected load growth, which SCE is planning to meet in the area. All electricity lines and other
system improvements would be installed, in whole or in part, at the expense of development
project applicants, and would serve to avoid adverse impacts to the electricity distribution
system. Although the proposed project and related cumulative projects would create additional
demands on electricity supplies and distribution infrastructure, these demands are well within the
service capabilities of SCE. Thus, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
3.9 NATURAL GAS
NATURAL GAS DEMAND
Upon buildout of the proposed Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan, the Henry
Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital facility would require a total of 3,204 k.c.f./month of natural
gas. Since natural gas demand has not been estimated yet for project buildout and in order to
provide a conservative analysis, total demand for the proposed project has been compared to the
demand estimated for Year 2016. Upon buildout of the proposed Henry Mayo Newhall
Memorial Hospital Master Plan , the total natural gas demand would only equal 0.005 percent of
the 2016 demand (38,448 k.c.f. of 792.4 b.c.f). Although buildout of the proposed Henry Mayo
Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan would create additional demands on natural gas
supplies and infrastructure, these demands are well within the service capabilities of SCLC.
Thus, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
CUMULATIVE NATURAL GAS DEMAND
Development associated with the proposed project and related projects would result in the
consumption of approximately 162,338 k.c.f. of natural gas per month, or approximately 1.95
b.c.f. per year. Annual SCGC deliveries are expected to be 792.4 b.c.f. by 2016. As such, the
cumulative natural gas demand would represent 0.25 percent of SCGC's annual deliveries.
Where necessary, natural gas distribution pipelines would be installed to serve development
associated with the proposed project and related projects at the expense of the project applicants.
Although the proposed project and related projects would create additional demands on natural
-57-
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 58 of 60
gas supplies and distribution infrastructure, these demands are well within the service
capabilities of SCGC. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
3.10 WATER SUPPLY
WATER SUPPLY/DEMAND/GROUNDWATER RECHARGE
The Water Supply Assessment for the HMNMH Master Plan indicates that an adequate supply of
water is available to meet the demands of the expanded hospital facilities in addition to existing
and planned future uses in the Santa Clarita Valley under an average/normal water year, single
dry year, or multiple dry years. There are sufficient local groundwater supplies to support the
planned land uses of the project, in addition to existing and future cumulative development in the
Valley. The Final EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts associated with water
supply are less than significant level and no mitigation is required.
CUMULATIVE WATER SUPPLY
The water demands for the HMNMH Master Plan project would be met by local water supplies
that are adequate to meet projected demands under a Year 2030 Buildout Scenario, therefore,
the project does not contribute to any cumulative water impacts, and does not create any
significant cumulative water availability impacts in either average or dry years. Therefore, no
cumulative mitigation measures are required.
It is anticipated that CLWA and water purveyors in the area would, continue to develop new,
and maintain existing, water supply sources to meet projected demands, including those of the
proposed project and other related projects. Given that adequate water supplies have been
determined to be available to meet normal and dry year demands within the CLWA service
area, the proposed project and other related projects would not create a demand for water in
excess of available supplies. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
3.11 WASTEWATER
The Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan would increase the generation of
wastewater by 105,543 gallons per day (gpd). The proposed project would utilize an on-site
wastewater collection system to convey wastewater flow from the site. The project would not
require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of
existing facilities as there is sufficient capacity in existing infrastructure and facilities. As such,
the proposed project could not cause an exceedance of capacity of the wastewater conveyance
system or SCVJSS treatment plants, since adequate capacity must be demonstrated in order to
contribute flows to the system. The Final EIR concludes that there are no potentially significant
impacts associated with wastewater conveyance and treatment and no mitigation is required.
Therefore, project impacts are a less than significant level.
no
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 59 of 60
CUMULATIVE WASTEWATER
The project, in conjunction with other related cumulative projects, would generate wastewater
flows totaling approximately 3.6 mgd, which exceeds the current remaining treatment capacity of
7.1 mgd. A second facility upgrade anticipated for completion in 2010 will be in place long
before full project buildout and implementation of related projects. Facility capacity will
increase to 34.1 mgd and, therefore, provide adequate capacity to handle cumulative demand. It
is anticipated that, upon payment of applicable connection fes and compliance with the
LACSD's permitting requirements, adequate capacity would be available on a cumulative basis.
Cumulative impacts of wastewater facilities would be less than significant.
-59-
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 60 of 60
EXHIBIT B TO RESOLUTION
2008 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT &
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
M1 o BAxra ot��
., Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital
' Master Plan Environmental Impact Report
�•�••' EXHIBIT B
11.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM
Sections 1.0 and 5_0 of this EIR identify the mitigation measures that will be implemented to reduce
the impacts associated with the Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan project.
Section 21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a public agency to
adopt a monitoring and reporting program for assessing and ensuring compliance with any required
mitigation measures applied to proposed development. As stated in Section 21081.6 of the Public
Resources Code,
The puhlac agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project
zvhzch it has adopted, or made a condition of project approval, in order to mztagate or avoid
significant effects on the environment.
Section 21081.6 provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring programs and
indicates that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be enforced during project
implementation, shall be defined prior to final certification of the EIR.
The mitigation monitoring table below lists those mitigation measures that may be included as
conditions of approval for the project. These measures correspond to those outlined in Section 1.0
and discussed in Section 5.0. To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, a
monitoring program has been devised which identifies the timing and responsibility for monitoring
each measure. The project applicant will have the responsibility for implementing the measures,
and the various City of Santa Clarita departments will have the primary responsibility for
monitoring and reporting the implementation of the mitigation measures.
Final 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
x�
NIP -,A.
Y
V
R
�
d
R
Q
E
O
U
O
4)
O
p
=
O
CL
�
�.�
CL
Zt6 .o
.o
.o
.o
0a
`' >
c' >
F-5 >
">
v�
Q
�o
�o
mo
�o
LLJ :'.'
O C
O C
O C
�p C
Q
Vcz
���RR
C
C
a-
Q
c
0
,�
CU
.T.
CU
CU
,� CL
CU
_T
CU p
Q.
(�
G
(TS 'O
) CO
CZ _O
CO
O .N-..
U
U O
RY
z.
W
Z
C
N
V cz
L
v Y
Q
•0 1.
(� V U
I� U U
d d Q V U'
cd C
(a L
cr.++
+�
Q W
Q O
U O Ccr,
O2
(�
O Q
LL
O
�.. pS
U 'O O
D U
U O 7 C>
C
co
oc
CL
��
>� o
>m o
o>.N—
o.c
>a
L
�
a
°C -0
F-
Lr
o�
70
cr
Cl)
Q
Y
Z
C
a
_d
U
U
U
U
a
EE
�
¢
¢
Q
¢
Q
cq
O
O
(a
cc r2
O
O
N
O
N
z
O
O
O
O
O
0
d
CI -
d
d
d
Q
�
d
O
Z
O
O
N
Nczcz
CO
cz
C
LUQ.
C7
� C
'D
cci cV
N
70 cz �
c6 N
_
co 'O
C
.0
O O
-c-
•-
w 'D
J~
o O
O�
Q
c� O O..
O
_
N
"O Ry
c's_�
.- O
O cu
__z
N
co
'u
,.T.
c
.-
.Q Q.
c6 — O
O
LLJC
O m
_O cn
O
= U-
N>
L O O `p
�
cO c� 6
L C
C O N.
Z
_U
U O
L c0 cn
ct5 —0 C
N p .�
N L--. O C U
Q
OE
'00
O O O
O "O Q
m .L-- O
Eli
M 0-
Q
N
0- c�
!=—'— O
E p O
C cd O c6
N N O 00
E
O
cm
O
Q
cl-
N C U
E2
O
cc
C
E E
ccz
2
N
-Fz T
'E L
0- 0v0
Z
-0 cuz3
a)
0-0
M
�N
QQ%
LLJ
CD) as
.
U
CC
O)
d Q
�
E�
p7
C 7 O Q
(D -O N
E
Oc
U
co
Ucz
-.00..
cr)
(1) O
L�p Z5O
!E Q
)
CONczud
0
CM
O
U
-0c0
N
X
N 'O
- -p C U Qj
Q
EN
N O CU
t= co
Q
>
'6 .0 O
Q E cz d
U U
Z O
J cd U cz Z5
-:.
U
H
LL
U)
U
U-
cn
¢ Q
LU
Q
Q
a
F-
x�
in
Y
L
E
v
E
O
U
O
N
O
p
CC
2
O
a
w
>
y
cc
CE
F-
a
CL
cz
_
�= -0
.L�
�7
Ua
Q
=a
Im
Coot
CO0U)
wd�.
)
n)
CE3:
a WO
O
6
0
=cz
O C2
T C1
m.
U Q
U Q
cc
Z
Q.
cm
(d
ciY
Z
Z
= E
C U
C U
J
ccO
SZ U
Q U
O
= O
O
c
a) ca
c
a) cu
W
W
�a
(a
0a
pc
�F-
Q
Z
w
(D
c
c
J
�QR
VC
U
U
ZC
w
Q
Q
CI-
Q
Q
O
O
O
a)
O
O
JZ
O
Q
�
a
Z
a
o
a)
o
0
Q
c c
cc
a)�
cP
Y
m'
c
w
Q
ai
E
a)
E
cz22N o
i-P�
a c
3 2�
c
a�0
.
j -a
o
.
�0
ai
o
�e
ooa
�
�L
,
EF- cO
`c�6�
��C3
Q�
c10)
_
v
3is
>.�
aa)
>'C,
Qco
E
-a
c°� cc
-o
Z3v�
-o
ac)
EN
a)
oW
Z
C
ao
o
E :S
-c N
CO N
(�
0
m
-EO
0) X
O
0
CZ Q -
oO
U) OEi
cz
a) C
c
a)
m F
O O
O O
a L
1 C
`
a'E-)
oc)
c
O
c" U
o
p
a'
CUnwCQ
c,
O
j
>-
O
c�
O
E U
a)C
ON_O
YUU
O
L O
ca
EZ
ui
O a) 7
2 N
'co,y
°
Q�
E
Ou`CE�i'
0 '
NR
0 0
0
acz
E
o
N
o
cE
Oc
c
d a
Y
`
O a)
a)
aCcO
U
2 OE
i) U
OcV
r O
a C
caaTc
O
-p
O a)
2
0
u)
70 Cy)
Q
o a)
O
j-0cr
CU
C
ca
cc
U C
C-)Q
Qasm
-
-
C-) m�
CZ
O �_ ciiO
m ca
C
C 2
F -
Y
N
R
E
v
d
CL
E
O
U
o
m
c
is
O
p
cr-
v
O
CLLLJ
>Im
w
Na
'c
V
a
CL
cz
cz
CZ
cz
Ua.
d
N O i
CZ O Y
Co 0 i
U�
Co O Y
Q
o=
C
>
>
w
E�
E�
U) E�
o
0
0
T 0-
a (n-
T Q -
cc
0
CC
z
w
a
CD
c o
a) �
�
c o
Z
z
0).S
C C
Yj
>+ � E
Y
U
>+ C E
d
F-
G
`o
`-°
fl 0-
Q 0
!_
Q U
Q Ucn
CL
0
>Q
>oa
>0-
>��
cn
p
a
z
a
cz
U
U
U
U
d
Z
= O
Q
0-
-
R
0. to
Q
Q
Q
Q
cn
o�
O
° "i5
��
Z
W.
6
Z
o
0
0
Q
m
a
DC
Z
a
O
O
_0
a� Of C G -0
>o
o'
F
a"�'i
C
> Q > o
'Z.
aa)
> FL- G
(cz
D
W
Oct
c�
S O
a E '°'
O L N
E c Q
U 0
a cz Go
O Y
is 0 c c
m O
o
~
CDM
aa))
o'
a�
>
a'
J
G c
> �' a�
DO �
[if L
E rn
O
G
O
-o
N .L--.
O O C O) X -U 0
f9 m C
O) C 7
N .0 O O C
N O
77?
U—
0Q
d q) CZG
m 0 .CO
O .� U cn
- O a) -C -0
U U
W
L C
U> C� .0
> U E
(s O O _C V
Q N
Z
N
eC
ID
O
5
C i
O O N
.�
Q
cz E
G
U)
T E G
d
ui'
Om
m
CD
O
O
LZ E jO0
OO
pN
0�
0) _E
O 0 N O
>
-.
cGcid
cot�
poO
Cl N
d 0p C:E-
UC� 0
cd 0) ID
Q D0
'>U
cC
c
0
OmO
E
U
aD
O O�
U
'
Z
N>,
EU
CL C"Jdco
d cd
O U i
f N
-0 m
~
UL
O
L
G U
Z
Q~ GO
L p O7 cd '�
N
N �O > G N p
O d L
_
U
N
'U O _0
O
cz
U co U zT
N t .(n U U 0 pf
O X O
03
Z
N a L O O
O
T
O>
U�
_0 >C=
_
cz C G
'O
O
"O'
N G
Q -0 D
U CO
O Q "Gco ciCO
r
m
`oaZ5
.>a
�o..-12
�L
0 E
:�>:
co aD
♦
-Oa.v O ♦
Q � QU
-= ♦
2
GEI—>CU
GO U
a_E
CL
D_
cr
F
F—i—
x�
15
C
w
Y
d
i
�
E
V
E
O
U
O
C)
=
tic
O
p
�
v
0
CL
>
w
y
LL
cz U
U
C15 -0
a
ca
CZoU)
U)
Z
rL'
o c
CZ a) O
CZ
z p 0
WQ
'=
cn E 3:cn
a, E 3:
G
T Q
C Q
�
U p
V a 0
z
ui
a
�+
�'
z
CL
czcz
czw_m
Q
1=
o'_
QNa
�Q0=a
w
w
Q
ci cm
Q
i
Q
z
o
J
0
= c
co
U
F
z
=w..
CLiE
n cM ¢
Q
Q
Q
=
z
o
0
0
a
a
Q
m
a
oc
z
G)
0
0
U)m
= co
P
� `o � o
ai - `o
ui a� E
�
U o a O se
m '3 0-0- o N
U) cm a) .
2 t5
J
:3 O O ma
O m
�o ai
oF- u�S
o��CT
QN
a�
DC(n��°C
o� )Iz F-
y� U
�-O
�CZ
Z3
o
� �
oUu
M -m
�oN
o�ao=
U �cw U
=��o
LU
h O U m
cz N O Uco
E U,N.gO
cO
N
�z cz
O Q Z0
u>:
2 Q E .a E O c� _
.�� Q E w p_
_ E 2 .cn cd
.y"
3
+�- 7 M cz N U y '�
M O d LO cd a cd .O
OM mO
cz
O -O u) p
Q
R
O p Q A C
7 m
cm
O U O m C 0- c=4 C .OUI
m co O fl- N
U SS
d
N Q U U O N '—'
.0 O ` N E
O U fl- N U O +--'
E cz m N� cn E
= O O =O
-O
QO 7
N N N N N c� O
— U 'i`- .cn
�> N O U' N N cz O
c� O N
Q .-- U C .�
z
++
O N L> 0 Q
i N
U U t> Q
6)'O � `� N N N
O7 = Y
Q` U
W
LM
`� `� O =
6
_
O c� C cd '- L O C
O Fz cz
cn — O cis CD -42
_
Ss.
cn _ c�
_
U c6 N p) . U Q
p
— t N = U _ ccS cif
N U N Co 2D p) N d
c� -p
C
O Y O
co _0
— Q
O U= .O
O w O Q. O
O
c-,
=
O c� O
U Ql .cz U
O O
cd U d `� U
�0-. d O
w 0_ U
-= U U � 7
cz E a= U d O2 C',
N Q U L =O
-E5
O O E °� O N
O_ a> E 06 U cn
� X � N �
a. p� �� m N
fl' O O O
� Y Q p N �� m N
O O N Q O Z O O
E N O in X
O c� O
r-.Esm U) Q
a H. m n Q
U c
H Q QU ca
U
Z
°O
Y
Y
f
a
a_
a
15
C
w
Y
N
E
v
c
ca
.Q
N
c
c
E
0
o
w
ccc
0
0
.
CC
o
~=
CD
W
>
N
�
C
c
U
C15
CZ
a_
O
J
c Q
U>
U a
Q
F—
rn
o
o
Z
p c
cz a)
o
Oct
coui E
m
w
w
o c
o
o
a
oa
TQ
Lm
0
CU
O o
a
�`
o N
z
W_0
= c
a cz
o
Z
E
cz 0-
a -2
i�
`�—
_p
L c° o
o
m >
CL
0
0o
aa)>>a)
o
OCU
W
Cl-
5
a) >
o CO
o U
W5
cc
Q0 o
c15
a_
Cl)
V/
Qcx
L
Z
�
E
J
(�
� C
co
U
Z
c
aQ
CL
Q o7
Q
Ca -
Q
cn
0)
Z
O
O
Q�-
EE
Z
�.
a)
a N
_
_
O N
2 -.
cd N Q
CZ
Tui -0 L
U
cn a) cid
N
ui
°� c m o U >
L'3
� E o
M :a
a) U)) a` ) o " � `—' i� o
0 aa)
O> 7 cz
O2
.0
o .g . _
.f--. N 7 U N in .-. cz L
CO (DC
L N a) 2
N Q '— N Ca
4)
N c cS
O
a) (n a) 'r a 0 V 0
C> 7 C a C1 N L
Q
z
E Q a) c
ccs c a) N=
Qua
o a) N cis a' Q?
� �'�ww � czc>
�.
0
,N >
� .O Z U
Cn
N C `=
U
Z
p Cn Q a)
cn
L
a1
`= a
Ncm
O
co CO
C U a) cz a)
O
>-
N
C S O
C RS n-
O 'C
U "S
C 7 N a C C
U C Q) 3:
0 § O C
Q
� .
a) a)
CL
cn
a)
N t
CZ
Q)
U
fN4
d- C)
C
W U
UO
N
Q 2i Q) 55 .N O p Iz c O 7
O a N 0 C
N C
C
cz N Q in
w O
co
a.
(D-0 a) O
N3
(!J c� Q
`o Q
a U C � T T a)
c� >
'
Z
W
(4
0 Q_ U (n
T))
> p UO
o N cz a) c -0-0 a cz c�
Q O U5 U a) .� a) C a) 2
O C
.�_' U C
ca p= CO Q- -. N O a) C
_0
Cif O ..-. ,C
U a
U U .—
a) c t�
C N m N a) 3t o-0 > > C
O CO C p c2 Y p cO
O
_ _ N
a
O CL
O p f— W :__ = 2)
aC
N O N
._
O Cls
U 7
U C a ,p C-0 Cif
� 2
U
7 T S
Q .a) iT CL)
N p
a � U �
C = N
-C-
cin A cca � W
N O
Q d Q aN U
J
0 a) a) Q)
C) 00 a Q o�s m
a
a
�
Q
a
x�
►�
SSG
�
i
tC
E
V
CL
O
U
O
N
c
m
O
p
�
v
W
>
N
cr-
c
L)
—
d
y
.0
.�
Cj .cam
,U
caCZ
�
�
�
� � �
Q
c Q
U
CZ o cn
U
ca o V)
U
CO o cn
U
ca p-0 U) v
Y
0
CZ
o�
n
cE�
CE�
U) E�
UU
EY>oWQ
L
o
o
�¢c
�o
o
�Q
Q o
�
0
CUp
CUp
CUp
CUp
Z
a.
o
0
W
C
.-C C
C-) o
12
U
Z
0.2 vi
o o ui
C ELg 6
cm 15 O
C E
O
0)
L
ai
C
O
N Q
CL
Q
O
o
o 6
n zT
O c
ZCT
o
0v
~o
Lcco
F- C)
O ca
W
W2
zT
n
Cl)
p
a
z
,0
Cc
!
C
C
15
J
0
�2 c
U
U
U
N
Z
=w
U
0-
Q.
Q
Q
Q
Q
CD-
Q
Q
(n
O
O+
U
N
U
a�
U
r)
_OC
c
d
Q
Q
0
4
a
Fr
O
Z
O
_
N
a) O U)
cn a' Co `:
C
C
U C O
U CD 7
— _
C= - >
-�
O
cWc
'QR
C C m C
C i� fl-
s .-- C15.0
N
FZ -�
Q
G
V
O 'M C �-
U O in
_
O O O N
U p CU U=
ZT ..-
=— C N Uj CU ZT
�} O -O C -p C y
O
C'T Q
C u)
J
o w id o
oC c
_
cv Q o .� C a o
a�
a
-0
C L= Y7
����o
U O O .� cz —
EMS ����
N (n -p L
��_
_
i—
cz O O
(n L C
(d
E U L -
N N
C O 07 C ca 0) (n
"O C cz �i C
N c�
5
LU
V) O '�
C U
C U _�
C L p
O
.O
C v) U O- C
UCD OC
O cn
Z
O O _0 (d
UO
L 'p
ZT (�
co .�J -
Cn L--.
O E O
N 0� ?i O C
O CU Q'C C O
7
O.
3
Q O c a
cu
C C L
co
O _p . U E--. C) co N
O
Q
(C
-Z3 � l�
7 Q- E
> U 'O 3 u —" u)
CU 0
d
CT C O t
O N N
a T
ZT O O .L- cV _7
CU
N V O a 0- ._ N p
U .
O E
c,5
.N
Z
=
O
U
C i
.O 0
cd ZT Q
— u) L O N
o .F
X t E (� Q N
O (U c6 C O U.
Y O C:)- O C O
C
CU —
0
-O
TQ
7] U
W
u) cz N
N Q ? Q ai
cm
Q)� cz CD m .L-- Q
) O
N CO O p CU
m
cz �-
O O
V
O j, Q cz a) O
N CT
U— CTU O
Q cz N
N
'U U O Co U
Q O L_
.L--
( L CZ O C7) 0 :E CU
-t-. ?�
O vi
C
.0
c� c� FL—
.� L
c� E CU 7 � O
N _ _
O') .` O O Q
N t; Q
V)
C'mN
N
ON
"O0
7
.O E T O
ZT
N E C E cuE
-6OO O-0>
a N
a
(DO .d
Q co C, E
=N C
N
.a
L
. U
y O
QCO
n_
a) a)
-
_E
'
O
HO
= N
L
Q'
L� 6
-cz
N�
CO coL
QL O
Qcz
N
Q
co
Q
V
CI}
►�
rj
d
E
Q
E
0
U
O
d
o
p
O
W
i
N
F-
c
J
6�
U a o%
C) `o
U a `o
U .N
U
Q
ca
o-dU)
oar �,
o�cn
>
.rn
>
m O
C N O
cz O—
�o
C
�o
C
W
Q
ra 0
(n Y O U
Cn i O v
u) � � O 2
U) .�
Cn .�
W
—0 En
E
oco
o
o
'� o�
o
T� o��
�ocz
m
�o
�o
0Q
cc
CL
o
0
0
W
0
cEto
cZZ
c
c
j a
j
o.0 ui
v
o .o vcz
D
Cy)
CD
dp
e.2
c
o -o
c
o 'o
o c
o cn
0 0
-E (_-
0
a
o w
cz
WCL
LLI
0
0
U
U
F-
cc
a
cn
o
..
,Q
Z
o
0
0
J
c
c
c
Zc
•2
v
0
U
U
a
CL rn
Q
Q
Q
o
0
Cl)
O
O
N+_'
U
a�
U
a2
U
N
O
O
O
O
Q
a
oc
Z
n
o
C
�— z7
0
0
a
cn
" =o
W
Q
°J ui
c
cczs
Q
2 c
N
a>
�� �
0-
Q
�o 0
—
Q=
'�
0
a> cn
J_
ca
o
o
cz Q
0
rn -0
cu O CD
U o c
.
'0 in
-0
CZ
.N.. 0
__ L —
°) cis (CS Z3
c0.> U -O aUi N
L 0
a) 'O
O O L
0c:L a) U
Q
U -o d 0 w
-0 c O
O 0 Q.�
LLI
cn 0
�—
�. o 0)
c
9
is 0
0 7
�
N
o � a> U
Z
O "�"'
7 O
O �
O cz
Q C r O
H
O�
0
_
u) 0 O
cz O
O
i
N
acz
m
S0.
0-
o
M 0
c
cQ
_�o
co
o �
O
a)
ca
o
�0) (DZ
i
Doc
00
a N
Q
0) :3 cz c
c o M
N 0
0
N in O v
0 U
u) -C
O O
� -2 Q
U Q
N a)
.Q .-.
O
0 o
a' a
E -C C'
0
(D
Q) U
0- E ro c c
U
'O
o
o ff 'O
.X E
a� E
c� a o
N to co,
�.
c
—c
-
Ua
N S
a)
m a)
ad Fz
O N
Q �N N N O
«6
N •-- Y
—0-
i C
i
70 CL
Q
a in
_
'O O
I] U) a) E
i— O 07 cO m
U'
N
0
0
¢
O
Z
z
z
rj
w
d
tC
E
v
cc
�
c
Q
E
O
U
O
d
=
o
a
- p
c
v
O
Wto
•
U
a
cu ,v
ca U
co U
CCL
G
a
.=
:t-
- L
J
41)
o�rn
M 7
U�
:37
C5
C) !a
Q
= Q
cB 0 cn
CCS 0U)
C($ O Co
W
Q
n E
U) E
no E
V
C
,.T n.
T CX
�T, d
0
CUp
CUM
CUp
z
w
a
o o
0'
Z
=
v
ccs c E is "N
�,as
-o co
CL 0
o t5
J
Lr
Q
as ,N c o.>_
U) CZ cz
0 70
W
W
Q
a� 0 czv .__
tzX c13
Q
i
Q
Z
0
'Q.
2
U
C
0
J
a=
_
�
U
co
U
Z
= O
i
a.
0 m
Q
Q
Q
d
Q
U%
O
O
OC
°'
N
0
=
Z
0
d
O
d
O
d
Q
a
OO
Z
O
Cu 03.S -0
-
a> ac
o as v o
c
�
. O,
s C' 030
0
�
L
a)
N CCS
W
Q
o o
s o ccs a "�
.o io :: Q
C3
0 0 uctfi ccs
v> U)
o cz E c a� us
J
F--
vs `o
N
c c >_
Q—rL
'z cz -0
E in
E w (D co
a> O voi
"� c> N U >
-O N O
o
O N- U
�a
>. 0 cz c— C
��70 a)0 o u
NLU N U
�,�
to UJ .__ "-
0 a) 0 O W T U N
Z
Cn c.> 00
o N�, d C
"cz
cz U in Co
T= 70
00
O
>-
d
C N CCS z- w
`o c ,cv
N T, — cz ''--
cm cz 0 -0 a�
ctf > 7 :•-. C
u!
" as O E ?' U cl
Q.
ca
as
!-- 0
m
cl LO V O 5--
N
N 0 Ccs CU �'
cc
_0
N U
cQ
N 0 -0 "_•
>
=
4? L , cz 0 -UL- . _
_ _
>-
cc
'�
"0 .- N N
O
}
L fCf O�
m
N ctf 0 0 �j U -c-
Q N
"E
Z
=
C
W j 2-00
_6 Q
V
__ cD .Cn
0 0
N Q>
7 T O Cn d
W
R
z cz as c
U 0 L 3
O
N Q T -0
a� c
a) as .o (D os
L a`� a> >, a .�
C_s
_
m cz� cz
—
w
c =Q ci
M. c'.Q c�
QdU as
c c
.2. O
0 L--.
U c
_U -E_ 0a) 0
r
c� �_ N L
t[7 N L 0
E
p
ZCL
Q-EQ.EL E
�o W N>- N rD-a
c6 O E
L cQ
w
ctt .� 0 Q
m15 co
E
�, N O� O
`ts co 'c E.' mi
Q (D o
CD j O N
rn
J
.� U °�
O �O "F co (U
,0 0 Q aCL
c U U U U U� E >i
E
CL
U =
O O
O NT N O
N
C�Lco
ascY cz C c�
( Q CCS N
o o
Z N C
-O C3 m N m N L
Cl)
O
O
Z
Q
W
W
CD
►,
N
Y
d
(6
E
v
c
O
cr
Q
E
O
U
O
G)
C
O
N
p
F-
714
0
d
W
�
N
rr
�
U
7
J
F-5
Q
C" 0)
C Q
a:
o 0 (n
U�
0 0V)
CZ
O..L S
O
CD O
CZ CD
�cc
W�
o1--
o
o
U
0
co
CL
cu
0
cc
m
p
U p
N
T
cis
z
d
O
Y
U) U
_
J
CL
cr.
1--
c
E -0 >
in
�U
oac
a
0'0Q-0�0C
�Q
LU
LUa
U
I—
�
oC
cn
0
Q
z
o
Q
5
J
a
_d
r c
U
U
Z
Q
Q
O.,
d
Q
Q
0
O
c
O
N
=
z
T
O
O
0
a
m
a
FE
z
00
CZ �
C
Cil CSS T .O
U)
w
Q
C7
Iz
E `O ' a O �- E O N
�_�
m
J
= cn _ a> a`> is U
N U L Con Cn
co m O
— C
cL E? E
Q
N ) = o '� (D
c N= zT Cc'), -� 0
N
U) °�
0 .0 2 CvS O T
a> N
0� U)7
z
��a°' °'�ma0CM
cd U Nom,_, cCf
d (Q
0
`o E _
O" O O Q .� >>— p tT o
N (� C
c
U U Cd
N
N
Q
co . C _U O
cl O o O
Z t a
7 U
cQ
G
w
_C E �� N
m OZE
a c -o ca
N E
s a)
�-
M
HTn>�2o'
� 2
m
ccu �oN
N
O
Q
—a)
is a U oQ(3) E c
J
_
-0
E
W
�N d- ca E
aNo Q
>iO
C o a U)C O cn U CSS a Q 7
f
O
U CE c6 .� in -cd QS O U) �
._ _ o tT
0- U C O
U
a o cn
Q _ N O 0-0 a O N
uj
= ca
N C O
a
«s E c� T c
m��ECvc5E
0���o
Q�vo-
� o cp voi
p
�� 0),2-0
o o m .� (D
-o c a .� L
Z
'V) 0 o 0 a>
a> 7F 0
Z
Q
N co-= N
c.i >
L
W
L d. m 7 C co (� cn
Cn U L (n D L L w i U) O
O
- U p
F- v).2 .B U
cc
N
O
cc
Ea
Y
d
E
v
y
R
.Q
�
E
0
U
O
Cs
c
O
f�
In
cc
2
=
o
0.
�
w
0
oc
_�
�
U
Q
. o
co U
J
CD
c� aD
U
-LO
C)
Q
c Q
Cj O cn
Y
�
�
M
�
W Q
o5
o �
C)
�
o
0-
� Q
0
CU p
CU p
Z
a
Z
Z
c Ea
c
Q
P
0-'_
ccz
J
E ai Q
� Q
o
o
C.
cc
0
a-
0 0
�a
.N
TOa
0
.cn CM
S_—
O -
w
mo.`s
mo.`s
F—
> a
> o
U)
p
Q
Z
0
Q
d
c
c
J
0
c
U
U
Z
c
Q
Q
CL
C, v7
Q
Q
O
o
y +
cc
v
=
Z
o
0
J
o
a
a_
Q
a
Fr
Zcu
O
0L
LU
a`zi N N
o d Tm oda o.cz +° c
O U
N .O- N
C U L
O L� c0 U) "O p J C _O
cn O O O E 7
U Q)
CL
U) cz(U
J~
cn ,Oa,
C c aO Q
=w Q) m O Lc Q'QJ O
md W O
pC
Qj
Qa
J_ U cnO 7 N N Y to
N -d
0 E p
c� X v)
L N O T= N cd 7 c� p ' Q, h L Q) .
W
Z
S Q T a>
N
a Q E L c� E 3 c Q,73 o Q> coa)
�— O
0) CM c6 O
= .4? ca N Q OU D_ d aCi � O) � w
0 cu
N
L �- c� L N
6, cn
-a O N U m j -O O L. -
U) 0 0 O a- C :— Q, cn U Z S cu
c
G
d
O N E
(Q cn D7 O —
Q, Q,
O "C Y -p � L= d L N 7 .n- E
i-
O o °' E 'n
00
(D �' ccs co' c� m o cn a> a C E � a>
>
c
O
_�
c Q, — m
i U U N N O -6
w c T L cn c0 : > a a -o a
C ~ —_ p U L -p U o Q 0 N O O Y
E
Z
c ca vs a) ca E
'o, E o,.>_ vs p c, o Q c a' .-= o
L_ c
as (n 0 O Q N U c6 O .0-. � 'O
N .O cn
c) as n- -`o d a m
-O .0
°� -o m m o `oT E> ca
o
cn Q cocu
E
-
E
N -O _O L U Y
O _� O O of o O N p c� .a
N
cz
w O_ -0 O N `p d
.� c0 E cn c�
W O C O C .� O O
cis ._ U U .—
N cz
E
E=C d
E U E E Q- �S m
cm
ccQ o C/) ID M
N 1QcD
.0
E O O O O U
Wy (n (nMZD
NO L'c67
UC&]
c6 N n O
Q -O-O Q�-0 75
_ d
Ea
Y
d
f0
E
R
.Q
cc
E
0
U
O
0
O
p
�
v
O
._
a
>
LU
y
cc
R
�
U
CL
LL
a
C5
E
D
E
U.9 CL c
O
U.0CL_
0�
N
CZO�
U
U co
U
C D E
� �>
c> O C O E
(UD)�
W
Q
o
E
rnp°'
�p
E U a
cn E U) a
W
��
Q�
Q�
�cCZ
�cz-CZ
0
0)cc
O
Up
JLL
��
U c°D�Q
LL
CU c—CO W
d Q
j
a
O O
c O
C O
Z
W
O
c
_0)
U -0
ct3
cU
Q
Z
c f
=
�_ a�
a�
p
o
E _
E>
g U
o
U
J
++
C c
O- cn p
°)
> U y
>
U N
0_
4.
0
0 0
0
oC E o E
OC 2 0 .c
o
�
a
��-
�, a
�,`-o.�o
5: 0-
ww
E--
cc
a
�.o�
=oZ
�o:�
oc
U)
0
Q
Z
o
Q
d
C
c
C
C
C
J
a
P c
U
U
U
co
U
Z.a..
L
oC
Q
CL a,
0_
Q
0_
Q
0_
0_
c
0_
Q
O
N .,
N
N
N
d
=
Z
o
00
0
0
O
a
a
a
a
Q
d
FE
Z
C)
o
O
O
U O
_
N O
`n
O
� �
C
o a)
c:,- a)
W
Q
O E a)
a) .o
o
�_ t= - c6o
cn c E o
O_ E
a) I
L .0 U
U -E
U
-b U C 0
I T N 'C
z3
O vOj a) 0
o a—_ U C C
H
o Q
>
a) >
`� 3 x
Q a) N a
J
.U-._ LL (D
T N
U U
a
O a) -d cn O
nY
U C a T
LL.
E LL
O O L
a 0 O— -
O .0 U L
0_
a .LO-.
a
o °'
oW
w
Z
°�
m T
0 a) o w
o
-
°' c0 c a) w 2 a)
� �
� � Q
O
O
-0 N C)
a) a) cn �
N c0
O �
0_ . -.
U U Q1 O � �
O O N x m
.� p
� U C t0 a .� M c0 0_
i
—> C
D O Q
�
C O U
O O` Q)
a
U
N U O a)0
a) � C a a)
- c0 a) =
O 0_
0- a) a) 0 a a) U) cd
0_ - -0 c n
Q
c
G
N
d
.0
cn
O O
0_ M
cn a)
9 C C
— cn
c0 N
_ �
� O
Rf O t O
0 E
Rs — O
— 70 '=p - U
U C J
a O �=-
U a)
N m c~ cn
.�-J .�
L 7 j LL (D U C (n
C
c0 a) T
0 E. QU)
Q
.L.-.
C
T T 0`
O Y C
U d L .LO-- a) — C) Q)
C U
C N.U,
w
_
W
��
T
0U
E O E c0
O
O .— U
O C
O N U Q
.`—O �n E
c0 L
O 0_
N c0 — C
a) 0_ Q E
O O cn Cl) 0
_
U
+�- c0 a)
fn U
N> Q
CO (O U 0
OQ cO
a) d o "c0 C 0- CCZ 7 O U
CC
�_
41 0_ J
U S
U d 't U O
C 0_ 0- O U 'p L
N
O
C
_'_6
U a 0 O
m - Q
cti
i O
cn a >'
c a) •` -0
_�
a E 7 0_ a) � 0, >
U
O
C cn
a
O 0_ C O c0
Q
c U
i0 CD
a E a) •
a) aIz
a) Li o
UU
U N
a'a O) O
> U
0
0)
U C M C
Q 3 o
E C O Q U
o = a
u.L
c a:
O 0_ c0
.`
a O D O
ami
a O C
ami 0 cn
> a) = C +-' a) 5
E U) a`�
O cO 2 a) co L cOn a)
OU
m to
Q 0_ a :E
Q U Q
W o m Z 3 E-0
U 0_ a cn O =3
d
uJ
N
co
LO
CC
LL
LL
LL
L.L.
LL
LL
N
Y
d
E
V
c
m
.Q
�
�
E
0
U
O
m
c
m
0
p
cc
v
CL
W
N
c
U
a
._
G
d
ca -0 N I..L
C O
'= ca .� N j�
m C O O
N LL
Ca C O
U 0 J C
U.�°-J �`E
U.OcLJ 2!7'15
'L
o a C Q)
3 E
N a C a)
._ O
N— a C a)
.— O
Z
�'
C
_ C
C> C CO Q a
cap U
C=
C -� C Ca O=
ca U
C
C -� C ca C) -=
p U
W
Q
O .
c `0
a) ccs
O ca
c) E
ca a) ca
u) E Y u)
W
m U) a)
c ccs Q asp
Y a) a)
c a asp
� a)
C a) p
�o
Lo(�'
a)
c
TCQ�CD
U- p Q
c
n o Q
c
U p Q
�
Z
W
Z
Z
me
c E
N -y
C)
NY
c
NY
-,50
c
J
cc
a
Q
0 o
c
3 c
c
cc
F-
cc
Z
a
Q
c
c
c
J
0
_d
� c
co
U
cz
U
co
U
a
Q.
Q
Q
Q
Z
O
O
O
O
d
d
d
Q
�
a
O
O
c)
a) > a) a) c
a) a)
1—
cac� Q
as ��.c�
�
a
U
W
Q
> U N
N:
Q) a) a)
>
N
a)
CD 7
U)
J
v
_
F--
C
' n
Ca w -`U a) Cn a) C 0
a) g U ca N
Q
—
N a- a)
c a w
Oo -o 'T
aa)
E
N a .= co —r o Q
Q
Q
a) w
cli C3
~Q Cd
Oa
15
E)
pN
-O
a)N 'a
O 6-0
= C" CZ CDN
LTU)
W
��aCao-0
=U
Z
CDt v
-Q
C C
O
d
a) U)
a) 2 a)
zZYwN
Np
a
QU U
N�OC
OQ)
a
C N ) U
c—a) �
I_-
Ca
c4
O)
a)
a
p)
mJ
a)
a
0
LCU a
da O
5
c
N i
NaC)
N a
M a
LLI
Q U L
� E
N
Q
ca N—
-�U aa)
o a Ln a)
c .c
.wC—, 'i
p CL
0
o c o o
_S
c
E a a) E o� X
Q o U) p
c) ca
'T
cv
x � cn N CZ �
� oc
� — a) a)
Q a) a X
a a) C 4) a> Ca a) RS
U) c
C O N 0) �_
Z> Q a)
Ca a N N> .0 �? U
E O a U 0 a)
U)U Q)
C
cz N a O
CP O
C� N� d(D O 7
u -i
a) Q)•-
C >O L) N
. ♦
a)
U)
Z L C X O
wp a 0O a) O M in
C
Q
U
a ca 2)
U)
LL
LL
LL
x�
►j
Y
a�
R
E
C
R
.Q
�
E
0
V
6
a�
c
m
F-
o
cr
U
O
CL
N
E
'c
U
a
ro�.�
cz
m
co
ct
.RS
cz
CL
p
cV
cd
cii
J
0i 0D
CU .0 J c
CU .Ln
U ->
U >
U '>
U '>
Q
=a
aci
�.N oa = E
�v
(5
vo
ao
�o
11o
zc
=
oo m
cz
Mm
cz
W
Q
c
cn 0) E Y �,
U) .__
U) .S
U) .__
U) .__
CO .s
cc
W !_'
O -� O Q
O c
O c
O c
p c
O c
O
O
T c CO �
c0
Y
cd
L
.T- g
oU
-o Q
�)��a-
U�
U�
UCL
31.
O
cn
O cn
O'U
'n
Z
ILC
W
V
>
p
C
C C
v
U
YU
ZZ
U-
OOco
-O
U U
Ep
(d CU U a U
E 0
U a0)
'U Cll
E O
0
Z3 C,
_�
o.0
�
oo
c
>
m
>a>zo
>
.�O
c
0
0
o) > a
�0
LU
F-
a
o Q
Cr- I
�°c�°C
�
o
z
w
Q
N
c
U
U
U
U
U
Q
F-
Z
NC
_ -
Q
E
!E_C
L
IL
��
Q
a
Q
Q
Q
Q
O0
w
cc
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
N
U
N
z2
O
O
O
O
O
O
a_
a_
a
Q
�
a
R
z=
0
vi
O
O
L cc7
a
O) f--
a)
ca
LU
Q
U Q
N
0 0 0
T C
E
L
aU
O
OU
p p
(U
p)
JH
7
L 01
m O
U -a N .�
0-0
O
L c
O`
O
Q
�-0
t-
�i�o��.=�
c�
�
Y
-u cu
=
�j
a) 0 3
0-'D .p
L
U
U
n .__.
U Y
a) ._
'O -D E .0 d
o
_� d
C
M p
W
7 E
p
CD
U(U(3
O>
aOC C�cn
Z
C
EO
O
i
cz a)
a
>
0 a
-:3 ca cn
mV)
c
a a) U a)
N n
Q
N
E E E
a°'i
p L
°' Y
L U
S E
C
G
N
U
U
L
N v) O� U)
ZE
a) 0 OU Q
U
(� Q
if- Q
N
C .D
O
_ o
C _0 L
cu
f2 L 'O
_m
N
Z
U
>
CO
CL
UJ L
-O V)
>O
01
Uj N
•--•
U) -0 m
U)
CO .a
L
z) LL-
N
d
d lU
O O
Q
L U)
o
W U
-6 L
UNo)
0
-
c
Z -a m
OLC
E �cz
N
(n US
CC
C
E
E 0
cn U)
(n
W
O
O
-LUian
CC0i
dU
U
UN
oO
E00
aN)
ENp
O aLO
>
i
�
O.N7
>
N
E
'a
07
-p
O pU0
—
Q -E 1
cn
o
U O N
QVdm O V 2
0) a cl;�
«L- UU
U-
LL
O
L
N
co
V
LO
LL-
W
U/)
CO
U)
U)
U)
N
►j
MEA
G
Y
d
C6
�
U
N
c�6
�
Q
E
O
v
O
m
c
io
O
p
_
O
CL
>
w
y
cry
m
cz
c
cz
cz
cz
m
co
Ca
J
y
c� .O
N .O
F-5
c0 N
«s O
cd C
cif .2
c� cz- .O
m z- O
Q
U >
-D
CU
U
U c>
CU c .>
U
�o
cz
_2
oY
o
�oooCTJ
�
W
Q
)
U
n
°
n
n
a
`
o�o
n 0Cn
W �
O C
O C
O .0
O
O
O C
O C
O C
Q
0
a
� CL
�
�. Q
>. Q
W o
>, W N
�, W a)
cr
O
1=
U
U
U
U p
U p
U
U
U
CL
rn
_
o U) _c
_
ca
c o
a) a) _
5 o
a) a)
c o
a) a)
cu
is
m
Z
W
Z
E
cif O U -p U
�' U
T C E
_
j., C E
>m C E
Y
Y
Y
Q
H
,O
)
Q Q
L
O- O
Q=,
co1
Q=
m
CO
cz
J
!=~�
O_
co o U
o_o
d
a) N
-
a) U)
O_
a) U)
L
av
t
aU
L
a o
a
O
c O
O ._
c
o > ._ «s
3 c
o ccs
O—
C) -- a)
o—
C- �'
O—
c
c
C
CC
CL
CIL
`o——
`o—
W
W
Q
a)
Cl)
zF) .`o— ::3
j
R oS ssbrA ot�9
.� Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital
Master Plan Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
Final 11-16 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA APPROVING MASTER CASE 04-325 (MASTER PLAN 04-022) FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE 15 -YEAR BUILDOUT OF THE HENRY MAYO NEWHALL
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN PROJECT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council does hereby make the following
findings of fact:
a. Prior to City of Santa Clarita incorporation in December 1987, the project site
was approved for a hospital in 1971 by Los Angeles County through the
approval of Conditional Use Permit 234-5. The hospital began operation in
1975. Since that time, the County of Los Angeles and the City of Santa Clarita
have issued approvals for the expansion of the site to its current configuration.
b. The hospital campus is a 30.4 -acre site located in the western part of the City at
the intersection of McBean Parkway and Orchard Village Road within the
master planned community of Valencia. The existing hospital campus is
comprised of 235,911 square feet of hospital facilities containing 221 beds and
104,160 square feet of medical office buildings, for a total of 340,071 square
feet of medical uses. On-site ,parking is currently limited to surface parking
only, with a total of 972 spaces provided (four parking spaces are currently
unavailable for parking due to construction activities), which includes 74
handicap stalls and seven emergency vehicle stalls. The existing on-site parking
supply for the HMNMH campus totals 1,114 spaces, consisting of 968 spaces in
surface lots, and 146 parallel parking spaces along the internal circulation
roadways of the site. The hospital campus is accessed via McBean Parkway, a
major highway in the City's Circulation Element. A large landscaped slope
extends along the north/northwestern perimeter of the hospital campus. All
existing hospital and medical office buildings and structures are located within
an existing vehicular loop road that wraps around the perimeter of the property,
with the exception of Medical Office Building F, which is located along the
McBean Parkway frontage at the primary campus entrance. The on-site
buildings cover approximately 26 percent of the project site, while on-site
landscaping comprises 43 percent of the site. All of the buildings on the
campus are either one- or two-story buildings. The main hospital building is the
tallest existing hospital structure on the campus at a height of 44 feet, while
Medical Office Building F is currently the tallest medical office building on the
campus, rising to a height of 33 feet.
C. Land uses surrounding the existing Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital
campus include established single-family residential neighborhoods, a church,
and additional medical care facilities along McBean Parkway, a major highway
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 2 of 32
in the City's Circulation Element. When the hospital opened in 1975, the areas
to the north and west of McBean Parkway consisted of undeveloped vacant
land. The residential uses immediately west and northwest of the hospital
campus were developed in 1978 as part of Tentative Tract No. 32078 (Village
Homes North subdivision). The residential neighborhoods to the north of the
hospital, built on what is known as The Summit, were constructed between
1986 and 1988 and are zoned Residential Low (RL). The Sunrise at Sterling
Canyon, a senior living facility that provides independent living, assisted living
and hospice care, is located north of the project site and was constructed in the
1980s. Medical office buildings approved by Los Angeles County in 1987 are
located immediately adjacent to the site. To the south and southwest, residential
uses were constructed in 1969 and are zoned Residential Suburban (RS).
Between 1969 to 1979, single-family residential uses were constructed to the
east and southeast of the hospital campus, across McBean Parkway, and are
zoned RS. The United Methodist Church is located on the opposite side of
McBean Parkway, at the Avenida Navarre intersection, east of the project site.
d. On June 25, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-98, adopting the
General Plan of the City of Santa Clarita and certifying the Environmental
Impact Report. The City's General Plan presently designates the project site as
Residential Low. The current zoning for the project site is Residential Low
(RL). A hospital facility is categorized as a Public and Semi -Public Use Type
in Section 17.13.040 of the City's Unified Development Code and, as listed in
the Permitted Use Chart, is an allowed use with the approval of a Conditional
Use Permit or Master Plan in the RL zone.
e. The original Los Angeles County project approvals included provisions for a
helipad for medical emergency transportation. In September 2005, the existing
helipad was removed from service due to construction activities for the hospital.
On December 7, 2004, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution PO4-35
which approved a Minor Use Permit for the relocation of the helipad to a free-
standing, elevated structure located to the rear of the existing main hospital
building. A one-year extension to the Minor Use Permit was approved in 2006.
The Minor Use Permit expired on December 7, 2007.
f. An application for Master Case 04-325, the Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial
Hospital Master Plan project (the "project"), was filed by the project applicant,
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital and G&L Realty (the "applicant"),
with the City of Santa Clarita on August 16, 2004. The entitlement request
(collectively, "Entitlements") included Conditional Use Permit 04-022 for the
approval of. (1) the build -out of the project site; (2) to allow structures above 35
feet in height; (3) to allow for the construction and operation of a helipad; and
(4) to allow for a shared parking agreement.
Master Case 04-325'
Resolution
Page 3 of 32
g. On January 25, 2005, the City Council adopted Ordinance 05-01, an update to the
City's Unified Development Code, which included the requirements and process
for a Master Plan. The Ordinance took effect 30 days later. The applicant
subsequently modified the project to include a Master Plan entitlement, which
requires City Council consideration.
h. The original project proposed two development phases over a 25 -year master plan
timeframe. The first phase included a 100,000 square -foot medical office
building and the construction of a parking structure for 700 vehicles along the
western property line with the removal of the existing 8,000 square -foot
foundation building. The build -out phase included the demolition of 85,020
square feet of structures and the construction of three parking structures with
2,710 parking spaces, three hospital inpatient buildings totaling 286,000 square
feet, a 113,400 square -foot hospital administration building, an elevated helipad
and two medical office buildings totaling 190,000 square feet. Access to the site
would be provided from three access points along McBean Parkway.
i. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (`.`CEQA"), the City
of Santa Clarita is the identified lead agency and the City Council is the decision-
making body for the project. The City of Santa Clarita prepared an Initial Study
for the project, which determined that the project may have a significant effect on
the environment and that an environmental impact report must be prepared. The
Initial Study determined that the following areas must be addressed in the project
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"): land use; geology, soils and seismicity;
hydrology and water quality; traffic; air quality; noise; water supply; solid waste;
natural gas; electricity; schools/education; fire protection services; sheriff
services; hazards and hazardous materials; population and employment; aesthetics
/ light and glare; and wastewater.
j. An initial Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the Entitlements was circulated to
affected agencies, pursuant to CEQA statutes and the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14,
Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000 et seq.), for thirty days, beginning on November 30,
2004, and numerous comments from agencies and the public were received in
response. Agencies that received the NOP include, but are not limited to, the
County of Los Angeles, the Regional Water Quality Control Board - Los Angeles
,Region, the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the 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 the consultation
requirements contained in the CEQA statutes and,CEQA Guidelines.
k. A scoping meeting was held at the City of Santa Clarita City Hall, Century
Conference Room on December 13, 2004, to obtain information from the public
as to issues that should be addressed in the EIR. Approximately 10 members of
the public attended the scoping meeting.
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 4 of 32
On July 19, 2005, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed site tour of
the project site.
in. A Draft Environmental Impact Report for the project ("Draft EIR") was prepared
and circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and
the public, and all issues raised by the Initial Study, and by comments received on
the NOP were considered, in compliance with CEQA. The Notice of
Completion/Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR was filed, posted and
advertised on November 14, 2005, and the public review period extended for 45
days, from November 14, 2005 through December 30, 2005, all 'in accordance
with CEQA.
n. The project was duly noticed in accordance with the noticing requirements for the
Entitlements. The project was advertised in The Signal newspaper, through on-
site posting 14 days prior to the hearing, and by direct first-class mail to property
owners within 1,000 feet of the project site.
o. The Planning Commission held duly -noticed public hearings on the project on
October 18, 2005, December 6, 2005, January 17, 2006, February 7, 2006, March
7, 2006, and June 6, 2006. These hearings were held at City Hall, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m.
(a) On October 18, 2005, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing
for the project and received staff and applicant presentations and public
testimony regarding the project.
(b) On November 18, 2005, the Planning Commission was scheduled to
conduct a second site tour of the project site and adjacent residences. This
tour was postponed due to weather conditions and continued to December
6, 2005. On December 6, 2005, the Planning Commission conducted a
secondary site tour of the project site and adjacent residences.
(c) On December 6, 2005, staff responded to Planning Commission and
public issues/concerns and discussed the contents and conclusions of the
2005 Draft EIR. ,
(d) On January 17, 2006, the Planning Commission continued the public
hearing to February 7, 2006.
(e) On February 7, 2006, staff and the applicant responded to issues and
concerns raised by the Planning Commission and members of the public.
(f) On March 7, 2006, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing
to June 6, 2006.
(g) On June 6, 2006, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing
to a date uncertain to allow sufficient time for the applicant to submit a
revised project and to allow staff and the environmental consultant team
additional time to prepare the 2006 Revised Draft EIR for the project.
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 5 of 32
P. In July 2006, the applicant, in response to Planning Commission and public
concerns, submitted a revised project to be developed in three development
phases over the 25 -year master plan timeframe. The first phase included an
80,000 square -foot medical office building, reconfiguration of 9,770 square feet
of hospital space for 20 new beds, the construction of a 125,363 square -foot, 120 -
bed hospital inpatient building, and the construction of a parking structure for 750
vehicles and an elevated helipad along the eastern property line. The second
phase included the construction of two 60,000 square -foot medical office
buildings, demolition of an 8,000 square -foot modular building and the
construction of 857 structured parking spaces. The build -out phase included the
demolition of 21,220 square feet of existing structures and the construction of
parking structures with 1,208 parking spaces, a 113,400 square -foot hospital
administration building, a 84,076 square -foot inpatient building and central plant,
and a 90,000 square -foot medical office building. Access to the site was to be
provided from three access points along McBean Parkway, two of which are
currently signalized.
As part of the revised master plan, the applicant made several revisions to both
the height and the horizontal setback of the proposed buildings and parking
structures located along the periphery of the hospital campus. Specifically, along
the southwestern edge of the property, Medical Office Building 2 was reduced in
height from four stories to three stories along McBean Parkway. The horizontal
setback of Medical Office Building 2 from the adjacent single-family residential
neighborhood was also increased. In addition, Parking Structure 3 was reduced in
height, reoriented, and stepped -back to reduce the massing of ,the structure and its
presence along the periphery of the campus and the adjacent residential
properties: Parking Structure 3 would also be constructed with a permanent
closed wall facing the residential neighborhood so as to limit any noise or light
impacts from parking structure usage. Medical Office Building 3, originally a
four-story building proposed toward the center of the campus, was repositioned as
a three-story building adjacent to Medical Office Building 2.
q. Due to project redesign, a revised Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the
Entitlements was circulated to affected agencies, pursuant to CEQA statutes and
the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000 et seq.), for thirty
days, beginning on July 12, 2006, and numerous comments from agencies and the
public were received in response. Agencies that received the NOP include, but
are not limited to, the County of Los Angeles, the Regional Water Quality Control
Board - Los Angeles Region, the California Department of Fish and Game, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the 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 the
consultation requirements contained in the CEQA statutes and CEQA Guidelines.
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 6 of 32
r. On August 17, 2006, the applicant modified the application to include an
additional entitlement request: Development Agreement 06-001 for the build -out
of the project over a 25 -year term.
S. The project application was deemed complete on August 20, 2006.
t. A 2006 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the project ("Revised
Draft EIR") was prepared and circulated for review and comment by affected
governmental agencies and the public, and all issues raised by the Revised Initial
Study, and by comments received on the NOP were considered, in compliance
with CEQA. The Notice of Completion/Notice of Availability for the 2006
Revised Draft EIR was filed, posted and advertised on August 29, 2006, and the
public review period extended for 45 days, from September 5, 2006 through
October 19, 2006, all in accordance with CEQA.
U. The project was duly noticed in accordance with the noticing requirements for the
Entitlements. The project was advertised in The Signal newspaper, through on-
site posting 14 days prior to the hearing, and by direct first-class mail to property
owners within 1,000 feet of the project site.
V. The Planning Commission reopened the public hearing for the project and
conducted public hearings on September 19, 2006, October 17, 2006 and
November 21, 2006. These hearings were held at City Hall, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m.
(a) On September 19, 2006, the Planning Commission reopened the public
hearing for the project, received a presentation on the revised project from
staff and the applicant, discussed the contents and conclusions of the 2006
Revised Draft EIR, and received public testimony regarding the project.
(b) On October 17, 2006, staff responded to Planning Commission and public
issues/concerns, discussed the conclusions of the 2006 Revised Draft EIR,
and discussed the components of the requested development agreement
and the shared parking agreement. At this meeting, the applicant
rescinded the request for a shared parking agreement and included a
provision for the ability to request the decisionmakers' consideration of a
future shared parking agreement in the Development Agreement.
(c) On November 21, 2006, staff responded to Planning Commission and
public issues/concerns, and the applicant presented a second major
revision to the proposed master plan in response to the comments received
from the Planning Commission, City staff, and from members of the
public. This second revision to the Master Plan removed MOB 4, a
proposed 90,000 square -foot medical office building, from the build -out
phase of the project and eliminated the demolition of 10,600 square feet of
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 7 of 32
existing medical office buildings. This resulted in a net reduction in
project square footage of 79,400 square feet at build -out. In addition, the
applicant revised the Master Plan to lower the height of Medical Office
Building 1, to be located along McBean Parkway, from four stories to
three stories to reduce its massing along the hospital campus frontage.
As a result of these November 2006 modifications, the revised site plan
proposed a total of 522,839 square feet of new campus building
construction (200,000 square feet of medical office building space,
113,400 square feet of hospital administration offices, and 209,439 square
feet of hospital buildings), plus three parking structures.
W. At the October 24, 2006, City Council meeting, the City Council, during the
Councilmember Comments portion of the meeting, made a request of staff to
return with a recommendation for a consultant to prepare an independent study for
the HMNMH Master Plan project. At the January 9, 2007, City Council meeting,
staff presented a contract to the Council for a consulting firm to prepare the
independent analysis. During the consultant's presentation, a concern was raised
as to the objectiveness and possible conflict of interest of the consultant regarding
the project. As a result, a contract was never culminated with the first consultant
and staff considered additional consulting firms.
A second independent study proposal to be conducted by Kurt Salmon Associates
was brought before the City Council at the March 13, 2007, City Council meeting.
At this meeting, the Council authorized the City to enter into the consultant
contract, with the City funding a portion of the independent study. After that
meeting, the City received a letter from a concerned citizen that the action taken
by the City Council could be considered a violation of the Brown Act, since the
act of funding a portion of the study was not agendized. To avoid an unnecessary
legal dispute, the item was placed on the April 10, 2007, City Council Consent
Calendar agenda and the City Council took formal action to approve the staff
request. The independent study examined the appropriateness of the
proportionality of hospital space to medical office space for the Council's
consideration.
X. At the conclusion of the November 21, 2006, hearing, the Planning Commission
closed the public hearing and directed staff to prepare all of the necessary
documents (resolutions, CEQA findings of fact, mitigation and monitoring
reporting program, conditions of approval, etc.) for its recommendation to the
City Council. This direction included a recommendation of approval to the City
Council of the revised master plan project presented by the applicant at the
November 21" meeting, certification of the EIR prepared for the project, adoption
of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and denial of the proposed
Development Agreement.
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 8 of 32
Y. As part of its recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Commission also
recommended that the City Council consider the conclusions of the independent
study with regard to the appropriateness of the proportionality of medical office
building space to hospital space in its decisionmaking. Specifically, the Planning
Commission directed staff to prepare the required documents to advance the
revised project to the City Council for approval with the following considerations:
That if the independent study being prepared for the City Council
demonstrated that the revised project's proposed hospital space
necessitates the proposed level of medical office building space for a
viable hospital campus, that the City Council support the revised master
plan as currently proposed; or,
2. That if the independent study stated that the level of medical office space
exceeds that which is needed for hospital operations, the applicant would
be required to scale back the amount of medical office space to the
satisfaction of the City Council.
Z. At the December 5, 2006, Planning Commission meeting, a representative of
Smart Growth SCV presented a letter to the Planning Commission during the
public comments portion of the meeting related to the proposed Henry Mayo
Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan project. In response, the Planning
Commission directed staff to prepare a memorandum in response to the SCV
Smart Growth letter, dated November 27, 2006.
aa. On December 19, 2006, the Planning Commission continued the item to allow for
the completion of the required documents.
bb. On January 16, 2007, the Planning Commission continued the item to allow for
the completion of the required documents.
CC. A 2007 Final EIR was prepared which included the 2006 Revised Draft EIR and
2005 Draft EIR, comments on the two EIRs, plus the following: responses to
written comments on the two Draft EIRs; modifications to the 2006 Revised Draft
EIR text; and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP").
Prior to January 26, 2007, a copy of the response to comments from the 2007
Final EIR was sent to each agency and individual who submitted timely
comments on the 2006 Revised Draft EIR. The 2007 Final EIR documents were
provided to the Planning Commission on February 2, 2007. The Planning
Commission considered the 2007 Final EIR prepared for the project, as well as
information provided in staff reports, the amended text of the 2007 Final EIR,
information presented to the Planning Commission from technical experts, and
information presented in public testimony, including letters submitted to the
Planning Commission following the close of the 2006 Revised Draft EIR public
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 9 of 32
comment period up to and including November 21, 2006, prior to recommending
approval of the Master Plan, as revised.
dd. The 2007 Final EIR, the MMRP, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the project were prepared and provided in compliance with CEQA.
ee. At its hearings on the project, the Planning Commission considered staff and
consultant presentations, staff reports, applicant presentations, information
presented to the Commission to assist in its understanding of the project, the
HMNMH Master Plan 2005 Draft EIR and 2006 Revised Draft EIR, and public
comments, and public testimony on the project and the 2007 Final EIR for the
project.
ff. On February 6, 2007, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. P07-01
recommending that the City Council adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for those impacts of the project that cannot be mitigated to less
than significant levels, and certify the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program.
gg. On February 6, 2007, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. P07-02
recommending that the City Council approve the Master Plan and Conditional
Use Permit entitlements for Master Case 04-325, the HMNMH Master Plan
Project, as revised, subject to the project conditions of approval.
hh. On February 6, 2007, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. P07-03,
denying the request for Development Agreement 06-001.
ii. On February 15, 2007, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's
denial of the Development Agreement to the City Council for their consideration.
ii. In May 2007, following the Planning Commission process, the applicant further
revised the proposed HMNMH Master Plan, eliminating all medical office
buildings and hospital buildings from the Build -out Phase of the Master Plan.
Therefore, the overall net increase in Master Plan buildings was reduced from
583,619 square feet proposed at the time of initial project submittal to the current
total of 327,363 square feet. The reduced project limited the Master Plan to the
buildings, structures and other site modifications originally included in Phase 1
and Phase 2 of the proposal, only. The third phase, or Build -out Phase, of the
project was removed from the HMNMH Master Plan.
kk. The formal public hearing process before the Santa Clarita City Council for the
May 2007 Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital (HMNMH) Master Plan
project began on June 12, 2007. Prior to the June 12th meeting, the City Council
received the May 2007 Final EIR, which included an Amendment to Revised
Project Description and Errata for Final EIR. At' the June 12, 2007, public
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 10 of 32
hearing, the City Council received staff and applicant presentations and public
testimony on the project. The City Council continued the public hearing to June
26, 2007 and directed staff to return with a list of identified issues and concerns to
be addressed.
11. On June 26, 2007, the City Council conducted a second public hearing on the
proposed project. During this hearing, the City Council asked questions of staff
and the applicant on various aspects of the proposed project and received public
testimony. The Council continued the public hearing to July 10, 2007, to have a
focused discussion on the CEQA process and CEQA findings for the project.
mm. On July 10, 2007, the City Council conducted a third public hearing on the
proposed project. At this hearing, the City Council received staff and applicant
presentations and made inquiries of staff and the consultant regarding the CEQA
process and the Environmental Impact Report findings. The City Council also,
received additional public testimony. The public hearing was continued to the
August 28, 2007, City Council meeting to allow time for the applicant to consider
revisions to the project per the Council's direction and for staff to research and
prepare responses to a variety of issues and questions raised at the three City
Council public hearings held in June and July 2007.
nn. On July 19, 2007, at the direction of the City Council, City staff facilitated a
meeting between the applicants and Smart Growth SCV, a community group, to
discuss issues associated with the HMNMH Master Plan project. Both parties had
an opportunity to ask questions and discuss issues in an informal setting.
oo. In response to City Council and public input received during the June 12, June 26
and July 10, 2007, public hearings, the applicant further revised various
components of the HMNMH Master Plan. As part of these modifications, the
applicant reduced the duration of the Master Plan from 20 years to a 15 -year
period. Other Master Plan changes included square footage and building massing
reductions, increased building setbacks and stepbacks, building relocations and
reduced height. The Master Plan, as revised, contained four buildings and a
central plant, three of which do not exceed three stories in height. Parking
Structure 4, once proposed to be four levels above ground, was redesigned as a
two-level subterranean structure with surface parking to reduce massing along the
McBean Parkway corridor. Enhanced architecture was added to all building and
parking structure facades. The conceptual landscape plan included enhanced
landscaping which focused on the hospital campus perimeter to reduce visual
impacts to surrounding land uses.
pp. The modified HMNMH Master Plan project was presented to the City Council at
the August 28, 2007 continued public hearing. At the August 28, 2007, City
Council meeting, the City Council received staff and applicant presentations and
public testimony, provided feedback on the revised Henry Mayo Newhall
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 11 of 32
Memorial Hospital Master Plan, and continued the public hearing to the
September 25, 2007, City Council meeting for a focused discussion on the revised
Development Agreement.
qq. On September 25, 2007, the City Council conducted a continued public hearing
on the proposed project with a focus on the proposed Development Agreement.
At this meeting, the City Council received staff and applicant presentations on the
Development Agreement revisions and terms including restrictions to tie the
delivery of health care services with specific Master Plan improvements. Also,
the applicant reduced the term of the Development Agreement from 20 years to
15 years, consistent with the term of the revised HMNMH Master Plan. The City
Council received public testimony and provided staff with direction on further
revisions to the proposed Development Agreement. The City Council continued
the hearing to the City Council meeting of January 8, 2008.
rr. At the January 8, 2008, City Council meeting, the City Council continued the
public hearing to a date uncertain to allow additional time to conduct technical
studies and prepare the 2008 Revised Draft EIR for the revised HMNMH Master
Plan project.
ss. A June 2008 Revised Draft EIR was prepared to fully analyze the revised project.
The HMNMH Master Plan project description analyzed in the June 2008 Revised
Draft EIR includes an increase of existing square footage of the hospital campus
from 340,071 square feet to 667,434 square feet, a 327,363 net square -foot
increase. Specific project components are detailed below:
New Hospital & Medical Office Buildings
INPATIENT BUILDING - A 125,363 square -foot, 120 -bed inpatient hospital
building located in the central portion of the campus. This building would be 85
feet in height to the top of the parapet and 100 feet in height to the top of the wind
sock and elevator shaft. This building would also include a rooftop helipad.
MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING 1 - A 80,000 square -foot medical office
building (MOB 1) along the McBean Parkway frontage, east of the main hospital
entrance from McBean Parkway. This building would be 45.5 feet in height to
the top of the parapet and 51.5, feet to the top of the screen and roof access.
MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING 2 - A 60,000 square -foot medical office
building (MOB 2) along the western portion of the campus along the existing ring
road. This building would be 45.5 feet to the top of the parapet and 51.5 feet to
the top of the screen and roof access.
MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING 3 - A 60,000 square -foot medical office
building (MOB 3) along the westerly portion of the site along the existing ring
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 12 of 32
road. This building would be 45.5 feet to the top of the parapet and 51.5 feet to
the top of the screen and roof access.
CENTRAL PLANT — A 10,000 square -foot central plant facility located within
the central portion of the campus adjacent to the Inpatient Building. This building
would be 26 feet in height.
Parking Structures
PARKING STRUCTURE 1 - A 750 -space parking structure (PS 1) along the
McBean Parkway frontage at Avenida Navarre. The parking structure height
would be 47 feet to the top of the parapet, 49.5 feet to the top of the parking lot
lights, and 60.5 feet to the top of the wind sock. This parking structure will also
include a rooftop helipad.
PARKING STRUCTURE 2 - A 579 -space parking structure (PS 2) in the
northwestern portion of the campus. The parking structure height would be 47
feet to the top of the parapet and 49.5 feet to the top of the parking lot lights. A
solid wall along the western fagade of the parking structure would be provided
prior to construction of Parking Structure 3. Parking Structure 3 would connect
directly to Parking Structure 2.
PARKING STRUCTURE 3 - A 278 -space parking structure (PS 3) in the
northwestern corner of the campus. The parking structure height would be 27 feet
to the top of the parapet, and 30 feet to the top of the parking lot lights. A solid
wall along the western fagade of the parking structure would be provided. This
parking structure would have a minimum setback of 75 feet from the westerly
property line.
PARKING STRUCTURE 4 - A 316 -space parking structure (PS 4) to be located
along McBean Parkway just east of the main campus entry. The parking structure
would be fully subterranean, with at -grade parking at the top level of the structure
and an elevator/stairwell projection for pedestrian access at the surface. Initially,
the area proposed for Parking Structure 4 would be improved as a 71 -space
surface parking lot as part of the construction of Medical Office Building 1. The
construction of Parking Structure 4 would occur as part of the future Master Plan
improvements to meet on-site parking requirements.
Other HMNMH Campus Modifications
1. Add nine new beds in the Nursing Pavilion Building.
2. Demolish the 8,000 square foot Foundation building.
3. Reconfigure surface parking to provide a total of 308 on-site spaces.
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 13 of 32
4. Provide a helipad on the rooftop of both Parking Structure 1 and the Inpatient
Building.
5. Provide right turn pockets and modify traffic signals along the McBean
Parkway project frontage.
6. Reconfigure 9,770 square feet of current administration space in the existing
hospital building to accommodate 18 additional new ICU beds. The current
hospital administrative functions would move to space within Medical Office
Building 1.
7. Export up to 93,293 cubic yards of dirt associated with subsurface excavation
for the Inpatient Building and Parking Structures 1, 2, 3, and 4.
8. Dedicate a minimum of 58 feet of public right-of-way from the centerline
along the project frontage plus additional right-of-way dedication to
accommodate a new right -turn lane from eastbound McBean Parkway to
southbound Orchard Village Road to address future traffic conditions.
tt. Given that the Master Plan entitlement covers all proposed requests related to the
hospital use, helipad operation, dirt exportation, and building heights, the
Conditional Use Permit request submitted in August 2004 prior to the City's
establishment of a Master Plan entitlement in January 2005, was eliminated as
one of the required entitlements because it is redundant. Pursuant to the Unified
Development Code, the Master Plan request is inclusive of the medical campus
expansion, buildings that exceed the UDC's 35' height threshold, dirt exportation
and helipad operation.
uu. A June 2008 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the project ("June
2008 Revised Draft EIR") was prepared and circulated for review and comment
by affected governmental agencies and the public, in compliance with CEQA.
The Notice of Completion/Notice of Availability for the 2008 Revised Draft EIR
was filed, posted and advertised on June 26, 2008, and the public review period
extended for 45 days, from June 26, 2008 through August 11, 2008, in accordance
with CEQA.
vv. Due to a discrepancy in a reference to the circulation date on the Notice of
Completion/Notice of Availability for the June 2008 Revised Draft EIR, a
September 2008 Revised Draft EIR was circulated for an additional 45 days from
September 3, 2008 to 5:00 PM on October 17, 2008. Prior to its recirculation,
technical corrections to the technical appendices and the impact analysis sections
of the June 2008 Revised Draft EIR were made and additional analysis was added
regarding project and cumulative global climate change impacts. A list of
revisions from the June 2008 Revised Draft EIR to the September 2008 Revised
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 14 of 32
Draft EIR were included with the revised Notice of Completion/Notice of
Availability for the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR and also inserted into the
front cover of the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR.
ww. At the September 9, 2008, City Council meeting, the City Council conducted a
public hearing on amendments, to the Valencia Bridge & Major Thoroughfare
Construction Fee District and adopted Resolution 08-89 to approve the
amendments. This amendment added intersection improvements at the McBean
Parkway -Valencia Boulevard intersection and the McBean Parkway -Orchard
Village Road intersection to the Valencia Bridge & Major Thoroughfare
Construction Fee District.
xx. The September 23, 2008 continued public hearing for the HMNMH Master Plan
Project and the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR was duly noticed in
accordance with the noticing requirements for the Entitlements. The project was
advertised in The Signal newspaper, through on-site posting 14 days prior to the
hearing, and by direct first-class mail to property owners within 1,000 feet of the
project site.
yy. On September 23, 2008, the City Council reopened the public hearing for the
project. At the meeting, the Council received staff and applicant presentations
and public testimony regarding the HMNMH Master Plan and Development
Agreement, as well as comments on the September 2008 Revised Draft
Environmental Impact Report. The Council asked questions of staff and gave
direction regarding informational items to be brought back to the next meeting
and continued the public hearing to the November 19, 2008 special meeting of the
City Council.
zz. On September 25, 2008, the City Unified Development Code 2008 amendments
took effect. As part of these amendments, findings for Master Plans were
incorporated into Section 17.03, Permits and Applications of the Unified
Development Code. Previously, Section 17.03.025 Master Plans of the UDC
referred to the Conditional Use Permit findings under subsection G. Findings and
stated that, "The same findings required for a conditional use permit are required
for a master plan." The 2008 UDC amendment eliminates this reference and adds
the text of the findings directly into 17.03.025.G. This amendment did not change
the content of the findings necessary to approve a Master Plan.
aaa. A 2008 Final EIR was prepared which includes the September 2008 Revised
Draft EIR and the technical appendices, comments on the June 2008 and
September 2008 Revised Draft EIRs, responses to written comments on the June
2008 and September 2008 Revised Draft EIRs, responses to oral comments
regarding environmental/CEQA issues received during the September 23, 2008,
City Council public hearing, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program ("MMRP"). The 2008 Final EIR also incorporates by reference the 2005
Draft EIR and 2006 Revised Draft EIR prepared for the project and all agency and
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 15 of 32
public comments and responses to comments for both documents. Prior to
November 19, 2008, a copy of the response to comments from the 2008 Final EIR
was sent to each agency and individual who submitted timely comments on either
the June 2008 or September 2008 Revised Draft EIR.
bbb. The 2008 Final EIR, the MMRP, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the project were prepared and provided in compliance with CEQA.
ccc. At its hearings on the project, the City Council considered staff and consultant
presentations, staff reports, applicant presentations, information presented in
public testimony, and information presented to the City Council from technical
experts to assist in its understanding of the project. On November 19, 2008, the
City Council considered the 2008 Final EIR prepared for the project, inclusive of
the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR, June 2008 Revised Draft EIR, 2006
Revised Draft EIR and 2005 Draft EIR, prior to taking formal action on the
project, as revised.
ddd. On November 19, 2008, the City Council conducted the public hearing for the
project, received staff and applicant presentations and public testimony on the
project and closed the public hearing. The City Council then adopted a
Resolution, adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts
of the project that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels, and
certifying the 2008 Final EIR and the- Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program prepared for the HMNMH Master Plan project.
eee. On November 19, 2008, the City Council conducted the first reading of an
Ordinance for Development Agreement 06-001 for the HMNMH Master Plan
project.
fff. The location of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of
proceeding upon which the decision of the City Council are in the Master Case
04-325 project file within the Community Development Department and is in the
custody of the Director of Community Development,
SECTION 2. FINDINGS FOR MASTER PLAN 04-022. Based on the above findings of fact
and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire HMNMH Master Plan
Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held by
the Planning Commission and City Council on the project and the project Draft EIRs, staff and
agenda reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and City
Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and City
Council and on its behalf, the City Council finds, as follows:
a. That the proposed location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the
project's proposed use is in accordance with the purpose of the City's Unified
Development Code, the purpose of the zone in which the project site is located,
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 16 of 32
the Santa Clarita General Plan and the development policies and standards of the
City.
The project site is an existing hospital campus comprised of hospital buildings,
medical offices, and surface parking on 30.4 acres situated within the established
master -planned community of Valencia, designed by urban planner Victor Gruen
in conjunction with the Newhall Land & Farming Company in the 1960s. The
Valencia Master Plan comprehensively planned for the full range of land uses, a
transportation network, utilities and infrastructure, parkland and recreational
centers, pedestrian trail network, natural open space preservation, social and
institutional facilities, retail, entertainment and dining venues and employment
centers for an 18,000 residential unit development situated along the eastern side
of Interstate 5 over a 35 -year timeframe.
The Valencia Master Plan also included a number of regional -serving institutions
including College of the Canyons, California Institute of the Arts, the government
center (library, courthouse, L.A. County Sheriff's station, and fire station), three
golf courses, the Hart Pony League baseball complex, and the Valencia Town
Center regional mall and Town Center Drive. The Henry Mayo Newhall
Memorial Hospital campus is among these regional serving institutions. These
regional serving institutions are situated within the community in proximity to
residential and commercial uses and are accessed via major highways including
McBean Parkway, Valencia Boulevard, and Magic Mountain Parkway. The
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital campus is located along McBean
Parkway approximately .94 -mile from Interstate 5, a major transportation corridor
through the State of California, and 1.1 -mile from the Valencia Town Center
which currently serves as the Valley's regional hub for retail, entertainment,
dining and governmental services and has the highest residential density and non-
residential floor -area -ratio for the Santa Clarita Valley. Other major uses in
proximity to the hospital campus include the California Institute of the Arts
campus (.66 -mile), the College of the Canyons campus (1.25 -mile), and Magic
Mountain Amusement Park (three miles). The Valencia Gateway, a 4,500 -acre
master -planned center for business, technology and industry comprised of 1,500
companies and 45,000 employees, is approximately three miles from the hospital
campus.
The hospital has been operational for 33 years, since 1975, and has served as the
Santa Clarita Valley's only major regional medical center as the Valley has
continued to grow in population, households, housing units and employment. The
hospital was originally permitted under Los Angeles County jurisdiction in 1971,
prior to the City of Santa Clarita's incorporation in December 1987. At that time,
the County zoning designations for the two properties that comprise the HMNMH
medical campus were Commercial Planned Development and Heavy Agriculture.
Following City incorporation, the City adopted the Santa Clarita General Plan to
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 17 of 32
govern its jurisdictional area in 1991, and adopted the Unified Development Code
in 1992 as an implementation tool of the General Plan.
Upon adoption of the 1991 City of Santa Clarita General Plan, the land use
designation for the two campus properties changed from Commercial Planned
Development (CPD) and Heavy Agriculture (A-2-5) to Residential Low (RL),
which is still in place. In November 1992, the City's Unified Development Code
was adopted by the City Council to serve as the implementation tool of the
General Plan. The City's Zoning Map mirrors the land use designations of the
General Plan on a property -specific basis. Therefore, in order to be consistent
with the City's General Plan, the Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital
campus received a zoning designation of Residential Low (RL). At present, the
City of Santa Clarita does not have an Institutional land use designation;
therefore, land uses such as schools, fire stations, sheriff stations and hospitals are
often designated a residential land use when located in residential areas.
As part of the land use impact analysis conducted as part of the September 2008
Revised Draft EIR, a review of the project's consistency with City of Santa
Clarita General Plan goals and policies was conducted. The review encompasses
18 applicable goals and 17 applicable policies in the Land Use Element,
Community Design Element, Circulation Element, Human Resources Element,
Open Space and Conservation Element, and Safety Element. The September
2008 Revised Draft EIR concludes that the proposed project would not conflict
with any applicable goals and policies of the General Plan and would, therefore,
be consistent. Among the goals and policies reviewed is Goal 2 of the Human
Resources Element of the Santa Clarita General Plan which states, "Promote the
provisions of a broad range of high quality health care services to meet the
existing and future needs of City residents." The proposed Master Plan would
expand the existing medical and health care services available to include
additional acute care hospital beds, intensive care beds, and cardiac, high-risk
pregnancy and neonatal care, among others. The proposed Master Plan also
implements two policies of Goal 4 of the Land Use Element which states, "To
ensure that development in the City is consistent with the overall community
character and that it contributes in a positive way toward the City's image."
Policy 4.3 states, "Encourage setbacks, landscaping, or other measures to provide
physical and visual buffers between land uses to minimize potential land use
conflicts between dissimilar uses," and Policy 4.14 states, "Regulate lighting in
new and existing development so that it does not unduly contribute to nighttime
visual pollution and glare, and is compatible with surrounding land uses."
Building setbacks, stepbacks and height, architectural design and fagade
treatments, enhanced perimeter campus landscaping, pedestrian amenities, and
lighting restrictions comply with the City's General Plan, the Unified
Development Code and the Architectural Design Guidelines.
W
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 18 of 32
The Permitted Use Chart (Section 17.13.040) in the City's Unified Development
Code (UDC) categorizes "Hospital Services" as a "Public or Semi Public Use
Type." "Hospital Services" is defined in Section 17.12.070 of the Unified
Development Code as "institutions providing primary health services and medical
or surgical care to persons, primarily on an inpatient basis, suffering from illness,
injury or other physical or mental conditions and may include associated facilities
for outpatient and emergency medical services, heliports, diagnostic facilities,
laboratories, training, research, administrations and services to patients,
employees and visitors." "Hospital Services" is an allowed use in the Residential
Low zone with the approval of a Master Plan or a Conditional Use Permit. For
this reason, the master plan proposal and the use of the property for hospital
services do not present a conflict with the zoning of the property or the
requirements of the Unified Development Code.
The Master Plan meets the development standards of the City's Unified
Development Code. As specified in the Section 17.15.010 of the Unified
Development Code, a 25 -foot setback is required for public and semi-public uses
within a residential zone from the adjacent residentially -zoned properties that are
developed with residential uses. The placement of all buildings and parking
structures proposed as part of the HMNMH Master Plan will be set back at
distances greater than 25 feet. In addition, a steep hill with dense, mature trees
extends along the northwestern property line and creates a topographic division
between the rear of the hospital campus and adjacent residential neighborhoods to
the west and northwest.
In 1971, Los Angeles County first approved the use of the site as a hospital as part
of Conditional Use Permit 234-5. Since that time, there have been several
entitlement requests for alterations and expansions to the original hospital facility
which have received subsequent approvals by both Los Angeles County and the
City of Santa Clarita. The applicant, Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital
and G&L Realty, is now requesting the approval of a 15 -year Master Plan that
would guide the future expansion of the campus facilities as the medical care
needs of the Santa Clarita Valley continue to grow. The Master Plan ensures that
future expansions would not be considered on a piecemeal basis, but rather as part
of a comprehensive plan that looks ahead to the ultimate build -out of the campus.
The applicant is proposing to develop the site over the next 15 years with 200,000
square feet of medical office buildings and 135,363 square feet of hospital uses,
for a total of 667,434 square feet from its current 340,071 square feet (8,000
square feet of existing buildings space would be removed as part of project
implementation). Four parking structures would be built as part of project
implementation. As part of the Master Plan, two helipads' would be constructed
and dirt exportation, not to exceed 93,293 cubic yards over the 15 -year life of the
project, would occur. In addition, building heights would be allowed in excess of
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 19 of 32
the 35' Unified Development Code threshold for the Inpatient Building, MOBS 1-
3, and Parking Structures 1 and 2.
Although implementation of the master plan will intensify the uses on the
property, the operational characteristics of the hospital campus will not change
substantially. The site is currently used for emergency medical care and inpatient
and outpatient medical services. A helipad was previously operated on the site for
emergency medical transport from 1975-2005. Two helipads are proposed to be
built as part of the HMNMH Master Plan — the first would be built on the roof of
Parking Structure 1 and used in the short-term until the Inpatient Building is built,
where the long-term rooftop helipad will be located. The location of the long-
term Inpatient Building helipad is located in the same area of the hospital campus
as the previous at -grade helipad which operated for almost 30 years. The change
in elevation would eliminate the obstacles that surrounded the previous at -grade
helipad. Based on the BridgeNet report (April 6, 2006), the hospital
accommodated 10 to 12 helicopter flights each month in 2005. Prior to full future
buildout of the Master Plan and the resulting increase in helicopter flights,
residences in the neighborhood of the hospital would experience helicopter noise
similar to that under the 2005 conditions. The number of helicopter flights is
expected to increase to 15-17 flights per month in the buildout conditions. An
increase in flight activity from 12 to 17 a month represents an increase in the
noise exposure level of about 1.5 dBA (in terms of the 24-hour weighted average
scale of CNEL). All helicopter operations would be in compliance with
applicable federal and state requirements. Therefore, no significant long-term
noise impacts would occur from the helipad operations at the hospital associated
with implementation of the proposed Master Plan.
Dirt exportation activities associated with subsurface excavation for the Inpatient
Building and Parking Structures 1-4 would be required to meet the project
conditions of approval and obtain the appropriate hauling permits from both the
City and Los Angeles County. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for each
building/structure that involves export, the applicant shall submit a copy of the
approval for the export -receiving site and an exhibit of the proposed haul route.
The applicant is responsible to obtain approval from all applicable agencies for
the dirt hauling operation. Hours of operation are also restricted in the conditions
of approval to avoid peak traffic times. Other requirements include encroachment
permits, continuous street sweeping, traffic control, and flagging personnel.
Therefore, from an operational standpoint, the hospital use and associated
activities are consistent with the City's General Plan and Unified Development
Code.
The imposition of the height zones across the medical campus will avoid
significant, adverse visual impacts to surrounding residential neighborhoods from
the addition of new buildings and parking structures. The no -development setback
areas (Zone 1) and reduced heights at the main hospital entrance and around the
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 20 of 32
periphery of the campus reduce the overall massing and scale of the development.
The zone designated for 85' building heights (Zone 5) is limited in size and
geographically situated in the central portion of the campus and is surrounded by
Zone 1 (zero build along slope area), Zone 3 (35' height limit), and Zone 4 (47'
height limit). The significant grade differences and landscape buffering that
exists along the northwestern/western edge of the medical campus further buffers
visual impacts from surrounding land uses.
The Conditions of Approval, attached to this resolution as Exhibit A, will ensure
that all City development standards and requirements are met. In addition, the
conditions of approval provide for 360 -degree architectural enhancements on all
new buildings and parking structures, enhanced landscaping along the perimeter
of the hospital campus, measures to ensure that light spillover does not occur onto
adjacent residential properties and a mandate that on-site parking requirements are
fully met for each improvement stage of the Master Plan. As part of the Master
Plan, parking for existing campus facilities will be upgraded from the Los
Angeles County parking standards to fully meet current City code parking
requirements. These conditions of approval, combined with the mitigation
measures as identified in the Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, will ensure that the proposed location, size, design, and operating
characteristics of the project, the Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master
Plan, are in accordance with the purpose of the City's Unified Development Code,
the purpose of the zone in which the project site is located, the Santa Clarita
General Plan and the development policies and standards of the City to the
maximum extent possible.
b. That the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use
will be compatible with and will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental
to adjacent uses, residents, buildings, structures, or natural resources, with
consideration given to:
Harmony in scale, bulk, coverage, and density;
The HMNMH Master Plan calls for an increase and an intensification of
the existing medical uses on the hospital campus. Areas currently used for
surface parking will be converted to an inpatient building, three medical
office buildings and parking structures. The project will change the scale,
bulk, coverage and density of the existing medical campus.
Specifically, development of the proposed HMNMH Master Plan would
gradually increase the total square footage of the medical campus to
667,434 square feet over the 15 -year life of the project, resulting in a FAR
of 0.50. Development of the proposed HMNMH Master Plan would alter
the appearance of the hospital campus as seen from McBean Parkway and
some residents adjacent to the proposed campus buildings to the north and
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 21 of 32
west. The primary structures responsible for the on-site change along the
McBean Parkway frontage include the 80,000 square -foot MOBI; 60,000
square -foot M0132; and a multi-level PSI, with four visible levels on the
McBean frontage. The 85 -foot Inpatient Building will be visible from
some of the Summit residential properties to the north/northwest of the
campus. MOB 3 and PS 3 will be visible from some of the residential
properties to the west.
Overall, development of the proposed project would increase building
heights and massing features within the project area. However, the Master
Plan has been designed to avoid a significant alteration of views from
surrounding areas through (1) the creation of height zones across the 30.4 -
acre campus; (2) the placement of new buildings and parking structures
using increased setbacks from the property edges and building step -backs;
(3) the reduction of building height along the western/southwestern edge
of the campus, and (4) the redesign of PS4 to be a subterranean parking
structure at the main Hospital entrance. Requirements for the inclusion of
architectural enhancements on all building facades and parking structures,
and requirements for enhanced perimeter landscaping will further mitigate
the visual impacts. For these reasons, the project is expected to have a
less -than -significant adverse impact on the visual character of the area and
the quality of the campus.
The proposed master plan is also consistent and compatible with uses
immediately north of the hospital campus which include medical office
buildings and an assisted living facility. The project presents no conflict
with these properties as they are similar in use.
ii. The availability of public facilities, services, and utilities,
Public facilities, services and utilities are available and currently exist at
and extend to the existing hospital campus. The emergency medical,
inpatient and outpatient medical care services provided at the existing
campus, in and of themselves, provide a public service to the Santa Clarita
Valley community. The hospital campus is accessed via McBean
Parkway, a major highway in the City's Circulation Element, where major
water lines, sewer lines, and storm drains are constructed to serve the
Valencia master -planned community.
As part of the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR, a Sewer Area Study
was conducted by DCA Civil Engineering Group to determine the
capacity of the sewer line and whether augmentations to the sewer line are
required. The sewer study concludes that the proposed project would not
require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities
or the expansion of existing facilities as there is sufficient capacity in
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 22 of 32
existing infrastructure and facilities. Also as part of the September 2008
Revised Draft EIR, a Water Service Study was prepared by Impact
Sciences to evaluate whether the proposed project would impact water
resources in the Santa Clanta Valley. The study concludes that there
would be sufficient water supply to meet the proposed project's water
demand under an average/normal water year, single dry year, or multiple
dry years. In the analysis of natural gas supplies and distribution
,infrastructure, the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR concludes that
increased demand for natural gas supplies are well within the service
capabilities of the Southern California Gas Company. Similarly, the
September 2008 Revised Draft EIR finds that the proposed project would
not create demands on electricity supplies and infrastructure that exceed
the service capabilities of Southern California Edison.
In addition, the application of the required conditions of approval and the
implementation of the mitigation measures as stated in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program will ensure that utility and public
service and facility provisions are coordinated with each Master Plan
improvement over the 15 -year life of the project.
iii. The harmful effect, if any, upon desirable neighborhood character;
As explained above in Section 2,b.i, the proposed master plan has been
revised to address a number of environmental impacts and quality of life
concerns voiced by community members. Vehicular access to and from
the hospital campus will continue to be from McBean Parkway, a major
highway in the City's Circulation Element, which currently provides direct
access to other major regional centers including California Institute of the
Arts and the Valencia Town Center Mall. Existing hospital and medical
office buildings and surface parking areas are presently visible from the
surrounding residential neighborhoods. Views of the campus from off-site
areas will continue to be of a medical campus upon implementation of the
Master Plan, however, multi -story buildings and parking structures will
replace the existing surface parking areas.
A master plan is a long-range planning tool to guide the orderly growth
and development of the hospital campus. Implementation of a master
plan, by its very nature, is intended to preserve the desired neighborhood
character. By anticipating the type and level of development needed over
a 15 -year timeframe, the intent of the master plan is to ensure that
expansion and growth of the hospital facilities do not occur in a hodge-
podge fashion which could have a greater impact on the visual character of
the,surrounding neighborhood. Instead, conditions of approval, mitigation
measures, infrastructure augmentations, transit and pedestrian
connections, building siting, and architectural styles and landscaping are
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 23 of 32
coordinated up -front to create a visually cohesive and operationally
organized and successful medical campus that balances the needs for
medical service expansion with the need to preserve the character of the
Valencia Master Plan neighborhoods that surround this regional services
institution.
Also, the placement of the height zones across the medical campus is
designed to avoid adverse visual impacts and preserve the desired
neighborhood character of surrounding residential neighborhoods from the
addition of new buildings and parking structures. The no -development
setback areas (Zone 1) and reduced heights at the main hospital entrance
and around the periphery of the campus reduce the overall massing and
scale of the development. The zone designated for 85' building heights
(Zone 5) is limited in size and geographically situated in the central
portion of the campus and is surrounded by Zone 1 (zero build along slope
area), Zone 3 (35' height limit), and Zone 4 (47' height limit). The
significant grade differences and landscape buffering that exists along -the
northwestern/western edge of the medical campus further buffers visual
impacts from surrounding land uses.
Build -out of the proposed Master Plan would include the removal of trees
along McBean Parkway to accommodate both future on-site buildings and
traffic -related improvements. Motorists' views from McBean Parkway
onto the hospital campus would be affected in the short-term upon the
construction of MOB 1, PSI and MOB 2. However, the proposed Master
Plan is required, through the conditions of approval, to replace any tree
removals by relocating or replanting the trees. A combination of 24- 36,
8-, and 60 -inch box trees would be required to maintain the landscape
characteristic along the McBean Parkway frontage. Presently there are a
total of 115 trees along McBean Parkway, which includes the site's area
fronting the street and the trees located within the median. A total of 69
trees will remain in place as part of project implementation (46 McBean
Parkway median trees and 23 hospital campus trees along the McBean
Parkway frontage). To accommodate the proposed development, 46 trees
would be removed (12 McBean Parkway median trees and 34 hospital
campus trees along the McBean Parkway frontage). Upon completion of
the proposed Master Plan, a total of 133 trees would be located within the
areas described above (53 McBean Parkway median trees and 80 hospital
campus trees along the McBean Parkway frontage), which includes on-site
trees that would remain along with new tree plantings. Overall, trees in
the vicinity of the McBean Parkway frontage will increase from 115 trees
to 133 trees. The conditions of approval will ensure that the McBean
Parkway frontage retains its landscape character over the life of the project
and beyond.
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 24 of 32
Two perimeter landscaping conditions are required as part of the
Conditions of Approval to provide enhanced screening between the
campus and the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Along the western
property line, adjacent to the Village Homes North residences, the project
is conditioned to install, within 120 days of the Master Plan approval,
significant plantings along the western property line to screen future site
development from the adjacent residences on Ramillo Way. The applicant
is required to submit a landscape plan for City review within 60 days of
project approval that shows locations of tree and shrub plantings, species,
and container size at time of planting. Tree sizes shall be 24" box at
minimum and contain proportional amount of 36" and 48" box containers
and be of suitable species in order to achieve adequate coverage to the
satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. MOB 3 and the
related parking facilities in this portion of the campus are not planned to
be built until the latter portion of the 15 -year Master Plan; therefore, this
requirement will allow the trees planted at project approval time to
establish themselves and mature for greater coverage prior to construction
occurring in that area.
The single-family homes northwest of the project site within the Summit
residential neighborhood are located atop a steep hillside. A dense grove
of mature evergreen trees planted on this slope that extends along the
perimeter of the hospital campus provides 100-300 feet of horizontal
separation and 40-80 feet of vertical distance between the campus and
homes, in some areas obstructing views of the hospital and beyond to
views to the east. Some of these homes overlook the hospital campus and
will be able to see the 85 -foot Inpatient Building in the central portion of
the campus.
As part of the project conditions of approval, the project is required to
augment the vegetation on the northern slope to further screen views of the
Inpatient Building and other campus facilities. Per the conditions of
approval, the applicant shall submit a landscaping plan to the City for
review and approval and plant the vegetation within 120 days of Master
Plan approval. By planting additional trees within 120 days of project
approval, this will allow time for the vegetation on the northern slope to
mature and create a visual buffer, prior to the construction of the Inpatient
Building, which is expected to be built several years after the initial
Master Plan approval.
The City's Architectural Design Guidelines describes Valencia as having
"a mixture of bright colors, natural materials, and contemporary design."
The architectural design intent of the.Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial
Hospital Master Plan is to be compatible with the established Valencia
community, while upgrading the architectural quality of the existing
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 25 of 32
campus and establishing a distinctive identity. The Master Plan design
follows the design considerations regarding wall surfaces, wall articulation
and accents, and exterior colors listed for the Valencia community and
incorporates a number of the commercial design elements listed for
commercial developments regarding site planning and design, building
design, utility and mechanical screening, pedestrian linkages, and paving
treatment, among others. In this way, the proposed Master Plan is
consistent with the City's Architectural Design Guidelines and the
intended design character for the established Valencia community.
MOB and PSI, which front McBean Parkway and are planned to be built
as the first Master Plan improvements, employ common design motifs to
create a unified look to the street edge. The conditions of approval require
all subsequent buildings and parking structures to include consistent
architectural features and enhancements. Specifically, MOB 1 features a
prominent cornice along the roofline in keeping with the upscale Valencia -
style architecture of the community. The building colors include the
earthy tones of the retail and commercial establishments further along on
McBean Parkway, avoiding a stark institutional appearance that tends to
be common among hospital facilities. The project uses darker accent
colors for the sun screens, stair towers, and an entrance canopy. Both
MOB 1 and PS 1 are articulated in such a way as to set up vertical rhythms
that break up the lengths of the buildings. The use of elements, such as
sun screens, gives a sense of depth and creates a human scale while adding
visual interest.
PSI incorporates a metalwork design and green screens along the
structure's facades to add a decorative element and create an opportunity
for vine growth up the sides of the structure. The sweeping metal design
places an emphasis on the horizontal lines to break up the massing of the
structure. The green screens will soften the visual impact of the structure
fagade and overall massing along McBean Parkway.
As a result of Master Plan reductions and revisions and the addition of
enhanced landscaping and architectural features, the HMNMH Master
Plan will not have an adverse effect on the desired neighborhood
character.
iv. The generation of traffic and the capacity and physical character of
surrounding streets;
With imposition of the mitigation measures identified in the September
2008 Revised Draft EIR and listed in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, implementation of the proposed project would meet
the City of Santa Clarita's performance criteria for arterial roadways and
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 26 of 32
intersections and would have less than significant traffic impacts for the
interim year scenario. All other identified project traffic impacts
occurring over the 15 -year life of the Master Plan project, such as on-site
circulation, site access and Los Angeles County CMP analysis, were
concluded to be at less than significant levels, and did not require
mitigation. In addition, the project, will contribute Bridge and
Thoroughfare fees and dedicate a minimum of 58 feet of public right-of-
way from the centerline along the entire McBean Parkway project frontage
plus an additional right-of-way dedication on-site to accommodate a new
right -turn lane from eastbound McBean Parkway to southbound Orchard
Village Road to address future traffic conditions beyond the scope of this
project.
Under the long-range cumulative scenario (2030), traffic impacts at two
intersections (McBean Parkway/Valencia Boulevard intersection and
McBean Parkway/Orchard Village Road intersection) were identified to
occur after the life of the 15 -year Master Plan, resulting from the buildout
of the Santa Clarita Valley and all known projects, which includes the
HMNMH Master Plan. However, these impacts are mitigated to less than
significant, as described below.
For the McBean Parkway / Valencia Boulevard intersection, a mitigation
measure has been included to require the HMNMH Master Plan to
mitigate the project's contribution toward traffic impacts at this
intersection prior to construction of MOB 3 through payment of
appropriate Bridge & Thoroughfare District fees.
In addition, as noted in the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR, the project
proposes to dedicate sufficient right-of-way at the McBean
Parkway/Orchard Village Road intersection that would accommodate
future improvements resulting from cumulative development that is
anticipated to occur beyond the 15 -year Master Plan. A mitigation
measure has also been included to require the HMNMH Master Plan to
mitigate the project's contribution toward these impacts (30.5 percent of
the cost of the improvement) prior to construction of MOB 3 through
payment of appropriate Bridge & Thoroughfare District fees.
The payment of B&T fees, per the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program and the project Conditions of Approval, will serve as adequate
mitigation for cumulative impacts at these two intersections and, as a
result, will reduce cumulative impacts to less than significant. In addition,
the Development Agreement further requires the applicant to construct a
portion of the realignment along its property frontage and provide an
additional $500,000 over and above its Bridge & Thoroughfare, fee
obligations.
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 27 of 32
V. The suitability of the site for the type and intensity of use or development
which is proposed;
As explained in Section 2.a and Section 2.6.i, the hospital campus has
been operational for 33 years and was planned as part of the Valencia
Master Plan. The type of use, hospital and medical services, and its
location are appropriate as the hospital campus is located on a major
arterial roadway (McBean Parkway) in proximity to Interstate 5, the
Valley's regional town center, higher educational institutions, employment
centers and business parks, an amusement park, other medical facilities,
and a large residential population extending throughout the City of Santa
Clarita and unincorporated Los Angeles County.
With regard to the intensity of the use, multiple revisions to the original
master plan proposal have reduced a number of the land use, traffic, noise
and visual impacts as discussed in the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR.
The original project submitted in 2004 proposed two development phases
over a 25 -year master plan timeframe with 583,619 square feet of net new
square footage of hospital and medical office space for a total campus
buildout of 923,690 square feet. The current revised 2008 Master Plan
will increase the existing square footage of the hospital campus from
340,071 square feet to 667,434 square feet, a 327,363 net square -foot
increase over a 15 -year timeframe. This represents a 56 percent decrease
in new net square footage from the 2004 Master Plan proposal.
The modifications to building and structure placement, building
orientation, building height, architectural fagade treatments, and enhanced
landscaping have resulted in a master plan project that has greater
sensitivity to neighboring, residential properties and softens the visual
change from these neighborhoods. In addition, both the conditions of
approval and the mitigation measures tied to each component of project
implementation will reduce impacts resulting from the intensification of
use.
vi. The harmful effect, if any, upon environmental quality and natural
resources.
The September 2008 Revised Draft EIR analyzed the full range of
potential environmental impacts that could result from the implementation
of the proposed HMNMH Master Plan including land use, traffic, noise,
air quality, solid waste, utilities, public services and visual impacts, among
others. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program lists numerous
mitigations, by environmental area, that shall be applied to the project's
implementation phases. These measures are specifically designed to avoid
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 28 of 32
or lessen environmental impacts, or to reduce the level of potential
impacts to less than significant. As for the project's impact on natural
resources, the subject property is located within an established, mature,
master -planned . community where existing roadway and utility
infrastructure is already in place. All development associated with master
plan implementation will occur on an already developed, improved
medical campus and will not directly harm natural resources. Of the 115
existing trees located along the HMNMH campus frontage or within the
McBean Parkway landscaped median, 46 trees will be removed as part of
Master Plan implementation for site preparation and roadway
improvements. The project proposes to mitigate any visual or natural
resource impact due to tree removal by planting 64 new trees — seven trees
within the McBean Parkway median and 57 trees along the HMNMH
frontage, for a total of 133 existing and new trees.
A Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in the areas of. (1)
construction and cumulative air quality; (2) cumulative global climate
change; (3) construction, operations and cumulative solid waste; and (4)
construction noise for specific impacts that cannot be reduced to a less
than significant level, regardless of the mitigation measures. With the
adoption of the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council
has determined that the benefits resulting from project implementation
outweigh the impacts in the above environmental categories and that the
project will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent
uses, residents, buildings, structures, or natural resources.
C. That the proposed location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the
proposed use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained
will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
Expansion of the HMNMH campus facilities will have some impacts, as
identified in the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR. However, from an
operations standpoint, the expanded use of the existing hospital campus for
medical and hospital -related services will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare. In fact, the availability of emergency medical services,
emergency helicopter transport to and from the medical campus, and expanded
inpatient and outpatient medical care will provide a beneficial service to the Santa
Clarita Valley on a regional level that promotes the public health, safety and well
being of the community. As previously stated in Section 2.b.vi, all potential
environmental impacts have been analyzed in the September 2008 Revised Draft
EIR and mitigation measures have been assigned, as appropriate, to avoid and/or
reduce any potentially significant impacts that would affect the public health,
safety or welfare, or properties and improvements in the vicinity of the project
site. In addition, location, design and size modifications to the proposed buildings
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 29 of 32
and structures were incorporated into the Master Plan to address the traffic, visual,
and noise -related concerns of the community and to ensure that the expansion is
not materially injurious to properties in the immediate area. As discussed in
Section 2.b.vi, to the extent that there are unavoidable significant environmental
impacts, the City Council has determined, in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, that the benefits of the project outweigh its environmental
impacts.
d. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the
City's Unified Development Code, except for an approved variance or
adjustment.
The proposed project, with an approved Master Plan, is consistent with the
objectives of the Unified Development Code and development requirements of the
City of Santa Clarita. All Unified Development Code provisions have been met
and, for that reason, the project components do not necessitate a variance or
adjustment.
SECTION 3. WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT. The City Council hereby determines that,
based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without
limitation, the entire HMNMH Master Plan Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other
evidence received at the public hearings held on the HMNMH Master Plan and EIR, reports and
other transmittals from City staff to the City Council, and upon studies and investigations made
by the City Council and on its behalf, including, without limitation, the water supply analysis
within the EIR, projected water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the
HMNMH Master Plan project, in addition to existing and planned future uses.
SECTION 4. Based upon the testimony and other evidence, if any, received at the public
hearing, and upon studies and investigations made by the City Council and on its behalf, the City
Council further finds and determines that this proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan,
subject to approval of the Master Plan.
SECTION 5. The City Council hereby approves Master Case 04-325 (Master Plan 04-022) for
the Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan to guide future development of the
medical campus facilities over a 15 -year period to include building heights in excess of the
City's 35' height threshold, the helipad operation, and the exportation of dirt (93,293 cubic
yards) over the life of the project, subject to the Conditions of Approval, see Exhibit A.
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and certify this
record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken.
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 30 of 32
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of 52008.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof,
held on the _ day of , 2008, by the following vote of the City Council:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 31 of 32
EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION
HENRY MAYO NEWHALL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN
EXHIBITS
Master Case 04-325
Resolution
Page 32 of 32
EXHIBIT B TO RESOLUTION
HENRY MAYO NEWHALL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
EXHIBIT B to CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION _
Master Case 04-325
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan
Master Plan 04-022
Development Agreement 06-001
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — NOVEMBER 19, 2008
GENERAL CONDITIONS
GCI. The approval of this Master Plan for the Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Project
shall expire if not put into use within two years from the date of this approval, unless it is
extended in accordance with the terms and provisions of the City of Santa Clarita's Unified
Development Code or the approval and implementation of a Development Agreement. The
Master Plan entitlement is for a period of 15 years from the date of this approval.
GC2. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying the Department of Community
Development, in writing, of any change in ownership within 30 days of said change.
GC3. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "applicant" shall include the
applicant and any other persons, corporation, or other entity making use of this grant. The
applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santa Clarita, its agents,
officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents,
officers, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Project by the City,
which action is provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the City
becomes aware of any such claim, action, or proceeding, the City shall promptly notify the
applicant, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be
responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. Nothing contained in this Condition
prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, if both of
the following occur: 1) The City bears its own attorney's fees and costs; and 2) the City defends
the action in good faith. The applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement
unless the settlement is approved by the applicant.
GC4. The property shall be developed and maintained in substantial 'conformance with the
approvals granted by the City. Any modifications shall be subject to further review by the City.
GC5. The applicant shall sign and have notarized the attached Acceptance Form. This form
shall be returned to the City's Planning Division.
GC6. It is further declared and made a condition of this permit that if any condition hereof is
violated, or if any law, statute, or ordinance is violated, the City may commence proceedings to
revoke this approval.
EXHIBIT A, RESOLUTION _
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan
Conditions of Approval
Master Case 04-325 — Master Plan 04-022 / Development Agreement 06-001
Page 2 of 28
GC7. All mitigation measures identified in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP) for the project shall be considered conditions of approval and implemented in
conformance with the MMRP.
GC8. All Conditions of Approval contained within this document shall be considered as
requirements, unless modified by an approved Development Agreement.
J
GC9. Unless otherwise specified in this document or if not applicable as determined by the
Director of Community Development, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed prior to the
issuance of the first building occupancy permit.
GC10. In the event that these Conditions of Approval require any action to be taken by the
applicant within a specific time period, such time period shall be tolled during the pendency of
(i) any legal action challenging the approvals listed in GCI or the certification by the City
Council of the environmental impact report for the Master Plan and Development Agreement, or
(ii) any action challenging or contesting the adoption of the Development Agreement for the
project between the City and the applicant.
PLANNING DIVISION
General Planning Conditions
PL1. The applicant shall have permission to construct the proposed project in accordance with
(i) the approved Master Plan attached as Exhibit `B" to City Council Resolution 08-, (ii) the
Conditions of Approval, and (iii) the Development Agreement for the project. This approval
shall allow for the implementation of the Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan
over a 15 -year period. With the exception of Medical Office Building 1 and Parking Structure 1,
all buildings and parking structures shown on the Master Plan are conceptual. The Inpatient
Building, MOB 2, MOB 3, PS 2, PS 3 and PS 4 shall be subject to the approval of a
Development Review and approval of the Director of Community Development for conformance
with the Master Plan and all relevant development codes. The Director may refer any
development proposal, except those previously reviewed in a public hearing, to the Planning
Commission for their review as part of the Development Review process, provided the Director
makes a determination that the proposed building or parking structure is not consistent with the
approved Master Plan or the certified EIR.
The project is permitted to increase the existing square footage of the hospital campus from
340,071 square feet' to 667,434 square feet, a 327,363 net square -foot increase. Specifically, the
applicant has permission to construct the buildings and parking structures in accordance with the
square footage and building/structure heights provided below:
EXHIBIT A, RESOLUTION _
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan
Conditions of Approval
Master Case 04-325 — Master Plan 04-022 / Development Agreement 06-001
Page 3 of 28
New Hospital & Medical Office Buildings
INPATIENT BUILDING: A 125,363 square -foot, 120 -bed Inpatient Building located in
the central portion of the campus. This building will be 85 feet in height to the top of the
parapet and 100 feet in height to the top of the wind sock and elevator shaft. This
building will also include a rooftop helipad;
2. MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING 1: An 80,000 square -foot medical office building
(MOB 1) measuring 45.5 feet in height to the top of the parapet and 51.5 feet to the top of
the screen and roof;
3. MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING 2: A 60,000 square -foot medical office building (MOB
2) measuring 45.5 feet to the top of the parapet and 51.5 feet to the top of the screen and
roof access;
4. MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING 3: A 60,000 square -foot medical office building (MOB
3) measuring 45.5 feet to the top of the parapet and 51.5 feet to the top of the screen and
roof access; and
5. CENTRAL PLANT: A 10,000 square -foot Central Plant building measuring 26 feet in
height to provide support services to the proposed Inpatient Building.
Parking Structures
PARKING STRUCTURE 1: A six -level (five levels above ground with one subterranean
level), 750 -space parking structure (PS 1) along the McBean Parkway frontage at
Avenida Navarre. The parking structure height will be 47 feet to the top of the parapet,
49.5 feet to the top of the parking lot lights, and 60.5 feet to the top of the wind sock.
This parking structure will also include a rooftop helipad;
2. PARKING STRUCTURE 2: A six -level (five levels above ground with one subterranean
level), 579 -space parking structure (PS 2) in the northwestern portion of the campus. The
parking structure height will be 47 feet to the top of the parapet and 49.5 feet to the top of
the parking lot lights. A solid wall along the western facade of the parking structure will
be provided prior to construction of PS 3. PS 3 will connect directly to PS 2;
3. PARKING STRUCTURE 3: A four -level (three levels above ground with one
subterranean level), 278 -space parking structure (PS 3) in the northwestern corner of the
campus. The parking structure height will be 27 feet to the top of the parapet, and 30 feet
to the top of the parking lot lights. A solid wall along the western facade of the parking
structure will be provided; and
4. PARKING STRUCTURE 4: A three-level (two subterranean levels and one surface
level), 316 -space parking structure (PS 4) to be located along McBean Parkway at the
EXHIBIT A, RESOLUTION _
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan
Conditions of Approval
Master Case 04-325 — Master Plan 04-022 / Development Agreement 06-001
Page 4 of 28
intersection of McBean Parkway and Orchard Village Road. This area will initially be
improved with a 71 -space surface parking lot to be improved with the construction of
MOB 1.
Additional Master Plan Components
♦ Add nine new beds in the Nursing Pavilion Building.
♦ Demolish the 8,000 square foot Foundation building to accommodate Medical Office
Building 3.
♦ Reconfigure surface parking to provide a total of 308 on-site spaces.
♦ Provide helipads on the rooftop of Parking Structure 1 and the Inpatient Building.
♦ Provide right turn pockets and modify traffic signals along the McBean Parkway project
frontage.
♦ Reconfigure 9,770 square feet of current administration space in the existing hospital
building to accommodate 18 additional new ICU beds. The current hospital administrative
functions would move to space within Medical Office Building 1.
♦ Export up to 93,293 cubic yards of dirt associated with subsurface excavation for the
Inpatient Building and Parking Structures 1, 2, 3, and 4 over the life of the project.
♦ Dedicate a minimum of 58 feet of public right-of-way from the centerline along the project
frontage plus additional right-of-way dedication to accommodate a new right -turn lane from
eastbound McBean Parkway to southbound Orchard Village Road to address future traffic
conditions.
PL2. The applicant shall provide for a community liaison that will be available to respond to
community issues. This liaison shall prepare an ongoing community outreach plan to ensure
regular communication with residents in proximity to the hospital campus. This plan shall
include, at a minimum, an annual open house over the term of the 15 -year Master Plan,
advertised to all people within 1,000 feet of the hospital campus. The community outreach plan
shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of the first
building permit.
PL3. The project shall fully comply with the Title 16 and 17 of the Unified Development Code
(UDC) including, but not limited to, Development Standards, Parking Standards, Sign
Ordinance, Landscaping Standards, and the Subdivision Ordinance, unless otherwise provided in
the Development Agreement.
PL4. Bike racks shall be provided throughout the project site at a ratio of 1 bike stall for each
25 parking stalls (Section 17.18.105 of the UDC). The location of these facilities shall be shown
on the site plan as part of the Development Review for each building.
EXHIBIT A, RESOLUTION _
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan
Conditions of Approval
Master Case 04-325 — Master Plan 04-022 / Development Agreement 06-001
Page 5 of 28
PL5. The applicant shall submit a photometric lighting plan as part of the Development
Review for each building and receive City approval prior to the issuance of each building permit
to ensure conformance with the City's lighting standards and to reduce lighting impacts to
surrounding residential units. All exterior lights shall utilize automatic timers and be of low -
intensity design while providing adequate security for the campus. Any lighting required by the
California Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division for establishment of the helipads
shall not be restricted by this condition.
PL6. No signage is approved with this Master Plan approval. The applicant shall prepare a
comprehensive sign program for the campus consistent with the City's Sign Ordinance. This
sign program shall include all monument and wall signs for the proposed campus. In addition,
the sign program shall include a unified theme for on-site directional signs for directions to
parking structures and clear and concise signage to the emergency room. This shall include
wayfinding signage.
PL7. The applicant shall abide by the current City of Santa Clarita Noise Ordinance as it
relates to the hours of construction, or between the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM Monday
through Friday and 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Saturday, whichever is more restrictive. There shall
be no construction activities, including loading and unloading of materials and machinery or
vehicles idling, outside of the listed hours, on Sundays or on federal holidays, unless prior
approval is obtained. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in a "stop work"
notice being issued for up to 180 days and/or fines. The applicants shall provide this information
to all contractors performing work on the project site as part of their contracts to ensure
conformance.
Helipad Operations
PL8. The proposed project includes the construction and maintenance of two helipads. The
first helipad will be constructed on Parking Structure 1 and serve as the primary helipad until the
Inpatient Building, is operational. The second rooftop helipad to be constructed on the Inpatient
Building will serve as the primary, long-term helipad. Only one helipad shall be designated for
operation at a time, unless operation of both helipads is needed during a City -declared
emergency.
PL9. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of OSHPD (Office of Statewide Health
Planning and Development) with regard to operation of the helipads.
PL10. The applicant shall conduct a noise study within three months of construction of the
helipad on Parking Structure 1 and the Inpatient Building to ensure compliance with all
applicable Federal, State and local standards. This noise study shall conform to the standards,
methodology and scope of the Helicopter Noise Analysis conducted for the Henry Mayo
Newhall Memorial Hospital by BridgeNet International.
EXHIBIT A, RESOLUTION _
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan
Conditions of Approval
Master Case 04-325 — Master Plan 04-022 / Development Agreement 06-001
Page 6 of 28
PL11. The applicant shall store all chemicals in compliance with the applicable standards
relating to the storage of hazardous chemicals and shall obtain the appropriate approvals from the
Los Angeles County Fire Department, OSHPD, and other affected agencies for the storage of
hazardous chemicals relating to a helipad.
Architectural Conditions
PL12. All structures, including those used for parking, shall include an enhanced level of
architectural detail consistent with MOB 1 and PS 1 approved with this Master Plan and to the
satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. All windows shall utilize minimally
reflective glass and all other materials shall minimize reflective glare. This shall include
decorative metal tubing elements on all parking structure facades visible from adjacent parcels or
McBean Parkway to allow vine growth up the sides of the parking structure. This shall include
provisions for an enhanced roofline cornice detail, as shown on the elevations for MOB 1 and PS
1.
PL13. All buildings require 360° architecture and must conform to all of the City's development
standards including the Commercial/Industrial Standards of the Unified Development Code
(Section 17.15.040 of the UDC) along with the Architectural Design Guidelines.
PL14. All roof -mounted equipment shall be adequately screened from public view with a
parapet/screen wall or other approved architectural treatment. The applicant shall submit a roof
plan for each building with cross sections of the building and equipment to be screened prior to
the issuance of any building permit.
PL15. The applicant shall provide pedestrian amenities as part of the project approval including
but not limited to:
(1) A direct, pedestrian walkway with pavers from Parking Structure 1 to Medical Office
Building 1;
(2) A pedestrian plaza area to provide a clear path of travel between MOB 3 with the
adjacent Parking Structure 2 and Parking Structure 3 to include landscape and hardscape
features and other pedestrian amenities to aesthetically enhance the area and soften the
massing of PS 2 and PS 3; and
(3) A covered pedestrian trellis feature between MOB 2 and the existing MOB F. This
shall include landscape and hardscape features and other pedestrian amenities that will
provide an aesthetic enhancement along the McBean Parkway corridor and provide a
clear pedestrian connection between the two buildings.
PL16. Prior to the Certificate of Occupancy for each medical office building, the applicant shall
provide adequate trash enclosures to serve the project site. The enclosures shall be architecturally
EXHIBIT A, RESOLUTION
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan
Conditions of Approval
Master Case 04-325 — Master Plan 04-022 / Development Agreement 06-001
Page 7 of 28
compatible with the Master Plan, have solid roofs, and be convenient for both tenants and for the
collection vehicles.
Parking
PLIT To maximize the on-site parking for non -construction uses, the applicant shall prepare
and implement a Parking Management Plan during the construction phases of the project. The
Plan may include provisions for (1) no construction worker parking on-site, and (2) off-site
parking at an existing facility or facilities with a parking surplus, to include a shuttle system or
other similar transportation method to and from the hospital campus. The Plan shall be approved
by the Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of any building permit
included in the HMNMH Master Plan.
PL18. All new medical office buildings shall be parked at one parking space for each 200
square feet of floor area (as defined in the City's UDC) and new hospital space shall be parked at
two parking spaces for each licensed bed plus one space for each 400 square feet of outpatient
clinic, laboratories, cafeteria, and pharmacies. In addition, loading spaces and drop-off/pick-up
areas shall be provided as part of each building in accordance with the UDC.
PL19. With the exception of the existing 48 gated, surface parking spaces designated for
physician use, no gating of parking spaces is authorized under the Master Plan approval.
PL20. No tenant can reserve any parking for their exclusive use on the hospital campus. The
only parking spaces that are exempt from this requirement include handicapped stalls, the drop-
off/pick-up area at the main hospital entrance, truck loading areas, emergency vehicle parking,
limited term parking adjacent to the emergency room, and designated hospital staff parking per
UDC Section 17.18.130.
PL21. Exclusive of handicapped parking spaces, all new parking spaces shall be a minimum of
9' wide by 18' in length and drive aisles shall be a minimum of 26' in width unless additional
width is required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department or City of Santa Clarita
Department of Public Works. Parallel parking on the "ring road" shall be a minimum of 10 feet
in width by 20 feet in length exclusive of the required drive aisle width. All other sections of the
parking requirements shall apply to this project.
PL22. Existing MOBs A-E shall be parked at the current City standard of one parking space for
each 200 square feet of floor area (as defined in the City's UDC) prior to occupancy of MOB 1.
PL23. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall record with the County
Recorder a reciprocal parking easement/agreement between the two existing parcels and any
future subdivisions affecting the parcels to encompass all parking spaces within the project site.
Prior to being filed with the County Recorder, the reciprocal parking easement/agreement shall
be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development.
EXHIBIT A, RESOLUTION _
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan
Conditions of Approval
Master Case 04-325 — Master Plan 04-022 / Development Agreement 06-001
Page 8 of 28
PL24. Additional Parking and On -Site Circulation Implementation Strategies listed in Section 6
of Appendix K, the Parking Study Report dated May 19, 2008, for the Henry Mayo Newhall
Memorial Hospital EIR shall be implemented in order to maintain adequate parking for the
campus and to avoid any unanticipated impacts to nearby residential streets during construction
and/or project operations. These strategies shall include applying a "crosscheck" formula prior
to each stage of development, monitoring actual peak parking demands following each stage of
Master Plan development, and may include implementation of electronic wayfinding displays at
strategic locations tied to parking availability monitoring and "real time" reporting, as deemed
necessary by the Director of Community Development.
PL25. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for MOB1, all parallel parking spaces
located along the campus ring road shall be marked, subject to the review and approval of the
Director of Community Development.
Landscape
LRI. The Landscape Plans submitted for each Master Plan building and parking structure shall
conform to all current Municipal Code/Unified Development Code requirements for landscaping.
Applicable Code sections include but are not limited to:
§ 17.15.020(J)(9) (property development standards)
§ 17.15.040((A)(4) (property development standards)
§ 17.18.070(E) (parking standards)
§ 17.28 (drainage and terracing/erosion control)
§ 13.76 (parkway trees)
LR2. The applicant shall comply with the tree preservation plan submitted as part of the Master
Plan. Final landscape plans prepared for the specific buildings and parking structures shall be
consistent with the Master Plan approval and shall show existing trees to be removed or
relocated and existing trees to remain. Specify location, species, and caliper size of existing
trees.
LR3. The applicant shall provide trees and other landscape plantings along the project's
frontage in a manner to screen the hospital campus buildings and parking structures from
McBean Parkway and to maintain the landscape characteristics of the McBean Parkway corridor
consistent with the conceptual landscape plan shown as part of the Master Plan exhibits. The
plantings shall be installed at the time frontage improvements are made and prior to occupancy
of any new Master Plan building or parking structure. The applicant shall submit a landscape
plan of the McBean Parkway frontage for City review that specifies species, locations, and
container sizes at time of planting. Tree sizes shall be 24" box minimum with 25% of the trees
36" box, 10% of the trees 48" box, and 5% of the trees 60" box to achieve buffering to maintain
the landscape characteristic.
EXHIBIT A, RESOLUTION
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan
Conditions of Approval
Master Case 04-325 — Master Plan 04-022 / Development Agreement 06-001
Page 9 of 28
LR4. Within 120 days of the approval of the project, the applicant shall install significant
plantings along the western property line to screen all future site development from the adjacent
residences. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan for City review within 60 days of project
approval that shows locations of tree and shrub plantings, species, and container size at time of
planting. Tree sizes shall be 24" box at minimum with 25% of the trees 36" box and 15% of the
trees 48" box containers and be of suitable species in order to achieve adequate coverage to the
satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. Tree screening may also be
supplemented by appropriate species of 15 gallon shrubs.
LRS. Within 120 days of the approval of the project, the applicant shall augment the planting
on the northern slope to further screen the buildings and parking structures on the HMNMH
campus from the Summit residential community to the north. Similar to the timeframe listed
above in Condition LR4, the applicant shall submit for City review a landscape plan within 60
days of project approval that shows locations of tree and shrub plantings, species, and container
size at time of planting. Tree sizes shall be 24" box at a minimum and be of suitable species in
order to achieve increased buffering to the satisfaction of the Director of Community
Development,
LR6. Each parking structure shall include a facade trellis planting system such as a greenscreen
modular trellis, or its equivalent, on the sides that are visible from the public streets and adjacent
residences. The facade trellis system shall include permanent irrigation and be maintained in
perpetuity. In addition, each parking structure shall include landscape buffer areas directly
adjacent and shall include plant material that will adequately provide additional screening of the
parking structures.
LR7. Surface parking on top of Parking Structure 4 shall include roof top planting that totals at
least five percent of the gross surface parking area. The surface lot shall also contain adequate
tree plantings suitable for rooftop/container planting conditions at a ratio of trees to parking stalls
that is feasible and to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. The surface
lot shall include a 36" hedge screen at the perimeter where visible from McBean Parkway. The
applicant shall submit a landscape plan for City review that addresses these requirements.
LRB. Conventional surface parking lots shall include planting areas that total at least five
percent of the gross lot area. Parking lots shall include canopy trees capable of attaining at least
30' in height and at least 30' canopy diameter and arranged such that 50 percent of the paved lot
area is shaded. Surface lots shall, at a minimum, contain one tree per four parking stalls.
LR9. The community holiday tree, currently located at the eastern side of the main hospital
entry, will be retained in the short term with the construction of the 71 -space surface parking lot.
With the construction of Parking Structure 4, however, the community holiday tree would be
removed. The tree shall either be relocated or a new specimen planted at an alternative location
at the center roundabout median at the main hospital building. The community holiday tree shall
be accessible for community events and provide a focal point when entering the campus at the
EXHIBIT A, RESOLUTION
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan
Conditions of Approval
Master Case 04-325 — Master Plan 04-022 / Development Agreement 06-001
Page 10 of 28 "
main driveway. This improvement shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Community
Development.
LR10. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Inpatient Building, the applicant
shall provide a "healing garden" for the campus to the satisfaction of the Director of Community
Development. The "healing garden" shall be a space designed for passive use for patients,
visitors, and staff. It shall be suitably separated and screened from other uses, shall include
elements to engage interest—such as a water feature and plantings—and shall be adequately
accessible for the intended users.
LR11. The planting plan for any improvement on-site shall not include Eucalyptus trees. All
improvements to the landscape design are to be complementary to the characteristics of the
surrounding area and suitable for the environmental conditions of the Santa Clarita Valley.
Commonly over -planted species such as Agapanthus, Rhaphiolepis, Dietes, Pittosporum tobira,
and Phormium tenax are not permitted.
LR12. Prior to issuance of grading and building permits for each building and parking structure
identified in the Master Plan, the applicant shall provide final Landscape Plans—that includes
planting and irrigation—of the required landscaping associated with the specific building or
parking structure for review and approval. The plan shall be prepared by a California -registered
Landscape Architect who is familiar with the plant palette suitable for Santa Clarita (Sunset
Western Garden Book Zone 18).
LR13. Final Landscape Plans for each building and parking structure are subject to review and
shall conform to the following:
i.Trees visible from the property's public street frontage shall be a minimum 24" box size
with 25% of the trees 36" box, 10% of the trees 48" box, and 5% of the trees 60" box size
specimens (Santa Clarita Architectural Design Guidelines adopted December 2002).
ii.When applicable, Site Plans or Landscape Plans shall include a calculation showing the
square footage of surface parking and percentage of planting area in parking lot(s).
Surface parking lots shall include planting areas that total at least five percent of the gross
lot. (§ 17.18.070(E) (2))
iii.Surface parking lots shall have at least one 24" box tree per four parking stalls and 36"
box trees in planters at the ends of parking aisles. The plans shall show tree species
selection, distribution and spacing to provide 50 percent canopy coverage of all surface
parking areas within five years of planting. Parking spaces within parking structures are
exempt from this requirement. (§ 17.18.070(E)(10))
iv.Landscape plans shall show screen hedges and/or planted earthen berms, not less than
thirty (30) inches or more than forty-two (42) inches in height, at specified locations on
EXHIBIT A, RESOLUTION _
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan
Conditions of Approval
Master Case 04-325 — Master Plan 04-022 / Development Agreement 06-001
Page 11 of 28
parking lot perimeters. Individual hedge plants shall be 36" tall and spaced so that they
touch leaf -to -leaf at time of final inspection. (§ 17.18.070(D) (1))
v.Where parking and/or drive aisles abut walls, fences, property lines, walkways or
structures, landscape and site plans shall show planter beds delineated by continuous
concrete curbing at least six (6) inches high and six (6) inches wide, at least (3) feet from
such walls, fences, etc. These planter beds shall be landscaped except as permitted by the
Director of Community Development. (§ 17.18.070(E) (9))
vi.The plant palette shall not include any plants listed as invasive exotic pest plants by the
California Invasive Plant Council (lists available on-line), or other plants determined to
be invasive by a competent botanist or biologist.
vii.Landscape plans shall show plant material to screen, at maturity, all trash enclosures,
transformer boxes, vault boxes, backflow devices, and other exterior mechanical
equipment. Screening material may include trees, shrubs (15 -gallon minimum size),
clinging vines, etc. Masonry block (concrete masonry unit) trash enclosures shall be
screened with both shrubs and clinging vines. (§ 17.1 S. 040(B) (1-4)
viii.Landscape plans shall show locations of all lighting standards,- where applicable.
ix.The applicant shall apply jute netting to all graded or disturbed slopes five feet (5') and
higher in vertical elevation and elsewhere where needed for erosion control, and shall
landscape graded slopes. (§ 17.28.020(B))
x.The applicant shall design all irrigation systems for water conservation.
xi.The applicant shall place water -conserving mulching material on all exposed soil in
planting areas not covered by turf grass or significant ground cover. Mulching material
may include, and is not limited to, shredded bark, river rock, crushed rock, pea gravel,
etc., and must be at least three inches deep.
xii.Trees planted within fourteen feet of the paved road section along McBean Parkway shall
conform to Municipal Code § 13.76.110 et seq (Parkway Tree Influence Area) and the
property owner shall irrigate and maintain these trees according to City standards.
xiii.Trees planted within City right-of-way shall conform to Municipal Code § 13.76 et seq
(Parkway Trees).
LR14. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for each building and parking
structure, the applicant shall install all irrigation and planting, including irrigation controllers,
staking, mulching, etc., according to the approved Landscape Plan. The Director of Community
Development may impose additional inspection fees if more than one landscape installation
inspection is required. The applicant shall submit to the Director of Community Development a
EXHIBIT A, RESOLUTION _
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan
Conditions of Approval
Master Case 04-325 — Master Plan 04-022 / Development Agreement 06-001
Page 12 of 28
letter from the project landscape architect certifying that all landscape materials and irrigation
have been installed and function according to the approved landscape plans.
LR15. Prior to planting, the applicant shall flag all tree locations along the project's street -facing
frontage and call the Planning Division, Landscape Review official for a pre -planting inspection.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES / ENGINEERING DIVISION
General Requirements — Mapping
ENI. Prior to issuance of the first building or parking structure permit, the applicant shall record
a reciprocal access easement and maintenance agreement for all shared driveways and drive
aisles within the project site, as directed by the City Engineer.
EN2. Prior to issuance of each building and parking structure permit, the applicant shall
quitclaim or relocate easements running through proposed structures, as directed by the City
Engineer.
EN3. Prior to issuance of each building and parking structure permit, the applicant shall grant
any necessary easements by separate document. The easement documents shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer.
Grading, Drainage & Geology Requirements
EN4. Should evidence of archaeological or paleontological resources occur during grading and
construction activities, operations would be required to cease and a qualified archaeologist shall
be contacted to determine the appropriate course of action. In the event human remains are
encountered during earth removal or disturbance activities, all activities would be required to
cease immediately and a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor shall be
immediately contacted. The Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to Sections 5097.98 and
5097.99 of the Public Resources Code relative to Native American remains.
EN5. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for each building and parking structure, the applicant
shall submit a grading plan consistent with the approved Master Plan and Conditions of
Approval. The grading plan shall be based on a detailed engineering geotechnical report
specifically approved by the geologist and/or soils engineer that addresses all submitted
recommendations.
EN6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for each OSHPD building, the applicant shall
comply with all State requirements for construction. A geology report must be submitted to the
State for their approval.
ENT Geotechnical engineering studies shall be performed by a qualified geotechnical firm for
each new on-site building to evaluate the nature and extent of loose alluvial soils. The
EXHIBIT A, RESOLUTION _
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan
Conditions of Approval
Master Case 04-325 — Master Plan 04-022 / Development Agreement 06-001
Page 13 of 28
geotechnical firm shall provide construction recommendations to minimize impacts related to
seismically -induced settlement (i.e., removal and replacement of loose alluvial soils with
engineered fill, performing in situ densification, or supporting all future structures that are
underlain by unsuitable soils on piles and grade beams). Any recommendations in the study
shall be implemented during site preparation, grading, and construction.
EN8. A registered State Geologist shall prepare a geotechnical engineering study prior to
issuance of grading permits. In addition, corrosive soils shall be addressed for the proposed
project and in accordance with the latest building code requirements, mitigation measures shall
be recommended for buried metal piping protection. Any recommendations in the study shall be
implemented during site grading and construction.
EN9. While the project specific geotechnical studies are being prepared, a certified corrosion
engineer shall be consulted to determine the necessary project design features, that are standard
in the corrosion engineering profession, to minimize the effects of corrosive soils. Buried metal
piping shall be protected with suitable coatings, wrappings, seals or other suitable material based
upon the corrosion engineer's conclusions. Any recommendations in the study shall be
implemented during site grading and construction.
EN10. The Master Plan shows a maximum export of 93,293 cubic yards of dirt over the life of
the project. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for each building/structure that involves export,
the applicant shall submit a copy of the approval for the export -receiving site and an exhibit of
the proposed haul route. The applicant is responsible to obtain approval from all applicable
agencies for the dirt hauling operation.
EN 11. The applicant shall comply with the following requirements for the dirt hauling operation:
■ Obtain an encroachment permit from the City's Engineering Division for the work.
■ The hours of operation shall be as follows:
Monday — Friday: 9:00 AM — 3:00 PM
Saturday: 8:00 AM — 6:00 PM
No work on Sundays and holidays
Provide continuous street sweeping service on all City streets along the haul route during
all hours of work to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Provide traffic control and flagging personnel along the haul route to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
EN12. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for each building/structure that involves export of
dirt, the applicant shall pay a Haul Route Pavement Repair Security Cash Deposit (Deposit) of
$1.00 per cubic yard of dirt to be exported, which may be increased or decreased based upon an
estimated cost to complete the repairs of streets damaged during the dirt hauling operation. The
limits and scope of the repairs shall be consistent with the approved haul route and shall be
EXHIBIT A, RESOLUTION _
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan
Conditions of Approval
Master Case 04-325 — Master Plan 04-022 / Development Agreement 06-001
Page 14 of 28
determined by the City Engineer. In order to receive a refund of the Deposit, the applicant shall
repair all pavement damaged by the dirt hauling operation, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer, within one year from the completion of the dirt hauling operation. If the pavement
repairs are not completed within one year, the City may use the Deposit to complete the repairs.
Any funds remaining at the completion of the repairs will be refunded to the applicant. If the
Deposit is insufficient to complete the repairs, the City shall seek additional funds from the
applicant.
Street Improvement Requirements
EN13. All streets shall be designed in accordance with the City's Unified Development Code
and street design criteria, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
EN14. Prior to any construction (including, but not limited to, drive approaches, sidewalks, curb
and gutter), trenching or grading within public right-of-way, the applicant shall submit a street
improvement plan consistent with the approved Master Plan and Conditions of Approval, and
obtain encroachment permits from the Engineering Division.
EN 15. Prior to issuance of building permits for each building or parking structure, the applicant
shall dedicate to the City the additional street right-of-way required for all street improvements
as identified in the certified Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
EN 16. Prior to occupancy of each building or parking structure, the applicant shall construct all
street improvements as identified in the certified Final Environmental Impact Report and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program required to adequately serve this development,
unless modified by an approved Development Agreement.
ENIT Prior to issuance of the first building or parking structure permit, the applicant shall
dedicate additional street right-of-way for a minimum of 58 feet from centerline on McBean
Parkway along the project frontage, as directed by the City Engineer. See Traffic Engineering's
and Transit's conditions of approval for additional right-of-way dedication requirements.
EN18. The applicant shall construct drive approaches per APWA Standard 110-1, Type C.
EN 19. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements along the frontage of the
project site as identified in the updated Traffic Study, and as directed by the City Engineer:
Street
Curb &
Base &
Street
Street
Landscaped
Name
Gutter
Paving
Lights
Trees
Sidewalk
Median
McBean
Parkway
X
X
X
X
X
X
EXHIBIT A, RESOLUTION _
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan
Conditions of Approval
Master Case 04-325 — Master Plan 04-022 / Development Agreement 06-001
Page 15 of 28
EN20. The applicant shall reconstruct the main entrance to the site (McBean Parkway at Orchard
Village Road) as a standard street intersection.
EN21. Prior to occupancy of the first building or parking structure, the applicant shall construct
wheelchair ramps at intersections along the project frontage or those off-site intersections
requiring improvements as identified in the certified Final Environmental Impact Report and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as directed by the City Engineer.
EN22. Prior to occupancy of the first building or parking structure, the applicant shall provide
and install street name signs along the project frontage or those off-site intersections requiring
improvements as identified in the certified Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, as directed by the City Engineer.
EN23. Prior to occupancy of the first building or parking structure, the applicant shall replace
abandoned driveways along the project's frontage with standard curb, gutter, sidewalk, and
pavement per APWA standards, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
EN24. Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy of each building shell and parking
structure, the applicant shall repair any broken or damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk, and
refurbish the half section of pavement on streets abutting the project, to the discretion of the City
Engineer.
Sewer Improvement Requirements
EN25. Prior to issuance of building permits for the first building requiring sewer service, the
applicant shall provide a sewer area study in accordance with City policies for review and
approval by the City Engineer. The study shall analyze the proposed sewage from the project
based on ultimate build -out. Updated sewer area studies shall be required prior to the issuance of
building permits for each new building.
EN26. Prior to occupancy of the first building requiring sewer service, the applicant shall
construct all sewer upgrades per the approved sewer area study, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
EN27. The on-site sewer shall be a privately maintained system. All sewer lines shall have a
minimum 2% slope and pipe inverts shall be 6 feet below the curb grade, or built to a public
standard. Prior to grading plan approval, the applicant shall demonstrate that all sewer pipes
meet these requirements with the proposed building pad elevations. Private on-site sewers are
reviewed and approved by the City's Building & Safety Division.
EN28. Connections to existing public sewers shall be reviewed and approved by the Los Angeles
County Department of Public Works (Sewer Maintenance Division), Los Angeles County
Sanitation District, and the City Engineer.
EXHIBIT A, RESOLUTION _
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan
Conditions of Approval
Master Case 04-325 — Master Plan 04-022 / Development Agreement 06-001
Page 16 of 28
Bonds, Fees and Miscellaneous Requirements
EN29. Prior to issuance of encroachment permits for public improvements (Street, Sewer, Storm
Drain, Water), the applicant, by agreement with the City Engineer, shall guarantee installation of
the improvements through faithful performance bonds, letters of credit or any other acceptable
means. Occupancy shall be withheld if the improvements are not completed.
EN30. Prior to issuance of each building permit, the applicant shall pay the applicable Bridge
and Thoroughfare (B&T) District Fee to implement the Circulation Element of the General Plan
as a means of mitigating the traffic impact of this project.
This project is located in the Valencia B&T District. The B&T rate is subject to change
and is based on the rate at the time of payment. The total square footage of the proposed
buildings as provided by the applicant is as follows:
MOB 1 = 80,000 SF
MOB 2 = 60,000 SF
MOB 3 = 60,000 SF
Inpatient Building = 125,363 SF
Central Plant = 10,000 SF
Total = 335,363 SF
The B&T Fee shall be calculated as follows: = Proposed building SF x 5 x District Fee
43,560
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION
TE 1. Adequate sight visibility is required at all intersections (street -street intersections or
driveway -street intersections) and shall follow the latest Caltrans manual for applicable
requirements. Adequate sight visibility (including corner sight visibility) shall be demonstrated
on the final map and grading plan. All necessary easements for this purpose shall be recorded
with the final map. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building
permit.
TE2. All private driveways and roadways shall intersect with a public street at 90 degrees or as
close to 90 degrees as topography permits (no less than 80 degrees). This shall be shown on all
applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit.
TE3. All project driveways shall have a minimum stacking distance (from face of curb) of 100
feet. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit.
EXHIBIT A, RESOLUTION
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan
Conditions of Approval
Master Case 04-325 — Master Plan 04-022 / Development Agreement 06 ,001
Page 17 of 28
TE4. No access will be permitted within curb return. This shall be included as a note on all
applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit.
TE5. Minimum width of all interior driveways and drive aisles shall be a minimum of 26 feet
and shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit.
TE6. Prior to issuance of the first building occupancy, the applicant shall obtain approval from
the L.A. County Fire Department for any private driveway sections.
TET Prior to issuance of the first building occupancy, the applicant shall post "No Parking—
Fire Lane" signs along all driveways with a curb -to -curb width of less than 34 feet. This shall be
shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit.
TE8. The location, width and depth of all project driveways shall conform to the approved site
plan. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. No
additional driveways shall be permitted.
TE9. Any dead-end drive aisles shall have a hammerhead or turn -around area to facilitate
vehicular movements. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first
building permit.
TE10. The site shall be designed to adequately accommodate all vehicles (e.g. automobiles,
vans, trucks) that can be expected to access the site. This includes, but is not limited to, adequate
maneuvering areas around loading zones and parking spaces, and appropriate turning radii.
TE11. Prior to issuance of the first building occupancy for MOB 2 or Inpatient Building
(whichever is first), the applicant shall provide a right-turn/deceleration lane on westbound
McBean Parkway at the main hospital driveway/Orchard Village Road. The
right-turn/deceleration lane shall have 300 feet of storage and 120 feet of taper. This shall be
shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit.
TE12. Prior to issuance of the first building occupancy for MOB 2, the applicant shall provide a
right-turn/deceleration lane on westbound McBean Parkway at the westerly hospital driveway.
The right-turn/deceleration lane shall have 300 feet of storage and 90 feet of taper and shall be
constructed at the ultimate right-of-way location. The first 60' of storage shall be designated for
a bus stop. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit.
TE13. Access at the westerly McBean Parkway driveway shall be limited to right-in/right-out
/left -in only. The eastbound left -turn pocket into the driveway shall provide 300 feet of storage
and 120 feet of taper. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first
building permit for MOB 2.
EXHIBIT A, RESOLUTION _
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan
Conditions of Approval
Master Case 04-325 — Master Plan 04-022 / Development Agreement 06-001
Page 18 of 28
TE 14. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for MOB 1, the applicant shall provide street
improvement plans for McBean Parkway at its ultimate location, to accommodate the addition of
a right -turn lane on eastbound McBean -Parkway at Orchard Village Road and the shifting of the
landscaped median with left -turn pockets on eastbound and westbound McBean Parkway. The
left -turn pocket on westbound McBean Parkway at the main hospital driveway/Orchard Village
Road shall be designed to provide 380 feet of storage and 90 feet of taper. The left -turn pocket
on eastbound McBean Parkway at the main hospital driveway/Orchard Village Road shall be
designed to provide 300 feet of'storage and 120 feet of taper.
TE15. Prior to issuance of the first building occupancy for MOB 1, the applicant shall extend
the existing left -turn pocket on northbound Orchard Village Road at McBean Parkway to provide
300 feet of storage and 90 feet of taper. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to
issuance of first building permit.
TE 16. Prior to issuance of the first building occupancy for MOB 1, the applicant shall extend
the existing left -turn pocket on eastbound McBean Parkway at the easterly hospital
driveway/Avenida Navarre to provide 300 feet of storage and 120 feet of taper. This shall be
shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit.
TE17. Prior to the issuance of the first building occupancy for MOB 1, the intersection listed
below shall be in place and shall include the required number of lanes and operational traffic
signal. All necessary transitions sections shall be provided to implement these improvements
according to applicable City and Caltrans standards.
a. McBean Parkway/Orchard Village Road/Hospital Driveway:
Eastbound: 1 left -turn lane, 2 through lanes, 1 shared through/right-turn lane
Westbound: 2 left -turn lanes, 2 through lanes, 1 shared through/right-turn lane
Northbound: 1 left -turn lane, 1 shared through/left-turn lane, 2 right -turn lanes
Southbound: 1 left -turn lane, 1 through lane, 1 shared through/right-turn lane
b. Orchard Village Road/Wiley Canyon Road:
Eastbound: 2 left -turn lanes, 1 through lane, 1 shared through/right-turn lane
Westbound: 1 left -turn lane, 2 through lanes, 1 right -turn lane
Northbound: 1 left -turn lane, 2 through lanes, 1 right -turn lane
Southbound: 1 left -turn lane, 2 through lanes, 1 right -turn lane
c. McBean Parkway/Magic Mountain Parkway:
Eastbound: 2 left -turn lanes, 2 through lanes, 1 right -turn lane
Westbound: 2 left -turn lanes, 3 through lanes, 1 right -turn lane
Northbound: 2 left -turn lanes, 3 through lanes, 1 right -turn lane
Southbound: 2 left -turn lanes, 4 through lanes, 1 right -turn lane
EXHIBIT A, RESOLUTION
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan
Conditions of Approval
Master Case 04-325 — Master Plan 04-022 / Development Agreement 06-001
Page 19 of 28
TE18. Prior to the issuance of the first building occupancy for MOB 2 or Inpatient Building
(whichever is first), the intersections listed below shall be in place and shall include the required
number of lanes and operational traffic signals. All necessary transitions sections shall be provided
to implement these improvements according to applicable City and Caltrans standards.
a. McBean Parkway/Orchard Village Road/Hospital Driveway:
Eastbound: 1 left -turn lane, 2 through lanes, 1 shared through/right-turn lane
Westbound: 2 left -turn lanes, 3 through lanes, 1 right -turn lane
Northbound: 1 left -turn lane, 1 shared through/left-turn lane, 2 right -turn lanes
Southbound: 1 left -turn lane, 2 through lanes, 1 right -turn lane
b. McBean Parkway/Magic Mountain Parkway:
Eastbound: 2 left -turn lanes, 3 through lanes, 1 right -turn lane
Westbound: 2 left -turn lanes, 3 through lanes, 1 right -turn lane
Northbound: 2 left -turn lanes, 3 through lanes, 1 right -turn lane
Southbound: 2 left -turn lanes, 4 through lanes, 1 right -turn lane
c. Valencia Boulevard/Magic Mountain Parkway:
Eastbound: 2 left -turn lanes, 1 through lane, 1 shared through/right-turn lane 1
Westbound: 21eft-turn lanes, 1 through lane, 1 shared through/right-turn lane
Northbound: 1 left -turn lane, 2 through lanes, 1 shared through/right-turn lane
Southbound: 1 left -turn lane, 3 through lanes, 2 right -turn lanes
TE19. Prior to the issuance of the first building occupancy for MOB 3, the intersections listed
below shall be in place and shall include the required number of lanes and operational traffic
signals. All necessary transitions sections shall be provided to implement these improvements
according to applicable City and Caltrans standards.
a. McBean Parkway/Orchard Village Road/Hospital Driveway:
Eastbound: 1 left -turn lane, 2 through lanes, 1 shared through/right-turn lane
Westbound: 2 left -turn lanes, 3 through lanes, 1 right -turn lane
Northbound: 1 left -turn lane, 1 shared through/left-turn lane, 2 right -turn lanes
Southbound: 1 left -turn lane, 1 shared through/left-turn lane, 1 through lane, 1 right -tum lane
TE20. Prior to issuance of the first building occupancy for MOB 1, the applicant shall install
system detection on all four approaches at the McBean Parkway/Orchard Village Road/Hospital
Driveway intersection. The system detection system shall be designed and installed to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to
issuance of first building permit.
EXHIBIT A, RESOLUTION _
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan
Conditions of Approval
Master Case 04-325 — Master Plan 04-022 / Development Agreement 06-001 -
Page 20 of 28
TE21. Prior to issuance of the first building occupancy for MOB 1, the applicant shall provide a
travel demand management (TDM) plan for approval by the Director of Public Works and the
Director of Community Development. Programs in the TDM plan shall include, but not be
limited to, carpooling, vanpooling, public and/or private transit, alternative work hours,
walk/bike to work and telecommuting. The TDM plan shall contain trip reduction goals and
programs/incentives in an effort to meet those goals. In addition, the applicant shall include
applicable global change strategies as indicated in the March 2006 Climate Action Team Report
to Governor Arnold Schwarzeneggar and the Legislature from Cal EPA within the TDM plan.
The applicant shall submit an annual report on the TDM program to the City.
TE22. Prior to issuance of the first building occupancy for MOB 1, the applicant shall pay a
traffic -signal timing fee for the update of the traffic -signal timing at up to 20 intersections in the
surrounding area. The cost is $4,000 per intersection ($80,000 total). This fee shall be used to
improve traffic flow and minimize traffic congestion along the corridors impacted by
project -related traffic, through traffic signal retiming and related infrastructure improvements.
TE23. Prior to issuance of the first building occupancy for MOB 1, the applicant shall submit a
traffic signal phasing and timing plan for the intersection of McBean Parkway/Avenida
Navarre/Easterly Hospital Driveway that provides left -turn phasing for the eastbound left -turn
movement. The traffic signal phasing and timing plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
TE24. Prior to'issuance of the first building occupancy for MOB 1, the applicant shall submit a
traffic signal phasing and timing plan for the intersection of Orchard Village Road and Wiley
Canyon Road that provides right -turn overlap phasing for the northbound right -turn movement.
The traffic signal phasing and timing plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Director of
Public Works.
TE25. Prior to issuance of the first building occupancy for MOB 1, the applicant shall submit a
traffic signal phasing and timing plan for the intersection of McBean Parkway and Magic
Mountain Parkway that provides right -turn overlap phasing for the westbound right -turn
movement. The traffic signal phasing and timing plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION
General Comments
BSI. Projects submitted for plan review shall comply with the current California Building,
Mechanical, Plumbing Codes, Electrical Code, and the current City of Santa Clarita amendments
to the California codes. A copy of the City amendments is available at the Building and Safety
public counter and on our website at www.santa-clarita.com.
EXHIBIT A, RESOLUTION
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan
Conditions of Approval
Master Case 04-325 — Master Plan 04-022 / Development Agreement 06-001
Page 21 of 28
BS2. For plan submittal requirements, see attached sheet titled, "Plan Requirement List from
Building and Safety."
BS3. Prior to issuance of building permits, agency clearances will be required from:
a. William S. Hart Union High School District and the Newhall Elementary School
District;
b. Castaic Lake Water Agency;
c. Los Angeles County Sanitation District;
d. Los Angeles County Environmental Services (Health Department);
e. Los Angeles County `Environmental Programs (Industrial Waste); and
f. State of California Division of Oil and Gas.
An agency referral list is available at the City's Building and Safety Division public counter.
Specific Comments
BS4. Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) has jurisdiction for a
building permit and inspection for one or more of these buildings. The Santa Clarita Building
and Safety Division will review and issue building permits for the parking structures, and all
other non-OSHPD buildings where 24-hour patient care will not be provided.
BS5. If open yards are used for the floor area justification per Section 503 of the California
Building Code, a recorded Yard Agreement to maintain these yards as open will be required
prior to issuance of permits.
BS6. All buildings that require plumbing waste discharge shall have a connection to a public
sewer.
BST Drain, waste, vent and on-site sewer lines and laterals shall have a minimum 2% slope
per the California Plumbing Code, or shall be built to a public system standard. Set your pads
accordingly.
BS8. The California Plumbing Code shall be used to determine the minimum number of
plumbing fixtures (not Appendix Chapter 29 of the CBC).
BS9. All buildings and other structures shall be set back from the adjacent ascending slopes per
Section 1805.3 of the California Building Code.
BS10. Verify that the disabled access path of travel on the site meets all slope and cross slope
requirements of the 'California Building Code. Note on the plans where handrails will be
required at ramps.
EXHIBIT A, RESOLUTION _
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan
Conditions of Approval
Master Case 04-325 — Master Plan 04-022 / Development Agreement 06-001
Page 22 of 28
BS 11. Site development and grading shall be designed to provide access to all entrances and
access to normal paths of travel and where necessary except where exempted by State Law as
follows: (111413.1.2, 112713.1 & 1133B.1.1)
a. Exits serving smoke -proof enclosures, stairwells and exit doors servicing stairs only
need not be made accessible.
b. Singular non -required (courtesy) exit more than 24 inches above or below adjacent
grade which are posted "not accessible exit' are exempt.
BS12. Provide an accessible path of travel between new and existing buildings on the campus
(1127B.1).
BS13. Pedestrian walkway structures that connect buildings together through a covered common
walkway shall comply with Section 3104 of the California Building Code.
BS14. In a medical office building, any tenants that will be licensed medical clinics shall
comply with OSHPD 3 requirements of the State codes, and must be identified as such at the
time of plan submittal (certain medical clinics may be eligible for licensing by the State).
BS15. The project is required to provide parking for the disabled in accordance with California
Building Code section 112913.3. It requires 10% of the total parking spaces designated for
Outpatient Clinics and Outpatient Facilities to be accessible. This rate increases to 20% for units
and facilities that specialize in treatment or services for persons with mobility impairments.
With each new medical office building, the applicant shall provide a breakdown of the
anticipated square footage for any facilities that will be in either of these two categories and
allow for the overall parking scheme for each building on the hospital campus to accommodate
the corresponding number of handicap accessible parking spaces based on the 10% or 20% rate,
where applicable.
BS16. Accessible parking spaces serving a particular building shall be located on the shortest
accessible route of travel to an accessible pedestrian entrance of the parking facility.
BS 17. Provide accessible parking spaces dispersed throughout the HMNMH campus in both the
covered parking and non -covered parking areas, pursuant to the approved Master Plan.
BS18. All new and existing curb ramps shall not encroach into the unloading zone of any
accessible parking spaces.
BS 19. Professional medical offices with an occupancy group of "B" or "I" shall be made
accessible and shall also comply with Section I I09B. (1105B.3.2.4)
a. At least one accessible entrance shall be protected from the weather by canopy or roof
overhang. Such entrances shall incorporate a passenger loading zone. (110913.2)
b. Passenger loading zones shall provide an access aisle at least 60 inches wide and 20
EXHIBIT A, RESOLUTION _
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan
Conditions of Approval
Master Case 04-325 — Master Plan 04-022 / Development Agreement 06-001
Page 23 of 28
feet long adjacent and parallel to the vehicle pull-up space. (I 109B.2)
c. A minimum vertical clearance of 114 inches at accessible passenger loading zones and
along vehicle access routes to such areas from site entrances shall be provided.
d. Vehicle standing spaces and access aisles shall be level with surface slopes not
exceeding a 2% slope. (I 109B.2)
e. The western facade of MOB 3 shall be restricted from having a passenger loading zone.
BS20. Bus stops shall be covered and accessible to the disabled.
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
ES1. This project will result in alteration of more than fifty percent of the previously existing
development, and is therefore a "redevelopment planning priority project" under the City's
NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit. Prior to issuance of the first grading permit, the applicant
shall have approved by the City Engineer an Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (USMP) for the
entire project site. The USMP shall include the applicant's schedule for implementation of the
USMP. The USMP shall incorporate appropriate post -construction Best Management Practices
(BMPs), maximize pervious surfaces, and include infiltration into the design of the project. The
applicant is referred to the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) guide for
details.
ES2. All drainage collection, retention, and infiltration facilities of the individual development
sites shall be constructed, maintained, and designed in accordance with the Standard Urban
Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) and Urban Stormwater Management Plans (USMP)
prepared for the Project, to the satisfaction of the City of Santa Clarita Director of Public Works,
prior to the issuance of grading permits.
ES3. The Project Applicant shall prepare and submit a NOI to comply with the Construction
General Permit to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A copy of
the NOI acknowledgement from the RWQCB must be submitted to the City of Santa Clarita
prior to the issuance of any grading permit or demolition permit.
ES4. The Project Applicant shall prepare a SWPPP per requirements of the NPDES
Construction General Permit prior to the issuance of grading permits. The SWPPP shall be
submitted to the City of Santa Clarita for approval. A copy of the SWPPP shall be available at
the construction site and shall be implemented at all times on the construction site. The SWPPP
shall outline the source control and/or treatment control Best Management Practices to avoid or
mitigate runoff pollutants at the construction site to the maximum extent practical. The Project
Applicant shall be required to meet all applicable regulations to control pollutant discharges.
Utilize Best Available Technology and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology, which
are economically feasible.
ES5. The project area is greater than one acre. Therefore, it is subject to a General
Construction Permit under the City's Municipal Stormwater Permit. The applicant must submit
EXHIBIT A, RESOLUTION _
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan
Conditions of Approval
Master Case 04-325 — Master Plan 04-022 / Development Agreement 06-001
Page 24 of 28
a State Notice of Intent (NOI) to the State and submit a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) to the City for acceptance prior to obtaining any grading or building permits.
ES6. Each Master Plan building shall have adequate space to house sufficient roll -off bins
and/or compactors for meeting the HMNMH needs. If any HMNMH buildings and parking
structures choose to utilize three yard bins, the bin enclosures shall be shown on the site plan,
consistent with the surrounding architecture and shall be constructed with a solid roof. Half of
the containers shall be reserved for recyclable materials only. The containers shall be located to
provide convenient pedestrian and collection vehicle access. For MOB1 and PSI, sufficient
space for six 3 -yards bins shall be provided. Applicant may use compactors in place of the six 3 -
yard bins for MOB 1. The compactors must have equal or greater capacity to the six 3 -yard
containers (18 cubic yards). A minimum of 9 cubic yards shall be designated for trash and 9
cubic yards shall be designated for recycling. Trash and recycling receptacles shall be made
available for public and staff use on each floor of PSI to the satisfaction of the Environmental
Services Division.
EST Prior to issuance of building permits for each building and structure, the applicant shall
do the following to increase diversion and encourage source reduction of solid waste.
• The applicant shall prepare and submit a comprehensive outdoor recycling program for
the campus. The program shall include locations for recycling bins in outdoor locations.
■ The applicant shall prepare and submit a comprehensive internal waste reduction and
recycling program for the proposed buildings on the campus. The program shall include
locations for recycling bins at indoor locations.
■ Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall adopt and submit an
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP) Policy to promote the use of products
made from recycled materials.
The plans for these programs shall be prepared, submitted, and approved by the Environmental
Services Division prior to the issuance of any building permits. The plans shall include methods
in which the facility will meet a minimum diversion requirement of 50%, but keeping in mind
the City's diversion goal of diverting 75% of waste from landfills. This program will include a
method for an annual monitoring program for the- City to evaluate diversion rates on a yearly
basis. The facility shall be required to meet a diversion rate of 50% or greater on an annual
basis.
ESS. All new construction projects on the HMNMH campus valuated greater than $500,000
and all new tenant improvement projects valuated greater than $100,000 must comply with the
City's Construction and Demolition Materials (C&D) Recycling Ordinance.
ES9. Each building permit for new construction valuated above $500,000 and all tenant
improvements valuated greater than $100,000, and all demolition projects, the applicant shall
comply with the following:
EXHIBIT A, RESOLUTION
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan
Conditions of Approval
Master Case 04-325 — Master Plan 04-022 / Development Agreement 06-001
Page 25 of 28
■ A minimum of 50% of the entire project's inert (dirt, rock, bricks, etc.) waste and 50% of
the remaining C&D waste must be diverted from landfills.
■ A Construction and Demolition Materials Management Plan (C&DMMP) must be
prepared and approved by the Environmental Services Division prior to obtaining any
grading or building permits.
■ A deposit of 3% of the estimated total project cost or $50,000, whichever is less, is
required. The deposit will be returned to the applicant upon proving that 50% of the inert
and remaining C&D waste was diverted.
ES10. All projects within the City that are not self -hauling their waste materials must use one of
the City's franchised haulers for temporary and roll -off bin collection services. Please contact
City's Environmental Services Division staff for a complete list of franchised haulers in the City.
SPECIAL DISTRICTS/ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
SDI. No on-site, private property landscaping will be maintained by the City's Landscape
Maintenance District (LMD).
SD2. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall annex parcels into the
LMD for the maintenance and improvement of landscaped medians and streetscapes. The
applicant shall agree to a LMD assessment pursuant to the LMD benefit received by the
property. A minimum of 90-120 days is required for annexation processing.
SD3. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, landscape maintenance and access
easements shall be provided.
SD4. All modifications caused by the project to LMD service areas generally described as
improvements within public rights-of-way and/or dedicated landscape easements within project
area must comply with design standards approved by the Deputy City Manager/ Director of
Administrative Services. Improvements would include but not be limited to installed or
proposed to be installed or moved: landscaping, planting, shrubbery, trees, irrigation systems,
hardscapes and fixtures; statuary, fountains and other ornamental structures and facilities; public
lighting facilities; facilities which are appurtenant to any of the foregoing or which are necessary
or convenient for the maintenance or servicing thereof, including, but not limited to, clearing,
removal of debris, the installation or construction of curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalks, or paving,
or water, irrigation, drainage, or electrical facilities.
SDS. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall create and deliver to
the City's Special Districts Division a report written by a certified arborist to determine the
viability of relocating the McBean Parkway median trees affected due to project roadway
improvements. The report shall include a recommendation as to which trees should be relocated
and where they would be relocated to, either on- or off-site, and incorporated into the landscape
plans prepared for the project. The chosen arborist shall be mutually agreed upon by both the
City and developer.
EXHIBIT A, RESOLUTION _
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan
Conditions of Approval
Master Case 04-325 — Master Plan 04-022 / Development Agreement 06-001
Page 26 of 28
SD6. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit and the City acceptance of the report
described in SD 5, the applicant shall submit landscaping plans to the satisfaction of the Deputy
City Manager/Director of Administrative Services. The plans shall include, but are not limited
to, all modifications identified in SD4.
SD7. The applicant shall obtain approval for any construction or removal of improvements
described in SD4 from the Deputy City Manager/Director of Administrative Services.
SD8. The applicant shall annex the property into the Streetlight Maintenance District (SMD)
established by the City of Santa Clarita for the operations and maintenance of street lighting and
traffic signals. A minimum of 120 days is required to process the annexation, which must be
completed prior to the first building permit issuance.
SD9. Prior to disturbance and/or removal of trees within the public right-of-way and/or
dedicated landscape easement areas, the applicant shall have a biologist present to ensure that no
active bird nest will be impacted during the nesting season (February 15 through August 15).
Consistent with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act guidelines, if an active nest is found, a 200' NO
WORK ZONE (500' for raptors) shall be established around the tree until the fledglings have left
the nest. Bird nests on site are also subject to the guidelines.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
FD 1. Upon City approval of the Master Plan and EIR, architectural plans shall be submitted for
review and approval by the Valencia Fire Prevention Office. At that time all fire hydrant locations
will be determined, any reductions in fire flow shall also be addressed during the architectural
review process.
FD2. Fire hydrant locations for both public and on-site shall be determined upon submittal of
final architectural plans to the Valencia Fire Prevention Office (661-286-8821). Public hydrant
spacing is every 300 feet, measured from existing fire hydrant locations. On-site fire hydrant
locations may be spaced anywhere between 300 - 600 feet apart. The required fire flow may be
reduced as determined by the Santa Clarita Fire Prevention office during the architectural plan
review.
FD3. Access to the proposed hospital structures shall provide a minimum width of 28 feet, no
parking, if parking is requested on one side, the drives shall be a minimum width of 34 feet and if
parking is requested on both sides of the drives they shall be a minimum width of 42 feet. Access
shall be extended to within 150 feet of all exterior walls.
FD4. The required fire flow for this development pertaining to public and on-site is 5,000
gallons per minute for five hours. The water mains in the street fronting this property must be
capable of delivering this flow at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure.
EXHIBIT A, RESOLUTION
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan
Conditions of Approval
Master Case 04-325 — Master Plan 04-022 / Development Agreement 06-001
Page 27 of 28
TRANSIT DIVISION
TRI. The applicant shall provide a dedicated, on-site passenger loading and unloading area
capable of accommodating a van with the approximate dimensions of 9'h x 8'w x 231 at the
main hospital building turnaround. In addition, there should be an eight -foot free and clear area
for wheelchair access to the front door of the van.
TR2. The applicant shall construct a pedestrian path from the two bus stops along the
McBean Parkway frontage to the pedestrian pathway system within the HMNMH campus.
TR3. The applicant shall provide a bus stop and turnout at the following locations pursuant to
the requirements of the Department of Public Works and the City's Transit Division:
a. Westbound McBean Parkway, far side of Avenida Navarre prior to issuance of the
Certificate of Occupancy for MOB 1; and
b. Westbound McBean Parkway, far side of Orchard Village Road prior to issuance
of the Certificate of Occupancy for MOB.
TR4. The applicant shall demonstrate on the site plans that the bus stop is free and clear of
utility projections and shall show all other amenities, landscaping and utilities within a 100 -foot
radius of each bus stop.
TR5. At the indicated locations of the bus stops, the applicant shall provide a permanent
stylized structure that compliments the architecture of the adjacent HMNMH campus (contact
the Transit Division for information), and consists of:
a. A 25' x 10' concrete pad placed behind the sidewalk;
b. Bench;
C. Trash receptacle; and
d. Lighting (all electrical conduits shall be located within the shelter structure).
TR6. All mechanical devices (including electric meter) or vault boxes shall be screened from
public view either by location or with mature landscape, vines, etc. Shelter design, structure and
amenities shall be approved by the appropriate City staff including Planning, Building and
Safety, Engineering, Special Districts and Transit. Bench and trash receptacle specifications and
all appropriate paperwork for the bus shelter shall be supplied to the Transit Division prior to
installation.
TR7. Colored elevations and a materials board for the bus shelters shall be supplied to the
Planning Division and Transit Division for approval prior to construction.
TR8. The bus stops shall comply with ADA regulations as specified in the most recent version
of the California Disabled Accessibility Guidebook (Cal Dag). Proposed disabled access shall be
drawn on all improvement plans.
EXHIBIT A, RESOLUTION _
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan
Conditions of Approval
Master Case 04-325 — Master Plan 04-022 / Development Agreement 06-001
Page 28 of 28
TR9. The bus turnouts shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from the curb return, or as
specified by City staff.
TR 10. Prior to occupancy of MOB 1, the bus stop and shelter west of Avenida Navarre shall be
installed to the satisfaction of the City. The bus stop and shelter west of Orchard Village Road
shall be constructed prior to the occupancy of MOB 2. A formal letter shall 'be submitted
confirming this requirement and agreeing to construct the improvement and provisions for any
required easements associated with the installation of the improvement.
TRI 1. At the location of the bus stops, the sidewalk shall meet the street for no less than 30 feet.
TR12. The applicant shall construct an in -street concrete pad pursuant to the current City
standard and AP WA 13 1 -1 at all required bus stops.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 06-001 FOR MASTER CASE 04-325
(MASTER PLAN 04-022), FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE 15 -YEAR MASTER PLAN
OF THE HENRY MAYO NEWHALL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN PROJECT
IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
RECITALS
a. Whereas, an application for Master Case 04-325, the Henry Mayo Newhall
Memorial Hospital Master Plan project (the "project"), was filed by the project
applicant, Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital and G&L Realty (the
"applicant"), with the City of Santa Clarita on August 16, 2004.
b. Whereas, on January 25, 2005, the City Council adopted Ordinance 05-01, an
update to the City's Unified Development Code, which included the requirements
and process for a Master Plan. The Ordinance took effect 30 days later. The
applicant subsequently modified the project to include a Master Plan entitlement,
which requires City Council consideration.
C. Whereas, on August 17, 2006, the applicant modified the application to include an
additional entitlement request: Development Agreement 06-001.
d. Whereas, the project application was deemed complete on August 20, 2006.
e. Whereas, an Environmental Impact Report was prepared, circulated in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in 2005.
f. Whereas, the Planning Commission held duly -noticed public hearings' on the
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan project on October 18,
2005, December 6, 2005, January 17, 2006, February 7, 2006, March 7, 2006, and
June 6, 2006. Following a revision to the project and recirculation of a revised
Draft EIR in 2006, the Planning Commission reopened the public hearing for the
project and conducted public hearings on September 19, 2006, October 17, 2006
and November 21, 2006. These hearings were held at City Hall, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m.
g. Whereas, at its hearings on the project, the Planning Commission considered staff
and consultant presentations, staff reports, applicant presentations, information
presented to the Commission to assist in its understanding of the project, the
HMNMH Master Plan Draft EIR and 2006 Revised Draft ETR, and public
comments, and public testimony on the project and the 2007 draft Final EIR for
the project.
h. Whereas, on February 6, 2007, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
P07-01 recommending that the City Council adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for those impacts of the project that cannot be mitigated to less
than significant levels, and certify the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitonng
and Reporting Program.
Whereas, on February 6, 2007, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
P07-02 recommending that the City Council approve the Master Plan and
Conditional Use Permit entitlements for Master Case 04-325, the HMNMH
Master Plan Project, as revised, subject to the project conditions of approval.
j. Whereas, on February 6, 2007, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
P07-03, denying the request for Development Agreement 06-001.
k. Whereas, on February 15, 2007, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning
Commission's denial of the Development Agreement to the City Council for their
consideration. Per Section 17.03.0101 of the Unified Development Code, the
City Council may approve, modify or disapprove the development agreement.
1. Whereas, modifications to the terms of the Development Agreement have been
made since the Development Agreement was originally presented to the City
Council in June 2007.
M. Whereas, the City Council held duly -noticed public hearings on the Henry Mayo
Newhall Memorial Hospital Master Plan project on June 12, 2007, June 26, 2007,
July 10, 2007, August 28, 2007, September 25, 2007, September 23, 2008, and
November 19, 2008. All public hearings and meetings on the project were held in
the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. The City
Council public hearings were advertised in The Signal newspaper, through on-site
posting 14 days prior to the hearing, and by direct first class mail to property
owners within 1,000 feet of the project area.
n. Whereas; at its hearings on the project, the City Council considered staff and
consultant presentations, staff reports, applicant presentations, information
presented in public testimony, and information presented to the City Council from
technical experts to assist in its understanding of the project. During the
September 23, 2008, public heanng, the City Council received comments on the
September 2008 Revised Draft EIR, which circulated for 45 days from September
3, 2008 to October 17, 2008.
o. Whereas, on November 19, 2008, the City Council conducted the public hearing
for the project, received staff and applicant presentations and public testimony on
the project and closed the public hearing. The City Council considered the 2008
Final EIR prepared for the project, inclusive of the September 2008 Revised Draft
EIR and June 2008 Revised Draft EIR, with all agency and public comments and
responses to comments, prior to taking formal action on the project, as revised.
P. Whereas, on November 19, 2008, the City Council adopted a resolution, adopting
a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts of the project that
cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels, and certifying the 2008 Final
EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the
HMNMH Master Plan project, as required by the California Environmental
Quality Act.
q. Whereas, on November 19, 2008, the City Council adopted a resolution,
approving Master Case 04-325, Master Plan 04-022 for the Henry Mayo Newhall
Memorial Hospital Master Plan, subject to the conditions of approval.
r. Whereas, the location of the documents and other materials which constitute the
record of proceeding upon which the decision. of the City Council are in the
Master Case 04-325 project file within the Community Development Department
and is in the custody of the Director of Community Development.
FINDINGS FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 06-001. Based upon the above recitals, oral
and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held for the project, and
upon studies and investigations made by the City Council, and on its behalf, and based on facts
more specifically detailed in the November 19, 2008, City Council agenda report, as required by
the Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.03.010, the City Council finds that:
1. The Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan.
The land use impact analysis conducted as part of the September 2008 Revised Draft EIR
evaluates the project's consistency with City of Santa Clarita General Plan goals and
policies. The review encompasses 18 applicable goals and, 17 applicable policies in the
Land Use Element, Community Design Element, Circulation Element, Human Resources
Element, Open Space and Conservation Element, and Safety Element. The September
2008 Revised Draft EIR concludes that the proposed project would be consistent with the
applicable goals and policies of the General Plan,
2 The Development Agreement complies with the Unified Development Code and other
applicable ordinances, standards, policies, and regulations.
The HMNMH Master Plan Project has been designed in a manner to meet all
development standards and has been conditioned through the project conditions of
approval to comply with all Unified Development Code requirements and other
applicable ordinances, resolutions, standards, policies and regulations of the City.
3. The Development Agreement will not.-
a.
ot:
a. Adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing or
working in the surrounding area;
Based on the existing and anticipated expansion of the hospital campus operations
at the HMNMH campus, people living and working in proximity to the medical
campus will not experience adverse impacts to their health, peace, comfort or
welfare, as described more fully in the September 2008 Revised Draft
Environmental Impact Report, because the operational characteristics of the
hospital campus will not change substantially. The site is currently used for
emergency medical care and inpatient and outpatient medical services.
Implementation of a master plan, by its very nature, is intended to preserve the
desired neighborhood character. By anticipating the type and level of
development needed over a 15 -year timeframe, the intent of the master plan is to
ensure that expansion and growth of the hospital facilities do not occur in a
Hodge-podge fashion which could have a greater impact on the visual character of
the surrounding neighborhood. Instead, conditions of approval, mitigation
measures, infrastructure augmentations, transit and pedestrian connections,
building siting, and architectural styles and landscaping are coordinated up -front
to create a visually cohesive and operationally organized and successful medical
campus that balances the needs for medical service expansion with the need to
preserve the character of the Valencia Master Plan neighborhoods that surround
this regional services institution. Additionally, surrounding properties (as well as
others throughout the City) will benefit from those aspects of the project
identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
b. Be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property of other
persons located in the vicinity of the site; or,
Based on the existing and anticipated expansion of the hospital campus operations
at the HMNMH campus, no aspect of the proposed HMNMH Master Plan and
Development Agreement will materially deter the use or enjoyment or valuation
of property in the vicinity of the medical campus because the Master Plan has
been designed to avoid a significant alteration of views from surrounding areas
through (1) the creation of height zones across the 30.4 -acre campus; (2) the
placement of new buildings and parking structures using increased setbacks from
the property edges and building step -backs; (3) the reduction of building height
along the western/southwestern edge of the campus, and (4) the redesign of PS4
to be a subterranean parking structure at the main Hospital entrance.
Requirements for the inclusion of architectural enhancements on all building
facades and parking structures, and requirements for enhanced perimeter
landscaping will further mitigate the visual impacts. For these reasons, the project
is expected to have a less -than -significant adverse impact on the visual character
of the area and the quality of the campus. Additionally, surrounding properties
(as well as others throughout the City) will benefit from those aspects of the
project identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
C. Jeopardize, endanger, or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health,
safety, or general welfare.
Based on the existing and anticipated expansion of the hospital campus operations
at the HMNMH campus, no aspect of the proposed HMNMH Master Plan and
Development Agreement will jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a
menace to the public health, safety or general welfare because multiple revisions
to the original master plan proposal have reduced a number of the land use,
traffic, noise and visual impacts as discussed in the September 2008 Revised
Draft EIR. The modifications to building and structure placement, building
orientation, building height, architectural facade treatments, and enhanced
landscaping have resulted in a master plan project that has greater sensitivity to
neighboring residential properties and softens the visual change from these
neighborhoods. In addition, both the conditions of approval and the mitigation
measures tied to each component of project implementation will reduce impacts
resulting from the intensification of use.
4. The Development Agreement provides for clear and substantial public benefit to the City
and residents along with a schedule for delivery of the benefit.
Expansion of the hospital campus and healthcare services provides a clear and substantial
benefit to the City and its residents through the addition of 120 additional acute care
hospital beds plus new, needed medical services in cardiac care, neonatal and high risk
pregnancy care, intensive care and surgical care. The provision of street improvements
along the project frontage, including the addition of two bus turnouts and right -turn lanes,
will improve traffic operations. Also, the provision of additional right-of-way will
accommodate street improvements needed in the future. The Development Agreement
includes a phasing sequence for all proposed improvements on- and off-site to ensure the
delivery of specific services and public improvements, as further detailed in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
5. The project provides a sequence for the implementation of the project to be initiated and
completed within specified time periods.
Section 4.7.1 of the Development Agreement identifies a sequence for development of
the Master Plan,\and lists certain prerequisites for construction and operation of the
Inpatient Building, MOB 1, MOB 2 and MOB 3 to occur within a 15 -year timeframe.
Further, Development Agreement Sections 5.8, 5.9 and 7.3 provide the timing of
expanded medical services and payments to be delivered as part of project
implementation.
6. The construction of public facilities required in conjunction with the development is
adequate to serve the development.
All public facilities and services required to support the development of the HMNMH
Master Plan have been required through the Conditions of Approval, the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Development Agreement. All improvements
will occur within the 15 -year timeframe of the Master Plan and Development Agreement.
Section 7.3 of the Development Agreement secures additional right-of-way dedication,
street improvements, and funding to support the future realignment of McBean Parkway.
7. The Development Agreement provides specified conditions under which further
development not included in the agreement may occur.
Section 4.2 of the Development Agreement specifies the terms and conditions under
which further development not included in the agreement may occur.
8. As necessary, the Development Agreement requires a faithful performance bond or other
appropriate security in an amount deemed sufficient to guarantee the faithful
performance of specified terms, conditions, restrictions, and/or requirements of the
agreement.
All required improvements shall be constructed as part of the development of the site
pursuant to the Master Plan Conditions of Approval. Bonding for public improvements is
required under the project Conditions of Approval.
9. The project requires specified design criteria for the exteriors of buildings and other
structures, including signs.
The Master Plan entitlement includes Conditions of Approval (Conditions PL10 through
PL14) that require architectural design elements to be applied to all Master Plan buildings
and parking structures, as well as conditions related to roof -mounted equipment, trash
enclosures, and pedestrian areas. Condition PL6 requires that a comprehensive sign
program be prepared for the campus, consistent with the City's Sign Ordinance that
includes a unified theme and clear and concise wayfinding signage. Development
Agreement Section 4.5 requires the review and approval of the exterior elevations of any
project building or parking structure for a determination as to consistency with the
architecture of MOB 1 and PS 1, and a review of the Developer's compliance with its
obligations under the Agreement and findings of that review to the City Council.
10. The project requires special yards, open spaces, buffer areas, fences and walls,
landscaping, and parking facilities, including vehicular and pedestrian ingress and
egress.
The HMNMH Master Plan, as designed, establishes buffer areas and meets all applicable
Unified Development Code requirements related to parking, fences and walls,
ingress/egress and landscaping. In addition, the Master Plan entitlement includes
Conditions of Approval related to parking, landscaping, vehicular ingress/egress, and
pedestrian ingress/egress. The HMNMH Master Plan Project is incorporated by
reference into Development Agreement Section 4.
11. The project includes provisions to regulate nuisance factors such as noise, vibration,
smoke, dust, dirt, odors, gases, garbage, heat, and the prevention of glare or direct
illumination of adjacent properties.
The HMNMH Master Plan, as designed, establishes buffer areas and meets all applicable
Unified Development Code requirements to reduce or eliminate potential nuisance
factors. The Master Plan entitlement includes Conditions of Approval that require
compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance, lighting standards and ensures that on-site
trash collection facilities, trash diversion, construction -related grading activities, and
construction -related dirt hauling activities are conducted in a manner that meets City.
requirements. Compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is also
required as part of the project approvals and will ensure that impacts related to air quality,
noise, light and glare, and on-site hazards are eliminated or reduced to the maximum
extent possible. The HMNMH Master Plan Project is incorporated by reference into
Development Agreement Section 4. y
12. The project restricts characteristics of project operation adversely affecting normal
neighborhood schedules and functions on surrounding property.
The Master Plan entitlement includes Conditions of Approval that restrict the hours of
construction and require compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance. Per the Conditions
of Approval, off-site dirt hauling activities may not occur during peak hour traffic
periods. In addition, only one helipad may be in use at a time, unless there is a City -
declared emergency. Lighting of Master Plan facilities is required to comply with the
City's lighting standards to avoid impacts to neighboring residential properties. On-site
parking, including parking during construction periods, is conditioned to meet the City's
parking requirements as set forth in the City's Unified Development Code. Further,
parking for all existing medical office buildings will be upgraded to meet the City's
current parking ratios. The HMNMH Master Plan Project is incorporated by reference
into Development Agreement Section 4.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby approves Development Agreement 06-001
(Exhibit A).
SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall become effective at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first day
after adoption.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage of this Ordinance and cause it
to be published in the manner prescribed by law. Pursuant to Government Code section 65868.5,
the City Clerk shall also cause the Development Agreement to be recorded with the County
Recorder for the County of Los Angeles within ten days of the City entering into the
Development Agreement.
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 2008.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Sharon L. Dawson, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the day of ,
2008. That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the
City Council on the day of , 2008 by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS
CITY CLERK
EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
HENRY MAYO NEWHALL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
AND
G&L VALENCIA. LLC
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
23920 Valencia Boulevard
Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Attn: City Clerk
EXEMPT FROM RECORDER'S FEES
Pursuant to Government Code
§ 6103
ONLY
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
EXHIBIT A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
by and between
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
a municipal corporation
and
HENRY MAYO NEWHALL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,
a California non-profit public benefit corporation
and
G&L VALENCIA, LLC
a California limited liability company
THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE RECORDED WITHIN TEN DAYS
OF EXECUTION BY ALL PARTIES HERETO PURSUANT TO
THE REQUIREMENTS OF GOVERNMENT CODE §65868.5
J
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This Development Agreement (the "Agreement") is made this day of
, 2008, by and between the CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, a municipal
corporation, organized and existing under the general laws of the State of California (the "City")
and HENRY MAYO NEWHALL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, a California non-profit public
benefit corporation ("HMNMH") and G&L VALENCIA, LLC, a California limited liability
company ("G&L"). HMNMH and G&L are hereinafter sometimes collectively referred to as
the "Developer". City and Developer are hereinafter sometimes collectively referred to as the
"Parties" and each may be referred to as a "Party".
RECITALS
A. Pursuant to Section 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code
(the "Government Code") and Section 17.03.010 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code (the
"Santa Clarita Code"), the City is authorized to enter into binding development agreements
with persons having legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of such real
property.
B. The Hospital is the owner of certain' real property located in the City of Santa
Clarita, County of Los Angeles, State of California, that is legally described in Exhibit "A" to
this Agreement and is diagramed on Exhibit "C" to, this Agreement (the "HMNMH Property").
G&L is the owner of certain real property, immediately adjacent to the HMNMH Property,
located in the City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles, State of California, that is legally
described in Exhibit `B" to the Agreement and is diagrammed on Exhibit "C" to this Agreement
(the "G&L Property"). The HMNMH Property and the G&L Property are sometimes
collectively referred to as the "Campus Property". The Campus Property contains
approximately 30.4 acres.
C. As of the Effective Date (as hereinafter defined) of this Agreement:
(1) Existing Campus Facilities & Operations
HMNMH is a full-service community hospital that provides advanced life
support services on approximately 30.4 acres of land. A number of medical office
buildings, both on- and off-site, provide support to the hospital facility.
Currently, there are six existing medical office buildings, along with the
foundation building.
Specifically, the existing 340,071 square foot HMNMH medical campus is
comprised of the following facilities:
(a) The main hospital facility comprises approximately half of the on-
site buildings with 146,000 square feet. There are 121 beds
currently in this facility along with the Emergency Department A
basement expansion totals 5,286 square feet.
(b) The Nursing Pavilion totals 63,800 square feet with a maximum
capacity of 109 beds.
(c) The, Mechanical Plant and Facilities Building comprise 11,703
square feet and include the mechanical operations of the hospital in
these two structures.
(d) There are six medical office buildings on the western portion of the
campus. These office buildings comprise 96,160 square feet of
floor area.
(e) The Hospital Foundation currently occupies 8,000 square feet of
modular office space on the far western portion of the site.
(f) A 9,122 square -foot hospital bridge which links the main hospital
building to the Nursing Pavilion.
(2) Constructed Improvements.
Certain improvements recently have been constructed (collectively, the
",`Constructed Improvements"), including: (a) the construction of a new
facilities building; and (b) a remodel of the plant engineering building.
The Current Improvements and the Constructed Improvements, are hereinafter sometimes
collectively referred to as the "Existing Improvements". The Existing Improvements are
depicted on the site plan that is attached as Exhibit "D" to this Agreement.
D. The following applications (collectively, the "Project Applications") have been
filed by Developer with the City for the proposed development on the Campus Property of
approximately 327,363 net new square feet of additional inpatient, outpatient, medical office and
associated medical facilities and a new central plant building, as well as the provision of
adequate parking facilities (the "Project") in order to provide enhanced inpatient and outpatient
treatment capacity:
(1) An Application for a Master Plan (the "Master Plan") pursuant to Santa
Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.03.025.
(2) An application for a Development Agreement, pursuant to Santa Clarita
Code Section 17.03.010.
Developer has paid all necessary costs and fees associated with the filing and the City's
processing of the Project Applications,
E. The locations of the new buildings (sometimes collectively, the "Project
Buildings") and the parking structures (sometimes, collectively, the "Parking Structures") of
the Project along with the maximum heights for each are depicted on the site plan that is attached
T1FVF1.(_1PMFNT A(;PFFMFNT
as Exhibit "E" to this Agreement (the "Site Plan"). The Project Buildings and the Parking
Structures are hereinafter sometimes collectively referred to as the "Project Improvements".
The Project Buildings consist of a new central plant building, three medical buildings labeled as
"MOB1", "MOB2" and "MOBS" on the Site Plan, and an inpatient hospital building labeled as
"Inpatient Building" on the Site Plan. The Parking Structures consist of four structures labeled
as "PSI", "PS2", "PS3", and "PS4" on the Site Plan. The "Medical Buildings" consist of the
three medical buildings labeled as "MOB I", "MOB2" and "MOBS" on the Site Plan.
F. The Project is more fully described in the Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial
Hospital Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") prepared by RBF
Consulting pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public
Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the Guidelines thereunder (14 California Code of
Regulations Section 15000, et seg. (collectively, "CEQA").
G. Based upon representations of the Developer, the new Inpatient Building and
three new Medical Buildings contemplated as Project hnprovements will allow HMNMH to
provide expanded and additional medical services not currently provided on the Campus
Property.
H. The Planning Commission and the City Council of the City have given notice of
their intention to consider the Project Applications, have conducted public hearings thereon
pursuant to the Government Code and the Santa Clarita Code, and the City Council has found
that the Project Approvals and the Project are (i) consistent with the General Plan, adopted plans,
codes, ordinances and policies of the City, (ii) consistent with all other ordinances, resolutions,
rules, regulations, laws, plans and policies applicable to the Campus Project, and (iii) in the best
interest of the health, safety and general welfare of the City, its residents, and the general public.
I. On February 6, 2007, at a public meeting and after considering all appropriate
documentation and circumstances, the Planning Commission of the City adopted resolutions
recommending that the City Council: (a) certify the EIR for the Project; (b) approve the Master
Plan; and (c) adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of
CEQA with respect to Aesthetic, Light and Glare, Traffic and Circulation, Solid Waste and Air
Quality. At that same meeting, the Planning Commission voted to reject an applied for
Development Agreement, which denial was subsequently appealed by the Developer to the City
Council,
J. On , 2008, at a public meeting and after considering all
appropriate documentation and circumstances, and making all required findings, the City
Council of the City adopted the following measures (collectively, the "Project Approvals"):
(1) Resolution No. , certifying the EIR for the Project and adopting
a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3)
of CEQA with respect to Solid Waste, Air Quality, Cumulative Global
Climate Change and Construction Noise;
DEVELOPMENT AGRFFMFNT
(2) Resolution No. , approving the Master Plan with the
Conditions of Approval that are attached as Exhibit "A" thereto (the
"Conditions of Approval"); and
(3) Ordinance No. , adopting this Agreement (as modified
subsequent to denial by the Planning Commission, consistent with Santa
Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.03.01 OF) for the Project.
K. The Hospital is a full-service community hospital. It is the only hospital in the
Santa Clarita Valley and serves a population of more than 250,000 people within a 680 square -
mile trauma service area. The Hospital currently operates the only 24-hour Emergency
Department and trauma service in the Santa Clarita Valley.
L. The City Council has determined that a development agreement is appropriate for
the proposed development of the Campus Property. This Agreement shall: (1) eliminate
uncertainty in planning for, and securing orderly development of, the Project; (2) assure
installation of necessary on-site and off-site improvements; (3) provide for public infrastructure
and services appropriate to development of the Project; (4) allow the development of new,
needed medical services in cardiac care, neonatal and high risk pregnancy care, intensive care
and surgical care; (5) create new long -teen employment opportunities in high paying healthcare
jobs to add to the 1,200 people currently employed by HMNMH, creating a positive economic
benefit to the community; (6) improve the community's readiness for disaster by adding
capability for support of other first responder agencies and dedicating additional pennanent
physical assets for emergency services; and (7) otherwise achieve the goals and purposes for
which Government Code Sections 65864 et seq., and Section 17.03.010 of the Santa Clarita
Municipal Code were'enacted.
J M. The City Council, in its adoption of Ordinance No. , has made all
of the findings with respect to this Agreement that are required under Section 17.03.010E of the
Santa Clarita Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the above Recitals, and in consideration of the
mutual covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement, the City and the Developer agree
as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. Interest of Developer. HMNMH represents to the City that, as of the Effective
Date of this Agreement, HMNMH owns the HMNMH Property in fee, subject only to
encumbrances, easements, covenants, conditions, restrictions, and other matters of record. G&L
represents to the City that, as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, G&L owns the G&L
Property in fee, subject only to encumbrances, easements, covenants, conditions, restrictions, and
other matters of record.
2. BindingEffect. ffect. All the terns and conditions of this Agreement shall bind and run
with the Campus Property and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties and
r)P\IFI ()PXAFNT A(:Pr-PKAP\1T
their respective assigns and other successors in interest. Nothing in this Agreement is a
dedication or transfer of any right or interest in, or creating a lien upon, the Campus Property.
3. Negation of AgencX. The development of the Project is a private and not a public
sector development nor is it receiving public funding, neither party is acting as the agent of the
other in any respect hereunder, and each party is an independent contracting entity with respect
to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in this Agreement. No partnership, joint
venture or other association of any kind is formed by this Agreement. The only relationship
between the City and the Developer is that of a government entity regulating the development of
private property by the owner of such property.
4. Development of the Project.
4.1 Applicable Rules. Except for such changes as may in the future be
mutually agreed upon between the City and Developer or as specified in Section 4.4, Developer
shall have the right to develop the Project during the Term (as hereinafter defined) of this
Agreement in accordance with the following (collectively, the "Applicable Rules"): (a) the
terms and conditions of the Project Approvals; (b) the terns and conditions of this Agreement;
(c) the Santa Clarita Code and all rules, regulations and official policies of the City governing
development, subdivision and zoning (sometimes, collectively, the "City Requirements"), that
are in effect as of , 2008, the date on which the Ordinance approving this
Agreement was adopted by the City Council (the "Effective Date"). The City Requirements
include requirements governing building height, maximum floor area, permitted and
conditionally permitted uses, maximum lot coverage, building setbacks and stepbacks,
landscaping, exactions and dedications, and design criteria. In the event of any conflict between
the provisions in this Agreement, the Project Approvals and the City Requirements, such conflict
shall be resolved in the following order of priority: (i) first, this Agreement; (ii) then, the Project
Approvals; and (iii) finally, the City Requirements. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Applicable
Rules shall include building code provisions in effect at the time of construction and subdivision
map act provisions in effect at the time of any map application submittal. The rules of the City
as of the Effective Date shall be subject to the reasonable interpretation of the City's Director of
Community Development.
4.2 Administrative Changes and Amendments. The parties acknowledge that
further planning and development of the Project may demonstrate that refinements and changes
are appropriate with respect to the details and performance of the parties under this Agreement.
The parties desire to retain a certain degree of flexibility with respect to the details of the
development of the Project and with respect to those items covered in general ten -ns under this
Agreement. If and when the parties find that Minor Changes (as hereinafter defined) are
necessary or appropriate, they shall, unless otherwise required by law, effectuate such changes or
adjustments through administrative amendments executed by the Developer and the City
Manager or his or her designee, which, after execution, shall be attached hereto as addenda and
become a part hereof, and may be further changed and amended from time to time as necessary,
with approval by the City Manager and the Developer. In the event that the Developer and the
City Manager cannot agree on whether certain changes proposed by Developer constitute Minor
Changes or whether such proposed changes are necessary or appropriate, the Developer shall
DFVF.f.OPMF.NT AGRF.F.MFNT
have the right to appeal the determination of the City Manager to the Planning Commission and
shall have the further right to appeal any determination of the Planning Commission to the City
Council. The teen "Minor Changes" means changes, modifications or adjustments which are
consistent with the overall intent of the Project Approvals and which do not materially alter the
overall nature, scope, or design of the Project, including, without limitation, minor changes in
locations of the Project Improvements or infrastructure, the construction or provision of
additional parking spaces within the building envelope of any Parking Structure shown on the
Project Approval, and the configuration of internal circulation elements. In effecting these
modifications, the City shall fully cooperate with the Developer, provided that the aggregate total
density and intensity of the Project are not increased, the permitted uses are not modified from
those in the Project Approvals and any changes to the Project Improvements are in accordance
with the Applicable Rules. Minor Changes shall not be deemed to be an amendment to this
Agreement under Government Code Section 65868, and unless otherwise required by law, no
such administrative amendments shall require prior notice or hearing by the Planning
Commission and City Council. The following matters shall not be considered Minor Changes,
but shall be considered substantive amendments which shall be reviewed by the Planning
Commission and approved by the City Council:
4.2.1 Any addition of pennitted uses not substantially similar to those set
forth in the Project Approvals;
4.2.2 Any increase in the maximum height of any permitted Project
Improvements;
4.2.3 Any amendment or change requiring a subsequent or supplemental
environmental impact report pursuant to CEQA.
4.2.4 Any reduction in the minimum building setbacks and stepbacks for
any of the Project Improvements.
4.2.5 Any increase in the overall aggregate square footage of the Project
Buildings,
4.3 Material Project Modifications. The Developer reserves the right to apply
to the City for pennits, variances or other approvals to develop portions of the Project in a
manner which may be materially inconsistent with the Project Approvals. In such event, such
portions of the Project shall be reviewed and approved pursuant to the rules, regulations, and
procedures of the City in effect at the time the Developer makes application to the City for such
development, and to the extent any such application is inconsistent with this Agreement, such
application shall include an application to amend this Agreement.
4.4 New Rules. This Agreement shall not prevent the City from applying to
the Project the following new rules, regulations and policies, if unifonnly applied on a City-wide
basis:
4.4.1 Procedural regulations relating to hearing bodies, petitions,
applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports,
r)FVFT.(-)PMFNT AC.RPPMFNT
recommendations, appeals and any other matter of procedure, provided
that the City's Director of Community Development makes an affirmative
finding that such changes in procedural regulations do not have the effect
of materially interfering with the substantive benefits conferred to
Developer by this Agreement.
4.4.2 Regulations which are not in conflict with this Agreement
provided that the City's Director of Community Development makes an
'affirmative finding that such new regulations would not, alone or in the
aggregate, cause development of the Project to be materially different,
more burdensome, time consuming or expensive.
4.4.3 Regulations which are necessary to avoid serious threats to the
public health and safety, provided that the City's Director of Community
Development makes an affinnative finding that, to the maximum extent
possible, such regulations have been construed and applied in a manner to
preserve the substantive benefits to the Developer of this Agreement.
4.4.4 Mandatory regulations of the County of Los Angeles, State of
California and the United States of America applicable to the Project,
provided that the City's Director of Community Development snakes an
affirmative finding that, to the maximum extent possible, such regulations
have been construed and applied in a manner to preserve to the Developer
the substantive benefits of this Agreement.
If the Developer does not agree with a determination by the City's Director of Community
Development under this Section 4.4, the Developer may appeal such determination to the
Planning Commission. If the Developer does not agree with the determination of the Planning
Commission, Developer may appeal to the City Council. If Developer does not agree with a
determination of the City Council, Developer shall have the right to contest or challenge such
determination.
4.5 Discretionary Approvals. The development of the Project for specified
allowable uses and as described in this Agreement shall require no subsequent discretionary
approvals other than the Project Approvals, and no ministerial approvals by the City except for:
(a) review and approval by the Community Development Director of the exterior elevations of
any Project Building or Parking Structure for a detenmination as to consistency with the
architecture of MOB 1 and PSI; (b) design review, plan checking, grading and building pen -nits
solely to evaluate the proposed development for conformity to the Applicable Rules; and (c) any
subdivision or parcel map approvals with respect to the Campus Property that may be requested
or required by the Developer subsequent to the Effective Date of this Agreement. Prior to the
issuance of a building permit for M0132/PS2 and MOB3/PS3, the Director of Community
Development shall conduct a review of the compliance by Developer with its obligations under
this Agreement and shall report the findings of that review to the City Council. If the Developer
is found to not be in compliance with its obligations under this Agreement, the building permit
nFVFT.OPMFNT AGPFFMFNT
for MOB2/PS2 or MOB3/PS3, as applicable, shall not be issued until Developer cures or corrects
the items of non-compliance.
4.6 No Obligation to Develop. Nothing in this Agreement is intended, should
be construed nor shall require Developer to proceed with the construction of any Project
hnprovements on the Campus Property; provided that any Project Improvements constructed
shall comply with the requirements for timing and usage set forth in Sections 4.7 and 5 herein.
The decision to proceed or to forbear or delay in proceeding with the implementation or
construction of the Project or any Project Improvements shall be in the sole discretion of
Developer and the failure of Developer to proceed with construction of any Project
Improvements shall not (i) give rise to any rights of the City to terminate this Agreement or (ii)
constitute an event of default or give rise to any liability, claim for damages or cause of action
against Developer.
4.7 Timing of Construction of Project Improvements.
4.7.1 Developer shall not be required to construct the Project
Improvements in any particular order or pursuant to any particular schedule, provided, however,
that the following prerequisites to the Project Improvements as described in the table below are
met:
Prior To: Developer Must:
Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for
MOB 1
Complete the construction of the traffic
mitigation improvements identified in the EIR
(collectively, the "Traffic Mitigation
Improvements") that are listed in Paragraph 1
on Exhibit "F" attached hereto.
Complete the construction of the Realignment
Improvements (as hereinafter defined) that are
listed in Paragraph 1 on Exhibit "K" attached
hereto.
Obtain the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for PSI.
Complete all (i) Conditions of Approval that
are required for the construction of MOB 1 and
PSI, and (ii) CEQA mitigation measures
identified in the EIR that are associated with
the construction of MOB 1 and PSI.
r)FVFT.CIPMFNT ACRFFMFNT
Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the
Obtain the issuance of Certificates of
Inpatient Building
Occupancy for PSI and MOB 1.
Complete the construction of the Traffic
Mitigation Improvements that are listed in
Paragraph 2 on Exhibit "F" attached hereto.
Complete the construction of the Realignment
Improvements that are listed in Paragraph 2 on
Exhibit "K" attached hereto.
Provide City Required Parking (as hereinafter
defined) on the Campus Property for (i) the
Existing Improvements, (ii) any Prior Project
Buildings (as hereinafter defined) and (iii) the
Inpatient Building.
Complete all (i) Conditions of Approval that
are required for the construction of the
Inpatient Building, and (ii) CEQA mitigation
measures identified in the EIR that are
associated with, the construction of the
Inpatient Building and any related parking
structures.
Issuance of a Building Permit for MOB2
Obtain the issuance of Certificates of
Occupancy for PSI and MOB 1.
Complete the relocation of hospital functions
into MOB as specified in Section 5.6 herein.
Provide City with written verification that
plans for the Inpatient Building have been
submitted to OSHPD for approval.
Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for
Provide City Required Parking on the Campus
MOB2
Property for (1) the Existing Improvements, (ii)
any Prior Project Buildings and (iii) MOB2.
Complete the construction of the Traffic
Mitigation Improvements that are listed in
Paragraph 2 on Exhibit "F" attached hereto.
Complete the construction of the Realignment
Improvements that are listed in Paragraphs 2
and 3 on Exhibit "K" attached hereto.
DFVFL,OPMFNT AGRF.F.MF.NT
TIFVT=T (1PMPNT A(-,PPPNAPNT
Complete all (i) Conditions of Approval that
are required for the construction of MOB2, and
(ii) CEQA mitigation measures identified in
the EIR that are associated with the
construction of MOB2 and any related parking
structures.
Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for
MOB2 shall be conditioned on Developer
providing written documentation to the City
Council that 20% of M0132's leasable space
has been leased to HMNMH for Centers of
Excellence (as hereinafter defined) or other
hospital -related uses.
Issuance of a Building Pen -nit for MOB 3
Obtain issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
for PSI and MOB 1,
Complete the relocation of hospital functions
into MOB as specified in Section 5.6 herein.
Complete the construction of the Traffic
Mitigation hnprovements that are listed in
Paragraph 2 on Exhibit "F" attached hereto.
Complete the construction of the Realignment
Improvements that are listed in Paragraphs 2
and 3 on Exhibit "K" attached hereto.
Foundations for the Inpatient Building shall be
substantially complete. In addition, either
vertical steel rebar must be in place for the first
structural column section or, if a steel
structural frame is to be used, the first vertical
-,
steel column section must be in place.
Obtain issuance of a building pen -nit for PS3
and provide written documentation satisfactory
to the Director of Community Development
that, upon issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for PS3, Developer shall provide
City Required Parking on the Campus Property
for (i) the Existing Improvements, (ii) any
Prior Project Buildings and (iii) MOB 3. The
City shall impose as a condition to the issuance
TIFVT=T (1PMPNT A(-,PPPNAPNT
4.7.2 For purposes of Section 4.7.1: (a) the term "City Required
Parking" means the number of parking spaces set forth on Exhibit "G" to this Agreement ; and
(b) the term "Prior Project Buildings" means any Project Buildings under this Agreement (i)
for which a certificate of occupancy has been issued by the City or (ii) which are then under
construction.
4.7.3 For purposes of Section 4.7.1, the term "Centers of Excellence"
means the provision of highly specialized health care services via physician and/or hospital -
authorized providers or hospital collaboration around a disease category (e.g. — cancer, heart,
maternity or orthopedic or spine) or a service area (e.g. — outpatient imaging) in a central
location. "Centers of Excellence" include diagnostics, treatment, rehabilitation, nursing,
physician or community educational programs, clinical research and advanced medical
technologies.
4.8 Additional Subterranean Parking Spaces. Developer shall be pennitted to
add additional subterranean parking spaces in any Parking Structure beyond the number of City
Required Parking spaces required for that Parking Structure (the "Additional Subterranean
Spaces"), without the necessity of an amendment to this Agreement or the modification of the
Project Approvals, unless the exportation of dirt required for any such Additional Subterranean
Spaces shall cause the aggregate cubic yards of dirt export in connection with the development
of the Project to exceed 93,293 cubic yards. Should the Developer provide these Additional
Subterranean Spaces in any Parking Structure, the Developer may reduce the number of City
Required Parking spaces in a subsequently constructed Parking Structure by no more than the
aggregate number of Additional Subterranean Spaces.
5. Restrictions on Use. Developer agrees that the use of the Campus Property shall
be restricted as follows during the Tenn of this Agreement:
5 1 all Existing Improvements on the G&L Property and any Project Buildings
developed on the G&L Property during the Term of this Agreement shall be used solely for the
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
of a certificate of occupancy for MOB3 that a
certificate of occupancy has been issued for
PS3.
Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for
Complete all (i) Conditions of Approval that
MOB3
are required for the construction of MOB3, and
(ii) CEQA mitigation measures identified in
the EIR that are associated with the
construction of MOB3.
Complete the Traffic Mitigation Improvement
that is listed in Paragraph 4 on Exhibit "F"
attached hereto.
4.7.2 For purposes of Section 4.7.1: (a) the term "City Required
Parking" means the number of parking spaces set forth on Exhibit "G" to this Agreement ; and
(b) the term "Prior Project Buildings" means any Project Buildings under this Agreement (i)
for which a certificate of occupancy has been issued by the City or (ii) which are then under
construction.
4.7.3 For purposes of Section 4.7.1, the term "Centers of Excellence"
means the provision of highly specialized health care services via physician and/or hospital -
authorized providers or hospital collaboration around a disease category (e.g. — cancer, heart,
maternity or orthopedic or spine) or a service area (e.g. — outpatient imaging) in a central
location. "Centers of Excellence" include diagnostics, treatment, rehabilitation, nursing,
physician or community educational programs, clinical research and advanced medical
technologies.
4.8 Additional Subterranean Parking Spaces. Developer shall be pennitted to
add additional subterranean parking spaces in any Parking Structure beyond the number of City
Required Parking spaces required for that Parking Structure (the "Additional Subterranean
Spaces"), without the necessity of an amendment to this Agreement or the modification of the
Project Approvals, unless the exportation of dirt required for any such Additional Subterranean
Spaces shall cause the aggregate cubic yards of dirt export in connection with the development
of the Project to exceed 93,293 cubic yards. Should the Developer provide these Additional
Subterranean Spaces in any Parking Structure, the Developer may reduce the number of City
Required Parking spaces in a subsequently constructed Parking Structure by no more than the
aggregate number of Additional Subterranean Spaces.
5. Restrictions on Use. Developer agrees that the use of the Campus Property shall
be restricted as follows during the Tenn of this Agreement:
5 1 all Existing Improvements on the G&L Property and any Project Buildings
developed on the G&L Property during the Term of this Agreement shall be used solely for the
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
purpose of (i) the erection, maintenance and operation of medical office buildings, which may
include, but not be limited to, the operation of doctors' offices, phannacies, diagnostic imaging
facilities, lab specimen collection, doctor billing services, and such other health care services as
may be provided by doctors or HMNMH or its affiliates, successors and assigns, and (ii) such
other medical uses approved in writing in advance by the Hospital, its affiliates, successors and
assigns; and °
5.2 unless otherwise approved by HMNMH in writing (which approval may
be given or withheld in HMNMH's sole and absolute discretion), all new tenants executing a
new lease during the Tenn of this Agreement in any Existing Improvements and Project
Buildings located on the G&L Property shall be limited to physicians who, or professional
entities comprised of physicians the majority of whom, have privileges to admit and treat
patients at HMNMH; and
5.3 HMNMH shall have a right of first offer to lease any space in any Existing
Improvements and Project Buildings of the G&L Property in accordance with the procedures set
forth in Exhibit "H"; and .
5.4 HMNMH shall have a right of first refusal to purchase all or any part of
the G&L Property and the Existing Improvements and the Project Buildings thereon in
accordance with the procedures set forth in Exhibit "I"; and
5.5 The HMNMH Property and buildings located thereon (including the
Existing Improvements thereon and the Inpatient Building, but excluding MOB 1) shall be
limited to hospital and hospital -related uses during the Term of this Agreement.
5.6 HMNMH shall relocate some or all of the following hospital functions to
MOB 1: administration, nursing , administration, human resources, information technology, 1
quality and medical staff services, education, board and educational conference rooms, business
services including billing and collections, accounting services, material management and
logistics; clinical case management, social services, risk management, medical library, medical
staff conference rooms, marketing, public relations and community relations, security and safety
and other support offices. These hospital functions will occupy 40,000 rentable square feet in
MOB as part of the initial occupancy/leasing of MOB 1.
5.7 Except for the Existing Gated Areas (as hereinafter defined) or as
otherwise provided in the Conditions of Approval, all parking on the Campus Property shall be
available for all uses on the Campus Property, and, where appropriate, reciprocal parking and
access easements/agreements either have been or hereafter shall be executed by Developer prior
to certificates of occupancy being issued for each parking structure to effectuate this
requirement.
5.8 Subject to completion of the irnprovernents referenced below, expanded
services available on the Carnpus Property shall include:
5.8.1 A 50% increase in the current number of intensive care beds from
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
12 beds to 18 beds in an improved critical care center, to be located in the
current Hospital facility within two years after issuance of a certificate of
occupancy of MOB 1.
5.8.2 Neonatal intensive care services to address medical needs of high
risk pregnancies and high risk infants, to be developed within the main
hospital building or located in the new Inpatient Building within two years
following the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the Inpatient
Building, unless prior to this time another hospital has been located in the
Santa Clarita Valley which duplicates full-service obstetric care.
5.8.3 A women's services unit to include private labor and delivery
suites and dedicated operating rooms for scheduled and emergency c -
section deliveries, along with post-operative and post -partum private
rooms, to be located in the new Inpatient Building within two years
following the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the Inpatient
Building.
5.8.4 A minimum 50% increase in inpatient operating room capacity
from 4 operating rooms to at least 6 operating rooms. Additional
operating rooms to occur upon the issuance of the certificate of occupancy
for the new Inpatient Building.
5.8.5 Additional post coronary care private rooms to complement
interventional cardiac services, to occur in the existing Hospital facility if
services are able to be moved to the new Medical Buildings, or otherwise
in the new Inpatient Building upon issuance of the certificate of
occupancy for the Inpatient Building.
5.8.6 Expansion of post-surgical care services with additional private
room accommodations in the new Inpatient Building, to occur within two
years following the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the
Inpatient Building.
5.8.7 Replacement and expansion of campus educational and training
facilities for both Hospital staff and community health education, to be
provided in the new Medical Buildings within one (1) year of the
certificate of occupancy of MOB 1.
5.9 TCU Task Force. HMNMH will continue to actively participate in the
City's Transitional Care Unit (TCU) Task Force designed to insure that a suitable location and
operator for a TCU facility is provided within the Santa Clarita Valley. In addition, the
Developer shall contribute Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) to the City, to
be used at the discretion of the City Council, following a recommendation of the City's TCU
Task Force, for the feasibility, siting and construction of a facility or other senior health care
needs. The sum of $50,000 shall be paid upon the Effective Date of this Agreement. The
IlF\/FT (IPMFNT AC,PPFMFNT
remaining balance shall be paid in equal installments of $50,000 per year on the anniversary date
of the Effective Date of this agreement until the entire amount is paid.. If a facility is found and
the funds are needed for the purchase and development of the facility, these funds shall be
provided within 30 days upon a written request from the City Manager.
6. Parkin . During the Tenn of this Agreement, Developer shall not (i) gate any
entrances to surface parking areas (other than the Existing Gated Areas for physician parking) or
Parking Structures on the Campus Property or (ii) charge any patients or visitors for parking on
the Campus Property unless: (a) in the case of any proposed gating of parking entrances,
Developer hereafter files an application with the City for a minor use permit of such gating,
which application must be submitted to the City Council for its review and approval; and (b) in
the case that Developer hereafter proposes to charge patients or visitors for parking on the
Campus Property, Developer files an application with the City for approval of the right to
institute such parking charges, which application must be submitted to the City Council for its
review and approval. In conjunction with filing an application under either clause (a) or (b)
above, such application shall be accompanied by a study that analyzes the potential impacts and
benefits of the proposed actions that are the subject of the application The term "Existing
Gated Areas" means: (x) the existing surface lot for physician parking located adjacent to the
north side of the new emergency room for the Hospital, which contains 25 parking spaces; and
(y) the existing surface lot for physician parking located adjacent to the west side of the main
Hospital building, which contains 24 parking spaces.
7. Exactions, Dedications, Assessments, Fees, Reservations, Dedications and Public
Improvements.
7.1 Bridge and Thoroughfare District Fees. For purposes of this Agreement,
the tenn "B&T Fees" means any Bridge and Thoroughfare District Fees that are established
pursuant to Santa Clarita Code Section 16.21.190. During the Term of this Agreement,
Developer shall be responsible for the payment of all B&T Fees that are imposed by the City in
connection with the issuance by the City of a building permit for the construction of any Project
Buildings. The B&T Fees with respect to each Project Building shall be calculated at the rates in
effect on the date that Developer submits its application for the building permit for that Project
Building, provided that such rates are unifonnly applied throughout the District. Subject to
section 7.3 herein, and subject to approval by the District of an application submitted by the
Developer in accordance with the District's guidelines and procedures, Developer shall be
entitled to a credit against the B&T Fee for any eligible out-of-pocket costs incurred by
Developer in the perfonnance of any required Traffic Mitigation Improvements.
7.2 Exactions and Fees. The City agrees that no conditions, exactions,
dedications, assessments, fees, reservations or public improvements whatsoever shall be imposed
or required by the City in connection with any Project Approvals or the development of the
Project or any portion thereof except for• (a) the B&T Fees, (b) the Conditions of Approval, (c)
the Traffic Mitigation Improvements set forth on Exhibits "F" and "K", (d) the obligations of
Developer under Section 7.3, and (e) any fees or exactions that the City is mandated to impose
under a law or regulation adopted after the Effective Date of this Agreement by the federal
government, the State of California or the County of Los Angeles Where the Developer must
DFVFI,OPMFNTAGRFFM RNT
provide for construction of improvements or dedication of land, or both, in lieu of payment of a
regulatory fee or development imposition, and such construction and/or dedication constitutes,
by agreement of the City, full and complete discharge of the obligation of Developer and the
Campus Property for the impact or matter at issue, no future development fee or regulatory
imposition may be imposed upon the Campus Property or the development for all or any portion
thereof for the same or similar purpose.
7.3 Realignment and Widening of McBean Parkway. The City desires to
widen and realign McBean Parkway in the future in order to improve overall traffic circulation
(the "McBean Frontage Realignment"). The City has requested that the Developer assist the
City's efforts to effectuate the McBean Frontage Realignment. Consistent with Santa Clarita
Municipal Code section 17 03.010(E)(4) (requirement that a development agreement provide for
clear and substantial public benefit) and in addition to the other public benefits provided by
Developer herein, Developer further agrees to provide assistance toward the McBean Frontage
Realignment by taking the following actions and providing the following payments and
dedications, pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth below.
7.3.1 Prior to the issuance ,of the building pen -nit for MOB1 or PS1,
Developer shall dedicate to the City, at no cost to the City, the portion of
the Campus Property that fronts McBean Parkway which is depicted and
legally described on Exhibit "J" to this Agreement for use by the City as
right-of-way for the future McBean Frontage Realignment (the
"Dedicated Area").
7.3.2 In addition to the required Traffic Mitigation Improvements listed
on Exhibit "F" to this Agreement, Developer also shall complete the
construction of the street improvements to McBean Parkway listed on
Exhibit "K" to this Agreement (collectively, the "Realignment
Improvements"), as and when required under Section 4.7 and Exhibit
"K", at the respective locations and configurations (collectively, the
"Designated Configuration") shown on that certain preliminary
engineering plan depicting the McBean Frontage Realignment, prepared
by DCA Engineers, dated July 24, 2008 (the "Frontage Design Plan"),
which is attached as Exhibit "L" to this Agreement. The Frontage Design
Plan has been reviewed by the City. Exhibit F to this Agreement sets forth
the traffic improvements imposed by the City as mitigation measures
pursuant to the EIR, which are to be performed by Developer as provided
therein. Exhibit K sets forth the Realignment Improvements which
Developer has agreed to perform pursuant to this Agreement Prior to the
issuance by the City of any permit required for the construction of any
Realignment Improvement, Developer shall submit to the City, for its
review and approval, detailed street improvement plans for such
Realignment Improvement based upon the Frontage Design Plan.
7.3.3 On or prior to the fifth (5`) anniversary of the Effective Date,
Developer shall pay to the City the sure of $500,000 to be utilized by the
DEVELOPMENT AOREE.MF.NT
City for the McBean Frontage Realignment.
In the event that the McBean Frontage Realignment is a project that is or becomes eligible for
the use of B&T Fees pursuant to Santa Clarita Code Section 16.21.190 , Developer shall be,
entitled to a credit against the B&T Fee for eligible out-of-pocket costs as (as determined by the
rules and regulations governing such credits that are then generally in effect in the City) for (i)
those Traffic Mitigation Improvements described on Exhibit F as items 1(a) and 2(a), and (ii)
those Realignment hnprovements described on Exhibit K as items 1(d), 2(a) and 2(b), that are
incurred by Developer.
7.4 No Eminent Domain. The City and Developer expressly acknowledge and
agree that the City shall not initiate nor prosecute any condemnation or eminent domain action to
acquire any residential real property in connection with the development of the Project or in
order to facilitate the construction of any Traffic Mitigation Improvements identified on Exhibit
"F" or "K" to this Agreement.
8. Cooperation and Implementation by the City and Developer.
8.1 Processing. Upon execution of this Agreement, the City shall commence
and proceed to complete all steps required of the City necessary or appropriate for the
implementation of this Agreement and the development of the Project in accordance with the
terms of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the processing and checking of any and all
subdivision or plat maps, improvement plans, grading plans, building plans and specifications
and any other plans necessary for the development of the Project and the issuance of all
necessary building permits, occupancy certificates, or other required permits for the construction,
use, and occupancy of the Project. The City acknowledges that HMNMH intends to apply to the
City for approval to subdivide the HMNMH Property so as to create a separate legal parcel for
MOB and the City agrees to process such application in accordance with this Section 8.1. The
City's obligations pursuant to this Section 8.1 are conditioned upon the Developer providing the
City with all documents, plans, fees and other information necessary for the City to carry out its
obligations under this Agreement, consistent with the City's application procedures, codes,
ordinances and standards.
8.2. Other Governmental Permits. City agrees to cooperate with Developer in
Developer's endeavors to obtain pen -nits and approvals as may be required from other
governmental or quasi -governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the Property or portions
thereof (such as, for example, but not by way of limitation, public utilities or utility districts and
agencies having jurisdiction over transportation facilities and air quality issues) so long as the
cooperation by City will not require City to incur any cost, liability or expense without adequate
indemnity against or right of reimbursement therefor from Developer.
9. Term of Agreement. This Agreement -shall be binding as and when the ordinance
approving this Agreement has been approved by the City Council and the Agreement has been
executed by the City and Developer, and shall remain in effect until the fifteenth (15"')
anniversary of the Effective Date (the "Term"). Expiration or termination of this Agreement
shall not affect any right arising from permits or approvals on the Campus Property issued by the
DEVFLOPMF.NT AGRFF.MFNT
City prior to such expiration or termination, nor shall such expiration affect any right the City
may have by reason of the Developer's covenants to dedicate land or provide public
improvements in conjunction with any portion of the Campus Property which is under
construction at such time.
10. Vesting.
10.1 Existing Rules to Govern. Except as otherwise provided in this
Agreement, no amendment to, revision of, or addition to any of the Applicable Rules without the
Developer's written approval, whether adopted or approved by the City Council or any office,
board, commission or other agency of the City, or by the people of the City through charter
amendment, referendum or initiative measure, shall be effective or enforceable by the City with
respect to the Project, and the design, density, intensity, signage, grading, zoning, construction,
remodeling, or use of the Project. No future modification of City's codes or ordinances, or
adoption of any code, ordinance, regulation or other action that purports to limit the rate of
development over time or directly or indirectly limit the number of building permits issued or
obtainable during any period within the Term (whether adopted or imposed by the City Council
or through the initiative or referendum process) shall apply to the Project or any part thereof; nor
shall any such modification or adoption of a code, ordinance or regulation modify the rights held
by Developer hereunder.
10.2 Subsequent "Slow/No Growth" Measures. To the fullest extent legally
permissible, any subsequently enacted initiatives, referenda, moratoria or amendments to the
General Plan and/or ordinances which contain "slow/no growth" measures, or which by their
terms are intended to or by operation have such effect, shall have no application to the Project.
11. OSHPD Regulations' The City and Developer mutually acknowledge and agree
that Part 7 of the California Health and Safety Code and Part 1, Chapter 7 of Title 24 of the
California Code of Regulations grant exclusive authority to the California Office of Statewide
Health Planning & Development over the construction of the Inpatient Building and any other
"hospital building" as defined in California Health and Safety Code Sections 129675-129680 and
Section 7-111 of Part 1, Chapter 7 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.
12. Review of Compliance. Developer shall request annual review of this Agreement
in accordance with Government Code Section 65865.1, Santa Clarita Code Section 17.03.010.J.,
and this Agreement, in order to ascertain compliance by the Developer with the teens of this
Agreement.
13. Mortgages.
13.1 Mortgagee Protection. No breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render
invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust made in good faith and for
value affecting any portion of the Campus Property or any Existing Improvements or Project
Improvements thereon (collectively, a "Mortgage"); and any acquisition or acceptance of title or
any right or interest in or with respect to the Campus Property or any portion thereof pursuant to
a Mortgage, foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure or otherwise shall be subject to
DF.VF.i.(-)PMFNT ACYRFFMF.NT
all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement and entitled to all of its benefits. The
Parties agree that they will make reasonable amendments to this Agreement to meet the
requirements of any lender for the Project.
13.2 Mortgagee Not Obligated. No mortgagee under any Mortgage
(collectively, a "Mortgagee") shall have an obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform
the Developer's obligations or other affirmative covenants of either hereunder, or to guarantee
such performance, except where such Mortgagee attempts to exercise any rights hereunder
associated with any such obligation or duty.
13.3 Notice of Default to Mortgagee: Right of Mortgagee to Cure. If the City
receives notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given hereunder and
specifying the address for service thereof, and the said Mortgagee has recorded a copy of such
request in the official records of Los Angeles County in the manner required under California
Civil Code Section 2924b with respect to Requests for Notices of Default, then the City shall
deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereon to the applicable Party, any notice
given to the applicable Party with respect to any claim by such Party that it has not complied in
good faith with the terms of this Agreement or has committed an event of default. Each
Mortgagee shall have the right (but not the obligation) for a period of ninety (90) days after the
receipt of such notice from such Party to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the
claimed default or act of noncompliance set forth in such Party's notice. If the default is of a
nature which can only be remedied or cured by such Mortgagee upon obtaining possession, such
Mortgagee may (but is not obligated to) seek to obtain possession with diligence and continuity
through foreclosure, a receiver or otherwise, and may (but is not obligated to) thereafter remedy
or cure the default or noncompliance within thirty (30) days after obtaining possession. If any
such default or noncompliance cannot, with diligence, be remedied or cured within such thirty
(30) day period, then such Mortgagee shall have such additional time as may be reasonably
necessary to remedy or cure such default or noncompliance if such Mortgagee commences cure
during such thirty (30) day period, and thereafter diligently pursues and completes such cure.
13.4 Bankruptcy. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Section 13,
if any Mortgagee is prohibited from commencing or prosecuting foreclosure, or other appropriate
proceedings in the nature thereof, by any injunction issued by any court or by reason of any
action by any court having jurisdiction of any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding involving the
Developer, the times specified in Section 13.3 for commencing or prosecuting foreclosure or
other proceedings shall be extended for the period of the prohibition.
14. Default and Remedies.
14.1 Notice and Cure.
14. 1.1 In the event of failure by either party hereto substantially to
perfonn any terms, covenant or condition of this Agreement which is
required on its part to be perfonned ("Default"), the non -defaulting party
shall have those rights and remedies provided in this Agreement, provided
that such non -defaulting party has first sent a written notice of Default, in
DF.VF.i.OPMFNT AGRFFMFNT
the mamler required by Section 18, by registered or certified mail, return
receipt requested, identifying with specificity the nature of the alleged
Default and the manner in which the alleged Default may be satisfactorily
cured ("Notice of Default"). In the event of a Default by Developer, the
Notice of Default shall also be provided to any Mortgagee of Developer
which has delivered a Request for Notice to the City in accordance with
Section 13.3.
14.1.2 In the case of a monetary Default by Developer, Developer shall
promptly commence to cure the identified Default and shall complete the
cure of such Default within ten (10) business days after receipt by
Developer of the Notice of Default. In the case of a non-monetaryDefault
by either party, the alleged defaulting party shall promptly commence to
cure the identified Default and shall complete the cure within thirty (30)
days after receipt of the Notice of Default. The thirty (30) day cure period
for a non -monetary Default shall be extended as is reasonably necessary to
remedy such Default, provided that the alleged defaulting party
commences such cure promptly after receiving the Notice of Default and
continuously and diligently pursues such remedy at all times until such
Default is cured.
14.2 Remedies for Monetary Default. In the event of Default by Developer in
the perfonnance of any of its monetary obligations under this Agreement which remains uncured
(i) ten (10) business days after receipt by Developer of a written notice of default from the City
and (ii) after expiration of Mortgagee's cure period under Section 13.3 (if a Mortgagee of
Developer has delivered a Request for Notice to the City in accordance with Section 13.3), the
City shall have available any right or remedy provided in this Agreement, at law or in equity.
All of said remedies shall be cumulative and not exclusive of one another, and the exercise of
any one or more of said remedies shall not constitute a waiver or election in respect to any other
available remedy.
14.3 Remedies for Non -Monetary Default.
14.3.1 In the event of non -monetary Default by either party hereunder
which remains uncured (i) after expiration of all applicable notice and
cure periods and (ii) in the case of a Default by Developer, after the
expiration of Mortgagee's cure period under Section 13.3 (if a Mortgagee
of Developer has delivered a Request for Notice to the City in accordance
with Section 13.3), the non -defaulting party shall have available any right
or remedy provided in this Agreement, or provided at law or in equity
except as prohibited by this Agreement. All ,of said remedies shall be
cumulative and not exclusive of one another, and the exercise of any one
or more of said remedies shall not constitute a waiver or election in
respect to any other available remedy.
14.3.2 The City and Developer acknowledge that monetary damages and
nPN/P1 nPTAF\IT A(:RFFTAFTJT
remedies at law generally are inadequate and that specific performance is
an appropriate remedy for the enforcement of this Agreement. Therefore,
the remedy of specific performance shall be available to both the City and
Developer under this Agreement in the event of a non -monetary Default.
14.3.3 The City and Developer hereby stipulate that Developer shall be
entitled to obtain relief in the fonn of a writ of mandate in accordance with
Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085 or Section 1094.5, as appropriate, to
remedy any non -monetary Default by the City of its obligations and duties
under this Agreement.
14.3.4 Neither the City nor Developer shall have the right to sue for
monetary damages as a result of a non -monetary Default under this
Agreement.
14.4 Tennination of Agreement by City.
14.4.1 In the event that (i) the City finds and detennines pursuant to
Section 12, on the basis of substantial evidence, that Developer has not
been in good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this
Agreement, or (b), the City finds and detennines that there has been a
Default by Developer of its obligations under this Agreement, the City
may commence proceedings to terminate this Agreement pursuant to this
Section 14.4.
14.4.2 The procedures for termination of this Agreement by the City for
the grounds set forth in Section 14.4.1 are as follows:
14.4.2(a) The City shall provide a written notice to Developer
(and to any Mortgagee of Developer which has delivered a Request
for Notice to the City in accordance of Section 13.3) of its
intention to terminate this Agreement unless Developer (or the
Mortgagee) cures or corrects the acts or omissions that constitute
the basis of such detenninations by the City (the "Hearing
Notice"). The Hearing Notice shall be delivered by the City to
Developer in accordance with Section 18 and shall contain the time
and place of a public hearing to be held by the City Council on the
detennination of the City to proceed with tennination or
modification of this Agreement. The public hearing shall not be
held earlier than: (i) thirty-one (31) days after delivery of the
Hearing Notice to Developer, or (ii) if a Mortgagee has delivered a
Request for Notice in accordance with Section 13.3, the day
following the expiration of the Mortgagee's cure period.
14.4.2(b) If, following the conclusion of the public hearing, the
City Council: (i) detennines that Developer is in Default of its
DEVF.I.nPMF.NT AC;RF.F.MFNT
obligations under this Agreement or has not been in good faith
compliance with this Agreement pursuant to Section 12, as
applicable; and (ii) further determines that Developer (or the
Mortgagee, if applicable) has not cured the acts or omissions that
constitute the basis of the detennination under subsection (i) or, if
those acts or omissions could not be reasonably remedied prior to
the public hearing, that Developer (or the Mortgagee) has not in
good faith commenced to cure or correct such acts or omissions
prior to the public hearing or is not diligently and continuously
proceeding therewith 'to completion, the City Council may
terminate this Agreement.
15. Project Approvals Independent. If any provision of this Agreement or the
application of any provision of this Agreement to a particular situation is held by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, or if this Agreement is tenninated for any
reason, then such invalidity, unenforceability or tennination of this Agreement, or any part
hereof, shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of any Project Approvals or land use
approvals' which have been issued or granted by the City prior to that time. In such cases, such
Project Approvals or land use approvals will remain in effect pursuant to their own terms,
provisions, and conditions of approval.
16. Required Actions of Parties; Further Assurances. The City and the Developer
shall execute all such instruments and documents and take in good faith all actions necessary or
convenient to consummate the transactions herein contemplated.
17. Assignment. The rights of the Developer under this Agreement may be
transferred or assigned in whole or in part to any person acquiring all or any portion of the
Campus Property or the Project subject only to the City's written approval of the assignee or
transferee, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Express assumption of any of the
Developer's obligations under this Agreement by any such transferee or assignee shall release
the Developer from the obligations so assigned and the City shall look solely to the transferee or
assignee for perfonnance of the assigned obligations under this Agreement.
18. Notices. All notices under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be
effective when personally delivered or upon receipt after deposit in the United States snail as
registered or certified snail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the following
representatives of the Parties at the addresses indicated below or to such other addresses as one
Party may provide to the other from time to time:
IIFVPT OPNAFNT A(:RF1::t`AP\1T
If to the City:
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, California 91355
Attention: City Manager
If to the Hospital:
With a copy to:
Burke, Williams & Sorensen
611 West Sixth Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, California 90017
Attention: Carl K. Newton, City Attorney
With a copy to:
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Hooper, Lundy and Bookman, Inc.
23845 McBean Parkway 101 West Broadway, Suite 1330
Valencia, CA 91355 San Diego, CA 92101-3890
Attention: Roger E. Seaver, President & CEO Attention, Stephen Treadgold, Esq.
Tf to CtkT,-
G&L Valencia, LLC
439 Bedford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Attention: Steven D. Lebowitz
With a copy to:
Law Offices of Richard A. Lawrence
2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 140
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Attention: Richard A. Lawrence, Esq.
19. Amendment or' Cancellation. Subject to meeting the notice and hearing
requirements of Section 65867 of the Government Code, this Agreement may be arnerided from
time to time, or canceled in whole or in part, by mutual consent of the City and Developer, or
their respective successors in interest in accordance with the provisions of Section 65868 of the
California Government Code; provided, however, that any amendment which does not relate to
the Term, permitted uses, density or intensity of use, height or size of Project Improvements,
provisions for reservation and dedication of land, conditions, terms, restrictions and requirements
relating to subsequent discretionary actions, or any conditions or covenants relating to the use of
the Campus Property, shall not require notice or public hearing before the Parties may execute an
amendment hereto.
20. Waiver. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless
in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the party against whom enforcement
of a waiver is sought and referring expressly to this Section. No waiver of any right or remedy in
respect of any occurrence or event shall be deemed a waiver of any right or remedy in respect of
any other occurrence of event.
21. Successor and Assigns. The provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon
and inure to the benefit of the Parties, and any subsequent owners of all or any portion of the
Campus Property and their respective successors and assigns. Any successors in interest to the
City shall be subject to the provisions set forth in Sections 65865.4 and 65868.5 of the
Government Code,
22. Interpretation and Governing State Law. This Agreement and any dispute arising
npvpi.CIPMFNT AC.RFFMFNT
hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of
California. This Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair language and
common meaning to achieve the objective and purposes of the Parties hereto, and the rule of
construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not
be employed in interpreting this Agreement, both Parties having been represented by counsel in
the negotiation and preparation hereof, All legal actions brought to enforce the terms of this
Agreement shall be brought and heard in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Los Angeles.
23. Constructive Notice and Acceptance. Every person who, now or hereafter, owns
or acquires any right, title or interest in or to any portion of the Campus Property is, and shall be,
conclusively deemed to have consented and agreed to every provision contained herein, whether
or not any reference to this Agreement is contained in the instrument by which such person
acquired an interest in the Campus Property.
24, No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the
sole protection and benefit of the Parties and their successors and assigns. No other person shall
have any right of action based upon any provision of this, Agreement.
25. Attorneys' Fees. If either Party commences any action for the interpretation,
enforcement, termination, cancellation or rescission hereof, or for specific performance of the
breach hereof, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
26. Counterparts, This Agreement may be executed in two or more identical
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and each of which shall be deemed
to be one and the same instrument when each Party signs each such counterpart.
27. Incorporation of Attachments. All recitals and attachments to this Agreement,
including all Exhibits referenced herein, and all subparts thereto, are incorporated herein by this
reference.
28. Detenninations. Whenever in this Agreement the consent or approval of any
party to this Agreement is required, such consent or approval shall not be unreasonably withheld
or delayed. In addition, unless a contrary standard or right is set forth herein, whenever any
party hereto is granted a right to take action, exercise discretion, or make an allocation, judgment
or other determination, each party hereto shall act reasonably and in good faith and take no
action which might result in the frustration of the expectations of the other Parties concerning the
benefits to be enjoyed under this Agreement as expressed in this Agreement.
29. Defense of Actions.
29 1 If any legal action or other proceeding is instituted by a third party or
parties (including without limitation, another governmental entity or official), challenging the
validity of any provision of the Project Approvals, the EIR or other CEQA actions related to the
Project, or this Agreement, Developer and the City shall cooperate in defending any such action,
The City shall promptly notify Developer of any such legal action against City within five (5)
TIFVFT OPMFNT A(;RFFMFNT
business days after the City receives service of process, except for any petition for injunctive
relief, in which case the City., shall notify Developer immediately upon receipt of notice thereof.
Developer shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City, and any of its officers, employees
or agents for any claim or lawsuit brought to challenge the validity or enforcement of the Project
Approvals, the EIR or other CEQA actions related to the Project, or this Agreement, instituted by
a third party or another governmental entity or official; provided, however, that if the City fails
to cooperate in the defense, Developer shall not thereafter be responsible for the City's defense
costs. Developer shall reimburse all of the City's defense costs including, without limitation,
court costs, attorneys fees and expert witness fees. Developer shall promptly pay all monetary
awards, judgments, verdicts, court costs and attorney's fees that may be awarded in such action.
The City shall be entitled to select counsel to conduct its defense in any such action; provided,
however, that the City shall instruct such counsel to cooperate with Developer as provided in this
Section 29.1.
29.2 The filing of any lawsuit(s) by a third party (not a party to this Agreement)
after the Effective Date against the City and/or Developer relating to this Agreement or to other
development issues affecting the Project shall not delay or stop the processing or issuance of any
permit or authorization necessary for development of the Project, unless the City in good faith
determines that such delay is legally required.
30. Estoppel Certificate. Either party may, at any time, and from time to time, (but no
more frequently than four (4) times in any calendar year) deliver written notice to the other party
requesting such party to certify in writing that, to the knowledge of the certifying party, (i) this
Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of the parties, (ii) this Agreement
has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing, or if so amended, identifying the
amendments, and (iii) the requesting party is not in default in the performance of its obligations
under this Agreement, or if in default, to describe therein the nature and amount of any such
defaults. A party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return such certificate or give a
written detailed response explaining why it will not do so within thirty (30) days following the
receipt thereof Each party 'acknowledges that such a certificate may be relied upon by third
parties acting in good faith. A certificate provided by City establishing the status of this
Agreement with respect to the HMNMH Property or the G&L Property shall be in recordable
form and may be recorded with respect to the affected parcels at the expense of the recording
party. Failure to deliver such a certificate or a written denial within the time specified above shall
constitute a conclusive presumption against the party failing to provide the certificate that this
Agreement is in full force and effect, without modification, except as may be represented by the
requesting party; and that there are no uncured defaults in the performance of the requesting
party except as may be so represented. All costs incurred in providing the notice(s) anticipated
by this section including reasonable attorney's fees shall be borne by the requesting party.
31. Authorized Delays. Perfornance by any Party of its obligations hereunder
shall be excused during any period of Excusable Delay, as hereinafter defined, provided that the
Party claiming the delay gives written notice of the delay to the other Parties as soon as possible
after the same has been ascertained. For purposes hereof, "Excusable Delay" shall mean delay
that directly affects, and is beyond the reasonable control of, the Party claiming the delay,
including without limitation: (a) act of God; (b) civil commotion; (c) riot; (d) strike, picketing or
IIFVFI (1PMFNT AnPPP APNT
other labor dispute; (e) shortage of materials or supplies; (f) damage to work in progress by
reason of fire, flood, earthquake or other casualty; (g) failure, delay or inability of City to
provide adequate levels of public services, facilities or infrastructure to the Property including,
by way of example only, the lack of water to serve any portion of the Property due to drought;
(h) delay caused by a delay by other third party entities which are required to approve plans or
documents for Developer to construct the Project, or restrictions imposed or mandated by such
other third party entities or governmental entities other than City; or (i) litigation brought by a
third party attacking the validity of this Agreement, a Project Approval, or any other action
necessary for development of the Project. Except for an Excusable Delay under clause (i) above,
the payment of fees or monies by Developer under this Agreement shall not be excused or
delayed during any period of Excusable Delay,
32. Administration of Agreement. Any decision by City staff concerning the
interpretation and administration of this Agreement and development of the Property in
accordance herewith may be appealed by the Developer to the Planning Commission, provided
that any such appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk of City within ten (10) days after the
affected Developer receives written notice of the staff decision. The Planning Commission shall
render its decision to affirm, reverse or modify the staff decision within thirty (30) days after the
appeal was filed. Thereafter the Developer may appeal the decision of the Planning Commission
to the City Council pursuant to the same deadlines. The Developer shall not seek judicial review
of any staff decision without first having exhausted its remedies pursuant to this section.
SIGNATURES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES
1
TIFVFT /IPTAFNT A(;PPPMPNT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Agreement.
Dated:
ATTEST:
Sharon Dawson
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
2008
Dated-(_) 40-- , 2008
"City,
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
a municipal corporation
By:
Ken Pulskamp
City Manager
' `HM NMN"
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital.
a California non-profit public benefit corporation
Z�
By'g • - --
ogee Seaver
PresidenUCEO
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
YnmR Page 26 of 27
J
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California
County o= ✓ `• ` � - ---
On �� ('. `• ., fJ, �% � before me, a t t t �, ; ; � L 1 t} �, r 0
Dote — —! 7 ere Insert Narne and Itl,e of t7ie Otfiu•f
personally appearedt----------- ----
Namc(s) of Signer(s)
r r�
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to
be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the
within Instrument and acknowledged to me that
he;she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized
capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the
instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of
which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws
of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is
true and correct.
WITNESS myhandand official seal.
Signature r
Plnre Nt,t„ry 5r, it Above i _.-iH�fiBritre of Notary Putrfi<.
OPTIONAL
Though the information oelow is not required by lav, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document
and could prevent fraudulent temoval and reattachment of this form to another document
Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document. ---___-- W..-- _ _ -- __--- ----__-_-- _-- -- - - - --
Document Date _ - Number of Pages
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above
Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s)
Signer's Name __-
Signer's Name_ -
Individual
Individual
-' Corporate Officer — Title(s) _ -- -- _-
Corporate Officer — Title(s): -_ --- _
- Partner --- -1 Limited "=_ General
_ Partner — _1 Limited -- General
t- Attorney in Fact
�- Attorney in Fact
•
- TOC c' tt, 1^' "efe 1
Trustee i i
Trustee
Up of tNiff , h- w
Guardian or Conservator j
Guardian or Conservator
Other _ --__--
E . Other ---
Signer Is Representing _
J
Signer Is Representing- —
�a'lIX)r N uu•nat Notary Assocrauon • 0350 De Soto Aaa PO. Bar 2402 •Cha swcrih CA 9+313.24N, • w1vw,NacrooalNpiz+ryerg llero n590/ Reorder (.al! toll Fmr� 1 t70P Alf-6%i?7
"G&L"
G&L Valencia, LLC,
a California limited liability company
By: G&L Realty Partnership, L.P.,
a Delaware limited partnership
Its: Sole Member
By: G&L Realty Properties, LLC
a Nevada limited liability company
Its: General Partner
Dated:P6f-m6c , 2008 By:
eve . Lebowitz
Its: Member
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
8/7/08 Page 27 of 27
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California )
County of Loa )
On ��ea' _ , 2008, before me, personally
appeared �A� V,e V, T) I C �ot,� �} , who proved to me oh the basis of satisfactory
evidence to be the persons) whose name(&) Wme subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/&� executed the same in hisAwfAheir capacity(ies),
and that by his/]�r signature(s} on the instrument the person(*, or the entity upon behalf of
which the personal acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.HELEN LMLE
LIM carwnW*m +e 1697623
Noaar► Pubic • caaomo
UN NVOW CCU*
1%T1MVC0nm6vM0cf31,2D1
Signature r (Seal)
EXHIBIT "A"
Legal Description of HMNMH Property
PARCELS 1 AND 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 3083, IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP
FILED IN BOOK 45, PAGE 91 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED
PARCEL:
BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1, SAID CORNER
LYING ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF MC BEAN PARKWAY, 100.00 FEET WIDE,
SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE ALSO BEING A CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY
AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1950.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE
SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, NORTH 19 DEGREES 37 MINUTES 08
SECONDS WEST, 551.90 FEET, SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE ALSO BEING A RADIAL
LINE TO SAID CURVE; THENCE NORTH 42 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 21 SECONDS EAST,
510.04 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 47 DEGREES 43 MINUTES 44 SECONDS EAST, 103.96 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 42 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 24 SECONDS EAST, 37.17 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 38 DEGREES 57 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, 24.83 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 51
DEGREES 19 MINUTES 23 SECONDS WEST, 20.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 38 DEGREES 35
MINUTES 36 SECONDS EAST, 108.15; THENCE SOUTH 33 DEGREES 01 MINUTES 43
SECONDS EAST, 45.04 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 51 DEGREES 32 MINUTES 59 SECONDS EAST, 18.85 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 38
DEGREES 36 MINUTES 22 SECONDS EAST, 118.74 FEET; THENCE NORTH 51 DEGREES 40
MINUTES 23 SECONDS EAST, 24.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 41 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 03
SECONDS EAST, 250.71 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 03 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 00 SECONDS
EAST, 21.88 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF MC BEAN
PARKWAY, 100.00 FEET WIDE AND SAID CURVE, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID CURVE
BEARS NORTH 41 DEGREES 08 MINUTES 36 SECONDS WEST; THENCE
SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 21
DEGREES 31 MINUTES 28 SECONDS FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 732.56 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING FOR THIS DESCRIPTION.
EXHIBIT "A"
RMOR TC) IIFVFI (1PMFNT A(:RFFNAFNT
EXHIBIT "B
Legal Description of G&L Property
THOSE PORTIONS OF PARCELS 1 AND 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 3083, IN THE CITY
OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS
SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP FILED IN BOOK 45, PAGE 91 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, BEING DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1, SAID
CORNER LYING ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF MC BEAN PARKWAY, 100.00
FEET WIDE, SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE ALSO BEING A CURVE, CONCAVE
NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1950.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1,
NORTH 19 DEGREES 37 MINUTES 08 SECONDS WEST, 551.90 FEET, SAID
SOUTHWESTERLY LINE ALSO BEING A RADIAL LINE TO SAID CURVE; THENCE
NORTH 42 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 21 SECONDS EAST, 510.04 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 47 DEGREES 43 MINUTES 44 SECONDS EAST, 103.96 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 42 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 24 SECONDS EAST, 37.17 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 38 DEGREES 57 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, 24.83 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
51 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 23 SECONDS WEST, 20.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 38
DEGREES 35 MINUTES 36 SECONDS EAST, 108,15; THENCE SOUTH 33 DEGREES
01 MINUTES 43 SECONDS EAST, 45.04 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 51 DEGREES 32 MINUTES 59 SECONDS EAST, 18.85 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 38 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 22 SECONDS EAST, 118.74 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 51 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 23 SECONDS EAST, 24.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
41 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 03 SECONDS EAST, 250.71 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 03
DEGREES 50 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, 21.88 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID
NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF MC BEAN PARKWAY, 100.00 FEET WIDE AND SAID
CURVE, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID CURVE BEARS NORTH 41 DEGREES 08
MINUTES 36 SECONDS WEST; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 21 DEGREES 31 MINUTES 28 SECONDS FOR AN
ARC LENGTH OF 732.56 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING FOR THIS
DESCRIPTION.
EXHIBIT "B"
8/7/08 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT "C"
Map of Campus Property
The Map of the Campus Property is on the following page
T
EXHIBIT "C
8/7/08 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT "D"
Existing Improvements
A Site Plan of the Campus Property depicting the Existing Improvements
is on the following page.
EXHIBIT "D"
8/7/08 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
m
X
C/)
---I
0z
Cf)
m
-0
1;
Z
90
C)
0
Z
rn
C:
0
Z
0
c-
m
Cl)
O
9.5
EXHIBIT "E"
Master Plan
The Master Plan for the Campus Property depicting the Project Improvements
is on the following page.
EXHIBIT "E"
8/7/08 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT "F"
EIR Traffic Mitigation Improvements
1. Prior to Issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for MOB1. The following traffic
mitigations set forth in the EIR must be completed by Developer prior to the issuance by the City
of a Certificate of Occupancy for MOB 1:
(a) McBean Parkway at Magic Mountain (Intersection #45): Add a third through
lane to the westbound direction (by re -striping the lanes) and add right -turn overlap
phasing for the westbound right -turn movement (by signal modification).
(b) Orchard Village Road at Wiley Canyon Road (Intersection #54): Add a
separate northbound right -turn lane with right -turn overlap phasing (within existing right-
of-way between Wiley Canyon Road and the Santa Clara River South Fork Bridge).
(c) Orchard Village Road at McBean Parkway (Intersection #55): Widen the
southbound approach at the main driveway into the Campus Property to allow for a left -
turn lane and a second through lane.
2. Prior to Issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for either the Inpatient Building
or MOB2. The following traffic mitigations set forth in the EIR must be completed by
Developer prior to the issuance by the City of a Certificate of Occupancy for either the Inpatient
Building or M0132:
(a) McBean Parkway at Magic Mountain Parkway (Intersection #45): Add a
third through lane for eastbound direction (by re -striping the lanes).
(b) Orchard Village Road at McBean Parkway (Intersection #55): Add a
separate westbound right -turn lane for access to the Campus Property and a separate
southbound right -turn lane at the main driveway to the Campus Property.
(c) Valencia Boulevard at Magic Mountain Parkway (Intersection #57): 'Add a
second westbound left -turn lane by removing the existing right -turn lane (by re -striping
the westbound approach as a mirror image of the existing eastbound approach).
3. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit for MOB3. Satisfy the requirements of EIR
mitigation measures TR7 and TR8.
4. Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for MOB3. The following mitigations
set forth in the EIR must be completed prior to issuance by the City of a Certificate of
Occupancy for M0133:
(a) Orchard Village Road at McBean Parkway (Intersection #55): Restrlpe the
hospital driveway to reconfigure the first through lane to be a shared left turn/through lane.
EXHIBIT "F"
8/7/08 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT "G"
City Required Parking
The chart of the City Required Parking is on the following page.
EXHIBIT "G"
8/7/08 TO I)F.VFLnPMF.NT AGRF.FMFNT
wwZrnn�
OY J
w¢c�
OUZ
ma d o x
U L, '02 o
> a
N
N
> o
c d o m 3
a a N
`o u 3
m y o f
v a a
m «
U � °c a m
C >, C C m
m C U N m N Vl V y a
U N ,- m y m: E m
0
Z
0 O l0 U y 0 0 C
U
U'
2
y
V N d �0 y ° E m
m x o> a o
(n
W
Y
d ° d i c y o o
O
0:
o. CM (D Ng>'>.c 2
m a o
W
a
w
n'
W
W
�° .. o 2 E d 0,y
o 0 0
a
a
0 0
2
a
U
¢
p
Y
z
r
O
Z
z
0
(T
Q
U'
J
w
(�
Z
a
O
«mm
d
)[
wJ
W
W
W
=
N m E C C.L.. N N y
j6
<
CL
w
J
w
U�
5
Q
Y
G'
6 E c m umi 2 m m Q1
a o N a N 3
aza
z
w
Qza
z
W
Z
a
O
W
0
C
a
d
U D L N >.
W
qa
W
3
qa
O
O
w
a
a
�'
cC):' a� mL > > c=
of o o m u
aq
3
y
a
Q
L w« x a
r
rw-
W
a
w
Y
O
o ° o o m aci aci o
m
m
m
m
z
w
c
O
c
O
Z
a m S S °�
E
>
>
>
>
Q
a" v s c m
c 1a a) D o `m d v—
l
r
t
U
U
U
J
U
=
J
L
U) U m C x d U 0 C C L
K~
O
> N O U U m m
d d O
N
a
m
a
N
a
(n
d
O
m
O
m
J
N
r
f/l
a
N
a
N
a
Vl
a
O
N
O
r
O O m 0
Z U ;i N 3 5 c E E m `m
°W a
N
N
N
N
�N
T
p�
pi
N
7
y„
N m
¢
N
N
o
N
n
N
w
D a m
Q
¢
Z
N
¢
Z
etf
2 U
z a s
OU
'{
X
w O
w ¢
O
W
m
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LLLL W
D
LL
LL LL
T¢ N
N
N
N
N
r
N
N
N
N
LL
¢ m N N
¢
¢
W
M1' N
N
N
N
N
O
V
eD
O
}' •
h m poi
c�
f' p
Z
Y
K
a
`j' O
ty, N
O
'O
d
N
N
O
cG
m
N
O
mN'N
pp
N
pl
N
CC O
LL O
5N
z
N
�i
m
$
O U
d
O
rij
m
p
o
m
a
m
o
m
�'
_ r
'
V O
a
S
ca
,__
° w
m,
LLI
U
i
W5
2
r
O
a
'+
„;
o
,
X,4*
w z z
a Ov
U
O
W
(7
z
r
V)
z
y
>
S�
r ?
t9 w
z
r
m
y
j
C'1
2
¢
2
F F
N w w
pw
=
C
D
A
p
o
O
�-
a a•
z
w W
Na
+
z
0
=
j z
CQ
z
z
z
z
y
z
m
m
Q�
'm
a o > >
° °
D o
a
d
o
Y
U w
X
'uvs
x
o
3
w
3
w
3
w
o
F~
y i C7 C7 t}7
<
a
c7
z U
w
¢
m
m
r
z
FQ-
2
Q
m
U
O
W
LL
N
t1
0~
'av
O w z o o
S UD F J J
z
r
F_ Z
y
J
W
0
J
!w O
O
O
O
O
O
p
O
O
rC
O
pO
¢ a N'o
w
U
' a
j
~
C
E
i
f
i
LL
i
i
LL
Vi
x
i, w'u..S ,-4a •ga.
z
= E,
LL
z•
vi
O
EXHIBIT "H"
Right of First Offer — Lease of Vacant Space
For purposes of Section 5.3 of the Agreement, HMNMH shall have the right of first offer
to lease any space in any Existing Improvement or Medical Building on the G&L Property that from
time to time, becomes vacant (the "First -Offer Space"). G&L shall provide HMNMH with written
notice (the "First -Offer Notice") when any First -Offer Space becomes available for lease (the
"Specific First -Offer Space"), which notice will state the basic economic terms and conditions of
such lease, including the rent. HMNMH shall have twenty (20) days after receipt of the First -Offer
Notice to accept or decline to lease the Specific First -Offer Space on the same terms as contained in
the First -Offer Notice. If HMNMH declines to lease the Specific First -Offer Space or fails to agree
to lease the Specific First -Offer Space in writing within twenty (20) days following receipt of the
First -Offer Notice, HMNMH's right of first offer with respect to such Specific First -Offer Space
shall terminate until such right arises again pursuant to this Exhibit "H". Upon such tennination,
G&L may then lease the Specific First -Offer Space to any tenant, subject to the provisions of Section
5.2 of the Agreement; provided, however, that if G&L desires to lease the Specific First -Offer Space
to another tenant at a rent that is less than ninety percent (90%) of the rental amount set forth in the
First -Offer Notice, G&L shall provide HMNMH with a right of first offer on the revised teens (the
"Revised Lease Offer") and HMNMH may, within five (5) business days after receipt of the
Revised Lease Offer, elect to lease the Specific First -Offer Space on the same teens as contained in
the Revised Lease Offer. If G&L has not entered into a lease to lease the Specific First -Offer Space
to a tenant other than HMNMH, within one hundred eighty (180) days after HMNMH's receipt of the
First -Offer Notice, or if such Specific First -Offer is leased to a tenant but later becomes vacant, then
G&L shall again offer such Specific First -Offer to HMNMH pursuant to the procedures set forth
above in this Exhibit "H"
EXHIBIT "H"
8/7/08 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT "I"
Right to First of Offer — Sale of G&L Property
For purposes of Section 5.4 of the Agreement, HMNMH shall have the right of first offer to
purchase all or part of the G&L Property in accordance with the procedures in this Exhibit "I". If
G&L decides to sell all or part of the G&L Property (the Specific First -Offer Property"), then G&L
shall provide to HMNMH the specific terns upon which G&L is willing to sell the Specific First -
Offer Property (the "Offer Terms"). HMNMH shall have forty-five (45) days after receipt of the
Offer Terns to accept or decline to purchase the Specific First -Offer Property on the Offer Terns. If
HMNMH declines to purchase the Specific First -Offer Property or fails to agree to purchase the
Specific First -Offer Property in writing within forty-five (45) days following receipt of the Offer
Terms, HMNMH's right of first refusal with respect to the Specific First -Offer Property shall expire
and be null and void. G&L may then sell the Specific First -Offer Property to any purchaser;
provided, however, that if G&L desires to sell the Specific First -Offer Property to another purchaser
at a purchase price that is less than ninety percent (90%) of the purchase price set forth in the Offer
Terms, G&L will provide HMNMH with a right of first offer on the revised terns (the "Revised
Offer Terms") and HMNMH may, within ten (10) days after receipt of the Revised Offer Terns
elect to purchase the Specific First -Offer Property on the Revised Offer Terms. If G&L has not
entered into a contract to sell the Specific First -Offer Property within one hundred eighty (180) days
after HMNMH's election not to purchase as set forth above and G&L still desires to sell the Specific
First -Offer Property, then G&L shall again � offer such Specific First -Offer Property to HMNMH
pursuant to the procedures set forth above, except that HMNMH shall only have fifteen (15) days,
instead of forty-five (45) days, after receipt of the Offer Terns to elect to accept or decline to
purchase the Specific First -Offer Property on the Offer Terms.
EXHIBIT "I"
8/7/08 TO i)FVFTIIPMFNT AC RFFAiFNT
EXHIBIT "J"
Depiction and Description of Dedicated Area
Maps depicting the Dedicated Area and legal descriptions of the Dedicated Area are on the
following pages
i
EXHIBIT "J"
8/7/08 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
W
v
N
n
it
EXHIBIT J1
HOSPITAL PARCEL
r-
.Qo 01
O" O�
� .o> I?U
V
o
z Ir
ZLU
It -O -J LLI
Q
0
J
CSI
S55'01'04"E 11
W
U ,1-0 J
uj
0 J a
Q —
Z N48-53'28"WQ
O ('CC' RAD)
O O
O N
I
Ln
m
s
UC.
M oo
I
V)
:t J
(n�Q V
Z
z Ir
ZLU
It -O -J LLI
N CL LdU
osl
��W (-)
wa=1
J cV
S55'01'04"E 11
W
U ,1-0 J
('CD' RAD) a
0 J a
Q —
Z N48-53'28"WQ
O ('CC' RAD)
0 CL
V)QO
_j 0
10
'0LLJ
S49'5648 50'
LLI RA)50
ow'_DOW W (C8'
d
(n�Q V
N
--
LU- Lu 3 ;w w w
to
N1� Poo Q -o !0� Od Mn C M v
iv ro 00c6M000 I w
On V)
N N N N 1 o N LO n S43 -23_48"E cD
( CA' RAD) 00
O
O
4 Q
S41'24'03"E )WV
/— 50.71' if
v24 000,23E _
N51'32'59" f
18.85' E o
n pj
a.
.w zo
a Co „N 1
O N �
Il
� J
0
O
obi �
e
.N�
H/ /ov � Q
9 >p8 -IV SS7 90.
8pq 00, 150. Sp,
70/
79 T>' dr) 0 /
NOT TO SCALE p8 k 0 /
P 0 8 = MOST S'LY SW CORNER, "PARCEL 1" PER LEGAL DESCRIPTION
OR�
V1 GE RD
L
~ No. L7328
* Exp. 12/31/2009
\7rI _
LLI
o w w w
z
y N N jn
Lu
Q d d N N
Cn
N
N Z Z Z V)
LLJ
J = N In to 01
zao OD n N rn
In '? 01 N N
W J 0) co
z
J
Q
O Ld
m (�
LL,
w w w w
w z z z z z
J v v v =
g mW
J J O J
w
(0
D
N
N
M
N
N M
O
N
1—
N
�
Q
O
Z
d
N
--
Q
d
(D
O
p CO
O
47
M
Z
N
( CA' RAD) 00
O
O
4 Q
S41'24'03"E )WV
/— 50.71' if
v24 000,23E _
N51'32'59" f
18.85' E o
n pj
a.
.w zo
a Co „N 1
O N �
Il
� J
0
O
obi �
e
.N�
H/ /ov � Q
9 >p8 -IV SS7 90.
8pq 00, 150. Sp,
70/
79 T>' dr) 0 /
NOT TO SCALE p8 k 0 /
P 0 8 = MOST S'LY SW CORNER, "PARCEL 1" PER LEGAL DESCRIPTION
OR�
V1 GE RD
L
~ No. L7328
* Exp. 12/31/2009
\7rI _
LLI
o w w w
z
y N N jn
Lu
Q d d N N
Cn
N
N Z Z Z V)
LLJ
J = N In to 01
zao OD n N rn
In '? 01 N N
W J 0) co
z
J
Q
O Ld
m (�
LL,
w w w w
w z z z z z
J v v v =
g mW
J J O J
EXHIBIT MAP TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL 17625 Crenshaw Blvd ,Ste. 300
DESCRIPTION FOR STREET DEDICATION
SCALE DATE. CIVIL Torrance, California 90504
NOT TO SCALE 07/10/08 ENGINEERING Tel (310) 327-0018
JOB NO r Fax- (310)327-0175
M
(0
D
N
N
M
M
N M
(D
d
N
00
M
O
LD
N
--
In
d
(D
O
p CO
N
47
M
07
N
4 rn
M
O
rn
N
.-m
rn
N
cD
M
W
N
ID
N
_ 01
(0
—
(0
O
d
M
U �
0
04
�
N
ZLj
d
N
d
d
M'Lo'
W
J
m
in
Ln
r
1y
(D
o
wa
n
n
n
in
>
J M
1010
N
d
<
Z)a
U
;0
1'1
of
1h
Q
m
U
O
w
i
c
W
W
W
W
I
`'>>
W
W
%>
ll
>
>
>>
O
O
C
O
O
U U
U
U
U
V
U
U
Q
U
O
y
W
U
U
Um
U
U
U
U
U
EXHIBIT MAP TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL 17625 Crenshaw Blvd ,Ste. 300
DESCRIPTION FOR STREET DEDICATION
SCALE DATE. CIVIL Torrance, California 90504
NOT TO SCALE 07/10/08 ENGINEERING Tel (310) 327-0018
JOB NO r Fax- (310)327-0175
EXHIBIT J1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR STREET DEDICATION
HOSPITAL PARCEL
THAT PORTION OF "PROPOSED PARCEL I", HEREINAFTER KNOWN AS "PARCEL V,
OF THAT CERTAIN "CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE", IN THE CITY OF SANTA
CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS RECORDED
OCTOBER 7, 2004 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 04-2587647, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS.
BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1,
SAID SOUTHWEST CORNER BEING THE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF THE
WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1 SHOWN AS HAVING A BEARING AND
DISTANCE OF SOUTH 03E50'00" EAST 21.88 FEET ON EXHIBIT `B" OF SAID
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF
PARCEL 1, NORTH 03E50'00" WEST, 16.79 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY
LINE ON A LINE, HEREINAFTER KNOWN AS "LINE- A", BEARING NORTH
41 E44'49"EAST, A DISTANCE OF 95.82 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON -TANGENT
CURVE, HEREAFTER KNOWN AS "CURVE -A", CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY,
HAVING A RADIUS OF 1988.33 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH
43E22'48" EAST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID "CURVE -A" AN ARC
DISTANCE OF 250.97 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07EIT55" TO A POINT
ON A NON -TANGENT CURVE, HEREAFTER KNOWN AS "CURVE -B", CONCAVE
NORTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1372.66 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID
POINT BEARS SOUTH 49E56'48" EAST, THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID
"CURVE -B" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 40.68 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF•
O1E41'53" TO A POINT ON A NON -TANGENT CURVE, HEREINAFTER KNOWN AS
t "CURVE -C", CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1081.49 FEET, A
RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 48E53'28" WEST; THENCE
NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID "CURVE -C" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 72.13 FEET
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03E49'17" TO A POINT ON A NON -TANGENT
CURVE, HEREINAFTER KNOWN AS "`CURVE -D", CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY,
HAVING A RADIUS OF 1935.52 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH
55E01'04" EAST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID "CURVE-D"AN ARC
DISTANCE OF 448.66 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13EI6'53" TO A POINT
ON A NON -TANGENT LINE, HEREINAFTER KNOWN AS "LINE -B", HAVING A
EXHIBIT J1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR STREET DEDICATION
HOSPITAL PARCEL
BEARING NORTH 13E04'17" EAST; THENCE ALONG SAID "LINE -B", NORTH 13E04'17"
EAST, 14.84 FEET
TO A POINT ON A NON -TANGENT CURVE, HEREINAFTER KNOWN AS "CURVE -E",
CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 284.87 FEET, A RADIAL LINE
TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 75E45'53" WEST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG
SAID "CURVE -E" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 41.08 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE
OF 08E15'41" TO A POINT ON A NON -TANGENT LINE, HEREINAFTER KNOWN AS
"LINE -C", HAVING A BEARING NORTH 19E02'28" EAST; THENCE ALONG -SAID
"LINE -C", NORTH 19E02'28" EAST, 69.75 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON -TANGENT
CURVE, HEREINAFTER KNOWN AS "CURVE -F", CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY,
HAVING A RADIUS OF 196.33 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH
72E08'20" WEST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID "CURVE -F" AN ARC
DISTANCE OF 30.46 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08E53'16" TO A POINT
ON A NON -TANGENT LINE, HEREINAFTER KNOWN AS "LINE -D", HAVING A
BEARING NORTH 27E17'08" EAST; THENCE ALONG SAID "LINE -D", NORTH
27E17'08" EAST, 7.75 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON -TANGENT CURVE, HEREINAFTER
KNOWN AS "CURVE -G", CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF
1970.03 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 73E09'51" EAST;
THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID "CURVE -G" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 163.32
FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 04E45'00" TO A POINT ON A NON -
TANGENT LINE, HEREINAFTER KNOWN AS "LINE -E", HAVING A BEARING SOUTH
77E55'46" EAST, SAID "LINE -E" BEING THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1,
THENCE ALONG SAID "LINE -E", SOUTH 77E55'46" EAST, 7.99 FEET TO A POINT ON A
NON -TANGENT CURVE, HEREINAFTER KNOWN AS "CURVE -H", CONCAVE
NORTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 1950.00 FEET, SAID "CURVE -H" BEING A
SOUTHEAST LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS
SOUTH 77E55'46" EAST; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID "CURVE -H" AN
ARC DISTANCE OF 1251.98 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 36E47'10" TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING
END OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCA
R
PO
MCBEAN
o�
SITE
F
0' 150' po
o0
GRAPHIC SCALE
EXHIBIT J2
MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING PARCEL
0
eco.
N
N42'30'21"E ,, 510.04'
A
N 45'29'50" E
* No. L7328
Exp. 12/31/2009
32.Sg (,.CURV
EXISTING_ PARKWAY _
PROPERTY
LINE A--1'2'5'09"
R=2000 00'
L=49 53"
P O.B. = SW'LY CORNER, "PARCEL 2" PER LEGAL DESCRIPTION
S47'43' 44"E
103.96'
S42'24' 24"E
37.17'
S38'57'00"E
24.83'
S51 *19'23"W
20.00'
S38'35'36"E
108.15'
S33'01'43"E
45.04'
S38'36'22"E
118.74'
S03'50'00"E
21 88'
o.
-�S41'08'36"E RAD o
-0
50.00 oT
0
Lu
LINE
LINE TABLE
LINE ILENGTHI BEARING
LA'("LINE-A") 1 2437' N41'44'49"E
LB'("LINE-8")1 1679' S03'50'00"E
17625 Crenshaw Blvd, Ste 300 EXHIBIT MAP TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL
CIVIL Torrance, California 90504 DESCRIPT10N FOR STREET DEDICATION
ENGINEERING TBI• (310) 327-0018 SCALE 1"=150' DATE 07/10/08
OcAmni IP Fax (310)327 0175 .ina Kin
"PARCEL
2"
OF O.R. 04-2587647
o
PER LEGAL DESCRIPTION
o
Cr00
;
(MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING PARCEL)
h
3
�
i
I
/
l I
rn
oF,
SGP SPO/ o
on 0
Z 0
z))�
0 �
`G �
�I
���
51/
��� �-I
/
yo STREET �I "I
W Co
SINCO
DEDICATION 'n ``'
o
o. B.AREA
�I
`DI,n Li w
0
/
Ce, CC NI �I
Z
N o N p
`t
hh 4\?7
�8.. J J
I p
CE' LA Z cv
* No. L7328
Exp. 12/31/2009
32.Sg (,.CURV
EXISTING_ PARKWAY _
PROPERTY
LINE A--1'2'5'09"
R=2000 00'
L=49 53"
P O.B. = SW'LY CORNER, "PARCEL 2" PER LEGAL DESCRIPTION
S47'43' 44"E
103.96'
S42'24' 24"E
37.17'
S38'57'00"E
24.83'
S51 *19'23"W
20.00'
S38'35'36"E
108.15'
S33'01'43"E
45.04'
S38'36'22"E
118.74'
S03'50'00"E
21 88'
o.
-�S41'08'36"E RAD o
-0
50.00 oT
0
Lu
LINE
LINE TABLE
LINE ILENGTHI BEARING
LA'("LINE-A") 1 2437' N41'44'49"E
LB'("LINE-8")1 1679' S03'50'00"E
17625 Crenshaw Blvd, Ste 300 EXHIBIT MAP TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL
CIVIL Torrance, California 90504 DESCRIPT10N FOR STREET DEDICATION
ENGINEERING TBI• (310) 327-0018 SCALE 1"=150' DATE 07/10/08
OcAmni IP Fax (310)327 0175 .ina Kin
EXHIBIT ,T2
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR STREET DEDICATION
MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING PARCEL
THAT PORTION OF "PROPOSED PARCEL 2", HEREINAFTER KNOWN AS "PARCEL 2",
OF THAT CERTAIN "CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE", IN THE CITY OF SANTA
CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS RECORDED
OCTOBER 7, 2004 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 04-2587647, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS;
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 2; THENCE
ALONG THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2, NORTH 19E 37'08" WEST 8 00
FEET TO A POINT ON A NON -TANGENT CURVE, HEREAFTER KNOWN AS "CURVE -
A", CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 649.37 FEET, A RADIAL
LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 18E51'19" EAST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY
ALONG SAID "CURVE -A" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 79.21 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 06E59'20" TO A POINT ON A NON -TANGENT CURVE, HEREAFTER
KNOWN AS "CURVE -B", CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF
2217.05 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 23E20'39" EAST,
THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID "CURVE -B" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 278.29
FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07E11'31" TO A POINT ON A NON -TANGENT
CURVE, HEREINAFTER KNOWN AS "CURVE -C", CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY,
HAVING A RADIUS OF 322.46 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH
28E34'15" WEST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID "CURVE -C" AN ARC
DISTANCE OF 52.32 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09E17'48" TO A POINT
ON A NON -TANGENT CURVE, HEREINAFTER KNOWN AS "CURVE -D", CONCAVE
NORTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1940.76 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID
POINT BEARS SOUTH 31E42'59" EAST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID
"CURVE-D"AN ARC DISTANCE OF 211.65 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
06E14'54" TO A POINT ON A NON -TANGENT CURVE, HEREINAFTER KNOWN AS
"CURVE -E", CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1824.29 FEET, A
RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 39E16'09" EAST; THENCE
NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID "CURVE -E" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 93.80 FEET
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02E56'45" TO A NON -TANGENT LINE,
HEREINAFTER KNOWN AS "LINE -A", SAID "LINE -A" HAVING A BEARING OF
EXHIBIT ,T2
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR STREET DEDICATION
MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING PARCEL
NORTH 41E44'49" EAST, THENCE ALONG SAID "LINE -A", NORTH 41E44,49" EAST,
24.37 FEET TO POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2, HEREINAFTER
KNOWN AS "LINE -B", SAID "LINE -B" BEARS SOUTH 03E50'00" EAST; THENCE
ALONG SAID "LINE -B", SOUTH 03E50'00" EAST, 16.79 FEET TO POINT ON A NON -
TANGENT CURVE, HEREINAFTER KNOWN A "CURVE -F", CONCAVE
NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1950.00 FEET, SAID "CURVE -F"
BEING ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2, A RADIAL LINE TO
SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 41E08'36" EAST; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG
SAID "CURVE -F" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 732.56 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE
OF 21E31'28" TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
END OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
EXHIBIT "K"
Realignment Improvements
In addition to the EIR required Traffic Mitigation Improvements set forth in Exhibit "F" to the
Agreement, Developer shall construct the following Realignment Improvements to McBean
Parkway prior to the issuance of the applicable Certificates of Occupancy for the Project set forth
below:
1. Prior to Issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for MOB1. The following
Realignment Improvements must be completed by Developer prior to the issuance by the City of
a Certificate of Occupancy for MOB 1:
(a) Construct a turn -out lane for buses along westbound McBean Parkway, west of
Avenue Navarre, including transition, at the location required for the Designated
Configuration in accordance with the Frontage Design Plan.
(b) In perfonning the Traffic Mitigation Improvements to the intersection of McBean
Parkway and Orchard Village Road (Intersection #55) that are set forth in
Paragraph 1(c) of Exhibit "F", the grades for the intersection shall be in
accordance with the Designated Configuration for the intersection on the Frontage
Design Plan.
(c) Modify the eastbound left -turn pocket on McBean Parkway at Avenida Navarre to
provide for a left -turn pocket with 300 lineal feet of storage plus 120 lineal feet of
additional taper at the location required for the Designated Configuration in
accordance with the Frontage Design Plan.
(d) Modify the northbound left -turn pocket on McBean Parkway at Orchard Village
Road (Intersection #55) to provide for a left -turn pocket with 300 lineal feet of
storage plus 90 lineal feet of additional taper at the location required for the
Designated Configuration in accordance with the Frontage Design Plan.
2. Prior to Issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for Inpatient Building or MOB2.
The following Realignment Improvements must be completed by Developer prior to the issuance `
by the City of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Inpatient Building or MOB2:
(a) Move the existing traffic signals on the northern side of McBean Parkway at the
intersection of McBean Parkway and Orchard Village Road (Intersection #55) to
the location required for the Designated Configuration in accordance with the
Frontage Design Plan.
(b) In performing the Traffic Mitigation Improvements to the intersection of McBean
Parkway and Orchard Village Road (Intersection #55) that are set forth in
Paragraph 2(b) of Exhibit "F", construct the westbound right turn lane to provide
300 lineal feet of storage plus 120 lineal feet of additional taper at the location
required for the Designated Configuration in accordance with the Frontage Design
EXHIBIT "K"
8/7/08 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Plan.
Prior to Issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for MOB 2 Only.
(a) Prior to the issuance by the City of a Certificate of Occupancy for MOB2,
Developer shall complete the construction of a westerly driveway for the Campus
Property and modify the existing median to include an eastbound left turn pocket
on McBean Parkway with 300 lineal feet of storage plus 120 lineal feet of
additional taper at the location required for the Designated Configuration in
accordance with the Frontage Design Plan.
(b) Construct a bus turn -out lane and the right -turn lane at the westerly driveway for
the Campus Property to provide for a right -turn pocket with 300 lineal feet of
storage plus 90 lineal feet of additional taper at the location required for the
Designated Configuration in accordance with the Frontage Design Plan.
EXHIBIT "K"
8/7/08 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT "L"
Frontage Design Plan
The Frontage Design Plan is on the following pages
EXHIBIT "L"
8/7/08 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
NOISIA3H 90-90-90'1I81HX3 (31VVYu-in)1N3WN9I.IV3H
dnl]EiEi 1N33AOHd WI O3SOdOHd',VMAUVd WaSON IVf11d30N00
gym„ JNIa33NIJN3HooWsscls YINaolllYO 'YION3lYA
V kVMNavd NY390P1 MCZ • "' y T
IV11dSOH IVIHOW3W IIVHM3N OAVW AHN3H
Z -O 133HS 33S-9NIIHOIVW
CID
ag
1 U �
\ U S
d
c
/i : w E
s di,i w _ o
',`� � a a
m
z
W
AAANOISIA3H
IN1833NIQN3H�Q
90-90-90'1191HX3 i
• n
NOISIA3H 80-90-90'1181HX3 (31VWlln).LN3WNEIlV3FJ
SsadCA11VOV11111AID kVMHvv3ns2Z
lVlIdSOH IVINOW3W IIVHM3N AVW AVN3Hdf0FJ 1N3W3AOFdWIO3SOdOLd Vd NV3BOW 1Vf1d30NJNIa33NIJN3Hv0 OO
si
ra 1' I$0 U
S
R
� r
\ U epi
K c
11-0133HS 33S-3NIlH01VW
r �1 ~ � IS
Vn
_--SSmeaaa_
.1 O
1'1 ��,'J VJJ • i IE: ��'• •
�'
�
\ tr ` to
1' 1
LU
Lu
cc
i 1 Q. i9 pG ��� � 1 �•• \i� � �a N -
�CD
jar
W
t - �,• `% ��i c -
tt 1� i 1 vA+IF U
VARIES
63 it 31 Y W
W
MIA J iy { [ W
"+�+� 5 0 10.' •fit' `:4t'11t'F1I'Io
'to',, to''1a tag 3}� z
1.3 _n \ \ Gq� I �� 7�f. �pj II 1:p� I..•'L'' nY=.r:14 _i }I: I. _
3 R-
61
\ n 3l
{fit_
i•II '-_ I N
dIH5tl3NMOl4O SYN
TM015
•
1331
3JV1-11A
_=iCH`dHOHO
m
z
W
°""M1p"""""NOISIn3H 90-90-90'1191HX3 (31VWIllf1)1N3WN011V3H c
dno89 1N3VQAOHdW1 O3SOdOHd AVM)4MVd NV380W 1Vf11d3ONO0 t E
9NI833NISN3H�o 9SE16 VINaolnVO 'VION31YA �� i8
�
IIA13 V kVM)48Vd NV38-H SVPEZ • "
IV11dSOH'IVIMOW3W I"IVHM3N OAVW AHN3H B !�I U T
8 N
�n e
-
\\!q _
o
6-0 133HS 33S-3NIlHO1VW
tit •!'T
�, ,`\ , � � �`
,
•
O >
` . �i- 5� 941; -��lk,
`
2Lro
tP' o o
wo
6-0 133HS 33S-3NIlHO1VW
NOISIA31A 90-90-80'1101HX3 (31VWIllfl)1N3WN0IlV3)j
wdnJHJHOo 1N3W3AOHd WI ❑3SOdOHd AVMNHVd NV30C)W 1Vf1d3ON
IIAI3 AVMN8Vd NV38-N SY8£Z
8 �VI)JNIa33NIJN3 S£6 VINNOlIIV� 'VI�N3lVA OO
'IV11d9OH IVIHOW3W IIVHM3N OVW AkIN3H
V
U
�
�
1
,.
N
-66
.06 -
J -- _ 00+1j
J 0
Q m
' U �
Q
�F
ly,
U
�NJ
e
NOISIAAH 00-90-90'lIBIHX3 (31VWIlln)iN3VYNOI-iV31J e
df1O"0 1N3W3AOHdWW -1
I O3SOdOHd AVMNUVd NV380Vf11d3ONOO
JNId33NIJN3H- IQ 9ST16 VIN80AIlVO 'VION31VA ��,�� o ) T tl
IIN� V J AVMNNVd NV30-H SfB£Z / 1 N_
s.n.._. IVJLIdSOH IVIHOW3W IIVHM3N OAVW AMN3H �.J s
�1 ■
QQ �
cc
d N j
1, ✓, , 0
x+'11' 111' 111' 1010' 1010' 10 9, Ii
2 34'
V,
r�
i
I
U q
i1i,�Y
o
8
U�
J
3 4
LL
1
Z
Q
U K
K U U Z
■
W
J
i i i i
rs n
a
Ilt.
W-:
'Doc _
,06
-
_
I
U q
i1i,�Y
¢t.
8
U�
J
`=y
1
Z
'