HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-11-19 - RESOLUTIONS - HMNMH CERTIFYING FINAL EIR (2)RESOLUTION NO. 08-101
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.
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.
2
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 (`BIR"): land use; geology, soils and seismicity;
hydrology and water quality; traffic; air quality; noise; water supply; solid waste;
natural gas; electncity; schools/education; fire protection services; sheriff
services; hazards and hazardous matenals; 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.
3
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.
1
(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
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 Gaine, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the South Coast Air Quality Management District,
5
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.
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 heanngs on September 19, 2006, October 17, 2006 and
November 21, 2006. These heanngs 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 decision -makers' 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
ON
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.
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 st meeting, certification of the 2006 Revised Draft EIR prepared for
VA
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 decision-making. 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
N.
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.
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 Clanta 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
I
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 hnpact 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
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
10
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
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.
11
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
i. Add nine new beds in the Nursing Pavilion Building.
ii. Demolish the 8,000 square foot Foundation Building.
iii. Reconfigure surface parking to provide a total of 308 on-site spaces.
iv. Provide a helipad on the rooftop of both Parking Structure 1 and the
Inpatient Building.
12
V. Provide right turn pockets and modify traffic signals along the McBean
Parkway project frontage.
vi. 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.
vii. 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.
viii. 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
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.
13
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 & Mayor 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
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.
14
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. 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 govermnental agency approved the project in the manner
the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved.
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.
15
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 the Final 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 hnpacts 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 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 PM10 and PM2.5 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.
10
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
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 Clanta
Valley's projected population growth within a single hospital campus
environment and would likely require residents to travel outside of the Valley for
17
some of their healthcare needs, increasing overall vehicle miles traveled and
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
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 Clanta 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
in slightly increased project -related impacts and would not eliminate or reduce
any of the significant unavoidable impacts of the project, it was refected 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
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
19
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 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.
1
Wt
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 OFOVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS.
With respect to each impact that cannot feasibly be avoided or mitigated to a level of
insignificance (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
21
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 Clarita 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.
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 mayor 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.
22
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 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.
SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of November, 2008.
ATTEST:
f�
�l -
CITY CLERK", _
`i
1
23
3No"
/_ 0 a 5 . Vol , U
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 19th day of November, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Ender, McLean, Ferry, Weste
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Kellar
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
WJA
CITY CLERK
1
L7
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
CERTIFICATION OF
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
I, Sharon L. Dawson, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clanta, do hereby certify that this is a true
and correct copy of the original Resolution No. 08-101, adopted by the City Council of the City
of Santa Clarita, California on November 19, 2008, which is now on file in my office.
Witness my hand and seal of the City of Santa Clarita, California, this _ day of
20
Sharon L. Dawson, MMC
City Clerk
1
By
Susan Caputo, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
1
EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION 08-101
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.
1
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
CONSTR 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
PMio and PM25 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 AQl 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;
♦ 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 PMz 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 PMz s during site grading. Even with implementation of Mitigation
Measures AQl 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.
1
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 TRI 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
1
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 N1 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 -RELATED 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.
1
PROJECT -RELATED 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.
1
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 those 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.
1
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.
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:
AES1 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
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
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.
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.
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.
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 A CCESS
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:
♦ 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.
2.3.2 FINDINGS. The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.
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 Q UALITY MANA GEMENT 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.
2.3.5 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, HELIPAD, & STA TIONAR 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
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 GROUNDSHAKING
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,
I
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.
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
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
CONSTR UCTION-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.
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 HAZI, as follows:
1
HAZI 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
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 HWQI 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,
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-RELATED 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 FS1 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.
OPERATIONAL -RELATED FIRE IMPACTS
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.
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-RELA TED SHERIFF SER VICES
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
Sheriff's 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.
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 apse
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 Shenff services will be reduced to a less than
Significant level with incorporation of Mitigation Measures SS3 through SS8, 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.
SS6 Project design shall provide clearly visible (during the day and night) address
signs and/or building numbers for easy identification 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 WILLIAMS 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:
SEI 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.
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 an
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
Development Agreement. Thus, no adverse impacts relative to project consistency with the UDC
will occur.
1
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.
3.2 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 jobs/housing 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
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
1
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
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.
1
3.4 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
SURFA CE FA ULT R UPTURE
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
downcuttmg, 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,
the potential for soil erosion is nil. Thus, impacts are concluded to be less than significant in this
regard.
1
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. 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.
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 mariner 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.
3.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
DRA INA GE
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.
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 HIGHWAY PATROL SERVICES
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
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 SCGC.
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
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.
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.
1
EXHIBIT B TO RESOLUTION 08-101
2008 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT &
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
1
1
1
t 6Ar TA °t
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital
Master Plan Environmental Impact Report
EXHIBIT B
11.0 MI'TIGA'TION MONITORING AND
RET'OR'TING 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 0£ the Public
Resources Code,
the public aSen9i shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changee to the project
which it has adopted, or made a condition of project approval, in order to mitigate or avoid
ngnZfcant Beat 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 responsnbihty for
monitoring and reporting the implementation of the mitigation measures.
Final 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
g■
►:
a
0
bn
F�
cc
E
c
.Q
E
O
U
o
a)
c
m
o
p
F
m
�
v
N
CL
LU
?
cc
c
U
acu
cz
co
ro
CL
'..J
cntU
.]
U M
U m
U .]
U O
F-
U
N
z
i rn
O C
C
ca
C
ca
C 0)
ca
C
ca
C C O
ca N
Lu
Q
c
Cl)E
E
E
E
U) E�
cc
LU =
O C
.`O C
O C
O C
O
co
O
�
Ua
U°
Ua
Ud
U aai
is -p
is -p
o vi
U
zrn
'z
a,c
c E
U) CO o
U) CZ o
N `o_
c U
v
Z
Q
p
.O
c
td v V
c
cu v C V
N a Q v a�
to c
c
s
J
CC
y
nL _?
n�
0 0 3
a>
0
nU
d
0
oc p
3 c) n cn
R. U v Z5
oma°>.N�
a) = c>
om
3 c
�a
�
U
>c v
Uo
>a
w¢
a
��
)
�
cn
o
Q
z
o -
c
�=
Z
0
2
) C
cc
U
co
U
U
U
co
U
Z
C �O
CL
o-
CL
0_
CL
d
CL
0-
O_
N
0
zO
~
a) �0
M
a)
Q)
a)
t5
a)
a�
=
z
2 O
a
a
a
a
a
m
a
0
-z
c
m
>,
a) _
U
O
c y
c
0 C
W
W cd m
w
C O
m
U
.0
E
Q
= v
a
ca
-0
c E
o
= cz a'
ca N :`
a)
is :v a) r
-0
C_
L
N o
m _0
.I
CD
L o
o
_ c-
oo-
3 n
�' 3 0 m
j
i
rn in aci�_
a> O) .c c
o � o
O co
p 2�
)> q E
C 'EL o'
a• o CO L C
w
U
o ca
— v
= a)
`o
m c
c(n p
c 3 0
z
p
N E •-
m
N t
c a m c
N Q C O
Co
O-0
m a)
0
B O E
ol N-
O U
C c a
U E in
Q
cn
dN
r -u
co
-
p ca
Oa) O U
cu o
`�"
co
Q
o caCL)'—
E.,2
m
E E
aoo
Z
O
G
ca
d
n2
c ca
C
O-O U
U C
yL
O
w
cc
-0 CZ
N
C
EQ
N O n
'N C
O Q C
U
N CL co
a) E O
L
c"oa
d a) a)
N -O .�
co 'L'-'
L d L O
L •� C
O_ L
N (a0
a) D1 ._
C C u C
C O O N
w>
N
p) co
0
C -0 V) O
N L
�=
O N to
� •
= O
C� a)
co
C
7 d "p N
O Q �.0
�--• N
N QN a
(
? c7
Co
Cf)
CX-
> -
E
N >
N
Ocz
LO
O`QO
p V
L a
N�
E
o a>
Q
L)d
o.o
o
coJ ca �cc
U
w
W
W
W
w
N
w
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
~
a
�
g■
►:
a
0
bn
F�
1
►5
Y
d
t6
E
v
c
a)
�
Q
E
O
U
O
d
C
t4
O
p
U
0
i
Q
W>
N
c
U
CL
cz •U
co .0
c
G
U
-
J
C
p) rn
C5
3
U a
Q
C Q
CZ Y
O 0 ..0
i
CZ
W
��
Q
L
W�
u) E�
o-=
cn E�
o�
�
o
o
p
a)
a
U
U p
_
z
°-
W
Z
Z
c "E
c o
c U
L
CZ a)
a)
O C
a)M
a) ca
W
�
CL
LU
a
a)
w
cn
p
Q
Z
o
Q
co
cu
J
0Q
C
U
U
H
Z
N
��
a
CL
a
Qa
cm
Q
Q
(n
0
0
F
a)
a)
=
Z
O
O
a
m
a
oc
0
z
0
-o
c a)
a)
-I-
a)
- � �
a)
o
�;
..�
W
Q
N .o
E .�
-oo E
c� t 0
-0 c
3
a d c
0
O L C
N 0_
"O
O>
�' C.i ,•-' U
p E
>
O N '
F— O
C
Cr E
O d
-� 7
�- E a
C
OU
E
-O
Q
C
OC
0 � .L.-•
N .E
cu cnC/) O c
cy) Q
a) .L--
.L.- "a
> .c
7 �L--' 0-L0-
>
O O
7
� .L C
C
p)
O
D
O
Z
O C
�E Em
O U
N i
CU
U�
L .N
cz Ln.L--
'�N-OL
nl �
U N O
p E U
L O
2'N U
0
i
io
O N c
E o~ c
_U
0
O_ _C
-p C E
E
CD
a)
O- ca N
C N
a)
O_ O
c d N
_0 O
3 0 C
O �'
"O C c6 U
-, a) O
r
41 — O
L L
in a)
O -E m
o0
O C
O L
Z
g
> E
O a) 2
m N
O L 3
c) �)
cd a)
c N U Y
a) c
.2
� o
a)
s a) s
E �_
O L
W
f°
c> c
=~ cc m
E S
ca a a) U-
`
E a)
15
o-@ E�
N u) � m
E a) O
"O d7 :--.
U
-O
ns
RS O- .L-.
a
C
N > c
a) tV O
cu L c
Q~ O
U
m�> Q1
C
.L•- Q O O)
N
'O
7 0
0 N 0 Cn E
N
`) al N
= O E_
- N C m
� L a L
-o cp o a
co
o c a
p
�_ p c
'� `o
U •—
cSf
cBa
.cn
a`>C1-0a`)
'D
ccc-0
-0 a)
♦
♦
>` —
♦
c U)
c co
►5
i5
►5
Y
a)
f�
U
cC
a)
Q
E
O
U
O
0
C
O
f+C
D
�
V
"-
O
a
>
w
W
cc
c
U
CL
>,
cu ,U
cz _U
_U
cwz ,U
.
.
J
�
�Q)
U
_
v.� av
Q
F
= Q
L
o Y
_
CU o Y
C
o Y
C
o Y
=
W
Q
�
= 0
U) E�
= O
U) E�
= 0
co) E�
= O
U) Cl)
Wo
o�
o�
ocu�
a
coo�
U p
U p
U p
U p
0
Z
a
t6CDN
c°
�a
Z
Z_
C
C U
EU'-
E
--cu
v
Ua)
EU -
TC E
.E
C's
cu
U)
cz CD
-a
U
d
O
!•'C
o.0
O_U
3=
�.N o)
U
� c
.N m
LLI
> t-0
°C
> 'Q
r
aC
Z
0
C
Q
C
C
C
C
--�
_a)
:a C
U
co
U
U
F-
Z
=O
CL
a
Q
n
oC
0 a,
a
a
pa)
(1)
W
=
Z
o
0
0
0
J
O
a
a
a
Q
a
O
Z
O
c
°"_'
o 0
m
L
` U)
Cl)
=
ami
C
o c
a3i
p
E IL- =
O
ai 3
0
W
Q
c�
2 O
aa)
O a)
U
a)
cuo
m
a c
a (�a)C�
a)
���
�o
J~
c
>CL) �' > a) �' E a)
Jz
a) U 1
cz E rn L=
Q)
_
L ..'
N to _ca
m cD C) d O
E
cn C O
.� UO O ,C
( O
=
o
ca t1 ns c
C
a) _ U
o o
U U
W
Z
L C
p) fn O
U O .L L '�
CL... !7 N U
a) C
L.. c6 E
ns O
a)
cu f`
d
O
N`
_
O
� EO
a)
a)
?.O a) CL) N
E
O,c
CD cz
-0 O U
O t`)
a =O •� O 0
`o
T t ct5 E
-0 N O
N N
=o E
c_ V
E L
a o aa)
N N c0
E o d
_
E O
N cu
Q
a) v
an
Z
W
•t4
N L CV
N ,� m
d w a) � .0
3 CV
-0 •� c6 = m
E
L L O_ >1
U F— U
C O co c- 0
O_ .— L
O7 d
C U
_
a)
c� ~ c p
-
D c en o 0
r- coL
'cn
D o U
E 0 a) a) c
a)
o c a)
_
a) :-, O
N co U 0)
fn d d L C
N C L rn to
U 0�
N= E U
a) 'D Q L O Q)
N z
cz
__
-0 CZ x
d a)
CL CD a)
c0 C 7
a)
-O
C
-O O =
'O
cc C C _0 O_ Q U "�_
O = a) 'O O_ a C =
"a
U m >, ,�
w N O d L
a)
p E
co
O a)
Q U m
O E Q c0 cti m
O U
'0
d � .L--.
'0
E
N
-2
.� '— O
C a
a)
a)
-2 _O
U-
d
CO
"`00 O
O CO 0-
L f6 ' -
O _U cU
O O_
_�.
>ci
V
LOcr Cc
cfl
cc
n
i5
►5
t2
C
w
U
�
a)
m
Q
E
0
U
o
m
c
m
o
p
�
v
O
CL
w
y
U)
c
U
aT
co A2
C
U
cn
U
J
a
oc
cQ
U
Co O N
.0
n, N OY
a
w
LU
cn E�
u) Q,E�
0 E co
0
cz
U CL
p
a
U 0
Z
a.
c o
N a) �_
c o
o) ca N
c Q
W
O
C
c_
U '
�, E
a
5 E
Z
c
. c 2
Q
I--
`o
n N n
3 fl Q-
y
J
a.
c o
N cn
=' ' c
> a) .N tT
> o c".2 c
�a
��
'�0
teaco
w
a
> -0
co E Q�
C/)
Z
Q15
15
J
O
s C
v
2
F—
Z
c W.0
a
CL
D_
C rn
Q
Q
c
O
O
H
a=
U
°'
Cl)
2
z
o
QaCO
FC
O
z
O
N ` CU
C N .� ca
— N
a)
`.
� O co)
N
m a) O cc
O O
CU
cn a
w
Q
N
N O N U U
m = O
d U
7 0 ALO„
r =3.O
0
C
O O __ w 0
U O _- cz N a)
cz 1)
O cd O O
Q
) M .V_ N
y in - C N y
.V_
p p c
a)�
fa -V O y N C N d
N T .N
cn f6
c `o a) o a c
'n OU
.4 m c a) _ o c
C)
- y
c aci a o 0
LJJ
0 m
p a) ccs a) a)
cu a) T y y O L U co
a o t� v m a) a)
U E C y CV C
a) g c a Y
Z
La m L�
E' m rn OLa a) -02O
a. 0zE a)
0 U.O C
c E in m OL
o> E a) E o c
E o- c
E
co
.L-. N c6 >. N L ,cz O
O m N
a c!'cz ) cO a cd O L •�
O) N C6
O a in O Q?
Q
y
O) cC Q C (t1
n O v o c m
O C c) cz Q C
ch o c a)
c.
o) oa o 0
C
G
a)
r2
c
c m -ccs
7 N d N 7 Cl) --
O .c� RS a) a) •� N E S
y a) o c6 - m
CM a) -0 a) cam) D_ a) U 7 a) •—
E co y m ca a) y cn E�
C U O C 3
�- a) a O N
O
N y c6 O
J L a) N�> O a) ns O
D- T C Y •`--
Z
D a) L> j5
a) t--. d- a)
6)'Op N a) ` a a)
E`
c •— U
ffl
W
r
>
Lco cz N O O C
_ _ co
O cC N cm, cz N O O C
L _ co
N N 0--
a 0
7 0 cn cu C cm .0 N D_
0) CD
N U E a) C N (a N 0).!2 N Q.
O N C0 f= Y
'E
Ef •U
; d O N C O
a) U) > O -O N U
c6
a a) O cU 'O •:a - y „O_- O
a d -0 ul > O -0 N U
.L.-
3
N .0 C a) C
o as = 5
Q 3 a) E D E P-
m E a a) a) o m_
o `� ._ Q aa)) E sz E
O cn
E Q. E ►- '- c
U
a) E cz N N
E> a) L c+i U
n o a)
T cm a) E ct6 41 N
d cu C > a) _D c!i U
.� D o
•X (� c
c6 U a) U i N
♦ rn— CO a)
L D' O .0 L O O
♦ N -_ m a)
O O D_ a) .0 L O O
E -a; c .ate v)
O O N O CO
m co D-
C
I--- D_ L U cz
z
co
�
a
a
a
t2
C
w
►]
11
E
M
Q
E
O
V
O
a�
O
p�
CC_v
O
W
>w
c
R
�
U
a
w
ca
J
c
cd p
U
U
Q
¢
>
CU O
Z
p c
0)
o
W
Q
c
Cn .
cn E
o
W »=
`o c
`o =
00
0
CL
ZQ
U
U p
0
p)
o cn
o)
c
Z
W
Z
c c
c M aci
o
Z
cu CLCD o
J
_E
3. N p d
_c aN)
CL
O
O 0
_
>>>
C6 >
O C U
W
i+
U
.o
cr O O
0 c
Ca
¢
Q
cu
Q
Z
0
Q
d
Ccu
C
J
O
C
U
U
H
Z
0
a
a
a
oC
Q 01
¢
¢
ON
a
a
=
Z
a
a
Q
a
O
O
o_
L
o cn
CZ :::,a)
>
U
E T a)
-0 c—
a)c cu O
ML
cu
cu cn
nya)
o
cao c >:3
o Ovo
Z
O> 0
L i
._`W
o a
cdiL.. U co N .� c L
F
•
o c`nn `o .o
CL— a) — d
a) o- cZ
O C C
..L...
o� in o U o a CU o c 0 0
cu L
cz
cn
c> O C d `
O_
>
C " U
a)
L c E
n. a,-
0 (b U L -o cn cu U -O d
U a) o ' a)
c"
cn
o co
O
d O
co m c le
u -0 Q O
d
C=
a) N d
O s .'L
cu
c C C O U h 0
U C N .o ff C O
Q
N
cc
Cz
.�
0- .'�-. CD
N 0
a1 U
Q)
.Q a) aa)) N -00 S 0 OCL
Q)
4)
a3 L 0 •C Ch
O C- c
cz
(O N 0 O E 0 U
}
I..'. N -0 c
o
0 .— .cz
N Co 'a.— a) - a) d N N
-c
Z
O
v) vi o -oa
0 0
3 a
N
aU) ,a E c E Zi 2
O U _ > C -0 -0 _0 cu QY
W
(D
L n2 Cn
O p
> 2t,0 U
.0..
dpCn �.0 a) U.0 O C a)
E_
o`o
d 0 0 .c
a cu m a >co co
>
E
o cu o)
c
o o L ca Y - o CO
0 v) U
E o
E 'n o a
a
o- Y
a) Lo .o
2 -0 a) v`ni o 3 0 -o `-.
wvoi o U c) a)
C a n
cu
0 ,— 0� cn o o a) � o U 'c
c ca
N N O -0 �
O .�
_�
M.2 s M N LL
U 0 LU cU :N
U L L
cu ai
cm
c a) 0 +-' a)
O `)
L
a N O '0 p
D a) Q) N
L C
Cn 4 � CQ 3 W
Q d EL
F-
J
O cu a) O
o U-� w 0 2 2
Q
C
a
►]
11
1
a) a)
N
N
C
O
cu
0)
LLQ
8-0 Z5
-0 C f4
C C cz i C C O_
O C O O 0 O N
E '2 C C OU = N o
O-0 O L) O ` C p
(O O C 10 L E
LiP) _ C U
C N U t� C -O C) L O O
C 'D N .� U N -O
=w E °' T E LO o 0 c
U cC
a) ON co.°) aO E
0 O 0 m Q a) .d CU =3
0 0 0 L— y -c a) U C
cO ` -12
N cC N T .
u) N cz U cn Q 2 M J a
C co >
CU C a) U ) N
_U _ cu
O 0) U CL O .0 U U `p co
t
O U U
E O
.L..• O co cu C to
N O .d co E >. O
O O -O .O O
Q N O y E d;N C C) a) co"
41 rn E O L CO d
0 0
Q I Q
O co aa) co
N C :«.
C
o 5— •> C N
c0
(C (n N; W y U CZ Q U
cu U n o U d 7 0 a)
a) - .
E co U) � -0 d .LO_, L L) N
cz
- .o O c 3 c �
O U O N N L 7 "C 0 En
y
0� O_ cz N O cu -0s O
p a) a) d "= C O O
ami CD co � .v U ca a) � o
tau ro�� 0
L N O Q O 0 -O
co a) ' cz cn o) �_ a a) o
C 0— v -p U O 0v— Q)
O >CL CD M, a cO N O
O cC - L LL' •ccs 0 p •� - cn cz
=3Q) d
(d T •m a) a) R Occ; T N N
= v MCEL
Ep 0 .a E? N O a)>
a))
V Q Cn J N 0 L-0 O En Cl) IL co L
,-:a-
0 0
Q
Lo
0
Q
w
Y
C
O O
E
C
C E L 6
U '«J
C E
•i
L U
U
.0
«'cu
O a)
.=0
.�
Q
C O
O C .0
O C U_
D CM .0
E
LL
U O
U ro
Ca
U
O
'O
O
Cd
o
a
U
cn�
��
O
a)
O
C
O
cc
p
a)
CC
C
U
C
U_
U
U
�
>
fn
d
Q
U
O ie
Q
Q
Q
Q
C
N
T
w .V
CU
cu
ca •�
C
rn
O
U a
C
U
=
U
cc
U
cQ
CZ OY
m 0Y
(Z oY
m 0 �cn
co
i
•O
cz C O
CO
C O
(./) E
C p
(n E
C -Y O
Cn E
C
W=
O
O
O
O? :N
=
i a
a
CL
CL
CUp
Up
Up CUp
a) a)
N
N
C
O
cu
0)
LLQ
8-0 Z5
-0 C f4
C C cz i C C O_
O C O O 0 O N
E '2 C C OU = N o
O-0 O L) O ` C p
(O O C 10 L E
LiP) _ C U
C N U t� C -O C) L O O
C 'D N .� U N -O
=w E °' T E LO o 0 c
U cC
a) ON co.°) aO E
0 O 0 m Q a) .d CU =3
0 0 0 L— y -c a) U C
cO ` -12
N cC N T .
u) N cz U cn Q 2 M J a
C co >
CU C a) U ) N
_U _ cu
O 0) U CL O .0 U U `p co
t
O U U
E O
.L..• O co cu C to
N O .d co E >. O
O O -O .O O
Q N O y E d;N C C) a) co"
41 rn E O L CO d
0 0
Q I Q
O co aa) co
N C :«.
C
o 5— •> C N
c0
(C (n N; W y U CZ Q U
cu U n o U d 7 0 a)
a) - .
E co U) � -0 d .LO_, L L) N
cz
- .o O c 3 c �
O U O N N L 7 "C 0 En
y
0� O_ cz N O cu -0s O
p a) a) d "= C O O
ami CD co � .v U ca a) � o
tau ro�� 0
L N O Q O 0 -O
co a) ' cz cn o) �_ a a) o
C 0— v -p U O 0v— Q)
O >CL CD M, a cO N O
O cC - L LL' •ccs 0 p •� - cn cz
=3Q) d
(d T •m a) a) R Occ; T N N
= v MCEL
Ep 0 .a E? N O a)>
a))
V Q Cn J N 0 L-0 O En Cl) IL co L
,-:a-
0 0
Q
Lo
0
Q
C
O O
O O
C
C E L 6
U '«J
C E
•i
L U
U
.0
«'cu
O a)
.=0
.�
0 0-
C O
O C .0
O C U_
D CM .0
Mn �
C
LL
U O
U ro
Ca
U
O
'O
U
Cd
o
a
cn�
��
O
a)
CC
C
U
C
U_
U
U
�
N
C
O
d
Q
U
O ie
Q
Q
Q
Q
N
a
a`
CU
0-
a) a)
N
N
C
O
cu
0)
LLQ
8-0 Z5
-0 C f4
C C cz i C C O_
O C O O 0 O N
E '2 C C OU = N o
O-0 O L) O ` C p
(O O C 10 L E
LiP) _ C U
C N U t� C -O C) L O O
C 'D N .� U N -O
=w E °' T E LO o 0 c
U cC
a) ON co.°) aO E
0 O 0 m Q a) .d CU =3
0 0 0 L— y -c a) U C
cO ` -12
N cC N T .
u) N cz U cn Q 2 M J a
C co >
CU C a) U ) N
_U _ cu
O 0) U CL O .0 U U `p co
t
O U U
E O
.L..• O co cu C to
N O .d co E >. O
O O -O .O O
Q N O y E d;N C C) a) co"
41 rn E O L CO d
0 0
Q I Q
O co aa) co
N C :«.
C
o 5— •> C N
c0
(C (n N; W y U CZ Q U
cu U n o U d 7 0 a)
a) - .
E co U) � -0 d .LO_, L L) N
cz
- .o O c 3 c �
O U O N N L 7 "C 0 En
y
0� O_ cz N O cu -0s O
p a) a) d "= C O O
ami CD co � .v U ca a) � o
tau ro�� 0
L N O Q O 0 -O
co a) ' cz cn o) �_ a a) o
C 0— v -p U O 0v— Q)
O >CL CD M, a cO N O
O cC - L LL' •ccs 0 p •� - cn cz
=3Q) d
(d T •m a) a) R Occ; T N N
= v MCEL
Ep 0 .a E? N O a)>
a))
V Q Cn J N 0 L-0 O En Cl) IL co L
,-:a-
0 0
Q
Lo
0
Q
x. b
►]
0
0
►,
Y
m
f6
E
U
C
R
.Q
�
W
E
O
U
o
a)
c
m
0
0
O
i
d
w
>
fn
c
U
Q
>1
cz
cz.2
cu S:?
co
as
a
U
O
O
C
'= C
J
60)
C5
UoL
o
mn
o
>
a
0
c=¢
o O O
p c— a)a
o
o
Q
C20
io�cz
�
%
W
co
nE
c.9
C/)cn
�c
cz�>¢cz3
:
Q
rz
o
.-
czW
Z`
Dc
0
O
a)
.�` N
d
a
CU
U p
CU p
U p
U
Z
CL
o
0
0
W
Z
(1)
c E
(1).N
c E
a) N
c E
=o,op
N
= a)
v
L U
Nj
o=-io
q2
a
cn 0-
(n CL
C"3
=
-E
..vvd
m
CL
O
•
O U
O
c-
'
cc
p cif
W
W
¢
p
o
occ
U
U
IL
d
d
0
L
Q
Z
O
O
U
O
U
a
zU
U
U
U
CL
CL cn
00
(n
O
_
v
U
v
_
_
=
z
O
O
O
J
O
d
d
c
c
Q
a
U
U
O
Z
O
a)c
-p
cn
o -
cn
rn
n
C
cz
(
LLJ
a) cn
-0"
7 C
.d
O a) "p
c
d
cP O
C N
"L--' N
J
H
CO fl
a)
cn
ca o a,
d N .N
J
Q
°� rn
CO a
CZ
L a)
cm
U a�
0 E�
o
o c c � ai
a)
L�
cn
a) -O
O O L
Q d U
'O a) —
U a O N
L
E
C O
Q o' O
•O 7 CO O •.—U-.
Z
L
c
czO
OU
C
La),
OQ
0
—'—
dE
O L
CSO'0
Cacid)
L.Ecd-D.. y(UO
y
U •�
0
d
N
cu X
-00m
V
a)
O -U
JO LcfZ
-p
j
p) •
'D t S
C
Na)
a O n
C
cl)
_
D)o
a)
O
76 Q
z
(V
O
po
o
a)
a) O
W
_
-6-o 6
O
> o EU
to aT)
ca)
2
_
i� o c o U co
vo
> >
(n
ac)
a) Cl) 0 4-
_coO
" .c
o
o O
p
�) c
a)
E cn )
?!5
a a) c cn
0
-p
cn
U
mO
-�
L'�
Cl)N.0
c6 O'O d'O
N n-6
=
E
cn
ID
N '� C=
0) a) 'Fz
— a C
O C O
0-2 `
C C
— Y
fC
a
d in
'O O
N a) E
FE O O) c0 cu
0
0
0
In
¢
¢
¢
O
Z
Z
Z
x. b
►]
0
0
►,
1
y
Y
0
c0
E
.Q
CC
E
O
V
O
d
c
O
m
In
O
i
a
w>
y
c
U
a
�
3
:3
Q
I—
0 Q
•i
O
tO O M
ttf O U)
C C O
C C 0
CZ
C C O
cu
W
a
2_
�E�
OO
co
�n��
cc
O
cc
m
Up
(Up
Up
>
z
a
is
o U) c
vi c 0
o)
S D vi
W
(3
Z
c
N Y
� y
cn
Co >
Z
�_
U
C O
cc
C co 0 •0 T C 0
U) C'
is
Q
J�
F-
O
a
ca cn o a) cu E c =>
o
a
0
0
L�
N .N o) E c a) O .•
ao� E L
cn ca cm
5 c.__
cl:CL
w
v
> CL
ccs 0 _ .E ,�
a X
LU
F-
�
Q
n � °� _
a ct 70
a) rn
-
C/)
o
Z
o
CQ
c
Q
a)
U
C
C
J
O
Q C
U
U
F_
Z
in c •�
v
O_
a
0
Q
Q
Q
O
O
ccU
U
U
=
Z
O
O
O
a
OC
O
Z
O
c) L .S a)
U
a) ca
_0 a) -0 c
c m
Cl)
m :F a)
LU
Q
E 10 0-� 0
L�E 0 cif a
c C 0 O' U cn
C3
0 0 U) Cu a
<n
o E 0X) cn
U d
m� 0
-co
�•E Np c
N a) c�
aci rn� 0 U)
Q
03 co 'O cd '0
•Of E 0 a) L O
V) C a) cn U >.
_
mom
L
�N0)
CZ.0-0x,&006
z U O
cv Q1 c C C
0 aX N
a) LLj
W
Z
0 L Qf.CZ
O -U O d
in
cOn co m U cn
.o j p CCZ O
c N
O of- _
m
>, -O m U ..— C ca
�••
v cd �)
O 0 -0 O
m cc O-0-
cC L N Q)
U m L T U a)
= E d 0
Q
ca
a3
C
0 U cd
U
m O` C E 'p .+O_•
a) ccs a)
�_ L to O .0 L., •�
E0 N
an d = E •= cn
M 0)
M W() L
U
_
O
L cn O CL]
N .N O •`
.N. L Q. N a) a) U
.0 N _ U 0
p
W>
� C
V
C
-0
d
U)
O .O 0
LU
tm
U U 7
'ccoo
N
T,0
N 0
¢
'�•
m a) i0
O L
W
O' -d
C C— N U O) 0
L 3
'0 L
� a"i o
(n
.0 .� O1 �
a Q .5 E
cu .0 L a)
i� w N >, � w a)
U)
a
a
_ ai a o
c.ctcaQ
.
a) N () p
Uma)
C O a) -a a)
O _ 0
��
O 0 •
U•UU0
E 3N
U U
U
(n
H ON O 0
}
�— Cn Q acv 0
-0 -0
chOJ
OLij
Z
LUO
LU
U
C7
0]
V.
O
A
a�
E
cc
ac
Q
E
0
U
O
d
c
O
e
p
0
O
CL
w
;
V7
cc
tC
U
a
T
co.0
m.S:?
a
J
E rn
O_
C5
U
w
a
0,
��
W°
o�
otf
C:)
o
Baa
o
�o
a,
�,
a
`°
z
a
Z
z
E
C o O
Z
cnY
J
0.,
C6 .2N
N O.�
C N
ccs L
CL
Q
.'_''
C
o 0
E O -0 >
.0co
C1 U
a
��
0 ,o aEi ca
�o--o6ocz
n
LU
LU
a
CD
�
�
o
a
z
v
cu
F
z
O
.
Q
a
CL
OQ tM
¢
¢
0
0
�
a
a
Z
z
o
C
a
as
a
o.
o.
d N cnC
o
-O
:2
Fz co N sg,=
0
LU
Q
`p o as Q _0
o o
C'3
E `o ' =o o E 42
c*i c`cl o Co
J~
ovs (D iUt
a- E E
N o a)
a)
C
0_ L cn
� a)
� c` a)
Q a) a) C a)
.� �
_ C
cn
z
a) C,
= E E U E ca
d cU a) d
L n C
a)
=O O Q j>— O
cn U 'cd
"o
Q
y
J
C CO E L 67 "p "L-'
-j (CDL a)
co
v w
a)
Q
of
S= o. U) c= T vi
`° w o > E c -a ca
E
W
_
a
o
E o c
�••.
_� =cn T C m = .0
fn
N ca _ cnco
z
L cn a= d o_ c css E
`p —
Q
= c a) in c
_
cn
(n �, ¢ c -a)
c ao') 'o w c No vi co d =
Q
o
c`a CD co 'c
c-
O
v m '� cn .� .o � a) cn o
W
a L - a)
co
Q E >, O
O
NcuU
E E cz U L
?�
(Z
°)o
m 'oa •o w a v7
v N T U T C N
c > a o
= m a) -O
_
_L.T
Q) CU
d [d
O
Q
L � C/)
dNcLC(Ua
cn cn = L L c
o
LO
N
p
J
Q
�
O
C)
v
0]
V.
O
A
1
i5
Y
0
cc
E
U
cC
0
Q
E
0
U
o
w
c
is
0
p
U
O
CL
LU
y
c
U
Qa
.2
c ,S?
U
`. L
:= L
J
C
v)rn
CUa
U�
Q
c Q
M 0. C
CZ O cn
WQ
o
cn E
U) CZ E
M
�
ui
o=
o-tf
oocz
�a
cc
0
CU m
CU p
Zd
W
a) o
v_
a) o
c v •-
Z
c
C c E
— c E
Z
•C E
Q0 a`)a0
a)
QF=
of
ESQ
ENa
aco
o ,rn m
o .N m
c
a
m'�
ww
a
�.��
CD�m
.Q
H
> Q
>
N
0
Y
Q
0
J
C3
= c
CCS
v
CC
v
F—
Z
0-p)
Q
Q
O
aci
=
Z
0
0
Q
a
cc
0
z
0_CZ
°?
o as
Lo CC o �'
LLJc
F-
0 L
ccv cLD
o a> m a o : o 'cc
E c sco
G
C7
_
O U .dt
_
O L S 0 3 N J O O CCC U E (OD) C
J
H-
a) ,C C tC «_ t1 �,
0 'L)
d N cC Cn O L C o > CC a)
0 a)
J
3
in iC r in o
_O rn a
-a c a c m a t a)
c c CC a) cis 0 L ,c ' m co ai
c
cV a Q J rn w N ` i Y rn
E O cC -� O O
CC Q •O 0 >, .- CC 7 (C O 0 y L 0
W
C C
a)
0 _ .D a w � U 7 0 N- .0 U C
0 _ 0 0 CU
Q E 07
Z
Q C>, d
fa a�U�
C1 CC L E 0 .a- w cz >
s o, o -o E 0a cn 2 E c w CU E
C [C 0 O
077 .0 c Q -0 U N a CU m -� L tT C7)
.0 O C a 0- 0� O E
i'
7
L cQ c N 0
- _
0 a R) Gc N 3 vi Cn 0 m 0 'v i otC
_0a
Q
(d
O C D 0 •-- E N •-
En a) o: Iz
O7 0 C C 2
j to N j d E
o
�' m 5 0 a () E a)
o
o o _� E -N7 m ,c
uS cm 6 crs w w Q.a) U)
`_"coa.)c czd cu oc -Y
_ Svc cD --`o
CCD D
a.E > cu cis s ocn 0
a
W
cc
0 co c CD 0) `o
cz s
CC
c) a O _c U U) .N Cn C Co d o O w
(n U m _C
�'
N ,O C
O C`
_O O7 �_ C _) '� CC CO >
d N-0 Cn -O C C L E m
O CU 0- d IV
E. O
Y
-� -O CC -0 O 0 0 N
CO U)> E C o C6 a) •� L L O a) CD
(C
• C L_, N
-0 _ -a N co C p 0 0 u3i O7 E
n m D o a o a
0 > 0 ccc -� U cE) a_Ni 0 "s
a"i -2 o .-
co •C i> 0 CZ
CL -
m C C w E E In O N C7) C m� K m V
E U E E a cn m
'fn-
.0 d L L N in 0 Cn d .0 Y .� CC 0 C tC
U •� C CT Cn U C -O O "0 T
` O U=
W in in inm-5 EL
0 _U
p.SQ 5- (D 3 OUQ - -
-o aha) m� 0)-0 a
O
0
2
2
i5
0�
►5
-i
Y
t6
E
U
tC4
a)
�
E
77777
0
U
O
m
O
p
c
U
O
CL
w
y
cc
V
CV
ro-
IL
c
=
-�LE
CZ
co 0
LCLno
U
0
U•m
Jcn
o IL
N
O
h
O'D
cz= E
>
-
V E
Sc
0
c0
T CL
CU
C -U
O
cC
c0
tc3
.Z
LL I�
O ,C
o
U 0
a) O
)
0 a)
0) c0
a) c0
E Y
crnn
Wcn
ca
�� �0
C
LJO
`
C3)J
g
p
a Q
O Q
>
Z
0 0 0)
CD •=
C O
()
C O y
a)
a)
fCf
Z
CE
ca •�
c0
Q
C U
C U
Z
•�
CO= N
= L
3 0
O
N O
(6 0
J
O kZ
Eo n `o E>
4) 7
•� u)
a) =
•> •� N
Q U
D- U
a
O
o g
c' o 01 a)
� 2 o 9
cm
cc 2 o c
3 s
w
a
Q
�
co
N
co
-> a
>a
W
c
.o
> sZ O)
.`o_
U `D
,`o_
U d
aa))
Cl)
I--
cn
p
QZ
a
Q15
C
15
C
J
O.
Q c
U
U
U
U
U
z
CD_
CL
D_
D_
D_
a
Ma)
Q
a
¢
a
(n
Of..
O
U
a)
U
a)
U
a)
U
a)
U
a)
=
Z
O
O
O
O
O
Q
i1
cc
O
Z
O
a)
0
_CDS
o
_
o
N ..-.
O
a)
N
—
O
•--j
"O
c � '-
LC c0 p
0 3 -- m �)
O— O C O O
E
W
Q
E O
a m
a) .—
co
m
v
L .L--^ L
> 'g_
tf) = a) C O O
o o `" a) oFz c
J
V'
O cd
-E
a) in
-L =
m 3 aa)
LO L O
Q O 4 O : L a) cz
F—
d
a) >-
a)
LL T •D X
= L ca N O _O,
J
0_ a)
'N T N
O
to U
O
p O d-0 to a)
�o CZL
N L C C 'O
OU
=
Q)
L.L. _
a) L
.O ,�..,
0 CZLL-
a) 'D � L--.
L c0 v) N -O
O .� to O �_
L--.
Q, a) C O O E`
- N �
N O N
-O "O
N Oi N L.-. O C
n
LO C O (n N a) • V
Z
O
a) a) N�
O o
_
U O a) O O E
_ � E 0)a)
� = d CD —
O
O m
.L.- d c0
U
a "-'
U
co U ..L-, O a) cu
U 0)
a)
_ y CO c0 a m c0 a.
= a O a a) L c0
C
L¢
O a O` 41
`�
L co a)
(1) D_ Lb O L C L N
-
C:j'D
a)
CZ 0-0
-7 N
C
Q) _I_ J
c j .O
-a
L N
N
cn
L f6 fn a)
O
L to
L tl
0 m
C
C
C C O
c N
L O
S
—
O >, C V
O �C L)
-C O cn
N O O d
.—
C O L --- N U C U
W
•c
N
y O_ 7
LO ?+ p cn 0
C
w )n E
L
2 7 C O a L
E N?� 4) D_ D_ E O c0
_
()
N U
a) O Q
:�
cnn N O" cd C
O c0 N L.-. o O N 5
L "-'
D_"O J
�
d t U
a) D_O- N O
O )>`LLI
U a=p
cD
CM O N >
)
=
a) D- >
E
Qoccs
s m co
c
LNa)
ian
On
U
a,
=o � U
=
a)Cm
a
a
Ea)
o
E o a
LL
D_ c0
U w a)
O
Q DO :F
Q O Q
O
>—DoOEC
L m nY E.U
LO
—a) LO
m d 'O cn O O=:Sa)
x
IL
c\j
m
v
Ln
LU
�
cc
LL
LLLLi
Lei
Lei
LL
►5
-i
1
Y
a)
ca
E
tl
C
�
�
tC
.Q
E
O
U
0
a)
O
p
F-
v
M
LU
y
CC
0
v.a
CL
C%5
c0 L
(C UO
UO
ULL
-j
L L
-
U'0�
Q
C Q
U.��J c N
•
cn � O D E
c N
•j O E
c aci
cz •> 0 c E
z
U D1
`p
C -,E! CZ O=
ca U U
C -� 0 O i
m o U cu
C C w O i
m U a) U cv
w
a
o
a) CZ
U' �E N
E
�E N
w r
o c `o 0
�cL ,"'
'c O a� o
m W p —ami U
Q
c�a
T 0)
d c
c ca. Q7
cr-
U 0 Q
U p Q
U p Q
cc
z
W
O
z
E
in Y
vY
C U
U Y
C U
z
'C ._
0
cU
ct a)
co a)
cd a)
�.
O_ U
Q
CO
O
C
a) cC
>j C
a)
3 C
a)
c
> CL
Q
Q
a
cc:
a>i
Ir
(A
o
Q
z
J
r20
U
U
�
U
F
z
r
Q
C CL
CLa
a
o
0 w
a
a
a
in
Q
�
m
a)
a)
O
=
z
p
O
Q
�
d
O
z.
OQ_
0)
C U
c
c
a)
cu
c
Ec"
_C
m
�
Q
a
, (Dw
�U
O L C
D p
`N C
En a
LJ
J
ICC
Q 0
c0
CD
E Q a .0 a0 O N O
�p L CT
O
Q Z O
QG
C, 0 s
U
U .> U N
L w O o a
c�
E a) W
_
CZ
~ N O L to
.0
co
i U
wa
�_ .
s
Cl)
Z
_
3 o o
0
a
a c
Q N
N p L 0 a) L Q)
U
c
ca .0 O In
N a a) �
cCIZ_ cC a_ci ` cC o cn
ca
N C-
`o N Y r
M
m
c
IMC
ca O
� O Ir
E �i .N
O -0
U N 0) Q) O L_ O
C
N� cCf 0
cn
t!
N 0-9 a) C O c� O
EN
co .�
L O T c
z
z
O
.�
L U ca
0 a) 'U
a) "L--' Lo E Q) u) as
L = L T
W L
a) .0 �' E
U O) a) '�
=
rn
O � L
o6 o 3 `g
C/))
.?
°)
++
co Q
0 a) �) .E
>O
cmc—
.S
a) Q a
CO U
cd C cn
_ a) 'c U -C 7 �
c� a) E T
a) a)
>,
Q)
U)
O
C:)m = mai
.c
N E � 0 � 3 � � �
3
� a)
L -a "0 p
— N U a) _ cn C
U U
U •F N Ll
Z> L Q ()
-p N N -C v
>. '0 U O
ate)
cn '0 L O
E p _ d
m L -t: 3 d— •�_ U O O
O co
w J
a1 0
N C >O L N
H- U) "O cn O a) O O� N
Q
I— "0 ca cz
cD
CO
V)
[O
U)
LL
LL
L1.
oA
0
b�
►]
Ci
O
cz
Y
a
E
c
m
d
Q
E
0
U
O
d
C
W
O
.0
p
O
=
d
L11
d
:
y
c
t6
C
>.
U
O U a)
—_ CO L cn �
cz
— C
cz
.— _
�
— C
d
.— C
m
•— C
d
O
U
f6 O
U>
cti O
U>
ca O
U>
c0 O
U>
c6 . O
mg
U>
Q
a)
c _ = E
�o
�o
�o
�o
�o
z
o�
cu f5 �
SCD
��,
�cm
Vic,
=E��o
�_�_
6_
�_
o
m Q. v'
ate.
in
� FL
� a
� a
0
CU p Q
U
CL
U
L)
U
U
Zd
p)
N vi
rn
rn
O cnc
O_ cn c)
O_
W
C7
p) =
U
Q
>ai
� C
a�)
cz a)
a) n y�
Op_OU
0
YL_N
jONa`6i
OO�a)
Ca)
Z
Z
'i
E+
.
"O
n o
'0
U -O
EO
d E
(-
aJd
.•��
=O
NC33
O
dO
w O U
cn O_ iL
cu O U
n O_
cz onU
pa
o
o
oc
'oc
>�=
.a
�CD
>
c=ac
>>>
c
0.
o
UU
�
)
a) C
a)
W
H
cc
O
OoQ
=
cn
p
Q
z
Q
�)
J
(3
.2
aU)
aU)
a"i
ami
w
ami
.2
a
Z
= .s
.
Q
E
Q Ccc
L
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
oa)
ET
x
z
0
0-
IL
o_
CL
IL
m
a
LL
OC
z
O
L cti
o
-o
vi
a)
G
�--
O
N
"> Q
cnE
O
uj
d
E O =O
N. C
U
.0
m
cz
O
L M U
O
•p cn .—
0-0
0 cz F
L =
O
-u
.J.I
a�
�
a)
-0
cz
co .-
��co0N�•C'-
`_
rn m a)
CZ c
��9)
�
-0M
a) (6 �
L
--
a) O
d O
C C
Wc
7 2
L Q)
_ N U
U
O ccs(D
=
2
a)
m
Q)
O US N O
d
ca C co
L= a) N
In co L
'c
0 cn O O
cc �
O
7
cu
O U Q)
a)
'?
N a) L
a) d-0�
C) Q)
Q
N
EU E E
C
a) a)
cd O L
E U
.'_.- a) O Y
.—
c4
p) U S N
C co CL
N
cn
U L�
C O
U N N
C�-0 �.
d Co
—
i
(O O v)
N
o>
L
cd O U cm
..� "O
Ucn C
a)
U
O
=
v
tr: 0
O'
U -O
�O =
cz
Z
w
0
N a)
O
d
cz
U) -O 0)
a cO
OL
1
1
U) N
=N
.
2-o 'aUcz
CD :2 2_
>
2
>s
cd U)
n -a)
as
'C
U U
U
L U U o
>+
cn 0 O -O
cn C
O O
N C
V)Q "O O
•O
L O
`
a) c6 c
i L ._
C cn
C N
= N=
co .N-. 7
C= a) -0
7 U C
C O N
E "--
o E 0 N
W
U CD
N CL
°)o
_� C d .2 N
_�
rn O tc5 O
a)
_�
rn Cl)
Cu —aa))
o E .N
o in o
U_
� L
a)
` o o
cn tC E cn
F,> W v) c
� S co
v m E i>'
E
CD
0 Cl)>0
O_ >
>
C a)
in CVS
O" N
.O 0.
N
7 Cl) '�
LL
3 U
C
O a C
_
U D_ 6 •a) U 7
12
6 U a) .0
0 a) C
Q L L O_
(n
0`
U O c0
Q C O O .O
d m a c0
� .--� a)
LL
LL
N
Cl)
V
LO
LL
=
U)
U)
U)
(n
U)
cn
oA
0
b�
►]
Ci
O
cz
1
Y
a)
f�6
E
v
y
.Q
E
O
U
o
a)
o
•U
p
O
.�
a
W
�
rn
�
.c
U
>1
co
CZ
cz
cz
cz
cu
CK5
CL
J
a 7�
U• `�
U•p
U�
U�
U a
od
U c•�
U c -D
U c- N
Q
c Q
c Y
c o Y
c o Y
c E
c E
E o
ac
m cm
ca
ca O
cz O
ccs O
ca co a`�i
`° o aNi
2
cd o aNi
W
Q
.-
U) .E
U) .S
(n
(n E
cn E
Cn 2 U
U) U
� U
c 0
W=
c
O C
s=�
o c
p_
o czO
cz
O C .>
>
o C
>
O C
O
C3
c
cd
N
.p
Q
a
W a)
, W a)
, W N
"'
O
cc
��
GSL)
�o
c5o
d
o cn c
is
CD CD vi
amici aa)) _
aa) a15 a)) _
E
cz
iu
Z
W
Z
Z
i
[d O U -p U
o E o a)
`� U
a)
>+ C E
a)
>, C _E
cz a)
T C
m
U
as a)
`� U
a)
`� V
a)
a)
aco
cv L
a
0
a 0
0 a
a
0 a
aU
0a_�
a0
ac.)
o .2
92
d
mi
.5a)
�a
-
> a
> a
> a
LLILLI
cc
=3
> .2 =1
a=1Ccz
>
m
oz
�
o
Q
Z
O
C
c
Q
Q)
U
U
C
cz
C
w
C
cz
C
CO
C
C
co
U
U
U
U
v
U
',-
?
C�
U
U
a
a
a
a
a
a
CL
0�
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
a) =
c
a)
t5
.a)
a)
t5
a)
m
a)
t5
as
Z
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
a
a`
a
a
Q
CUa
EE
O
Z
O
co
o
c
co
cn
O
a)
cz
Ny
O U
XWQ
e$
>
"p
m
2
0 .E
O
T_
C
R
T
.�
to
.0
0
CD
J
F—
a)
0
a)
M '0 '
-Z
o c
a)
c
a
�'o
,�
_Q
O)o a
-0 �
E_
E O
E o E
L O c=
'o
0
0
`cu
a a)
N
O
a) .
a
.0 cn c
a) p
a �,
a) •` a)
rn ui
v>
c
0
W
p
c
.o
.0
o cz v>
ate)
Z
0
cis
�
y a
N0
cm aNi
co a>) U
a)
cd U
is
U
O
C O f0
C O
O
to
=p cn
a
C
a) a)
N (O
O
C
OU
CQ
G
U-0 C
•j
U)
L
cz L O)
Q c O
Q •(n
-C
}
O O
N
= C 0
cz
0- O "J
() U X
a) 0
N '
"O O
>-0
'6 a)
>
td a)
O
E
E
` >, Q)
0)a0i-0
f` N
M-0
U N
c
Z
a)
O C E
O
0
fn Q U
c
N () N
c—
U) a) �
C i C
C
-0 O
=
rn
a a)
cn
n
.N .�
E a
c E N
c 0
O
c
0 L
".'.
C Q)
_O
N
L-'
O cz
cu T co
U O
C C
U 3
O cd
L .1 •C
L C
Co
(SS
U 0 'D
U 0-=
a)
a) to
C p
N N
c cn
U
L a C
Z
a..- —
Q.� E
O
E
v O
T o
C U)
H•
U E O In
U
O�
O a
En
� N
CD -0 'Fn
Q) co
O
.E m
cd
25-9
U N
U
.0
t
C -.0--.
U
O CC OL) c
(d "O ..�
U
,C
cz
p L C
O E
C A U)
0
a) O O +-'
CD-_
a) O
U U
0) N
E
O
L) a s
Och
W
L cz N C
L c .� .N
o
N
L O c�
H E
a 0
J
?r
c0
n
OD U)
0W
C\iW
p
N
U)
c)
U)
U)
U)
U
cn
cn
JO
cn
cn
cn
U)
tiAOS $�NSq Ct��
rA Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital
Master Plan Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
Final 11-16 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
1
1
1