HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-08-22 - RESOLUTIONS - SHADOWBOX STUDIOS FEIR MC 21-109"" RESOLUTION NO. 23-53
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(SCH NO.2022030762) FOR MASTER CASE 21-109 (ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
REVIEW 21-016, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 21-010, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 21-012,
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 21-002, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 21-001,
MINOR USE PERMIT 21-016, OAK TREE PERMIT (CLASS 4) 421-001, RIDGELINE
ALTERATION PERMIT 21-001, ZONE CHANGE 21-001, AND TENTATIVE MAP 83513),
INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT, AND ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council makes the following findings of fact:
A. An application for Master Case 21-109, the Shadowbox Studios Project (Project), was filed
by the project applicant, LA Railroad 93, LLC (the "applicant"), with the City of Santa
Clarita (City) on May 28, 2021. The entitlement requests (collectively "Entitlements")
include:
1. Architectural Design Review 21-016 for the review of the project architecture to ensure
it follows the applicable provisions of the Unified Development Code (UDC), the
General Plan, and other applicable requirements.
2. Conditional Use Permit 21-010 to allow for construction of a film and television studio
campus in the Mixed -Use Neighborhood (MXN) zone, and for new development within
the Planned Development Overlay zone.
3. Development Review 21-012 to allow for the construction of a film and television
studio campus development in compliance with the applicable provisions of the UDC,
the General Plan, and other applicable requirements.
4. General Plan Amendment 21-002 to amend the General Plan Land Use Map in order to
designate the entirety of the Shadowbox Studios Project site as MXN and a text
amendment to the Land Use Element for the North Newhall Area (NNA).
5. Hillside Development Review 21-001 to allow for development on property with an
average cross slope in excess of 10 percent.
6. Minor Use Permit 21-016 to allow for the reduction in residential density below the
minimum required density for the MXN zone.
7. Oak Tree Permit (Class 4) 421-001 to allow for the removal of more than 12 oak trees,
including 6 heritage trees.
8. Ridgeline Alteration Permit 2 1 -001 to allow for the development within the Ridgeline
OEM Preservation zone.
Page 1 of 10
9. Zone Change 21-001 to amend the zoning map in order to designate the entirety of the
Shadowbox Studios Project site as MXN and to apply the Jobs Creation Overlay Zone
(JCOZ) over a portion of the Shadowbox Studios Project site.
10. Tentative Map 83513 to subdivide the 93-acre Shadowbox Studios Project site into five
lots.
B. The approximately 93-acre Shadowbox Studios Project (Project) site is located at the
northeast corner of Railroad Avenue and 13th Street, and is located within the MXN and
Non -Urban 5 (NU5) zones and General Plan land use designations. The Project site is also
located within the area designated by the General Plan as the NNA, and located within the
Placerita Canyon Special Standards District (PCSSD).
C. On June 14, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-61, adopting the City's
General Plan, and Resolution No. 11-62 certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report
analyzing the General Plan. The City's General Plan presently designates the Project site
MXN and NUS.
D. The current NU5 land use and zoning designation on the northern portion of the Project site
does not permit the development of the proposed studio use; therefore, the applicant is
seeking a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for the northerly portion of the
Project site to MXN.
E. The General Plan established a development limitation for non-residential floor area in the
NNA. The Project proposal exceeds the non-residential floor area for the NNA; therefore,
the applicant is seeking a General Plan Amendment to increase the allowable non-residential
floor area in the NNA.
F. The General Plan text for the NNA specifies that building heights in the NNA are subject to
the UDC requirements that apply to all of Placerita Canyon. The applicant is seeking a
General Plan Amendment to the General Plan text to clarify the allowable height to be
consistent with the applicant's associated Zone Change request.
G. The current MXN zoning designation has a maximum building height of 50 feet. The
applicant is seeking a Zone Change for a portion of the Project site, south of Placerita Creek,
to overlay the JCOZ, which permits a 55-foot building height as well as a change to the
General Plan text regarding building height in the NNA.
H. Surrounding land uses include a mix of residential, commercial, and public
utility/transportation uses. The Metro Rail Line is immediately adjacent to the west of the
Project site, with Railroad Avenue and commercial uses beyond. A hillside maintained by a
homeowner's association is immediately adjacent to the north of the Project site with single-
family residential uses beyond. The Metropolitan Water District (MWD) owns property
immediately adjacent to the east of the Project site with single-family residential uses
beyond. Commercial uses are located immediately to the south of Project site, with single-
family residential uses located beyond to the southeast.
Page 2 of 10
The Project site is an approximately 93-acre site located at the northeast corner of the
intersection of Railroad Avenue and 13th Street. The Project includes the development of a
1.3 million square -foot film and television studio campus consisting of 19 sound stages, a
565,000 square -foot warehouse support building, a 200,000 square -foot office building,
30,000 square -foot catering facility, a four-story (five parking level) parking structure, a
5,600 square -foot maintenance building, and associated surface parking.
The Project includes use of 11.4 acres of the MWD property immediately east, for surplus
parking. Use of the MWD property is subject to approval by MWD and is not required for
operation of the Project. Any parking provided on MWD property would be in excess of the
required parking for the Project.
K. The environmental impacts of the proposed Project were reviewed under the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code § § 21000, et seq., "CEQA") and the
regulations promulgated thereunder (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq.,
the "CEQA Guidelines"). In accordance with CEQA, the City is the lead agency and the
City Council is the decision -making body for the Shadowbox Studios Project. The City's
Planning Commission is a recommending body for the Project.
L. The City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared for the
Project. The City determined that the following areas must be addressed in the EIR for the
Project: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy consumption,
geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology
and water quality, land use planning, noise, population and housing, public services,
transportation/traffic, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire.
M. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Project EIR was circulated to affected agencies,
pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, for 30 days, beginning on March 29, 2022,
and ending on April 28, 2022. Agencies that received the NOP include, but are not limited
to, the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board,
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, South Coast Air Quality Management District,
law enforcement agencies, school districts, water agencies, and utility companies serving the
Santa Clarita Valley in accordance with CEQA's consultation requirements. Comments
from public agencies, organizations, and members of the public were received in response to
the NOP for the Project.
N. A scoping meeting was held at City of Santa Clarita City Hall on April 21, 2022, to obtain
information from the public as to issues that should be addressed in the EIR. Notice of the
scoping meeting was published in The Signal newspaper on March 29, 2022. Approximately
30 people attended the scoping meeting. The topics of concern, that were raised at the
meeting, included traffic, flood and drainage, preservation of Placerita Creek, and
preservation of the PCSSD.
O. The City prepared a Draft EIR for the Shadowbox Studios Project that addressed all issues
raised in comments received on the NOP. The Draft EIR was circulated for review and
comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, in compliance with CEQA.
Page 3 of 10
Specifically, the Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion for the Draft EIR was
advertised on April 6, 2023, for a 45-day public review period that ended on May 22, 2023,
at 5:00 p.m. in accordance with CEQA. Staff received written comments throughout the
comment period as well as oral testimony at the April 18, 2023, May 16, 2023, and June 20,
2023, Planning Commission meetings for the Project.
P. The Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public meeting on the Project on April 18,
2023. The Planning Commission opened the public hearing for the Project and received a
presentation from staff on the Project setting, requested Entitlements, and Project
description. Staff also made a detailed presentation on the Draft EIR Sections (Biological
Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Transportation/Traffic, and Tribal
Cultural Resources). In addition, the Planning Commission received a presentation from the
applicant and public testimony regarding the Project. The Planning Commission provided
staff direction to bring the Shadowbox Studio Project back to the Planning Commission at
the May 16, 2023, meeting with additional information regarding traffic and proposed
roadway improvements, PCSSD, emergency evacuation, oak trees, Placerita Creek, and
Project aesthetics. The Planning Commission continued the item to the May 16, 2023,
Planning Commission meeting.
Q. On May 16, 2023, the Planning Commission received a presentation from staff on the
follow-up items from the April 18, 2023, meeting, along with a presentation from the
applicant, and public testimony. The Planning Commission provided staff direction to bring
the Shadowbox Studio Project back to the Planning Commission at the June 20, 2023,
meeting with a draft Resolution and Conditions of Approval for the Planning Commission to
consider. The Planning Commission continued the item to the June 20, 2023, Planning
Commission meeting.
R. On June 20, 2023, the Planning Commission received a presentation from staff on the
follow-up items from the April 18, 2023, and May 16, 2023, meetings, along with the
applicant's presentation, and public testimony. Additional time was needed to respond to all
comments received on the Draft EIR. The Planning Commission directed staff to bring the
Shadowbox Studio Project back to the Planning Commission at the July 18, 2023, meeting
with a draft resolution and Conditions of Approval for the Planning Commission to
consider. The Planning Commission continued the item to the July 18, 2023, Planning
Commission meeting.
S. On July 18, 2023, the Planning Commission considered the staff report, Draft Final EIR,
Resolutions, and Conditions of Approval prepared for the Project. At the close of the public
hearing, the Planning Commission in a 5-0 vote, recommended the City Council certify the
Final EIR prepared for the Project and approve Master Case 21-109 and its associated
entitlements.
T. The City Council held a duly noticed hearing on Master Case 21-109 on August 22, 2023.
At the close of the public hearing, the City Council certified the Final EIR prepared for the
Project and approved Master Case 21-109 with associated entitlements for the Project.
Page 4 of 10
U. The location of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings
upon which the decision of the Planning Commission is based, for the Master Case 21-109
project file, is with the Community Development Department; the record specifically is in
the custody of the Director of Community Development.
SECTION 2. CEQA REQUIREMENTS. The City Council of the City makes the following
findings of fact:
A. CEQA provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are
feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially
lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" (Pub. Resources Code,
§21002). The procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in
systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible
alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such
significant effects" (Id.);
B. CEQA's mandates and principles are implemented, in part, through the requirement that
agencies adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. For each
significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving
agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions:
OEM (1) "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
Final EIR,"
(2) "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency," or
(3) "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR."
(CEQA Guidelines § 15091.) CEQA defines "feasible" to mean capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account
economic, environmental, social, legal and technological factors. (CEQA §21061.1; CEQA
Guidelines § 15364.);
C. The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular
alternative promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. "Feasibility" under
CEQA, then, encompasses "desirability" to the extent that desirability is based on a
reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological
factors;
"n D. CEQA requires that the lead agency exercise its independent judgment in reviewing the
adequacy of an EIR and that the decision of a lead agency in certifying a Final EIR and
Page 5 of 10
approving a project not be predetermined. The City Council has conducted its own review
and analysis and is exercising its independent judgment when acting as herein provided;
F. 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 a condition of
Project approval;
F. 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 Draft EIR have been revised. Although new material has
been added to the Draft EIR through preparation of the Final EIR, this new material
provides clarification to points and information already included in the Draft EIR and is not
considered to be significant new information or a substantial change to the Draft EIR or to
the Project that would necessitate recirculation; and
G. CEQA Guidelines § 15003 notes that state courts have held that the purpose of an EIR is to
inform other governmental agencies and the public generally of the environmental impacts
of a proposed project. CEQA does not require technical perfection or exhaustive treatment
of issues in an EIR, but rather adequacy, completeness, and a good -faith effort at full
disclosure.
SECTION 3. CEQA FINDINGS. The City Council finds that the Draft Final EIR for Master
Case 21-109 (Architectural Design Review 21-016; Conditional Use Permit 21-010;
Development Review 21-012; General Plan Amendment 21-002; Hillside Development Review
21-001; Minor Use Permit 21-016; Oak Tree Permit (Class 4) 421-001; Ridgeline Alteration
Permit 21-001; Zone Change 21-001; and Tentative Map 83513) identifies and discloses Project -
specific impacts and cumulative Project impacts. Environmental impacts identified in the Draft
Final EIR, findings, and facts in support of findings are herein incorporated as CEQA Facts and
Findings referred to as Exhibit A, and identified as follows:
A. The Draft Final EIR identifies significant but mitigated impacts, as set forth in Section 5.3
of Exhibit A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
that will avoid or reduce these potential impacts to a less -than -significant level.
B. The Draft Final EIR also identifies less -than -significant impacts, as set forth in Section 5.2
of Exhibit A.
C. The less -than -significant impacts set forth in Section 5.2 of Exhibit A will not contribute to
cumulative impacts.
D. The MMRP, attached as Exhibit B, which is incorporated by reference, is required to
mitigate Project impacts.
Page 6 of 10
SECTION 4. CONSIDERATION OF A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES.
Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including the Shadowbox Studios Project
Draft Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings
held on the Project and the Draft Final EIR and otherwise, upon studies and investigation made
by the Planning Commission and the City Council, and upon reports and other transmittals from
City staff to the Planning Commission and to the City Council, the City Council further finds
that the Draft Final EIR analyzes a reasonable range of Project alternatives that would feasibly
attain most of the basic objectives of the Project, would lessen any of the significant impacts of
the Project, and adequately evaluates the comparative merits of each alternative.
A. The objectives of the Project are specified in the Draft Final EIR and Section 2.3 of Exhibit
A. These objectives are used as the basis for comparing the Project alternatives and
determining the extent that the objectives would be achieved relative to the proposed
Project.
B. Alternative 1 — No Project/No Development Alternative. This alternative is required by
CEQA Guidelines and compares the impacts that might occur if the site is left in its present
condition with those that would be generated by the proposed Project. Under this
alternative, no development or redevelopment would occur beyond what exists today, and
the site remains in its current state.
,... This alternative would have the least impact compared to the Project; however, it would
have potentially greater impacts related to wildfire, hydrology and water quality, land use
and planning, and population and housing and would not attain any of the Project Objectives
as summarized in Section 2.3 of Exhibit A. Therefore, this alternative is infeasible.
C. Alternative 2 — Existing Zoning_ This Alternative would allow development of uses that are
consistent with the Project site's existing zoning designations, which are MXN for 40.6
acres located south of Placerita Creek, and NU5 for the 51.1-acre balance of the Project site
that extends north across Placerita Creek. Approximately 1.8 acres would be dedicated for
public right-of-way.
The Existing Zoning Alternative would propose mixed use development on the MXN
portion of the site in accordance with local and State Density Bonus Law, for a total unit
count of 924 units, and 50,000 square feet of commercial floor area. A total of 50 units of
detached residential housing would be included in the NU5 area southerly of the creek. This
alternative would provide the same Placerita Creek stabilization as the Project but would not
construct a bridge across Placerita Creek, would not include any development of the area
north of Placerita Creek, nor propose use of the MWD right-of-way. The roadway
circulation for this Alternative anticipates a three-legged intersection at 13th and Arch
Streets. Alternative 2 would not meet the Project Objectives, as summarized in Section 2.3
of Exhibit A, and would have greater impacts on air quality, energy consumption,
Greenhouse Gas emissions, public services, transportation, utilities and service systems, and
"` wildfire. Therefore, Alternative 2 is infeasible.
Page 7 of 10
D. Alternative 3 — Reduced Studio Project. The Reduced Studio Alternative, would include the
same type of uses (i.e., sound stages, workshops and warehouses, production offices, and
other support facilities), design, architecture, and layout as proposed by the Project while
reducing the square footage by approximately 24 percent. Accordingly, development of the
93.5-acre Project site under Alternative 3 would total approximately 980,000 square feet.
This alternative would have the same overall development footprint and similar building
massing and require the same amount of grading. This alternative would require
construction of the bridge over Placerita Creek and would include the same roadway
improvements as the Project.
This alternative would reduce impacts associated with the Project: air quality, energy
consumption, GHG emissions, public services, transportation, and utilities and service
systems and is generally considered environmentally superior to the Project. However, it
would require the same mitigation measures as the Project to ensure impacts in these areas
remain less than significant.
SECTION 5. FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR. Based upon the
above recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the Shadowbox Studios
Project Draft Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public
hearings held on the Project and the Draft Final EIR, upon studies and investigation made by the
Planning Commission and the City Council, and upon reports and other transmittals from City
staff to the Planning Commission and to the City Council, the City Council finds:
A. That the Draft Final EIR for the Project is adequate, complete, has been prepared in
accordance with CEQA, and should be certified on that basis.
B. That the Planning Commission and City Council have independently reviewed and
considered the Draft Final EIR in reaching its conclusions.
C. That the Draft Final EIR was presented and reviewed prior to taking final action to certify
the Final EIR and approval of the Shadowbox Studios Project.
D. That, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the Draft Final EIR includes a
description of each potentially significant impact and rationale for finding that changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as detailed in Exhibit A attached
hereto. The analyses included in the Draft Final EIR to support each conclusion and
recommendation therein is hereby incorporated into these findings.
E. That, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081, modifications have
occurred to the Project to reduce significant effects.
F. That, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines
Section 15 09 1, changes and alterations have been required and incorporated into the Project
that avoid or substantially lessen its significant environmental effects because feasible
mitigation measures, including those in the MMRP, are made Conditions of Approval for
the Project.
Page 8 of 10
G. That the Draft Final EIR reflects the decision -maker's independent judgment and analysis.
H. That an MMRP has been prepared and is recommended for adoption to enforce the
mitigation measures required by the Draft Final EIR and Project approvals.
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, Community Development Department, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, California 91355.
SECTION 6. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Draft Final EIR (SCH
No. 2022030762), and hereby determines that it is adequate and in compliance with CEQA.
Accordingly, the City Council certifies the Final EIR and associated documents, and adopts the
MMRP.
SECTION 8. Reliance on Record. Each and every one of the findings and determinations
in this resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written,
contained in the entire record relating to the Project. The findings and determinations constitute
the independent findings and determinations of the City Council in all respects and are fully and
completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.
SECTION 9. Limitations. The City Council's analysis and evaluation of the Project is
based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating a project that
absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the Project will not exist. One of the
major limitations on analysis of the Project is the City Council's lack of knowledge of future
events. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat
related to this are the limitations on the City's ability to solve what are in effect regional, state,
and national problems and issues. The City must work within the political framework within
which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework.
SECTION 10. Summaries of Information. All summaries of information in the findings,
which precede this section, are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of
any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not
based in part on that fact.
SECTION 11. A copy of this resolution will be mailed to the applicant and to any other
person requesting a copy.
SECTION 12. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and certify
this record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken.
Page 9 of 10
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 22"d day of August, 2023. 0"
�� J�zp
r R
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
DATE:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Mary Cusick, City Clerk, of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. 23-53 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa
Claritaat a regular meeting thereof, held on the 22"d day of August, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Smyth, Miranda, McLean, Gibbs
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
RECUSED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Weste
CITY CLERK
Page 10 of 10