Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-08-22 - AGENDA REPORTS - SHADOWBOX STUDIOS MC 21-109O Agenda Item: 1 1. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARINGS CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: TAA,/� DATE: August 22, 2023 SUBJECT: SHADOWBOX STUDIOS - MASTER CASE 21-109 DEPARTMENT: Community Development PRESENTER: Erika Iverson RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council: 1. Conduct the public hearing. 2. Adopt a resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2022030762) prepared for the project and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and making the appropriate findings under the California Environmental Quality Act. 3. Adopt a resolution approving Master Case 21-109, including, 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 Tract Map 83513, subject to the conditions of approval. 4. Introduce an ordinance entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 21-001 (MASTER CASE 21-109) TO AMEND THE CITY'S ZONING MAP AND CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 2834-002-046, 2834- 003-044, 2834-016-041, 2834-017-021, 2834-001-014, 2834-005-041, 2834-004-045, 2834- 014-043, AND 2834-015-021 FROM NON -URBAN 5 TO MIXED -USE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND ESTABLISH THE JOBS CREATION OVERLAY ZONE ACROSS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 2834-021-034, 2834-001-034, 2834-011- 021, 2834-010-043, 2834-008-039, 2834-001-015, 2834-006-041, 2834-007-045, 2834-013- 041, 2834-021-023, 2834-005-041, 2834-004-045, 2834-014-043, AND 2834-015-021;" waive reading of the text and consent to read by title only, as listed on the agenda, and pass to second reading. Page 1 Packet Pg. 8 O BACKGROUND The Shadowbox Studios Project (Project) is located at the northeast corner of Railroad Avenue and 13th Street in the community of Newhall, within the City of Santa Clarita (City). The Project site is approximately 93 acres of undeveloped land that has been cleared of a majority of its natural vegetation. The southern and central portions of the Project site are relatively flat land that has been disturbed and or cleared by past uses related to temporary parking for special events or filming in the area. The northern portion of the Project site is traversed by Placerita Creek and features a prominent ridgeline through its northeast corner. The Project site is bound to the south by 13th, Arch, and 12th Streets; commercial uses are located immediately south, fronting 13th, Arch, and 12th Streets, with single-family uses within Placerita Canyon just beyond. The Metro Rail Line is located immediately west with Railroad Avenue beyond. A mix of commercial uses and a mobile home park front Railroad Avenue in the vicinity of the Project site. A hillside maintained by a homeowner's association (HOA) is located immediately to the north with single-family uses beyond. The east is bound by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) right-of-way, with single-family uses along Alderbrook Drive beyond. The Project proposes to utilize an additional 11.4 acres of the MWD right-of-way immediately east, south of Placerita Creek, for additional parking and a plant nursery (subject to agreement with MWD). INITIAL APPLICATION The applicant, LA Railroad 93, LLC, has worked to refine the Project proposal over the past two and a half years, based on input from City staff through the One Stop review and formal entitlement application process, including community outreach as outlined below. On May 28, 2021, the applicant submitted a formal entitlement application for the development of a film and television studio facility consisting of approximately 1.3 million square feet of sound stages, a production support warehouse, a three-story office building, catering facilities, and a four-story (five parking levels) parking structure. The formal submittal reduced the number of sound stage buildings from the concept plan reviewed under the One Stop review, from 28 stages to 19, and eliminated all proposed sound stages from the north side of Placerita Creek. In addition, the architectural design concept was changed to contemporary Craftsman and Western Victorian styles intended to comply with the architectural character of the Newhall community as identified in the Community Character and Design Guidelines. PUBLIC OUTREACH BY THE APPLICANT The applicant began outreach efforts in October of 2020, hosting multiple meetings with homeowner groups, including the Placerita Canyon Property Owner's Association, Placerita Canyon Corporation, Circle J Ranch Homeowner's Association, as well as with individual residents in the Placerita Canyon throughout the entitlement review process. In addition, the applicant has met with The Master's University, the Newhall School District, and a number of other organizations and businesses in the City. The applicant's outreach efforts are demonstrated in the attached Applicant Community Outreach Summary. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING The Project site has General Plan land use and zoning designations of Mixed -Use Neighborhood (MXN) and Non -Urban 5 (NU5) and is located within an area that is specifically identified in the Page 2 Packet Pg. 9 O General Plan as the North Newhall Area (NNA). The General Plan establishes a limitation on the overall allowable floor area for non-residential development (excluding parking facilities) in the NNA to 450,000 square feet. In addition, the Project site is located within the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District (PCSSD) and the Planned Development Overlay zone. As summarized in the table below, the surrounding land uses include a mix of commercial, residential, and the Metro Rail Line. Summary of Surrounding Area General Plan Zone Land Use Project Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Proposed Shadowbox Studios Site Proj ect MXN; MXN MXN; MXN w/ NU5 NU5 JCOZ North OS; UR3 OS; UR3 HOA owned slope/Single Family uses beyond South MXN; UR1 MXN; UR1 Commercial Uses; Single Family uses beyond East UR1; UR2; NU5 UR1; UR2; NU5 MWD Right-of-way; Single Family uses beyond West PI; CC; SP PI; CC; SP Metro Rail Line; Commercial and Residential uses along Railroad Avenue JCOZ=Jobs Creation Overlay Zone; OS=Open Space; UR=Urban Residential; PI=Public/Institutional; CC=Community Commercial; SP=Specific Plan; HOA=Homeowners Association; and MWD=Metropolitan Water District The applicant is seeking approval of a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change that would establish a General Plan land use and zoning designation of MXN over the entirety of the Project site including the conversion of approximately 51.1 acres from NU5 to MXN, as well as a Zone Change to apply the Jobs Creation Overlay Zone (JCOZ) over the southerly 53.4-acre portion of the Project site (the area south of Placenta Creek) in order to permit the development of a full - service film and television studio campus. The applicant is also seeking approval of a General Plan text amendment to the NNA of the Land Use Element to increase the maximum allowable commercial floor area by 1,135,000 square feet for a total of 1,585,000 square feet of commercial floor area in the General Plan for the NNA. The applicant is also requesting a text amendment to clarify the height allowances specified in the NNA to reflect the inclusion of JCOZ overlay on the southerly portion of the Project site. The text amendments are provided in Exhibit B of the Project Resolution. PROJECT SUMMARY The applicant is seeking approvals for the development of a full -service film and television studio campus on the approximately 93-acre site. The Project would construct 19 soundstages, a three-story office building, a four-story (five parking levels) parking structure, a two-story warehouse support building, three catering buildings, a facilities mechanical building, as well as the construction of an all-weather bridge across Placerita Creek that would connect to a surface Page 3 Packet Pg. 10 O parking lot on the north side of the creek. The Project also proposes to utilize the adjacent 11.4- acre MWD property along the eastern boundary of the Project site, south of Placerita Creek, to provide additional vehicle and trailer parking spaces. A plant nursery is also proposed along the entire length of this MWD parking area, adjacent to the alley behind the residences along Alderbrook Drive. Use of the MWD property is subject to approval by MWD and is not required for compliance with the UDC, but would support the operation of the studio campus, if approved. The development of the proposed Project would require several off -site improvements, which include railroad crossing improvements at 13th Street and improvements of the roadway alignments on 13th Street, Arch Street, Dockweiler Road, 12th Street, and Placerita Canyon Road prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy issued on the Project site. The Project would require approximately 400,000 cubic yards of cut and fill to be balanced across the site, alteration along the base of a General Plan designated significant ridgeline, and the removal or encroachment of 12 oak trees, 6 of which are heritage sized. VEHICLE CIRCULATION AND OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS A Transportation Analysis (TA) was prepared for the Project and is the basis for determining any roadway improvements necessary to support the addition of Project traffic to the City's circulation network. The proposed roadway improvements for the Project are further informed by the General Plan roadway improvement for the Dockweiler Drive extension, which, if approved, would extend Dockweiler Drive from its current terminus at Valle del Oro, and would connect to Arch Street and reconfigure the alignment of Placerita Canyon Road with Dockweiler Drive. The TA analyzed the Project both with and without the completion of the planned extension of Dockweiler Drive. The proposed street improvements for the Project would be required with or without the completion of the connection to Dockweiler Drive. The specific street improvements that would be required for the Project prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy include: • Widening of the rail crossing at 13th Street and Railroad Avenue from two traffic lanes to five traffic lanes. In addition to the widening of the intersection, the railroad crossing would be upgraded to meet current safety standards, as directed by the California Public Utilities Commission; • Widening of 13th Street from two traffic lanes to six traffic lanes, Arch Street from two traffic lanes to six traffic lanes, and 12th Street from two traffic lanes to three traffic lanes; • Installation of a four -leg, signalized intersection at 13th Street and Arch Street; • Installation of a four -leg, signalized intersection at Arch Street and 12th Street; • Installation of a three -leg, half -signalized intersection of Placerita Canyon Road and Dockweiler Drive; and • Requiring the 13th Street at -grade crossing to stage construction such that access to Placerita Canyon will remain open during construction. If the Dockweiler Drive extension is not completed at the time of the Project, the following intersection improvement would be required in place of the three -leg intersection at Placerita Canyon Road and Dockweiler Drive: • Extend Arch Street to Placerita Canyon Road and complete the two -leg intersection of Page 4 Packet Pg. 11 O Placerita Canyon Road and Arch Street. Lastly, Class I trails would be required along the Project frontage of 13th, Arch, and 12th Streets that would connect to future Class I trails along Railroad Avenue and to a future Class I trail connection from Dockweiler Drive to the Jan Heidt Metrolink Station. Vehicle access to the studio campus is provided by way of two entry gates located at the proposed intersection of 13th Street and Arch Street. The primary entrance, Gate 1, is located at the north leg of the intersection and the secondary entrance, Gate 2, is located on the east leg of the intersection. Both gates are set back from the intersection and provide 2,100 linear feet of queuing on the Project site to ensure that Project related traffic can queue on -site and out of the public right-of-way. For context, assuming a 60-foot queue length for each 53-foot long truck, approximately 35 large trucks could be accommodated within the 2,100 feet of queuing at Gates 1 and 2 proposed with the project. An additional access gate, Gate 3, is located on 12th Street. Gate 3 will only allow for Project related egress by way of a right -turn -only out onto 12th Street. Gate 3 will provide emergency service ingress to the Project site. The Project site will provide a total of 2,684 parking spaces throughout the studio campus, within a five -level parking structure (1,072 parking spaces), a surface parking lot north of Placerita Creek (1,157 parking spaces), and surface parking spaces provided throughout the studio campus (455 parking spaces). In addition, the applicant is proposing the use of the MWD right-of-way, immediately east of the Project site, for an additional 257 trailer parking spaces. The parking within the MWD right-of-way would be in excess of code -required parking and is not required to support the Project operation. PROPOSED ENTITLEMENTS Implementation of the Project will require the approval of the following entitlements: Architectural Design Review 21-016 An Architectural Design Review is required for the proposed architectural design to ensure that the proposed architecture complies with all of the provisions of Section 17.51.020 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) and General Plan, and to be consistent with the City's Community Character and Design Guidelines. Conditional Use Permit 21-010 A Conditional Use Permit is required for new development within the Planned Development Overlay zone in accordance with Section 17.38.060 of the UDC. Development Review 21-012 A Development Review is required for the proposed physical design and layout, prior to the issuance of any building permit, for subdivision developments or commercial developments in accordance with Section 17.23.120 of the UDC. General Plan Amendment 21-002 A General Plan Amendment (GPA) is required to change the land use designation of the NU5 portion of the Project site to MXN. In addition, the General Plan text of the Land Use Element Page 5 Packet Pg. 12 O for the NNA, which includes the Project site, limits the overall floor area for nonresidential development; a GPA is required to amend this limitation. A General Plan text amendment is also requested in order to clarify the height regulations applicable to properties within the NNA. Hillside Development Review 21-001 A Hillside Development Review is required for all development on slopes in excess of 10- percent average cross -slope or greater in accordance with Section 17.51.020 of the UDC. Minor Use Permit 21-016 A Minor Use Permit is required to reduce the residential density below the minimum required density of the MXN zone in accordance with Section 17.35.020 of the UDC. Oak Tree Permit (Class 4) 421-001 A Class 4 Oak Tree Permit is required for the encroachment and/or the removal of four or more oak trees in accordance with Section 17.51.040 of the UDC. Ridgeline Alteration Permit 21-001 A Ridgeline Alteration Permit (RAP) is required to protect and/or restrict development on identified significant ridgelines with an approval by the City Council in accordance to Section 17.38.070 of the UDC. Ridgeline Preservation Overlay Zones establish 100-foot zones either horizontally, or vertically, on either side of an identified ridgeline. Tentative Map 83513 A Tentative Map is required for the subdivision of more than four lots in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and Section 17.25.110 of the UDC. The Project includes a request to merge and subdivide the Project site into five lots for the development of the studio campus. Zone Change 21-001 A Zone Change is required to amend the City's Zoning Map in order to designate the NU5 zoned portion of the Project site as MXN. In addition, a Zone Change is required in order to overlay the JCOZ on the southerly portion of the Project site (the portion south of Placerita Creek). The hearing before the City Council is necessary based on the request for the Zone Change, GPA, and RAP associated with the proposed Project. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The City selected Michael Baker, International, from a competitive bidding process to conduct the necessary CEQA review for the Project. On March 29, 2022, staff circulated the Notice of Preparation for the Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) with a 30-day comment period that closed on April 28, 2022. A Scoping Meeting was held on April 21, 2022, with approximately 30 people in attendance. Topics of concern expressed at the Scoping Meeting included traffic, flood and drainage, preservation of Placerita Creek, and consistency with the PCSSD. The City prepared a Draft EIR for the Project that addressed all issues raised in comments received on the Notice of Preparation. The Draft EIR was circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Specifically, the Notice of Availability/Notice of Page 6 Packet Pg. 13 O Completion for the Draft EIR was filed, posted, and advertised on April 6, 2023, and the 45-day public review period ended on May 22, 2023, in accordance with CEQA. The Draft EIR includes an Environmental Impact Analysis for the following areas: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy consumption, geology and soils, Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, transportation/traffic, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. The Draft EIR also includes a detailed Project Description, Project Alternatives, and Cumulative Impacts Analysis. The Draft Final EIR was prepared for the Project after the review period had concluded. The Draft Final EIR includes the Draft EIR, comments and responses on the Draft EIR, Errata and Clarifications Section, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). A complete response to the comments submitted can be found in the Final EIR prepared for the Project. Below is a summary of some of the responses to comments: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) - CDFW provided a letter with comments and recommendations related to impacts on the Crotch's bumble bee, mountain lion, Coastal California Gnatcatcher, streams and associated natural communities. The Draft EIR addresses the comments and provides mitigation measures to address the concerns raised. Discussion on the potential for Crotch's bumble bee to occur on the Project site was added to the Draft EIR in response to comments. It is important to note, that the bumble bee was not listed as a potential candidate for special status at the time of the biological resource surveys and literature review was conducted, nor at the time the NOP was issued. The circulation of the NOP established the baseline conditions for the biological resources evaluation of this Project. Mitigation measures have been added to the EIR to address any impact to a less than significant level. Surveys are currently underway to confirm the absence of the bumble bee onsite. Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) - LACFD provided a letter requesting corrections to the requirements for fire hydrants and fire flow, specifying the number of hydrants and required fire flow for the Project. Revisions to the Draft EIR were made to reflect the specification from LACFD. The changes do not result in a new or increased significant impact. Other comments from LACFD included routine design standards that will be verified during plan check. CREED LA — CREED LA provided comments on a number of topics in the Draft EIR analysis including biological resources, air quality and human health, transportation, and GHG emissions. Minor revisions were made to GHG Section of the Draft EIR in response to comments to ensure consistency in mobile emissions for the Project operations with the vehicle assumptions in the TA. The slight change in GHG emissions does not change the significance determination for the Project since the analysis is based on consistency with state and regional GHG reduction plans. Placerita Canyon Property Owners' Association (PCPOA) - PCPOA provided comments on a number of topics in the Draft EIR analysis including land use planning, population and housing, transportation, and GHG emissions. Clarifications to the roadway improvements were incorporated in the Draft EIR Project Description to outline the signals to be installed and specify that the rail crossing improvements included widening of the rail crossing. These clarifications do not provide new information that has not been previously analyzed. The roadway improvements have been shown on the proposed Page 7 Packet Pg. 14 O tentative map that has been included in the technical appendices and analyzed in the Draft EIR. In addition, Table 17 of the TA was revised to add a column to specify the level of service impact at study intersections. This revision simply summarizes data, data that is already available in the technical report, in a table for ease of the reader. The data is not new, and the list of intersections in the table is unchanged. Changes were incorporated into the Draft EIR to provide correction and clarification where appropriate in response to comments received. The information incorporated into the Draft EIR, outlined in the Errata and Clarifications Section of the Final EIR does not change the basic findings of the Draft EIR. The changes do not provide new significant information thus recirculation is not required. The Draft Final EIR was made available in advance of the July 18, 2023, Planning Commission meeting as it was forwarded to the Planning Commission, forwarded to members of the public, posted on the City's website, and placed in the City Clerk's Office on July 6, 2023. Letters were received in response to the Agenda Report for the Planning Commission hearing and Draft Final EIR on the Shadowbox Studios Project on July 18, 2023. These letters, which have been reviewed by staff, primarily contain the same comments that have been thoroughly and adequately addressed as part of the responses to comments included in the Draft Final EIR. The preparation of the responses to comments and the Draft Final EIR fully comply with all requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. Accordingly, these letters, received on the Draft Final EIR, are included as an attachment to the agenda report for consideration by the City Council. The Final EIR comments and responses on the Draft EIR, Errata and Clarifications Section, and MMRP are included as an attachment to the agenda report. The Final EIR finds that all impacts associated with the proposed project, in conjunction with the mitigation measures, can be mitigated to a less than significant level, and no Statement of Overriding Considerations is required for this project. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission held four public meetings on the Project, closed the public hearing on July 18, 2023, and recommended approval of the Project and certification of the Final EIR by the City Council. The Planning Commission recommendation included revisions to the following Conditions of Approval for consideration by the City Council and have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for the Project. The underlined text below represents the additions to the Conditions, as recommended by the Planning Commission: PL7. If permission is granted by MWD, the permittee may utilize 11.4 acres of the MWD property, immediately adjacent to the east, to provide excess parking and storage for plants associated with film and television studio use. All plant material must be maintained in good condition. Storage of empty pallets, plant containers, or dead plant material is prohibited. No other outdoor storage is permitted on the MWD property. Cleaning and/or maintenance of vehicles is not permitted on the MWD property between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Page 8 Packet Pg. 15 O PL8. The permittee may install a 12-foot tall perimeter fencing along the property line in conformance with the fencing plan on file with this application. The fencing along the west property line, facing Railroad Avenue must be staggered so that there is a minimum two -foot step back in the face wall, with step backs provided at a ratio of 150 feet to 50 feet. If the MWD property is not utilized for accessory_parking, perimeter fencing must be installed to allow for landscaping to screen the wall between the Project site and MWD property. PU L The permittee must prepare and submit a site -specific Emergency Operation Plan (EOP) to the Director before the Building Official issues a Certificate of Occupancy. The EOP must include an evacuation plan for the studio campus and must include a training program for all security personnel and tenants of the studio campus to ensure preparedness in the event of an emergency. The EOP must identify opportunities that would allow for the studio facility and local residents to shelter in place, and must identify opportunities that would allow for the studio facility to access the MWD right- of-way to the northeast as a means of evacuation in an emergency. The permittee must install a vehicle gate at the northeast portion of the Project site that would allow access to the adjacent MWD right-of-way to the northeast in the event of an emergency. TD4. The bus stop(s) must consist of a 10' x 25' concrete passenger waiting pad, placed behind the sidewalk and bike path, and relocate the existing bus stop furniture, including shelter, to the new location. NOTICING All notices required by law were completed which consisted of a legal advertisement in The Signal newspaper on August 1, 2023, and notification of the public hearing by mail to all property owners and occupants within a 1,000-foot radius of the Project site (1,445 notices). A sign was also posted at the Project site on August 8, 2023. As of the writing of this agenda report and publication of the City Council Public Hearing Notice, staff has received 77 comment letters expressing support for the Project and no letters in opposition to the Project. These letters can be found in the City Clerk's reading file. All letters and comments that were received during the Planning Commission meetings are included in the Planning Commission Staff Reports, located in the City Clerk's reading file. ALTERNATIVE ACTION Other actions as determined by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT The Project would not have a negative fiscal impact on the City's General Fund. The applicant would be required to pay various development impact fees, including, but not limited to, Bridge and Thoroughfare fees. ATTACHMENTS Public -Notice Page 9 Packet Pg. 16 O Resolution - Project Resolution - CEQA Ordinance Applicant Community Outreach Summary Public Comment Letters (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) Comment Letters on Final EIR (available in the Clerk's Reading File) Plans and Elevations (available in the Clerk's Reading File) Tentative Map (available in the Clerk's Reading File) Planning Commission Staff Report 4-18-2023 (available in the Clerk's Reading File) Planning Commission Staff Report 5-16-2023 (available in the Clerk's Reading File) Planning Commission Staff Report 6-20-2023 (available in the Clerk's Reading File) Planning Commission Staff Report 7-18-2023 (available in the Clerk's Reading File) Page 10 Packet Pg. 17 1.a CITY OF SANTA CLARITA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clanta, CA 91355 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION: Master Case 21-109; General Plan Amendment 21-002, Zone Change 21-001, Tentative Map 21-002, Conditional Use Permit 21-010, Development Review 21-012, Minor Use Permit 21-016, Ridgeline Alteration Permit 21-001, Hillside Development Review 21-001, Oak Tree Permit 421-001, Architectural Design Review 21-016, Environmental Impact Report 21-002 PROJECT APPLICANT: LA Railroad 93, LLC PROJECT LOCATION: Northeast Corner of Railroad Avenue and 13th Street. Assessor Parcel Numbers 2834-001-007; 2834-001-012 to -015; 2834-002-046; 2834- 003-044; 2834-004-045; 2834-005-041; 2834-006-041; 2834-007-045; 2834- 008-039; 2834-010-043; 2834-011-021; 2834-012-023; 2834-013-041; 2834- 014-043; 2834-015-021; 2834-016-041; 2834-017-021; 2834-020-111; 2834- 020-114; 2834-021-134; and 2834-022-067 The City of Santa Clanta City Council will conduct a public hearing on this matter on the following date DATE: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 TIME: At or after 6:00 p.m. LOCATION: City Hall, Council Chambers 23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor Santa Clanta, CA 91355 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting entitlements for the development of the Shadowbox Studios Project, an approximately 1.3 million square -foot, full -service film and television studio campus on an approximately 93-acre site. The project would involve construction of 19 soundstages, a three-story office building, a four-story (five parking levels) parking structure, a two-story warehouse support building, and three catering buildings, as well as the construction of an all-weather bridge across Placenta Creek that would connect to a surface parking lot on the north side of the creek. The project also proposes to utilize the adjacent 11.4-acre Metropolitan Water District (MWD) property along the eastern boundary of the project site, south of Placenta Creek, to provide additional vehicle and trailer parking spaces. A plant nursery is also proposed along the entire length of this parking area and adjacent to the alley behind the residences along Alderbrook Drive. Use of the MWD property is subject to approval by MWD and is not required to support the operation of the studio campus. The development of the proposed project would require several off -site improvements, which include railroad crossing improvements at 13th Street, and improvements of the roadway alignments on 13th Street, Arch Street, Dockweiler Road, 12th Street, and Placenta Canyon Road. The Project would require approximately 400,000 cubic yards of cut/fill to be balanced across the site, removal or encroachment of 13 oak trees, and alteration along the base of a significant ndgeline. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On July 18, 2023, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to adopt a resolution recommending the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and associated documents, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and approve Master Case 21-109 and associated entitlements for the development of the Shadowbox Studios Project, in the City of Santa Clanta, subject to the Conditions of Approval. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Draft EIR has been prepared for this proposed project and was posted for public review from April 6, 2023, to May 22, 2023. The Draft Final EIR was posted for public Packet Pg. 18 1.a review July 6, 2023. The Draft Final EIR includes all of the written comments received on the Draft EIR and detailed responses to the written comment letters. A copy of the Draft Final EIR and all supporting documents are available at the City Clerk's Office, located in the City Hall Building at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120, Santa Clarita, California, 91355. The Draft EIR and Draft Final EIR are also available for public review on the City of Santa Clarita website at: http://www.santa- clarita.com/planning/environmental. If you wish to challenge the action taken on this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clarita at, or prior to, the public hearings. For further information regarding this proposal, you may contact the project planner at the City of Santa Clarita, Permit Center, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 140, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Telephone: (661) 255- 4330. Website: www.santa-clan*ta.com/planning. Send written correspondence to: 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Project Planner: Erika Iverson, eiversonksanta-clarita.com. Mary Cusick, NMC City Clerk Published: The Signal, August 1, 2023 Packet Pg. 19 1.b RESOLUTION NO. 23- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING 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, AND TENTATIVE MAP 83513) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PROJECT IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA 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: Architectural Design Review 21-016 for the review of the Project architecture to ensure consistency with 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. 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) allowing for a total of up to 1,585,000 square feet of non-residential development. 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 12 oak trees, including six heritage trees. 8. Ridgeline Alteration Permit 21-001 to allow for the development within the Ridgeline Preservation zone. Page 1 of 62 Packet Pg. 20 1.b 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 limit for non-residential floor area in the NNA at 450,000 square feet. 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 by 1,135,000 square feet and allow for a maximum of 1,585,000 square feet of non-residential development. 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 homeowner association - maintained hillside 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 62 Packet Pg. 21 1.b 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 Placenta 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 NOR The Draft EIR was circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, in compliance with CEQA. Specifically, the Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion for the Draft EIR was Page 3 of 62 Packet Pg. 22 1.b 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 in accordance with the Conditions of Approval, as amended. 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 62 Packet Pg. 23 1.b 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. GENERAL FINDINGS FOR MASTER CASE 21-109. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Project EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports, and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and the City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and the City Council, the City Council finds as follows: A. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan; The Shadowbox Studios Project is consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the General Plan of the City. More specifically, the Project is consistent with the following portions of the Land Use Element of the General Plan: Economic Vitality Goal LU4: A diverse and healthy economy. • Objective LU4.2: Promote job creation, focusing on employment generators in the technical and professional sectors. o Policy LU42.1: Pursue business attraction and expansion programs for clean industries that provide job opportunities for local residents, particularly in the areas of film/entertainment, biotechnology, aerospace, and technology. o Policy LU422: Achieve a balanced ratio of jobs to housing through business expansion and economic development programs, with a goal of at least 1.5 jobs per household. In addition, the Shadowbox Studios Project is consistent with the economic development strategies, practices, and policies of the Economic Development Element of the General Plan as follows: Jobs/Housing Balance: The City has an aggressive goal to achieve a 2:1 jobs/housing balance. One of the biggest goals in pursuing the jobs/housing balance is to attract high - paying, high -quality jobs. To accomplish this goal, the City will focus on the targeted industry clusters, which include aerospace, technology, biomedical, and film/entertainment. Development Objectives: The City will continue to evaluate each development proposal on its individual merits, thereby allowing flexibility for economic generating and jobs - producing uses: • Encouraging business opportunities throughout all facets of the community, supporting burgeoning villages of industry throughout the Santa Clarita Valley; • Applying non-traditional height, design, and planning standards for appropriate projects and uses that generate significant impact to the economy; and • Encouraging increased density in non-residential projects in appropriate locations to increase quality jobs and achieve desired jobs/housing balance. Page 5 of 62 Packet Pg. 24 1.b The Project proposes to develop a full -service film and television studio campus, a targeted industry under the City's General Plan to bring employment opportunities to the City. The Project is expected to generate over 2,000 direct employment opportunities in the City. B. The proposal is allowed within the applicable underlying zone and complies with all other applicable provisions of this code; The Shadowbox Studios Project requires the approval of entitlements consisting of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Map, Conditional Use Permit, Minor Use Permit, Oak Tree Permit, Hillside Development Review, Ridgeline Alteration Permit, Development Review, and Architectural Design Review in accordance with the City's UDC. With approval of the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and the approval of the associated entitlements, the proposed Project would comply with the underlying zone and all other applicable provisions of the UDC. C. The proposal will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, or be materially detrimental or injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located; and The Project was evaluated in accordance with the UDC, as well as the City's General Plan. The Project was designed to be in keeping with the provisions of the UDC as well as the goals and policies of the City's General Plan. The Project is located within the NNA of the PCSSD and has been designed to meet the development standards identified in the PCSSD for the NNA as outlined below: Public Participation/Outreach • Be subject to public participation and outreach led by the applicant(s) or the applicant's representative, at the onset of and during conceptual planning and prior to formal submittal of a proposed project to the City. Outreach would include, but is not limited to, the Placerita Canyon Property Owners' Association. • The applicant has conducted ongoing outreach in the community, dating back to October of 2020. The applicant has hosted multiple meetings with homeowner groups, including the Placerita Canyon Property Owners' Association, Placerita Canyon Corporation, Circle J Ranch Homeowner's Association, as well as with individual residents in the Placerita Canyon. In addition, the applicant has met with The Master's University, the Newhall School District, the property owner of the adjacent Arch Street commercial center, and a number of other organizations. Traffic Intrusion/Gateways • Be internally and externally pedestrian -oriented, and have equestrian and bicycle amenities and accommodations; • The proposed Project is a closed studio campus so the internal pedestrian orientation is designed to support studio operations. Page 6 of 62 Packet Pg. 25 1.b Externally to the site, and at the direction of staff, the applicant has incorporated a Class I trail, which consists of a separated right-of-way including a two-way path for bicycles, and a pedestrian path, along the Project frontage of 13th, Arch, and 12th Streets. The Class I trail would not preclude equestrian use. • Understand and acknowledge that any development at these locations will increase existing vehicular traffic and create new vehicular traffic, and that there will be impacts to equestrian and pedestrian circulation in the existing neighborhood, and therefore to minimize those impacts, special attention must be given to mitigate impacts caused by such identified access points; • The Project has been designed to concentrate Project related traffic at the proposed intersection of 13th Street and Arch Street. In response to community outreach, the applicant committed to eliminating Project related ingress at Gate 3 (12th Street). Gate 3 would serve as emergency ingress only. Project related traffic would be permitted to exit Gate 3 by way of a right -turn only out onto 12th Street, away from Placeritos Boulevard and away from the residential uses in Placenta Canyon. The Project would include multi -use Class I trails along the frontage at 13th, Arch, and 12th Streets to provide for pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle connections from Placerita Canyon to Railroad Avenue. • Layout and orientation of any developments shall be designed to discourage and where possible prevent additional trips into Placerita Canyon caused by or resulting from such developments; • The Project has been designed to concentrate Project related traffic at the intersection of 13th and Arch Streets by locating the main Project entrance (Gate 1) and secondary entrance (Gate 2) at the proposed signalized intersection of 13th and Arch Streets. No Project related trips would be permitted to enter the Project site from the 12th Street driveway (Gate 3). Gate 3 would allow Project related egress, by way of a right -turn only out of Gate 3, westbound toward Arch Street. Gate 3 would provide emergency ingress only. As designed, vehicle traffic related to the Project would be directed away from Placerita Canyon Road and Placeritos Boulevard. Gates 1 and 2 are set back from the intersection of 13th and Arch Streets, designed with multiple vehicle lanes in order to provide ample on -site queuing of Project related traffic. • Include defined entry gateways or monuments into the PCSSD, at Railroad Avenue, complete with landscaping and architectural elements with signage expressly stating there is no through traffic allowed; • The City's planned Dockweiler Drive Extension project, if approved, would change the circulation pattern from Railroad Avenue at 13th Street. As such, there would be through access from the intersection at 13th Street and Railroad Avenue. The applicant has offered to provide entry signage into Placerita Canyon with "No through traffic" signs at Placeritos Boulevard and/or Placerita Canyon Road. The Conditions of Page 7 of 62 Packet Pg. 26 1.b Approval (Exhibit A) require the applicant to design and install gateway signage. • A traffic study shall be prepared for all new developments that are projected to generate two hundred fifty (250) or more new daily trips, within the areas encompassed by the NNA. The traffic study shall analyze those potentially impacted intersections within the NNA area and those that lie within a one (1) mile radius of the subject development site. • A Transportation Analysis, in compliance with the City's Transportation Analysis Updates, was prepared for the Project and has been included as Technical Appendix L to the Draft EIR, whose findings have been incorporated into the proposed Project design. Buffering and Transitions • Preserve the existing rural equestrian community, generally known as Placerita Canyon, and provide adequate buffers and graduated transitional design to ensure existing neighborhood protection and compatibility of character resulting from any proposed development; • The Project proposes building heights ranging from 18 to 55 feet. Taller buildings have been situated on the central (studio buildings) and western portions (office, parking structure, and warehouse) of the Project site, further from residential uses to the east and south. Single - story buildings (catering facilities) would be situated at the southeast portion of the Project site, along 12th Street, where the Project site is closer to residential uses. The Metropolitan Water District (MWD) right-of-way is approximately 200-feet wide and separates the Project site from the nearest residential uses to the east. The applicant is proposing use of the MWD right-of-way to provide excess parking and a plant nursery in support of studio operations. There is an existing row of mature pepper trees located within the MWD right-of-way, along the unpaved alley behind the existing homes on Alderbrook Drive that would remain in place. • Incorporate the current Santa Clarita Valley Trails Advisory Committee (SCVTAC) network of multi -use trails into adjacent neighborhoods which shall have rural and equestrian characteristics; and • The SCVTAC is no longer an active committee. However, multi -use trails have been incorporated into the Project design to provide connectivity from the adjacent neighborhoods. At staff s direction, the applicant has incorporated a multi -use, Class I trail along the Project frontage of 13th, Arch, and 12th Streets. In addition, the applicant would be conditioned to contribute to a future multi -use Class I trail connecting Dockweiler Drive to the Jan Heidt Metrolink Station. • Require use of the MWD right-of-way as a landscaped buffer (subject to MWD approval) between the NNA within the PCSSD and the rest of Placerita Canyon, which landscaping shall consist of low water, low maintenance landscape material. • Any use of the MWD right-of-way is subject to approval of MWD. Page 8 of 62 Packet Pg. 27 1.b The MWD right-of-way is improved with a water transmission pipeline, and the right-of-way is needed for operation and maintenance of the MWD facilities therein. The adjacent residential properties to the east of the Project site are separated from the MWD right-of-way by an unpaved alleyway. A row of mature pepper trees line the length of the unpaved alleyway. The alleyway and the existing trees are proposed to remain in their existing condition with the Project. The applicant proposal includes installation of a 12-foot wall, just east of the alleyway and pepper trees. The applicant proposes to use the MWD right-of-way for additional parking and to store plant materials that would support the studio production. The plant nursery allows the applicant to store plant materials that are used in the soundstage sets while providing greenery and buffering from adjacent uses, but is portable in the event of MWD maintenance activities. Architecture • Consist of three hundred sixty (360) degree architectural design with pedestrian - scaled building massing and forms where adjacent to existing residences, with the use of landscaping to visually soften hard edges of buildings; • Each building has been designed with 360-degree architecture, using an architectural theme that is consistent with the Community Character and Design Guidelines for the Newhall community. • Structures shall have varied building heights and designs shall create east/west sight lines. Building heights up to thirty-five (35) feet may be permitted. Additional height, not to exceed fifty (50) feet, may be permitted subject to the approval of a conditional use permit; • Structures are varied in height, from 18 feet to 55 feet. The single - story catering buildings are approximately 18 feet in height at the southeast corner of the Project site, where buildings are nearest residential uses, to maintain lower profile and allow east/west sight line. Development has been set back from Placerita Creek, maintaining an east/west sightline along the creek and base of the northerly hillside. The studio buildings are located centrally on the Project site and are 55 feet at the peak of the pitched roofline. Buildings along the western portion of the site include a three-story, 48-foot office building, 45-foot parking structure, and a two-story, 50-foot warehouse building. The Project request includes a Zone Change in order to implement the JCOZ over the southerly portion of the Project site, which, if approved, would permit the 55-foot building height as proposed. • Have transitional densities, as described above, decreasing in density and height in an easterly direction towards the MWD right-of-way away from Railroad Avenue, to include the MWD right-of-way as a landscaped buffer and detached single-family residences adjacent to the MWD right-of-way; and • The Project has been designed to locate taller buildings on the central and western portions of the Project site, further from residential uses to Page 9 of 62 Packet Pg. 28 1.b the east and south. The single -story catering facilities are situated at the southeast portion of the Project site, along 12th Street, where the Project site is closer to residential uses. The MWD right-of-way separates the Project site from the nearest residential uses to the east. The applicant is proposing use of the MWD right-of-way to provide excess parking and a plant nursery in support of studio operations. There is an existing row of mature pepper trees located within the MWD right-of-way, along the unpaved alley behind the existing homes on Alderbrook Drive, that will remain in place. • Building heights shall be subject to the same Unified Development Code requirements that apply to all of Placerita Canyon. There are multiple zoning designations on properties within the PCSSD including residential, mixed -use, and commercial zoning designations. Each zoning designation dictates the allowable height. The Project request includes a Zone Change in order to implement the JCOZ over the southerly portion of the Project site, which would permit the 55-foot building heights as proposed with this Project. Flood Control • Waterway bottoms and sides shall not be improved with concrete or hard impervious surfaces and shall be maintained in a natural appearance; • The existing alignment and natural soft bottom of Placenta Creek would remain intact with the Project. The banks of the creek would be stabilized with buried rock bank protection that would have soil fill on top and be re -vegetated to preserve the natural appearance of the creek. • Fencing shall not be permitted to cross riverbeds or waterways in a manner which denies or interferes with easy trail access; and • The fencing plan for the Project does not interfere with any existing trail access, nor does it impact existing waterways. • On -site flood control mitigation would provide assistance or relief to other hydrology/drainage impacts within Placerita Canyon due to changes of topography on NNA properties. • The Project proposes bank stabilization in order to limit erosion of Placerita Creek. A Hydrology Study and Low Impact Development Report were prepared to assess the existing and post -construction stormwater runoff. Hydromodifications, including an infiltration/detention basin and underground infiltration chambers, have been incorporated into the Project design to ensure that the volume and rate of flow from stormwater runoff into the creek would not exceed the existing conditions. Housing Types • It is not the City's intent to see affordable housing located on this site; and • The desired housing type in the NNA will attract residents who will assist in the economic revitalization of Downtown Newhall (Old Town Newhall). This is not applicable as the Project proposal does not include Page 10 of 62 Packet Pg. 29 0 residential uses. Economic Development • Based on the area's proximity to the nearby Metrolink station and Old Town Newhall, development in the NNA would be supportive of revitalization efforts, with an appropriate mix of retail, office, restaurant, and general commercial square footage combined with neighboring and integrated housing types. • The Project proposes a full -service film and television studio campus near Metrolink and bus line services, anticipated to employ over 2,000 people, and would have positive impact on indirect employment in the NNA and Old Town Newhall Specific Plan areas. Recreation • Include a site -specific and a community -based recreational component. • Private on -site amenities are proposed offering passive and active recreation opportunities including the Shadow Oak Park situated in the center of the catering buildings, a half basketball court, outdoor seating areas between studio buildings, and a dog park. The project proposal includes a public amenity in the form of a multi -use Class I trail along the project frontage of 13th, Arch, and 12th Streets. In addition to the NNA development standards, the PCSSD has general criteria for all new development in the PCSSD. Many of these criteria are duplicative with NNA development standards. A discussion on the project's conformance with the applicable general development standards of the PCSSD is outlined here: • Trails. 19 Riding and hiking trails shall be provided as depicted on the latest Placerita Canyon Backbone Trails exhibit on file with Parks, Recreation and Community Services, to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services; Ar Trails shall be fenced to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services, with fences ofa rustic wood appearance; Ar Trail access shall be provided at all river crossings; Ar There shall be no obstructions including, but not limited to, landscaping, trash receptacles, or other similar structures within a designated trail; and Ar Fencing shall not be permitted to cross riverbeds in such a manner as to deny trail access. • The inclusion of multi -use Class I trails described in the NNA discussion above has been incorporated into the Project design at the direction of staff through the Development Review Committee process, in response to the trail requirements identified in the PCSSD. The Project fencing does not conflict or deny access to existing trails. A property maintenance or homeowner maintenance association shall be established to maintain the private access route, private roads and drives, trail easements and other specific project amenities in all new residential projects ofgreater than four (4) dwelling units and all new commercial, industrial and institutional projects; Page 11 of 62 Packet Pg. 30 1.b • This does not apply to the Project specifically, as all roadways and trails adjacent to the Project are public; however, the Project will be conditioned, as appropriate, to ensure maintenance of applicable amenities and landscaped areas. Street lights, in accordance with City standards, shall be installed only at road -to - road intersections; exterior lighting shall be designed to minimize off -site illumination, within the requirements for public safety. Exterior lighting on residential parcels shall be of top -shielded design to prevent direct off -site illumination; hoods shall be used to direct light away from adjacent parcels. Exterior lighting on nonresidential parcels shall be prohibited except where necessary for the safety ofpedestrian and vehicular traffic, as determined by the City. To minimize off - site illumination where lights are required, cut-offfixtures in keeping with a rural equestrian architectural style will be specified; • Any street light improvements associated with the Project's proposed roadway design will be designed in conformance with the City's requirements. As it pertains to the on -site lighting, the applicant has prepared a site -specific lighting plan to ensure that necessary lighting is provided for safety and security while minimizing offsite effects from fixture glare. Specifically, the applicant is utilizing cut-off fixtures and back -light -control options as well as proposing the use of energy management controls in conjunction with occupancy sensors that will reduce the light output when motion is not detected. River bottoms and sides shall not be improved with concrete. Fencing shall not be permitted to cross riverbeds in such a manner as to deny trail access; • Placerita Creek would not be channelized with concrete side walls or floor. The Project fencing would not deny access to existing trails. Bridges shall be limited to those required for public safety and shall be designed to accommodate equestrian access; • The studio campus is proposed to be a private, closed campus. The proposed bridge within the Project site is not part of, nor accessible to, the larger Placerita Canyon area, as it is located within a private development. The bridge is designed to be of the same height as the existing Placerita Creek bridge crossing on Railroad Avenue. All new residential projects ofgreater than four (4) dwelling units and all new commercial, industrial and institutional projects (including expansion thereof) shall connect to public sewer systems. Utilities shall be undergrounded to the nearest off - site connection; and • The applicant has completed a sewer area study as outlined in the Draft EIR for the Project and would be conditioned to connect to the public sewer system as well as underground utility services. Existing and future drainage shall be accommodated to provide adequate carrying capacity and erosion protection and shall not create or extend detrimental hazards or consequences upstream. • The Project has been designed to ensure that the site drainage would not increase the volume or rate of flow from the current condition. Page 12 of 62 Packet Pg. 31 1.b Accordingly, with implementation of the associated conditions of approval including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP), the Project will not impact the public health, interest, safety, or general welfare or be materially detrimental or injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity of the Project site. D. The proposal is physically suitable for the site. The factors related to the proposal's physical suitability for the site shall include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. The design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics are suitable for the proposed use; With the Conditions of Approval, including the MMRP, the Project will be suitable for the site and the uses entitled with the Project. 2. The highways or streets that provide access to the site are ofsufcient width and are improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such proposal would generate; The Project completed a detailed traffic analysis to evaluate the impacts of the Project. The traffic analysis has identified roadway improvements to ensure the public roadways are sufficiently improved to support the additional Project traffic. The Project Conditions of Approval require the applicable improvements to be completed before the Building Official issues the first certificate of occupancy. 3. Public protection services (e.g., Fire protection, Sheriprotection, etc.) are readily available; and The Project site is located in an established, urban environment that is serviced by existing law enforcement and fire protection services. The applicant must pay applicable fees to the law enforcement and fire protection agencies to assist in offsetting any impacts to the services necessary to properly service the Project. 4. The provision of utilities (e.g., potable water, schools, solid waste collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal, etc) is adequate to serve the site. The Project is in a portion of the City that is surrounded by developed communities with access to the necessary utilities to service the Project site. A detailed analysis for the provisions of utilities was completed for the Project in the Draft EIR determining that adequate services are available to meet the needs of the Project site. SECTION 3. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 21-002. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Shadowbox Studios Draft EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and the City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and the City Council, the City Council finds, as follows: Page 13 of 62 Packet Pg. 32 1.b A. Properties which benefit from increased density or intensity of development resulting from the General Plan Amendment shall fully mitigate their increased sewer impact at the time that development occurs on the properties. A sewer area study was prepared for the Project and reviewed by the City Engineer to ensure there is adequate capacity for the Project's increased sewer impact. B. The proposed General Plan amendment is consistent with other elements of the City's General Plan pursuant to Government Code Section 65300.5; The southerly portion of the Project site (approximately 42.4 acres) has a land use designation of MXN, and the northerly portion (approximately 51.1 acres), including the portion of the Project site within Placerita Creek, has a land use designation of NUS. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the General Plan land use designation to apply the MXN land use designation across the entire 93-acre Project site. In addition, the Project site is located within an area specifically identified in the General Plan as the NNA. The General Plan establishes a maximum residential density of 775 units and a maximum of 450,000 square feet of non-residential (commercial) development (excluding parking facilities) for the NNA. As such, the applicant is seeking a text amendment to the General Plan to increase the maximum allowable commercial floor area. Specifically, the applicant is seeking to increase the maximum commercial floor area by 1,135,000 square feet for a total of 1,585,000 square feet of commercial floor area in the General Plan for the NNA. This would allow for build out of the proposed studio Project as well as building out the balance of the NNA. The applicant is also requesting a text amendment to clarify the height allowances specified in the NNA. To reflect the inclusion of JCOZ overlay on the southerly portion of the Project site. The text amendments are provided in Exhibit B. The proposed General Plan amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of other elements of the City's General Plan and will maintain integrated, consistent, and compatible policies. Specifically, as discussed in Section 2 above, the Land Use Element and Economic Development Element of the General Plan include goals, objectives, and policies that identify the film and entertainment industry as a targeted business sector and contemplate development consistent with the proposed Project that would contribute to a balanced job to housing ratio as well as bring high -paying, high -quality employment opportunities into the City. SECTION 4. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR TENTATIVE MAP 83513. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Shadowbox Studios Draft EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports, and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and the City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and the City Council, the City Council finds, as follows: Page 14 of 62 Packet Pg. 33 A. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The Project will not obstruct any public access as a result of the proposed subdivision. No public lands are identified on, or adjacent to, the Project site that currently require access through the Project site. The land necessary for the roadway improvements to facilitate the Project will be provided from the Project site along the Project frontage. SECTION 5. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 21-001. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Shadowbox Studios Draft EIR, oral and written testimony, and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports, and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and the City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and the City Council, the City Council finds as follows: A. That the natural topographic features and appearances are conserved by means of landform grading to blend any manufactured slopes or required drainage benches into the natural topography; B. That natural, topographic prominent features are retained to the maximum extent possible; C. That clustered sites and buildings are utilized where such techniques can be demonstrated to substantially reduce grading alterations of the terrain and to contribute to the preservation of trees, other natural vegetation and prominent landmark features and are compatible with existing neighborhood- D. That building setbacks, building heights and compatible structures and building forms that would serve to blend buildings and structures with the terrain are utilized; E. That plant materials are conserved and introduced so as to protect slopes from slippage and soil erosion and to minimize visual effects ofgrading and construction on hillside areas, including the consideration of the preservation ofprominent trees and, to the extent possible, while meeting the standards of the Fire Department; F. That street design and improvements that serve to minimize grading alterations and emulate the natural contours and character of the hillsides are utilized; G. That grading designs that serve to avoid disruption to adjacent properties are utilized; and H. That site design and grading that provide the minimum disruption of view corridors and scenic vistas from and around any proposed development are utilized. The north portion of the Project site contains a hillside exceeding 10-percent average cross - slope requiring the approval of a Hillside Development Review, in accordance with the UDC, to develop the Project site. A portion of the hillside is identified as a Significant Ridgeline in the City's General Plan Conservation Element. The balance of the Project site is relatively flat. The Project includes grading at the base of the ridgeline in the northeast corner of the Project site. While grading would occur along the base of this ridgeline, the Project would still be consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element Policies because the Project would only alter the base of the ridgeline. The peak of the ridgeline will remain Page 15 of 62 Packet Pg. 34 1.b wholly intact, thus maintaining the existing view of the ridgeline. In addition, all buildings would be situated on the southerly, flat portion of the Project site. There are no physical structures proposed on the hillside, thus, there are no building pads being graded into the hillside. The proposed grading will blend into and maintain the existing contours of the hillside. Planting of the graded slope will be consistent with the City's Hillside Development Standards which requires landscape coverage and stabilization of graded slopes to be compatible with surrounding natural vegetation. In addition, the Project shall be compliant with the requirements of the Los Angeles County Fuel Modification Unit for development within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Planting will generally consist of the use of native vegetation and plant material that is compatible with the climate of the Santa Clarita Valley. SECTION 6. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 21-001. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Shadowbox Studios Draft EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports, and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and the City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and the City Council, the City Council finds as follows: A. The use or development will not be materially detrimental to the visual character of the neighborhood or community, nor will it endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare; B. The appearance of the use or development will not be substantially different than the appearance of adjoining ridgeline areas so as to cause depreciation of the ridgeline appearance in the vicinity; C. The establishment of the proposed use or development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties, nor encourage inappropriate encroachments to the ridgeline area; D. The proposed use or development demonstrates creative site design resulting in a project that will complement the community character and provide a direct benefit to current and future community residents of not only the proposed use or development, but the residents of the City as a whole; E. The use or development minimizes the effects ofgrading to the extent practicable to ensure that the natural character of the ridgeline is preserved; F. The proposed use or development is designed to mimic the existing topography to the greatest extent possible through the use of landform contour grading; and G. The proposed use or development does not alter natural landmarks and prominent natural features of the ridgelines. The hillside in the northeast corner of the Project site is identified as a Significant Ridgeline in the City's General Plan Conservation Element. The Project includes grading at the base of the ridgeline in the northeast corner of the Project site; however, the peak of the ridgeline would not be altered by the proposed grading. Thus, the ridgeline will remain intact and the grading will not be materially detrimental to the visual character in the vicinity. The proposed grading along the base of the ridgeline is designed to tie into the existing topography of the slope in order to maintain the existing character of the hillside along the Page 16 of 62 Packet Pg. 35 1.b northern portion of the Project site. As indicated in Section 5 above, the graded slope will be landscaped in accordance with the City's Hillside Development Standards and will be planted with oak trees as part of the Project's oak tree mitigation plan. SECTION 7. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR OAK TREE PERMIT (CLASS 4) 421-001. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Shadowbox Studios Project EIR, oral and written testimony, and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports, and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and the City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and the City Council, the City Council finds as follows: A. The approving authority shall make one(]) or more of the following findings before granting an oak tree permit: a. The condition or location of the oak trees) requires cutting to maintain or aid its health, balance, or structure; b. The condition of the tree(s) with respect to disease, danger offalling, proximity to existing lots, pedestrian walkways or interference with utility services cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable preservation and/or preventative procedures and practices; c. It is necessary to remove, relocate, prune, cut or encroach into the protected zone of an oak tree to enable reasonable use of the subject property which is otherwise prevented by the presence of the tree and no reasonable alternative can be accommodated due to the unique physical development constraints of the property; or d. The approval of the request will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of the code. The Project site contains 16 oak trees that are protected by the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. The Project consists of the removal of 12 oak trees, including 6 heritage -sized oak trees. The Project requires site grading and will raise the building pad elevations from the current grade to allow use of the subject property. Of the 12 removals, 4 of the oaks are proposed to be relocated throughout the site. Removals and relocated oak trees will require mitigation in accordance with the City's Oak Tree Ordinance. The City would require replacement oak trees to be planted in the landscaped areas of the Project site to offset the loss of the removed oak trees. If planting on -site is not practicable, the applicant may donate the replacement oak trees to the City or provide the equivalent monetary value of the replacement trees to the City's Oak Tree Fund. Therefore, the Project includes Conditions of Approval to provide additional justification, which includes grading plan details, cross - sections, reappraisals, and a transplant study, before any proposed removal to be reviewed and approved by the City. The compliance with the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, including the Standards for Performance of Permitted Work of the Oak Tree Preservation Guidelines, ensures that the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and impacts. B. No heritage oak tree shall be removed unless one (1) or more of the above findings are made and the review authority also finds that the heritage oak tree's continued existence would prevent any reasonable development of the property and that no reasonable Page 17 of 62 Packet Pg. 36 alternative can be accommodated due to the unique physical constraints of the property. It shall further be found that the removal ofsuch heritage oak tree will not be unreasonably detrimental to the community and surrounding area. There are six heritage -sized oak trees proposed for removal. An assessment of each tree has been provided in the applicant's Oak Tree Report. The heritage -size trees are numbered as trees No. 1 through No. 5, and No. 7 in the Oak Tree Report. The City Arborist reviewed the Oak Tree Report and found the assessment of each tree to be consistent with the conditions observed upon site inspection. As stated in the Oak Tree Report, trees Nos. 1 and 2 have structural defects and/or stem failures; trees Nos. 3, 4, and 5 have suffered fire damage and resultant scarring and decay; and tree No. 7 has structural defects and disease. As indicated in finding A above, grading is required to raise the building pad elevations to allow reasonable use of the Project site. Further, due to the potential for structural failure of trees Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 within the active studio campus, the trees are proposed for removal. SECTION 8. The City Council hereby approves 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; and Tentative Map 83513 for the development of the Shadowbox Studios Project in the City of Santa Clarita, California, subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A). SECTION 9. 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 10. 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 11. 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 12. A copy of this resolution will be mailed to the Applicant and to any other person requesting a copy. Page 18 of 62 Packet Pg. 37 1.b SECTION 13. 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. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 22"d day of August, 2023. MAYOR 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- was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 22nd day of August, 2023, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK Page 19 of 62 Packet Pg. 38 1.b EXHIBIT A 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 421-001, RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 21-001, ZONE CHANGE 21-001, AND TENTATIVE MAP 83513) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL CONDITIONS GC1. These project approvals expire if the approved use is not commenced within two years from the date of this approval, unless it is extended in accordance with the terms and provisions of the City of Santa Clarita's (City) Unified Development Code (UDC). GC2. To the extent the use approved with this project is a different use than previously approved for the property, the prior approval is terminated along with any associated vested rights to such use, unless such prior approved use is still in operation, or is still within the initial pre -commencement approval period. Once commenced, any discontinuation of the use approved with this project for a continuous period of two years or more terminates the approval of this use along with any associated vested rights to such use. The use may not be re-established or resumed after the two-year period. Discontinuation includes cessation of a use regardless of intent to resume. GC3. The permittee may file for an extension of the conditionally -approved project before the date of expiration. If such an extension is requested, it must be filed not later than 60 days before the date of expiration. GC4. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "permittee" includes the permittee and any other persons, corporation, or other entity making use of this grant. The permittee must defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santa Clarita, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this project by the City, including any related environmental approvals. In the event the City becomes aware of any such claim, action, or proceeding, the City will promptly notify the permittee. Nothing contained in this condition prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, if both of the following occur: 1) the City bears its own attorneys' fees and costs; and 2) the City defends the action in good faith. The permittee is not required to pay or perform any settlement unless the settlement is approved by the permittee. GCS. The permittee and property owner must comply with all inspections requirements as deemed necessary by the Director. Page 20 of 62 Packet Pg. 39 1.b GC6. The project site must be developed and/or used in the manner requested and must be in substantial conformity with the submitted plans date -stamped July 18, 2023, unless revisions and/or additional conditions are specifically required herein. GC7. This approval runs with the land. All rights and obligations of this approval, including the responsibility to comply with the Conditions of Approval, are binding upon Permittee's successors in interest. The Conditions of Approval may be modified, terminated, or abandoned in accordance with applicable law including, without limitation, the Santa Clarita Municipal Code (SCMC). GC8. Any proposed deviations from the Exhibits, Project Description, or Conditions of Approval must be submitted to the Director for review and approval. Any unapproved deviations from the project approval will constitute a violation of the permit approval. GC9. When exhibits and/or written Conditions of Approval are in conflict, the written Conditions of Approval prevail over the exhibits. GC 10. The effectiveness of this project will be suspended for the time period that any Condition of Approval is appealed whether administratively or as part of a legal action filed in a court of competent jurisdiction. If any Condition of Approval is invalidated by a court of law, the project must be reviewed by the City and substitute conditions may be imposed. GC11. The Permittee is responsible for ascertaining and paying all City fees as required by the SCMC. This condition serves as notice, pursuant to Government Code § 66020(d) that the City is imposing development impact fees (DIFs) upon the project in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code § 66000, et seq.) and the SCMC. The permittee is informed that it may protest DIFs in accordance with Government Code § 66020. GC12. The Permittee must sign these Conditions of Approval, as set forth below, to acknowledge acceptance, within 30 days from the date of approval by the Planning Commission. GC13. This decision is not effective until Permittee acknowledges acceptance of all project conditions and any appeal period has lapsed, or a waiver of right to appeal is filed or if there is an appeal, until a final decision has been made on the appeal. By use of the entitlements granted by a development application, the Permittee acknowledges agreement with the Conditions of Approval. GC 14. The City will only issue permits for the development when the construction documents (e.g., building plans) substantially comply with the approved plans. Substantial conformity is determined by the Director. GC15. Anything which is not shown on the application/plans, or which is not specifically approved, or which is not in compliance with this section, is not approved. Any application and/or plans which are defective as to, without limitation, omission, dimensions, scale, use, colors, materials, encroachments, easements, etc., will render any entitlements granted by this approval null and void. Construction must cease until all Page 21 of 62 Packet Pg. 40 1.b requirements of this approval are complied with. Development entitlements may be withheld until violations of the SCMC are abated. GC16. The City will not issue a final Certificate of Occupancy until the Permittee complies with all project conditions. GC 17. Permittee must reimburse the City for all attorneys' fees expended by the City that are directly related to the processing of this project. The City will not issue a Final Certificate of Occupancy or other final occupancy approval until all attorneys' fees are paid by the Permittee. PLANNING DIVISION PL1. The permittee is granted approval for the following entitlements for the Shadowbox Studios Project associated with Master Case 21-109: a. Tentative Map 83513; b. General Plan Amendment 21-002; c. Zone Change 21-001; d. Conditional Use Permit 21-010; e. Minor Use Permit 21-016; f. Hillside Development Review 21-001 g. Ridgeline Alteration Permit 21-001; h. Oak Tree Permit 421-001; i. Development Review 21-012; and j. Architectural Design Review 21-016. PL2. The permittee is granted approval to construct the proposed film and television studio project in accordance with the approved plans on file with the Planning Division. PL3. The permittee must comply with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) prepared for the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the project (SCH No. 2022030762), which is incorporated by reference. PL4. Parking must be provided in accordance with the approved parking plan and the parking demand study on file with the Planning Division. PL5. All vehicle traffic associated with the film and television studio operation must enter at Gate 1 or Gate 2 as labeled on the approved plans on file with the Planning Division. Gate 3, as labeled on the approved plans on file with the Planning Division, is restricted to egress only and must be designed as a right turn exit, westbound on 12th Street. Emergency service only is permitted to use Gate 3 as an entrance. PL6. Vehicle traffic during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. must use Gate 1 for entrance and exit. Large trucks (53-foot) are not permitted to enter or exit the North parking lot or the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) parking area between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. PL7. If permission is granted by MWD, the permittee may utilize 11.4 acres of the MWD property, immediately adjacent to the east, to provide excess parking and storage for Page 22 of 62 Packet Pg. 41 1.b plants associated with film and television studio use. All plant material must be maintained in good condition. Storage of empty pallets, plant containers, or dead plant material is prohibited. No other outdoor storage is permitted on the MWD property. Cleaning and/or maintenance of vehicles is not permitted on the MWD property between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. PL8. The permittee may install a 12-foot tall perimeter fencing along the property line in conformance with the fencing plan on file with this application. The fencing along the west property line, facing Railroad Avenue must be staggered so that there is a minimum 2-foot step back in the face wall, with step backs provided at a ratio of 150 feet to 50 feet. If the MWD property is not utilized for accessory parking, perimeter fencing must be installed to allow for landscaping to screen the wall between the Project site and MWD property. PL9. Incidental outdoor filming is permitted on the studio facility campus. Outdoor sets or soundstages are not permitted. Any incidental outdoor filming between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. will require issuance of a film permit by the Santa Clarita Film Office. PL10. All lighting must be directed down and shielded from neighboring uses. Drive aisle and parking lot lighting must utilize energy management controls and occupancy sensors to reduce lighting levels to the maximum extent possible when parking areas are not occupied in conformance with the Lighting Design Criteria on file with this application. PL11. The permittee must prepare and submit a site -specific Emergency Operation Plan (EOP) to the Director before the Building Official issues a Certificate of Occupancy. The EOP must include an evacuation plan for the studio campus and must include a training program for all security personnel and tenants of the studio campus to ensure preparedness in the event of an emergency. The EOP must identify opportunities that would allow for the studio facility and local residents to shelter in place, and must identify opportunities that would allow for the studio facility to access the MWD right of way to the northeast as a means of evacuation in an emergency. The permittee must install a vehicle gate at the northeast portion of the Project site that would allow access to the adjacent MWD right of way to the northeast in the event of an emergency. PL12. The studio facility must have security personnel on -site 24 hours per day and must establish a contact phone number for site operations, to be posted at each entry gate, visible to the public. PL13. The architecture of the proposed project must be consistent with the approved conceptual architectural plans on file with this application and conform to the Community Character and Design Guidelines (CCDG) for the Newhall community. PL14. The maximum building height for each structure must be consistent with the approved conceptual architectural plans on file with this application. PL15. All roof -mounted equipment must be screened from public view. Page 23 of 62 Packet Pg. 42 1.b PL16. All ground -mounted mechanical equipment must be identified on the site plan and screened from public view. PL17. All utility connections must be designed to coordinate with the architectural elements of the building. PL18. No signage is included within this approval and is subject to a separate permit. The permittee must submit a sign program before the installation of signs on the project site. PL19. Heavy construction (including grading operations and earth movement) is limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development upon formal written notification. PL20. The existing row of mature pepper trees located along the MWD property must remain in place. The permittee development plans, including grading plans, building permit plans, and landscape plan must identify the existing trees on the site plan and must not include any improvements that necessitate removal of the pepper trees. PL21. Placerita Creek is not permitted to be channelized with exposed concrete. The existing natural creek bottom must be maintained. Creek bank stabilization must be designed with buried rock stabilization that allows for natural revegetation in conformance with the Tentative Map on file with this application and subject to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. PL22. The permittee must obtain all necessary approvals or permits from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Army Corps of Engineers, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board before the Building Official issues grading permits. PL23. The permittee must install Placerita Canyon gateway signage at the entrance into Placerita Canyon at Placeritos Boulevard, and at Placerita Canyon Road to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. The plan must incorporate express language to state that no through traffic is allowed. The proposed gateway signage must be presented to the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association before approval by the Director of Community Development. The permittee must obtain applicable encroachment permits and license agreement from the City Engineer for the construction and installation of any portion of the gateway signage located within the public right of way. Landscape Conditions LRl. Before final landscape plan approval, plans must be approved by the Fire Department Fuel Modification Unit. LR2. Before the issuance of grading permit(s) the permittee must provide final landscape, lighting and irrigation plans in conformance with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance for Planning Division review and approval. The plan must be prepared by a California -registered landscape architect and be designed with the plant palette suitable for Santa Clarita (Sunset Western Garden Book Zone 18, minimum winter night Page 24 of 62 Packet Pg. 43 1.b temperatures typically 20' to 30' F; maximum summer high temperatures typically 105' F to 110' F). The landscape design plan must meet the design criteria of the State Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance as well as all other current SCMC/UDC requirements. LR3. Final landscape plans must contain all elements as listed in the checklist for preliminary landscape plans and conform to the Landscaping and Irrigation Standards in the UDC (§17.51.030). The following elements must be addressed on the final landscape plans: (a) Landscape plans must show plant material to screen, at maturity, all trash enclosures, transformer boxes, vault boxes, backflow devices, and other exterior mechanical equipment. Screening material may include trees, shrubs (15-gallon minimum size), clinging vines, etc. Masonry block (concrete masonry unit) trash enclosures must be screened with both shrubs and clinging vines; (b) Landscape plans shall show all lighting fixtures, base dimensions, and typical finish elevations; (c) An earthen berm or headlight hedge, measuring thirty-six (36) inches in height, must be installed where vehicle lights on the property are directed towards public streets or residential properties. The headlight hedge must be a dense growing, minimum 15-gallon, evergreen shrub, measuring a minimum of thirty- six (36) inches in height and touching leaf to leaf at the time of landscape inspection; (d) The permittee must place water -conserving mulching material on all exposed soil in planting areas not covered by turfgrass. Mulching material may include, without limitation, shredded bark, river rock, crushed rock, pea gravel, etc., and must be at least two (2) inches deep; (e) Before occupancy, the permittee must install all proposed irrigation and landscape, including irrigation controllers, staking, mulching, etc., to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. The Director may impose inspection fees for more than one landscape installation inspection; and (f) Before occupancy, the permittee must submit to the Director of Community Development a letter from the project landscape architect certifying that all landscape materials and irrigation have been installed and function according to the approved landscape plans. ENGINEERING SERVICES DIVISION General Requirements EN1. At issuance of permits or other grants of approval, the permittee agrees to develop the property in accordance with City codes and other appropriate ordinances such as the Building Code, Plumbing Code, Grading Code, Highway Permit Ordinance, Mechanical Code, Unified Development Code, Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance, Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Code, and Fire Code. Page 25 of 62 Packet Pg. 44 1.b EN2. Before the City Engineer, or designee, issues a grading permit, the permittee must demonstrate compliance with UDC Section 17.51.007 (Connected City Infrastructure Program) requiring conduit from a location to be determined in the public right-of-way to the Minimum Point of Entry or similar location within the project area that serves as the main telecommunications closet. Conduit for this condition must be identified on development plans. EN3. Before the City Engineer, or designee, issues a grading permit, the permittee must obtain septic system removal permit from the Building Official for any existing septic system(s) on -site. The location of the existing septic system must be shown on the grading plan. EN4. Before the Building Official issues a Certificate of Occupancy, all new and existing power lines and overhead cables less than 34 KV within or fronting the project site must be installed underground. ENS. Before the City Engineer, or designee, issues grading permit, the permittee must obtain the necessary approval from SCV Water Agency to remove and relocate the 6" ACP water line per the approved Plan. Thereafter, the 6" ACP water line easement must be vacated by the permittee to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN6. Before the City Engineer, or designee, issues grading permit or Tract Map approval, whichever comes first, the permittee must update its improvement plans per the MWD letter dated January 13, 2022, which is incorporated by reference, and obtain its approval for the proposed improvements within their 250-foot-wide fee -property right-of-way, including the desilting basin on (APN: 2833-001-271), to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. ENT Before the dual 60" RCB storm drain plan approval, the permittee must obtain all necessary approvals and maintenance easement from MWD for the proposed offsite grading and construction of desilting basin on its property (APN: 2833-001-271) as shown on Tract Map 83513, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN8. Before the City Engineer, or designee, issues grading permits, the permittee must obtain all necessary approvals and permits from the California Public Utilities Commission and Metrolink associated with this project, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN9. Before the City Engineer, or designee, issues grading permits or final map approval, whichever comes first, the permittee must dedicate and record, by a separate instrument, the following documents with Los Angeles County (County) Recorder's Office for the Dockweiler Drive Extension Project: A. Sufficient right-of-way dedication to the City of Santa Clarita along the project frontage on 12th Street, 13th Street and Arch Street as required per the Dockweiler Drive Extension project plans, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; B. On -site storm drain easement(s) to the City of Santa Clarita for the installation and maintenance of the proposed storm drain (36" RCP) and LID mitigation Page 26 of 62 Packet Pg. 45 1.b system as shown on the Dockweiler Drive Extension project & Shadowbox Studio plans, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and C. On -site temporary construction easement to the City of Santa Clarita for the Dockweiler Drive roadway improvements, storm drain & LID system installation and staging area for the Dockweiler Drive Extension Project, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Subdivision Requirements EN10. Before the Building Official issues the first building permit, a Tract Map prepared by or under the direction of a person licensed to practice land surveying in the State of California must be approved by the City and filed in the Office of the County Recorder, in compliance with applicable City, County, and State Subdivision Map Act. EN11. Tentative map approval is subject to the permittee's acceptance of the following conditions for acquisition of easements/right-of-way along Arch Street, 13th Street, and Railroad Avenue: A. The permittee must secure, at the permittee's expense, sufficient title, or interest in land to permit construction of any required off -site improvements. B. If the permittee is unable to acquire sufficient title or interest to permit construction of the required off -site improvements, the permittee must notify the City of this inability not less than six months before consideration of the Tract Map. In such case, the City may thereafter acquire sufficient interest in the land, which will permit construction of the off -site improvements by the permittee. C. The permittee must pay all of the City's costs of acquiring said off -site property interests pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5. Permittee must pay such costs regardless of whether the Tract Map is recorded or whether a reversion occurs. The cost of acquisition may include, without limitation, acquisition prices, damages, engineering services, expert fees, title examination, appraisal costs, acquisition services, relocation assistance services and payments, legal services and fees, mapping services, document preparation, expenses, and/or damages as provided under Code of Civil Procedures Sections 1268.510-.620, and overhead. D. The permittee agrees that the City will have satisfied the 120-day limitation of Government Code Section 66462.5 and the foregoing conditions relating thereto when it files its eminent domain action in superior court within said time. E. At the time the permittee notifies the City as provided in "B" hereinabove, the permittee shall simultaneously submit to the City in a form acceptable to the City all appropriate appraisals, engineering specifications, legal land descriptions, plans, pleadings, and other documents deemed necessary by the City to commence its acquisition proceedings. Said documents must be submitted to the City for preliminary review and comment at least 30 days before the permittee's notice described hereinabove at "B". Page 27 of 62 Packet Pg. 46 1.b F. The permittee agrees to deposit with the City, within five days of request by the City, such sums of money as the City estimates to be required for the costs of acquisition. The City may require additional deposits from time -to -time. G. The permittee shall not sell any lot/parcel/unit shown on the Tract/Parcel Map until the City has acquired said sufficient land interest. H. If the superior court thereafter rules in a final judgment that the City may not acquire said sufficient land interest, the permittee agrees that the City may initiate proceedings for reversion to acreage. I. The permittee must execute any agreements mutually agreeable before approval of the Tract Map as may be necessary to assure compliance with the foregoing conditions. J. Failure by the permittee to notify the City as required by "B" hereinabove, or simultaneously submit the required and approved documents specified in "E" hereinabove, or make the deposits specified in "F" hereinabove, shall constitute permittee's waiver of the requirements otherwise imposed upon the City to acquire necessary interests in land pursuant to Section 66462.5. In such event, subdivider shall meet all conditions for installing or constructing off -site improvements notwithstanding Section 66462.5. EN12. Before the Tract Map is filed with the County Recorder, the permittee may not grant or record easements within areas proposed to be granted, dedicated, or offered for dedication for public streets or highways, access rights, building restriction rights, or other easements; unless subordinated to the proposed grant or dedication. If easements are granted after the date of tentative map approval, subordination must be executed by the easement holder before the filing of the Tract Map. EN13. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must label driveways as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" on the map, as directed by the City Engineer. EN14. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must vacate and/or relocate easements running through proposed structures, as directed by the City Engineer. EN15. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must offer in dedication any necessary easements (sewer, storm drain) for public improvements. EN16. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must post bonds for all proposed public improvements associated with the project, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN17. At map check submittal, the permittee must provide a preliminary subdivision report. A final subdivision guarantee is required before Tract Map approval. EN18. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must provide a Will Serve Letter stating that Community Antenna Television service (CATV) will be provided to this project. EN19. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must provide a Will Serve Letter from all necessary utilities, stating that service will be provided to this property. Page 28 of 62 Packet Pg. 47 1.b EN20. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must offer in dedication to the City the right to prohibit the erection of building(s) and other structures within open space. EN21. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must place a note on the map, prohibiting the lot owners within this development from interfering with the established drainage and from erecting concrete block walls or similar solid constructions, except as approved by the City Engineer. EN22. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must pay street maintenance fees to cover the cost of one-time slurry seal of public streets within the development. EN23. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must show on the map all Los Angeles County Flood Control District Easements. A permit will be required for any construction affecting these right-of-way or facilities. EN24. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must show on the map easements for maintenance purposes to the City of Santa Clarita for all drainage systems, Placerita Creek bank protections, W.Q.T./debris/desilting basins, and LID mitigation devices that are to be maintained by Drainage Benefit Assessment Area (DBAA), to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Grading and Geology Requirements EN25. Before the City Engineer, or designee, issues grading permit, the permittee must submit a grading plan consistent with the approved Plan, oak tree report, and conditions of approval. The grading plan must be based on a detailed engineering geotechnical report specifically approved by the geologist and/or soils engineer that addresses all submitted recommendations, including seismic hazards associated with liquefaction. EN26. Before grading plan approval, the permittee must acquire applicable permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. A copy of the permits, or a response letter from each agency indicating a permit is not required, must be submitted to the City Engineer, or designee before Plan approval. EN27. Before the City Engineer, or designee, issues grading permit, the permittee must obtain a Letter of Permission for grading over all easements, such as SCV Water Agency line and sewer main, from each easement holder. EN28. Before the City Engineer, or designee, issues grading permit, the permittee must obtain a Letter of Permission from Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) for the proposed grading and improvements shown on its property per Tentative Map 83513. EN29. Before grading plan approval, the permittee must obtain all necessary approvals from the County and City for the relocation of existing 18" sewer main (PC03-08). EN30. Before the Building Official issues a building permit, the permittee must relocate the 18" sewer main (PC03-08) and 6" ACP water main to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Page 29 of 62 Packet Pg. 48 1.b EN31. Before the Building Official issues a building permit, the permittee must construct all grading and drainage facilities within the project site, obtain rough grade certifications, and a compaction report approved by the City Engineer. Drainage Requirements EN32. Before grading plan approval, the permittee must submit the 36" RCP storm drain plans along with the associated LID mitigation system connected with the Dockweiler Extension project to Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Land Development Division for review and approval. EN33. Before the 36" RCP storm drain plans approval, the permittee must obtain written approval from the Los Angeles County Flood Control District of all easements needed for future maintenance by the District. EN34. Before grading plan approval, the permittee must submit the LID mitigation plans associated with the 36" RCP storm drain to Engineering Services Division for review and approval; and provide maintenance easement to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN35. Before the Building Official issues a building permit, the permittee must construct the 36" RCP storm drain connected with the Dockweiler Drive Extension project to the satisfaction of Los Angeles County Flood Control District and the associated LID mitigation system to the satisfaction of the City of Santa Clarita. EN36. Before grading plan approval, the permittee must obtain approvals for the Placenta Creek Banks Protection Plans, Dual 60" RCB plans and associated W.Q.T./debris/desilting basins plans from City of Santa Clarita, Engineering Services Division and secure maintenance easement for each system. EN37. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must form DBAA to fund the ongoing maintenance of all drainage systems, debris basins(s)/LID mitigation devices that are not transferable to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District but required to be maintained by the City. EN38. Before the City's release of any bond monies posted for the construction of storm drain infrastructure, the permittee or subsequent property owners are responsible for providing all required materials and documentation to complete the storm drain transfer process from the City of Santa Clarita to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District. The permittee or subsequent property owners are also responsible for providing regularly scheduled maintenance of the storm drain infrastructure, as directed by the City Engineer, until such time that full maintenance be assumed by the Flood Control District. EN39. Specific drainage requirements for the site will be established at building permit application. Before the Building Official issues a Building Permit, the permittee must submit a precise grading plan. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zone Requirements Page 30 of 62 Packet Pg. 49 1.b EN40. The project is located in FEMA Flood Zone (AE, AO) in accordance with the Federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS). The permittee must comply with the New FEMA Map requirements. A. For the proposed improvements within the Floodway, the permittee is required to comply with FEMA requirements to revise the FIRMS. Before first building final, the permittee must complete a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for proposed improvements in the Floodway. B. For the proposed improvements within the Flood fringe, the permittee is required to comply with FEMA requirements to revise the FIRMs. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the permittee must complete a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLMOR) and prior to first building final, the permittee must complete a LOMR. Water Quality Requirements EN41. This project will disturb one acre or more of land. Therefore, the permittee must obtain coverage under a statewide General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit (General Permit). In accordance with the General Permit, the permittee must file with the State a Notice of Intent (NOI) for the proposed project. Before issuance of grading permit by the City, the permittee shall have approved by the City Engineer a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must include a copy of the NOI and must reference the corresponding Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) number issued by the state upon receipt of the NOI. EN42. This project is a development planning priority project under the City's NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit as a development with equal to one acre or greater of disturbed area that adds more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. Before issuance of grading permit, the permittee shall have approved by the City Engineer, an Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (USMP) that incorporates appropriate post construction Best Management Practices (BMPs), maximizes pervious surfaces, and includes infiltration into the design of the project. Refer to the Low Impact Development ordinance and the County of Los Angeles Low Impact Development manual for details. EN43. Before the Building Official issues a Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must form an assessment district to finance the future ongoing maintenance and capital replacement of SUSMP devices/systems identified on the latest approved Drainage Concept/Storm drain plan/Plan. The permittee must cooperate fully with the City in the formation of the assessment district, including, without limitation, the preparation of the operation, maintenance, and capital replacement plan for the SUSMP devices/systems and the prompt submittal of this information to City for review and approval. The permittee must pay for all costs associated with the formation of the assessment district. SUSMP devices/systems must include, without limitation, catch basin inserts, debris excluders, biotreatment basins, vortex separation type systems, and other devices/systems for stormwater quality. The permittee must maintain, at its cost, all SUSMP devices/systems until the district is established. Page 31 of 62 Packet Pg. 50 1.b Street Light Requirements EN44. Before street plan approval, the permittee must submit a Street Light Plan, consistent with the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District (PCSSD), to the Engineering Services Division for review and approval. Street -lighting systems must be designed as City -owned and maintained on the LS-2 rate schedule, using LED fixtures approved by the City's Streetlight Maintenance District Division. EN45. Before building final, the permittee must install street lights per the approved plans, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Street Improvement Requirements EN46. Before street plan approval, all streets must be designed in accordance with the SCMC and street design criteria, and consistent with the PCSSD. EN47. Before any construction (including, without limitation, drive approaches, sidewalks, sewer laterals, curb and gutter, etc.), trenching or grading within public street right-of- way, the permittee must submit a street improvement plan consistent with the approved Plan, oak tree report, and conditions of approval; and obtain encroachment permits from the City Engineer, or designee. EN48. Before street plan approval, the permittee must submit a street tree location plan to the City's Urban Forestry Division for review and approval. The location of the street trees shall not conflict with sewer or storm drain infrastructure. The plan must include proposed sewer lateral locations and storm drain infrastructure for reference. EN49. Before the Building Official issues a building permit, the permittee must dedicate to the City the right-of-way required for all adjacent street improvements as reflected on the approved plans. EN50. Before the Building Official issues a Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must dedicate sidewalk easements sufficient to encompass ADA requirements for sidewalks installed with drive approaches per the current City standard APWA 110-2, Type C, or equivalent. EN51. Before first building final, the permittee must fully construct the following street improvements within and along the frontage of the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer: Inverted Curb & Base & Street Street Sidewalk Landscaped Street Name Shoulder Gutter PavingLights g Trees 5'min Median 13th Street X X X* X X X 13th Street over Railroad Crossing X X X* X X X Arch Street X X X* X X X 12th Street I_1X ix iX* ix ix Page 32 of 62 Packet Pg. 51 Interior — Private Streets X X X X X * Street Lights at the intersection only; *** Streets or Private Drive and Fire Lane; X Sidewalk must be a minimum width of 8' along the north side of 13th Street and east side of Arch Street. Additionally, the permittee must pay for the cost difference of design, construction, and any necessary permitting of these public streets for deviating from the Dockweiler Drive Extension Project plans dated June 25, 2021, including the cost associated with the acquisition of additional rights -of -ways required as a result of the permittee's plans along all properties and existing businesses that are planned to be vacated with the Dockweiler Drive Extension Project. EN52. Before first building final, the permittee must construct the following off -site street improvements (and any additional street improvements required per the EIR) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, if the Dockweiler Drive Extension Project is not completed: Inverted Curb & Base & Street Street Sidewalk Landscaped Street Name Shoulder Gutter PavingLights g Trees 5'min Median Railroad Avenue X X X X X X 13th Street over Railroad Crossing + X X X X X Placerita Canyon Road X X X* X X Dockweiler Drive Extension from 12th Street to Placerita X X X* X X X Canyon Road * Street Lights at the intersection only; and + May require additional right-of-way and approval from CPUC and Metrolink EN53. Before street plan approval for improvements along 13th Street, the permittee must obtain all necessary approvals for construction phasing and traffic detour plans submitted to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN54. Before street plan approval, the permittee must design wheelchair ramps at each intersection, as directed by the City Engineer. Sewer Improvement Requirements EN55. Before the Building Official issues a building permit, the permittee must relocate the existing sewer main (PC03-08) per the plans submitted by the permittee. EN56. The on -site sewer must be a privately maintained system. Before Grading Plan approval, the permittee must submit an "on -site sewer plan." The "on -site sewer plan" must be designed per the California Plumbing Code and approved by the City's Building & Page 33 of 62 Packet Pg. 52 1.b Safety Division before Grading Plan approval. If compliance with the California Building Code is impractical, the permittee must prepare a sewer plan for a publicly maintained sewer. The public sewer plan must be reviewed and approved by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (Sewer Maintenance Division), Los Angeles County Sanitation District, and the City Engineer; and all necessary easements for maintenance of the sewer must be dedicated to the City of Santa Clarita. EN57. Before the Building Official issues a building permit, the permittee must annex the property into the County Sanitation District. The permittee must provide the City's Building & Safety Division with written confirmation from the Sanitation District that the property has been annexed. EN58. Before the Building Official issues a building permit, the permittee must pay the Placerita Canyon Sewer User Connection Fee and processing fee. The processing fee is subject to change and is based on the rate at the time of payment. The Placerita Canyon Sewer User Connection Fee is not subject to change. The User Fee is based on the number of Acres (AC), Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs), and cost per EDUs. For a Commercial Properties (CC) in Area 1, the cost per EDU is $412 and there are 15 EDUs per AC. Therefore, Total User Fee = 67.9AC x 15EDUs/AC x $412/EDU = 67.9 x 15 x 412 = $ 419,622.00. Currently, the processing fee is $913.00. EN59. Before the Building Official issues a building permit, the permittee must upgrade the sewer per the approved sewer area study, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. At the discretion of the City Engineer, the permittee may be permitted to pay their fare cost for the sewer upgrades. Transit Oriented Improvements EN60. Before the Building Official issues a Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must dedicate necessary easements, and construct class 1 trail along the project frontage on 12th Street, Arch Street, and 13th Street, as required by Parks Planning and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN61. Before the Building Official issues a Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must pay an amount of $4,844,928 towards the trail from Dockweiler Drive Extension to Newhall Metrolink station including pedestrian bridge over Newhall creek and other future improvements associated with enhancing mobility in the Newhall area in accordance with the City's Non -Motorized plan. Bonds, Fees and Miscellaneous Requirements EN62. Before Final Map approval or award of the construction contract for Dockweiler Drive Extension project, whichever comes first, permittee must pay the applicable Bridge and Thoroughfare (B&T) in the amount of $10,146,300. EN63. Before City Engineer, or designee, issue encroachment permits for public improvements required to be installed by the project (Street, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Drain, and Street Lights), the permittee, by agreement with the City Engineer, must guarantee installation Page 34 of 62 Packet Pg. 53 1.b of the improvements through faithful performance bonds, letters of credit, or any other acceptable means. Building final will be withheld if the improvements are not completed. TRAFFIC DIVISION TRl. Adequate sight visibility is required at all driveway -street intersections and must follow the latest Caltrans manual for applicable requirements. Adequate sight visibility must be demonstrated on the final map and grading plan. This must be shown on all applicable plans before the Building Official issues a building permit. TR2. All project driveways and internal roadways must intersect with the adjacent roadways at 90 degrees or as close to 90 degrees as topography permits (no less than 80 degrees). This must be shown on all applicable plans before the Building Official issues a building permit. TR3. Before street plan approval, the permittee must show on the street plan drive approaches using a modified commercial driveway design (APWA 110-2, Type C or equivalent) that will provide a street/drive approach transition with a maximum algebraic grade difference of 10%. Construction details must be shown on the street plan providing a transition no greater than this maximum. TR4. Per the City's UDC (Section 17.53.020), project access locations must have a minimum stacking distance of 100' from the face of curb at signalized locations; a minimum stacking distance of 40' from the face of curb at non -signalized locations along 13th Street and Arch Street; and a minimum stacking distance of 20' from the face of curb at non -signalized locations along 12th Street. This is to be measured from the final curb line (flow line) to the first parking stall or drive aisle. TRS. All driveway openings must be a minimum 30-feet wide. All interior drive aisles must be a minimum of 26-feet wide. Driveways and drive aisles serving trucks and other large vehicles must be wider as necessary to accommodate these vehicles. These dimensions must be shown on all applicable plans before the Building Official issues the first building permit. TR6. The permittee is responsible for installation of new conduit for the installation or the future installation of fiberoptic cable due to street improvements associated with the project. This must be shown on all applicable plans and installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This interconnect conduit and cable is also required along new frontage improvements. All improvement plans for the above interconnect must be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. The interconnect conduit and cable must be installed at the time of the respective traffic signal and/or frontage improvements. TR7. Before issuance of any City -issued permit, the permittee must demonstrate that both the CPUC and Metrolink have granted approval of the project access at 13th Street/Arch Street, due to its proximity to the at -grade railroad crossing at Railroad Avenue/ 13th Street. Page 35 of 62 Packet Pg. 54 1.b TR8. Before street plan approval for any roadway improvements, the permittee must obtain all necessary approvals for construction phasing and traffic detour plans submitted to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The construction phasing and traffic detour plans must maintain access to the Placerita Canyon neighborhood for the duration of the roadway construction. The detour may require additional interim roadway and intersection improvements for the duration of the detour, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. TR9. Before issuance of building permits, the permittee must acquire and dedicate to the City the right-of-way required for all on -site and off -site street improvements as identified in Traffic Engineering Condition 11, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (See applicable Engineering Services Conditions of Approval under Subdivision Requirements regarding acquisition of easements and right-of-way.) TR10. The permittee must provide an additional traffic phasing study to determine the appropriate timing of the following improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. If a traffic phasing study is not provided before issuance of first building permit, these improvements must be completed before the Building Official issues the first Certificate of Occupancy. TRl1. Railroad Avenue & 13th Street: Add Southbound Left -Turn Lane to provide 2 left -turn lanes, 2 through lanes Add 2 Westbound Lanes to provide 1 left -turn lane, 1 left/through lane, 1 right -turn lane • Add Second Eastbound Lane along 13th Street TR12. Arch Street & 13th Street: • Construct new signalized intersection with the following lane geometrics • Northbound (Arch St.): 1 left -turn lane, 1 left/through lane, 1 through/right-turn lane • Southbound (Gate 1): 2 through lanes, 1 right -turn lane • Eastbound (13th St.): 2 left -turn lanes, 1 through lane, 2 right -turn lanes • Westbound (Gate 2): 1 left -turn lane, 1 through/right-turn lane TR13. Arch Street & 12th Street: • Construct new signalized intersection with the following lane geometrics • Northbound (Dockweiler Dr.): 1 left -turn lane, 1 through lane, 1 through/right-turn lane • Southbound (Arch St.): 1 left -turn lane, 2 through lanes, 1 through/right-turn lane • Eastbound (12th St.): 1 left/through lane, 1 right -turn lane • Westbound (12th St.): 1 left/through lane, 1 right -turn lane TR14. Dockweiler Drive & Placerita Canyon Road: • Construct new signalized intersection with the following lane geometrics • Northbound (Dockweiler Dr.): 1 through/right-turn lane • Southbound (Dockweiler Dr.): 1 left -turn lane, 2 through lanes • Westbound (Placerita Canyon Rd.): 1 left -turn lane, 1 right -turn lane TR15. Bouquet Canyon Road & Valencia Boulevard: Page 36 of 62 Packet Pg. 55 1.b Add Eastbound Right -Turn Lane to provide 3 left -turn lanes, 3 through lanes, 1 right - turn lane • Provide Eastbound Right -Turn Lane into shopping center on southeast corner TR16. Bouquet Canyon Road & Magic Mountain Parkway: • Add Southbound Through Lane to provide 3 through lanes, 1 right -turn lane TR17. Sierra Highway & Newhall Avenue: • Add Northbound Through Lane to provide 2 left -turn lanes, 3 through lanes, 1 right - turn lane TR18. Wiley Canyon Road & Lyons Avenue: • Add Southbound Left -Turn Lane to provide 2 left -turn lanes, 2 through lanes, 1 right - turn lane TR19. Orchard Village Road & Lyons Avenue: • Modify Eastbound Approach to provide 2 left -turn lanes, 3 through lanes TR20. Valle del Oro & Dockweiler Drive — install traffic signal TR21. Sierra Highway & SR-14 Southbound Ramps (requires Caltrans approval) • Add Southbound Left -Turn Lane to provide 2 left -turn lanes, 2 through lanes TR22. Placerita Canyon Road & SR-14 Northbound Ramps (requires Caltrans approval) • Modify intersection to provide all -way stop control • Add Off Ramp Left -Turn Lane to provide 2 left -turn lanes, one right -turn lane TR23. Before the Building Official issues a Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must pay a traffic -signal timing fee for the update of the traffic -signal timing at up to ten intersections in the surrounding area. The cost is $4,000 per intersection ($40,000 total). TR24. Unless otherwise modified by the terms of a Construction Agreement between the Permittee and the City of Santa Clarita, before Final Map approval, the permittee must post a security in the amount of the applicable Bridge and Thoroughfare (B&T) District Fee to implement the Circulation Element of the General Plan as a means of mitigating the traffic impact of this project. This project is located in the Via Princessa B&T District. The current rate for this District is $21,820. The B&T rate is subject to change and is based on the rate at the time of payment. Release of the security is subject to confirmation of completion of Circulation Element roadway improvements as identified in the B&T Fee methodology. Standard B&T Fee Calculation: Commercial = the gross acres (93) x the district rate ($21,820) x 5.0 = $10,146,300 Page 37 of 62 Packet Pg. 56 1.b BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION Plans and Permits BSI. Construction drawings shall be prepared and submitted to the Building & Safety Division for plan review and building permit issuance. Supporting documents; such as structural and energy calculations, and geotechnical reports must be included with the plan submittal. BS2. Construction drawings submitted for plan review shall show must compliance with all applicable local, county, state and federal requirements and codes. The project shall comply with the building codes in effect at time of building permit application including all new supplements. a. Building permit applications are valid for one year and were received on December 16, 2022. If building permits (including "foundation only" permits) are not issued by the end of 2023, they will expire. Building permit applications may be extended with the condition the project complies with the newer 2022 California Codes. All building permits (including "foundation only" permits) require the clearance from all agencies listed in comment 413 below. BS3. Construction drawings submitted for plan review shall be complete. Submitted plans shall show all architectural, accessibility, structural, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical work that will be part of this project. Civil, landscape, interior design, and other plans not related to the building code are not reviewed by the Building & Safety Division. BS4. Construction drawings shall be prepared by qualified licensed design professionals (California licensed architects and engineers). BSS. The City of Santa Clarita has amended some portions of the 2019 California Building Codes. A copy of these amendments is available at the Building & Safety public counter and on our website at: http://www.santa-clarita.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=17773. A copy of the 2022 California Building Code amendments is available at the Building & Safety public counter and on our website: hllps://www.santa- clarita.com/home/showpublisheddocument/21751/638073266141000000 BS6. Construction drawings may be submitted electronically or by submitting paper plans. In either case an "eService Account" must be created to access our permitting system. Please log on to: www.santa-clarita.com/eservice and create an account by clicking "register for an Account." BS7. Construction drawings submitted to Building & Safety shall include a complete building code analysis and floor area justification for the proposed buildings per chapter 5 and 6 of the California Building Code. Sound stages without live audiences will be considered Group F-1 occupancies. Sound stages with live audiences will be considered Group A-1 occupancies. BS8. The submitted site plans must show all parcel/lot lines, easements, fire separation distances, restricted use areas, etc. Any construction proposed in an easement must obtain the easement owner's written permission or the easement must be removed. Parcel lines Page 38 of 62 Packet Pg. 57 1.b that overlap any proposed buildings must be removed (lot line adjustment) prior to building permit issuance. Clean Air, Electric Vehicle and Bicycle Parking per CalGreen BS9. Clean Air Vehicle parking spaces (including future Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stations) shall be provided and designated as "CLEAN AMJVANPOOL/EV." The number of Clean Air Vehicles may be required to be up to 12% of the total number of parking spaces provided on the site per the 2019 CalGreen Building Standards Code supplement effective July 1, 2021, table 5.106.5.2. a. If building permits are not obtained by the end of 2023 and the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code is required to be followed, no Clean -Air parking spaces will be required. BS10. Electric Vehicle Charging Spaces (EVCS), shall be provided and equipped with the necessary infrastructure for the future installation of EV charging equipment. Future EVCS with the charging equipment not installed with this project are considered Clean Air Vehicle parking spaces. Up to 10% of the total number of parking spaces provided on site shall be EV Charging Spaces (future EV charging stations) per 2019 CalGreen Building Standards Code supplement effective July 1, 2021, table 5.106.5.3.3. a. If building permits are not obtained by the end of 2023 and the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code is required to be followed, the number of EV Capable spaces shall be required to be up to 20% of the total number of parking spaces provided on site. b. Additionally, the 2022 CalGreen Code requires up to 25% the number of EV Capable spaces to be installed with EV charging equipment and become EV Charging Stations. BS11. Short -Term Bicycle Parking shall be provided based on 5% of the total number of anticipated visitor parking spaces with a minimum of one two -bike rack. CalGreen section 5.106.4.1.1. BS12. Long-term bicycle parking (lockable) shall be provided based on 5% of the total number of tenant -occupant (employee) parking spaces with a minimum of one bicycle parking facility. CalGreen section 5.106.4.1.2. Agency Clearances BS13. Prior to issuance of building permits, clearances from the following agencies will be required: a. City Planning Division, b. City Engineering Services (soil report review and grading), c. City Environmental Services (Construction & Demolition Plan deposit), d. City Traffic & Transportation Planning, e. City Urban Forestry Division (when Oak Trees occur on site) f. Los Angeles County Fire Prevention Bureau, g. Los Angeles County Environmental Services (Health Dept. for food service & sales), h. Los Angeles County Environmental Programs (Industrial Waste), Page 39 of 62 Packet Pg. 58 1.b i. Los Angeles County Sanitation District, j. Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency, k. William S. Hart School District and appropriate elementary school district, An agency referral list with contact information is available at the Building & Safety public counter. Please contact the agencies above to determine if there are any plan review requirements and/or fees to be paid. Clearances from additional agencies may be required and will be determined during the plan review process. Accessibility BS14. All applicable disabled access requirements of Chapter 11B of the California Building Code, including site accessibility details and information, shall be shown on the architectural plans versus civil plans. BS15. Accessible parking spaces must be dispersed and located on the shortest accessible route to accessible entrances of all buildings. BS16. An accessible route between all accessible building entrances and the public sidewalk must be provided. Where more than one site route is provided, all routes must be accessible. BS17. At least one EVCS (or future EV Charging Station) serving each parking facility, shall be sized to be VAN accessible and located on an accessible route to the building entrances. CBC 11B-228.3, 11B-502.3 and 11B-812.7. BS18. Additional standard accessible EV parking spaces and ambulatory EV parking spaces shall be provided on an accessible route to the building entrances. CBC 11B-228.3 and 11B-812. BS19. The required number of accessible parking spaces and required number of accessible EVCS (or future EV Charging Stations), shall be based on the number of parking spaces provided at each type of parking facility. CBC 11B-208.2 and 11B-228.3. Soil Reports and Grading BS20. A complete soils and geology investigation report is required. The report shall be formally submitted to the Engineering Division for review and approval. The recommendations of the report shall be followed and incorporated into the construction drawings. A copy of the report must be submitted to Building & Safety at time of plan submittal. BS21. The following grading work shall be completed before the Building Official issues building permits: a. The Engineering Services Division shall issue a grading permit and all rough grading and/or re -compaction work must be completed. b. A final compaction report and a Pad Certification for each building shall be submitted to and approved by the Engineering Services Division. Page 40 of 62 Packet Pg. 59 1.b Hazard Zones BS22. A portion of the project site is located within the City's Fire Hazard Zone. New buildings shall comply with the California Building Code Chapter 7A: MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS FOR EXTERIOR WILDFIRE EXPOSURE. A summary of these requirements is available at the Building & Safety's public counter or visit: http://www.santa-clarita.com/home/showdocument?id=10685. Plans submitted to Building & Safety shall show compliance with all applicable Fire Zone requirements. BS23. A portion of the project site is located within a Special Flood Hazard Zone. All construction within the floodplain shall comply with the City's Floodplain Ordinance (Chapter 10.06 of the Municipal Code), all Engineering Services Division requirements, all FEMA regulations, National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations, California Building Code, and ASCE 24-13. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION ES1. For the Sound Stage Buildings (475,473 square feet): Provide sufficient trash enclosures to house at least fifty (50) 3-yard bins. Twenty-five (25) of the bins should be reserved for recyclable materials only. In addition, space must be added for organics/food waste recycling per SB1383. For the Production Support Area (565,390 square feet): Provide sufficient trash enclosures to house at least fifty-eight (58) 3-yard bins. Twenty-nine (29) of the bins should be reserved for recyclable materials only. In addition, space must be added for organics/food waste recycling per SB1383. For the Office Buildings (198,087 square feet): Provide sufficient trash enclosures to house at least twenty-two (22) 3-yard bins. Eleven (11) of the bins should be reserved for recyclable materials only. In addition, space must be added for organics/food waste recycling per SB1383. For the Catering Building (30,000 square feet): Provide sufficient trash enclosures to house at least four (4) 3-yard bins. Two (2) of the bins should be reserved for recyclable materials only. In addition, space must be added for organics/food waste recycling bins per SB1383. All enclosures must be shown on the site plan with dimensions, bin layout/floor plan, consistent with the surrounding architecture, and be constructed with a solid roof. Elevations for enclosures must be provided. The enclosure(s) must be located to provide convenient pedestrian and collection vehicle access. ES2. All enclosure requirements as listed in Environmental Services conditions above must be reviewed and approved prior to receiving agency clearance for issuance of building permits. ES3. Modifications to enclosure and bin requirements must be submitted to Environmental Services and may be presented as part of a Trash Management Plan. The Trash Management Plan must provide adequate trash, recycling and organics service and Page 41 of 62 Packet Pg. 60 1.b infrastructure for the project. The Trash Management Plan will be approved at the discretion of the Director of Neighborhood Services. The Trash Management Plan must be approved prior to receiving agency clearance for issuing of building permits. ES4. All demolition projects regardless of valuation, all commercial construction projects valuated greater than $200,000 or over 1,000 square feet for new construction, all new residential construction projects, and all residential additions and improvements that increase building area, volume, or size must comply with the City's Construction and Demolition Materials (C&D) Recycling Ordinance. ES5. C&D Materials Recycling Ordinance: a. Construction and Demolition Materials Management Plan (C&DMMP) must be prepared and approved by the Environmental Services Division before obtaining any grading or building permits. b. A minimum of 65% of the entire project's inert (dirt, rock, bricks, etc.) waste and 65% of the remaining C&D waste must be recycled or reused rather than disposing in a landfill. c. For renovation or tenant improvement projects and new construction projects, a deposit of 2% of the estimated total project cost or $15,000, whichever is less, is required. For demolition projects, a deposit of 10% of the estimated total project cost or $15,000, whichever is less, is required. The full deposit will be returned to the permittee upon proving that 65% of the inert and remaining C&D waste was recycled or reused. ES6. Per the California Green Building Standards Code, 100 percent of trees, stumps, rocks and associated vegetation and soils resulting primarily from land clearing must be reused or recycled. For a phased project, such material may be stockpiled on site until the storage site is developed. ES7. All projects within the City not self -hauling their waste materials must use one of the City's franchised haulers for temporary and roll -off bin collection services. Please visit GreenSantaClarita.com for a list of approved haulers. PARKS PLANNING PP1. Before the Building Official issues the first Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must acquire the necessary right-of-way and dedication of easement, and construct the multi- purpose trail on -site, along 12th Street, Arch Street, and 13th street, from the southeast project limits at 12th Street to the intersection of 13th Street and Railroad Avenue, as shown on the Dockweiler Extension Project plans. The trail cross-section shall consist of four -foot wide landscape buffer, a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk for pedestrians and a 10-foot wide asphalt for two-way bike traffic and additional space as needed for lodgepole fencing. All trails must be constructed to City Standards including striping, signage, lodge pole fencing, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, or designee. A key component to be included in this trail segment is a public trail easement and construction of a trail railroad crossing on the north side of 13th Street. This crossing Page 42 of 62 Packet Pg. 61 1.b must meet Metrolink standards and the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, or designee. SPECIAL DISTRICTS DIVISION Oak Trees Permit, Bonding and Mitigation: SD1. The permittee is requesting an Oak Tree Permit for the removal of 12 oak trees, six (6) of which are classified as heritage oaks. The request also includes the encroachment into the protected zone of six (6) additional oak trees. SD2. The project site consists of 16 on -site oak trees, 12 of which are proposed for removal, including three (3) proposed on -site relocations. Two additional off -site oak trees are part of this project and proposed for encroachment. SD3. Two off -site oak trees identified as oak tree 917, and tree 918 are proposed for encroachment as a part of this application. Oak tree 918 is located within the MWD easement. This tree is currently being shown as a proposed removal/relocation. The permittee is required to protect and preserve this tree in place. Off -site oak tree 917 is located within the public right way along Arch Street and is proposed for encroachment only as needed for required street improvements. SD4. The permittee is permitted to remove 12 on -site oak trees, six of which are heritage in size and identified in the permittee's oak tree report as oak trees number 1H, 2H, 3H, 4H, 5H, and 7H. Trees 1H-5H are Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and tree 7H is a Valley oak (Quercus lobata). The remaining six removals are non -heritage and identified in the permittee's oak tree report as oak trees number 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13. Trees 8-10 are Valley oak (Quercus lobata) and trees 11-13 are Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). SD5. Prior to the issuance grading permits, and the removal of any oak trees, the permittee is required to bond for the International Society of Arboriculture (hereafter ISA) dollar value of the oak trees proposed for removal. The current ISA Dollar Value as documented in the permittee's oak tree report is listed at $790,800.00 dollars. SD6. The permittee is required to renew the bond annually until the project has reached completion and/or all required oak tree mitigation has been approved and accepted by the City of Santa Clarita. Copies of the renewal documents shall be submitted to the City of Santa Clarita Project Development Coordinator for records. Upon successful completion of all required oak tree mitigation, the bond will be exonerated and monies released to the permittee. SD7. The permittee shall be required to mitigate for the ISA Dollar Value of all oak trees located on site which have been approved for removal. Mitigation requirements shall be subject the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Ordinance and Preservation and Protection Guidelines. Page 43 of 62 Packet Pg. 62 1.b SD8. The dollar value of oak tree numbers 8, 9, and 10 which are proposed for relocation have a combined ISA value of $53,500.00. This amount may be deducted from the $790,800.00 mitigation requirement resulting in a total mitigation planting amount of $737,300.00. SD9. Mitigation plantings must be on -site in areas approved by the City Arborist and/or City Oak Tree Specialist. All mitigation oak trees, regardless of size will be protected under the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Ordinance and Preservation and Protection Guidelines. SD10. All mitigation oak trees planted on site which are considered nursery size container - grown trees, typically 24" inch box through 60" inch box trees shall be subject to a minimum two (2) year mandatory mitigation and monitoring period which begins once the trees are planted. SDI 1. All mitigation oak trees planted on site which are considered specimen size trees, typically 72" inch box trees and larger are subject to a minimum five (5) year mandatory mitigation and monitoring period which begins once the trees are planted. SD12. Larger specimen size oak trees must be planted in high visibility areas outside of the public right of way to be viewed by both residents and guest of the Placenta Canyon Community. These areas include the landscaped corners of Shadowbox Studio Gates 1, 2, and 3 as shown on the preliminary landscape plan. Relocated Oak Trees: SD13. Any oak tree proposed for and approved for relocation shall be performed by a qualified tree relocating company with a minimum of five years' experience in relocating native oak trees. SD14. Oak trees which have been approved for relocation shall be subject to a mandatory 90- day side boxing requirement before cutting the bottom roots. All three on -site oak trees approved for relocation are Valley oak species, and as a result, the required side boxing must take place early fall before leaf drop or as recommended by the tree relocating company. The permittee/developer shall coordinate with the tree relocating company on the timing of the relocation. Cutting roots in late fall, spring, and/or summer will not be permitted. SD15. Once boxed, all relocated oak trees shall be stored in a designated on -site staging area facing in the same direction as the tree was prior to removal until the tree(s) are ready to be planted. The north side of box shall be clearly marked so that there is no question as to the orientation of the tree once planted in its final location. SD16. Unless waived by the City Arborist, before grading, oak trees number 8, 9, and 10 shall have completed the 90-day side boxing requirement and been transferred/located to the approved staging area. SD17. The permittee and all its contractors must adhere to all recommendations issued by the permittee's Project Arborist (hereafter PA) both on site during all required monitoring and those identified within the submitted oak tree report prepared by Kerry Norman of Page 44 of 62 Packet Pg. 63 1.b Arbor Essence. Failure to comply shall be considered non -compliant and may result in the issuance of a Stop All Work notice. SD18. Oak tree numbers 8, 9, and 10 shall be subject to a minimum five (5) year post planting maintenance and monitoring period. During this period the permittee is required to submit monthly monitoring reports for the first year, quarterly reports at a rate of one report every three months for the following three (3) years and one report every six months for the final year for a total of 22 reports. This mitigation will begin once the relocated oak trees have been planted in their permanent location. Mitigation Oak Tree Plantings: SDI 9. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the permittee is required to submit the final oak tree mitigation site plan showing the location of all required oak trees to be planted on site as required for mitigation. SD20. The permittee's mitigation site plan must include a detailed legend clearly identifying the species of each oak with both common and botanical name, the number/quantity of oaks, the size of the tree, type of trunk (standard or low branch), the individual cost of the tree and the extended cost based upon the quantities of each species totaling the required mitigation planting amount of $737,300.00. SD21. Mitigation oak trees must consist of a mixture of California native oak trees which are suitable and compatible with Sunset Zone 18. Mitigation oak trees may include the following species; Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), Canyon oak (Quercus chrysolepis), Valley oak (Quercus lobata), Pasadena oak (Quercus engelmannii), and Interior live oak (Quercus wislizeni). SD22. When planting mitigation oak trees on site, the permittee and its contractors shall work closely with both the project arborist and the landscape architect to select the appropriate oak tree for each individual area selected for mitigation, taking into consideration the additional landscape which is proposed for the same location. SD23. The permittee must incorporate the Coast live oak, Canyon oak, and Valley oak in the proposed oak tree chaparral located at the north end of the project site. SD24. When planting mitigation oak trees on both manufactured and natural slopes with a 2:1 ratio or higher, the permittee must install slope guards or other form of slope stabilization to prevent soil from building up and burying the trunk and roots of the oak trees. SD25. Both mitigation and relocated oak trees must have their own separate irrigation lines and irrigation controller stations dedicated specifically to the oak tree so water may be applied during drought restrictions. This requirement shall be shown on the irrigation plans and addressed under irrigation notes on the permittee's required final landscape plans. SD26. Irrigation to all mitigation and relocated oak trees shall consist of pressure compensating bubblers similar to the Rainbird 1400 Series (or equivalent). At no time may any form of overhead/spray irrigation be permitted within the protected zone of an oak tree or be Page 45 of 62 Packet Pg. 64 1.b permitted to come in contact with the trunk or canopy of any oak tree existing or proposed. SD27. Inspection tubes shall be required to be installed for all specimen and relocated oak trees which are installed on site both within the gates of the studio campus and those trees located outside the gates of the studio campus. Monitoring: SD28. Unless waived by the City Arborist, all work completed within the protected zone of an oak tree must be monitored, and completed by hand in the presence the of the permittee's project arborist or a qualified representative thereof. SD29. The protected zone is the area extending five (5') feet out from the edge of the dripline. The dripline is the edge of the tree canopy. For smaller oak trees or newly planted oak trees, the protected zone shall be no less than 15 feet from the trunk of the tree. SD30. Monitoring includes, without limitation, daily documentation, photos and recommendations of all work having taken place within the protected zone of an oak tree. Daily monitoring reports shall be submitted electronically via email to the City Arborist within 72 hours from the end of each working day when monitoring took place. SD31. Unless waived by the City Arborist, the permittee and its contractors must adhere to all direction issued by the project arborist. This shall include all recommendations included in the oak tree report and those issued on -site during all required monitoring. Failure to comply is considered non -compliant and may result in a Stop All Work until the permittee and its contractors have properly addressed the recommendation to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. SD32. The permittee and its contractors shall be required to give 72-hour minimum notice to the project arborist before any work taking place within the protected zone of an oak tree. SD33. Upon completion of the project and successful mitigation the permittee shall be required to submit a certification letter prepared by the Project Arborist certifying that all work performed within the protected zone of an oak tree was completed in compliance with the conditions of this oak tree permit. SD34. The permittee, including Shadowbox Studio employees and its contractors agree to, and shall provide the City Arborist and Project Arborist (Kerry Norman) reasonable access to the project site both during and after construction to allow for the required monitoring of all oak trees for a period not to exceed the required mitigation period. Reasonable is defined as the number of times needed to comply with the Conditions of Approval for City of Santa Clarita Master Case 21-109, and Oak Tree Permit 21-001. Construction and Preservation: SD35. Prior to issuance of grading permits and the start of oak tree relocation, the permittee and their contractors must schedule an on -site pre -construction meeting. Page 46 of 62 Packet Pg. 65 1.b SD36. Prior to the start of grading/construction, the permittee must have all required protective fencing in place around oak trees number 6H, 14, 15, 16, and off -site oak trees 17, and 18. Oak trees that are approved for encroachment shall have the protective fence placed at the furthest point away from the trunk that will allow for the approved impacts. All remaining oak trees must have the fence installed at the protected zone located five (5') feet out from edge of dripline. SD37. Protective fencing for oak trees 6H, 17, and 18 must consist of five (5') foot standard chain link material supported by steel post driven directly into the ground and evenly spaced at eight (8') feet on center. 36" inch silt fencing must be installed at the base of all protective fencing and be maintained in good repair throughout all phases of construction. SD38. A maximum of one non -gated three-foot wide opening must be left open on the opposite side of construction to allow for required monitoring by City Staff and the permittee's Project Arborist. SD39. Signage which reads "THIS FENCE IS FOR THE PROTECTION OF OAK TREES AND SHALL NOT BE REMOVED OR RELOCATED WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION BY THE CITY ARBORIST" shall be installed on the upper portion of the protected fencing at 50' foot intervals. Each sign shall measure 24" inches by 24" inches and be constructed of weatherproof materials. SD40. Once approved, at no time shall the permittee and/or its contractors be permitted to remove or make changes to the protective fencing. Protective fencing must remain in good repair throughout the project. At any time during the project the fence is damaged or in need of repair, the permittee and its contractor must make necessary repairs prior to the start of construction. SD41. At this time no protective fencing is required around oak trees number 14-16 which are located on the south facing side of the hill at the north end of the project site uphill and well outside of the proposed grading. Should any grading changes be made that would impact these trees, protective fencing shall be required before the start of grading. SD42. At no time will the permittee or their contractors be permitted to place or store any form of construction material, equipment, machinery or vehicles within the protected zone of an oak tree or within the proposed planting areas for both relocated oak trees and mitigation oak trees. SD43. At no time shall the permittee or its contractors be permitted to wash, rinse, clean or service any form of construction equipment, tools vehicles or machinery within 100 feet of an oak tree, or within the proposed planting areas for both relocated oak trees and mitigation oak trees. SD44. At no time will any form of liquid or dry contaminates including without limitation, oils, gasoline, diesel fuel, concrete, plaster and mortar be permitted to enter the protected zone of an oak tree or within the proposed planting areas for both relocated oak trees and mitigation oak trees. Page 47 of 62 Packet Pg. 66 1.b SD45. The permittee is required to have approved on -site concrete rinse out stations located throughout the project site. These and all other rinse out stations shall be located a minimum of 100' feet from any oak tree. SD46. All work completed within the protection zone of an oak tree shall be monitored by the permittee's Arborist of Record. SD47. Any root or roots that are encountered during construction including grading, excavation and trenching that are two (2") inches in diameter or larger shall be preserved at all times unless waived by the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Specialist. SD48. Exposed roots shall be immediately covered with moistened layers of burlap until backfill can be completed. Burlap may be removed or left on the root. Backfill shall consist of original native soil only. SD49. Any root which has been approved for removal shall be cut clean with a proper pruning device. All pruning of roots shall be completed by or in the presence of the permittee's Arborist of Record. SD50. Any oak tree that has been approved for trimming must be completed by an approved qualified tree trimming contractor certified through the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) or in the presence of the permittee's Project Arborist. SD51. All non -infested wood chips generated from pruning shall be recycled and used as mulch for existing oak trees. SD52. The permittee and its contractors must adhere to the recommendations of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 Part I, Best Management Practices and the ISA Pruning Standards for all tree care operations. SD53. The permittee and its contractors must adhere to the recommendations of the ANSI A300 Part IV (Management of Tree and Shrubs During Site Planning, Site Development and Construction) and Best Management Practices (Managing Trees During Construction) throughout the project. Landscape: SD54. Before issuance of grading permits or as required by the Director of Community Development, the permittee will be required to submit a final landscape plan. This final landscape plan must be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist. The final landscape plan shall include all existing oak trees which were preserved as well as all mitigation and non -mitigation oak trees proposed within the landscape. SD55. Any landscape improvements including without limitation, plant material, walkways, trails, water features, patios, lighting, statues or art that are proposed for within the protected zone of an existing oak tree must be approved by the City Arborist. SD56. Although any planting within the protected zone of an oak tree is discouraged, only drought tolerant native species of plant material may be planted within the protected zone of an oak tree. This includes all mitigation oaks, relocated oak trees and existing oak Page 48 of 62 Packet Pg. 67 1.b trees. Refer to the "California Oak Foundation" publication "Compatible Plants Under & Around Oak Trees" which may be downloaded in a PDF format at www.califomiaoaks.org. SD57. At no time shall any form of landscaping be permitted within the Tree Protected Zone (TPZ) of any relocated oak tree. TPZ is five (5') feet from the edge of the canopy. SD58. At no time shall any overhead irrigation be permitted to come in contact with an oak tree. Only direct contact irrigation (drip and/or bubbler) systems may be installed within the protected zone of an oak tree. Overhead irrigation which has been approved for outside the protected zone shall be directed away from the canopy of the oak tree. SD59. The minimum protected zone for any non -established or existing oak tree is fifteen (15') feet. This includes all new oak trees that were planted for required mitigation. All turf shall be kept a minimum of 15 feet from any oak tree. SD60. Lineal root barriers shall be required along the edge of any proposed walkways, trails, drive approaches, street and any other form of hardscape that is approved for within the protected zone of an oak tree. SD61. Walkways and bike trails or any other form of hardscape that is approved for within the protected zone of an oak tree shall consist of an approved material such as permeable landscape pavers and asphalt. In some cases where concrete, asphalt, or pavers are approved in pads that exceed 120 square feet, the permittee is required to install approved aeration tubes. SD62. Upon completion of the installation of all required mitigation oak trees and before the Building Official issues a final Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee is required to submit a detailed GPS site plan with the location of all mitigation oak trees. A detailed legend identifying the number, size, species and cost of all oak trees planted on site must be included on this site plan. SD63. Permittee is required to install a 3-4-inch layer of natural woodchips throughout the protected zone of each planted and/or relocated oak tree. Mulch must consist of natural woodchips screened and chipped to 2-3-inches in length. Refer to Foothill Soils Inc. "Organic Forest Floor" (Organic Forest Floor is made from assorted tree trimmings and creates a natural appearing ground cover. This product is also used as a top dressing around shrubs, trees and flower beds. It retains moisture, saves water and controls weeds. Forest Floor also provides excellent erosion control for hills and slopes.) SD64. All un-infested wood generated from the removal of the oak trees must be chipped on - site, recycled and evenly distributed and used for mulch in and around the planting of the mitigation oak trees located at the north end of the project site. Before installing the mulch, the permittee's project arborist must inspect the trees for any signs of active infestations. SD65. All oak wood which is diseased and/or infested shall be chipped into 3-4-inch pieces, hauled off -site and taken to a proper green waste facility. Diseased and/or infested wood shall not be stored on site nor be hauled off -site for use of firewood at any time Page 49 of 62 Packet Pg. 68 1.b throughout the project. For additional information regarding diseased and infested oak wood, visit hlt 2:HgroUs.ucanr.org/GSOB/ Special Districts Landscape Maintenance Districts (LMD) Landscape Medians and Side Panels: SD66. Any proposed impact to an existing landscape median or side panel must be designed to City LMD standards, require Special Districts review, and the written approval of the Director of Administrative Services. SD67. Any impact to the an existing median or side panel must be replaced/repaired to the satisfaction of Special Districts Administrator, Director of Administrative Services, and the City Engineer. SD68. Prior to issuance of grading and or construction permits or as required by Engineering and Planning, the permittee must submit final Street Improvement Plans for review and approval by the Special Districts Administrator. SD69. Street improvement plans must identify all existing and proposed improvements including without limitation the location of all public utilities, gas, sewer, electric, cable, communication lines, fiber optic, main water lines, the location of existing and proposed street lights, traffic signals, and the location of and proposed changes to existing irrigation mainlines, lateral lines, irrigation wire, valves, quick -couplers, controllers, backflows, water and electrical meters, and controller cabinets to both the medians and landscaped side panels. SD70. Street Improvement Plans must accurately show the public right of way including the location and width of both the public sidewalk and landscape parkways fronting Shadowbox Studios and the commercial shopping center on Arch Street, the accurate location of the existing protected oak tree (917), and any other street/right of way improvement required by the City of Santa Clarita. SD71. The permittee shall be required to install landscaped parkways fronting the Shadowbox Studio campus along 13th Street, Arch Street, 12th Street and the Section of 13th Street and Arch Street which fronts the commercial shopping center and offices, and all other street improvement areas as required by Engineering and Traffic. Landscape parkways shall be a minimum width of five feet in order to accommodate parkway trees. SD72. Landscape must include the installation of approved parkway trees, shrubs and irrigation. SD73. The permittee is required to install a separate water meter, electric meter, irrigation controller and dual-purpose cabinet for all LMD maintained landscape which is or will be located within the public right of way. SD74. Before planting, all parkway trees must be approved by Special Districts (LMD/Urban Forestry). Page 50 of 62 Packet Pg. 69 1.b SD75. Parkway trees shall be standard trunk trees with a strong central leader, and a natural canopy. Trees which have been topped or headed at the nursery, or have damage to the trunk, bark, branches, roots, or canopy, or are diseased/infested will not be accepted and must be returned to the nursery for replacement at no cost to the City of Santa Clarita. SD76. Before planting, all parkway trees or mitigation trees must be inspected by the City Arborist or a qualified representative of Urban Forestry. The permittee must give a minimum of 48 hours prior notice for all tree deliveries. In some cases, Special Districts may request photos of the trees be taken at the nursery prior to delivery. These photos shall be recent photos of the exact trees to be delivered and not "stock" photos from the nursery. Depending on the location of the nursery providing the trees, Special Districts may require an on -site nursery inspection which may include a representative from Special Districts tagging the trees prior to delivery. SD77. Prior to planting, all parkway shrubs and groundcover must be inspected by qualified representative of Special Districts. The permittee must give a minimum of 48 hours prior notice to for all deliveries. In some cases, Special Districts may request photos of the shrubs be taken at the nursery prior to delivery. These photos must be recent photos of the exact group of shrubs to be delivered and not "stock" photos from the nursery. Depending on the location of the nursery providing the trees, Special Districts may require an on -site nursery inspection which may include a representative from Special Districts tagging the trees prior to delivery. SD78. All parkway trees proposed for within the public right of way shall meet and or exceed the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection/Urban Tree Foundation Minimum Guideline Specifications for Nursery Tree Quality. (Provided) SD79. 36" inch lineal root barrier shall be required for any tree planted within 10' feet of any sidewalk, walkway, driveway, landscape wall, retaining wall or any other form of hardscape improvement within the public right of way or within the required landscape setback. SD80. Any parkway tree planted within a turf setting shall have a minimum 48" inch diameter mulched tree well installed at the base of the tree. Mulch shall be installed no less than three (3") inches thick and shall not exceed four (4") inches. Mulch shall not be piled up against the trunk of the tree. SD81. The permittee is required to install the City of Santa Clarita approved landscape pavers for any raised median, existing and/or proposed which is a direct impact as a result of the Shadowbox Studio project. This includes medians without landscape and median safety strips with both existing and proposed landscape along Railroad Avenue, 13th Street, Arch Street, 12th and any other right of way improvement as required by the City of Santa Clarita including crosswalks. SD82. Permittee is required to remove and replace all portions of the existing stamped concrete in any raised median which is impacted as a result of the development of Shadowbox Studios. This includes all medians along Railroad Avenue from Lyons Avenue to 15th Street, and any new raised medians where street improvements are approved. Page 51 of 62 Packet Pg. 70 1.b SD83. Before issuance of grading permits or as required by the Planning Division, the permittee must submit a final landscape plan for review and approval by Special Districts. Landscape plan must be prepared by a California licensed/registered landscape architect. SD84. Landscape plan must include all required landscape including, without limitation, all mitigation oak trees, relocated oak trees, existing oak trees which are to be preserved and protected in place, on -site landscaping, all landscape located within the public right of way, all required parkway trees, irrigation, specifications, and detail blocks, and planting legends with individual planting symbols for all trees, shrubs, groundcover, and pavers. Unless waived by Special Districts, at no time shall any form of drip irrigation be permitted within the public right of way. SD85. The permittee is required to work closely with Special Districts as it relates to the final landscape. Special Districts will provide the permittee with individual specifications for the required pavers, street lights and any required landscape amenities required within the public right of way such as bollards and rails, benches, landscape boulders and specific irrigation valves and controllers. Landscape Maintenance Districts Local Zone Assessments: SD86. These parcels are located within Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) Areawide Zone 2008-1 Major Thoroughfare Medians, which was established to fund the construction and maintenance of landscaped medians on major thoroughfares throughout the City of Santa Clarita. Permittee is required to financially contribute to the Areawide Zone in a manner reflective of this LMD zone's assessment methodology. SD87. These parcels are located within Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) Zone 28 Newhall, which was created to fund the construction and maintenance of landscapes located in the Newhall Area. Permittee is required to financially contribute to Zone 28 in a manner reflective of this LMD zone's assessment methodology. SD88. This proposed project site currently consist of 18 separate parcels. The permittee is advised that each of the 18 parcels are currently being assessed at the vacant lot rate. The permittee is proposing to subdivide which would reduce the number of parcels from 18 to 5. As a result of the proposed project the current assessment rates for both LMD Zone 18, and 2008-1 will be adjusted to reflect these changes based upon the zones current assessment methodology. S1389. The permittee shall work closely with Special Districts and the City Engineer, and provide all necessary documents needed to calculate the new rates. Streetlight Maintenance District (SAIM) SD90. These parcels were originally annexed by County of Los Angeles into a Lighting District with a maximum assessment of $12.38 per EBU (Equivalent Benefit Unit) without a cost of living index/escalator. The permittee will be required to annex the parcel into the Santa Clarita Landscaping and Lighting District (SCLLD), Street -lighting Zone B. The District funds the operation and maintenance of various landscaping and lighting improvements throughout the City that provide special benefits to properties within the District. Page 52 of 62 Packet Pg. 71 1.b The annexation will bring the EBU rate current (FY 22/23, $93.91), and add the cost of living escalator (CPI). There is a one-time annexation fee of $500.00 + $100.00 per Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU). Benefit Units are based on land use and vacant/unimproved parcels are not assessed. Additional information may be required from the permittee to calculate the fee. • Following the completed annexation there will be an annual assessment included on the property tax bill. The assessments are based on land use, see attached EBU rate sheet. The proposed assessment to be calculated by assessment engineer. • A minimum of 120 days is required to process the annexation, which must be completed prior to final map approval, grading or building permit issuance, whichever occurs first. • Developer will work with Special Districts and obtain approval on the LED light fixtures, if any, to be installed on public streets. • Ownership of all new streetlights installed on public streets will be transferred to City of Santa Clarita. • Developer will work with Special Districts to determine if the streetlights will be metered or unmetered. SD91. Developer must install approved streetlights on 13th Street, Arch Street, and any other street which requires Street Improvements by Traffic and Engineering to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Streetlights must conform with the design and aesthetics of those streetlights approved for the Dockweiler Extension Project. SD92. Each streetlight must be properly identified with the approved City of Santa Clarita identification tag and number. Special Districts - Urban Forestry: SD93. The California pepper (Schinus molle) trees located on the east end of the MWD easement which line the alley of the homes located on Alderbrook Drive have been previously maintained by the City of Santa Clarita Urban Forestry Division. SD94. The permittee must assume all maintenance responsibility for all Pepper trees including the proper trimming, clean-up of any fallen limbs or debris from the trees and removal of any tree which has been declared as dead by a qualified arborist. SD95. Permittee is advised that the California pepper trees are protected and must be preserved in place during all construction occurring within the trees protected zone. Work within the Tree Protected Zone (TPZ) must be monitored by a professional qualified tree consultant. SD96. The permittee and its contractors are subject to the same construction and preservation conditions as found under the Oak Tree section of this document. SD97. For all tree on -site tree preservation, including native oak trees, the permittee must adhere to the ANSI (American National Standards Institute) A300 (Part 5) Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management Standard Practices (Management of Trees and Shrubs During Site Planning, Site Development, and Construction) and the companion Page 53 of 62 Packet Pg. 72 1.b publication Best Management Practices "Managing Trees During Construction 2nd Edition" at all times throughout the project. Maintenance and Establishment: SD98. All trees and shrubs planted within the public right of way that are to be maintained by the City of Santa Clarita are subject to a minimum of two-90-day maintenance and establishment periods. Any tree which declines to an unacceptable condition or dies within the first 90-day period must be replaced by the permittee at no cost to the City of Santa Clarita. Trees which have to be replanted are subject to the second 90-day maintenance and establishment period. The maintenance and establishment period will begin once the final landscape has been inspected and approved by a qualified representative of Special District's. SD99. Once planted, all parkway trees located within the public right of way are protected under the City of Santa Clarita Parkway Tree Ordinance 90-15. CONSOLIDATED FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY ("FIRE DEPARTMENT") Final Map Requirements FD1. A copy of the Final Map shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to recordation. The Final Map shall be submitted online to the Land Development Unit for review at epicla.lacounty.gov Final Map. The permittee will need to apply for the following Plan Type: Fire —Land Development —Final Map -Tract. FD2. Access as noted on the Tentative and the Exhibit Maps shall comply with Title 21 (County of Los Angeles Subdivision Code) and Section 503 of the Title 32 (County of Los Angeles Fire Code), which requires an all- weather access surface to be clear to sky. FD3. The driveways required for Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be indicated on the Final Map as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" with the widths clearly depicted. FD4. A common access agreement is required for the private driveway since multiple units are sharing the same access. Such language shall be included in the Covenant, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R) document and shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review prior to Final Map clearance. FDS. Submit a copy of the Grading Plan to the Fire Department for review and approval. Compliance required prior to Final Map clearance. The grading plan shall be submitted online to the Land Development Unit for review at epicla.lacounty.gov. The permittee will need to apply for the following Plan Type: Fire Land Development —Grading. FD6. The required public fire hydrants shall be installed prior to construction of the proposed buildings. The water plan for the new fire hydrant locations shall be submitted online to the Land Development Unit for review at epicla.lacounty.gov. The permittee will need to apply for the following Plan Type: Fire Land Development —Water Plans & Systems Review. Page 54 of 62 Packet Pg. 73 1.b Access Requirements FD7. All on -site Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be labeled as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" on the site plan along with the widths clearly depicted on the plan. Labeling is necessary to assure the access availability for Fire Department use. The designation allows for appropriate signage prohibiting parking. FD8. Fire Apparatus Access Roads must be installed and maintained in a serviceable manner prior to and during the time of construction. Fire Code 501.4 FD9. All fire lanes shall be clear of all encroachments and shall be maintained in accordance with the Title 32, County of Los Angeles Fire Code. FD10. The Fire Apparatus Access Roads and designated fire lanes shall be measured from flow line to flow line. FD11. For buildings where the vertical distance between the access roadway and the highest roof surface does not exceed 30 feet, provide a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders and an unobstructed vertical clearance "clear to sky" Fire Apparatus Access Roads to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. The highest roof surface shall be determined by measurement of the vertical distance between the access roadway and the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of the roof to the exterior wall, or the top of parapet walls, whichever is greater. Fire Code 503.1., 503.2.1.2 & 503.2.1.2.1 FD12. For buildings where the vertical distance between the access roadway and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet from the lowest level of the Fire Apparatus Access Road, provide a minimum unobstructed width of 28 feet, exclusive of shoulders and an unobstructed vertical clearance "clear to sky" Fire Apparatus Access Roads to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. At least one required access route meeting this condition shall be located such that the edge of the Fire Apparatus Access Roadway, not including shoulders, that is closest to the building being served, is between 10 feet and 30 feet from the building, as determined by the fire code official, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. The side of the building on which the Fire Apparatus Access Road is positioned shall be approved by the fire code official. Fire Code 503.1.1; 503.2.1.2; 503.2.1.2.2 & 503.2.1.2.2.1 FD13. The dimensions of the approved Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be maintained as originally approved by the fire code official. Fire Code 503.2.2.1 FD 14. Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing 75,000 pounds and shall be surfaced to provide all- weather driving capabilities. Fire Code 503.2.3 FD 15. Dead-end Fire Apparatus Access Roads more than 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved Fire Department turnaround. Refer to Figure 503.2.5 (1) and Figure 5032.5(2) in Chapter 5 of the Fire Code. The turnaround shall be orientated on the access Page 55 of 62 Packet Pg. 74 1.b roadway in the proper direction of travel. Fire Code 503.2.5 FD16. The Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be provided with a minimum of a 32-foot centerline turning radius. Fire Code 503.2.4 FD17. A minimum 5-foot-wide approved firefighter access walkway leading from the Fire Department Apparatus Access Road to all required openings in the building's exterior walls shall be provided for firefighting and rescue purposes. Fire Code 504.1 FD18. Security barriers, visual screen barriers or other obstructions shall not be installed on the roof of any building in such a manner as to obstruct firefighter access or egress in the event of fire or other emergency. Parapets shall not exceed 36 inches from the top of the parapet to the roof surface on more than two sides. These sides should face an access roadway or yard sufficient to accommodate ladder operations. Fire Code 504.5 FD 19. Approved building address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification shall be provided and maintained to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. The numbers shall contrast with their background, be Arabic numerals or alphabet letters, and be a minimum of 4 inches high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch. Fire Code 505.1 FD20. The installation of security gates across a Fire Apparatus Access Road shall be approved by the fire code official. Where security gates are installed, they shall have an approved means of emergency operation, and be in compliance with following criteria: a. Gates shall be of the swinging or sliding type. b. Construction of gates shall be of materials that allow manual operation by one person. c. Gate components shall be always maintained in an operative condition and replaced or repaired when defective. d. Electric gates shall be equipped with a means of opening the gate by fire department personnel for emergency access. Emergency opening devices shall be approved by the fire code official. e. Methods of locking shall be submitted for approval by the fire code official. All locking devices shall comply with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department Regulation 5, Compliance for Installation of Emergency Access Devices. f. An approved key box, listed in accordance with UL 1037, shall be provided as required by Fire Code 506. The location of each key box shall be determined by the Fire Inspector. Fire Code Sections 503.5; 503.5.1; 503.2; 503.6 g. Where a single gate is provided, the gate width shall not be less than 20 feet, clear -to -sky, with all gate hardware is clear of the access way. WATER S YS TEM RE Q UIREMENTS FD21. All fire hydrants shall measure 6"x 4N 2-1/2" brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA standard C503 or approved equal, and shall be installed in accordance with the County of Los Angeles Fire Code. FD22. The required fire flow for the public fire hydrants and public on -site fire hydrants for this Page 56 of 62 Packet Pg. 75 1.b project is 4000 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure for 4 hours. Three (3) public fire hydrants flowing simultaneously may be used to achieve the required fire flow. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system is required for the proposed buildings within this development. Fire Code 507.3 & Appendix B 105.1 FD23. Install 8 public fire hydrants as noted by the Fire Department. All required public fire hydrants shall be installed, tested, and accepted prior to beginning construction. Fire Code 501.4 FD24. Install 21 public on -site fire hydrants as noted by the Fire Department due to the size of development and to comply with Fire Protection System requirements. All required public on -site fire hydrants shall be installed, tested, and accepted prior to beginning construction. Fire Code 501.4 FD25. The required fire flow for the on -site fire hydrant for this project is 2500 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure for 2 hours. Two (2) on -site fire hydrants flowing simultaneously may be used to achieve the required fire flow with one being the furthest of the public fire hydrant. Each individual on -site fire hydrant is required to flow 1250 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure for 2 hours. Fire Code C 106.1. FD26. Install 15 private on -site fire hydrants as noted by the Fire Department. All required private on -site fire hydrants shall be installed, tested, and approved prior to building occupancy. Fire Code 901.5.1. FD27. Plans showing underground piping for private on -site fire hydrants shall be submitted to the Sprinkler Plan Check Unit for review and approval prior to installation. Fire Code 901.2 & County of Los Angeles Fire Department Regulation 7. FD28. All on -site fire hydrants shall be installed a minimum of 25 feet from a structure or protected by a two (2) hour rated firewall. Indicate compliance prior to project proceeding to the public hearing process. Fire Code Appendix C106.1. Fuel Modification FD29. Building 28 is located within an area described by the Fire Department as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. A "Fuel Modification Plan" shall be submitted to the Fuel Modification for review by the Fuel Modification Unit prior to building plan check approval. Please contact the Department's Fuel Modification Unit for details. The Fuel Modification Plan Review Unit is located at 605 North Angeleno Avenue in the City of Azusa CA 91702- 2904. They may be reached at (626) 969-5205 or visit httDs://www. fire.lacounty. izov/forestrv-division/forestrv-fuel-modification/ TRANSIT DIVISION TD1. Due to the proposed redesign of the Railroad Avenue/13th Street intersection, the existing bus stop located nearside of the intersection must be moved to farside (northside) of the intersection. Permittee must provide a proposed bus stop location and demonstrate the safety of the placement as it pertains to the intersection, merging lane, bike path, the existing bus stop at 15th street, and any other obstacles in the area. Page 57 of 62 Packet Pg. 76 1.b TD2. Permittee must provide a bus stop(s) at the location of: Northbound Railroad Avenue farside 13th Street. TD3. Permittee must construct a pedestrian path from the bus stop(s) to the development. TD4. The bus stop(s) must consist of a 10' x 25' concrete passenger waiting pad placed behind the sidewalk and bike path and relocate the existing bus stop furniture, including shelter, to the new location. TD5. Bus stop/s may require additional right of way (ROW) as approved by the City Engineer. TD6. Permittee must provide a site plan, showing amenities within a 100-foot radius of the bus stop(s). This plan shall show the locations of all utility meters, utility structures, landscaping, buildings, pedestrian walkways, and parking spaces. This plan shall also show all other items not listed above located within the 100-foot radius of the bus stop(s) TD7. At the location of the bus stop(s), the sidewalk must meet the street for no less than 25'. TDB. Permittee must construct an in -street concrete pad pursuant to the current city standard and APWA 131-2. TD9. Bus stop(s) must be shown and labeled on the site plan. TD10. Before the Building Official issues a Certificate of Occupancy for the first building, the bus stop(s) must be installed to the satisfaction of City staff. Page 58 of 62 Packet Pg. 77 1.b EXHIBIT B City of Santa Clarita General Plan Page L-63 North Newhall Area Land Use The North Newhall Area (NNA) is an approximate 200-acre assemblage of land generally bounded by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) right-of-way on the east, Newhall Creek on the south and west, and a significant ridgeline south of Via Princessa on the north. Most of the NNA is located within the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District (PCSSD). The northern approximate 100 acres of this NNA is undeveloped with a hillside to the north, oak trees and Placerita Creek. The commercial corridor along the west side of Railroad Avenue consists of mixed retail and commercial uses. The southern approximate 100 acres of this area is primarily developed with existing single-family ranch style homes of varying sizes. A commercial center with a wide mix of industrial and retail uses is located at the entrance to the NNA adjacent to 13th Street. Given the site's characteristics, its proximity to Downtown Newhall and to the Jan Heidt Metrolink Station location, and its surrounding and diverse communities, the NNA should be subject to a broader and more comprehensive planning approach and have an MX-N (Mixed -Use Neighborhood) and Community Commercial (CC) designation which acknowledges and preserves the existing standards in the current PCSSD. The NNA will be allowed to develop with guidelines, character and policies in place that will be designed to be protective of the existing, developed portions of Placerita Canyon. This development will be required to be done in a way to ensure that it provides buffering, transitionaldensities and protection to the existing developed areas and not intrude in or change the character of the developed areas of Placerita Canyon. Critical aspects of the PCSSD including the provision of trails and other amenities to support the rural equestrian lifestyle of the existing developed areas of Placerita Canyon shall be provided. Any development that is proposed is intended to enhance the Placerita Canyon gateway with attractive visual amenities. Reasonable Development Potential Based on the NNA gross acreage of 200 acres, the MX-N and CC designations theoretically could allow for approximately 4.3 million square feet of commercial development and up to3,600 residential units in the NNA. However, this NNA site has a number of pronounced physical constraints and other limitations that severely limit it from being developed to the maximum allowable standards. Those constraints include oak trees, an active creek which is a blue -line stream, the railroad, the MWD right-of-way, drainage/hydrology issues, and potential circulation/traffic issues. Due to these known property development constraints, and the sensitivity of any land development to adjacent existing rural equestrian residential neighborhoods, any proposed project(s) on this NNA site shall not exceed a total of 775 residential units and an aggregate total of 450,000 1,585,000 square feet of non-residential development, excluding parking facilities. Page 59 of 62 Packet Pg. 78 1.b Proposed projects on the NNA shall incorporate a landscape buffer along the MWD right- of-way and detached single-family residences adjacent to the MWD right- of -way. Density of development should transition downward to the east, toward the MWD right away. Being that the NNA is part of the PCSSD, the area north of Placerita Creek will be zoned NU-5 consistent with all like properties. Mixed -Use Neighborhood and Desired Development Characteristics The future uses and development of the NNA site requires careful advance planning and consideration of any potential projects shall be required to address each of the following subject areas: Public Participation/Outreach Be the subject of public participation and outreach led by the applicant(s) or the applicant's representative, prior to formal submittal of a proposed project to the City. Such outreach would expressly include the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association, as well as otherstakeholders such as the Circle J Ranch Homeowner's Association, the Old Town Newhall Association, the Hidden Knoll and Vista Valencia residents, The Master's College, and the Newhall School District. Traffic Intrusion/Gateways • Be internally and externally pedestrian -oriented, and have equestrian and bicycle amenities and accommodations; • Understand and acknowledge that any development at these locations will increase existing vehicular traffic and create new vehicular traffic, and that there will be impacts to equestrian and pedestrian circulation in the existing neighborhood, and therefore to minimize those impacts, special attention must be given to mitigate impacts caused by such identified access points; • Layout and orientation of any developments shall be designed to discourage and where possible prevent additional trips into Placerita Canyon caused by or resulting from suchdevelopments; • Include defined entry gateways or monuments into Placerita Canyon, complete with landscaping and architectural elements with signage expressly stating there is no through traffic allowed. Buffering and Transitions • Preserve the existing rural equestrian community character known generally as Placerita Canyon, and provide adequate buffers and transitions resulting from any proposed development; Incorporate the current Santa Clarita Valley Trails Advisory Committee (SCVTAC) network of multi -use trails into adjacent neighborhoods which shall have rural and equestrian characteristics; Page 60 of 62 Packet Pg. 79 1.b • Require use of the MWD right-of-way as a landscaped buffer between the NNA within the PCSSD and the rest of Placerita Canyon, which landscaping shall consist of low water, low maintenance, landscape material. Architecture • Consist of 360-degree architectural design with pedestrian -scaled building massing and forms where adjacent to existing residences, with the use of landscaping to visually soften hard edges of buildings; • Structures shall have varied building heights and designs shall create east/west sight lines; • Have transitional densities, as described above, decreasing in density and height in an easterly direction towards the MWD right-of-way away from Railroad Avenue, to include the MWD right-of-way as a landscaped buffer and detached single-family residences adjacent tothe MWD right-of-way; • With the exception of development within the Jobs Creation Overlay Zone (JCOZ), -9building heights shall be subject to the same Unified Development Code requirements that apply to all of Placerita Canyon. Flood Control • Waterway bottoms and sides shall not be improved with concrete or hard impervious surfaces and shall be maintained in a natural appearance; Fencing shall not be permitted to cross riverbeds or waterways in a manner which denies or interferes with easy trail access; • On -site flood control mitigation would provide assistance or relief to other hydrology/drainage impacts within Placerita Canyon due to changes of topography on NNA properties. Housing Types • It is not the City's intent to see affordable housing located on this site; The desired housing type in the NNA will attract residents who will assist in the economic revitalization of Downtown Newhall. Economic Development • Based on the area's proximity to the nearby Metrolink station and Old Town Newhall, propose a development that would be an economically sustainable village that is supportive of revitalization efforts, with an appropriate mix of retail, office, restaurant, and general commercial square footage combined with neighboring and integrated housing types. Recreation Page 61 of 62 Packet Pg. 80 1.b Include a site -specific and a community -based recreational component. a 0 N U N 0 r U) x 0 0 CU M r m 0 L Q Page 62 of 62 Packet Pg. 81 1.c RESOLUTION NO. 23- 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: 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. 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). 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. Ridgeline Alteration Permit 2 1-00 1to allow for the development within the Ridgeline Preservation zone. Page 1 of 10 Packet Pg. 82 1.c 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 Placenta 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 Packet Pg. 83 1.c I. 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 NOR The Draft EIR was circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, in compliance with CEQA. Page 3 of 10 Packet Pg. 84 1.c 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 Packet Pg. 85 1.c 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 (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; 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 Packet Pg. 86 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; E. 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 Packet Pg. 87 1.c 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 Proj ect. 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 Packet Pg. 88 1.c 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 15091, changes and alterations have been required and incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen its significant environmental effects because feasible mitigation measures, including those in the MMRP, are made Conditions of Approval for the Project. Page 8 of 10 Packet Pg. 89 1.c 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 Packet Pg. 90 1.c PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of August, 2023. MAYOR 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- was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 22"d day of August, 2023, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK Page 10 of 10 Packet Pg. 91 1.c EXHIBIT "A" STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FOR THE SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PROJECT SCH NO. 2022030762 Lead Agency: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 July 18, 2023 Packet Pg. 92 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS......................................................................1 2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY....................................................................................................3 2.1 Description of Project Proposed for Approval.............................................................. 3 2.2 Statement of Objectives................................................................................................ 7 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.................................................9 4.0 INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND FINDING................................................................11 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS.............................................................13 5.1 Effects Determined to Have No Impact in the EIR.....................................................13 5.2 Effects Determined to Be Less Than Significant Without Mitigation in the ElR......... 15 5.3 Effects Determined to Be Mitigated to Less -Than -Significant Levels in the EIR....... 18 5.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project.......................................................................... 33 6.0 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR...........................................................................45 6.1 Findings.......................................................................................................................45 6.2 Conclusions................................................................................................................45 7.0 STATEMENT OF LOCATION AND CUSTODIAN OF DOCUMENTS ............................47 r a July 2023 i Packet Pg. 93 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report 1.0 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a Lead Agency make specific findings prior to approving a project that would generate a significant impact on the environment. In this Statement of Facts and Findings, the Lead Agency identifies the significant impacts of the Project, presents facts supporting the conclusions reached in the analysis, makes one or more of three potential findings for each impact, and explains the reasoning behind the agency's findings. This Statement of Facts and Findings has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, specifically Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a) provides that: No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The three findings available for the Statement of Facts and Findings pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 are as follows: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. The City of Santa Clarita (City), the CEQA Lead Agency, finds and declares that the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City's Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find and certify that the EIR was reviewed, and information contained in the EIR was considered prior to approving the Shadowbox Studios Project, herein referred to as the "Project." Based upon its review of the EIR, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that the EIR is an adequate assessment of the potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project, represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City, and sets forth an adequate range of alternatives to this Project. The EIR for the Project is composed of the following elements: • Shadowbox (formerly Blackhall) Studios Project Initial Study (March 2022) • Shadowbox Studios Project Draft EIR and Technical Appendices (April 2023) • Shadowbox Studios Project Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (July 2023) July 2023 1 Packet Pg. 94 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. July 2023 2 Packet Pg. 95 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report 2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT The Project Site is located in the southwestern portion of Santa Clarita, in the Newhall community, approximately 2 miles east of Interstate 5 (1-5), 2 miles west of the Antelope Valley Freeway (State Route 14), and 2 miles south of the Santa Clara River. The Project Site is situated at the northeastern corner of Railroad Avenue and 13th Street and bounded by 12th Street, Arch Street, and 13th Street on the south; a railroad right-of-way (ROW) and Railroad Avenue on the west; Metropolitan Water District (MWD) ROW on the east; and slopes maintained by the adjacent residential uses to the north. The Project Site is a 93.5-acre area that is generally rectangular in shape and comprises an undeveloped piece of land that has been cleared of the majority of its natural vegetation. The Project Site also includes an additional 11.4-acre property owned by MWD. The central and southern portions of the Project Site that make up the majority of the Project Site have been disturbed by past uses, are relatively flat, and are characterized by low, ruderal plants and gravel driveways. The northern portion of the Project Site includes natural features, such as a prominent ridgeline, which transects the northeastern corner of the Project Site, and a natural creek and creek wash area (Placerita Creek). The Project Developer, L.A. Railroad 93, LLC, proposes to develop a full -service film and television studio campus on the Project Site that would consist of approximately 475,500 square feet of sound stages; approximately 565,400 square feet of workshops, warehouses, and support uses; approximately 209,300 square feet of production and administrative offices; and approximately 35,600 square feet of catering and other specialty services. Upon completion, the campus would have an overall building area of approximately 1,285,800 square feet. Eight buildings, which would contain 19 sound stages, would be constructed in the central portion of the Project Site, south of Placerita Creek. A three-story office building and a four-story (five - level), 1,072-space parking structure are proposed in the southwestern corner of the Project Site. In addition, a two-story support building would extend along the remaining portion of the western boundary (i.e., Railroad Avenue) of the Project Site, south of Placerita Creek. Other ancillary and specialty use buildings, including three catering buildings and mechanical building with a substation, would be located to the east and southeast of the main entrance at the intersection of Arch Street and 13th Street. Approximately 13 percent or 528,156 square feet of the Project Site would be landscaped. Thirteen of the 16 oak trees on the Project Site, including seven heritage trees, would be removed to accommodate Project development; three coast live oak trees on the ridge at the north end of the Project Site would be preserved with no anticipated encroachment. However, the Project would replace the removed trees with 211 oak trees, as well as 450 trees of different non -oak varieties. A plant nursery is also proposed along the entire length of the parking area proposed in the adjacent MWD ROW along the eastern boundary of the Project Site to the south of Placerita Creek and adjacent to the alley behind the residences along Alderbrook Drive (subject to agreement with MWD). The plant nursery, which would be composed of plants in containers, July 2023 3 Packet Pg. 96 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report would provide not only plants for use on the Project sound stages, when needed, thus reducing the need for importing materials from off -site, but also additional visual screening from the Placerita Canyon neighborhood. In addition, the Project would include a small private park (i.e., Shadow Oak Park) in the center of a courtyard formed by the three catering buildings. Patios are provided in front of each of the catering buildings. Furthermore, several outdoor seating and picnic areas are proposed for the Project Site — two along the western facade of the proposed support building and outdoor break areas between the stage buildings, as well as a basketball half court along the western facade of the proposed support building (between the two picnic areas) and a small dog park at the northern end of the proposed support building. In addition to the 1,072-space parking structure, approximately 455 surface parking spaces, including 221 vehicle parking spaces, 15 delivery van spaces, and 219 trailer parking spaces, would be provided throughout the main campus immediately adjacent to the buildings. An additional 1,157-space employee parking lot is proposed on the north side of Placerita Creek, for a total of 2,684 parking spaces on the Project Site. This employee parking lot would be connected to the main campus by an all-weather bridge and would be served by an internal shuttle system to provide easy access for employees. Subject to an agreement with MWD, the Project also proposes to utilize the adjacent MWD ROW along the eastern boundary of the Project Site, south of Placerita Creek, to provide approximately 257 trailer parking spaces for production personnel and base camp parking. The main entrance to the proposed campus would be provided north of the intersection of Arch Street and 13th Street and would be set back from the intersection to accommodate the queueing of vehicles entering the campus in the Project's entrance driveway rather than on 13th Street or Arch Street. The main entrance would have three lanes of ingress (all through lanes) and three lanes of egress (two through lanes and one exclusive right -turn lane) at the intersection of Arch Street and 13th Street. In addition to the main entrance, two other gates would be provided to access the Project Site. The entrance to Gate 2 would be located immediately east of the main entrance at the eastern leg of the intersection of Arch Street and 13th Street. This gate would be access -controlled (unmanned) and would have two lanes of ingress and two lanes of egress. Gate 2 would also be set back to accommodate the queueing of vehicles entering the campus. The entrance to Gate 3 would be located along 12th Street immediately east of the proposed catering buildings. This gate would also be access -controlled (unmanned) and would provide Project -related egress -only and be restricted to a right -turn movement onto 12th Street. Gate 3 would provide for emergency ingress and egress. A metal sliding gate would also be provided within the MWD ROW, east of Gate 3 at the southeasternmost corner of the Project Site along 12th Street adjacent to the alley behind Alderbrook Drive, to provide emergency access. The Project would also be conditioned to construct a Class I multi -purpose path along the Project frontage on 12th, Arch, and 13th Streets. In addition, the Project would be conditioned to either (1) pay an in -lieu fee to contribute toward improvements or (2) construct a connection to provide a link for pedestrians and bicyclists between the Project Site and the Jan Heidt Newhall Metrolink Station and Old Town Newhall dining and entertainment district. The Class I multi -purpose path would be a completely separate right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicyclists and pedestrians with the path visibly marked. A 12-foot tall security fence primarily made of woodcrete would be installed along the majority of the perimeter of the Project Site. Open rail wrought iron fencing would be installed along the July 2023 4 Packet Pg. 97 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report southwestern corner of the Project Site, adjacent to the proposed office building. In addition, closed-circuit television (CCTV) security cameras would be installed throughout the Project Site. These surveillance cameras would be monitored full-time at a manned security station on -site. Furthermore, licensed security personnel would be provided to patrol the Project Site at all times (i.e., 24 hours per day, seven days per week). Additional stage security would also be provided at key entry points to and within individual building areas. The Project would be required to comply with the California Building Standards Code, as well as the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code, which requires implementation of energy -efficient light fixtures and building materials into the design of new construction projects, as well as high -efficiency plumbing fixtures. Other sustainability features that would be incorporated into the Project include the implementation of an energy management system specific to lighting, provision of EV charging stations and conduit for future EV parking spaces, and rooftop photovoltaic systems and solar panels. In addition to the development of the campus on the Project Site, the Project includes several off - site improvements beyond the landscaping and Class I multi -purpose path described above. These additional off -site improvements include the following: • Proposed improvements at the frontage of the Project on 13th Street, Arch Street, and 12th Street, including a Class I multi -purpose path to afford walking and biking opportunities within the community and to the nearby Metrolink Station and Old Town Newhall dining and entertainment district; • Widening of 13th Street, Arch Street, and 12th Street and installation of traffic signals at the intersections of 13th Street and Arch Street and 12th Street and Arch Street; • Installation of public hydrants along the frontage of the Project on 13th, Arch, and 12th Streets and at the intersection of 13th Street and Railroad Avenue; • Required railroad crossing improvements at 13th Street that consist of the following: - Widening of the rail crossing at 13th Street and Railroad Avenue; - Install a bike path/trail on the north side of the crossing; - Accommodate a wider turning radius for larger vehicle at the crossing; - Increase efficiency on the 13th Street westbound dedicated right -turn lane at Railroad Avenue, including a pork chop island; - Install new railroad exit gates; - Implement vertical grading to install drainage on Railroad Avenue and 13th Street; - Modify the Railroad Avenue storage lengths for left turns to accommodate the revised geometry; - Implement Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements for pedestrians; - Modify/widen the railroad track (vertical changes only) to accommodate the revised geometry; and - Implement line -of -sight requirements at the grade crossing. July 2023 5 Packet Pg. 98 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report If the Dockweiler Drive Extension Project is not completed prior to the completion of Project construction, the Project would be conditioned to extend Arch Street to Placerita Canyon Road and complete the two -legged intersection of Placerita Canyon Road and Arch Street, as indicated in the Tentative Tract Map included in Appendix B of the Draft EIR. In conjunction with the Project, the following modifications to the Dockweiler Drive Extension Project are proposed: • Roadway improvements to 13th Street, Arch Street, 12th Street and Placerita Canyon Road that differ from previous approved plans, including accommodating the additional lane geometry at the Arch Street/13th Street intersection to widen the railroad crossing; • Pedestrian and bike bridge from the Jan Heidt Newhall Metrolink Station on Railroad Avenue to the future extension of Dockweiler Drive; • Modify the turning radius at the intersection of 13th Street and Railroad Avenue to accommodate WB-67 semi -truck dimensions; and • Implement temporary storm drain improvements to accommodate surface water runoff from Dockweiler Drive prior to completion of the Project. AGREEMENTS, PERMITS, AND APPROVALS This EIR is intended to inform and provide clearance under CEQA for all governmental approval actions necessary to authorize the project to proceed. These approvals include those listed below. City of Santa Clarita • Recommendation by the Planning Commission for approval by the City Council that the El R was prepared in accordance with CEQA and other applicable codes and guidelines. • Recommendation by the Planning Commission for approval by the City Council the Project or an alternative to the Project. • Certification of the EIR prepared for the Project. • Architectural Design Review for all new development projects. • Conditional Use Permit for all new development within the Planned Development Overlay and for studio use within the MXN zone. • Development Review for all new development projects. • Minor Use Permit for the provision of less than the minimum residential density required in the MXN zone. • Landscape Plan Review to make a determination that all proposed landscaping is consistent with the standards established within the Unified Development Code. • Hillside Review for the development on natural slopes in excess of 10 percent average slope. • Tentative Map to subdivide the Project Site into five lots. July 2023 6 Packet Pg. 99 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report • Oak Tree Permit for the encroachment into the protected zone and removal of oak trees. • Zone Change to modify the boundaries of the Jobs Creation Overlay Zone to incorporate the portion of the Project Site zoned MXN, south of Placerita Creek, and to change the zoning of the northern portion of the site from NU5 to MXN. • General Plan Amendment to modify the General Plan Land Use Designation from NU5 to MXN to remain consistent with the proposed Zone Change and to make text changes to the discussion regarding the North Newhall Area as discussed in the Land Use Element of the General Plan to address allowable development potential and building height in the area. • Ridgeline Alteration Permit for proposed development activity within 100 feet vertically and/or horizontally from a designated significant ridgeline as identified in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. • Other discretionary and ministerial permits and approvals that maybe deemed necessary, including, but not limited to, grading permits and building permits. Other Agencies To allow for construction in or near Placerita Creek and for other off -site improvements, the following permits would be required: • Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit from the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board • California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife • California Public Utilities Commission authorization letter for the modifications to the railroad crossing • South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) air permits for operation of equipment emitting air pollutants, including, but not limited to, emergency generators and fire water pumps. In addition to the specific discretionary actions listed above, other discretionary and ministerial permits and approvals may be or will be required, including, but not limited to, grading permits, excavation permits, foundation permits, and building permits. 2.2 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES The underlying purpose of the Project is to provide a state-of-the-art, full -service film and television campus that would provide independent media production facilities in Santa Clarita. The Project's specific objectives are as follows: • Design and construct economically -viable and technologically -advanced sound stages, creative office, and production support spaces with the infrastructure, parking, and technology to attract high -profile film, television, and streaming projects that require July 2023 7 Packet Pg. 100 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report facilities designed to meet the specifications and demands of the movie, television, and entertainment industry and to allow flexibility to incorporate future technology advances. • Promote economic growth in Santa Clarita, particularly in the Newhall community, by encouraging the support for the entertainment industry by creating a secure campus environment, where media and entertainment -related uses are consolidated with pre- production, post -production, story development, and administrative offices in order to maximize creativity and productivity. • Maximize the use of the entire property to create a studio campus environment that creates a range of new media -related employment opportunities that cater to movie, television, and entertainment industries, as well as construction jobs, providing opportunities for local growth and improving the City's jobs to housing balance. • Develop a studio campus along a transit corridor that is easily accessible by public transportation, where media and entertainment -related uses are consolidated with pre- production, production, story development, and administrative offices within a single site to promote sustainability and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), resulting in corresponding reductions in air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. • Enhance the identity of the Newhall community as a movie, television, and entertainment industry area. • Enhance the visual appearance of the Project Site by providing architecturally distinct development, while maintaining consistency with the design standards of the immediately adjacent Old Town Newhall Specific Plan area. • Design a campus that would commemorate the filmmaking heritage of Santa Clarita • Provide off -site improvements to enhance and/or provide pedestrian and bike connections to adjacent communities and the Jan Heidt Newhall Metrolink Station for the benefit of the existing residents of the adjacent communities and future employees of the Project. July 2023 8 Packet Pg. 101 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The City of Santa Clarita conducted an extensive review of this Project, which included a Draft EIR and a Final EIR, including technical reports, along with a public review and comment period. The following is a summary of the City's environmental review of this Project: Pursuant to the provision of CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, as amended, the City of Santa Clarita circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to public agencies, organizations, and members of the public who had requested such notice for a 30-day period. The NOP was submitted to the State Clearinghouse and filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk on March 29, 2022, with the 30-day review period ending on April 28, 2022. • The NOP public review period ran for 30 days. The City received comment letters from State, regional, and local public agencies, as well as comment letters and comment cards from local organizations and individuals; these comment letters were included in Appendix A of the Draft El R. A scoping meeting was held at the City of Santa Clarita City Hall, Century Conference Room 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 and was mailed to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the Project Site, in addition to approximately 50 agencies, interested parties, and individuals who requested to be notified of the Project. Approximately 27 persons from or members of the public attended the scoping meeting. The Draft EIR was distributed for public review, and a Notice of Availability (NOA) and Notice of Completion (NOC) were filed with the State Clearinghouse on April 6, 2023, to commence a 45-day review period, beginning on April 6, 2023, and ending on May 22, 2023. The NOA was filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk on April 6, 2023. The NOA was also mailed to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the Project Site, in addition to approximately 92 agencies, interested parties, and individuals who requested to be notified of the Project, and was published in The Signal on April 6, 2023. • The Project and the Draft EIR were presented at three Planning Commission meetings held on April 18, 2023, May 16, 2023, and June 20, 2023, to solicit comments from the public and E the Planning Commission on the Draft EIR. Notice of the Planning Commission meeting in April was published in The Signal newspaper on March 28, 2023. .2 a • The City received a total of 21 comment letters on the Draft EIR from public agencies and the public, as well as numerous letters from organizations and members of the public regarding the merits of the Project or questions regarding the Project. The City prepared responses to all written comments. The comments and responses are contained in Section 2.0, Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses, of the Final EIR. • In accordance with CEQA, the City provided written responses to the public agencies that commented on the Draft EIR prior to the July 18, 2023, Planning Commission hearing. • Hearings before the City Council are expected following a recommendation from the Planning Commission. This page intentionally left blank. July 2023 9 Packet Pg. 102 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report July 2023 10 Packet Pg. 103 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report 4.0 INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND FINDING The City solicited proposals from independent consultants to prepare the Shadowbox Studios Project EIR. Subsequently, the City selected and retained Michael Baker International, Inc. (Michael Baker) to prepare the Shadowbox Studios Project EIR. Michael Baker prepared the EIR under the supervision and direction of the City of Santa Clarita staff. All findings set forth herein are based on substantial evidence in the record as indicated with respect to each specific finding. FINDING: The EIR for the Project reflects the City's independent judgment. The City has exercised independent judgment in accordance with PRC Section 21082.1(c)(3) in retaining its own environmental consultant and directing the consultant in the preparation of the EIR. The City has independently reviewed and analyzed the El R and accompanying studies and finds that the report reflects the independent judgment of the City. The Planning Commission has considered all the evidence presented in its consideration of the Project and the EIR, including, but not limited to, the Final EIR and its supporting studies, written and oral evidence presented at hearings on the Project, and written evidence submitted to the City by individuals, organizations, regulatory agencies, and other entities. On the basis of such evidence, the Planning Commission finds that, with respect to each environmental impact identified in the review process, the impact is either less than significant and would not require mitigation or potentially significant but would be avoided or reduced to a less -than -significant level by implementation of identified mitigation measures. July 2023 11 Packet Pg. 104 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. July 2023 12 Packet Pg. 105 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS 5.1 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO HAVE NO IMPACT IN THE EIR The Shadowbox Studios Project EIR found that the Project would have no impact on a number of environmental topic areas, as listed below. A detailed analysis of these topic areas is provided in the Initial Study, included as Appendix A of the Draft EIR. FINDING: The EIR for the Project reflects the City's independent judgment. The City has exercised independent judgment in accordance with PRC Section 21082.1(c)(3) in retaining its own environmental consultant and directing the consultant in the preparation of the EIR. The City has independently reviewed and analyzed the EIR and accompanying studies and finds that the report reflects the independent judgment of the City. Agriculture and Forestry Resources a) Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b) Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? d) Would the Project result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to non - forest use? e) Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forestland to non -forest use? Biological Resources f) Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? g) Would the Project affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the City of Santa Clarita SEA Delineation Map? Geology and Soils a) Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: July 2023 13 Packet Pg. 106 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? e) Would he Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Hazards and Hazardous Materials e) Would the Project be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, and would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? h) Is the Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Hydrology and Water Quality g) Would the Project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Land Use and Planning a) Would the Project disrupt or physically divide an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? c) Would the Project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, and/or policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? Mineral and Energy Resources a) Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Noise c) Would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels, for a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport? July 2023 14 Packet Pg. 107 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing b) Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing)? 5.2 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITHOUT MITIGATION IN THE EIR The Shadowbox Studios Project EIR found that the Project would have a less -than -significant impact on a number of environmental topic areas, as listed below. A detailed analysis of these topic areas is provided in the Initial Study prepared for the Project, included as Appendix A of the Draft EIR, and in Sections 4.1 through 4.17 of the Draft EIR. FINDING: The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Initial Study, Draft EIR and Technical Appendices, Final EIR, and administrative record, finds that based on substantial evidence in the record, impacts related to the following topics, to the extent they result from the Project, would be less than significant. Aesthetics a) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, primary/secondary ridgelines, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) In non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Cumulative Aesthetics Impacts Air Quality a) Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard? c) Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or July 2023 15 Packet Pg. 108 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Would the Project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Cumulative Air Quality Impacts Biological Resources d) Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish orwildlife species orwith established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance ? Cumulative Biological Resources Impacts Cultural Resources a) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? c) Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Energy a) Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Cumulative Energy Impacts Geology and Soils a) Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iv) Landslides? b) Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? July 2023 16 Packet Pg. 109 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report d) Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? g) Would the Project result in a change in topography or ground surface relief features? h) Would the Project result in earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? i) Would the Project involve development and/or grading on a slope greater than 10% natural grade? i) Would the Project result in the destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? Cumulative Geology and Soils Impacts Greenhouse Gas Emissions a) Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emission, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Cumulative Greenhous Gas Emissions Impacts Hazards and Hazardous Materials a) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving explosion or the release of hazardous materials into the environment (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, fuels, or radiation)? c) Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g) Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? i) Would the Project expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards (e.g., electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)? Cumulative Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts July 2023 17 Packet Pg. 110 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality a) Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b) Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management in the basin? c) Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would: i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site; ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? iv. Impede or redirect flood flows d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the Project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? e) Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? f) Would the Project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? h) Would the Project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? j) Would the Project result in changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and direction of surface water and/or groundwater? k) Would the Project result in other modification of a wash, channel creek, or river? 1) Would the Project impact stormwater management in any of the following ways: i) Potential impact of project construction and project post -construction activity on stormwater runoff? ii) Potential discharges from areas for materials storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? iii) Significant environmentally harmful increase in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff? July 2023 18 Packet Pg. 111 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report iv) Significant and environmentally harmful increases in erosion of the Project Site or surrounding areas? v) Stormwater discharges that would significantly impair or contribute to the impairment of the beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefits (e.g., riparian corridors, wetlands, etc.)? vi) Cause harm to the biological integrity of drainage systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies? vii) Include provisions for the separation, recycling, and reuse of materials both during construction and after project occupancy? Cumulative Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts Land Use and Planning b) Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Cumulative Land Use and Planning Impacts Noise a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Would the Project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? d) Would the Project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) Would the Project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Cumulative Noise Impacts Population and Housing a) Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Cumulative Population and Housing Impacts Public Services a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause July 2023 19 Packet Pg. 112 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? Cumulative Public Services Impacts Recreation a) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Would the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Transportation a) Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b) Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c) Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? e) Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Cumulative Transportation Impacts Utilities and Service Systems a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? July 2023 20 Packet Pg. 113 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report b) Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? c) Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? d) Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction? e) Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? f) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? g) Would the Project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs? Cumulative Utilities and Service Systems Impacts Wildfire a) Would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Would the Project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Would the Project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Would the Project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Cumulative Wildfire Impacts 5.3 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO LESS -THAN - SIGNIFICANT LEVELS IN THE EIR The Shadowbox Studios Project EIR found that the Project would have a less -than -significant impact with mitigation incorporated on a number of environmental topic areas, as listed below. A detailed analysis of these topic areas is provided in Sections 4.3, 4.4, 4.6, and 4.15 of the Draft El R. July 2023 21 Packet Pg. 114 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report FINDING: The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Draft EIR and Technical Appendices, Final EIR, and administrative record, finds, pursuant to PRC Section 21081 (a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which would avoid or substantially lessen to below a level of significance potentially significant environmental effects identified in the Draft E/R. The potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that can be mitigated are listed below. The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission finds that based on substantial evidence in the record, the impacts discussed below, to the extent they result from the Project, would be less than significant after implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Final E/R. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The Project's impacts related to biological resources that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential substantial adverse effects related to candidate, sensitive, or special -status species; riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities; and State- or federally -protected wetlands. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings As potentially suitable habitat for special -status wildlife species exists on the Project Site, implementation of the Project would potentially impact existing habitat. Mitigation Measures MM-1310-1 through MM-1310-3 and MM-13I0-6 through MM-13I0-9, which involve implementation of best management practices (BMPs) and monitoring during construction, preconstruction surveys, avoidance measures, and floral resource replacement on- or off -site, would reduce the potential to impact candidate, sensitive, or special -status species, including the southern California rufous -crowned sparrow, Cooper's hawk, and yellow warbler, as well as other native birds protected under the MBTA and CFGC, and Crotch's bumble bee to a less -than -significant level. Two sensitive plant communities, big sagebrush scrub and scale broom scrub, were identified on the northern half of the Project Site. To reduce potential significant impacts to these sensitive natural communities, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-1310 4 involves compensatory mitigation, including, but not limited to, on -site restoration, off -site restoration, or purchase of credits through an approved Mitigation Bank. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM- 13104, impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities would be reduced to a less -than -significant level. The Project would result in a total of 3.89 acres of temporary impacts and 2.77 acres of permanent impacts to existing jurisdictional areas on the Project Site. Mitigation Measure MM-1310-1 requires heavy equipment to be operated in accordance with standard BMPs to prevent leaks of oil, fuel, or residues into wetlands. Permanent impacts to Placerita Creek and the two unnamed ephemeral drainages on -site would be reduced to less -than -significant levels through July 2023 22 Packet Pg. 115 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report compensatory mitigation as required in Mitigation Measure MM-131O-5. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-131O-1 and MM-13I0-5 would reduce potential impacts to State- or federally -protected wetlands to less -than -significant levels. Mitigation Measures M M-B1O-1: The Project shall implement the following best management practices (BM Ps) during construction: • The contractor shall clearly delineate the construction limits and prohibit any construction -related traffic outside those boundaries; • Project -related vehicles shall observe a 10-mile-per-hour speed limit within the unpaved limits of construction; • All open trenches or excavations shall be fenced and/or sloped to prevent entrapment of wildlife species; • All food -related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps generated during Project construction shall be disposed of in closed containers only and removed daily from the Project Site; • No deliberate feeding of wildlife shall be allowed; • No pets shall be allowed on the Project Site; • No firearms shall be allowed on the Project Site; • If vehicle or equipment maintenance is necessary, it shall be performed in the designated staging areas; • If construction must occur at night (between dusk and dawn), all lighting shall be shielded and directed downward to minimize the potential for glare or spillover onto adjacent properties and to reduce impacts on local wildlife; and • During construction, heavy equipment shall be operated in accordance with standard BMPs. All equipment used on -site shall be properly maintained to avoid leaks of oil, fuel, or residues. Provisions shall be in place to remediate any accidental spills. • Access routes, staging, and construction areas shall be limited to the minimum area necessary to achieve the Project goal and minimize impacts to jurisdictional resources and sensitive natural communities, including locating access routes and ancillary construction areas outside of these areas; • To the satisfaction of the City, the Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to prepare a Wildlife Relocation and Avoidance Plan. The Wildlife Relocation and Avoidance Plan shall describe all species of special concern (SSC) that could occur within the Project Site and proper avoidance, handling, and relocation protocols. The Wildlife Relocation Plan should include species -specific avoidance buffers and suitable relocation areas at least 200 feet outside of the Project Site. The qualified biologist should submit a copy of a Wildlife July 2023 23 Packet Pg. 116 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report Relocation and Avoidance Plan to CDFW for approval prior to any clearing, grading, or excavation work on the Project Site; • To the satisfaction of the City, the Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct worker environmental awareness training. The qualified biologist shall communicate to workers that upon encounter with an SSC (e.g., during construction or equipment inspections), work must stop, a qualified biologist must be notified, and work may only resume once a qualified biologist has determined that it is safe to do so; and • To avoid direct injury and mortality of SSC, the Applicant shall have a qualified biologist on -site to relocate wildlife of low mobility that may be injured or killed because of development. Wildlife should be protected, allowed to move away on its own (non-invasive, passive relocation), or relocated to suitable habitat adjacent to the Project Site. In areas where a SSC is found, work may only occur in these areas after a qualified biologist has determined it is safe to do so. Even so, the qualified biologist shall advise workers to proceed with caution. A qualified biologist shall be on site daily during initial ground and habitat disturbing activities as well as vegetation removal. Then, the qualified biologist shall be on site weekly or bi-weekly (once every two weeks) for the remainder of the Project phase until the cessation of all ground and habitat disturbing activities, as well as vegetation removal, to ensure that no wildlife is harmed. The biological monitor(s) shall have appropriate handling permits or shall obtain appropriate handling permits to capture, temporarily possess, and relocate wildlife to avoid harm or mortality in connection with Project construction and activities. A Scientific Collecting Permit is required to monitor Project impacts on wildlife resources, as required by environmental documents, permits, or other legal authorizations; and, to capture, temporarily possess, and relocate wildlife to avoid harm or mortality in connection with otherwise lawful activities (14 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 650). The CDFW's Scientific Collection Permits webpage (https://wildlife.ca.gov/Licensing/Scientific-Collecting#53949678) provides additional information. If any SSC are harmed during relocation or a dead or injured animal is found, work in the immediate area shall stop immediately, the qualified biologist should be notified, and dead or injured wildlife be documented immediately. A formal report shall be sent to CDFW within three calendar days of the incident or finding. The report shall include the date, time of the finding or incident (if known), and location of the carcass or injured animal and circumstances of its death or injury (if known). Work in the immediate area may only resume once the proper notifications have been made and additional mitigation techniques have been identified to prevent additional injury or death. M M-BIO-2: A qualified biological monitor familiar with special -status species with potential to occur on the Project Site shall be present during initial ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities. The biological monitor shall have the authority to July 2023 24 Packet Pg. 117 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report temporarily stop work if one or more individuals of these special -status species are observed; the monitor shall then relocate these individuals to suitable undisturbed habitat, outside the areas directly and indirectly affected by ground disturbance activities. M M-131O-3: Construction activities should occur outside of the bird breeding season (generally February 1 to August 31) to the extent practicable. If construction must occur within the bird breeding season, then no more than three days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and/or vegetation removal, a nesting bird preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within the disturbance footprint plus a 100-foot buffer (500 feet for raptors), where feasible. If the Proposed Project is phased or construction activities stop for more than one week, a subsequent preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be required prior to each phase of construction. Preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be conducted during the time of day when birds are active (typically early morning or late afternoon) and shall factor in sufficient time to perform this survey adequately and completely. A report of the nesting bird survey results, if applicable, shall be submitted to the property owner/developer for review and approval prior to ground and/or vegetation disturbance activities. If nests are found, their locations shall be flagged. An appropriate avoidance buffer for passerines is generally 100 feet and up to 500 feet for raptors; however, the buffer distance may be modified by a qualified biologist depending upon the species and the proposed work activity. The avoidance buffer shall be determined and demarcated by a qualified biologist with bright orange construction fencing or other suitable material that is clearly visible to construction personnel and heavy equipment operators. Active nests shall be monitored periodically by a qualified biologist until it has been determined that the nest is no longer being used by either the young or adults. No ground disturbance shall occur within this buffer until the qualified biologist confirms that the breeding/nesting is completed, and all the young have fledged. If no nesting birds are observed during preconstruction surveys, no further actions would be necessary. MM-131O-4: Impacts to sensitive vegetation communities shall be avoided to the greatest extent feasible. Compensatory mitigation for impacts to big sagebrush scrub and scale broom scrub communities, such as on -site restoration, off -site restoration, or purchase of credits through an approved Mitigation Bank or through applicant sponsored mitigation (e.g., on -site restoration), to reduce impacts to sensitive vegetation communities shall be accomplished at a minimum ratio of 1:1; however, the final ratio shall be determined and approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to issuance of a grading permit. If on -site or off -site restoration is feasible, a Restoration Plan shall be prepared and submitted for approval by the CDFW prior to initiating construction or any site disturbance. At a minimum, the Restoration Plan shall include the following: • A description of the purpose and goals of the restoration • Identification of success criteria and performance standards • Methods of site preparation • Irrigation plan and schedule July 2023 25 Packet Pg. 118 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report • Best management practices • Maintenance and monitoring program • Adaptive management strategies • Key stakeholders and responsible parties • Funding • Contingencies M M-B1O-5: Compensatory mitigation for temporary and permanent impacts to land subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and/or CDFW, such as purchase of credits through an approved Mitigation Bank or through applicant sponsored mitigation (e.g., on -site restoration), shall be accomplished at a minimum ratio of 1: 1; however, the final ratio shall be determined and approved by the USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW prior to impacting state- or federally regulated waters. If on -site restoration would occur, a Restoration Plan, as identified in Mitigation Measure MM-131O-4, shall be prepared and submitted for approval by CDFW, USACE, and RWQCB prior to initiating construction or any site disturbance. MM-131O-6: The Permittee must retain a qualified biologistwith the appropriate take authorization (if such authorizations are available to biologists at the time of survey) to conduct surveys to determine presence/absence. A survey must be conducted at least one year before the City issues a grading permit. The survey must review the entire Project Site by a qualified biologist familiar with the species' behavior and life history. A minimum of three surveys must also be conducted during peak flying season when the species is most likely to be detected above ground, between March 1 to September 1. The qualified biologist must utilize a non -lethal survey methodology and obtain appropriate photo vouchers for species confirmation. During the surveys, the biologist must identify inactive small mammal burrows and other potential nest sites with visible flags to reduce the risk of take. Survey results, including negative findings, must be submitted to CDFW applying for appropriate permits. At a minimum, a survey report provide the following: a) A description and map of the survey area, focusing on areas that could provide suitable habitat for Crotch's bumble bee. The map must show surveyor(s) track lines to document that the entire site was covered during field surveys. b) Field survey conditions that include name(s) of qualified biologist(s) and brief qualifications, date and time of survey, survey duration, general weather conditions, survey goals, and species searched. c) Map(s) showing the location of nests/colonies d) A description of physical (e.g., soil, moisture, slope) and biological (e.g., plant composition) conditions where each nest/colony, if any, is found. A sufficient description of biological conditions, primarily impacted habitat, must include native plant composition (e.g., density, cover, and abundance) within impacted habitat (e.g., species list separated by vegetation class, density, cover, and abundance of each species). July 2023 26 Packet Pg. 119 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report M M-B10-7: If Crotch's bumble bees are detected, the qualified biologist must identify the location of any nests within and adjacent to the Project Site. A 15-meter no disturbance buffer zone must be established around any identified active nest(s) to reduce the risk of disturbance or accidental take. A qualified biologist may expand the buffer zone as necessary to prevent disturbance or take. MM-1310-8: If Crotch's bumble bee is detected and impacts to Crotch's bumble bee cannot be feasibly avoided, the Permittee must consult with CDFW and obtain appropriate take authorization from CDFW (pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 2080, et seq). Appropriate authorization from CDFW under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) may include an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) or a Consistency Determination in certain circumstances, among other options (California Fish and Game Code Sections 2080.1, 2081). Early consultation is encouraged, as significant modification to the Project and mitigation techniques may be required to obtain an ITP. The California Fish and Game Code may require that CDFW issue a separate CEQA document before issuing an ITP for the Project unless the Project's CEQA document addresses all Project impacts on CESA endangered, threatened, and/or candidate species. M M-B10-9: Any floral resource associated with Crotch's bumble bee that will be removed or damaged by the Project must be replaced at not less than 1:1. Floral resources must be replaced as close to their original location as feasible. If active Crotch's bumble bee nests are identified and floral resources cannot be replaced within 200 meters of their original location, floral resources must be planted in the most centrally available location relative to identified nests. This location should be not more than 1.5 kilometers from any identified nest. Replaced floral resources may be split into multiple patches to meet distance requirements for multiple nests. These floral resources must be maintained in perpetuity and be replanted and managed as needed to ensure the habitat is preserved. CULTURAL RESOURCES The Project's impacts related to cultural resources that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential substantial adverse effects related to archaeological resources. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings Due to initial discoveries of artifacts during the field reconnaissance, the Project Site was determined to be highly sensitive for archaeological resources. Consequently, there is a potential for additional cultural resources to be uncovered from ground -disturbing activities during Project construction and implementation of off -site improvements. Mitigation Measures MM-CR-1 through MM-CR-5, which involve implementation of a worker's environmental awareness program (WEAP), monitoring, preparation and execution of an archaeological testing plan in the event that unidentified cultural resources are discovered, avoidance or preservation -in -place, as well as July 2023 27 Packet Pg. 120 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report collection, treatment, and curation of discovered sensitive archaeological resources, would reduce potential impacts to such resources during construction and cumulative cultural resources impacts to a less -than -significant level. Mitigation Measures M M-CR-1: Prior to the start of construction, the Project applicant shall retain a cultural resources principal investigator, who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology. This principal investigator shall create a Worker's Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) pamphlet that shall be provided as training to construction personnel to understand the requirements for the protection of cultural resources. This training shall include examples of archaeological cultural resources to look for and protocols to follow if discoveries are made. The principal investigator shall develop the training and supply any Project - specific supplemental materials necessary to execute the training. M M-CR-2: Archaeological resources monitoring shall be conducted by a cultural resources principal investigator, who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology, during Project -related earth -disturbing activities pursuant to the California Office of Historic Preservation standards. Monitoring shall entail visual inspection of Project -related earth -disturbing activities (i.e., grubbing and grading, trenching, shoring, mass excavation, footings, utility installation, etc.) on a full-time basis unless the cultural resources principal investigator deems that construction monitoring can be conducted on a part-time basis or is no longer required. M M-CR-3: If previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered, the cultural resources principal investigator, who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology, shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground -disturbing activities in the area of discovery to allow for evaluation. The principal investigator shall evaluate the find and contact the City of Santa Clarita as soon as possible with recommendations as to the significance and proper treatment of the find. Depending on the nature of the find, the determination of significance may require additional excavation, potentially including the preparation and execution of a Phase II Archaeological Testing Plan. The City of Santa Clarita, acting with the advice of the consulting principal investigator, shall determine the significance and treatment of the discovered resources. If the resources are Native American in origin, then the City of Santa Clarita shall notify consulting tribes and seek their input as to the significance and treatment of the find. M M-CR-4: Avoidance and preservation -in -place are the preferred treatment for both archaeological sites and tribal cultural resources, but avoidance is not always feasible. For significant cultural resources meeting the definition of a historical resource per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) or a unique archaeological resource per PRC Section 21083.2(g) as determined by the City of Santa Clarita, a Research Design and Data Recovery Program to mitigate impacts shall be prepared by the consulting archaeologist and approved by the City of Santa Clarita before being carried out using professional archaeological methods. Before construction activities are allowed to resume in the affected area, the Data Recovery Program July 2023 28 Packet Pg. 121 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City of Santa Clarita. Work may continue on other parts of the Project while consultation and treatment are concluded. If human remains are encountered, work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be suspended, and the City of Santa Clarita shall be contacted immediately. The City of Santa Clarita shall, in turn, contact the Los Angeles County coroner. If the remains are deemed Native American in origin, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission, which shall identify a most likely descendant in compliance with PRC Section 5097.98 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The most likely descendant shall have up to 48 hours to visit the site and make recommendations as to the treatment and final deposition of the remains. Work may be resumed at the landowner's discretion but shall only commence after consultation and treatment have been concluded to the satisfaction of the City of Santa Clarita. Work may continue on other parts of the Project Site while consultation and treatment are conducted. M M-CR-5: All archaeological resources collected during the course of Project construction (including those collected during the Phase I Investigation and other pre -Project identification efforts) shall be taken to a properly -equipped archaeological laboratory, where they shall be cleaned, analyzed, and prepared for curation. At a minimum, and unless otherwise specified in any treatment plans prepared for the Project, all resources shall be identified, analyzed, catalogued, photographed, and labeled. At the close of the Project, the collection shall be donated to a public institution with a research interest in the materials and the capacity to care for the materials in perpetuity. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the repository, as appropriate. The cost of curation is assessed by the repository and is the responsibility of the Project applicant. At the conclusion of monitoring and laboratory work, a final report shall be prepared describing the results of the cultural mitigation monitoring efforts. The report shall include a summary of the field and laboratory methods, an overview of the cultural background of the Project vicinity, a catalog of cultural resources recovered, an analysis of cultural resources recovered and their scientific significance, and recommendations. A copy of the report shall also be submitted to the designated museum repository (if applicable). GEOLOGY AND SOILS The Project's impacts related to geology and soils that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential impacts to paleontological resources. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The Project area is sensitive for paleontological resources. Grading or shallow excavations within the Saugus Formation have the potential to uncover significant vertebrate fossils, resulting in a potential to significantly impact previously undiscovered fossils during ground -disturbing activities. July 2023 29 Packet Pg. 122 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Measures MM-GEO-1 through MM-GEO-5, which involve implementation of a WEAP, monitoring, preparation and execution of a paleontological treatment plan in the event inadvertent discovery of fossils, as well as collection, treatment, and curation of discovered sensitive paleontological resources, would reduce the potential to damage such resources to a less -than - significant level. Mitigation Measures MM-GEO-1: Prior to the start of construction, the Project applicant shall retain a qualified professional paleontologist as defined by Society for Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) (2010) standards. The paleontologist shall create a Worker's Environmental Awareness Program pamphlet that shall be provided as training to construction personnel to understand regulatory requirements for the protection of paleontological resources. The training class(es) shall include examples of paleontological resources to look for and protocols to follow if discoveries are made. The paleontologist shall develop Project -specific training and supply any supplemental materials necessary to execute the training. M M-GEO-2: Paleontological resources monitoring shall be conducted under the guidance of the qualified professional paleontologist and by a qualified paleontological resource monitor(s) as defined by SVP (2010) standards. Monitoring shall entail the visual inspection of excavated or graded area and trench sidewalls. The monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert construction equipment in order to investigate and salvage finds. The paleontological monitor shall have the authority to take sediment samples and test for microfossils at the discretion of the qualified professional paleontologist. If no significant fossils have been exposed or the qualified professional paleontologist has otherwise found that the scientific value of the resource has been exhausted, the qualified professional paleontologist may determine that full-time monitoring is no longer necessary or, with the approval of the City, may reduce or eliminate monitoring. MM-GEO-3: In the event that a paleontological resource is encountered when a monitor is not on - site or a potentially significant resource is encountered that requires additional investigation or cannot be quickly salvaged by the paleontological monitor, all construction shall cease within 50 feet of the discovery and the qualified professional paleontologist shall be notified immediately. If the monitor is present at the time of discovery, then the monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert the construction equipment around the find and notify the qualified professional paleontologist. The qualified professional paleontologist shall then visit the site and assess the resource for its scientific significance. Project excavations shall continue elsewhere, monitored by a paleontological resource monitor. The qualified professional paleontologist shall evaluate the find and contact the City as soon as possible with recommendations as to the significance and potential treatment of the find. Depending on the nature of the find, the determination of significance may require additional excavation, potentially including the preparation and execution of a Paleontological Testing Plan. If significant, depending on the nature of the resource, treatment shall require the preparation and execution of a Paleontological Treatment July 2023 30 Packet Pg. 123 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report Plan. The City, acting with the advice of the qualified professional paleontologist, shall determine the significance and treatment of the discovered resources. M M-GEO-4: All significant fossils collected shall be prepared in a properly -equipped paleontology laboratory to a point ready for permanent curation. Preparation shall include the careful removal of excess matrix from fossil materials and stabilizing and repairing specimens, as necessary. Any fossils encountered and recovered shall be prepared to the point of identification. Following the initial laboratory work, all fossil specimens shall be identified to the lowest taxonomic level, analyzed, photographed, and catalogued, before being delivered to an accredited local museum repository for permanent curation and storage. MM-GEO-5: At the conclusion of laboratory work and preparation for museum curation, a final report shall be prepared describing the results of the paleontological mitigation monitoring efforts associated with the Project. The report shall be prepared for the lead agency and the Project applicant. The report shall include a summary of the field and laboratory methods, an overview of the geology and paleontology in the Project vicinity, a list of taxa recovered (if any), an analysis of fossils recovered (if any) and their scientific significance, and recommendations. If the monitoring efforts produced fossils, then a copy of the report shall also be submitted to the designated museum repository. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the repository. The cost of curation is assessed by the repository and is the responsibility of the Project applicant. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES The Project's impacts related to tribal cultural resources that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.15, Tribal Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR. Identified potential impacts include those related to a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or local register, and significant to a California Native American Tribe. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The Project area is sensitive for tribal cultural resources based on the presence of California scrub oak, resources found during field reconnaissance surveys, and tribal consultation regarding the Project's location. Mitigation Measures MM-TCR-1 through MM-TCR-7, which involve implementation of a WEAP; monitoring; preparation and execution of an archaeological testing plan and consultation with the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians, as well as coordination with the County Coroner, in the event that unidentified tribal cultural resources are discovered; and collection, treatment, and disposition of discovered sensitive tribal archaeological resources, would reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources during construction to a less -than -significant level. July 2023 31 Packet Pg. 124 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Measures MM-TCR-1: In conjunction with Mitigation Measure MM-CR-1, prior to the start of construction, a qualified representative of the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians shall be retained to conduct a Tribal Cultural Resources Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for construction personnel regarding the aspects of Tribal Cultural Resources and the procedures for notifying the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians should Tribal Cultural Resources be discovered. M M-TCR-2: The Project applicant shall retain a professional Native American monitor procured by the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians to observe all soil disturbing activities, such as site clearance and grubbing, grading, and excavation. The Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians shall assign a Native American monitor to each grading or other earthwork machine engaged in ground disturbing activity that is active more than 100 feet from any other grading or other earthwork machine. If tribal cultural resources are encountered, the Native American monitor shall have the authority to request that ground -disturbing activities cease within 60 feet of discovery to assess and document potential finds in real time. M M-TCR-3: In the event that tribal cultural resources are discovered during Project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease, and a cultural resources principal investigator, who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology, shall assess the find. The principal investigator and tribal monitor shall have the authority to request ground - disturbing activities cease within the area of a discovery. Work on the other portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Consultation between the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians tribal monitor and lead agency shall occur to determine further action required for any inadvertent discoveries of tribal cultural resources. Depending on the nature of the find, the determination of significance may require additional excavation, potentially including the preparation and execution of a Phase II Archaeological Testing Plan. The City of Santa Clarita, acting with the advice of the consulting principal investigator and the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians, shall determine the significance and treatment of the discovered resources. M M-TCR-4: Prior to the disposition of any inadvertent discovery of tribal cultural resources, the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians shall be consulted on the treatment and reburial location of the tribal cultural resources. The Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians shall be given first right of refusal for the treatment, disposition, and possible collection/caretaking of tribal cultural resources. The Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians consider collection as a last resort and prefer tribal cultural resources either remain in -situ, or if required, be reburied. M M-TCR-5: Prior to the disposition of any materials suspected to be indicative of a midden, a cultural resources principal investigator, who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology, and the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians archaeologist shall assess the find and confirm whether it is funerary in nature. Once confirmed it is not suspected to be funerary - July 2023 32 Packet Pg. 125 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report associated, the midden shall be left in -situ whenever possible. If it is not possible to leave the midden in -situ, the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians shall be consulted for a treatment plan. M M-TCR-6: If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with the Project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which shall be enforced for the duration of the Project. Should the find be determined as Native American in origin, the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), as determined by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), shall be notified and consulted to provide recommendations to the landowner for the treatment of the human remains. However, pursuant to PRC Section 5097, the ultimate decision regarding the subsequent disposition of those discoveries shall be made by the landowner and the City of Santa Clarita. M M-TCR-7: A copy of any and all archaeological documents created as a part of the Project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, and monitoring reports) shall be provided to the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians. 5.4 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT As set forth in these findings, the implementation of the Project would not result in significant impacts that are considered unavoidable. CEQA requires that an EIR include an analysis of a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to a proposed project capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant adverse environmental impact associated with the project. The Draft EIR addressed the environmental effects of alternatives to the Project. A description of these alternatives, a comparison of their environmental impacts to the Project, and the City's findings are listed below. These alternatives are compared against the Project relative to the identified Project impacts, summarized in the sections above, and to the Project objectives, as stated in Section 2.2, Statement of Objectives, above. In making the alternatives findings below, the City of Santa Clarita certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered the information on alternatives provided in the EIR, including the information provided in the comments on the Draft EIR and the responses thereto. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS IN THE EIR Alternatives that were considered but rejected during the scoping process for detailed evaluation in the EIR are discussed below. Reduced Grading Alternative The Reduced Grading Alternative would reduce the amount of grading north of Placerita Creek on the Metropolitan Water District property and lower the back -cut on the Project Site north of the creek. As with the Project, this alternative would involve the Placerita Creek excavation and planted bank stabilization to mitigate existing peak flow deficiencies. Similarly, the creek would be widened to the same extent as the Project. The bridge across Placerita Creek would also be constructed to connect to the employee parking lot north of the creek. Accordingly, this alternative would not result in any reduction to the permanent jurisdictional impacts identified for the Project. July 2023 33 Packet Pg. 126 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report Approximately 120,000 cubic yards of dirt would be required as earthen fill to raise the main studio property elevation approximately one to two feet above the 100-year floodplain south of the Placerita Creek. The 100-year flood surface on the Project Site and the surrounding area would be eliminated through the addition of compacted earthen fill and the construction of storm drain systems originating at 12th and 13th Streets and conveying water to Placerita Creek. However, the Reduced Grading Alternative would no longer use the graded dirt from the north side of Placerita Creek as fill to elevate the Project Site south of the creek. As a result, an off -site replacement source of earthen fill material would be required to raise the Project Site. The impacts of trucking in 120,000 cubic yards of dirt across the City of Santa Clarita and over the 13th Street rail crossing would result in approximately 8,000 truck trips over a 16- to 20-week period. Impacts to local traffic, noise, and air quality caused by the earth import trucking process could result in significant impacts to the Newhall community. Additionally, the Reduced Grading Alternative would reduce the available parking at the employee surface parking lot north of Placerita Creek by a minimum of 100 spaces. Replacement parking would have to be met through the construction of a two -level parking structure, instead of a surface parking lot, north of the creek. Accordingly, the addition of a second -level parking deck to the employee surface parking lot would extend development north of the creek, which may have a greater visual impact when compared to the Project due to the addition of mass and the reduction in open space. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f), this alternative was rejected from further consideration. Alternative Sites Whittaker Bermite Property The Whittaker- Berm ite property is an undeveloped 996-acre site located in the center of the City of Santa Clarita and roughly bounded by Soledad Canyon Road on the north, Golden Valley Road on the east, Railroad Avenue on the west, and Circle J Ranch on the south. This former munition testing and manufacturing site has contamination issues, which include perchlorate, volatile organic compounds, and both soil and groundwater contamination. The property has undulating terrain, consisting of ridges and canyons. Accordingly, the City has identified many more ridgelines on the property when compared to the Project Site. In addition, the California Geological Survey maps the northern portion of the property within an Alquist-Priolo fault zone (associated with the San Gabriel fault zone). Furthermore, due to the undeveloped nature of the property, public infrastructure, including roads, sewer lines, water lines, and storm drain system, does not exist. As a result, development of the Project on this property would require extensive grading and excavation due to the existing topography and would be subject to more geological issues and hazards. Because public infrastructure is not currently available, major off -site public improvements would be required to serve the Project. Accordingly, this alternative would result in greater impacts related to air quality, energy, GHG emissions, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, and utilities. This alternative would also potentially have greater impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, and tribal cultural resources due to the undeveloped nature of the property. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f), this alternative was rejected from further consideration. July 2023 34 Packet Pg. 127 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report Saugus Speedway Property The Saugus Speedway property is a 40-acre site located immediately adjacent to the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station to the east and the Whittaker Bermite property to the southeast. The Saugus Speedway was first used as an auto racetrack and currently hosts the Saugus Swap Meet. The property has a history dating back to the early 1920s when Edmund Richard "Hoot" Gibson, a western film star and rodeo champion, built a ranch and rodeo grounds, where he hosted many shows and which were used as a movie set. In 1937, William and Mary Bonelli purchased the ranch, where they held rodeos and eventually built a quarter -mile dirt track. Bonelli Ranch Stadium was home to numerous car events. Later, the track was expanded to one-third mile, paved, and its name changed to Saugus Speedway. The paved track enabled the transition to stockcars, which was the primary race event through 1995, until the races stopped due to the decaying grandstands. Similar to the Project Site, the property is relatively flat. However, the majority of the property is within an Alquist-Priolo fault zone (associated with the San Gabriel fault zone). Accordingly, development of the Project on this property would require additional geotechnical investigation. Since the property is already limited in size with less than half the area of the 93.5-acre Project Site, it would not be able to accommodate the Project as proposed by the Applicant or provide as many employment opportunities as the Project to further the City's goal to provide more jobs in the City. In addition, this property is included on the City's inventory of sites suitable for housing development; development of the Project on this site would affect the City's ability to meet the State's Regional Housing Needs Allocation requirement and may have a potentially significant impact on population and housing. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f), this alternative was rejected from further consideration. Blue Cloud Movie Ranch The Blue Cloud Movie Ranch property is a 250-acre site located in the northeastern portion of the Saugus community. The property already supports a working movie set and film and entertainment production facility and is located away from sensitive receptors. However, it is not within a transit priority area or high quality transit area designated by the Southern California Association of Governments or in proximity to multiple transit options. Santa Clarita Transit Routes 4 and 14 provide transit service along Bouquet Canyon Road with a one -hour headway. Although development of the Project on this property would generate the same employment opportunities, which would contribute to improving the jobs/housing balance in the City, this alternative may potentially result in greater impacts to air quality, energy, GHG emissions, and transportation due to the lack of transit opportunities that encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation, which are afforded the Project Site. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f), this alternative was rejected from further consideration. The following alternatives were selected for evaluation in the Draft EIR: • Alternative 1: No Project Alternative • Alternative 2: Existing Zoning Alternative • Alternative 3: Reduced Studio Alternative (Environmentally Superior Alternative) Table 1 provides a comparison of environmental impacts for each of the alternatives in relation to environmental impacts associated with the Project. July 2023 35 Packet Pg. 128 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report Table 1 Summary Comparison of the Impacts of the Alternatives Impact Topic Project Alternative1 No Project Alternative 2 Existing Zoning Alternative 3 Reduced Density Aesthetics LTS Less/NI Similar/LTS Similar/LTS Air Quality LTS Less/NI Greater/LTSM Less/LTS Biological Resources LTSM Less/NI Less/LTSM Similar/LTSM Cultural Resources LTSM Less/NI Less/LTSM Similar/LTSM Energy LTS Less/NI Greater/LTS Less/LTS Geology and Soils LTSM Less/NI Less/LTSM Similar/LTSM GHG Emissions LTS Less/NI Greater/LTSM Less/LTS Hazards and Hazardous Materials LTS Greater/PSI Greater/LTS Similar/LTS Hydrology and Water Quality LTS Greater/LTS Similar/LTS Similar/LTS Land Use and Planning LTS Greater/LTS Similar/LTS Similar/LTS Noise LTS Less/NI Greater/LTS Similar/LTS Population and Housing LTS Greater/LTS Greater/LTS Similar/Beneficial Public Services LTS Less/NI Greater/LTS Less/LTS Transportation LTS Less/NI Greater/PSI Less/LTS Tribal Cultural Resources LTSM Less/NI Less/LTSM Similar/LTSM Utilities and Service Systems LTS Less/NI Greater/PSI Less/LTS Wildfire LTS Greater/PSI Greater/LTS Similar/LTS Notes: LTS = Less Than Significant Similar = Impact Similar to the Project LTSM = Less Than Significant with Mitigation Greater = Impact Greater than the Project NI = No Impact Less = Impact Less than the Project PSI = Potentially Significant Impact Alternative 1: No Project Alternative In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the No Project Alternative for a project on an identifiable property consists of the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) states that, "in certain instances, the no project alternative means `no build' wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained." Accordingly, for purposes of this analysis, Alternative 1, the No Project Alternative, assumes that no development would occur on the Project Site. The Project Site would continue to be vacant and occasionally used for special events. Findings As there are no significant and unavoidable impacts identified under the Project, Alternative 1 would have no improvement in this regard. 2. Alternative 1 would reduce or eliminate the less -than -significant impacts with mitigation or less -than -significant impacts for aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials (with the exception of wildfire risk), noise, public services, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. July 2023 36 Packet Pg. 129 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report 3. Alternative 1 would result in potentially greater impacts for wildfire, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, and population and housing. 4. Alternative 1 would not meet any of the basic Project objectives and is, therefore, rejected as infeasible. 5. The findings of the Project set forth in this document provide support for the Project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration. Facts in Support of Findings: Under the Alternative 1, the Shadowbox Studios Project would not be implemented, and no development would occur on the Project Site. The Project Site would continue to be vacant and occasionally used for special events. Because no construction or new operational activities would occur under this alternative, the less -than -significant impacts with mitigation or less -than - significant impacts for aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials (with the exception of wildfire risk), noise, public services, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems would be eliminated. However, this alternative would result in potentially greater impacts related to hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, population and housing, and wildfire for the following reasons: • Alternative 1 would not implement stormwater treatment controls that would be included in the Project or stabilize Placerita Creek as proposed under the Project to improve water quality and stormwater flows. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be less than significant but would be greater when compared to the less -than -significant impacts of the Project. • Alternative 1 would not contribute to meeting local and regional goals of developing areas within a Transit Priority Area (TPA) and High Quality Transit Area (HQTA) or developing an entertainment use in one of the City's four targeted industry sectors as identified in the City's General Plan Economic Development Element. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be less than significant but would be greater when compared to the less - than -significant impacts of the Project. • Alternative 1 would not contribute to meeting local and regional goals of developing areas within a TPA and HQTA, and the City would continue to be housing -rich as the employment opportunities that would be provided by the Project would not occur. Therefore, land use impacts would be less than significant but would be greater when compared to the less -than -significant impacts of the Project. • Alternative 1 would not implement ignition -resistant landscapes, ignition -resistant structures, specified fire safety measures, or fuel modification zones. Accordingly, Alternative 1 may result in a potentially significant impact related to wildfire if the Project Site is left undeveloped and the shrubs and chaparrals untreated. Therefore, impacts related to wildfire under this alternative would be greater when compared to the less -than - significant impacts of the Project. In addition, Alternative 1 would not achieve the underlying purpose of the Project to provide a state-of-the-art, full -service film and television campus that would provide independent media July 2023 37 Packet Pg. 130 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report production facilities in Santa Clarita. Similarly, the No Project Alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives, as identified below in Table 2. Table 2 Applicability of Project Objectives for Alternative 1 Alternative 1: No Project Project Objective Alternative Design and construct economically -viable and technologically -advanced sound stages, creative Does Not Meet office, and production support spaces with the infrastructure, parking, and technology to attract high -profile film, television, and streaming projects that require facilities designed to meet the specifications and demands of the movie, television, and entertainment industry and to allow flexibility to incorporate future technology advances. Promote economic growth in Santa Clarita, particularly in the Newhall community, by Does Not Meet encouraging the support for the entertainment industry by creating a secure campus environment, where media and entertainment -related uses are consolidated with pre- production, post -production, story development, and administrative offices in order to maximize creativity and productivity. Maximize the use of the entire property to create a studio campus environment that creates a Does Not Meet range of new media -related employment opportunities that cater to movie, television, and entertainment industries, as well as construction jobs, providing opportunities for local growth and improving the City's jobs to housing balance. Develop a studio campus along a transit corridor that is easily accessible by public Does Not Meet transportation, where media and entertainment -related uses are consolidated with pre- production, production, story development, and administrative offices within a single site to promote sustainability and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), resulting in corresponding reductions in air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Enhance the identity of the Newhall community as a movie, television, and entertainment Does Not Meet industry area. Enhance the visual appearance of the Project Site by providing architecturally distinct Does Not Meet development, while maintaining consistency with the design standards of the immediately adjacent Old Town Newhall Specific Plan area. Design a campus that would commemorate the filmmaking heritage of Santa Clarita. Does Not Meet Provide off -site improvements to enhance and/or provide pedestrian and bike connections to Does Not Meet adjacent communities and the Jan Heidt Newhall Metrolink Station for the benefit of the existing residents of the adjacent communities and future employees of the Project. Alternative 2: Existing Zoning Alternative Alternative 2, the Existing Zoning Alternative, would allow the development of uses that are consistent with the Project Site's existing zoning designations, which are MXN (Mixed Use Neighborhood) for the 40.6-acre portion of the Project Site south of Placerita Creek and NU5 (Non -Urban 5, one dwelling unit per acre) for the 51.1-acre portion of the Project Site north and a small area south of Placerita Creek. Approximately 1.8 acres would be dedicated for public ROW improvements on 12th, 13th, and Arch Streets. The MXN designation provides for a base density of up to 18 dwelling units per acre plus inclusion of commercial uses. The Existing Zoning Alternative proposes to develop the Project Site at the 18- July 2023 38 Packet Pg. 131 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report unit -per -acre level, for a total of 725 units. An additional 27.5 percent density bonus (199 units) is proposed on the MXN portion of the Project Site in accordance with State and Local Density Bonus Law based on the provision of 15 percent of the units as low-income apartments within the MXN area. The NU5 allowed density would be requested as a Clustered Density planning area in order to develop the area south of the creek as an NU5 overall density cluster site. Accordingly, this alternative would include 924 multi -family dwelling units, comprising a mix of rental apartments and for -sale attached dwelling units, and 50 single-family detached units. Alternative 2 proposes to provide the same Placerita Creek stabilization as the Project. This alternative would also include a 2.4-acre park and incorporate trails along the creek and throughout the development area. The area north of Placerita Creek would remain as natural open space and could be dedicated to the City of Santa Clarita for open space use. Findings 1. As there are no significant and unavoidable impacts identified under the Project, Alternative 2 would have no improvement in this regard. 2. Alternative 2 would reduce, but not eliminate, the less -than -significant impacts with mitigation or less -than -significant impacts for biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and tribal cultural resources. 3. Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts for aesthetics, hydrology and water quality, and land use and planning. 4. Alternative 2 would result in greater impacts for air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, population and housing, public services, transportation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. 5. The findings of the Project set forth in this document provide support for the Project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration. Facts in Support of Findings: In comparison to the Project, Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts relative to aesthetics, hydrology and water quality, and land use and planning. Alternative 2 would have slightly less impacts relative to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and tribal cultural resources due to reduced development/disturbance and preservation of the northern portion of the Project Site. However, this alternative would result in potentially greater impacts related to air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, population and housing, public services, transportation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire for the following reasons: • Alternative 2 would result in the exceedance of the regional thresholds of significance established by the South Coast AQMD for VOC, NOx, CO, PM,o, and PM2.5. These exceedances are attributed predominantly to natural gas combustion from natural gas fireplaces in the proposed residences under this alternative. Because the operational emissions would exceed the regional thresholds for all of the analyzed criteria pollutants, Alternative 2 would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants for which the South Coast Air Basin is non -attainment under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (03 and PM2.5) or the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (03, PM,o, and PM2.5), and, as such, on -site operational impacts would be significant without July 2023 39 Packet Pg. 132 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report mitigation. However, installation of electric fireplaces only would reduce all criteria pollutant emissions below the South Coast AQMD regional thresholds. • The residential and commercial development under Alternative 2 would result in a higher demand for natural gas and transportation fuel than the Project. Although Alternative 2 would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary use of energy and would result in a less -than -significant impact related to energy, impacts would be greater when compared to the less -than -significant impacts of the Project. • The residential development under Alternative 2 would generate a greater quantity of GHG emissions than the Project. Elimination of natural gas fireplaces, as discussed above, could reduce emissions, which would still be greater than the Project. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in a greater impact when compared to the less -than -significant impacts of the Project. • The northern portion of the Project Site north of Placerita Creek would remain vacant and undeveloped under Alternative 2. The existing conditions of the Project Site could have the potential to facilitate fire spread, particularly since the northeastern portion of the Project Site is adjacent to the areas with untreated, surface shrub and chaparral fuels. Accordingly, Alternative 2 may result in a significant impact related to wildfire if the northern portion of the Project Site is left undeveloped and the shrubs and chaparrals untreated. Therefore, impacts related to hazards related to wildland fires and wildfire under this alternative would be greater when compared to the less -than -significant impacts of the Project. • The multi -story multi -family residential buildings under Alternative 2 would be located across from the Alderbrook Drive residences and separated only by the MWD property. This alternative would not have the buffer that would be provided by the plant nursery and surface parking proposed by the Project and may result in slightly higher permanent noise impacts from the proposed residences, particularly those on the upper floors, when compared to the Project. These noise levels would not be different from the noise generated in the Project area. Accordingly, noise impacts under this alternative would be less than significant but would be greater than those of the Project. • Alternative 2 would introduce a population of approximately 2,786 persons to the Project Site. Although this alternative would be developed consistent with the zoning designations of the Project Site, this increase in population would account for 49.8 percent and 30 percent of the City's population and housing growth projections, respectively, between 2022 and 2026, and 1.3 percent and 1 percent of the County's population and housing growth projection, respectively, for the same period. The increase in housing would reduce the City's jobs/housing balance from 1.20 to 1 to 1.19 to 1. Although Alternative 2 would not contribute to meeting the City's aggressive goal of a 2 to 1 jobs/housing balance, this alternative would be consistent with the County's forecasted population and housing growth between 2022 and 2026. As such, this alternative would not induce unplanned growth in the Project area, and related impacts would be less than significant but would be greater when compared to the less -than -significant impacts of the Project. • Alternative 2 would introduce a permanent population of approximately 2,786 persons to the Project Site, which would, in turn, increase demand for fire and police protection services, as well as libraries. However, as with the Project, development under Alternative 2 would be designed in accordance with the California Fire Code, the County's Fire Code, July 2023 40 Packet Pg. 133 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report and LACoFD's requirements. Similarly, development under Alternative 2 would include several design features and security measures that would reduce the opportunity for criminal activity to occur on -site. Furthermore, the City undergoes an annual review of budget and need for capital improvement projects. The Capital Improvement Program ensures that the City has adequate funding for public facility improvements, such as the public library. Therefore, as with the Project, impacts to fire and police protection and libraries under Alternative 2 would be less than significant but would be greater than the less -than -significant impacts of the Project due to the additional increase in population, including residents, on the Project Site. • Alternative 2 would generate 8,551 daily trips as compared to the 6,993 daily trips generated by the Project. Because Alternative 2 would primarily consist of residential uses, it is anticipated to generate a higher vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita than the Project's 14.0 VMT per employee. However, this alternative would provide housing less than 0.5 mile from the Jan Heidt Newhall Metrolink Station, which would encourage residents of the development to utilize transit as an alternative to driving to their places of employment. Nonetheless, due to the greater number of daily trips generated under this alternative, impacts related to transportation would be greater when compared to the less - than -significant impacts of the Project. • The residential and commercial development under Alternative 2 would result in water demand and solid waste and wastewater generation that are greater than those identified for the Project. Accordingly, impacts to utilities and service systems under this alternative may be potentially significant and greater when compared to the less -than -significant impacts of the Project. In addition, Alternative 2 would not achieve the underlying purpose of the Project to provide a state-of-the-art, full -service film and television campus that would provide independent media production facilities in Santa Clarita. Similarly, Alternative 2 would not meet most of the Project objectives, as identified below in Table 3. Table 3 Applicability of Project Objectives for Alternative 2 Alternative 2: Existing Zoning Project Objective Alternative Design and construct economically -viable and technologically -advanced sound stages, creative Does Not Meet office, and production support spaces with the infrastructure, parking, and technology to attract high -profile film, television, and streaming projects that require facilities designed to meet the specifications and demands of the movie, television, and entertainment industry and to allow flexibility to incorporate future technology advances. Promote economic growth in Santa Clarita, particularly in the Newhall community, by Does Not Meet encouraging the support for the entertainment industry by creating a secure campus environment, where media and entertainment -related uses are consolidated with pre- production, post -production, story development, and administrative offices in order to maximize creativity and productivity. Maximize the use of the entire property to create a studio campus environment that creates a Does Not Meet range of new media -related employment opportunities that cater to movie, television, and July 2023 41 Packet Pg. 134 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report entertainment industries, as well as construction jobs, providing opportunities for local growth and improving the City's jobs to housing balance. Develop a studio campus along a transit corridor that is easily accessible by public Does Not Meet transportation, where media and entertainment -related uses are consolidated with pre- production, production, story development, and administrative offices within a single site to promote sustainability and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), resulting in corresponding reductions in air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Enhance the identity of the Newhall community as a movie, television, and entertainment Does Not Meet industry area. Enhance the visual appearance of the Project Site by providing architecturally distinct Meets development, while maintaining consistency with the design standards of the immediately adjacent Old Town Newhall Specific Plan area. Design a campus that would commemorate the filmmaking heritage of Santa Clarita. Does Not Meet Provide off -site improvements to enhance and/or provide pedestrian and bike connections to Does Not Meet adjacent communities and the Jan Heidt Newhall Metrolink Station for the benefit of the existing residents of the adjacent communities and future employees of the Project. Alternative 3: Reduced Studio Alternative Alternative 3, 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, comprising 400,000 square feet of sound stages; 396,000 square feet of workshops, warehouses, and support uses; 140,000 square feet of production and administrative offices; and 44,000 square feet of flex/catering and other specialty services. Overall building massing for Alternative 3 would remain similar to, or only slightly reduced from, the Project. Although this alternative would reduce the development's square footage, Alternative 3 would require the same amount of grading as the Project, including the portion of the Project Site within MWD property for use as an excess parking field. As with the Project, Alternative 3 would construct a bridge over Placerita Creek and develop the north parking lot. Because this alternative would disturb the same footprint as the Project, 13 oak trees would be removed with the same number of replacement trees as the Project. Perimeter walls, fencing, and perimeter landscaping, as well as all off -site improvements, would remain the same as the Project. The duration of construction of this alternative is anticipated to be the same as the Project. Findings 1. As there are no significant and unavoidable impacts identified under the Proposed Project, Alternative 3 would have no improvement in this regard. 2. Alternative 3 would reduce, but not eliminate, the less -than -significant impacts with mitigation or less -than -significant impacts for air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, public services, transportation, and utilities and service systems. July 2023 42 Packet Pg. 135 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report 3. Alternative 3 would result in similar impacts for aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. 4. The findings of the Project set forth in this document provide support for the Project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration. Facts in Support of Findings: In comparison to the Project, Alternative 3 would result in similar impacts relative to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. Alternative 2 would have slightly reduced impacts relative to air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, public services, transportation, and utilities and service systems due to a slight reduction in building footprints by 24 percent. However, Alternative 3 would not meet all Project objectives, as shown below in Table 4. Although Alternative 3 would result in a slight reduced building footprint, it would require the same amount of grading and disturb the same footprint as the Project. Thus, Alternative 3 would not maximize the use of the entire Project Site, reducing media -related opportunities as compared to the Project. Table 4 Applicability of Project Objectives for Alternative 3 Alternative 3: Reduced Studio Project Objective Alternative Design and construct economically -viable and technologically -advanced sound stages, creative Meets office, and production support spaces with the infrastructure, parking, and technology to attract high -profile film, television, and streaming projects that require facilities designed to meet the specifications and demands of the movie, television, and entertainment industry and to allow flexibility to incorporate future technology advances. Promote economic growth in Santa Clarita, particularly in the Newhall community, by Meets encouraging the support for the entertainment industry by creating a secure campus environment, where media and entertainment -related uses are consolidated with pre- production, post -production, story development, and administrative offices in order to maximize creativity and productivity. Maximize the use of the entire property to create a studio campus environment that creates a Does Not Meet range of new media -related employment opportunities that cater to movie, television, and entertainment industries, as well as construction jobs, providing opportunities for local growth and improving the City's jobs to housing balance. Develop a studio campus along a transit corridor that is easily accessible by public Meets transportation, where media and entertainment -related uses are consolidated with pre- production, production, story development, and administrative offices within a single site to promote sustainability and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), resulting in corresponding reductions in air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Enhance the identity of the Newhall community as a movie, television, and entertainment Meets industry area. July 2023 43 Packet Pg. 136 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report Enhance the visual appearance of the Project Site by providing architecturally distinct Meets development, while maintaining consistency with the design standards of the immediately adjacent Old Town Newhall Specific Plan area. Design a campus that would commemorate the filmmaking heritage of Santa Clarita. Meets Provide off -site improvements to enhance and/or provide pedestrian and bike connections to Meets adjacent communities and the Jan Heidt Newhall Metrolink Station for the benefit of the existing residents of the adjacent communities and future employees of the Project. July 2023 44 Packet Pg. 137 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report 6.0 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council declare that no new significant information as defined by the CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 has been received by the Planning Commission after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council certify the Final EIR based on the following findings and conclusions. 6.1 FINDINGS The Project would have the potential for creating significant adverse impacts. These significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified in the Draft EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in the Findings. 6.2 CONCLUSIONS 1. All significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the Project have been identified in the Draft EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to less -than -significant levels. 2. Alternatives to the Project, which could potentially achieve the basic objectives of the Project, have been considered and rejected in favor of the Project. July 2023 45 Packet Pg. 138 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. July 2023 46 Packet Pg. 139 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report 7.0 STATEMENT OF LOCATION AND CUSTODIAN OF DOCUMENTS Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e), the City of Santa Clarita, as the Lead Agency, shall specify the location and custodian of the documents of other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision has been based. A copy of the EIR and all supporting documents are available at the City Clerk's Office, located in the City Hall Building at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120, Santa Clarita, California, 91355. July 2023 47 Packet Pg. 140 1.c Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. July 2023 48 Packet Pg. 141 1.c EXHIBIT B Draft EIR; Final EIR; and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Shadowbox Studios Project SCH No. 2022030762 Incorporated by Reference Document can be found at https://www. santa-cl arita. com/city-hall/departments/community-development/planning_- division/environmental-impact-reports-under-review/shadowbox-studios-project Packet Pg. 142 1.d ORDINANCE NO. 23- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 21-001 (MASTER CASE 21-109) TO AMEND THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA' S ZONING MAP AND CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 2834-002-046, 2834-003- 044, 2834-016-041, 2834-017-021, 2834-001-014, 2834-005-041, 2834-004-045, 2834-014-043, AND 2834-015-021 FROM NON -URBAN 5 TO MIXED -USE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND ESTABLISH THE JOBS CREATION OVERLAY ZONE ACROSS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 2834-021-034, 2834-001-034, 2834-011-021, 2834-010-043, 2834-008-039, 2834- 001-015, 2834-006-041, 2834-007-045, 2834-013-041, 2834-021-023, 2834-005-041, 2834-004- 045, 2834-014-043, AND 2834-015-021 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council does hereby make 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 consistency with 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) allowing for a total of up to 1,585,000 square feet of non-residential development. 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 12 oak trees, including 6 heritage trees. Page 1 of 16 Packet Pg. 143 1.d 8. Ridgeline Alteration Permit 21-001 to allow for the development within the Ridgeline Preservation zone. 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 Non -Urban 5 (NU5) and MXN zones and General Plan land use designations. C. The NU5 land use and zoning designation on the northerly section, approximately 51.1 acres of the Project site, does not permit the development of the film and television studio use. Therefore, the applicant is seeking a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change of the NU5 portion of the Project site to MXN. D. Zone Change 21-001 will change the zoning designation of APNs 2834-002-046, 2834-003- 044, 2834-016-041, 2834-017-021, 2834-001-014, 2834-005-041, 2834-004-045, 2834-014- 043, 2834-015-021 from NU5 to MXN. E. The City Council adopted Ordinance 19-04 on August 27, 2019, to establish the JCOZ for purposes of promoting the General Plan objective to create strong regional and local economies by attracting high quality jobs within targeted industries of aerospace, biomedical, entertainment, and technology. The JCOZ provides specific design standards for development within the defined overlay zone, including height allowance of 55 feet. The applicant is seeking the establishment of the JCOZ over the southerly portion of the Project site for the development of the studio facility and sound stage buildings to a height of 55 feet. F. Zone Change 21-001 will establish the JCOZ over approximately 53.4 acres of the Project site, that portion located south of Placenta Creek, APNs 2834-021-034, 2834-001-034, 2834- 011-021, 2834-010-043, 2834-008-039, 2834-001-015, 2834-006-041, 2834-007-045, 2834- 013-041, 2834-021-023, 2834-005-041, 2834-004-045, 2834-014-043, 2834-015-021. G. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA;" Public Resources Code, §21000 et seq.), the City is the lead agency and the City Council is the decision - making body for the Project. H. 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. Page 2 of 16 Packet Pg. 144 1.d 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. 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 Placerita Canyon Special Standards District (PCSSD). K. The City prepared a Draft EIR for the Shadowbox Studios Project that addressed all issues raised in comments received on the NOR The Draft EIR was circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, in compliance with CEQA. 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. L. 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. M. 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. Page 3 of 16 Packet Pg. 145 1.d N. 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. O. 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 in accordance with the conditions of approval, as amended. P. 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. In addition, the City Council introduced, and passed the ordinance to a second reading on September 12, 2023. Q. 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. GENERAL FINDINGS FOR MASTER CASE 21-109. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Project EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports, and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and the City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and the City Council, the City Council finds as follows: A. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan; The Shadowbox Studios Project is consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the General Plan of the City. More specifically, the Project is consistent with the following portions of the Land Use Element of the General Plan: Economic Vitality Goal LU4: A diverse and healthy economy. • Objective LU42: Promote job creation, focusing on employment generators in the technical and professional sectors. o Policy LU4.2.1: Pursue business attraction and expansion programs for clean industries that provide job opportunities for local residents, particularly in the areas of film/entertainment, biotechnology, aerospace, and technology. Page 4 of 16 Packet Pg. 146 1.d o Policy LU422: Achieve a balanced ratio of jobs to housing through business expansion and economic development programs, with a goal of at least 1.5 jobs per household. In addition, the Shadowbox Studios Project is consistent with the economic development strategies, practices, and policies of the Economic Development Element of the General Plan as follows: Jobs/Housing Balance: The City has an aggressive goal to achieve a 2:1 jobs/housing balance. One of the biggest goals in pursuing the jobs/housing balance is to attract high - paying, high -quality jobs. To accomplish this goal, the City will focus on the targeted industry clusters, which include aerospace, technology, biomedical, and film/entertainment. Development Objectives: The City will continue to evaluate each development proposal on its individual merits, thereby allowing flexibility for economic generating and jobs - producing uses: • Encouraging business opportunities throughout all facets of the community, supporting burgeoning villages of industry throughout the Santa Clarita Valley; • Applying non-traditional height, design, and planning standards for appropriate projects and uses that generate significant impact to the economy; and • Encouraging increased density in non-residential projects in appropriate locations to increase quality jobs and achieve the desired jobs/housing balance. The Project proposes to develop a full -service film and television studio campus, a targeted industry under the City's General Plan to bring employment opportunities to the City. The Project is expected to generate over 2,000 direct employment opportunities in the City. B. The proposal is allowed within the applicable underlying zone and complies with all other applicable provisions of this code; The Shadowbox Studios Project requires the approval of entitlements consisting of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Map, Conditional Use Permit, Minor Use Permit, Oak Tree Permit, Hillside Development Review, Ridgeline Alteration Permit, Development Review, and Architectural Design Review in accordance with the City's UDC. With approval of the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and the approval of the associated entitlements, the proposed Project would comply with the underlying zone and all other applicable provisions of the UDC. C. The proposal will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, or be materially detrimental or injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located; and The Project was evaluated in accordance with the UDC, as well as the City's General Plan. The Project was designed to be in keeping with the provisions of the UDC as well as the goals and policies of the City's General Plan. The Project is located within the NNA of the PCSSD and has been designed to meet the development standards identified in the PCSSD Page 5 of 16 Packet Pg. 147 1.d for the NNA as outlined below: Public Participation/Outreach • Be subject to public participation and outreach led by the applicant(s) or the applicant's representative, at the onset of and during conceptual planning and prior to formal submittal of a proposed project to the City. Outreach would include, but is not limited to, the Placerita Canyon Property Owners' Association. • The applicant has conducted ongoing outreach in the community, dating back to October of 2020. The applicant has hosted multiple meetings with homeowner groups, including the Placerita Canyon Property Owners' Association, Placerita Canyon Corporation, Circle J Ranch Homeowner's Association, as well as with individual residents in the Placerita Canyon. In addition, the applicant has met with The Master's University, the Newhall School District, the property owner of the adjacent Arch Street commercial center, and a number of other organizations. Traffic Intrusion/Gateways • Be internally and externally pedestrian -oriented, and have equestrian and bicycle amenities and accommodations; The proposed Project is a closed studio campus so the internal pedestrian orientation is designed to support studio operations. Externally to the site, and at the direction of staff, the applicant has incorporated a Class I trail, which consists of a separated right-of-way including a two-way path for bicycles, and a pedestrian path, along the Project frontage of 13th, Arch, and 12th Streets. The Class I trail would not preclude equestrian use. • Understand and acknowledge that any development at these locations will increase existing vehicular traffic and create new vehicular traffic, and that there will be impacts to equestrian and pedestrian circulation in the existing neighborhood, and therefore to minimize those impacts, special attention must be given to mitigate impacts caused by such identified access points; • The Project has been designed to concentrate Project related traffic at the proposed intersection of 13th Street and Arch Street. In response to community outreach, the applicant committed to eliminating Project related ingress at Gate 3 (12th Street). Gate 3 would serve as emergency ingress only. Project related traffic would be permitted to exit Gate 3 by way of a right -turn only out onto 12th Street, away from Placeritos Boulevard and away from the residential uses in Placerita Canyon. The Project would include multi -use Class I trails along the frontage at 13th, Arch, and 12th Streets to provide for pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle connections from Placerita Canyon to Railroad Avenue. • Layout and orientation of any developments shall be designed to discourage and where possible prevent additional trips into Placerita Canyon caused by or resulting from such developments; Page 6 of 16 Packet Pg. 148 1.d The Project has been designed to concentrate Project related traffic at the intersection of 13th and Arch Streets by locating the main Project entrance (Gate 1) and secondary entrance (Gate 2) at the proposed signalized intersection of 13th and Arch Streets. No Project related trips would be permitted to enter the Project site from the 12th Street driveway (Gate 3). Gate 3 would allow Project related egress, by way of a right -turn only out of Gate 3, westbound toward Arch Street. Gate 3 would provide emergency ingress only. As designed, vehicle traffic related to the Project, would be directed away from Placenta Canyon Road and Placeritos Boulevard. Gates 1 and 2 are setback from the intersection of 13th and Arch Streets, designed with multiple vehicle lanes in order to provide ample on -site queuing of Project related traffic. • Include defined entry gateways or monuments into the PCSSD, at Railroad Avenue, complete with landscaping and architectural elements with signage expressly stating there is no through traffic allowed; • The City's planned Dockweiler Drive Extension project, if approved, would change the circulation pattern from Railroad Avenue at 13th Street. As such, there would be through access from the intersection at 13th Street and Railroad Avenue. The applicant has offered to provide entry signage into Placerita Canyon with "No through traffic" signs at Placeritos Boulevard and/or Placerita Canyon Road. The Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A) require the applicant to design and install gateway signage. • A traffic study shall be prepared for all new developments that are projected to generate two hundred fifty (250) or more new daily trips, within the areas encompassed by the NNA. The traffic study shall analyze those potentially impacted intersections within the NNA area and those that lie within a one (1) mile radius of the subject development site. • A Transportation Analysis, in compliance with the City's Transportation Analysis Update, was prepared for the Project and has been included as Technical Appendix L to the Draft EIR, whose findings have been incorporated into the proposed Project design. Buffering and Transitions • Preserve the existing rural equestrian community, generally known as Placerita Canyon, and provide adequate buffers and graduated transitional design to ensure existing neighborhood protection and compatibility of character resulting from any proposed development; • The Project proposes building heights ranging from 18 to 55 feet. Taller buildings have been situated on the central (studio buildings) and western portions (office, parking structure, and warehouse) of the Project site, further from residential uses to the east and south. Single - story buildings (catering facilities) would be situated at the southeast portion of the Project site, along 12th Street, where the Project site is closer to residential uses. The Metropolitan Water District (MWD) Page 7 of 16 Packet Pg. 149 1.d right-of-way is approximately 200-feet wide and separates the Project site from the nearest residential uses to the east. The applicant is proposing use of the MWD right-of-way to provide excess parking and a plant nursery in support of studio operations. There is an existing row of mature pepper trees located within the MWD right-of-way, along the unpaved alley behind the existing homes on Alderbrook Drive that would remain in place. • Incorporate the current Santa Clarita Valley Trails Advisory Committee (SCVTAC) network of multi -use trails into adjacent neighborhoods which shall have rural and equestrian characteristics; and • The SCVTAC is no longer an active committee. However, multi -use trails have been incorporated into the Project design to provide connectivity from the adjacent neighborhoods. At staff s direction, the applicant has incorporated a multi -use, Class I trail along the Project frontage of 13th, Arch, and 12th Streets. In addition, the applicant would be conditioned to contribute to a future multi -use Class I trail connecting Dockweiler Drive to the Jan Heidt Metrolink Station. • Require use of the MWD right-of-way as a landscaped buffer (subject to MWD approval) between the NNA within the PCSSD and the rest ofPlacerita Canyon, which landscaping shall consist of low water, low maintenance landscape material. Any use of the MWD right-of-way is subject to approval of MWD. The MWD right-of-way is improved with a water transmission pipeline and the right-of-way is needed for operation and maintenance of the MWD facilities therein. The adjacent residential properties to the east of the Project site are separated from the MWD right-of-way by an unpaved alleyway. A row of mature pepper trees line the length of the unpaved alleyway. The alleyway and the existing trees are proposed to remain in their existing condition with the Project. The applicant proposal includes installation of a 12-foot wall, just east of the alleyway and pepper trees. The applicant proposes to use the MWD right-of-way for additional parking and to store plant materials that would support the studio production. The plant nursery allows the applicant to store plant materials that are used in the soundstage sets while providing greenery and buffering from adjacent uses, but is portable in the event of MWD maintenance activities. Architecture • Consist of three hundred sixty (360) degree architectural design with pedestrian - scaled building massing and forms where adjacent to existing residences, with the use of landscaping to visually soften hard edges of buildings; • Each building has been designed with 360-degree architecture, using an architectural theme that is consistent with the Community Character and Design Guidelines for the Newhall community. • Structures shall have varied building heights and designs shall create east/west sight lines. Building heights up to thirty-five (35) feet may be permitted. Page 8 of 16 Packet Pg. 150 1.d Additional height, not to exceed fifty (50) feet, may be permitted subject to the approval of a conditional use permit; • Structures are varied in height, from 18 feet to 55 feet. The single - story catering buildings are approximately 18 feet in height at the southeast corner of the Project site, where buildings are nearest residential uses, to maintain lower profile, and allow east/west sight line. Development has been set back from Placerita Creek, maintaining an east/west sightline along the creek and base of the northerly hillside. The studio buildings are located centrally on the Project site and are 55 feet at the peak of the pitched roofline. Buildings along the western portion of the site include a three-story, 48-foot office building, 45-foot parking structure, and a two-story, 50-foot warehouse building. The Project request includes a Zone Change in order to implement the JCOZ over the southerly portion of the Project site, which, if approved, would permit the 55-foot building height as proposed. • Have transitional densities, as described above, decreasing in density and height in an easterly direction towards the MWD right-of-way away from Railroad Avenue, to include the MWD right-of-way as a landscaped buffer and detached single-family residences adjacent to the MWD right-of-way; and • The Project has been designed to locate taller buildings on the central and western portions of the Project site, further from residential uses to the east and south. The single -story catering facilities are situated at the southeast portion of the Project site, along 12th Street, where the Project site is closer to residential uses. The MWD right-of-way separates the Project site from the nearest residential uses to the east. The applicant is proposing use of the MWD right-of-way to provide excess parking and a plant nursery in support of studio operations. There is an existing row of mature pepper trees located within the MWD right-of-way, along the unpaved alley behind the existing homes on Alderbrook Drive, that will remain in place. • Building heights shall be subject to the same Unified Development Code requirements that apply to all ofPlacerita Canyon. • There are multiple zoning designations on properties within the PCSSD including residential, mixed -use, and commercial zoning designations. Each zoning designation dictates the allowable height. The Project request includes a Zone Change in order to implement the JCOZ over the southerly portion of the Project site, which would permit the 55-foot building heights as proposed with this Project. Flood Control • Waterway bottoms and sides shall not be improved with concrete or hard impervious surfaces and shall be maintained in a natural appearance; • The existing alignment and natural soft bottom of Placerita Creek would remain intact with the Project. The banks of the creek would be stabilized with buried rock bank protection that would have soil fill on Page 9 of 16 Packet Pg. 151 1.d top and be re -vegetated to preserve the natural appearance of the creek. • Fencing shall not be permitted to cross riverbeds or waterways in a manner which denies or interferes with easy trail access; and • The fencing plan for the Project does not interfere with any existing trail access, nor does it impact existing waterways. • On -site flood control mitigation would provide assistance or relief to other hydrology/drainage impacts within Placerita Canyon due to changes of topography on NNA properties. • The Project proposes bank stabilization in order to limit erosion of Placerita Creek. A Hydrology Study and Low Impact Development Report were prepared to assess the existing and post -construction stormwater runoff. Hydromodifications, including an infiltration/detention basin and underground infiltration chambers, have been incorporated into the Project design to ensure that the volume and rate of flow from stormwater runoff into the creek would not exceed the existing conditions. Housing Types • It is not the City's intent to see affordable housing located on this site; and • The desired housing type in the NNA will attract residents who will assist in the economic revitalization of Downtown Newhall (Old Town Newhall). • This is not applicable as the Project proposal does not include residential uses. Economic Development • Based on the area's proximity to the nearby Metrolink station and Old Town Newhall, development in the NNA would be supportive of revitalization efforts, with an appropriate mix of retail, office, restaurant, and general commercial square footage combined with neighboring and integrated housing types. • The Project proposes a full -service film and television studio campus near Metrolink and bus line services, anticipated to employ over 2,000 people and would have positive impact on indirect employment in the NNA and Old Town Newhall Specific Plan areas. Recreation • Include a site -specific and a community -based recreational component. • Private on -site amenities are proposed offering passive and active recreation opportunities including the Shadow Oak Park situated in the center of the catering buildings, a half basketball court, outdoor seating areas between studio buildings, and a dog park. The Project proposal includes a public amenity in the form of a multi -use Class I trail along the Project frontage of 13th, Arch, and 12th Streets. In addition to the NNA development standards, the PCSSD has general criteria for all new development in the PCSSD. Many of these criteria are duplicative with NNA development standards. A discussion on the Project's conformance with the applicable general development standards of the PCSSD is outlined here: Page 10 of 16 Packet Pg. 152 1.d • Trails. Riding and hiking trails shall be provided as depicted on the latest Placerita Canyon Backbone Trails exhibit on file with Parks, Recreation and Community Services, to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services; Trails shall be fenced to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services, with fences of a rustic wood appearance; Ar Trail access shall be provided at all river crossings; Ar There shall be no obstructions including, but not limited to, landscaping, trash receptacles, or other similar structures within a designated trail; and Ar Fencing shall not be permitted to cross riverbeds in such a manner as to deny trail access. • The inclusion of multi -use Class I trails described in the NNA discussion above has been incorporated into the Project design at the direction of staff through the Development Review Committee process, in response to the trail requirements identified in the PCSSD. The Project fencing does not conflict or deny access to existing trails. A property maintenance or homeowner maintenance association shall be established to maintain the private access route, private roads and drives, trail easements and other specific project amenities in all new residential projects ofgreater than four (4) dwelling units and all new commercial, industrial and institutional projects; • This does not apply to the Project specifically, as all roadways and trails adjacent to the Project are public; however, the Project will be conditioned, as appropriate, to ensure maintenance of applicable amenities and landscaped areas. Street lights, in accordance with City standards, shall be installed only at road -to - road intersections; exterior lighting shall be designed to minimize off -site illumination, within the requirements for public safety. Exterior lighting on residential parcels shall be of top -shielded design to prevent direct off -site illumination; hoods shall be used to direct light away from adjacent parcels. Exterior lighting on nonresidential parcels shall be prohibited except where necessary for the safety ofpedestrian and vehicular traffic, as determined by the City. To minimize off - site illumination where lights are required, cut-offfixtures in keeping with a rural equestrian architectural style will be specified; • Any street light improvements associated with the Project's proposed roadway design will be designed in conformance with the City's requirements. As it pertains to the on -site lighting, the applicant has prepared a site -specific lighting plan to ensure that necessary lighting is provided for safety and security while minimizing offsite effects from fixture glare. Specifically, the applicant is utilizing cut-off fixtures and back -light -control options as well as proposing the use of energy management controls in conjunction with occupancy sensors that will reduce the light output when motion is not detected. River bottoms and sides shall not be improved with concrete. Fencing shall not be permitted to cross riverbeds in such a manner as to deny trail access; Page 11 of 16 Packet Pg. 153 1.d • Placerita Creek would not be channelized with concrete side walls or floor. The Project fencing would not deny access to existing trails. Bridges shall be limited to those required for public safety and shall be designed to accommodate equestrian access; • The studio campus is proposed to be a private, closed campus. The proposed bridge within the Project site is not part of, or accessible to, the larger Placerita Canyon area, as it is located within a private development. The bridge is designed to be of the same height as the existing Placerita Creek bridge crossing on Railroad Avenue. All new residential projects ofgreater than four (4) dwelling units and all new commercial, industrial and institutional projects (including expansion thereof) shall connect to public sewer systems. Utilities shall be undergrounded to the nearest off - site connection; and • The applicant has completed a sewer area study as outlined in the Draft EIR for the Project and would be conditioned to connect to the public sewer system as well as underground utility services. Existing and future drainage shall be accommodated to provide adequate carrying capacity and erosion protection and shall not create or extend detrimental hazards or consequences upstream. • The Project has been designed to ensure that the site drainage would not increase the volume or rate of flow from the current condition. Accordingly, with implementation of the associated conditions of approval including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP), the Project will not impact the public health, interest, safety, or general welfare, or be materially detrimental or injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity of the Project site. D. The proposal is physically suitable for the site. The factors related to the proposal's physical suitability for the site shall include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. The design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics are suitable for the proposed use; With the conditions of approval, including the MMRP, the Project will be suitable for the site and the uses entitled with the Project. 2. The highways or streets that provide access to the site are ofsufcient width and are improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such proposal would generate; The Project completed a detailed traffic analysis to evaluate the impacts of the Project. The traffic analysis has identified roadway improvements to ensure the public roadways are sufficiently improved to support the additional Project traffic. The Project conditions of approval require the applicable improvements to be completed before the Building Official issues the first Certificate of Occupancy. Public protection services (e.g., Fire protection, Sheriprotection, etc.) are readily Page 12 of 16 Packet Pg. 154 available; and The Project site is located in an established, urban environment that is serviced by existing law enforcement and fire protection services. The applicant must pay applicable fees to the law enforcement and fire protection agencies to assist in offsetting any impacts to the services necessary to properly service the Project. 4. The provision of utilities (e.g., potable water, schools, solid waste collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal, etc) is adequate to serve the site. The Project is in a portion of the City that is surrounded by developed communities with access to the necessary utilities to service the Project site. A detailed analysis for the provisions of utilities was completed for the Project in the Draft EIR determining that adequate services are available to meet the needs of the Project site. SECTION 3. ZONE CHANGE FINDINGS FOR ZONE CHANGE 21-001. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Project EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and the City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and the City Council, the City Council finds as follows: A. Principles and Standards for Zone Changes. The Council shall approve a Zone Change only after the applicant substantiates all of the following required findings: 1. That modified conditions warrant a revision in the zoning map as it pertains to the area under consideration; The Project site is approximately 93 acres, located at the northeast corner of Railroad Avenue and 13th Street and has two different zoning designations. The southerly portion of the Project site is MXN (approximately 42.4 acres), and the northerly portion, including the portion of the Project site within Placerita Creek, is NU5 (approximately 51.1 acres). The dual zoning on the Project site presents challenges for a cohesive development of the site due to the nature of the allowable uses for each of the zoning designations. The MXN zone contemplates a mix of multi -family residential and commercial uses, where the NU5 zone contemplates single-family homes on larger one -acre lots. There are also physical constraints that, in practical application, isolate the northerly NU5 portion of the site from other single-family uses. Specifically, the MWD property immediately east of the Project site, and Placerita Creek and the hillside at the northeast corner of the Project site provide a physical separation between the Project site and other single-family homes to the east and north. Accordingly, the Project site warrants consideration of a revision to the zoning map as shown on the Zone Change Exhibit (Exhibit A) to establish consistent zoning classification across the entire Project site. The requested zone change would change the zoning classification of approximately 51.1 acres, currently zoned NU5, to MXN. In addition to the Zone Change request that would establish MXN zoning designation Page 13 of 16 Packet Pg. 155 1.d over the entire Project site, the proposed request would add the southerly portion of the Project site (south of Placerita Creek) to the JCOZ. This would add approximately 53.4 acres to the JCOZ. The JCOZ applies to the construction of office and industrial buildings within the defined overlay zone areas to facilitate development in targeted industries in the City. At the time the JCOZ was established, it was applied to areas with high focus on employment, located adjacent to freeways or major transportation corridors, and areas where existing built environment or where future comparable building height is contemplated. The JCOZ applies additional development standards to office and industrial buildings specifically to "support the General Plan objective of promoting the creation of strong regional and local economies via the implementation of strategic land use planning policies. Specifically, the JCOZ overlay zone will: (1) attract and promote the creation of high -quality jobs within the City's four targeted industries, which include aerospace, biomedical, entertainment, and technology, and other industries at the discretion of the Director; (2) enhance the City's overall jobs/housing balance; and (3) provide greater employment opportunities throughout the entire City." Under the JCOZ, the office and studio buildings would be permitted to a height of 55 feet without a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The current MXN zoning designation permits the studio use with approval of a CUP and the MXN zone allows for a 50-foot building height without the need for a CUP. As such, the current zoning designation already contemplates the use and a comparable building height as would be permitted under the JCOZ. Notably, the sound stage buildings reach a height of 55 feet at the ridge of the roof. The office building, warehouse/production support building, and the parking structure, exclusive of elevator shafts, are 50 feet in height or less, consistent with the MXN zone. The Zone Change to establish the JCOZ over the south portion of the Project site, as well as the MXN zone on the northerly portion of the Project site is warranted for the studio use, which is a targeted industry under the City's General Plan objectives for economic development, located along a major transit corridor (Railroad Avenue) with access to State Route 14. 2. That a need for the proposed zone classification exists within such area; The proposed change to the zone classification is desirable to allow for the development of a film and television studio campus. The Project site currently has two zoning classifications; the NU5 zoning classification would not permit the studio use. In addition, the NU5 portion of the site is physically isolated from other single-family uses in the immediate vicinity. The proposed change to the zone classification for the northerly portion of the Project site is required to allow for a cohesive development. The incorporation of the Project site into the JCOZ is necessary to meet the objectives of the General Plan, as discussed in Sections 2 and 3 above. 3. That the particular property under consideration is a proper location for said zone Page 14 of 16 Packet Pg. 156 0 classification within such area: a. That placement of the proposed zone at such location will be in the interest of public health, safety and general welfare, and in conformity with good zoning practice; and The proposed Zone Change would permit the studio campus Project that supports the goals and objectives of the General Plan as described above in Sections 2 and 3. The proposed Zone Change is in conformance with good zoning practice. b. That the proposed change is consistent with the adopted General Plan for the area unless a General Plan Amendment is filed concurrently and approve with said zone change. A General Plan Amendment was filed concurrently with the Zone Change request. For the reasons provided above, the Planning Commission can recommend the City Council make this finding. SECTION 4. The City Council hereby approves this ordinance to allow for a Zone Change for the Shadowbox Studios Project as described herein and shown in Exhibit A. SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from its passage and adoption. SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 121h day of September, 2023. ATTEST: CITY CLERK DATE MAYOR Page 15 of 16 Packet Pg. 157 1.d 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 Ordinance No. 23- was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 22nd day of August 2023. That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 121h day of September, 2023, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing is the original of Ordinance No. 23- and was published in The Signal newspaper in accordance with State Law (G.C. 40806). CITY CLERK Page 16 of 16 Packet Pg. 158 (606-4Z:DW soipn;S xogmopeyS) eoueuipio :;uewL4oe;;V a� T a. a) a. rm a 1.e Shadowbox Studios Community Outreach Tracker Updated: 6/13/2023 Organizations and Groups. Bridge to Home Boys & Girls Club California Film Commission California Institute of the Arts Child & Family Center of SCV Circle J Ranch HOA College of the Canyons Golden State Gateway Coalition Hart High School Hollywood Chamber of Commerce Homes 4 Families Los Angeles County Fire Dept (Helispot) NAACP of SCV Newhall School District Rotary Club Santa Clarita Film Office SCV Chamber of Commerce SCV Economic Development Corporation SCV Historical Society SCV Senior Center SCV Water Agency Sierra Club The Master's University Valley Industrial and Commerce Association Zonta Club of SCV Placerita Canyon Property Owner's Association: Board of Directors: General Membership: October 1, 2020 May 6, 2021 February 3, 2022 August 2, 2022 March 16, 2023 June 1, 2023 December 5, 2020 June 26, 2021 Placerita Canyon Corporation (Gate Managers): Board of Directors: February 26, 2023 Placerita Residents — Alderbrook Drive: 2020 to present: Continuing dialogue with various residents of Alderbrook Drive, including an October 27, 2022, Alderbrook-specific outreach meeting with over 20 residents to hear their thoughts on the project, answer questions and consider possible partnership opportunities. Newhall/Placerita Business Owners: Arch Street Strip Center: Mike Massoodnia, general partner Arch Street Businesses: Four Seasons Landscape; Dyck Veterinary; Round the Clock; Fiesta Taco; Perfect Look Salon; Side Store; Hahn Contractors; Pit -Pro Motorcycles 12t" St. Businesses: Newhall Valencia Mini -Storage; Dave Davis Plastering Pine Street Businesses: Catkart Racing; After Hours Auto Body; M&M Tire Service; Malam's Automotive Packet Pg. 160 1.e Shadowbox Studios Community Outreach Tracker Updated:6/13/2023 13T" Street Office building: Jim Tanner, general partner 131" Street Businesses: Picasso's Playmates AV Equipment Rental Brewery Draconum Clean Energy Systems (Placerita Canyon Road) Egg Plantation KHTS Radio Results Fitness SCVTV The Old Town Junction Village Church Walker & Lopez Barber Shop Placerita Residents - Misc.: 2020 to present: Numerous briefings with Placerita residents in groups of 2-20 at a time. Local Film and Television Studios: Disney Studio/Golden Oak Ranch Rancho Deluxe Movie Ranch LA North Studios Melody Ranch Sable Movie Ranch Santa Clarita Studios Viacom/CBS Local Film and Television Related Businesses: Elite Media Technologies Laemmle Theater LA Film Locations SCV Locations, Inc. Triscenic Production Services Universal Locations, Inc. Elected Officials: Congressman Mike Garcia State Senator Scott Wilk Former Assemblywoman Suzette Martinez Valladares LA County Supervisor Kathryn Barger William S. Hart Union High Governing Board Trustee Bob Jensen William S. Hart Union High Governing Board Trustee, Joe Messina William S. Hart Union High Governing Board Trustee Cherise Moore Community Members: The Shadowbox Studios team has also met individually with dozens of business owners and community leaders; numerous film -industry residents; and countless other members of the Santa Clarita Valley community. Packet Pg. 161 Erika Iverson From: Davy Muxlow <davymux@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2023 12:50 PM To: Erika Iverson Subject: Shadowbox Studio Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Hello Erika, I own a home on Alderbrook Dr.; adjacent to the proposed studio development in Newhall. I'm unable to attend the meeting on 8/22/23 but wanted to voice my FULL SUPPORT for the studio project. I moved into Placerita Canyon in 1998 and my family has lived there for over 20 years. I love the country lifestyle of the canyon and appreciate that the developer is committed to maintaining this quality. It's clear this land will eventually be developed. There are many developments I would be strongly opposed to but the studio is not one of them. In fact, I believe the studio, as proposed, gives homeowners and property owners the best chance at preserving what our canyon has always been while allowing for upgrades and improvements to the surrounding areas. I appreciate how much time and consideration has been made toward the neighborhood. This is a very well thought through proposal and I strongly support its approval. Thank you Davy Muxlow -Please feel free to read at the meeting if helpful. Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 3:16 PM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 2:16 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Donald Cruikshank dscruikshank@gmail.com 23221 Haskell Vista Ln Newhall, CA 91321 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(@oneclickoolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 3:16 PM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 2:18 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Brian Schlick brian@schlickart.com 23112 Yvette Lane Valencia, CA 91355 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(@oneclickoolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 3:16 PM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 2:18 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Mr. Todd Kostjuk takostiuk@gmail.com 27218 Trinidad Ct Valencia, CA 91354 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(@oneclickoolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 3:16 PM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 2:18 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Mrs. Nicole Miller nicole.miller@gmail.com 27813 Villa Canyon Rd Castaic, CA 91384 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(@oneclickoolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 3:16 PM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 2:18 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Mr. mark SIEZEGA mark@universallocations.com 22435 Abordo Drive Santa Clarita, CA 91350 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(@oneclickoolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 3:16 PM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 2:30 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Mrs. Alma Kulenovic almakeric@vahoo.com 24708 choke Cherry In Newhall, CA 91321 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(@oneclickoolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 3:17 PM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 2:36 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Mr. Andre Veluzat rev.andre.candv@gmail.com 24715 Oak Creek Ave, Newhall, CA Newhall, CA 91321 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info@oneclickpolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 3:17 PM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 2:38 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Candy Veluzat candy. melodvranch@hotmail.com 24715 Oak Creek Avenue Newhall, CA 91321 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(@oneclickoolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 3:17 PM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 2:47 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Ms. Karen Bryden karen@scvlocations.com 25760 Thurber Way Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info@oneclickpolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 3:17 PM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 2:50 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Denise Malobabic malobabic4@aol.com 21110 Placerita Canyon Rd Newhall, CA 91321 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info@oneclickpolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 3:17 PM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 2:52 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Carl Goldman carlkhts@gmail.com 25114 Orange Lane Santa Clarita, CA 91387 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info@oneclickpolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 3:17 PM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 3:00 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Mr. Neal Weichel neal@nealweichel.com 25532 Morning Mist Drive Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(@oneclickoolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 3:18 PM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 3:02 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Mrs. Rachel Cosgrove rachcosgrove@gmail.com 24420 Walnut Street Newhall, CA 91321 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info@oneclickpolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 3:18 PM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 3:06 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Nilton Rodrigues rodriguesniIton014@gmaiI.com 24225 Main St Newhall, CA 91321 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(@oneclickoolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 3:18 PM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 3:17 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Mr. Dean Cox dean@crissmancommercial.com 25129 The Old Road, Suite 212 Santa Clarita, CA 91381 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(@oneclickoolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 4:44 PM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 3:19 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Jeri seratti 0eriseratti@gmail.com 25114 Orange Lane Santa Clarita, CA 91387 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info@oneclickpolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 4:44 PM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 3:29 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Mr. Aaron Avila aaron@crissmancommercial.com 23638 Lyons Ave, 211 Newhall, CA 91321 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(@oneclickoolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 4:44 PM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 3:49 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Ms. Michele Coombe michele.coombe@gmail.com 24833 Quigley Canyon Rd Newhall, CA 91321 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info@oneclickpolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 4:44 PM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 3:55 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Ms. Marlee Lauffer marleelauffer@gmail.com 27742 Briarcliff PI Valencia 91354 VALENCIA, CA 91354 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(@oneclickoolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 4:45 PM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 4:10 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Mr. Chris Crase chris.crase.cc@gmail.com 24943 Alderbrook Dr Newhall, CA 91321 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info@oneclickpolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 4:45 PM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 4:32 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Martha garcia lopezmartha506@vahoo.com 24949, Alderbrook dr Newhall, CA 91321 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info@oneclickpolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 7:45 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 5:37 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Liz Seelman liz del@vahoo.com 26175 Montolla Lane Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(@oneclickoolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 7:45 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 7:03 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Mr. Daniel Otto chefdaniel.do22@gmail.com 24275 main street Newhall, CA 91321 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(@oneclickoolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 7:45 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 8:32 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Mr. Daniel Veluzat danielveluzat@vahoo.com 24346 Mira Vista Street Valencia, CA 91355 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(@oneclickoolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 7:45 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 9:21 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Barbara Myler barbara@summitwestpr.com PO Box 55133 VALENCIA, CA 91385 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(@oneclickoolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 7:45 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: Barbara Myler <Barbara@SummitWestPR.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 9:25 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Kindest Regards, Barbara Myler Barbara C. Myler President/CEO Summit West Public Relations & Marketing Valencia Jazz & Blues Concert Series P.O. Box 55133 Valencia, CA 91385 cell: 661.373.8700 email: Barbaraa-SummitWestPR.com SUMMIT W E S T PUBLIC RELMONS & MhRI=KG Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 8:32 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 8:07 AM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Mrs. Becki Robb brobb@hagroup.com 24305 Town Center Drive Valencia, CA 91355 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(@oneclickoolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 8:32 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 8:08 AM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Mr. Nick Mairose nick@elitemediatek.com 26320 DIAMOND PL, STE 200 Santa Clarita, CA 91350 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(@oneclickoolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 8:39 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 8:33 AM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Mr. Keith Raskin keith.raskin@gmail.com 25852 McBean Pkwy, Suite 1101 Valencia, CA 91355 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info@oneclickpolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 8:46 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 8:43 AM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Mr. David Bossert bossert.davel3@gmail.com 25641 Shaw Place Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(@oneclickoolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 9:13 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 8:58 AM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Mrs. Erika Kauzlarich-Bird erikabird@outlook.com 24510 Aden Avenue Newhall, CA 91321 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(@oneclickoolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 9:13 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 9:10 AM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Mr. Patrick Moody Patrick.moody5@gmail.com 24320 El Molina Avenue Valencia, CA 91355 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(@oneclickoolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 9:53 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 9:42 AM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Mr. Jason Altman i.altman@elitemediatek.com 26320 Diamond Place Suite 200 Santa Clarita, CA 91390 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(@oneclickoolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 9:53 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 9:41 AM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Vaughn Gillman gillman.v@gmail.com 23735 Stage Coach Way Valencia, CA 91354 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info@oneclickpolitics.com REs�«r(y -fllN CSS-p^ August 15, 2023 City of Santa Clarita Attn: Mayor Jason Gibbs 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, California 91355 Dear Mayor Gibbs: I am writing to you on behalf of Results Fitness to express my full support for the Shadowbox Studios project. In 2022, the City of Santa Clarita experienced an increase in location filming. In 2022, the City of Santa Clarita experienced an increase in location filming. Through filming, approximately $38.5 million in economic impact was generated to the local economy. Maintaining filming in our local community benefits the local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses and homeowners. Our local businesses receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue for the City of Santa Clarita. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,000 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact in the region. A couple of years ago, Shadowbox reached out and wanted to meet me, hear about my business, and give me a briefing on the studio project. I applaud the sincere and genuine effort that the Shadowbox Studios team took to reach out to not just my business, but a lot of the businesses throughout Newhall. Santa Clarita, nicknamed "Hollywood North," offers not only a consummate industry workforce but a significantly minimized burden of production red tape. The Santa Clarita Film Office is known to the film industry for its prompt, friendly and cost-effective service. As demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow — for both major motion pictures and scripted television series — Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita and thereby retain productions that would otherwise escape to other Los Angeles filming submarkets. This is a great moment for our businesses in Newhall and we must move forward with this project. Sin ely, .—I�A I i/ Rachel Cosgrove Owner, Results Fitness ,K 'AMal HOMETOWNSTATION.COM August 15, 2023 City of Santa Clarita Attn: Mayor Jason Gibbs 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, California 91355 Dear Mayor Gibbs: I am writing to you on behalf of KHTS to express my full support for the Shadowbox Studios project. In 2022, the City of Santa Clarita experienced an increase in location filming. In 2022, the City of Santa Clarita experienced an increase in location filming. Through filming, approximately $38.5 million in economic impact was generated to the local economy. Maintaining filming in our local community benefits the local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses and homeowners. Our local businesses receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue for the City of Santa Clarita. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,000 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact in the region. A couple of years ago, Shadowbox reached out and wanted to meet me, hear about my business, and give me a briefing on the studio project. I applaud the sincere and genuine effort that the Shadowbox Studios team took to reach out to not just my business, but a lot of the businesses throughout Newhall. Santa Clarita, nicknamed "Hollywood North," offers not only a consummate industry workforce but a significantly minimized burden of production red tape. The Santa Clarita Film Office is known to the film industry for its prompt, friendly and cost-effective service. As demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow — for both major motion pictures and scripted television series — Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita and thereby retain productions that would otherwise escape to other Los Angeles filming submarkets. This is a great moment for our businesses in Newhall and we must move forward with this project. ncerely, ri Seratti-Goldman August 16, 2023 City of Santa Clarita Attn: Mayor Jason Gibbs 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, California 91355 Dear Mayor Gibbs: I am writing to you on behalf of Egg Plantation to express my full support for the Shadowbox Studios project. In 2022, the City of Santa Clarita experienced an increase in location filming. In 2022, the City of Santa Clarita experienced an increase in location filming. Through filming, approximately $38.5 million in economic impact was generated to the local economy. Maintaining filming in our local community benefits the local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses and homeowners. Our local businesses receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue for the City of Santa Clarita. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,000 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact in the region. A couple of years ago, Shadowbox reached out and wanted to meet me, hear about my business, and give me a briefing on the studio project. I applaud the sincere and genuine effort that the Shadowbox Studios team took to reach out to not just my business, but a lot of the businesses throughout Newhall. Santa Clarita, nicknamed "Hollywood North," offers not only a consummate industry workforce but a significantly minimized burden of production red tape. The Santa Clarita Film Office is known to the film industry for its prompt, friendly and cost-effective service. As demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow — for both major motion pictures and scripted television series — Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita and thereby retain productions that would otherwise escape to other Los Angeles filming submarkets. This is a great moment for our businesses in Newhall and we must move forward with this project. Sincerely, i I�LLP c Shannon Mee Owner, Egg Plantation Inc. August 16, 2023 City of Santa Clarita Attn: Mayor Jason Gibbs 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, California 91355 Dear Mayor Gibbs: I am writing to you on behalf of Walker Lopez to express my full support for the Shadowbox Studios project. In 2022, the City of Santa Clarita experienced an increase in location filming. In 2022, the City of Santa Clarita experienced an increase in location filming. Through filming, approximately $38.5 million in economic impact was generated to the local economy. Maintaining filming in our local community benefits the local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses and homeowners. Our local businesses receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue for the City of Santa Clarita. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,000 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact in the region. Santa Clarita, nicknamed "Hollywood North," offers not only a consummate industry workforce but a significantly minimized burden of production red tape. The Santa Clarita Film Office is known to the film industry for its prompt, friendly and cost-effective service. As demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow — for both major motion pictures and scripted television series — Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita and thereby retain productions that would otherwise escape to other Los Angeles filming submarkets. This is a great moment for our businesses in Newhall and we must move forward with this project. SincereJy Jeff Walk r Co -Owner, yValker Lopez Barbershop I SUPPORT THE SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PROJECT City of Santa Clarita Attn: City Council 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: SHADOWBOX STUDIOS CITY COUNCIL HEARING —SUPPORT Mayor Jason Gibbs and Councilmembers, Shadowbox Studios is a developer, owner, and operator of film and television studio campuses in the Atlanta, London, and Los Angeles metro areas. A typical production requires a studio with soundstages and ample support space that can accommodate a full cast, crew, and other staff. Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita will consist of 19 purpose-built, modern soundstages ranging from 15,000 to 40,000 square feet, as well as workshops and production offices that will meet the needs of even the most discriminating of filmmakers. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,000 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact. Over the last three years, Shadowbox Studios has worked closely with the City of Santa Clarita, the PCPOA, Placerita Canyon neighbors, Newhall residents, adjacent property owners, the business community, and our local non -profits to best refine the studio plans. As a direct result, it's a thoughtful plan and one that should be seen as great value to the City of Santa Clarita to further solidify our position as a major player in the film and entertainment industry. I am urging you to approve this project. Thank you! Sidfi-afure (/ f jj 7 1 d Print ame I SUPPORT THE SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PROJECT City of Santa Clarita Attn: City Council 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: SHADOWBOX STUDIOS CITY COUNCIL HEARING —SUPPORT Mayor Jason Gibbs and Councilmembers, Shadowbox Studios is a developer, owner, and operator of film and television studio campuses in the Atlanta, London, and Los Angeles metro areas. A typical production requires a studio with soundstages and ample support space that can accommodate a full cast, crew, and other staff. Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita will consist of 19 purpose-built, modern soundstages ranging from 15,000 to 40,000 square feet, as well as workshops and production offices that will meet the needs of even the most discriminating of filmmakers. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,000 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact. Over the last three years, Shadowbox Studios has worked closely with the City of Santa Clarita, the PCPOA, Placerita Canyon neighbors, Newhall residents, adjacent property owners, the business community, and our local non -profits to best refine the studio plans. As a direct result, it's a thoughtful plan and one that should be seen as great value to the City of Santa Clarita to further solidify our position as a major player in the film and entertainment industry. I am urging you to approve this project. Thank you! Signature Print Name I SUPPORT THE SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PROJECT City of Santa Clarita Attn: City Council 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: SHADOWBOX STUDIOS CITY COUNCIL HEARING — SUPPORT Mayor Jason Gibbs and Councilmembers, Shadowbox Studios is a developer, owner, and operator of film and television studio campuses in the Atlanta, London, and Los Angeles metro areas. A typical production requires a studio with soundstages and ample support space that can accommodate a full cast, crew, and other staff. Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita will consist of 19 purpose-built, modern soundstages ranging from 1S,000 to 40,000 square feet, as well as workshops and production offices that will meet the needs of even the most discriminating of filmmakers. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,000 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact. Over the last three years, Shadowbox Studios has worked closely with the City of Santa Clarita, the PCPOA, Placerita Canyon neighbors, Newhall residents, adjacent property owners, the business community, and our local non -profits to best refine the studio plans. As a direct result, it's a thoughtful plan and one that should be seen as great value to the City of Santa Clarita to further solidify our position as a major player in the film and entertainment industry. I am urging you to approve this project. Thank you I �::� Signature Print Name •••. r• :• r •lip��• City of Santa Clarita Attn: City Council 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 913SS RE: SHADOWBOX STUDIOS CITY COUNCIL HEARING — SUPPORT Mayor Jason Gibbs and Councilmembers, Shadowbox Studios is a developer, owner, and operator of film and television studio campuses in the Atlanta, London, and Los Angeles metro areas. A typical production requires a studio with soundstages and ample support space that can accommodate a full cast, crew, and other staff. Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita will consist of 19 purpose-built, modern soundstages ranging from 15,000 to 40,000 square feet, as well as workshops and production offices that will meet the needs of even the most discriminating of filmmakers. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,000 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact. Overthe last three years, Shadowbox Studios has worked closely with the City of Santa Clarita, the PCPOA, Placerita Canyon neighbors, Newhall residents, adjacent property owners, the business community, and our local non -profits to best refine the studio plans. As a direct result, it's a thoughtful plan and one that should be seen as great value to the City of Santa Clarita to further solidify our position as a major player in the film and entertainment industry. I am urging you to approve this project. Thank you! i I SUPPORT THE SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PROJECT City of Santa Clarita Attn: City Council 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 913SS 2MIM,1Z•} Z*}:����1�7[ 7•I�I�i'1 �1�I� �l>l:I i;1F�I+ ��I�7•I;�i� Mayor Jason Gibbs and Councilmembers, Shadowbox Studios is a developer, owner, and operator of film and television studio campuses in the Atlanta, London, and Los Angeles metro areas. Atypical production requires a studio with soundstages and ample support space that can accommodate a full cast, crew, and other staff. Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita will consist of 19 purpose-built, modern soundstages ranging from 15,000 to 40,000 square feet, as well as workshops and production offices that will meet the needs of even the most discriminating of filmmakers. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,000 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact. Over the last three years, Shadowbox Studios has worked closely with the City of Santa Clarita, the PCPOA, Placerita Canyon neighbors, Newhall residents, adjacent property owners, the business community, and our local non -profits to best refine the studio pians, As a direct result, it's a thoughtful plan and one that should be seen as great value to the City of Santa Clarita to further solidify our position as a major player in the film and entertainment industry. I am urging you to approve this project. Thank you! —1 Signature r ) � } 1 Print Name City of Santa Clarita Attn: City Council 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: SHADOWBOX STUDIOS CITY COUNCIL HEARING — SUPPORT Mayor Jason Gibbs and Councilmembers, Shadowbox Studios is a developer, owner, and operator of film and television studio campuses in the Atlanta, London, and Los Angeles metro areas. A typical production requires a studio with soundstages and ample support space that can accommodate a full cast, crew, and other staff. Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita will consist of 19 purpose-built, modern soundstages ranging from 15,000 to 40,000 square feet, as well as workshops and production offices that will meet the needs of even the most discriminating of filmmakers. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,000 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact. Over the last three years, Shadowbox Studios has worked closely with the City of Santa Clarita, the PCPOA, Placerita Canyon neighbors, Newhall residents, adjacent property owners, the business community, and our local non -profits to best refine the studio plans. As a direct result, it's a thoughtful plan and one that should be seen as great value to the City of Santa Clarita to further solidify our position as a major player in the film and entertainment industry. I am urging you to approve this project. Thank you ftnature obPr-� j � pq 1�V12 Print Nance I SUPPORT THE SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PROJECT City of Santa Clarita Attn: City Council 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Mayor Jason Gibbs and Councilmembers, Shadowbox Studios is a developer, owner, and operator of film and television studio campuses in the Atlanta, London, and Los Angeles metro areas. A typical production requires a studio with soundstages and ample support space that can accommodate a full cast, crew, and other staff. Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita will consist of 19 purpose-built, modern soundstages ranging from 15,000 to 40,000 square feet, as well as workshops and production offices that will meet the needs of even the most discriminating of filmmakers. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,000 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact. Over the last three years, Shadowbox Studios has worked closely with the City of Santa Clarita, the PCPOA, Placerita Canyon neighbors, Newhall residents, adjacent property owners, the business community, and our local non -profits to best refine the studio plans. As a direct result, it's a thoughtful plan and one that should be seen as great value to the City of Santa Clarita to further solidify our position as a major player in the film and entertainment industry. I am urging you to approve this project. Thankyou? Signature L P 644 LJ_ -Gi LW Print Name I SUPPORT THE SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PROJECT City of Santa Clarita Attn: City Council 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: SHADOWBOX STUDIOS CITY COUNCIL NEARING —SUPPORT Mayor Jason Gibbs and Councilmembers, Shadowbox Studios is a developer, owner, and operator of film and television studio campuses in the Atlanta, London, and Los Angeles metro areas. A typical production requires a studio with soundstages and ample support space that can accommodate a full cast, crew, and other staff. Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita will consist of 19 purpose-built, modern soundstages ranging from 15,000 to 40,000 square feet, as well as workshops and production offices that will meet the needs of even the most discriminating of filmmakers. As Shadowbox Studios Santa C?arita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,000 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact. Over the last three years, Shadowbox Studios has worked closely with the City of Santa Clarita, the PCPOA, Placerita Canyon neighbors, Newhall residents, adjacent property owners, the business community, and our local non -profits to best refine the studio plans. As a direct result, it's a thoughtful plan and one that should be seen as great value to the City of Santa Clarita to further solidify our position as a major player in the film and entertainment industry. I am urging you to approve this project. Thank you! Ct Signa re rI'Vp WrCtUL�' Print Name I SUPPORT THE SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PROJECT City of Santa Clarita Attm City Council 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 9135S RE; SHADOWBOX STUDIOS CITY COUNCIL HEARING —SUPPORT Mayor Jason Gibbs and Councilmembers, Shadowbox Studios is a developer, owner, and operator of film and television studio campuses in the Atlanta, London, and Los Angeles metro areas. A typical production requires a studio with soundstages and ample support space that can accommodate a full cast, crew, and other staff. Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita will consist of 19 purpose-built, modern soundstages ranging from 15,000 to 40,000 square feet, as well as workshops and production offices that will meet the needs of even the most discriminating of filmmakers. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,000 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact. Over the last three years, Shadowbox Studios has worked closely with the City of Santa Clarita, the PCPOA, Placerita Canyon neighbors, Newhall residents, adjacent property owners, the business community, and our local non -profits to best refine the studio plans. As a direct result, it's a thoughtful plan and one that should be seen as great value to the City of Santa Clarita to further solidify our position as a major player in the film and entertainment industry. I am urging you to approve this project. Thankyou! Signatu r r�_SI1� ; Print Name City of Santa Clarita Attn: City Council 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: SHADOWBOX STUDIOS CITY COUNCIL HEARING —SUPPORT Mayor Jason Gibbs and Councilmembers, Shadowbox Studios is a developer, owner, and operator of film and television studio campuses in the Atlanta, London, and Los Angeles metro areas. A typical production requires a studio with soundstages and ample support space that can accommodate a full cast, crew, and other staff. Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita will consist of 19 purpose-built, modern soundstages ranging from 15,000 to 40,000 square feet, as well as workshops and production offices that will meet the needs of even the most discriminating of filmmakers. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,000 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact. Over the last three years, Shadowbox Studios has worked closely with the City of Santa Clarita, the PCPOA, Placerita Canyon neighbors, Newhall residents, adjacent property owners, the business community, and our local non -profits to best refine the studio plans. As a direct result, it's a thoughtful plan and one that should be seen as great value to the City of Santa Clarita to further solidify our position as a major player in the film and entertainment industry. I am urging you to approve this project. Thank you I r •f%�L�i �J 1. � I•. City of Santa Clarita Attn: City Council 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 913SS RE: SHADOWBOX STUDIOS CITY COUNCIL HEARING — SUPPORT Mayor Jason Gibbs and Councilmembers, Shadowbox Studios is a developer, owner, and operator of film and television studio campuses in the Atlanta, London, and Los Angeles metro areas. A typical production requires a studio with soundstages and ample support space that can accommodate a full cast, crew, and other staff. Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita will consist of 19 purpose-built, modern soundstages ranging from 15,000 to 40,000 square feet, as well as workshops and production offices that will meet the needs of even the most discriminating of filmmakers. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,000 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact. Over the last three years, Shadowbox Studios has worked closely with the City of Santa Clarita, the PCPOA, Placerita Canyon neighbors, Newhall residents, adjacent property owners, the business community, and our local non -profits to best refine the studio plans. As a direct result, it's a thoughtful plan and one that should be seen as great value to the City of Santa Clarita to further solidify our position as a major player in the film and entertainment industry. I am urging you to approve this project. Thank you I za'_� Signatu .� ova L� vJoy�er Print Name I SUPPORT THE SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PROJECT City of Santa Clarita Attn: City Council 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: SHADOWBOX STUDIOS CITY COUNCIL. HEARING --SUPPORT Mayor Jason Gibbs and Councilmembers, Shadowbox Studios is a developer, owner, and operator of film and television studio campuses in the Atlanta, London, and Los Angeles metro areas. A typical production requires a studio with soundstages and ample support space that can accommodate a full cast, crew, and other staff. Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita will consist of 19 purpose-built, modern soundstages ranging from 1S,000 to 40,000 square feet, as well as workshops and production offices that will meet the needs of even the most discriminating of filmmakers. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,000 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact. Over the last three years, Shadowbox Studios has worked closely with the City of Santa Clarita, the PCPOA, Placerita Canyon neighbors, Newhall residents, adjacent property owners, the business community, and our local non -profits to best refine the studio plans. As a direct result, it's a thoughtful plan and one that should be seen as great value to the City of Santa Clarita to further solidify our position as a major player in the film and entertainment industry. I am urging you to approve this project. Thank you! Signature Print Name I SUPPORT THE SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PROJECT City of Santa Clarita Attn: City Council 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: SHADOWBOX STUDIOS CITY COUNCIL HEARING — SUPPORT Mayor Jason Gibbs and Councilmembers, Shadowbox Studios is a developer, owner, and operator of film and television studio campuses in the Atlanta, London, and Los Angeles metro areas. A typical production requires a studio with soundstages and ample support space that can accommodate a full cast, crew, and other staff. Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita will consist of 19 purpose-built, modern soundstages ranging from 1S,000 to 40,000 square feet, as well as workshops and production offices that will meet the needs of even the most discriminating of filmmakers. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,000 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact. Over the last three years, Shadowbox Studios has worked closely with the City of Santa Clarita, the PCPOA, Placerita Canyon neighbors, Newhall residents, adjacent property owners, the business community, and our local non -profits to best refine the studio plans. As a direct result, it's a thoughtful plan and one that should be seen as great value to the City of Santa Clarita to further solidify our position as a major player in the film and entertainment industry. I am urging you to approve this project. Thank you _T�X� Am�� Signature 141e1*t-: (_c -BA-�- Print Name I SUPPORT THE SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PROJECT City of Santa Clarita Attn: City Council 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: SHADOWBOX STUDIOS CITY COUNCIL HEARING —SUPPORT Mayor Jason Gibbs and Councilmembers, Shadowbox Studios is a developer, owner, and operator of film and television studio campuses in the Atlanta, London, and Los Angeles metro areas. A typical production requires a studio with soundstages and ample support space that can accommodate a full cast, crew, and other staff. Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita will consist of 19 purpose-built, modern soundstages ranging from 15,000 to 40,000 square feet, as well as workshops and production offices that will meet the needs of even the most discriminating of filmmakers. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,000 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact. Over the last three years, Shadowbox Studios has worked closely with the City of Santa Clarita, the PCPOA, Placerita Canyon neighbors, Newhall residents, adjacent property owners, the business community, and our local non -profits to best refine the studio plans. As a direct result, it's a thoughtful plan and one that should be seen as great value to the City of Santa Clarita to further solidify our position as a major player in the film and entertainment industry. I am urging you to approve this project. Thank youl VWO, Signature VDW n"CA r,4 Print Name I SUPPORT THE SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PROJECT City of Santa Clarita Attn: City Councii 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: SHADOWBOX STUDIOS CITY COUNCIL HEARING —SUPPORT Mayor Jason Gibbs and Councilmembers, Shadowbox Studios is a developer, owner, and operator of film and television studio campuses in the Atlanta, London, and Los Angeles metro areas, A typical production requires a studio with soundstages and ample support space that can accommodate a full cast, crew, and other staff. Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita will consist of 19 purpose-built, modern sound -stages ranging from 15,000 to 40,000 square feet, as well as workshops and production offices that will meet the needs of even the most discriminating of filmmakers. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,000 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact, Over the last three years, Shadowbox Studios has worked closely with the City of Santa Clarita, the PCPOA, Placerita Canyon neighbors, Newhall residents, adjacent property owners, the business community, and our local non -profits to best refine the studio plans. As a direct result, it's a thoughtful plan and one that should be seen as great value to the City of Santa Clarita to further solidify our position as a major player in the film and entertainment industry, I am urging you to approve this project. Thank you! r� sgri re l I.ra a Fll r1 r.,�4 Print Name City of Santa Clarita Attn: City Council 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: SHADOWBOX STUDIOS CITY COUNCIL HEARING —SUPPORT Mayor Jason Gibbs and Councilmembers, Shadowbox Studios is a developer, owner, and operator of film and television studio campuses in the Atlanta, London, and Los Angeles metro areas. A typical production requires a studio with soundstages and ample support space that can accommodate a full cast, crew, and other staff. Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita will consist of 19 purpose-built, modern soundstages ranging from 15,000 to 40,000 square feet, as well as workshops and production offices that will meet the needs of even the most discriminating of filmmakers. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,000 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact. Over the last three years, Shadowbox Studios has worked closely with the City of Santa Clarita, the PCPOA, Placerita Canyon neighbors, Newhall residents, adjacent property owners, the business community, and our local non -profits to best refine the studio plans. As a direct result, it's a thoughtful plan and one that should be seen as great value to the City of Santa Clarita to further solidify our position as a major player in the film and entertainment industry. I am urging you to approve this project. Thank you I '�'i6j Signature Print Name City of Santa Clarita Attn: City Council 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: SHADOWBOX STUDIOS CITY COUNCIL HEARING —SUPPORT Mayor Jason Gibbs and Councilmembers, Shadowbox Studios is a developer, owner, and operator of film and television studio campuses in the Atlanta, London, and Los Angeles metro areas. A typical production requires a studio with soundstages and ample support space that can accommodate a full cast, crew, and other staff. Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita will consist of 19 purpose-built, modern soundstages ranging from 15,000 to 40,000 square feet, as well as workshops and production offices that will meet the needs of even the most discriminating of filmmakers. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,000 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact. Over the last three years, Shadowbox Studios has worked closely with the City of Santa Clarita, the PCPOA, Placerita Canyon neighbors, Newhall residents, adjacent property owners, the business community, and our local non -profits to best refine the studio plans. As a direct result, it's a thoughtful plan and one that should be seen as great value to the City of Santa Clarita to further solidify our position as a major player in the film and entertainment industry. I am urging you to approve this project. Thank you I L nature 1 e. NI tJ Z'�c Print Name I SUPPORT THE SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PROJECT City of Santa Clarita Attn: City Council 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: SHADOWBOX STUDIOS CITY COUNCIL HEARING —SUPPORT Mayor Jason Gibbs and Councilmembers, Shadowbox Studios is a developer, owner, and operator of film and television studio campuses in the Atlanta, London, and Los Angeles metro areas. A typical production requires a studio with soundstages and ample support space that can accommodate a full cast, crew, and other staff. Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita will consist of 19 purpose-built, modern soundstages ranging from 15,000 to 40,000 square feet, as well as workshops and production offices that will meet the needs of even the most discriminating of filmmakers. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,000 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact. Over the last three years, Shadowbox Studios has worked closely with the City of Santa Clarita, the PCPOA, Placerita Canyon neighbors, Newhall residents, adjacent property owners, the business community, and our local non -profits to best refine the studio plans. As a direct result, it's a thoughtful plan and one that should be seen as great value to the City of Santa Clarita to further solidify our position as a major player in the film and entertainment industry, I am urging you to approve this project. Thank you! Signature "1 Print Name I SUPPORT THE SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PROJECT City of Santa Clarita AtM City Council 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: SHADOWBOX STUDIOS CITY COUNCIL_ HEARING — SUPPORT MayorJason Gibbs and Councilmembers, Shadowbox Studios is a developer, owner, and operator of film and television studio campuses in the Atlanta, London, and Los Angeles metro areas. A typical production requires a studio with soundstages and ample support space that can accommodate a full cast, crew, and other staff. Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita will consist of 19 purpose-built, modern soundstages ranging from 15,000 to 40,000 square feet, as well as workshops and production offices that will meet the needs of even the most discriminating of filmmakers. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,000 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact. Over the last three years, Shadowbox Studios has worked closely with the City of Santa Clarita, the PCPOA, Placerita Canyon neighbors, Newhall residents, adjacent property owners, the business community, and our local non -profits to best refine the studio plans, As a direct result, it's a thoughtful plan and one that should be seen as great value to the City of Santa Clarita to further solidify our position as a major player in the film and entertainment industry. I am urging you to approve this project. Thank you! Signature Print Name City of Santa Clarita Attn: City Council 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: SHADOWBOX STUDIOS CITY COUNCIL HEARING — SUPPORT Mayor Jason Gibbs and Councilmembers, Shadowbox Studios is a developer, owner, and operator of film and television studio campuses in the Atlanta, London, and Los Angeles metro areas. A typical production requires a studio with soundstages and ample support space that can accommodate a full cast, crew, and other staff. Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita will consist of 19 purpose-built, modern soundstages ranging from 15,000 to 40,000 square feet, as well as workshops and production offices that will meet the needs of even the most discriminating of filmmakers. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,000 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact. Over the last three years, Shadowbox Studios has worked closely with the City of Santa Clarita, the PCPOA, Placerita Canyon neighbors, Newhall residents, adjacent property owners, the business community, and our local non -profits to best refine the studio plans. As a direct result, it's a thoughtful plan and one that should be seen as great value to the City of Santa Clarita to further solidify our position as a major player in the film and entertainment industry, I am urging you to approve this project. Thank you I sWv(ure Morris Print Name I SUPPORT THE SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PROJECT City of Santa Clarita Attn: City Council 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: SHADOWBOX STUDIOS CITY COUNCIL HEARING —SUPPORT Mayor Jason Gibbs and Councilmembers, Shadowbox Studios is a developer, owner, and operator of film and television studio campuses in the Atlanta, London, and Los Angeles metro areas. A typical production requires a studio with soundstages and ample support space that can accommodate a full cast, crew, and other staff. Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita will consist of 19 purpose-built, modern soundstages ranging from 15,000 to 40,000 square feet, as well as workshops and production offices that will meet the needs of even the most discriminating of filmmakers. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,000 full time industry Jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact. Over the last three years, Shadowbox Studios has worked closely with the City of Santa Clarita, the PCPOA, Placerita Canyon neighbors, Newhall residents, adjacent property owners, the business community, and our local non -profits to best refine the studio plans. As a direct result, it's a thoughtful plan and one that should be seen as great value to the City of Santa Clarita to further solidify our position as a major player in the film and entertainment industry. I am urging you to approve this project. Thank you! Q M/�__ Slgnat re e A&14)a Print Name I SUPPORT THE SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PROJECT City of Santa Clarita Attn: City Council 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 913SS RE: SHADOWBOX STUDIOS CITY COUNCIL HEARING — SUPPORT Mayor Jason Gibbs and Councilmembers, Shadowbox Studios is a developer, owner, and operator of film and television studio campuses in the Atlanta, London, and Los Angeles metro areas. A typical production requires a studio with soundstages and ample support space that can accommodate a full cast, crew, and other staff. Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita will consist of 19 purpose-built, modern soundstages ranging from 15,000 to 40,000 square feet, as well as workshops and production offices that will meet the needs of even the most discriminating of filmmakers. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,000 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact. Over the last three years, Shadowbox Studios has worked closely with the City of Santa Clarita, the PCPOA, Placerita Canyon neighbors, Newhall residents, adjacent property owners, the business community, and our local non -profits to best refine the studio plans. As a direct result, it's a thoughtful plan and one that should be seen as great value to the City of Santa Clarita to further solidify our position as a major player in the film and entertainment industry. I am urging you to approve this project. Thank you I 1;5n, all I SUPPORT THE SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PROJECT City of Santa Clarita Attn: City Council 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: SHADOWBOX STUDIOS CITY COUNCIL HEARING - SUPPORT Mayor Jason Gibbs and Councilmembers, Shadowbox Studios is a developer, owner, and operator of film and television studio campuses in the Atlanta, London, and Los Angeles metro areas. A typical production requires a studio with soundstages and ample support space that can accommodate a full cast, crew, and other staff. Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita will consist of 19 purpose-built, modern soundstages ranging from 15,000 to 40,000 square feet, as well as workshops and production offices that will meet the needs of even the most discriminating of filmmakers. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,000 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact. Over the last three years, Shadowbox Studios has worked closely with the City of Santa Clarita, the PCPOA, Placerita Canyon neighbors, Newhall residents, adjacent property owners, the business community, and our local non -profits to best refine the studio plans. As a direct result, it's a thoughtful plan and one that should be seen as great value to the City of Santa Clarita to further solidify our position as a major player in the film and entertainment industry. 1 am urging you to approve this project. Thank you Signature A14 TA0Yn60Y"-_ Print Name City of Santa Clarita Attn: City Council 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 913SS RE: SHADOWBOX STUDIOS CITY COUNCIL HEARING — SUPPORT Mayor Jason Gibbs and Councilmembers, Shadowbox Studios is a developer, owner, and operator of film and television studio campuses in the Atlanta, London, and Los Angeles metro areas. A typical production requires a studio with soundstages and ample support space that can accommodate a full cast, crew, and other staff. Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita will consist of 19 purpose-built, modern soundstages ranging from 15,000 to 40,000 square feet, as well as workshops and production offices that will meet the needs of even the most discriminating of filmmakers. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,000 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact. Overthe last three years, Shadowbox Studios has worked closely with the City of Santa Clarita, the PCPOA, Placerita Canyon neighbors, Newhall residents, adjacent property owners, the business community, and our local non -profits to best refine the studio plans. As a direct result, it's a thoughtful plan and one that should be seen as great value to the City of Santa Clarita to further solidify our position as a major player in the film and entertainment industry. I am urging you to approve this project. Thank you! SEgreatu Print Name Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 10:24 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 10:19 AM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Dennis Verner dennis@scvcommercial.com 28907 Deodar Place Santa Clarita, CA 91390 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(@oneclickoolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 1:51 PM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 1:05 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Mrs. TERESA COX tess.cox@me.com 22905 BEECH CREEK CIRCLE VALENCIA, CA 91354 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(@oneclickoolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 2:45 PM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 2:27 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Dr. Marc Winger mwinger47@gmail.com 23308 Cedartown Street Santa Clarita, CA 91321 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(@oneclickoolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 3:55 PM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 2:58 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Ms. Chelsea Cox chelsea@chelseacoxgillman.com 23735 Stagecoach Way Valencia, CA 91354 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info@oneclickpolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 5:05 PM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 4:21 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Henry Rodriguez henry@voursfteam.net 27141 Hidaway Ave Suite 207 Santa Clarita, CA 91351 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(@oneclickoolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 5:05 PM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 4:51 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Mrs. Kristi Davalos integritvbvkristi@vahoo.com 29260 Black Pine Way Santa Clarita, CA 91390 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(@oneclickoolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 5:05 PM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 4:52 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Lindsay Schlick lindsav@schlickart.com 23112 Yvette Lane Valencia, CA 91355 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(@oneclickoolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 5:24 PM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 5:14 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Mr. Ryan Ard itty ryanarditty@gmail.com 29530 Cambridge Avenue Castaic, CA 91384 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(@oneclickoolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2023 9:35 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2023 9:26 AM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Mr. Calvin Hedman calvin.hedman@hpllp.com 27441 Tourney Road #200 Valencia, CA 91355 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info@oneclickpolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2023 9:37 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2023 9:36 AM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Ms. Tami Stoffel tami.stoffel@hpllp.com 27441 Tourney Road #200 Valencia, CA 91355 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info@oneclickpolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2023 10:54 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2023 10:03 AM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Jennifer Lee Iydailee@gmail.com 25660 Magnolia Ln Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(@oneclickoolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2023 10:54 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2023 10:38 AM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Mr. Dennis Sugasawara dennis.sugasawara@gmaiI.com 23924 Bar Harbor Court Valencia, CA 91355 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(@oneclickoolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2023 11:04 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2023 10:58 AM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to express my support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -needed project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Ms. Eileen Mann eileenmann6@gmail.com 23308 , Cedartown Santa Clarita, CA 91321 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(@oneclickoolitics.com Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2023 1:47 PM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Shadowbox Studio Project From: Davy Muxlow <davymux@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2023 12:50 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Shadowbox Studio Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Hello Erika, I own a home on Alderbrook Dr.; adjacent to the proposed studio development in Newhall. I'm unable to attend the meeting on 8/22/23 but wanted to voice my FULL SUPPORT for the studio project. I moved into Placerita Canyon in 1998 and my family has lived there for over 20 years. I love the country lifestyle of the canyon and appreciate that the developer is committed to maintaining this quality. It's clear this land will eventually be developed. There are many developments I would be strongly opposed to but the studio is not one of them. In fact, I believe the studio, as proposed, gives homeowners and property owners the best chance at preserving what our canyon has always been while allowing for upgrades and improvements to the surrounding areas. I appreciate how much time and consideration has been made toward the neighborhood. This is a very well thought through proposal and I strongly support its approval. Thankyou Davy Muxlow -Please feel free to read at the meeting if helpful. ADAMSKI MOROSKI MADDEN CUMBERLAND & GREEN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Post Office Box 3835 • San Luis Obispo, California 93403-3835 T 805-543-0990 • F 805-543-0980 • zoww.ammcglamcom July 17, 2023 VIA EMAIL I Erika Iverson, Planner City of Santa Clarita 23290 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, CA 91355 eiverson(a),santa-clarita.com Re: In re the Matter of Shadowbox Studio Project City of Santa Clarita Master Case Number 21-109 Dear Ms. Iverson, This firm represents Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association ("PCPOA"). We have reviewed the additional information in the Final Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which is styled as an "Errata and Clarifications to the Draft EIR" (the "Errata"). The City of Santa Clarita ("City") is required to recirculate the Draft EIR due to the significant new information that was added via the Errata. "A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification." (Pub. Res. Code § 21092.1; 14 Cal. Code. Regs. § 15088.5(a).) CEQA Guidelines specify that new information may include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15088.5(a).) New information is considered significant if it changes the EIR "in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avail such an effect..." (Id.) Examples of significant new information that requires recirculation include "[a] new significant environmental impact [that] would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented" and when a draft EIR is "so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded." (Id.; see Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Comm'n (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043 [recirculation required when draft EIR omitted any analysis of cumulative impacts, and a detailed analysis was provided in the final EIR].) Here, significant new information set forth in the Errata has deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on the Project, the analysis, or lack thereof, as it relates to transportation and evacuation, and the newly identified biological impacts and accompanying mitigation measures. Thus, the Draft EIR must be recirculated. Paso Robles Office: 1948 Spring Street • Paso Robles, CA 93446-1620 • T 805-238-2300 • F 805-238-2322 Page 2 July 17, 2023 The Errata The dictionary definition of errata is a "list of errors in a printed work discovered after printing and shown with correction." The "Errata" provided as part of the proposed FEIR is much more than simply correcting mistakes. To the contrary, the FEIR introduces new significant information via the Errata. The Errata attempts, in conclusory terms, to state that the new information does not impact the Draft EIR's analysis. However, the Errata sets forth new traffic improvements; a new alternative to the Dockweiler Drive Extension Project ("Dockweiler Extension"); biological concerns regarding Crotch's bumble bees and mountain lions; numerous new mitigation measures regarding the biological concerns; changes to the Wildfire analysis; and a significantly altered table included in the Transportation Assessment. It is unclear how such additions would not be considered significant. The information is completely new, the analysis does not consider all of the new information, and the public has not had the opportunity to comment on the new information. This necessitates recirculation. Project Description and Transportation Assessment One of the most striking additions noted in the Errata is a change to the project description itself. The Errata notes that the Project is not dependent upon the Dockweiler Extension and adds additional offsite improvements that would be required if the Dockweiler Extension is not completed. The alternatives are indicated as (1) an extension of Arch Street to Placerita Canyon Road; and (2) completion of the two -legged intersection of Placerita Canyon Road and Arch Street. However, the Draft EIR states that Dockweiler Extension is proposed in conjunction with the Project, indicating that the project is contingent on Dockweiler being completed. (Draft EIR, p. 2.0-23.) This new information is significant. Per CEQA guidelines, the public must be provided the opportunity to comment on this new alternative, which does not seem to be analyzed in any manner. The Errata states that the new information and changes are merely minor edits, and do not alter the analysis or conclusions of the document. This is wrong. Note that one of our client's major concerns, a concern which the City should share, is the Project's impacts on traffic circulation and evacuation times. Providing alternative off -site improvements, if the Dockweiler Extension is not completed will surely impact the analysis set forth in the Transportation Assessment (Appendix L). In fact, the Transportation Assessment, completed by Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc., states under "Project Access and Infrastructure" that "the Project Site will be served by the Dockweiler Drive Extension Project (DDEP), which would improve access to/from the south." (emphasis added.) Under the discussion of "Future Infrastructure Improvements," the Transportation Assessment states that "[tlhe Project assumes the [Dockweiler Extension], as studied in Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Project Final Environmental Impact Report (Parker Environmental Consultants, February 2018), would be completed." (Transportation Assessment, p. 18 (emphasis added).) Page 3 July 17, 2023 The Transportation Assessment does not discuss an alternative if the Dockweiler Project is not completed. While the Assessment appears to provide traffic projections that show traffic volumes with and without the Dockweiler Extension conditions, it does not indicate any analysis as to an extension of Arch Street to Placerita Canyon Road or a two -legged intersection of Placerita Canyon Road and Arch Street. In Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Comm'n, an EIR had to be recirculated when the draft did not include any analysis of cumulative impacts, while the final EIR included new detailed analysis. Here, the alternatives have not even been fully analyzed or discussed, thus leaving the public without any opportunity to review and comment and thereby rendering the Draft EIR wholly inadequate. The public and other interested agencies are entitled to comment on the new alternatives and the lack of analysis regarding the impacts of the Project. To do so, the Draft EIR must be recirculated. The Errata also indicates that Table 17 (page 125) of the Transportation Assessment was revised. This Table is titled "Existing Conditions with Railroad Crossing Upgrade (Year 2021) Intersection Levels of Service" and includes new analysis of approximately 10 intersections. Important to note here, the new table includes analysis of an intersection at Arch Street & 13' Street & Project Driveway #1 & Project Driveway #2, which is noted as a future intersection to be constructed by the Project. Further, the new table includes new analysis of a new intersection that would be constructed as part of the Dockweiler Extension. The public and other interested agencies should be provided with the opportunity to fully review new analysis related to intersections that will exist solely because of the Project. Such analysis is critical to assess the potential environmental impacts from the project and should be of paramount importance to the City. It certainly is to the citizens who will be forced to live with the results of those impacts. Finally, the Evacuation Considerations in the Transportation Assessment do not consider the newly introduced alternative if Dockweiler Extension is not completed. The Transportation Assessment notes that it analyzed evacuation metrics under (1) Existing Conditions, (2) Future with Project with Dockweiler (Roundabout) Conditions, and (3) Future with Project with Dockweiler (Traffic Signal) Conditions. However, there is no indication that the Gibson report, which is the entire basis of the EIR traffic analysis, even considered an extension of Arch Street to Placertia Canyon Road or the completion of a two -legged intersection of Placerita Canyon Road and Arch Street. The Draft EIR is therefore inadequate. With the new and critical information regarding the alternative to the Dockweiler Extension, the EIR must be re -circulated to provide the public with a meaningful opportunity to address the impacts the alternative would have. Biological Resources In addition to the issues surrounding the project description and its impact on the transportation and evacuation analysis, there are issues with the additional information related to biological resources. The Errata includes additional information regarding the Crotch's bumble Page 4 July 17, 2023 bee and states that construction during the breeding season could have potentially significant impacts to the species. The Errata adds certain mitigation measures as it relates to the Crotch's bumble bee via MM-13I0-7, MM-1310-8, and MM-13I0-9. The Errata also notes that the new mitigation measures would help reduce the potential of impact to the Crotch's bumble bee. Again, when new information shows a new, substantial environmental impact resulting from the project or a new mitigation measure, recirculation is required. (Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 CalAth 112, 1130.) Information that the Project has potentially significant impacts on the population of Crotch's bumble bees is a new environmental impact that was not discussed in the Draft EIR, and the public has not had the chance to comment on the proposed mitigation measures. This alone requires recirculation of the Draft EIR. Further, the Errata adds numerous mitigation measures aimed to address biological concerns via MM-1310-1 and MM-BIO-6, which include the following requirements, among other things: the applicant must retain a qualified biologist to create a Wildlife Relocation and Avoidance Plan and conduct environmental awareness training; a Scientific Collection Permit is required to monitor Project impacts; and surveys must be conducted to determine presence/absence of species that will be impacted by the project. The Errata added significant new information regarding mitigation measures but deprived the public of the opportunity to review the measures and comment on them. These additions necessitate recirculation. Conclusion The Errata introduced significant new information that was not analyzed nor discussed in the pertinent Transportation Assessment. Further, if the City fails to recirculate the Draft EIR, it will deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on newly identified environmental impacts and mitigation measures. The Final EIR remains wholly inadequate for the reasons expressed above and the City is required to recirculate it for public comment. Very truly yours, ADAMSKI MOROSKI MADDEN CUMBERLAND & GREEN LLP HOMAS D. GREEN KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL CHRISTINA M. CARO THOMAS A. ENSLOW KELILAH D. FEDERMAN RICHARD M. FRANCO ANDREW J. GRAF TANYA A. GULESSERIAN RACHAELE.KOSS AIDAN P. MARSHALL TARA C.RENGIFO Of Counsel MARC D. JOSEPH DANIEL L. CARDOZO ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94080-7037 TEL:(650) 589-1660 FAX: (650) 589-5062 rfranco@adamsbroadwell.com Via Email and Hand Delivery Renee Berlin, Chair Tim Burkhart, Vice Chair Patsy Ayala, Commissioner Lisa Eichman, Commissioner Dennis Ostrom, Commissioner City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 140 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 July 18, 2023 SACRAMENTO OFFICE 520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721 TEL: (916) 444-6201 FAX: (916) 444-6209 Jason Crawford, Director of Community Development Erika Iverson, Associate Planner City of Santa Clarita Planning Division 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Email: Jcrawford@santa-clarita.com; Eiverson@santa-clarita.com Re: Agenda Item #1 - July 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Shadowbox Studios Proiect (Master Case 21-109) Dear Chair Berlin, Honorable Planning Commission members, Mr. Crawford and Ms. Iverson: We are writing on behalf of the Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development Los Angeles ("CREED LA") with respect to the July 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item #1, the Shadowbox Studios Project (Master Case 21-109) ("Project") proposed by L.A. Railroad 93, LLC ("Applicant"). The Project proposes to develop a full -service film and television studio campus that would consist of approximately 476,000-square feet of sound stages; approximately 571,000-square feet of workshops, warehouses, and support uses; approximately 210,000-square feet of production and administrative offices, and approximately 37,500-square feet of catering and specialty service areas. The approximately 93-acre Project site is generally located at the northeast corner of Railroad Avenue and 13th Street and bounded by 12th Street, Arch Street, and 13th Street on the south; Railroad Avenue on the west; Metropolitan Water District (MWD) right-of-way (ROW) on the east; and HOA maintained slopes associated with adjacent residential uses to the north. 6644-010acp "printed on recycled paper July 18, 2023 Page 2 The staff report for the July 18 meeting recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Receive the staff presentation and continue the public hearing; 2. Close the public hearing; 3. Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council certify the Draft Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Project; 4. Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Project's entitlements, including Architectural Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, General Plan Amendment, Hillside Development Review, Minor Use Permit, Oak Tree Permit (Class 4), Ridgeline Alteration Permit, Zone Change, and Tentative Tract Map; and 5. Take other action as determined by the Planning Commission.' The Planning Commission cannot recommend approval at this time because the City has not complied with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").2 Rather than recommending that the City Council ("Council") certify the Draft Final EIR ("FEIR"), the Commission should instead direct staff to revise and recirculate the DEIR to address the numerous deficiencies described herein and in CREED LA's previous comments. In our May 22, 20233 and June 20, 2023 comment letters, we detailed several ways in which the DEIR fails to comply with CEQA. The FEIR fails to respond to or resolve many of these deficiencies. We reviewed the FEIR with the assistance of air quality expert James Clark, noise expert Am Toncheva, biological resources expert Shawn Smallwood, and transportation expert Norman Marshall. The further comments and qualifications of these experts are attached heret04 and are incorporated by reference as if set 1 City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission Agenda Report (July 18, 2023) ("Staff Report"), pg. 1. 2 Pub. Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs ("CE A Guidelines") §§ 15000 et seq. ("CEQA Guidelines"). 3 May 22, 2023 letter from Richard M. Franco, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo to Jason Crawford and Erika Iverson, City of Santa Clarita re Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for Shadowbox Studios Project (Master Case 21-109; SCH Number 2022030762) ("DEIR Comments'). 4 Exhibit A, July 17, 2023 Letter from James J.J. Clark to Richard M. Franco, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo re: Comment Letter on Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) Shadowbox Studios Project, SCH NO. 2022030762 (hereinafter "Clark FEIR Comments"); Exhibit B, July 17, 2023 Letter from Am Toncheva, Wilson Ihrig to Richard M. Franco, Adams Broadwell Joseph & 6644-010acp "printed on recycled paper July 18, 2023 Page 3 forth herein. As explained below, the FEIR fails to address or resolve many of the issues raised in our DEIR Comments, and fails to mitigate potentially significant impacts to the greatest extent feasible. Moreover, the FEIR includes significant new information which requires that the DEIR be recirculated for further public review and comment. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare and circulate a revised DEIR that fully complies with CEQA. I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST CREED LA is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations that may be adversely affected by the potential public and worker health and safety hazards, and the environmental and public service impacts of the Project. The coalition includes Santa Clarita residents Corey Wood, Greg Lewis and Michael de Francis, the Sheet Metal Workers Local 105, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 11, Southern California Pipe Trades District Council 16, and District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California, along with their members, their families, and other individuals who live and work in the City of Santa Clarita and surrounding areas. Individual members of CREED LA and its member organizations live, work, recreate, and raise their families in the City of Santa Clarita and surrounding communities. Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project's environmental and health and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself. They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist onsite. In addition, CREED LA has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members. Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making the area less desirable for new businesses and new residents. Continued environmental degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduce future employment opportunities. Cardozo re: City of Santa Clarita Shadowbox Studio Project FEIR Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses (hereinafter "Toncheva FEIR Comments"); Exhibit C, July 15, 2023 Letter from Shawn Smallwood to Erika Iverson, City of Santa Clarita re: Shadowbox Studios Project (hereinafter "Smallwood FEIR Comments"); Exhibit D, July 17, 2023 Letter from Norman Marshall, Smart Mobility to Richard M. Franco re: Responses to the Shadowbox Studios Project Draft Final EIR (hereinafter "Marshall FEIR Comments"). 6644-010acp "printed on recycled paper July 18, 2023 Page 4 II. THE CITY MUST PREPARE AND CIRCULATE A REVISED DEIR Lead agencies are required to recirculate an EIR for further public review and comment if significant new information is added to the EIR after notice of public review but before certification.5 Recirculation is required when the addition of new information deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect.6 New information can include "changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information."7 The purpose of recirculation is to give the public and other agencies an opportunity to evaluate the new data and the validity of conclusions drawn from it.8 Recirculation is also required where significant new information surfaces prior to certification of an EIR but the lead agency failed to add that information to the EIR.9 Such information must be added to the EIR—and the EIR must be recirculated —if the information would trigger the recirculation requirement under CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5. Failure to include such information thwarts the goals of the EIR process by not disclosing to the public and government agencies critical information necessary to evaluate the significance of the Project's impacts.10 CREED LA's DEIR Comments described a number of ways in which the DEIR failed to comply with CEQA, requiring that the City revise and recirculate the DEIR for further public review and comment. In addition, in response to DEIR comments from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW"), the FEIR includes new information regarding the Project's potentially significant impacts to biological resources and proposes several new mitigation measures purportedly designed to mitigate such impacts." However, the FEIR lacks the facts or analysis necessary to provide decision makers or the public with the information needed assess these impacts, in violation of CEQA. Moreover, without a proper analysis of the Project's impacts to biological resources, the City is unable to evaluate whether the newly proposed mitigation measures will be effective. In its DEIR comments, CDFW notes that the Project may result in loss of suitable nesting and foraging habitat for Crotch's bumblebee, a species that is a 5 Pub. Resources Code § 21092.1; 14 CCR § 15088.5. 614 CCR § 15088.5(a). 7 Id. 8 Spring Valley Lake Assn v. City of Victorville (2016) 248 Cal.AppAth 91, 108. 9 Cadiz Land Co. v. Rail Cycle (2000) 83 Cal.AppAth 74, 95. 10 Id. 11 FEIR, pgs. 2-50-2-60. 6644-010acp "printed on recycled paper July 18, 2023 Page 5 candidate for California Endangered Species Act ("CESA") listing.12 The CDFW letter explains why impacts would occur and provides evidence that such impacts would be significant, and points out that the DEIR fails to discuss the species or the Project's impacts on it.13 CDFW also provides a number of recommendations, including that prior to finalizing the CEQA document, "the DEIR should provide full disclosure of the presence of Crotch's bumblebee within the Project site" and "should analyze the Project's impacts on floral resources, nesting habitat and overwintering habitat."14 CDFW further recommends that conclusions regarding habitat quality and suitability be substantiated by scientific and factual date, and that potential direct and indirect impacts on the species be discussed in the DEIR.15 In response to CDFW's comments, the City acknowledges that the Project site may provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat for Crotch's bumblebee, and purports to revise the DEIR to "discuss the potential for the species to occur, evaluate potential project impacts, and provide species -specific avoidance and mitigation measures" in accordance with CDFW's recommendations.16 The DEIR was revised to include proposed mitigation measure MM-13I0-6, requiring a qualified biologist to conduct surveys to determine the species' presence or absence.17 If the surveys detect Crotch's bumblebee on the Project site, then proposed new mitigation measures MM-13I0-7, MM-BIO-8 and MM-13I0-9 would require buffer zones around any active nests and replacement of floral resources. None of this information was included in the DEIR and has not been provided to the public for review and comment, as required by CEQA. Additionally, while these revisions include some of the recommendations from CDFW, the City ignores the most important ones: to "provide full disclosure" of the species' presence on the Project site, to analyze the Project's direct and indirect impacts on the species, and to support its conclusions with scientific and factual data prior to finalizing the CEQA document. 18 Without such disclosure, analysis and supporting data, the Project's impacts are unknown and the efficacy of the newly proposed mitigation measures in the FEIR cannot be evaluated. The City admits that none of these steps have been completed: "[flocused site surveys are currently underway to confirm that the absence of Crotch's bumble bee 12 May 22, 2023 letter from CDFW to Erika Iverson, City of Santa Clarita, re Shadowbox Studios Project Draft Environmental Impact Report ("CDFW Letter"). 13Id., pgs. 4-5. 14 Id., Attachment A: Draft Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan. 15 Id. 16 FEIR, pg. 2-51. 17Id., pg. 2-52. 18 CDFW Letter, Attachment A, pg. 1. 6644-010acp "printed on recycled paper July 18, 2023 Page 6 on the Project Site [sic]."19 Without disclosure of the results of completed surveys and analysis of potential Project impacts and mitigation, responsible agencies, the public and the City's decision makers are deprived of any meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect.20 This violates CEQA. The City must revise and recirculate the DEIR after completion of surveys for Crotch's bumblebee. III. THE FEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY DISCLOSE, ANALYZE OR MITIGATE THE PROJECT'S POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT NOISE IMPACTS A. The Noise Impact Analysis Violates CEQA Because it Fails to Consider Increases Over Ambient Noise Levels CREED LA's DEIR Comments explained in detail how the DEIR's failure to evaluate the Project's construction and operational noise impacts using an ambient - based significance threshold violated CEQA. These comments were based on the settled legal principle that lead agencies "do not have discretion... to consider only maximum noise levels and ignore increases in noise relative to existing conditions. In applying significance thresholds, the lead agency must consider both the `absolute noise level' associated with a project as well as the increase in the level of noise that will result from a project [emphasis added]."21 The DEIR failed to include this analysis and the FEIR fails to correct this omission. In King & Gardiner Farms, the Court of Appeal held that the lead agency violated CEQA by "using a single standard relating to the absolute noise level as a threshold of significance for evaluating all ambient noise impacts."22 The approach used by the City "does not provide a complete picture of the noise impacts that may result from the project."23 Similarly, in Keep our Mountains Quiet, the Court of Appeals held the "the lead agency should consider both the increase in noise level and the absolute noise level associated with a project."24 Despite the clear holdings 19 Staff Report, pg. 5. 20 14 CCR § 15088.5(a). 21 Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act (2d ed Cal CEB), §13.63A, citing King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal. App. 5th 814, 887 and 893 and Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara (2015) 236 Cal. App. 4th 714, 733. 22 King & Gardiner Farms, supra, 45 Cal. App. 5th at 893. 23 Id. at 894. 24 Keep Our Mountains Quiet, supra, 236 Cal. App. 4th at 733. See also, Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. v. Board of Port Cmrs. (2001) 91 Cal. App. 1344, 1382 (potential noise impact of nighttime flights required further study where there had been no meaningful analysis of existing ambient noise levels.) 6644-010acp "printed on recycled paper July 18, 2023 Page 7 by California courts regarding the need to evaluate noise impacts using both an absolute threshold and an ambient threshold, the FEIR fails to evaluate the Project's impacts using an increase over ambient threshold. Instead, the FEIR attempts to justify this failure by misstating the law: "King & Gardiner Farms... does not explicitly require an analysis of an increase over ambient noise."25 Rather, the FEIR suggests, the City may rely solely on an absolute noise threshold and dispense with use of an ambient noise increase threshold if that approach "is properly supported," and claims that there is substantial evidence to support the exclusive use of an absolute threshold as the basis of its noise analysis.26 As an initial matter, the City's statement of the law is flatly contradicted by the decisions quoted above. At best, King & Gardiner Farms suggests that, while the lead agency should consider both the increase in noise level and the absolute noise level associated with a project, it may be able to show substantial evidence that the magnitude of a noise increase may not be relevant in determining the significance of a change in noise.27 This does not support the City's position that it need not analyze the Project's increase over ambient noise levels at all. In addition, the FEIR falsely claims that there is substantial evidence supporting its sole use of an absolute noise threshold. First, the FEIR asserts that the single, absolute threshold approach is "consistent with many jurisdictions within the State ... which do not have a threshold for numeric increase in ambient noise levels."28 The fact that other cities' noise ordinances lack a numerical threshold for evaluating the significance of a project's increase over ambient noise levels is neither surprising, nor is it relevant. Whether or not the municipal codes of Beverly Hills, Fresno and Pasadena contain such thresholds does not affect the City's duty to comply with CEQA's disclosure requirements with regard to the Project's noise impact. CEQA would require those other cities to evaluate their projects' noise increases over ambient levels, just as CEQA requires the City to perform such an analysis with respect to this Project. The FEIR also cites Caltrans as an example of an agency that does not have a threshold for a numeric increase in ambient noise levels.29 Even if true, that does not change CEQA's requirement to evaluate the Project's increase in noise over ambient levels. In fact, as Ms. Toncheva points out, Caltrans' Traffic Noise 25 FEIR, pg. 2-1005. 26 Id. 27 King & Gardiner Farms, supra, 45 Cal. App. 5th at 894. 28 FEIR, pg. 2-1005. 29 Id. 6644-010acp "printed on recycled paper July 18, 2023 Page 8 Analysis Protocol ("Caltrans Noise Protocol") that the significance of noise impacts is determined based on the project -related increase in noise and, while no single numerical threshold is used on all projects, what is considered a substantial increase can vary depending on current environment.30 The City's citation to the Caltrans Noise Protocol directly contradicts the City's position that it may rely solely on an absolute noise threshold and ignore ambient noise increases. Next, the FEIR contends that, because construction would be limited to daytime hours, its absolute 80 dBA threshold for construction noise would avoid sleep disruption. 31 It also claims that, since daytime construction noise will be limited to 80 dBA, the Project would not cause hearing loss which according to OSHA can begin to occur at 90 dBA.32 The FEIR is logically flawed, essentially arguing that if the Project complies with the absolute 80 dBA significance threshold, the City need not analyze the Project's noise increase over ambient. This is a non sequitur that is directly at odds with the CEQA jurisprudence cited above. Nor is there support for the FEIR's false implication that sleep disturbance and hearing loss are the only relevant noise impacts that the City must consider. As pointed out in her DEIR comments, CREED LA's noise expert identified speech interference, cardiovascular and other physiological effects, and impaired cognitive performance as other adverse effects of noise on humans. In addition, relying solely on an 80 dB absolute limit for construction noise would allow a 31 dB increase at receptor NM4 and a 33 dB increase at NM6.33 The DEIR's noise analysis actually predicts construction noise increases of 20 dB over ambient levels.34 The City does not, and cannot, provide any rational explanation for why an increase of 20-30 dB over ambient is insignificant. Ultimately, the City has no support for its failure to evaluate the Project's noise increase over ambient levels. With regard to operational noise, the FEIR makes similar specious arguments. It claims, without support or explanation, that "the significance of the magnitude of an ambient noise level increase is inherently accounted for by the City's fixed noise limits utilized for the noise analysis in the Draft EIR."35 Again, the City's approach violates CEQA because it relies on "a single standard relating to the absolute noise level as a threshold of significance for evaluating all ambient 30 Toncheva FEIR Comments, pg. 1. 31 Id. 32 Id. 33 Toncheva FEIR Comments, pg. 2. 34 Toncheva DEIR Comments, pg. 3. 35Id., pg. 2-1006. 6644-010acp "printed on recycled paper July 18, 2023 Page 9 noise impacts."36 The FEIR admits that operational noise will exceed ambient levels at some receptor locations, but suggests there will be no significant impact because the increase does not exceed 5 dBA over ambient levels.37 If the City intends to adopt "5 dBA over ambient" as a significance threshold to evaluate the Project's noise impacts, it must do so in a revised DEIR and support its chosen threshold with substantial evidence. Ultimately, the City's position that it is not required to "evaluate increased ambient noise levels attributable to Project construction and operation"38 violates CEQA, and the FEIR fails to remedy this violation. The DEIR must be revised and recirculated for further public review and comment. IV. THE FEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY DISCLOSE, ANALYZE OR MITIGATE THE PROJECT'S SIGNIFICANT TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS In CREED LA's DEIR Comments (including expert comments by Mr. Marshall), we explained the ways in which the DEIR's analysis with respect to the Project's vehicle miles traveled ("VMT") was unsupported by substantial evidence. The FEIR fails to correct those issues. Moreover, the FEIR directly contradicts the DEIR with respect to the significance threshold used to evaluate VMT impacts. As discussed below, the VMT analysis is so unclear as to be indecipherable. The City must revise and recirculate the DEIR to address these issues. A. The FEIR Lacks a Clear VMT Significance Threshold Supported by Substantial Evidence In its VMT analysis, the DEIR stated "[t]he City's threshold of significance is 15.7 VMT per employee based on the 2012 Citywide home -based work VMT per employee of 21.0."39 It further stated that "only the 2012 base year with project scenario was executed in the model."40 In direct contrast, the FEIR now states that the "14.0 work VMT per employee calculated for the Project was compared to the calculated 2028 threshold of 14.0 work VMT per employee."41 The purported significance threshold of "14.0 work VMT per employee is an interpolation between the citywide threshold of 15.7 for Year 2020 conditions and the projected 11.5 36 King & Gardiner Farms, supra, 45 Cal. App. 5th at 893. 37 FEIR, pg. 2-1007. 38Id., pg. 2-1006. 39 DEIR, pg. 4.14-18. 40Id., pg. 4.14-10. 41 FEIR, pg. 2-1011. 6644-010acp "printed on recycled paper July 18, 2023 Page 10 threshold for 2040 conditions. The 14.0 represents the threshold for year 2028 conditions, which is the Opening Year of the Project."42 In short, the DEIR claimed to use a VMT significance threshold of 15.7 based on a Citywide 2012 VMT of 2 1. 0 (though it doesn't explain how 15.7 was derived from 21.0). The FEIR now asserts a VMT significance threshold of 14.0, which is a 2028 estimate based on an "interpolation" between Year 2020 and Year 2040 conditions. Beyond the obvious discrepancy between the 15.7 and 14.0 significance thresholds set forth in the DEIR and FEIR, respectively, it appears that the FEIR is comparing Project VMT estimates calculated on 2012 base year conditions with a significance threshold calculated on 2028 conditions. Adding to the confusion are the following additional inconsistencies: • DEIR Appendix L43 states "[a]s shown in Table 10 and the VMT Mem044 the Project is estimated to generate an average home -based work VMT per employee of 14.0, which is less than the Citywide impact threshold of 15.7 and, therefore, would not result in a significant VMT impact."45 • Appendix L's Table 10, however, sets forth an "Impact Threshold (2028 Estimate)" of 14.0.46 Additionally, Table 10 notes that the 2028 threshold is extrapolated based on the 2020 regional (not citywide) VMT estimate of 15.7 and 2040 regional estimate of 11.5.47 • The VMT Memo sets forth the City's VMT significance threshold as 17.9, which is "15% below" the "2012 Citywide Home -Based Work VMT per Employee."48 "Table 4 [in the VMT Memo] indicates that project Home -Based Work VMT per employee is forecast to be below the City's threshold of significance of 17.9 Home -Based Work VMT per employee."49 Based on the foregoing, it is impossible to know what VMT significance threshold the City is actually relying on, how it was derived, or whether it is valid. The threshold is variously set forth as 14.0, 15.7 and 17.9 home -based work VMT 421d. 43 DEIR Appendix L, January 2023 Transportation Assessment for Shadowbox Studios Project ("Transportation Assessment"). 44 "VMT Memo" refers to the technical memorandum Blackhall Studios -City of Santa Clarita VMT Modeling Summary (Iteris, August 24, 2021). 45 DEIR, Appendix L, pg. 48. 46 DEIR, Appendix L, Table 10 at pg. 50. 47 Id. 48 DEIR, Appendix L VMT Memo, pgs. 3-4. 49Id., pg. 4. 6644-010acp "printed on recycled paper July 18, 2023 Page 11 per employee. The DEIR stated that the threshold was "based on the 2012 Citywide home -based work VMT per employee of 21.0,"50 while the FEIR states that the threshold "represents the threshold for Year 2028 conditions," interpolated between "the citywide thresholds for Year 2020 and Year 2040 conditions."51 The DEIR's technical transportation analysis stated that the 2028 threshold was extrapolated based on 2020 and 2028 regional, not citywide, estimates,52 which is inconsistent with the discussion in the FEIR. Given that the DEIR and FEIR reach the same conclusions regarding the severity of the Project's transportation impacts, it is critical that the public (and City decision makers) understand the threshold used to derive the conclusions in the FEIR's transportation analysis in order to evaluate the accuracy of the FEIR. Given these many discrepancies, the FEIR violates the basic CEQA requirement that it include "an identifiable, quantitative, qualitative or performance level" for VMT that is supported by substantial evidence.53 These discrepancies can only be resolved in a revised and recirculated DEIR, so that the public and City decision makers can evaluate the validity of the City's VMT analysis. B. The FEIR's Use of the 2016 SCAG Travel Demand Model to Estimate VMT is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence As Mr. Marshall explained in his DEIR comments, the DEIR's significance threshold and Project VMT estimates were derived using an outdated model known to underestimate VMT. 54 The DEIR used the 2016 Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG") 2016 travel demand model, rather than the updated 2020 model. A crucial difference between the two models is that the 2020 version incorporates census data (which was not used in the 2016 version) to calibrate the tail of the trip length distribution, because there were few observations of these long commute patterns captured in the California Household Travel Survey ("CHTS") data used to calibrate the 2016 model.55 Importantly, the census data showed average commute lengths 65% higher than the average in the CHTS data used to calibrate the outdated model.56 The FEIR does not address or refute Mr. Marshall's criticisms of the 2016 model. Rather, the FEIR attempts to justify the use of the outdated model by asserting that because the 2016 SCAG model was used to establish the VMT 50 DEIR, pg. 4.14-18. 51 FEIR, pg. 2-1011. 52 DEIR, Appendix L, Table 10, note c. 53 CE A Guidelines §15064.7. 54 DEIR Comments, Exhibit D. 55 Marshall FEIR Comments, pg. 1. 56Id., pgs. 1-2. 6644-010acp "printed on recycled paper July 18, 2023 Page 12 thresholds in the Santa Clarita area, it is "the most logical model to use in the analysis of the Project."57 The City's response ignores the underlying issue of whether it was valid to use the 2016 model in the first place, and provides no evidence refuting Mr. Marshall's criticisms. Instead, the FEIR simply asserts that is making an "apples -to -apples" comparison between Project -generated VMT and the thresholds of significance.58 As Mr. Marshall points out, though, such comparisons are of little value when both "apples" are rotten.59 In other words, if the model used to generate significance thresholds and Project VMT is suspect, the resulting analysis is similarly suspect. Moreover, given the many discrepancies in the description of the City's VMT significance threshold described above, it is far from clear that the DEIR's analysis even used an "apples -to -apples" approach. The City's VMT analysis lacks substantial evidence supporting the methodology used to evaluate the Project's transportation impacts or the threshold of significance used in the analysis. The DEIR must be revised to include a proper VMT analysis supported by substantial evidence. V. THE FEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY DISCLOSE, ANALYZE OR MITIGATE THE PROJECT'S POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AIR QUALITY IMPACTS CREED LA's DEIR Comments identified a number of significant defects in the DEIR's analysis of the Project's air quality and related health impacts. The FEIR still fails to justify the use of optional and unenforceable Project Design Features ("PDFs") with respect to construction equipment. The FEIR also still fails to adequately address health risks from diesel emissions from generators that will be used during Project operations, and completely ignores expert evidence of a significant health risk to nearby residents from such operations. A. The FEIR Continues to Rely on Unenforceable Project Design Features in Analyzing Construction Emissions As discussed in detail in CREED LA's DEIR Comments, the DEIR underestimates the significance of Project construction emissions by relying on optional and unenforceable emissions controls to support the conclusion that such emissions will be less than significant. PDF AQ-1 and PDF-AQ-2 "propose" that the Project use off -road diesel -powered construction equipment that meets or exceeds the CARB and USEPA Tier 3 off -road emissions standards with Level 3 diesel 57 FEIR, pg. 2-1011. 58 Id. 59 Marshall FEIR Comments, pg. 1. 6644-010acp "printed on recycled paper July 18, 2023 Page 13 particulate filters or be alternatively (non -diesel) fueled to reduce diesel exhaust emissions during Project construction.60 The DEIR Comments explained why this violates CEQA, as these PDFs are in fact unenforceable mitigation of the Project's construction emissions. In response to another commenters' comment on the same issue, the FEIR admits that "PDFs typically provide a benefit or a reduction to impacts [emphasis added]."61 Under CEQA, this is a mitigation measure. CEQA defines mitigation as including any measures designed to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for a significant impact.62 Still, the FEIR claims that these measures, admittedly designed to reduce impacts, "are not considered mitigation because [they] are part of the construction design of the Project, and there are no current regulations requiring specific construction equipment to be used."63 This statement has nothing to do with the definition of "mitigation" under CEQA, and does not remedy the City's failure to make its construction emissions mitigation binding. CEQA requires that mitigation measures be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or other legally binding instruments.64 Because the City has not characterized PDF AQ-1 or PDF AQ-2 as mitigation measures, they are not binding on the Applicant, and will not be included in the Project's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP").65 Reliance on "proposed" nonmandatory and unenforceable PDFs to reduce impacts therefore provides no assurance that the Applicant would later comply with the "design features." The PDFs therefore fail to provide the binding mechanism required by CEQA to compel the Applicant's compliance with mitigation following Project approval. Indeed, after we commented on the lack of enforceability of the PDFs at the June 20, 2023 Planning Commission meeting, Chair Berlin requested that the PDFs be included in the Conditions of Approval.66 However, they have not been included in the draft Conditions of Approval attached to Resolution P23-12 that will be considered by the Commission at its July 18 meeting. Staff therefore failed to follow the Commission's direction. The DEIR further violates CEQA by failing to first disclose the Project's unmitigated construction emissions (i.e., construction emissions before applying the 60 DEIR, p. 4.2-18. 61 FEIR, pg. 2-739. 62 14 CCR § 15370. 63 FEIR, pgs. 2-739-2-740. 64 14 CCR §15126.4(a)(2). 65 DEIR, Table ES-1 at pgs. ES-6—ES-26. 66 July 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Packet, pg. 5. 6644-010acp "printed on recycled paper July 18, 2023 Page 14 PDFs). Without disclosing the Project's unmitigated construction emissions, the DEIR only discloses estimated emissions with the application of PDF-AQ-1 and PDF-AQ-2. This "downward adjustment" of the Project's construction emissions artificially reduces their significance. The DEIR concludes that the Project's construction emissions (mitigated by PDF-AQ-1 and PDF-AQ-2) are less than significant, without application of any binding mitigation measures.67 This approach violates CEQA's requirement that an EIR disclose the significance of an impact prior to mitigation.68 The purpose of this analysis is both to require public disclosure of a project's impacts, and to require the lead agency to "identify and focus on the significant environmental effects of the proposed project."69 In evaluating the significance of an impact, an EIR must discuss the physical changes in the environment that the project will cause, including: relevant specifics of the area, the resources involved, physical changes, alterations to ecological systems, and changes induced in population distribution, population concentration, the human use of the land (including commercial and residential development), health and safety problems caused by the physical changes, and other aspects of the resource base such as water, historical resources, scenic quality, and public services.70 Only after this discussion occurs may the agency identify and apply mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels.71 The discussion is rendered meaningless (or, as here, omitted entirely) if the EIR falsely concludes that a project's impact is less than significant based on premature application of mitigation measures. In this case, the DEIR failed to undertake the requisite analysis required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2 for the Project's construction emissions because the DEIR did not disclose the Project's air quality impacts prior to incorporating PDF AQ-1 and PDF-AQ-2. The FEIR responds to this argument by claiming that "application of all Tier 3 equipment in the CalEEMod emissions analysis does not result in meaningfully different emissions than the default construction equipment fleet in the model."72 But this raises additional unanswered questions. Is the City suggesting that the "default construction equipment fleet" represents the Project's unmitigated 67 DEIR, 4.2-19-21. 68 14 CCR § 15126.2. 69 14 CCR § 15126.2(a). 70 14 CCR § 15126.2(a). 71 14 CCR § 15126.4. 72 FEIR, pg. 2-740. 6644-010acp "printed on recycled paper July 18, 2023 Page 15 emissions? What is the composition of the default construction fleet? The FEIR states that the default fleet includes "some Tier 4 equipment," but does not otherwise define the default fleet.73 Why were the "default fleet" emissions not reported in the DEIR? Indeed, the FEIR includes Table 05-1, purporting to report CalEEMod Default Fleet Emissions; the table, however, indicates that the source of information set forth is "Rincon Consultants, Inc., June 2023."74 This suggests it was prepared after the close of the public review and comment period for the DEIR. The FEIR claims that "without or with the PDFs that require a minimum of Tier 3 equipment, Project emissions would be below the South Coast AQMD thresholds of significance and, therefore, less than significance." 75 This statement is not supported by substantial evidence and therefore does not comply with CEQA. The City must revise and recirculate the DEIR to address the many defects discussed above. B. The FEIR Does Not Resolve the Failure to Analyze the Potential Health Risks to Nearby Residents from Project Emissions CREED LA's DEIR comments set forth the legal requirements under CEQA for agencies to analyze public health impacts of the Project.76 The comments also explained that the DEIR's justification for not performing a health risk analysis is unfounded, as it is based on a misapplication of SCAQMD's localized significance thresholds ("LSTs"). LSTs are not intended to provide health risk significance thresholds for toxic air contaminants ("TACs") such as diesel particulate matter ("DPM"). Finally, we provided substantial evidence of the Project's significant health impacts to neighboring residents from exposure to DPM from diesel generators used during Project operations. Dr. James Clark used the DEIR's CalEEMod analysis of the Project's emissions from diesel generators to assess cancer risk to nearby sensitive receptors, and found a risk at one of several nearby residents to be approximately 20 in one million, exceeding the 10 in one million significance threshold set by SCAQMD and representing a significant impact under CEQA. 77 73 Id. 74 Id. 75 FEIR, 2-740. 76 See e.g., Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cat5th 502, 518-522; see also, Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, 514-515. 77 DEIR Comments, pg. 17 and Exhibit A. 6644-010acp "printed on recycled paper July 18, 2023 Page 16 In the FEIR, the City continues to incorrectly maintain that a health risk analysis for the Project's operational DPM emissions is not required, and completely ignores the substantial evidence of a significant health impact provided by Dr. Clark.78 CEQA requires a good faith, reasoned analysis in response to comments on a DEIR, particularly in response to comments made by experts or other agencies.79 Indeed, another agency has echoed Dr. Clark's comments that a health risk analysis for the Project's operation DPM emissions should be performed. In its May 19, 2023 comment letter on the Project, the SCAQMD recommends that the City "conduct an operational phase HRA [Health Risk Assessment]... which is essential for determining the potential cancer risk impacts associated with the operation of the Proposed Project to the offsite sensitive receptors and workers so that they can be compared to the South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds for TACs [footnote omitted] to determine whether there will be a potentially significant air quality impact."80 In response to the SCAQMD's recommendation, the City suggests that it need not evaluate the health risk from diesel generators that would be used during Project operations, stating that "generators would not be part of the Project and, as needed, would only be implemented by production that was leasing space from the studio. These generators would need to be permitted through the South Coast AQMD and the risk associated with the generators would be required to be below regulatory thresholds as part of the permitting process."81 However, the DEIR assumed that the Project would utilize six diesel generators, and analyzed DPM emissions from those generators though, as noted, did not assess health risks from their operation. Regardless of who will use the generators on the Project site, the City is aware that such generators will be used and will emit DPM, and the EIR must therefore disclose and analyze the associated emissions and health risks. Finally, the DEIR's CalEEMod analysis of the six generators expected to be used on the Project site assumed that the generators would be equipped with Tier 3 emissions controls.82 This assumption, like the PDFs relating to the Project construction fleet, is an unenforceable mitigation measure. Because there is nothing requiring the Project utilize only Tier 3 diesel generators, the emissions reported are unreliable and likely underestimated. 78 FEIR, pgs. 2-1003-2-1004. 79 CEQA Guidelines §15088(c); Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay, supra, 91 Cal. App. 41h at 1367, 1371. 80 May 19, 2023 letter from Sam Wang, South Coast Air Quality Management District to Erika Iverson, City of Santa Clarita re Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Shadowbox Studios Project, pgs. 3-4. 81 FEIR, pg. 2-73. 82Id., pg. 2-71. 6644-010acp "printed on recycled paper July 18, 2023 Page 17 The City must revise and recirculate the DEIR with accurate estimates of the Project's DPM emissions supported by substantial evidence, and must perform a health risk analysis that discloses the health risks to the Project's neighbors. VI. THE FEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY DISCLOSE, ANALYZE OR MITIGATE THE PROJECT'S POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES CREED LA's DEIR comments include a lengthy letter from wildlife biologist Shawn Smallwood in which he details numerous deficiencies in the DEIR's analysis of the Project's impacts to biological resources.83 The FEIR fails to adequately address or resolve many of these issues, as explained in Dr. Smallwood's reply to the FEIR.84 Chief among these issues is the FEIR's failure to correct the DEIR's errors with respect to evaluating and reporting the environmental baseline on the Project site. Dr. Smallwood commented at length regarding the DEIR's serious flaws in its disclosure of the baseline environmental conditions related to the presence of wildlife, including special status species, on the Project site. Describing the environmental setting accurately and completely for each environmental condition in the vicinity of the Project is critical to an accurate, meaningful evaluation of environmental impacts. The courts have clearly stated that "[b]efore the impacts of a project can be assessed and mitigation measures considered, an [environmental review document] must describe the existing environment. It is only against this baseline that any significant environmental effects can be determined."85 Dr. Smallwood's DEIR comments also explained that the DEIR failed to adequately assess the Project site's background setting with respect to wildlife species. In particular, he noted that the DEIR's surveys of the Project site for biological resources and review of literature, databases and local experts for documented occurrences of special -status species were incomplete and misleading, and that none of those limitations were disclosed.86 Among other things, the DEIR relied on an "unrealistically short list of potentially occurring species as a starting point for the analysis."87 Indeed, Dr. Smallwood's associate surveyed the Project site from the perimeter with binoculars and detected multiple wildlife species on 83 See DEIR Comments, Exhibit C. 84 See Smallwood FEIR Comments. 85 County ofAmador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 952. 86 See generally, Smallwood DEIR Comments, pgs. 13-29. 87 Smallwood FEIR Comments, pg. 3. 6644-010acp "printed on recycled paper July 18, 2023 Page 18 and near the Project site that the City's consultants failed to detect or report, including 4 special -status species.88 The FEIR's response to Dr. Smallwood's evidence is that the reconnaissance survey performed by its consultants was not intended to be a comprehensive inventory of all species that inhabit the Project site, and that such a comprehensive inventory is unnecessary to support a sound impacts analysis.89 Dr. Smallwood did not assert, however, that a "comprehensive inventory" of all species on the Project site is necessary. Rather, he noted that the survey that was performed in support of the DEIR's analysis did not accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, and therefore could not support inferences made by the City's consultants regarding the likelihood of various species being present or absent from the Project site.90 Dr. Smallwood also analyzed and commented on the shortcomings in the DEIR's focused burrowing owl survey. His discussion was based on City's consultants' failure to comply with CDFW standards for performing and reporting such surveys. Dr. Smallwood noted that the consultant's report met none of the CDFW standards on reporting qualifications of survey personnel, and fewer than half of the standards for habitat assessment.91 He specifically identified more than 30 specific CDFW standards for burrowing owl surveys, and indicates that the survey done for the DEIR met about half of the standards.92 In response, the FEIR describes what the City's consultant did (which was previously reported in the DEIR), but does not correct their errors or omissions. Rather than address Dr. Smallwood's specific listing of standards not followed, the FEIR simply reiterates the standards that were followed.93 The FEIR claims, therefore, that the burrowing owl survey "complied with established protocol" and CEQA. However, Dr. Smallwood's specific comments regarding the DEIR's failure to meet 16 of the 34 applicable minimum burrowing owl protocol survey standards remain unresolved and uncontested. The FEIR's conclusions regarding the burrowing owl therefore remain unsupported by substantial evidence. ss Id., pg- 4- 89 FEIR, pg. 2-1023. 90 Smallwood FEIR comments, pg. 3. 91 Smallwood DEIR Comments, Table 3; Smallwood FEIR comments, pg. 13. 92 Id. 93 FEIR, pg. 2-1000. 6644-010acp "printed on recycled paper July 18, 2023 Page 19 VII. THE FEIR CONTINUES TO IMPROPERLY RELY ON UNENFORCEABLE PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES IN ITS IMPACT ANALYSES CREED LA's DEIR Comments explained how the DEIR violated CEQA by improperly relying on proposed and unenforceable project design features ("PDFs") to mitigate Project impacts with respect to air quality (discussed above), geology, energy, public services and wildfire. While none of these PDFs are mandatory nor enforceable, the DEIR assumed that the PDFs would be implemented and would reduce the Project's impacts, and were used as supported for the DEIR's conclusions that impacts will be less than significant. As discussed in the DEIR Comments and below, this approach violates CEQA. CREED LA's DEIR Comments explained why, under CEQA, the PDFs are actually mitigation measures. CEQA defines mitigation as including any measures designed to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for a significant impact.94 The PDFs described in the DEIR are actually mitigation measures because they perform these functions. Indeed, the FEIR admits that this is the purpose of the PDFs: "PDFs typically provide a benefit or a reduction to impacts [emphasis added]."95 As detailed in our DEIR Comments, CEQA requires that mitigation measures be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or other legally binding instruments.96 Because the City has not characterized any of the PDFs as mitigation measures, they are not binding on the Applicant, and will not be included in the Project's MMRP. Reliance on "proposed" nonmandatory and unenforceable PDFs to reduce impacts therefore provides no assurance that the Applicant will later comply with the "design features." The PDFs therefore fail to provide the binding mechanism required by CEQA to compel the Applicant's compliance with mitigation following Project approval. The Courts have made clear that mitigation must be incorporated directly into a project's MMRP to be considered enforceable. In Lotus u. Department of Transportation,97 an EIR approved by Caltrans contained several measures "[t]o help minimize potential stress on the redwood trees" during construction of a highway. Although those measures were clearly separate mitigation, the project proponents considered them "part of the project." The EIR concluded that due to 9414 CCR § 15370. 95 FEIR, pg. 2-739. 96 14 CCR §15126.4(a)(2). 97 Lotus u. Dept of Transp. (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 645, 651-52. 6644-010acp "printed on recycled paper July 18, 2023 Page 20 the planned implementation of those measures, the project would not result in significant impacts. The Court disagreed, finding that the EIR had "disregard[ed] the requirements of CEQA" by "compressing the analysis of impacts and mitigation measures into a single issue." The Court continued, stating "[a]bsent a determination regarding the significance of the impacts ... it is impossible to determine whether mitigation measures are required or to evaluate whether other more effective measures than those proposed should be considered."98 The FEIR fails to address any of the legal standards and case law set forth above and in CREED LA's DEIR Comments. Instead, it simply offers the conclusory statement that "PDFs are features of the Project that would be included in the construction and operation of the Project that would be implemented above and beyond compliance with specific regulations and requirements."99 As in the Lotus case, the City has compressed the analysis of impacts and mitigation into a single issue by insisting that the PDFs are part of the Project, and assuming the implementation of the PDFs in performing its impact analysis with respect to geology, energy, public service and wildfire impacts.100 By failing to first analyze and disclose the Project's impacts without consideration of the PDFs, the FEIR does not comply with CEQA. VIII. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, the FEIR for the Project is wholly inadequate under CEQA. It must be revised to provide legally adequate analysis of, and mitigation for, all of the Project's potentially significant impacts. These revisions will necessarily require that the DEIR be recirculated for additional public review. Until the DEIR has been revised and recirculated, as described herein, the City may not lawfully approve the Project. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please include them in the record of proceedings for the Project. Attachments RMF: acp 9s Id. 99 FEIR, pg. 2-1015. 100 See DEIR Comments, pgs. 35-39. 6644-010acp Sincerely, Richard M. Franco "printed on recycled paper EXHIBIT A 3 X Z z Y 1 0 100 Clark Et Associates Environmental Consulting, Inc. OFFICE 12405 Venice Blvd Suite 331 Los Angeles, CA 90066 PHONE 310-907-6165 FAX 310-398-7626 EMAIL jctark.assoc@gmail.com July 17, 2023 Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Attn: Mr. Richard Franco Subject: Comment Letter on Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) Shadowbox Studios Project, SCH NO. 2022030762. Dear Mr. Franco: At the request of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (ABJC), Clark and Associates (Clark) has reviewed materials related to the above referenced project. The FEIR concludes that only minor changes to the text of the Draft EIR occurred since public circulation, and none of the changes constitute "significant new information," which would require its recirculation. This conclusion is in conflict with the facts provided within the DEIR and FEIR. Specific Comments: 1. The City's Response That Generators Should Not Be Included In The FEIR Analysis Is Illogical. The City's response to comments about the emissions from generators on site is illogical. In my analysis of the DEIR, I demonstrated that the emissions from the generators would be result in a cancer risk in excess of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) threshold levels (10 in 1,000,000) using the Tier 3 EPA certified generators. Whether the Proponent is responsible for permitting the generators or 3rd parties are responsible is immaterial to 11Page the air quality analysis. The generators will produce the same amount of air toxins independent of the responsible party. The City's response that "Generators, as needed, would be brought on -site by individual production entities, which would need to permit the generator use independent of the Project development."' Since the City cannot predict the actual usage of the BUG onsite it is clear that they must use a predictive method to ensure that they do not underestimate their impacts on the community. The City's logic is in conflict with the need to accurately assess emissions from the Project in the CEQA process. The City did not address the concerns over power outages and need for BUGS noted in the Air Quality Analysis of the DEIR. According to Note 2 of the Blackhall Studios — Santa Clarita Project Generator Assumptions (page 66 of Appendix C to DEIR) the analysis clearly demonstrates the need for BUGS. The note states "In 2021 the entire Santa Clarita area (54 circuits) had an average of 1.1 disruptions for an average of 180 minutes for the entire year of 2021.... In statistical terms it appears that the Shadowbox Studio project circuit would actually have a 1 in 54 chance of a sustained outage one time per year. For purposes of this analysis we utilized the most extreme potential of one city- wide power outage per year." Among the commenting agencies, SCAQMD, which would permit any generator for the Project, provided comments in line with my own regarding the emissions from diesel back-up generators (BUGs) onsite and the need for a comprehensive dispersion model of emissions and a health risk assessment. Whether the BUGs are brought on by the individual production entities or are brought on by the Shadowbox facility, they will be present and emitting onsite. The City must revise the FEIR to include all sources of pollutants from the Project in a supplemental FEIR. 2. The City's Response To Questions Regarding Flaws In The Air Quality Analysis And The Need To Perform A Quantitative Health Risk Assessment Of The Impacts Of Toxic Air Contaminants (including Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) and Other Air Toxins) Emissions From The Construction & Operational Phase Of The Project For The Nearest Sensitive Receptor(s) Is Not In Line With The Comments From The Air Permitting Agency (SCAQMD) & The Generally Accepted Practice Among Environmental Professionals. i FEIR. 2023. Pg. 2-71 and page 2-1000 2 1 P a g e In response to comments from myself and the SCAQMD regarding the health impacts from diesel generators onsite, the City has chosen to respond by saying that as "part of the permitting process, the risk associated with the generators would be required to be below regulatory thresholds. See Response to Comment Nos. A3-3, A34, and A3-6 for additional information. As demonstrated therein, the Draft EIR adequately disclosed the health risks from exposure to DPM ,2 The responses to A3-3, A34, and A3-6 do not address the concerns, rather they place the burden for determining which BUGS will be used on unknown production entities, ignores the clearly defined health risk from exposure to diesel particulate matter, and fails to assess the long-term impacts for residents located immediately adjacent to the Project site from the emissions produced onsite. By relying on the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMPs) control strategies for construction equipment and other activities to mitigate DPM emissions, and localized significance thresholds (LSTs) which analyze criteria pollutants but do not specifically evaluate TACs, the City cannot attest as to whether there is a cancer risk presented to the community by the Project. The City must address this concern by performing an air dispersion model of the sources on site and off site, quantifying the annual concentrations of DPM for each of the receptors, and performing a health risk assessment of the DPM concentrations. Using a risk assessment process in which the age adjustment factors (ADAF) for various age groups would the California Air Resources Board Toxic Hot Spot Guidance, and present the results in a supplement FEIR. Under CEQA the City is required to provide a detailed health risk analysis for all projects that emit TACs with potential human exposure. TACs, including diesel particulate matter (DPM)3, contribute to a host of respiratory impacts and may lead to the development of various cancers. Failing to quantify those impacts places the community at risk for unwanted adverse health impacts. Even brief exposures to the TACs could lead to the development of adverse health impacts over the life of an individual. 2 FEIR. 2023. Pg 2-1004 3 Because DPM is a TAC, it is a different air pollutant than criteria particulate matter (PM) emissions such as PM10, PM2.5, and fugitive dust. DPM exposure causes acute health effects that are different from the effects of exposure to PM alone. 3 1 P a g e 3. The City's Response To Comment 06-13 Ignores The Substantial Evidence That The Project Site Will Emit Significant Quantities Of TACs. The City's response in Comment 06-13 ignores the evidence provide in my previous comment letter and the SCAQMD's comment letter that the Project Site will have toxic air contaminants that will be released from the construction and operational phases of the Project. The method for assessing the risk from exposure to these known human carcinogens is clearly outlined in guidance from OEHHA, DTSC, and SCAQMD. Failing to assess the health risks to nearby residents and sensitive receptors in the area is a significant flaw in the DEIR and FEIR. Given the volume of TACs previously identified that will be emitted during the construction and operational phases of the Project and the proximity of the Project to the receptors, the failure to assess the risk a priori is a critical flaw in the City's analysis. Conclusion The facts identified and referenced in this comment letter lead me to reasonably conclude that the Project could result in significant impacts (including an increase in the potential for residents along Alderbrook Avenue to be exposed to DPM, resulting in an increased health risk) if allowed to proceed. A supplemental FEIR should be prepared to address these substantial concerns. Sincerely, <� C112 -J41 4 1 P a g e Exhibit A: Curriculum Vitae 3 James J. J. Clark, Ph.D. X z z Principal Toxicologist v Toxicology/Exposure Assessment Modeling Risk Assessment/Analysis/Dispersion Modeling n Education: 100 Ph.D., Environmental Health Science, University of California, 1995 Clark & Associates M.S., Environmental Health Science, University of California, 1993 Environmental Consulting, Inc B.S., Biophysical and Biochemical Sciences, University of Houston, 1987 OFFICE Professional Experience: 12405 Venice Blvd. Suite 331 Dr. Clark is a well recognized toxicologist, air modeler, and health scientist. He has 20 Los Angeles, CA 90066 years of experience in researching the effects of environmental contaminants on human health including environmental fate and transport modeling (SCREEN3, AEROMOD, PHONE 310-907-6165 ISCST3, Johnson -Ettinger Vapor Intrusion Modeling); exposure assessment modeling (partitioning of contaminants in the environment as well as PBPK modeling); conducting FAX and managing human health risk assessments for regulatory compliance and risk -based 310-398-7626 clean-up levels; and toxicological and medical literature research. EMAIL jclark.assoc@gmail.com Significant projects performed by Dr. Clark include the following: LITIGATION SUPPORT Case: James Harold Caygle, et al, v. Drummond Company, Inc. Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama. Civil Action. CV-2009 Client: Environmental Litgation Group, Birmingham, Alabama Dr. Clark performed an air quality assessment of emissions from a coke factory located in Tarrant, Alabama. The assessment reviewed include a comprehensive review of air quality standards, measured concentrations of pollutants from factory, an inspection of the facility and detailed assessment of the impacts on the community. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court. Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff. Case: Rose Roper V. Nissan North America, et al. Superior Court of the State Of California for the County Of Los Angeles —Central Civil West. Civil Action. NC041739 Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to multiple chemicals, including benzene, who later developed a respiratory distress. A review of the individual's medical and occupational history was performed to prepare an exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to respiratory irritants. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court. Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff. Case: O'Neil V. Sherwin Williams, et al. United States District Court Central District of California Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to petroleum distillates who later developed a bladder cancer. A review of the individual's medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a quantitative exposure assessment. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court. Case Result: Summary judgment for defendants. Case: Moore V., Shell Oil Company, et al. Superior Court of the State Of California for the County Of Los Angeles Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to chemicals while benzene who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual's medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a quantitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court. Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff. Case: Raymond Saltonstall V. Fuller O'Brien, KILZ, and Zinsser, et al. United States District Court Central District of California Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to benzene who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual's medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a quantitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court. Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff. Case: Richard Boyer and Elizabeth Boyer, husband and wife, V. DESCO Corporation, et al. Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia. Civil Action Number 04-C-7G. Client: Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio & Simon, Morgantown, West Virginia. Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of a family exposed to chlorinated solvents released from the defendant's facility into local drinking water supplies. A review of the individual's medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to chlorinated solvents. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court. Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff. Case: JoAnne R. Cook, V. DESCO Corporation, et al. Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia. Civil Action Number 04-C-9R Client: Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio & Simon, Morgantown, West Virginia. Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual exposed to chlorinated solvents released from the defendant's facility into local drinking water supplies. A review of the individual's medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to chlorinated solvents. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court. Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff. Case: Patrick Allen And Susan Allen, husband and wife, and Andrew Allen, a minor, V. DESCO Corporation, et al. Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia. Civil Action Number 04-C-W Client: Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio & Simon, Morgantown, West Virginia. Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of a family exposed to chlorinated solvents released from the defendant's facility into local drinking water supplies. A review of the individual's medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to chlorinated solvents. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court. Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff. Case: Michael Fahey, Susan Fahey V. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al. United States District Court Central District of California Civil Action Number CV-06 7109 JCL. Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to refined petroleum hydrocarbons who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual's medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court. Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff. Case: Constance Acevedo, et al., V. California Spray -Chemical Company, et al., Superior Court of the State Of California, County Of Santa Cruz. Case No. CV 146344 Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive exposure assessment of community members exposed to toxic metals from a former lead arsenate manufacturing facility. The former manufacturing site had undergone a DTSC mandated removal action/remediation for the presence of the toxic metals at the site. Opinions were presented regarding the elevated levels of arsenic and lead (in attic dust and soils) found throughout the community and the potential for harm to the plaintiffs in question. Case Result: Settlement in favor of defendant. Case: Michael Nawrocki V. The Coastal Corporation, Kurk Fuel Company, Pautler Oil Service, State of New York Supreme Court, County of Erie, Index Number I2001-11247 Client: Richard G. Berger Attorney At Law, Buffalo, New York Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to refined petroleum hydrocarbons who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual's medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court. Case Result: Judgement in favor of defendant. SELECTED AIR MODELING RESEARCHIPROJECTS Client — Confidential Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive evaluation of criteria pollutants, air toxins, and particulate matter emissions from a carbon black production facility to determine the impacts on the surrounding communities. The results of the dispersion model will be used to estimate acute and chronic exposure concentrations to multiple contaminants and will be incorporated into a comprehensive risk evaluation. Client — Confidential Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive evaluation of air toxins and particulate matter emissions from a railroad tie manufacturing facility to determine the impacts on the surrounding communities. The results of the dispersion model have been used to estimate acute and chronic exposure concentrations to multiple contaminants and have been incorporated into a comprehensive risk evaluation. Client — Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE), Los Angeles, California Dr. Clark is advising the LAANE on air quality issues related to current flight operations at the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) operated by the Los Angeles World Airport (LAWA) Authority. He is working with the LAANE and LAX staff to develop a comprehensive strategy for meeting local community concerns over emissions from flight operations and to engage federal agencies on the issue of local impacts of community airports. Client — City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica, California Dr. Clark is advising the City of Santa Monica on air quality issues related to current flight operations at the facility. He is working with the City staff to develop a comprehensive strategy for meeting local community concerns over emissions from flight operations and to engage federal agencies on the issue of local impacts of community airports. Client: Omnitrans, San Bernardino, California Dr. Clark managed a public health survey of three communities near transit fueling facilities in San Bernardino and Montclair California in compliance with California Senate Bill 1927. The survey included an epidemiological survey of the effected communities, emission surveys of local businesses, dispersion modeling to determine potential emission concentrations within the communities, and a comprehensive risk assessment of each community. The results of the study were presented to the Governor as mandated by Senate Bill 1927. Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California Summarized cancer types associated with exposure to metals and smoking. Researched the specific types of cancers associated with exposure to metals and smoking. Provided causation analysis of the association between cancer types and exposure for use by non-public health professionals. Client: Confidential, Minneapolis, Minnesota Prepared human health risk assessment of workers exposed to VOCs from neighboring petroleum storage/transport facility. Reviewed the systems in place for distribution of petroleum hydrocarbons to identify chemicals of concern (COCs), prepared comprehensive toxicological summaries of COCs, and quantified potential risks from carcinogens and non -carcinogens to receptors at or adjacent to site. This evaluation was used in the support of litigation. Client — United Kingdom Environmental Agency Dr. Clark is part of team that performed comprehensive evaluation of soil vapor intrusion of VOCs from former landfill adjacent residences for the United Kingdom's Environment Agency. The evaluation included collection of liquid and soil vapor samples at site, modeling of vapor migration using the Johnson Ettinger Vapor Intrusion model, and calculation of site -specific health based vapor thresholds for chlorinated solvents, aromatic hydrocarbons, and semi -volatile organic compounds. The evaluation also included a detailed evaluation of the use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, and toxicology of chemicals of concern (COC). The results of the evaluation have been used as a briefing tool for public health professionals. EMERGING/PERSISTENT CONTAMINANT RESEARCH/PROJECTS Client: Ameren Services, St. Louis, Missouri Managed the preparation of a comprehensive human health risk assessment of workers and residents at or near an NPL site in Missouri. The former operations at the Property included the servicing and repair of electrical transformers, which resulted in soils and groundwater beneath the Property and adjacent land becoming impacted with PCB and chlorinated solvent compounds. The results were submitted to U.S. EPA for evaluation and will be used in the final ROD. Client: City of Santa Clarita, Santa Clarita, California Dr. Clark is managing the oversight of the characterization, remediation and development activities of a former 1,000 acre munitions manufacturing facility for the City of Santa Clarita. The site is impacted with a number of contaminants including perchlorate, unexploded ordinance, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The site is currently under a number of regulatory consent orders, including an Immanent and Substantial Endangerment Order. Dr. Clark is assisting the impacted municipality with the development of remediation strategies, interaction with the responsible parties and stakeholders, as well as interfacing with the regulatory agency responsible for oversight of the site cleanup. Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California Prepared comprehensive evaluation of perchlorate in environment. Dr. Clark evaluated the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, toxicology, and remediation of perchlorate. Perchlorates form the basis of solid rocket fuels and have recently been detected in water supplies in the United States. The results of this research were presented to the USEPA, National GroundWater, and ultimately published in a recent book entitled Perchlorate in the Environment. Client — Confidential, Los Angeles, California Dr. Clark is performing a comprehensive review of the potential for pharmaceuticals and their by-products to impact groundwater and surface water supplies. This evaluation will include a review if available data on the history of pharmaceutical production in the United States; the chemical characteristics of various pharmaceuticals; environmental fate and transport; uptake by xenobiotics; the potential effects of pharmaceuticals on water treatment systems; and the potential threat to public health. The results of the evaluation may be used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals. PUBLIC HEALTHITOXICOLOGY Client: Brayton Purcell, Novato, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of residents exposed to methyl -tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) from leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTS) adjacent to the subject property. The symptomology of residents and guests of the subject property were evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to MTBE. The study found that residents had been exposed to MTBE in their drinking water; that concentrations of MTBE detected at the site were above regulatory guidelines; and, that the symptoms and outcomes expressed by residents and guests were consistent with symptoms and outcomes documented in published literature. Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California Identified and analyzed fifty years of epidemiological literature on workplace exposures to heavy metals. This research resulted in a summary of the types of cancer and non -cancer diseases associated with occupational exposure to chromium as well as the mortality and morbidity rates. Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California Summarized major public health research in United States. Identified major public health research efforts within United States over last twenty years. Results were used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals. Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California Quantified the potential multi -pathway dose received by humans from a pesticide applied indoors. Part of team that developed exposure model and evaluated exposure concentrations in a comprehensive report on the plausible range of doses received by a specific person. This evaluation was used in the support of litigation. Client: Covanta Energy, Westwood, California Evaluated health risk from metals in biosolids applied as soil amendment on agricultural lands. The biosolids were created at a forest waste cogeneration facility using 96% whole tree wood chips and 4 percent green waste. Mass loading calculations were used to estimate Cr(VI) concentrations in agricultural soils based on a maximum loading rate of 40 tons of biomass per acre of agricultural soil. The results of the study were used by the Regulatory agency to determine that the application of biosolids did not constitute a health risk to workers applying the biosolids or to residences near the agricultural lands. Client — United Kingdom Environmental Agency Oversaw a comprehensive toxicological evaluation of methyl -tertiary butyl ether (MtBE) for the United Kingdom's Environment Agency. The evaluation included available data on the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, toxicology, and remediation of MtBE. The results of the evaluation have been used as a briefing tool for public health professionals. Client — Confidential, Los Angeles, California Prepared comprehensive evaluation of tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA) in municipal drinking water system. TBA is the primary breakdown product of MtBE, and is suspected to be the primary cause of MtBE toxicity. This evaluation will include available information on the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport in the environment, absorption, distribution, routes of detoxification, metabolites, carcinogenic potential, and remediation of TBA. The results of the evaluation were used as a briefing tool for non- public health professionals. Client — Confidential, Los Angeles, California Prepared comprehensive evaluation of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in municipal drinking water system. MTBE is a chemical added to gasoline to increase the octane rating and to meet Federally mandated emission criteria. The evaluation included available data on the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, toxicology, and remediation of MTBE. The results of the evaluation have been were used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals. Client — Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, British Columbia Dr. Clark assisted in the development of water quality guidelines for methyl tertiary -butyl ether (MTBE) to protect water uses in British Columbia (BC). The water uses to be considered includes freshwater and marine life, wildlife, industrial, and agricultural (e.g., irrigation and livestock watering) water uses. Guidelines from other jurisdictions for the protection of drinking water, recreation and aesthetics were to be identified. Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California Prepared physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) assessment of lead risk of receptors at middle school built over former industrial facility. This evaluation is being used to determine cleanup goals and will be basis for regulatory closure of site. Client: Kaiser Venture Incorporated, Fontana, California Prepared PBPK assessment of lead risk of receptors at a 1,100-acre former steel mill. This evaluation was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency. RISK ASSESSMENTS/REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS Client: Confidential, Atlanta, Georgia Researched potential exposure and health risks to community members potentially exposed to creosote, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, pentachlorophenol, and dioxin compounds used at a former wood treatment facility. Prepared a comprehensive toxicological summary of the chemicals of concern, including the chemical characteristics, absorption, distribution, and carcinogenic potential. Prepared risk characterization of the carcinogenic and non -carcinogenic chemicals based on the exposure assessment to quantify the potential risk to members of the surrounding community. This evaluation was used to help settle class-action tort. Client: Confidential, Escondido, California Prepared comprehensive Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) of dense non - aqueous liquid phase hydrocarbon (chlorinated solvents) contamination at a former printed circuit board manufacturing facility. This evaluation was used for litigation support and may be used as the basis for reaching closure of the site with the lead regulatory agency. Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California Summarized epidemiological evidence for connective tissue and autoimmune diseases for product liability litigation. Identified epidemiological research efforts on the health effects of medical prostheses. This research was used in a meta -analysis of the health effects and as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals. Client: Confidential, Bogota, Columbia Prepared comprehensive evaluation of the potential health risks associated with the redevelopment of a 13.7 hectares plastic manufacturing facility in Bogota, Colombia The risk assessment was used as the basis for the remedial goals and closure of the site. Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California Prepared comprehensive human health risk assessment of students, staff, and residents potentially exposed to heavy metals (principally cadmium) and VOCs from soil and soil vapor at 12-acre former crude oilfield and municipal landfill. The site is currently used as a middle school housing approximately 3,000 children. The evaluation determined that the site was safe for the current and future uses and was used as the basis for regulatory closure of site. Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California Managed remedial investigation (RI) of heavy metals and volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) for a 15-acre former manufacturing facility. The RI investigation of the site included over 800 different sampling locations and the collection of soil, soil gas, and groundwater samples. The site is currently used as a year round school housing approximately 3,000 children. The Remedial Investigation was performed in a manner that did not interrupt school activities and met the time restrictions placed on the project by the overseeing regulatory agency. The RI Report identified the off -site source of metals that impacted groundwater beneath the site and the sources of VOCs in soil gas and groundwater. The RI included a numerical model of vapor intrusion into the buildings at the site from the vadose zone to determine exposure concentrations and an air dispersion model of VOCs from the proposed soil vapor treatment system. The Feasibility Study for the Site is currently being drafted and may be used as the basis for granting closure of the site by DTSC. Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California Prepared comprehensive human health risk assessment of students, staff, and residents potentially exposed to heavy metals (principally lead), VOCs, SVOCs, and PCBs from soil, soil vapor, and groundwater at 15-acre former manufacturing facility. The site is currently used as a year round school housing approximately 3,000 children. The evaluation determined that the site was safe for the current and future uses and will be basis for regulatory closure of site. Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California Prepared comprehensive evaluation of VOC vapor intrusion into classrooms of middle school that was former 15-acre industrial facility. Using the Johnson -Ettinger Vapor Intrusion model, the evaluation determined acceptable soil gas concentrations at the site that did not pose health threat to students, staff, and residents. This evaluation is being used to determine cleanup goals and will be basis for regulatory closure of site. Client —Dominguez Energy, Carson, California Prepared comprehensive evaluation of the potential health risks associated with the redevelopment of 6-acre portion of a 500-acre oil and natural gas production facility in Carson, California. The risk assessment was used as the basis for closure of the site. Kaiser Ventures Incorporated, Fontana, California Prepared health risk assessment of semi -volatile organic chemicals and metals for a fifty- year old wastewater treatment facility used at a 1,100-acre former steel mill. This evaluation was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency. ANR Freight - Los Angeles, California Prepared a comprehensive Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) of petroleum hydrocarbon and metal contamination of a former freight depot. This evaluation was as the basis for reaching closure of the site with lead regulatory agency. Kaiser Ventures Incorporated, Fontana, California Prepared comprehensive health risk assessment of semi -volatile organic chemicals and metals for 23-acre parcel of a 1,100-acre former steel mill. The health risk assessment was used to determine clean up goals and as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency. Air dispersion modeling using ISCST3 was performed to determine downwind exposure point concentrations at sensitive receptors within a 1 kilometer radius of the site. The results of the health risk assessment were presented at a public meeting sponsored by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) in the community potentially affected by the site. Unocal Corporation - Los Angeles, California Prepared comprehensive assessment of petroleum hydrocarbons and metals for a former petroleum service station located next to sensitive population center (elementary school). The assessment used a probabilistic approach to estimate risks to the community and was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency. Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California Managed oversight of remedial investigation most contaminated heavy metal site in California. Lead concentrations in soil excess of 68,000,000 parts per billion (ppb) have been measured at the site. This State Superfund Site was a former hard chrome plating operation that operated for approximately 40-years. Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California Coordinator of regional monitoring program to determine background concentrations of metals in air. Acted as liaison with SCAQMD and CARB to perform co -location sampling and comparison of accepted regulatory method with ASTM methodology. Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California Analyzed historical air monitoring data for South Coast Air Basin in Southern California and potential health risks related to ambient concentrations of carcinogenic metals and volatile organic compounds. Identified and reviewed the available literature and calculated risks from toxins in South Coast Air Basin. IT Corporation, North Carolina Prepared comprehensive evaluation of potential exposure of workers to air -borne VOCs at hazardous waste storage facility under SUPERFUND cleanup decree. Assessment used in developing health based clean-up levels. Professional Associations American Public Health Association (APHA) Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) American Chemical Society (ACS) California Redevelopment Association (CRA) International Society of Environmental Forensics (ISEF) Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Publications and Presentations: Books and Book Chapters Sullivan, P., J.J. J. Clark, F.J. Agardy, and P.E. Rosenfeld. (2007). Synthetic Toxins In The Food, Water and Air ofAmerican Cities. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA. Sullivan, P. and J.J. J. Clark. 2006. Choosing Safer Foods, A Guide To Minimizing Synthetic Chemicals In Your Diet. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA. Sullivan, P., Agardy, F.J., and J.J.J. Clark. 2005. The Environmental Science of Drinking Water. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA. Sullivan, P.J., Agardy, F.J., Clark, J.J.J. 2002. America's Threatened Drinking Water: Hazards and Solutions. Trafford Publishing, Victoria B.C. Clark, J.J.J. 2001. "TBA: Chemical Properties, Production & Use, Fate and Transport, Toxicology, Detection in Groundwater, and Regulatory Standards" in Oxygenates in the Environment. Art Diaz, Ed.. Oxford University Press: New York. Clark, J.J.J. 2000. "Toxicology of Perchlorate" in Perchlorate in the Environment. Edward Urbansky, Ed. Kluwer/Plenum: New York. Clark, J.J.J. 1995. Probabilistic Forecasting of Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations At The Soil Surface From Contaminated Groundwater. UMI. Baker, J.; Clark, J.J.J.; Stanford, J.T. 1994. Ex Situ Remediation of Diesel Contaminated Railroad Sand by Soil Washing. Principles and Practices for Diesel Contaminated Soils, Volume III. P.T. Kostecki, E.J. Calabrese, and C.P.L. Barkan, eds. Amherst Scientific Publishers, Amherst, MA. pp 89-96. Journal and Proceeding Articles Tam L. K., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008) A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equialency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, Volume 70 (2008) page 002254. Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008) Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, Volume 70 (2008) page 000527 Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (2007). "Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility." Environmental Research. 105:194-199. Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J., Hensley, A.R., and Suffet, I.H. 2007. "The Use Of An Odor Wheel Classification For The Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria For Compost Facilities" Water Science & Technology. 55(5): 345-357. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. 2006. "Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility." The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants — DIOXIN2006, August 21 — 25, 2006. Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway. Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J. and Suffet, I.H. 2005. "The Value Of An Odor Quality Classification Scheme For Compost Facility Evaluations" The U.S. Composting Council's 13a' Annual Conference January 23 - 26, 2005, Crowne Plaza Riverwalk, San Antonio, TX. Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J. and Suffet, I.H. 2004. "The Value Of An Odor Quality Classification Scheme For Urban Odor" WEFTEC 2004. 77th Annual Technical Exhibition & Conference October 2 - 6, 2004, Ernest N. Morial Convention Center, New Orleans, Louisiana. Clark, J.J.J. 2003. "Manufacturing, Use, Regulation, and Occurrence of a Known Endocrine Disrupting Chemical (EDC), 2,4-Dichlorophnoxyacetic Acid (2,4-D) in California Drinking Water Supplies." National Groundwater Association Southwest Focus Conference: Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. Minneapolis, MN. March 20, 2003. Rosenfeld, P. and J.J.J. Clark. 2003. "Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity, and Regulatory Guidance" National Groundwater Association Southwest Focus Conference: Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. Phoenix, AZ. February 21, 2003. Clark, J.J.J., Brown A. 1999. Perchlorate Contamination: Fate in the Environment and Treatment Options. In Situ and On -Site Bioremediation, Fifth International Symposium. San Diego, CA, April, 1999. Clark, J.J.J. 1998. Health Effects of Perchlorate and the New Reference Dose (RID). Proceedings From the Groundwater Resource Association Seventh Annual Meeting, Walnut Creek, CA, October 23, 1998. Browne, T., Clark, J.J.J. 1998. Treatment Options For Perchlorate In Drinking Water. Proceedings From the Groundwater Resource Association Seventh Annual Meeting, Walnut Creek, CA, October 23, 1998. Clark, J.J.J., Brown, A., Rodriguez, R. 1998. The Public Health Implications of MtBE and Perchlorate in Water: Risk Management Decisions for Water Purveyors. Proceedings of the National Ground Water Association, Anaheim, CA, June 3-4, 1998. Clark J.J.J., Brown, A., Ulrey, A. 1997. Impacts of Perchlorate On Drinking Water In The Western United States. U.S. EPA Symposium on Biological and Chemical Reduction of Chlorate and Perchlorate, Cincinnati, OH, December 5, 1997. Clark, J.J.J.; Corbett, G.E.; Kerger, B.D.; Finley, B.L.; Paustenbach, D.J. 1996. Dermal Uptake of Hexavalent Chromium In Human Volunteers: Measures of Systemic Uptake From Immersion in Water At 22 PPM. Toxicologist. 30(1):14. Dodge, D.G.; Clark, J.J.J.; Kerger, B.D.; Richter, R.O.; Finley, B.L.; Paustenbach, D.J. 1996. Assessment of Airborne Hexavalent Chromium In The Home Following Use of Contaminated Tapwater. Toxicologist. 30(l):117-118. Paulo, M.T.; Gong, H., Jr.; Clark, J.J.J. (1992). Effects of Pretreatment with Ipratroprium Bromide in COPD Patients Exposed to Ozone. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 145(4):A96. Harber, P.H.; Gong, H., Jr.; Lachenbruch, A.; Clark, J.; Hsu, P. (1992). Respiratory Pattern Effect of Acute Sulfur Dioxide Exposure in Asthmatics. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 145(4):A88. McManus, M.S.; Gong, H., Jr.; Clements, P.; Clark, J.J.J. (1991). Respiratory Response of Patients With Interstitial Lung Disease To Inhaled Ozone. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 143(4):A91. Gong, H., Jr.; Simmons, M.S.; McManus, M.S.; Tashkin, D.P.; Clark, V.A.; Detels, R.; Clark, J.J. (1990). Relationship Between Responses to Chronic Oxidant and Acute Ozone Exposures in Residents of Los Angeles County. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 141(4):A70. Tierney, D.F. and J.J.J. Clark. (1990). Lung Polyamine Content Can Be Increased By Spermidine Infusions Into Hyperoxic Rats. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 139(4):A41. EXHIBIT B WILSON IHRIG ACOUSTICS, NOISE & VIBRATION July 17, 2023 Richard M. Franco Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000 South San Francisco, CA 94080 SUBJECT: City of Santa Clarita Shadowbox Studio Project FEIR Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses Shadowbox Studio Project Dear Mr. Franco CALIFORNIA WASHINGTON NEW YORK WI 23-002.15 Wilson Ihrig previously provided comments to you on May 19, 2023 regarding the City of Santa Clarita Shadowbox Studio Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis is contained in Section 4.11 of the DEIR, with supplemental calculations in Appendix J Noise Study (Noise Study). The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was recently provided on July 6th in advance of the next Planning Commission hearing (on July 18th). In that FEIR, responses to comments (RTC) on the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis were provided starting on page 2-1004. In addition, Wilson Ihrig has reviewed the Staff Report prepared for the June 20th hearing, including a memorandum titled "Shadowbox Studios Operations FAQ's." This letter focuses on the RTC and the new operational information provided in the Staff Report. The RTC states that there is substantial evidence to support the use of an absolute threshold only as the basis of analysis [FEIR 2-1005]. The RTC is unresponsive to our comment regarding the CEQA threshold. The CEQA Guidelines clearly state that a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would result in "generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels" [DEIR page 4.11-11]. The RTC states that an absolute threshold approach is consistent with other jurisdictions within the state and that Caltrans does not have a threshold for a numeric increase in ambient noise levels [FEIR 2-1005]. Caltrans has used 12 dB in the past, consistent with FHWA guidance of using 5 to 15 dB. In its current discussion of CEQA, the Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (Protocol)' states that the significance of noise impacts is determined based on the project -related increase in noise and, while no single numerical threshold is used on all projects, what is considered a substantial increase can vary depending on current environment [Protocol page 7-1]. Caltrans allows for project -specific ambient thresholds to account for difference in sensitivity to noise increase in quiet rural and noisy urban environments. ' https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/traffic-noise-protocol- april-2020-a11V.pdf 5900 HOLLIS STREET. SUITETI EMERYVILLE. CA 94608 (510) 658-6719 1 WWW.WILSONIHRIG,COM WILSON IHRIG FOUND Residences Discussion of RTC on the Noise Analysis The RTC posits that "the significance of the magnitude of an ambient noise level increase is inherently accounted for by the City's fixed noise limits utilized for the [operational] noise analysis in the Draft EIR" [FEIR 2-1006]. This is unsubstantiated, since the ambient environment varies greatly within the City, as shown by the Project measurements on the north and south side of the site. The RTC states that compliance with the FTA is sufficient to protect human health [FEIR 2- 10006]. The cited FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual is a guidance document, and it discourages projects against using its absolute criteria values without consideration of local conditions (FTA page 179, see Figure 1 below); the FTA threshold could be too high and the RTC provides no discussion why 80 dBA should be deemed acceptable. Therefore, it is not accurate to characterize that the DEIR analysis has completely addressed and protected human health. No standardized criteria have been developed for assessing construction noise impact. Consequently, criteria must be developed on a project -specific basis unless local ordinances apply. As stated earlier in this section, local noise ordinances are typically not very useful in evaluating construction noise. They usually relate to nuisance and hours of allowed activity, and sometimes specify limits in terms of maximum levels, but are generally not practical for assessing the impact of a construction project. Project construction noise criteria should account for the existing noise environment, the absolute noise levels during construction activities, the duration of the construction, and the adjacent land Figure 1 FTA Manual, Section on Construction Noise and Vibration (page 179) Relying solely on an 80 dB absolute limit, would allow for a 31 dB increase at NM4 and a 33 dB increase at NM6. As stated in the DEIR, "a 5 dB change is generally recognized as a clearly discernible difference" [DEIR page 4.11-14] and as stated by Caltrans, "a 10 dB increase [is] generally perceived as a doubling of loudness" [Caltrans page 3-2]. As shown in Table 1 of our original letter, predicted construction noise levels range from 64 to 83 dBA at 200 feet. The RTC does not provide a rational explanation for why an increase of more than 30 dB during grading and 15-27 dB during other phases is an insignificant increase. 2. The RTC states that "permanent noise level increases associated with continuous operational noise sources typically result in adverse community reaction at lower magnitudes of increase than temporary noise level increases associated with construction activities" [FEIR 2-1006]. The RTC is unresponsive to our comment regarding the CEQA threshold. The CEQA Guidelines clearly state that a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would result in "generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels" [DEIR page 4.11-11]. The RTC cites Caltrans regarding "temporary" activities [FEIR 2-1021]. The text quoted from the Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (TeNS)2 refers to vibration damage not community annoyance. Caltrans discusses variation in residents' tolerance toward construction noise depending on duration, but in the context of stressing the importance of a good community communication plan [TeNS 7-27]. 2 https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013- allv.pdf Page 2 WILSON IHRIG FOUND Residences Discussion of RTC on the Noise Analysis Citing one agency, Caltrans, is not equivalent to "expert state agencies agree that construction noise levels are more tolerable because construction activities are temporary" as asserted in the RTC [FEIR 2-1021]. 3. The RTC states that the construction noise predictions in our original letter are overestimated. The RTC states that "equipment is typically operated in groups of two or three on different parts of the site" [FEIR 2-1022]. The FTA Manual has two options of thresholds and assessment procedures for construction noise: general and detailed assessment. A detailed assessment requires information on the equipment to be used and site layout, which the DEIR document provides and the Project used the detailed assessment FTA threshold of 80 dBA in the DEIR construction noise analysis. Per Chapter 12 of the FTA Manual, the detailed construction assessment uses ALL equipment for each phase, not 2-3 pieces [FTA 179] and accounts for the percent of time each piece is used by applying a usage factor [FTA 178]. The predictions included in Table 1 of our original letter used usage factors provided by FHWA RCNM, which is standard practice. The RTC posits that FTA guidance recommends the use of a distance to the center of the site for predictions and that 500 feet should have been used for calculations [FEIR 2-1022]. The detailed assessment procedure in the FTA Manual uses distances to each piece of equipment, not the center of the site. And, as stated in the DEIR [DEIR 4.11-15], the average distance used in the original noise analysis was 200 feet and the closest distance was 105 feet (used specifically for grading activities in Table 1, per site plan of the closest lot). The construction noise predictions in our letter use those same distances (there is a missing footnote for the grading calculation). Finally, the RTC claims that the predictions in our original letter overestimate noise based on a misinterpretation of the equipment tables provided in the DEIR Air Quality Report [FEIR 2- 1022]. This is incorrect. As stated in the RTC, "tractors/loaders/backhoe" amount two was assumed to mean two pieces of equipment, not two each. Per Eq. 7-1 in the FTA Manual: D D L — L_ + 1010 Ad — 20lo 50 10G10 5I} Eq. 7-1 Using an 80 dB reference level and 40 % usage factor, the Leq for one tractor, loader, or backhoe at 105 feet is 70 dBA and two pieces are 73 dBA. For building construction, three pieces at 200 feet are 69 dBA. Please feel free to contact me with any questions on this information. Very truly yours, WILSON IHRIG * z ;_- _r__ , - Ani Toncheva Senior Consultant Page 3 i WIL.SON IHRIG ACOUSTICS, NOISE & VIBRATION ANI TONCHEVA Senior Consultant Since joining the firm in 2011, Ani has conducted analyses for transit systems, vibration sensitive research facilities, public infrastructure, construction, and other environmental noise. She has contributed to literature reviews, including research on current practices of historical preservation. She has extensive experience working on construction projects in New York City and is well versed in local noise codes. Education • B.A., Physics; Bard College, New York Professional Associations Member, National Council of Acoustical Consultants (NCAC) Member, Acoustical Society of America (ASA) Board Member, Transportation Research Forum (TRF), NY Chapter and International board Research Paper • NCHRP 25-25, Current Practices to Address Construction Vibration and Potential Effects to Historic Buildings Adjacent to Transportation Projects Relevant Experience BART Berryessa Station Transit Noise Impact and Mitigation, San Jose, CA Assisted with noise predictions and barrier design recommendations. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Green Line Extension (GLX), Boston, MA Lead analyst on noise predictions and barrier design. RTD Eagle P3 Northwest Corridor Noise and Impacts, Denver, CO Assisted with data analysis and helped prepare final technical report. Alameda CTC, I-880 Interchange Improvements Project (Whipple Road -Industrial Southwest and Industrial Parkway West), Hayward, CA Project Manager for traffic noise study. Alameda CTC, I-80/AshhyAvenue Interchange Improvements, Berkeley, CA Project Manager for traffic noise study. Millennium Bulk Terminal, Longview, WA Prepared noise analysis for the project's NEPA and SEPA environmental impact statements. Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA Haskin Hill Sanctuary, Loma Mar, CA Prepared an environmental study for a planned animal sanctuary in Loma Mar. Analog (ArtX) Hotel, Palo Alto, CA Prepared preliminary basis of design guidelines for a new five - story boutique hotel in a residential area. Sunnydale Block 3A & 3B Mixed -Use Residential Development, San Francisco, CA Prepared a CCR Title 24 Noise Study Report for two, mixed -use, 5-story buildings. WILSON IHRIG Ani Toncheva - Page 2 Columbia University Medical Center Medical and Graduate Education Building, New York, NY Conducted baseline noise survey and performed attended noise measurements during preliminary construction work. Hudson Yards Tower CFoundations and Utilities, New York, NY Conducted a baseline noise survey prior to construction work including a combination of long-term unattended and short-term attended noise measurements. PANYNJ Lincoln Tunnel Helix Rehabilitation, NJ Assisted in developing construction noise control and mitigation plan and implementing a remote long-term noise monitoring program at three locations. MSK 74th Street, New York, NY Conducted baseline noise survey, assisted in developing construction noise control and mitigation plan, and implemented a long-term noise monitoring program at two locations. NYMTA No. 7 Line Subway Extension Ventilation Facility Construction, New York, NYThe project involved mining and lining of two shafts and construction of a 2-story ventilation building. NYMTA ESA/LIRR Grand Central Terminal Fit -Out, New York, NY Prepared the Contractor's noise and vibration control plan updates for fit -out work conducted underground at the Grand Central Terminal Suburban Level. San Francisco Planning Department, Alameda Street Wet Weather Tunnel and Folsom Area Sewer Improvement, San Francisco, CA Noise and vibration analysis for Folsom Area stormwater infrastructure improvements. World Trade Center Vehicle Security Center, New York, NY Conducted baseline noise surveys, assisted in developing construction noise control plans, and implementing a remote long-term noise monitoring program. 50 Pine Street Condominiums, New York, NY Project involved evaluating mechanical noise at residential dwelling units for NYC noise code Uptown Newport, Newport Beach, CA Evaluation of noise levels due to mechanical equipment at adjacent property. EXHIBIT C Shawn Smallwood, PhD 31o8 Finch Street Davis, CA 95616 Erika Iverson, Senior Planner City Of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: Shadowbox Studios Project Dear Ms. Iverson, 15 July 2023 I write to reply to the City's responses to my comments on potential impacts to wildlife that were analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") that was prepared for the Shadowbox Studios Project. I also reply to some of the responses to 22 May 2023 comments from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. My qualifications as an expert on wildlife ecology were summarized in my comment letter of 19 May 2023. Please note that some of the responses address multiple comments or issues. In these cases, I split out my replies to responses, and where I did this, I repeat the numbered response but I add a sequential alphabetical letter to each. Response to Comment No. 06-40 The comment states their qualifications as a biologist for providing comments on the Draft EIR and biological resources report. The comment also introduces and states the qualifications for wildlife biologist Noriko Smallwood, describes the weather and vegetation observed by Ms. Smallwood during the site visit conducted on May 14, 2023, and provides photographs and a table listing the wildlife observed during the site visit. According to Ms. Smallwood, 40 species of vertebrate wildlife were observed on the Project Site during a 3.52-hour survey. Ms. Smallwood's survey results are noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision -makers for review and consideration. Reply: The response is essentially a "comment noted" response. It ignores significant environmental issues that are raised by my comments, but which the City lumps into one numbered comment. According to the City's response, my comment is simply that Noriko Smallwood detected 40 species of wildlife during her 3.52-hour survey. In truth, my comments also identified the 6 special -status species she detected at the project site, as well as her detections of ecological keystone species whose presence raise the likelihoods that special -status species occur on the site but which had not yet been detected by her or by Rincon. My comments also raise the issue of evidence of breeding observed by Noriko, and that the site is important to wildlife productivity in the region. In fact, most of my comments lumped into Comment No. o6-4o are ignored by the City. Response to Comment No. 06-4ia The comment states that a reconnaissance -level survey should serve only as a starting point toward characterization of a site's wildlife community, but it cannot alone provide an inventory of species that use the site and asserts that a much greater survey effort is needed at the site in order to characterize the existing environmental setting with sufficient accuracy to support a sound impacts analysis. To support this assertion, the comment cites data from past surveys to demonstrate that more time spent on or repeat surveys result in more species detected. The presented data are noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision -makers for review and consideration. Reply: The response is another "comment noted" response that does not seriously consider my comments. The lead agency needs to address my comment "in detail giving reasons why" the comment is "not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response,"' particularly in response to comments that are made by agencies or experts.2 I note, however, that the response does not attempt to refute the relationship I summarize between the number of species detected in a survey and the survey's founding level of effort. I assume the City agrees with my comment that the effort put into a survey largely determines the number of species detected at the project site. Response to Comment No. 06-4ib The reconnaissance survey conducted by Rincon was not intended to be a comprehensive inventory of all species that inhabit the Project Site, and it is not represented as such in the Rincon Biological Resources Assessment (BRA). Reply: According to Rincon (2023), "All biological resources encountered on -site were recorded." This statement falsely implies that Rincon recorded all biological resources that were on the project site. Adding to this impression that Rincon's survey should be regarded as an inventory is Rincon's (2023) interpretation of whichever biological resources had not been detected during the Rincon's survey as evidence of absence. For example, breeding Cooper's hawks on site is regarded as unlikely because Rincon (2023) failed to see a Cooper's hawk nest during its surveys on one day in January. In another example, Rincon (2023) uses its survey outcome as evidence of low occurrence likelihood of American badger. The impression given by Rincon (2023) is that if its biologists failed to detect a Cooper's hawk nest or sign of American badger at burrows, then the site does not support breeding by Cooper's hawks or use by badgers. Species that Rincon detected are characterized as "present," whereas those that Rincon did not detect are treated as unlikely, consistent with the outcome of an inventory. Except for Rincon's (2023) caveat that the biological reconnaissance survey was limited by the environmental conditions present at the time of the survey, nowhere does Rincon (2023) or the DEIR characterize either the list of plant or wildlife species observed on ' 14 CCR § 15o88(c); see Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Ca1.4th 1112,1124 ("Laurel II'); The Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel -by -the -Sea (2012) 202 Cal. App. 4th 603, 615. 2 Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. v. Board of Port Commissioners (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1367, 1371; People v. County of Kern (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 761, 772). 2 site as something other than an inventory. If the lists of species detected were viewed as samples of the plant and wildlife community, then nowhere does Rincon (2023) or the DEIR describe them as samples. Nor are the samples given any sort of context, such as about what percentages of the project site's plant and wildlife species are represented by the samples. I agree that the Rincon survey was not a comprehensive inventory of all species that inhabit the Project Site. What it was remains unclear, other than it was an undefined sampling of plants and animals that occur on the project site. No attempt is made by Rincon (2023) or the DEIR to estimate the number of species that were not detected due to insufficient survey effort. This is a poor basis from which to analyze potential project impacts to biological resources. Response to Comment No. 06-41c A comprehensive biological inventory of the Project Site is not necessary to support a sound impacts analysis because professional biologists are able to make inferences about the potential for special -status wildlife to occur based upon known ranges, habitat preferences for the species, species occurrence records from scientific database queries, previous reports for the Project Site, and the results of surveys of the Project Site. Based on the results of the initial habitat assessment, focused surveys were performed for specific special -status species determined to have the potential to occur based on the distribution and quality of the vegetation and associated habitats on the Project Site, such as for western burrowing owl and coastal California gnatcatcher. As such, additional repeat or focused surveys are not necessary. Reply: I agree that a comprehensive biological inventory of the project site is not necessary to support a sound impacts analysis, but not for the reasons cited in the response. An important first step to a sound impacts analysis is an accurate characterization of the existing environmental setting, including the species that compose the site's plant and animal communities. A single survey in January is not going to support an accurate characterization of the existing environmental setting unless the limitations of the survey are well understood and factored into the characterization of the environmental setting. Short of an accurate species inventory stemming from field surveys, the analyst should err on the side of caution when determining whether each species whose range overlaps the project site potentially occurs on the project site. Rincon (2023) and the DEIR fail to do this, and in fact misapply CNDDB to establish an unrealistically short list of potentially -occurring species as the starting point of the analysis. And once this unrealistically short list of species is established, the response claims that Rincon's biologists are able to infer occurrence likelihoods of species based on the very survey completed at the site, but which was not designed nor at all suitable for this purpose; that Rincon's biologists are able to infer occurrence likelihoods of species based on the very species occurrence databases they queried, none of which are designed or at all suitable for this purpose; Rincon's biologists are able to infer occurrence likelihoods of species based on known habitat preferences for the species, which are in fact often poorly understood and vulnerable to abuses noted in my comment letter, such as the pigeon -holing of species into unrealistically narrow portions of the environment. The response further defends the DEIR's approach to founding its impacts analysis by pointing out that focused surveys were also completed for the two special -status species determined to have some potential to occur. This is true to a degree. The focused surveys were of course focused on particular species, so they were not necessarily the most productive surveys for other species of wildlife that were not the focus of the surveys. Additional species were detected during the focused surveys, but nothing is said in the DEIR about the detection probabilities of these species or of the species that were not detected. The response fails to address my comment, based on ample data, that the project site hosts a richer wildlife community than the vast majority of the nearly 300 other project sites Noriko Smallwood and I have surveyed in California over the last several years. The response is silent on my use of an analytical bridge between what Noriko found at the project site and what I found at a much more extensively sampled research site, leading to my prediction that the project site hosts at least 163 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 24 special -status species of wildlife. Response to Comment No. 06-42a The comment states that the Draft EIR's surveys of the Project Site for biological resources and reviews of literature, databases, and local experts for documented occurrences of special -status species are incomplete and misleading and that survey limitations should be disclosed. The comment does not specify why the information provided in the Draft EIR is incomplete or misleading, and the comment's claim is not supported by substantial evidence. Reply: I commented that "it helps for the analysis to be informed of which biological species are known to occur at the proposed project site, which special -status species are likely to occur, as well as the limitations of the survey effort directed to the site." Other than Rincon's (2023) caveat that the biological reconnaissance survey was limited by the environmental conditions present at the time of the survey, there is no discussion of the limitations of the survey effort in the DEIR, not even in the City's responses to my comments. And in my comments, I also noted that Noriko Smallwood detected multiple species of wildlife at and near the project site that Rincon failed to detect, including 4 special -status species of wildlife. Failing to detect species of wildlife does not necessarily lead to an incomplete and misleading characterization of the existing environmental setting, but it does so if the species that were detected are implied to have been the only species available to be detected. And it does so if the desktop review results in determinations that are refuted by the outside expert's (Noriko's) survey finding. In the case of this project, the analysis is incomplete and misleading for the above -stated reasons and for the reasons that followed in my comment letter. Indeed, my comments that were addressed in Response o6-42 were introductory comments to the section of commenting that followed. M Response to Comment No. 06-42b As stated in the BRA prepared for the Project, surveys were conducted in accordance with applicable USFWS and CDFW guidelines and requirements. Literature review consisted of queries of the USFWS Information, Planning and Conservation System, CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), and the California Native Plant Society Online Inventory of Rare, Threatened and Endangered Plants of California. Furthermore, the BRA stated that the biological reconnaissance survey was limited by the environmental conditions present at the time of the survey. Reply: Wildlife surveys were not conducted in accordance with applicable USFWS and CDFW guidelines and requirements, which the response fails to identify. I assume the response is referring the guidelines on California gnatcatcher and burrowing owl. If my assumption is accurate, then I disagree that the standards of the recommended guidelines were achieved (see my comment letter). As for the January reconnaissance survey, there were no guidelines to follow in the case of wildlife. To the rest of the response, it is not enough to go through the motions of querying species occurrence databases; the analysis needs to make use of these data bases as they were intended, and it needs to avoid drawing conclusions that the databases cannot support. Response to Comment No. 06-42C As noted in Response to Comment Nos. Ai-9 and 06-41, additional focused surveys for SSC species are not necessary to reduce Project impacts to a less -than -significant level. Reply: The response is incorrect. The surveys completed to date cannot support absence determinations for California gnatcatcher and burrowing owl, because the failed to meet the standards of the available survey guidelines. The protocol -level survey guidelines for these species need to be implemented full as intended to determine whether California gnatcatcher and burrowing owl are present or absent from the project site. Response to Comment No. 06-43 The comment states that the Rincon's statement in the BRA that "all biological resources encountered on -site were recorded" is false and misleading because no biologist is capable of recognizing all evidence of wildlife. The comment recommends that the Draft EIR be revised to more carefully report what was seen and understood by the biologists. In addition, the Draft EIR should describe the limitations of the surveys and the reporting of survey outcomes. As discussed above in Response to Comment No. 06-42, the BRA disclosed the limitations of the biological reconnaissance survey. The last sentence under "FIELD RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY" on page 4.3-16 in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR was revised to state that all vertebrate wildlife species observed were documented, as follows (see Section 3.0, Errata and Clarifications to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR, for this revision): Representative photographs of the Project Site were taken and an inventory of all plant and vertebrate wildlife species observed was compiled (provided in Appendix D). Reply: The change to the DEIR in the Errata is an improvement by specifying that the species recorded were those that were observed by Rincon's biologists. However, the change in wording does not go far enough. As I commented, the species that were recorded by Rincon's biologists were not just the species they observed, but the species they recognized. Again, Rincon's biologists failed to report harvester ants on the project site, not because harvester ants were absent, but presumably because Rincon's biologists either know nothing about harvester ants or regarded harvester ants as unimportant. The change in wording also fails to resolve the false impression that Rincon's survey was for the purpose of inventory of wildlife species that use the project site. Response to Comment No. 06-4ib insisted that Rincon's (2023) reconnaissance survey was not intended as an inventory of wildlife species, but the last sentence of the language change in the Errata employs the word, inventory. It would be less confusing to write, "Representative photographs of the Project Site were taken and a list of all plant and vertebrate wildlife species observed was compiled. This list represents an unquantified portion of the number of species of plant and vertebrate wildlife species that use the site." On the whole, I do not believe the DEIR, as revised, sufficiently characterizes what the species detected by Rincon's (2023) survey actually represent. The species detected by Rincon do not represent an inventory of the wildlife community, nor do they represent a defined sampling of the wildlife community. Nor does the DEIR accurately characterize what the species represent that occur on the site but were not detected by Rincon's (2023) survey on one day in January. In fact, these undetected species represent the majority of the species that occur on the project site, including special -status species, many of which have not been analyzed in the DEIR for occurrence likelihood and potential project impacts (see my comment letter). Response to Comment No. 06-44 The comment states that the duration of the reconnaissance survey is unreported and that Rincon's biologists should have seen more species of wildlife. This comment is similar to Comment No. 06-7. Please refer to Response to Comment No. 06-7 above. Reply: I referred to response to comment No. o6-7, which appears below. Response to Comment No. 06-7a The biological surveys performed by Rincon were intended to assess current conditions of the Project Site for potentially supporting sensitive biological resources (e.g., special - status species, aquatic resources, sensitive habitats and vegetation, and wildlife movement). Based on the results of the initial habitat assessment, focused surveys were performed for specific special -status species determined to have the potential to occur based on the distribution and quality of the vegetation and associated habitats on -site, such as for western burrowing owl and coastal California gnatcatcher. Reply: If the survey was merely about assessing current conditions of the site, then what was the point of recording the species detected during the survey? The recording of species detected during a survey, as is typically done in support of CEQA review, is the 0 most effective method for assessing whether a site provides habitat for species of wildlife. The site supports habitat for each and every species that is detected, because by definition, a species' habitat is that part of the environment that is used by members of a species. For this reason, it is most efficient, and most accurate, to complete a more rigorous survey of a proposed project site, thereby leaving uncertainty around determinations of occurrence to a smaller suite of potentially -occurring species. In other words, a more rigorous survey effort minimizes the workload and the potential errors of a desktop analysis. As for the role of the reconnaissance survey in determining whether focused surveys should be implemented, I concede that this is one of the roles of reconnaissance surveys, but again there is a problem with it that the DEIR fails to address. The problem is that a cursory reconnaissance survey is less likely to lead to sound determinations over whether focused surveys should be implemented. Response to Comment No. 06-7b The species referenced in this comment are common and are not "special status" in accordance with CEQA. Reply: The response is unclear about which species are being referenced in comment no. 06-7. In fact, some of the species found by Noriko were special -status species, and some were not. But even of those that were not, they were the same types of species that Rincon (2023) opted to report. Biologists report these so-called "common species" (many are not, in fact, common) that are detected because they compose part of the wildlife community, which is part of the existing environmental setting, and because biologists are well aware that the presence of special -status species often depends on the presence of these "common species." Response to Comment No. 06-7c Additionally, the discrepancy between the number of species observed by Rincon during the reconnaissance survey on January 20, 2022, and the number observed by Dr. Smallwood's associate on May 14, 2023, can be attributed to seasonal variability. Reply: The response merely speculates that seasonal variability would explain the discrepancy between the numbers of species detected by Rincon and Noriko Smallwood. The response, however, offers no evidence in support of this explanation. I examined my own data from a Rancho Cordova project site I have surveyed 36 times since December 2020. I found no seasonality of the numbers of species I detected over the same survey durations. In fact, the average number of species detected among surveys in winter were nearly exactly the same as the average among surveys in May, the same seasons surveyed by Rincon and Noriko Smallwood at the project site. I also compared my counts of species per survey at other project sites that had also been surveyed by Rincon. At one of these sites (Diamond Street Industrial Project in San Marcos), both Rincon and I surveyed during the same season -- in June. Rincon detected 16 species of wildlife after 20 person -hours, whereas I detected 27 species after 7 my first survey of 1.5 person -hours, and eventually 63 species after two more surveys and a total 8.4 person hours. Even in the same season and at the same site, I am finding >9 times the number of species per hour as is Rincon's biologists. These discrepancies cannot be attributed to seasonality. At another project site, Rincon reported 7 species of wildlife, whereas I detected 47. At a desert site, Rincon detected 15 species of wildlife, whereas Noriko detected 19 species from only the site's southeast edge. In most comparisons, Noriko or I detected more species of wildlife than did Rincon even though we regard our survey efforts at these project sites a very minimal. Response to Comment No. 06-7d Furthermore, information on the additional species observed by Rincon is provided in the Appendix D of the Draft EIR (see Table 2 of the Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment and Focused Survey Results for the Blackhall Studios Project [Burrowing Owl Report] and Appendix A of the Blackhall Property Project Coastal California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey Report [Coastal California Gnatcatcher Report], both of which were included in Appendix D of the Draft EIR). Reply: The response fails to address my comment that despite these other species having been detected, the DEIR reports that 23 species of wildlife have been detected on the project site. This reporting is obviously inaccurate and misleading. Back to Response to Comment No. 06-44 Which referred me to Response to Comment No. 06-7. Reply: The response ultimately fails to address my comment about the DEIR's insufficiency in failing to report the start time and duration of Rincon's (2023) reconnaissance survey. These two attributes are of critical importance to sound interpretation of the survey findings, but they continue to go unreported. Response to Comment No. 06-45a The comment states that the number of species detected on -site is greater than the number of species Rincon reported. The comment also claims that Rincon's survey effort was deficient and states that the Draft EIR needs to be revised with the outcomes of more surveys and more complete reporting to include the total number of species detected and not just the species detected during the reconnaissance survey. Please see Response to Comment No. 06-41 regarding the sufficiency of the reconnaissance survey effort to evaluate existing conditions and potential Project impacts to sensitive biological resources. Reply: The response again fails to mention that 6o species of wildlife have been detected by Rincon and Noriko Smallwood, whereas the DEIR reports that 23 species were detected. Please see my reply to response o6-41. Rincon (2023) knew well enough to report the species of wildlife they detected during the reconnaissance survey, but the City is now arguing that representation of the species richness of the project site is irrelevant to the impacts analysis. In reality, the richness of the wildlife community at the project site is highly relevant, and it is so far grossly under -represented by the EIR. Response to Comment No. 06-45b The comment also states that USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) are special status and should be reported as such. Birds of Conservation Concern are a USFWS effort to identify non -listed birds that might become candidates for listing in the future. The Draft EIR evaluated USFWS-listed or candidate species but did not consider species that might become candidates for listing in the future. This is a reasonable approach. The City understands that there is a long list of plants and animals — not just birds — that might experience increased pressure in the future and that might become candidates for listing or, subsequently, become listed species. The Draft EIR presented an appropriately broad reach to include candidate species, as well as listed species and is not required to include potential candidates. However, birds not specifically identified as listed or candidate species were not excluded from consideration in the Draft EIR, which recognized the importance of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act as an applicable law and prescribes Mitigation Measure MM-13I0-3 that requires specific actions to protect nesting birds from construction impacts. Reply: The Response is inaccurate and misleading in its portrayal of the meaning of the US Fish and Wildlife Service's list of Birds of Conservation Concern. The response begins accurately, as the US Fish and Wildlife Service describes its list as "all migratory nongame birds that without additional conservation action are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973." However, missing from the response are the factors that contribute to this list, which are "population abundance and trends, threats on breeding and nonbreeding grounds, and size of breeding and nonbreeding ranges." The first factor goes directly to the meaning of the term special -status species per §1538o of the CEQA Guidelines, which defines special -status species as Endangered, Rare, or Threatened, and further defines each of these terms. Rare is defined as "(A) Although not presently threatened with extinction, the species is existing in such small numbers throughout all or a significant portion of its range that it may become endangered if its environment worsens; or (B) The species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and may be considered "threatened" as that term is used in the Federal Endangered Species Act." Thus, the CEQA Guidelines' definition of Rare relies on the same factors that are relied upon by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for assigning birds as Birds of Conservation Concern. Birds of Conservation Concern are special -status species. Response to Comment No. 06-46 The comment asserts that Rincon's statement that an individual Cooper's hawk was observed during the January 2022 reconnaissance survey, but a nest was not observed is misleading because it gives the false impression that the failure to observe a nest in January would indicate the species is not nesting on the Project Site. The comment also states that the same false impression was conveyed by the observation of a single, inactive passerine nest during the reconnaissance survey, implying that nesting is not taking place. The comment's assertion that the Draft EIR is misleading regarding Cooper's hawk and nesting birds is inaccurate. The Draft EIR 0 acknowledged that the potential for Cooper's hawk and nesting birds to be present within the Project Site is high and stated the following on page 4.3-18 in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR: As potentially suitable habitat for these special - status wildlife species exists on the Project Site, implementation of the Project would potentially impact existing habitat. Construction of the Project would potentially result in direct impacts during initial ground -disturbing activities or indirect adverse impacts to special -status wildlife species if present. Construction activities have the potential to directly impact nesting birds through the destruction of nests or disturbances leading to nest failure. As such, impacts to special -status wildlife species (i.e., nesting birds) that exist on the Project Site or the areas immediately surrounding the Project Site would be potentially significant. The Draft EIR included Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-3 to reduce impacts to special -status wildlife species and nesting birds to a less -than -significant level. Reply: If the response is accurate, then it is hard to understand why the DEIR (p. 4.3-5) reported, "An individual Cooper's hawk was observed perched on top of a coast live oak tree within the project site during the January 2022 reconnaissance survey...; however, a nest was not observed." That last phrase — "a nest was not observed" -- is not one that would appear unless the desired implication was that Cooper's hawk does not nest on the site. Otherwise, what was the significance of the observation? The DEIR could have just as readily reported, "however, a prey item was not in the hawk's clutches, or" however, a second hawk was not observed." As for the above -quoted text that appears on DEIR page 4.3-18, it does not specifically acknowledge that Cooper's hawks likely nest on the project site. The statement refers to bird nesting in general, which can include nesting by Cooper's hawk. However, the impression had already been delivered in the DEIR that no Cooper's hawk nests had been seen .... in January. Response to Comment No. 06-47 The comment states that the yellow warbler observed on -site in April 2022 relied on the Project Site for its migration to breeding habitat or may have been nesting on -site and that, contrary to Rincon's assessment, the Project Site provides important habitat value to yellow warbler. Required habitat elements for yellow warbler nesting, such as riparian thickets of willow, cottonwoods, sycamores, ash, and alders, are not present within the Project Site. Not only does most of the Project Site consist of non-native grassland, but it is isolated and already fragmented from intact native habitats in the region and is surrounded by development that limits opportunities for wildlife movement, both locally and regionally. The large tracts of open space to the north and east of the Project Site, including the Quigley Canyon Open Space located approximately one mile to the east and the Angeles National Forest just east of the SR-14, contain suitable riparian habitat for yellow warbler and are far more likely to provide important nesting and migratory habitat value to the species. Reply: In my experience, species of wildlife often defy the neat boxes that consulting biologists attempt to put them into. Yes, yellow warblers nest within vegetation communities composed of the plant species listed in the response, but like other species, they can nest elsewhere. Yellow warblers sometimes nest in shrubland, farmland, forest edges, urban parks and urban areas. All this said, alternative nest substrates are not 10 necessary to determine that yellow warblers might nest on the project site. Habitat exists on site. Yellow warblers most often nest in willows, and sometimes within willows that occur as isolated individuals or in small clusters (Strusis-Timmer 2009). In fact, Rincon (2023) reports three species of willow on the project site. In one California study, 85% of the yellow warbler nests were in arroyo willows (Timmer et al. 2011), which is one of the species of willow found on the project site. With the presence of willows on the project site, it is mysterious why the City so adamantly insists that nesting opportunities are not to be found on the project site. eBird records provide additional evidence that yellow warblers might breed on the site. eBird includes many records of yellow warblers in the project area during the breeding season. Jonathan Feenstra reported 8 yellow warblers, including recently fledged young, on the Iron Horse Trailhead on 20 June 2023, i.e., three weeks prior to the time of my replies. These nesting yellow warblers were located only 3.25 miles from the project site. Considering this observation so close to the project site, I must upgrade my assessment of the likelihood of breeding on site from maybe to very likely. The one yellow warbler that was seen on the project site was seen incidental to another consultant visit right at the beginning of the breeding season. Rather than continuing to speculate the reasons why the City wants to believe that yellow warblers do not nest on the project site, the City would do well to survey the site for yellow warblers. No surveys that were appropriate to yellow warbler were completed in the breeding season. Considering the presence of willows on the project site, at least one yellow warbler on the site at the beginning of the breeding season, and the recent observation of fledgling yellow warblers barely farther than 3 miles away, the available evidence leaves the City's argument weak; yellow warblers very likely breed on the project site. The response fails to address my comment that even if the site does not support breeding by yellow warblers, and if the City's speculated purpose of the incidentally detected yellow warbler was to use the site as part of its travel route to a breeding site elsewhere, then the site nevertheless provides important habitat value to yellow warblers. The yellow warbler observed on site was not a wayward warbler that was present on site by mistake. It was there either to breed or on route to a breeding location. Rincon (2023) concludes the site is unimportant to wildlife movement in the region, while at the same time arguing that the site provided this yellow warbler with stopover opportunity on its way to breed elsewhere. As I commented, the City cannot have it both ways. Response to Comment No. 06-48 The comment states that non -breeding surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher were not completed for the Project Site. The comment also states that the burrowing owl surveys were not compliant with the available survey protocol by failing to meet 16 of the 34 applicable minimum standards and only partly complying with another four of the standards. The comment recommends that the burrowing owl surveys be repeated in accordance with the survey and reporting 11 standards and that they should be completed by qualified biologists. This comment is similar to Comment No. 06-8. Please refer to Response to Comment No. 06-8 above. Reply: The response refers me to Response to Comment No. 06-8, so I reviewed the referenced response and reply to it below. Response to Comment No. 06-8a The comment states that the focused detection surveys for burrowing owl and California gnatcatcher performed by Rincon failed to comply with minimum standards of the available survey protocols for these species. Focused surveys were completed by a qualified biologist with over 20 years of experience and an active U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) permit in compliance with USFWS Section io(a) of the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), Special Terms and Conditions for Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Species Permit. The survey included six breeding season surveys in accordance with the USFWS current Coastal California Gnatcatcher Presence/Absence Survey Protocol. According to the USFWS, the protocol for the breeding season was designed to provide a 95-percent confidence level of detecting coastal California gnatcatchers at a site when they are present. The accepted standard for protocol presence/absence surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher is either six breeding season surveys or nine non -breeding season surveys; USFWS does not require completion of both breeding and non -breeding season surveys for the results to be considered valid. Furthermore, the potential habitat on the Project Site for supporting coastal California gnatcatcher is of marginal quality, in addition to the site being generally surrounding by existing development and urban sprawl and relatively fragmented from suitable habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher. Accordingly, conducting additional surveys during the non -breeding season (July 1 through March 14) is not necessary. Reply: The USFWS survey protocol states, "If the surveys fall outside such process [NCCP interim section 4(d) process], then 6 surveys separated by >7 days shall be performed between 15 March and 30 June, and 9 surveys separated by >_ 14 days shall be performed between 1 July and 14 March." The guidelines do not specify that either one survey period or the other can be implemented. I concede the possibility that the USFWS clarified the survey requirement to be either one period or the other, but if so, then I have seen no documentation of it. If the USFWS permits surveys be completed during either one season or the other, then I would agree that Rincon's California gnatcatcher surveys were consistent with the USFWS's guidelines. However, in its comments of 22 May 2023, CDFW shares my understanding of the USFWS (1997) survey guidelines that both breeding season and non -breeding season surveys are expected. As for the City's characterization of the habitat as marginal, I have found California gnatcatchers in fragments of scrub vegetation located immediately adjacent to hotel parking lots. At another location I found them in highly disturbed scrub vegetation next to a housing development and an apartment complex — at the same site in San Marcos where Rincon had not detected the species during its reconnaissance surveys but later detected it during the protocol -level detection surveys that were requested by CDFW. The City's argument that the habitat is marginal is not compelling. 12 Response to Comment No. 06-8b With regards to burrowing owl, the comment states that the burrowing owl surveys failed to meet nearly half of the applicable California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) survey and reporting protocols. Rincon performed four breeding season surveys in accordance with the requirements specified in CDFW's Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.17 This included a habitat assessment, focused burrow survey, and focused breeding season owl surveys by systematically searching for potential foraging and nesting habitat within the study area, which included the Project Site plus a 150-meter buffer (where access was available). The surveys were conducted by a qualified biologist with experience and knowledge of burrowing owl life history and sign walking transects spaced approximately io meters apart in suitable habitat and were appropriately adjusted to allow for ioo-percent visual coverage of the ground surface. Suitable habitat was identified by the presence of low vegetation cover, presence of potentially suitable small mammal burrows, and perch sites. As indicated in the Draft EIR and the Burrowing Owl Report (included in Appendix D of the Draft EIR), no evidence of burrowing owl presence (e.g., direct observations or sign of presence, such as feathers, pellets, tracks, or potentially occupied burrows) was observed during the breeding season surveys. Reply: As I commented (see Table 3 of my comment letter), Rincon's (2023) report met none of the CDFW (2012) guideline standards on reporting the qualifications of survey personnel, and only 3 of the reporting standards. Rincon (2023) failed to meet 5 of the standards on habitat assessment, and only partially achieved another 2 of the standards. Regarding the surveys themselves, Rincon (2023) completed no survey after June 15, made no mention of the use of binoculars at the start of each pedestrian transect, surveyed on one day when it was too cool, and made no mention of any adverse conditions such as disease, predation, drought, high rainfall or site disturbance. To support a determination of absence of burrowing owls, the City needs to follow the CDFW (2012) survey guidelines, not partially or selectively, but entirely. Response to Comment No. 06-8c Based on the above, the surveys for the coastal California gnatcatchers and burrowing owls comply with established protocols for each species and, thus, with the requirements of CEQA as well. As such, the comment's claim that the Draft EIR did not provide substantial evidence to support the findings related to the coastal California gnatcatchers and burrowing owls is incorrect. Reply: The City is incorrect that it followed the available guidelines, most certainly so in the case of burrowing owls. I also noticed in the response that the burrowing owl survey personnel surveyed what they regarded as suitable habitat (this term is nonsensical, as there is no such thing as unsuitable habitat; for a given species, a place either supports habitat or it does not). This concerns me, because having performed research on burrowing owls over many years (Smallwood et al. 2013, Smallwood and Morrison 2o18), I have found that burrowing owls often make use of environmental conditions that other biologists assume is not habitat. I have watched survey personnel walk right past nest sites 13 without looking at them because they assumed burrowing owls would not occur there. I have found burrowing owls nesting in very tall vegetation, and twice I found them nesting under trees. I am concerned that Rincon's biologists might have disregarded portions of the project site based on preconceived erroneous notions about what qualifies as burrowing owl habitat. Back to Response to Comment No. 06-48 Which referred me to Response to Comment No. 06-8. Reply: State and federal agencies spent a lot of time and effort to develop survey protocols for special -status species. In the case of the burrowing owl protocol, many experts on burrowing owls had a part in formulating it. Based on more recent findings, I believe the burrowing owl survey protocol should be revised, but on the whole the protocol is excellent. In my own studies, I treat the CDFW (2012) survey guidelines as minimal levels of effort, and so I vastly exceed them. Where the CDFW (2012) guidelines recommend 4 surveys spaced by 3 weeks each, I survey my study sites many times throughout the breeding season, including prior to the earliest date recommend by CDFW and well after the last date recommended by CDFW. In my experience, failing to achieve the minimum standards of the guidelines can easily result in false negative findings. That a survey should be completed after June 15th has been proven multiple times in my own surveys when I found pairs of burrowing owls starting nest attempts after this date. I once found chicks just emerged from a nest in early October, which means that nest attempt began well after June 15. For the reasons stated, a survey effort that fell short of the CDFW (2012) guidelines cannot support an absence determination. Response to Comment No. 06-49a The comment states that an important part of documenting a site's environmental setting is a desktop review, which includes literature and database review and consultation with local experts to inform and augment reconnaissance surveys and to help determine which protocol -level detection surveys should be conducted. The commenter suggests that the Draft EIR's desktop review is incomplete and flawed because it neglected readily available species occurrence databases and provides no evidence that any local experts were consulted. The commenter indicates that Dr. Smallwood conducted an independent database review and a Project Site visit, which resulted in the identification of 122 special status wildlife species occurring near enough to the Project Site to warrant analysis of their occurrence potential. This comment is substantially similar to Comment No. 06-9. Please refer to Response to Comment No. 06-9 above. Reply: The response refers me to an earlier response, this time to o6-9. Response to Comment No. 06-9a The comment states that an important part of documenting a site's environmental setting is a desktop review, which includes literature and database review and consultation with local experts to inform and augment reconnaissance surveys and to help determine which protocol -level detection surveys should be conducted. The comment suggests that the Draft EIR's desktop review is incomplete and flawed because 14 it neglected readily available species occurrence databases and provided no evidence that any local experts were consulted. The comment indicates that Dr. Smallwood conducted an independent database review and the various Project Site visits, which resulted in the identification of 122 special status wildlife species occurring near enough to the Project Site to warrant analysis of their occurrence potential. However, the comment does not mention which of the 122 species they believe could potentially occur on the Project Site. Reply: The short answer is that all or nearly all of the 122 species in my Table 2 could occur at the project site, but some more fleetingly than others, and others more often. The City seems to expect that I should engage in the same type of speculative determinations of occurrence likelihoods that its consultant undertook. I suggest that this approach if fraught with problems. The first problem is the implication that the analyst has perfect understanding of the habitat associations of each species, but this is far from the truth (Smallwood 2002). A second problem is the lack of definition of what an occurrence means, both to the analyst and to the species at issue. Does the occurrence mean permanent residence? Periodic home range patrol? Migratory stopover? Occasional stopover such as every decade or so? The City provides no scale of occurrence by which to interpret what it means by its occurrence likelihood determinations of none, low, moderate or high. Rincon (2023) describes its occurrence likelihood determinations as based on two factors. With the first factor, Rincon (2023) judges whether the site has none, few, some or all of the "habitat components" required by a species, hence contributing to determinations of no potential, low, medium and high potential. This factor would either require perfect knowledge of the habitat components required by each species, which is unrealistic, or imperfect knowledge, which would mean the determinations of occurrence likelihood should include uncertainty (error) statements. Rincon (2023) presents its occurrence likelihood determinations as if they are based on perfect knowledge; it certainly provides no uncertainty statements about the habitat components that are relied on. And as I commented in my letter of 19 May 2023, Rincon pigeon -holes species into unrealistically narrow portions of the environment, which is the same as saying that not all of the habitat components used by the species are identified in Rincon (2023). With the second factor, Rincon (2023) relies on the probability of the species being found on site. But what does this mean? The probability of a species being found on a site is a product of both the true likelihood of occurrence at the time a survey is underway (which goes to the topic of the preceding paragraph) and the survey detection probability. The latter probability goes to the ability of survey personnel to detect a particular species, and it varies a great deal by survey duration and survey start time, season, species' body size and behavior, terrain, vegetation structure, the behavior of the investigator, and the skill of the investigator. It is a complex probability that for most species and most types of survey, researchers are still trying to quantify (Green and Young 1993, Thompson 2002, Hutto 2o16, Smallwood and Neher 2017). In short, Rincon's second factor is incompletely characterized and is of dubious validity. 15 Response to Comment No. 06-9b Rather, the list of species presented in Table 4 of Dr. Smallwood's report identifies those species that occur "In region" "Nearby", "Very close", and "On site". Of the 122 species included in Dr. Smallwood's Table 4 identified as "On site", all are common in the region and non -listed species that include Allen's hummingbird, turkey vulture, red-tailed hawk, Cooper's hawk, California thrasher, and Southern California rufous -crowned sparrow. Reply: The species listed in the response are special -status species. Not all special - status species are listed; in fact, most are not. And to say these species are common in the region is also a bit misleading, because the response does not clarify what it means by "common." Commonness can express a level of spatial distribution or it can express population density, the latter of which is a function of the spatial scale of examination (Smallwood 1999)• In terms of density, Cooper's hawks are not nearly as common as Allen's hummingbirds where the species co-occur, but in terms of spatial coverage over a defined area, Cooper's might or might not be regarded as more common than Allen's hummingbird. It would help to avoid confusion if the City would clarify what it means. Response to Comment No. 06-9c With the exception of Allen's hummingbird, all of these species were documented in the Biological Assessment Report (included in Appendix D of the Draft EIR). Reply: The response is in error. Rincon (2023) also fails to include another three species including Costa's hummingbird, sharp -shinned hawk, and Bullock's oriole. Response to Comment No. 06-9d Additionally, many of the 122 species included in Mr. Smallwood's report that are not included in the Draft EIR are derived from unconfirmed sources in eBird (https://eBird.org) and iNaturalist (https://www.inaturalist.org) and include species that require habitat that is not present on, or in the vicinity of, the Project Site. Examples include numerous coastal species, such as Laughing gull, Heermann's gull, western gull, willet, long -billed curlew, whimbrel, California least tern, gull -billed tern, black tern, American white pelican, and California brown pelican, as well as species that are dependent on perennial water sources, such as lakes and ocean, including least bittern, common loon, double-breasted cormorant, white-faced ibis, and osprey. Mr. Smallwood incorrectly alleges that some of these species are "Nearby", which is unsubstantiated and inaccurate. Reply: The response dismisses eBird and iNaturalist as unconfirmed sources, but again it is difficult to understand what the City means. It begs the question of what is a confirmed source. Similar to CNDDB, eBird and iNaturalist records are scrutinized by experts, but whereas CNBDDB records are scrutinized by CDFW staff biologists, eBird records are scrutinized by some of the most respected ornithologists in the world at Cornell University Lab of Ornithology, and this is only after the new records have gone through eBird's data filters. Further unlike CNDDB records, eBird and iNaturalist records are scrutinized by other participants. Feedback on questionable records is 16 common. eBird and iNaturalist records also often include photos of the animals, or comments about the observation to help the user of the records decide on their veracity. One such eBird record I took seriously, as an example, was that of the yellow warbler reported on the project site by the Michael Baker International biologist who detected it incidentally to a site visit intended for another purpose. The date and the consulting firm matched exactly the reporting of the observation in Rincon (2023). The City points out species whose inclusion in Table 2 of my comment letter are unlikely to occur at the project site. But these species met my standard of inclusion in an analysis, because my standard was solely based on distance domains from the project site. California brown pelican is identified as having occurred in the region, and this identification is based on numerous records between 4 and 30 miles of the project site. One of these records comes from Kimball Garrett, whose ability to identify a California brown pelican ought to go unquestioned (Collections Manager in Ornithology at the Museum of Natural History of Los Angeles until 2022). Are California brown pelicans likely to land on the project site? Probably not, but they likely do fly through the project site's airspace. The City points out double -crested cormorant as another species that depends on a perennial body of water, but which the project site lacks. eBird includes numerous records of double -crested cormorants that are between 1.5 and 4 miles of the project site. To the question about confirmation of source material, one can examine a photo by Tina Tan taken on 14 February 2023 to see that she was indeed looking at a double - crested cormorant at Bridgeport Lake. To the City's argument that this species needs water, I agree, but I must add that this species also needs unobstructed airspace to travel between bodies of water, and sometimes they need substrate that is suitable for nest colonies, which are not always immediately adjacent to bodies of water. The City points out western gull as another species that it would not include on a list of potentially occurring species. If its the source that is the problem for the City, then I refer the City to Judy Matsuoka's photo taken on 19 November 2022 at Bridgeport Lake. The subject of her photo looks to me like a western gull. Bobby Walsh has another photo on eBird that looks like a western gull, this one taken on 2 January 2021 in Santa Clarita CBC Area 5 ("Old Valencia"). There are numerous additional records of western gulls in the area. The City points out osprey, as well. I have many times documented osprey foraging or traveling far from perennial bodies of water, including many observations of them on the expansive annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Osprey mainly hunt for fish, but they can take other types of prey. But I have also noticed that osprey are very selective about their flight paths between bodies of water, as they almost always fly over the available open space; that is, the spaces that are not covered by anthropogenic structures. One of the osprey seen near the project site was reported by Kimball Garrett (see above). The City views habitat as something that occurs at ground level and can be put onto a two-dimensional map. But as I commented on 19 May 2023, habitat of volant wildlife 17 includes that portion of the aerosphere that they use. The airspace that would be taken by the project's buildings is also habitat of many species of wildlife, including those species the City believes should not have been included in Table 2 of my comment letter. My standard of inclusion is a distance standard for sound reasons. The City's standards of inclusion are vague and misleading. Response to Comment No. 06-ge As indicated in the Draft EIR and the Biological Resources Assessment Report (included in Appendix D of the Draft EIR), the majority of the Project Site consists of non-native wild oat -annual brome grassland. In addition to other disturbed areas on the Project Site, off -highway vehicle trails and other disturbances (e.g., encampments and trash) on the site are evident in the native vegetation communities that are present. Moreover, the Project Site is generally fragmented from intact native habitats in the region and surrounded by development and urban sprawl. Finally, the database reviews performed by Rincon were standard and appropriate for performing Project -level analysis under CEQA. These resources included queries of the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation online project planning tool (2022), USFWS Planning and Conservation System (2022), CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (2022), and the California Native Plant Society Online Inventory of Rare, Threatened and Endangered Plants of California (2022) to obtain comprehensive information regarding state- and federally - listed species, as well as other special -status species considered to have potential to occur within a 9- USGS quadrangle map search area that included the Newhall, California USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle and the surrounding eight quadrangles (Whitaker Peak, Warm Springs Mountain, Green Valley, Val Verde, Mint Canyon, Santa Susana, Oat Mountain, and San Fernando). In addition, the following resources were reviewed for information about the Project Site: • Aerial photographs (Google Earth Pro 2022) • Newhall, California USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle • U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey • USFWS Critical Habitat Portal • USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) • United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) The aforementioned resources are intended to provide a list of special -status species that have been recorded in the region and were accompanied by field assessments performed by qualified biologists, including several focused wildlife and plant surveys performed between 2015 and 2022 in accordance with agency standards. Reply: Left unexplained is how the occurrence likelihood of a particular special -status species would be determined by examining most of the resources listed above, including the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation online project planning tool (2022), USFWS Planning and Conservation System (2022), Aerial photographs (Google Earth Pro 2022), Newhall, California USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, USFWS Critical Habitat Portal, USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI), United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). None of these resources would have been helpful, and the response provides not a single example of how any of these resources contributed to a determination of species occurrence likelihood. The only resource that would have contributed to the occurrence IN likelihood determinations of wildlife species was CNDDB. As I commented on 19 May 2023, the City misused CNDDB. Back to Response to Comment No. 06-49a Which referred me to Response to Comment No. 06-9. Reply: The City did not make use of all the resources it had available to analyze occurrence likelihoods of special -status species. It made no use of eBird and iNaturalist, nor did it consult any local experts. Likewise, Rincon failed to utilize eBird, iNaturalist and local experts. Instead of making use of the resources that it should have, the City attempts to defend an unsound approach to determining the occurrence likelihoods of special -status species. In its defense, the City criticizes my approach, which is much simpler and its sole contributing factor is distance domains between the project site and the nearest occurrence records. My approach better manages the uncertainty associated with species occurrences. In fact, the City's approach is highly uncertain but its product is presented as highly certain. This is one reason why it is misleading. It also follows from an inceptive flaw in the very selection of special -status species for inclusion in the analysis. Rincon (2023) explains that occurrence likelihoods were determined by the number of "habitat components" required by a species and the probability of the species being found on site. However, CNDDB records queries do not take these factors into consideration. CNDDB records inform only of where and when reporters observed members of species that carried special -status at the time of the observations. In other words, Rincon (2023) predetermines the species to be considered per the factors Rincon identifies when Rincon queries CNDDB for occurrence records. By including in the analysis of species' occurrence likelihoods only those species whose documented occurrences within the nearest CNDDB quadrangles, Rincon (2023) screens out many special -status species from further consideration. As I commented on 19 May 2023, this is not how CNDDB is intended to be used. eBird and iNaturalist records are actually more suitable for the approach taken by the City, because special -status at the time of observation is not required of records for submission to the database. This is important for all those species that only recently were assigned special -status, as they are treated in these databases more equally to those species that have long been special -status species. Response to Comment No. 06-49b The comment reiterates the assertion that detection likelihoods of most special -status species are low during reconnaissance -level survey and maintains that additional surveys are needed. Please refer to Response to Comment No. 06-41, which explains why additional surveys are not necessary. Reply: The main point of Response to Comment No. o6-41 is that the reconnaissance survey conducted by Rincon was not intended to be a comprehensive inventory of all species that inhabit the Project Site, and that Rincon's biologists were able to draw inferences "about the potential for special -status wildlife to occur based upon known 19 ranges, habitat preferences for the species, species occurrence records from scientific database queries, previous reports for the Project Site, and the results of surveys of the Project Site." Please see my replies to Response to Comment Nos. o6-41 and o6-49a. Rincon's approach is confused. Its inceptive error was its misuse of CNDDB to derive an unrealistically short list of special -status species. And then it minimalizes the use of the most effective method known to biologists for assessing habitat, which is field surveys to detect as many species as reasonably possible. Instead of appropriately looking for special -status species on the project site, Rincon's approach assigns occurrence likelihoods to the species on its unrealistically short list. These assignments are reportedly based on the number of habitat components required by a species and the probability of the species being found on site, but these bases are vague, potentially highly complex, and highly unlikely to have actually been quantified. No examples are provided. No uncertainty statements are provided, either, which leaves the approach looking unscientific. Response to Comment No. 06-50 The comment states that it is inappropriate to assign low likelihoods of occurrence to special -status species of wildlife simply because the biologist did not detect the species during a single reconnaissance survey. The Rincon BRA did not exclude the potential for special -status wildlife species to occur based on failure to detect the species during the reconnaissance survey. As described in Response to Comment No. 06-41, additional factors were considered, such as availability and quality of habitat to support the species, known ranges, species occurrence records from scientific database queries, previous reports for the Project Site, and the results of surveys of the Project Site. Reply: By definition, a determination of low likelihood does not exclude the potential for special -status species to occur. This part of the response makes little sense to me. The rest of the response and adds confusion about how special -status species were assigned occurrence likelihoods. This response explains that habitat availability and habitat quality were the factors that contributed to determinations of occurrence likelihoods. Habitat availability can be likened to the number of habitat components that the City earlier identified as a contributing factor to determinations of occurrence likelihoods, but this is a conflation of terms, because habitat availability and habitat components carry different meanings. Habitat quality is entirely a different term, and one that had not been used before as a factor contributing to determinations of occurrence likelihood. Habitat quality is typically represented by productivity metrics such as fecundity and nest success. Rincon (2023) did not measure habitat quality on the project site. Response to Comment No. 06-51 The comment states that more special -status species occur at the Project Site than those that were identified in the Draft EIR and by Rincon and that the Draft EIR incorrectly characterized the wildlife community at the Project Site. The comment also suggests that additional surveys would result in the detection of more species. These issues have been addressed in Response to Comment Nos. 06-7, 06-9, and 06-41. Response to Comment No. 06-7 and 06-9 explain the discrepancies between the species detected by Ms. Smallwood and those that were 20 reported by Rincon. Response to Comment No. 06-41 explains why additional surveys are not necessary. Reply: The referenced responses were wrong. The difference in the numbers of species detected by Rincon and Noriko Smallwood was not due to seasonality, and no evidence was brought to bear that it was. That more surveys are needed is evident in Figures 1 and 2 of my comment letter. Wildlife surveys are the most effective method for determining occurrence likelihoods. They are far more effective than the flawed approach implemented by Rincon (2023) (see my comments in my letter of 19 May 2023 and my replies that precede this one). Response to Comment No. 06-52 The comment claims that there are three types of impacts that are likely to result from the Project, two of which are not analyzed in the Draft EIR. According to the comment, the one impact that is addressed in the Draft EIR is only mentioned and concluded to be of no significance. The comment correctly cites the Draft EIR's characterization of the Project Site as a relatively flat, undeveloped piece of land with low, ruderal plants and gravel driveways that has been cleared of the majority of its natural vegetation and disturbed by past uses. The presence of 16 coast live oak and valley oak trees within the context of the largely disturbed Project Site is also accurately cited. The comment provides no specifics on the three types of impact. As such, this comment is noted, and no additional response is required. Reply: My introductory paragraphs did not warrant a response. Response to Comment No. 06-53 The comment states that the Draft EIR failed to analyze the Project Site's capacity to support wildlife and estimates the loss of 1,924 bird nests as a result of the Project's development. The comment states that the Draft EIR must be revised to analyze the Project's impacts to wildlife caused by habitat loss and habitat fragmentation. This comment is similar to Comment No. 06-16 but cites studies from 1948 and 1982 to support the bird nesting densities and calculations summarized in Comment No. 06-16. Please refer to Response to Comment No. 06-16 above. Reply: The response refers me to Response to Comment No. 06-16. Response to Comment No. 06-i6a Most of the vegetation on the Project Site is non-native, consisting of non-native wild oat -annual brome grassland, and much of the site has been disturbed by off -highway vehicle trails and other disturbances (e.g., encampments and trash), including within the native vegetation communities. Reply: The response continues the DEIR's characterization of the site as a highly disturbed, trash -filled site that does not warrant serious consideration as wildlife habitat. Yet the wildlife are there. Sixty species have already been documented at the site based solely on surveys completed by wildlife biologists. Species occurrence databases indicate that even more species of wildlife have been documented there. Wildlife are 21 present because, despite the City's characterization of the site as a site in miserable condition, there are 16 oaks on site, large tracts of big sagebrush scrub and scale broom scrub, three species of willows along a streambed and perhaps elsewhere on the project site, and other natural resources upon which wildlife depend. The City's characterization of the project site does not comport with the number of species of wildlife already known to be using it. Response to Comment No. 06-i6b The comment suggests that the Project would contribute further to habitat fragmentation by the loss of one of the region's last patches of undeveloped open space; however, based on review of aerial imagery, the Project Site is isolated and already fragmented from intact native habitats in the region and is surrounded by development. Reply: Please see the definition of habitat fragmentation (Smallwood 2015). That the site is isolated by development is the epitome of habitat fragmentation, consistent with my comments of 19 May 2023. The loss of this large, isolated fragment of habitat would be even more devastating to wildlife than would the loss of any similar -sized fragment of habitat around the periphery of Santa Clarita, because it would prevent the escape of many of the terrestrial wildlife on the site and it would remove the last remaining stopover opportunity of volant wildlife. Response to Comment No. 06-i6c The comment states that their independent biologist predicts the loss of 1,924 bird nests as a result of the Project's development. This prediction is not supported by any rationale that considers the current state of the Project Site and the condition habitat for nesting birds. For example, the majority of the Project Site consists of low -growing herbaceous vegetation, and few bird species in the region are ground nesters that would nest in this habitat, such as mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) and killdeer (Charadrius vociferus). Therefore, few bird nests are expected to occur within the non- native grassland areas of the Project Site that would be disturbed. The oak trees and native vegetation on the Project Site provide habitat for nesting birds but are not expansive when considering the amount of area that is covered by native plants/suitable bird nesting habitat. It is expected that birds currently nest within the trees and shrubs that would be disturbed by the Project but not nearly the amount alleged in the comment (estimated by Rincon's professional biologists to be likely less than 5 percent of the 1,924 nests predicted in the comment). Reply: The response misrepresents my comment by claiming that I made no account of the current state of habitat on the project site. In fact, I did. I assumed the project site would support 6o% of the nesting density measured at the referenced study sites. But even if I am wrong in my accounting, and a more accurate assumption is 40%, then the annual number of birds denied to California would still be 4,234, which is still a very large number. The City reports that Rincon's biologists estimate the project site's total nesting density at <5% of my prediction, which is <115 nests per year, or <1.23 nest sites per acre per year. However, this estimate does not appear to be based on any methodology other 22 than a guess. It is also quite absurd, as Franzeb (1978) estimated a total nest density of 0.45 per acre in the extremely xeric, sparsely -vegetated Algodones Dunes in the southern Mojave Desert. Kozma and Mathews (1997) estimated total bird nesting density at o.667 nests/acre in another desert environment — the Chihuahuan Desert of New Mexico. But the project site is not a desert environment, and has to be much more productive to birds than are the Algodones Dunes and Chihuahuan Desert. A total nest density of <1.23 nests per acre is not believable. This spring I surveyed a study site for the purpose of estimating total nest density. This site would be closer in habitat and habitat condition to the project site than were the other two study sites I cited. I believe I just completed my last or perhaps second to last survey to achieve my objective, so I have not yet fully analyzed my data. I did analyze the data I had collected through mid -May, and at the time I had about 9 nests per acre. Since that time, I would estimate the total nest density had risen to about 15 nests per acre, or about 44% of the mean between the two studies I cited. Considering this preliminary study outcome, I would estimate that the total nest density at the project site is somewhere between what I predicted in my comment letter and what I predicted herein. Response to Comment No. 06-i6c The comment suggests that the Draft EIR lacked "any" analysis and mitigation for loss of nesting bird habitat. Federal and State regulations, including the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the California Department of Fish and Game Code, prohibit a project from impacting an active bird nest. Therefore, Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-3 presented in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR includes avoidance of bird nests during construction activities. Furthermore, the majority of the native habitat on -site occurs within and along Placerita Creek, which would largely be preserved in place by the Project. Of the 5.39 acres of sensitive natural communities on the Project Site, only 1.392 acres would be permanently impacted, with 0.57 acre temporarily impacted during construction. Mitigation Measure MM-BIO- 4 further requires restoration/replacement of this habitat at a minimum 1:1 ratio, thereby further reducing the Project's long-term impacts on habitat and its use by wildlife. Reply: The loss of nesting bird habitat is not necessarily the same thing as impacting an active bird nest. My comments went to the loss of breeding capacity as a project impact. This part of the response that conflates lost breeding capacity with impacts to active nests is off -base. The response also argues that 3.998 acres (5.39 acres — 1.392 acres) of the 93.5-acre project site would be preserved along Placerita Creek, implying I suppose that the breeding capacity would not be lost to the degree that I predict. Preserving <4 acres between large studio buildings might support a few bird nests, but realistically this number would be small. Response to Comment No. 06-54 The comment states that the Draft EIR purported to analyze whether the Project would interfere substantially with the movement of any wildlife species or with established wildlife corridors but only 23 addresses interference with wildlife corridors and ignores interference with movement of wildlife species. This comment is similar to Comment No. 06-17. Please refer to Response to Comment No. 06-17 above. Reply: The response refers me to Response to Comment No. 06-17. Response to Comment No. 06-17a The comment states that the Draft EIR seemed to analyze whether the Project would interfere substantially with the movement of any wildlife species or with established wildlife corridors but only addressed interference with wildlife corridors and ignored interference with movement of wildlife species. The Project Site represents a relatively small amount of undeveloped space in the vicinity and the region. Not only does most of the Project Site consist of non-native grassland, but it is isolated and already fragmented from intact native habitats in the region and is surrounded by development that limits opportunities for wildlife movement, both locally and regionally. The comment alleges that the Project would cut off such wildlife from one of the last remaining stopover and staging opportunities in the Project area, forcing ever increasing travel between remaining stopover sites. However, this statement is inaccurate, especially when considering the large tracts of open space to the north and east of the Project Site, including the Quigley Canyon Open Space located approximately one mile to the east and the Angeles National Forest just east of SR-14. Reply: The response is silent on my comment that the DEIR relies on false CEQA standard as the basis of its conclusion. The project site need not serve as a wildlife corridor to be important to wildlife movement in the region. The response also ignores the basis of my comment, which is that the highly fragmented nature of the project site is the very reason that it would attract stopover by volant wildlife moving through the region. Just as Hawaii is often used as a stopover for travelers crossing the Pacific, so too is the project site used as stopover by migratory wildlife. The response asserts that my comment is inaccurate about the site's use as stopover during long-distance movement. However, the City's assertion is based on no attempt to measure wildlife movement on or across the project site. Rincon (2023) did nothing to measure wildlife movement or to sample wildlife in a manner that would support inference about wildlife movement. The birds that were seen on site were not even reported with attributes that would help to characterize what the birds were doing there. There was no program of observation to characterize wildlife movement. The City lacks evidence in support of its assertion that my comment is inaccurate. Response to Comment No. 06-i7b Lastly, the comment suggests that the Project could result in traffic -caused wildlife mortality and bird mortality from window collisions. Although the Project would increase vehicle trips, vehicle circulation is generally already high on Railroad Avenue immediately to the west of the Project Site, as well as on Wiley Canyon Road to the north and Lyons Avenue to the south. The Project Site is not within a local or regional wildlife movement corridor, and wildlife are not expected to travel through the Project Site and across Railroad Avenue because of the development that currently exists 24 immediately to the west. Therefore, wildlife collisions along Railroad Avenue immediately to the west of the Project Site are currently low and would be expected to remain low during the operation of the Project due to the vast amount of development that currently exists. In addition, the Project Site is not located within a local or regional bird migration corridor or flyway, and the Project would not introduce significant barriers or windows in the vicinity when considering the vast amount of existing development that is in the immediate vicinity and throughout the City. The scale and type of building construction proposed on site is similar to multiple other commercial and business park developments in the Project vicinity and throughout the Santa Clarita Valley, none of which have resulted in significant bird strike issues. Potential Project impacts to birds due to window collisions would not be significant given the extensive existing development surrounding the Project Site. The incorporation of alternative types of glass or alternative window layouts as suggested in the comment is not necessary to mitigate Project impacts to biological resources; therefore, incorporation of this recommendation in the Draft EIR is not required under CEQA. However, this comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision - makers for review and consideration. Reply: The response represents a raft of speculation that does not seriously address my comments. The road mortality I predict would be for all roads used by project -generated traffic, and not just Railroad Avenue, which oddly is the focus of the response regarding wildlife -automobile collision mortality. That bird -window collision mortality is not recognized by the City as a significant issue in Santa Clarita might be due to a lack of fatality monitoring at existing structures. I posit that if the City introduced scientific monitoring to a sample of structures in Santa Clarita, the City would discover an alarming high collision fatality rate is ongoing. Otherwise, the responses assertions that project -generated traffic and the large glass windows of the project's buildings will not kill wildlife is conclusory and contrary to the evidence collected from where studies have been completed on these types of wildlife mortality. Response to Comment No. 06-55 While the study that the comment cites is not publicly available, Vasco Road is a two- lane road that bisects relatively undeveloped open spaces. Accordingly, the comment's estimated number of traffic -related wildlife fatalities that may result from Project development is not accurate when considering the existing high vehicle circulation on Railroad Avenue immediately to the west of the Project Site, as well as on Wiley Canyon Road to the north and Lyons Avenue to the south. The Project Site is not within a local or regional wildlife movement corridor and wildlife are not expected to travel through the Project Site and across Railroad Avenue due to the development that currently exists immediately to the west. Therefore, wildlife collisions along Railroad Avenue immediately to the west of the Project Site are currently low and would be expected to remain low during the operation of the Project due to the vast amount of development that currently exists. 25 Reply: See my replies to Response to Comment o6-17. The Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study was not in a wildlife movement corridor, either. And Railroad Avenue is just one of many roads that would be used by project -generated traffic. Some of the roads that would be used by this traffic are likely two-lane roads. Response to Comment No. 06-56 The comment states that the Project could result in bird mortality from window collisions, and recommends exploration of alternative window layouts or alternative types of glass to minimize bird -window collisions. The comment cites numerous bird fatality and collision studies, which provide fatality estimates to support the claim. These estimates are noted in the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision -makers for review and consideration. Please refer to Response to Comment No. 06-17, which concludes that potential Project impacts to birds due to window collisions would not be significant given the extensive existing development surrounding the Project Site. The comment's recommendations for the use of alternative types of glass or alternative window layouts is not necessary to mitigate Project impacts to biological resources; however, these recommendations are noted in the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision -makers for review and consideration. Reply: Please see my replies to Response to Comment No. o6-17. The response is conclusory and not well reasoned. It is not factual. It is essentially a "comment noted" type of response. Response to Comment No. 06-57a The comment states that the Draft EIR lacked an adequate analysis of the Project's cumulative impacts on wildlife, references certain sections of the CEQA Guidelines that provide guidance on how to analyze cumulative impacts, and provides commentary on approaches to evaluating cumulative impacts. Reply: No, the comment states that the DEIR provide any analysis of cumulative impacts. I wrote, "the DEIR effectively provides no cumulative effects analysis." Response to Comment No. 06-57b However, the comment does not identify any significant cumulative impacts that would be caused by the Project or that the Project would contribute to in a considerable manner. Reply: Not true. I wrote, "the DEIR acknowledges that the project would contribute to cumulative impacts because "there would be less habitat available for protected species."" Habitat loss and habitat fragmentation would be the principal cumulative impacts to which the project would contribute. The City knows this, and I know this. Response to Comment No. 06-57c As discussed in the Draft EIR, the loss of habitat caused by the Project is not a significant impact either on a Project -level or cumulative. The majority of the Project Site is covered in nonnative grasses. The habitat areas of the Project Site, including Placerita Creek and the northern ridgeline would be largely preserved in place. Given 26 the limited acreage of habitat impacts of the Project and the vast tracks of protected open spaces in the Project vicinity (e.g., Quigley Canyon Open Space, Whitney Canyon Park, Golden Valley Ranch Open Space, Saddletree Open Space, Gates King Open Space, Wildwood Canyon Open Space, and the Angeles National Forest), the Project's contributions to the cumulative loss of open space and potential habitat would not be cumulatively considerable. Please also refer to Response to Comment No. 06-18 above. Reply: The response is nothing more than speculation in favor of the notion that the project would cause no direct or cumulative impacts to biological resources. The speculation is based on no supporting evidence. No regional monitoring plan is cited. And the speculation is not credible. The loss of 93.5 acres, or even if it is only go acres, would result in a substantial loss of birds and other wildlife, no matter how we estimate the loss (so long as the method is defensible). The site is one of the richest in number of species per hour of survey that Noriko Smallwood and I have surveyed within California (see Figure 1 of my 19 May 2023 comment letter). The avian breeding capacity of the region would be diminished, and migratory birds would lose an important stopover opportunity. The project would contribute to collision mortality in the region caused by windows and automobiles. The cumulative impacts would be significant. But the DEIR does not seriously analyze cumulative impacts. Response to Comment No. 06-58a As detailed in Response to Comment Nos. 06-17 and 06-19, Project impacts due to nesting bird and special -status species habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, wildlife collisions, and bird window strikes would be less than significant, and additional mitigation is not warranted. Reply: These conclusions are indefensible. Sixty species of vertebrate wildlife have been documented on the project site, and my analysis predicts that at least 163 species occur there, including at least 24 special -status species of wildlife. Wildlife are breeding on the project site. The project cannot take 93.5 acres of wildlife habitat, while also severely fragmenting what is left of wildlife habitat in the region, and not have significant impacts to wildlife. The project cannot generate so much traffic nor insert so many large windows into the aerosphere without causing significant impacts to wildlife. The response lays bare the fundamental flaw in the mitigation plan of the project, as it reveals the City's baseless claim that impacts would be less than significant. Response to Comment No. 06-58b Mitigation Measures MMBIO- 4 and MM-BIO-5 establish minimum compensatory mitigation requirements for impacts to sensitive natural communities and jurisdictional areas and require the preparation of a Restoration Plan to identify specifically how the replacement habitat would be acquired/restored. Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-4 identifies the minimum content requirements for the Restoration Plan and Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-4 and MM-BIO-5 collectively require the Restoration Plan be approved by CDFW, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to initiating construction or any site disturbance. As the mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR commit the Project to mitigating the potentially significant impacts and include specific performance standards that must be 27 achieved, a security deposit is not appropriate or required. In addition, as discussed in Response to Comment No. A1-8, Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1 has been revised to further ensure that impacts to biological resources would be less than significant. The comment's recommended revisions are not warranted but are noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision -makers for review and consideration. Reply: When formulation of mitigation is deferred, such as the formulation of these measures are deferred, the agency must adopt specific performance standards the deferred mitigation will achieve, and it must identify potential action(s) that can feasibly achieve the performance standard (CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(1)(B)). The very performance standards of these measures are deferred. The response fails to address my comments on MM-BIO-2 and MM-BIO-3. Response to Comment No. 06-59 The commenter provides recommended measures for protocol surveys for burrowing owl, California gnatcatcher, and special -status bats; pest control to prohibit rodenticides and avicides; Bird -Safe Guidelines; and additional compensatory mitigation for road mortality and window strikes. The commenter also recommends using California native plants for landscaping. As stated in Response to Comment No. 06-58, Project impacts to biological resources would be less than significant, and additional mitigation is not warranted. Therefore, incorporation of the comment's recommended measures in the Draft EIR is not required under CEQA. However, the recommended measures are noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision -makers for review and consideration. Reply: see my reply to Response to Comment Nol. o6-58a. The City's premise for its conclusions is wrong. Letter Ai from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 22 May 2023 Response to Comment No. Ai-3 The comment summarizes the Project Description but does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Accordingly, the comment is noted, and no additional response is warranted. Reply: The comment actually does point out a deficiency of the DEIR. It points out that the majority of the existing oaks would be removed from the landscape, and that the mitigation measure of planting many replacement oaks and non -oaks on the campus could not possibly replace the biological values that would be lost. The DEIR considers the planted new trees as equivalent in value to the existing trees that live on the existing environment, but there is no equivalence. The existing trees undoubtedly include many cavities in which birds and other wildlife nest and roost (Photos 1 and 2). Photo 18 of my comment letter shows a white -breasted nuthatch delivering food to its chicks in just such a cavity on the project site. And even by the time the replacement trees mature, their existence on the campus could not possibly resemble the existing environment in which the birds that rely on tree cavities can find sufficient food for their chicks. r" 6hawn Sma w Photos 1 and 2. Western screech - owl within a cavityo an old -growth '~ '''`�"' .f 9 �.� walnut (above) and an ash- i throated flycatcher entering a nest ~' ' t~`t .,,a-'►� ; a cavity of another old -growth walnut (right). Old oaks similarly provide I 29 Response to Comment No. Ai-4 The comment is an introductory statement to specific comments on the analysis of biological resources presented in the Draft EIR. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Accordingly, the comment is noted, and no additional response is warranted. Reply: The response ignores the recommendation by CDFW to revise the DEIR to include scientific monitoring of biological resources as part of an adaptive management plan. CDFW's recommendation is sound, as adaptive management was first formulated in 1978 (Holling 1978, Walters 1986, Walters and Holling 1990) and has since been given a great deal of scientific development and actual implementation. Response to Comment No. Ai-5a The candidacy status of Crotch's bumble bee was reinstated by the California Fish and Game Commission on September 30, 2022. The literature review for the Biological Resources Assessment report was conducted on January 18, 2022, when Crotch's bumble bee was not a candidate to be considered a special status species. The Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Draft EIR was published on March 29, 2022, and the baseline conditions for biological resources were established at that time (per CEQA Guidelines Section 15125). While the majority of the Project Site is disturbed or vegetated with non- native grasslands with few floral resources, the City acknowledges that upland scrub habitats within the Project Site might arguably provide potentially suitable nesting and foraging habitat for Crotch's bumblebee. Reply: In the spirit and intent of CEQA, the appropriate action was to require a detection survey for Crotch's bumblebee, because the City was aware that both the project site could support Crotch's bumblebee and the species was being considered for listing. The lead agency is not required to survey only for listed species, but rather to meet CEQA's objectives of minimizing harm to the environment. At a time when other lead agencies were requiring surveys for Crotch's bumblebee, City of Santa Clarita did not. In my own experience, Crotch's bumblebee has been an issue in CEQA review since at least December 2021. CDFW commented that Crotch's bumblebee records exist throughout Los Angeles County. As my comment letter of 19 May 2023 reports, there are Crotch's bumblebee records between 1.5 and 4 miles of the project site. With Crotch's bumblebee occurring so close by, and considering the vegetation and soils on the project site appear suitable to the species, a decision to not survey for Crotch's bumblebee to the standards summarized in CDFW's comment letter would be indefensible. Response to Comment No. Ai-5b Accordingly, the Draft EIR was revised to discuss the potential for the species to occur, evaluate potential project impacts, and provide species -specific avoidance and minimization measures in accordance with the comment's recommendation. Specifically, Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-6 requiring presence/ absence surveys conducted by a qualified biologist was added. If Crotch's bumble bee is detected and cannot be feasibly avoided, the Applicant is required to seek an Incidental Take Permit 30 from CDFW. Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-7, MM-BIO-8, and MM-BIO-9 would require the application for such take authorization, establishment of a buffer zone around any active nest, and replacement of any floral resource associated with Crotch's bumble bee that is removed or damaged. If Crotch's bumblebee is present within the Project Site, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-7 through MM-BIO-9 would reduce potential impacts to the species to a less -than- significant level. Reply: As CDFW recommended, the detection surveys for Crotch's bumblebee should be completed prior to finalization of the CEQA review. The DEIR should be withdrawn, and not recirculated until after it has been updated with the results of a project -wide detection survey for Crotch's bumblebee. Response to Comment No. Ai-6a ...the likelihood for mountain lion to be present within the Project Site is low due to a variety of factors: the Project Site is not within a natural landscape block; the nearest blocks are within the Santa Susana Mountains southwest of I-5 and the San Gabriel Mountains east of SR- 14.2 The CDFW mountain lion habitat suitability dataset predicts relatively low probability of use within the Project Site, similar to the urban center of Santa Clarita.3 The Project Site is bounded to the southwest and southeast by commercial development, and to the east by residential development. While Placerita Creek may provide local movement pathways for mobile species, such as mule deer and coyote, on a broader landscape scale, Placerita Creek and its surrounding open spaces (including Quigley Canyon Open Space) are cut off from suitable mountain lion habitat linkages and corridors by SR-14, approximately 2 miles to the east. A review of iNaturalist shows that mountain lions or their sign (e.g., scat, tracks) were not documented within the Santa Clarita Valley in the area bounded by I-5, SR-14, and the Santa Clara River. Newhall Creek, situated downstream of the Project Site, is heavily constrained on both sides by intensive residential and commercial development. Accordingly, the potential for mountain lion occurrence is low, and Placerita Creek is not likely to function as regional movement pathway for mountain lions, which require extensive home ranges. Due to the extensive development surrounding the Project Site discussed above, human presence from the surrounding land uses is already at a high level, and development of the Project would not represent a significant change in this condition. Reply: The analysis is speculative and begins from a flawed premise. The response argues that the likelihood of occurrence of mountain lion on the project site is low, but it fails to acknowledge that the rare occurrence of mountain lion is also a critically important occurrence to the persistence of the species in southern California. The greatest threat to mountain lions in southern California is the species' loss of connectivity. My four decades of research on mountain lions began with a review of news stories of mountain lions occurring at just the sort of places that the response speculates mountain lions would not occur. I found numerous stories going back a century of mountain lions ending up in places like Chico, Redding, Oroville, Sacramento, Fresno and Bakersfield. I saw one in Davis, California just before she and her cub was 31 euthanized in Woodland after having preyed on deer that were enclosed at UC Davis as part of a research study. The many occurrences of mountain lions in urban places, which continues to this day, reflect the need of young mountain lions to disperse from their natal home ranges. Many of their traditional travel routes, such along streams, have been encroached by urbanization, but this encroachment has not stopped mountain lions from attempting to disperse along the long -used routes. I have detected mountain lions on the outskirts of Santa Clarita numerous times during my studies dating to 1985 (Smallwood and Fitzhugh 1995, Smallwood 1997). One reliable location for detecting this species has been along a transect I use just uphill from the Placerita Creek headwaters. Another reliable transect location is upstream along Bouquet Canyon. I would expect mountain lions originating from either location to cross through Santa Clarita heading to or from the Transverse Range to the west. And contrary to the assertion made in the response, mountain lions often cross roads, including the busiest highways, but not always successfully. In recent years, at least several mountain lions have been killed on Highway 14 and Interstate 5 at and near Santa Clarita. The project site is not going to be part of a mountain lion home range, so the response's speculation about mountain lions requiring larger home ranges is a bit misleading. The question is whether a mountain lion would use Placerita Creek as a movement corridor and whether along the way they might stopover on the project site. My answer, based on my experience with tracking this species over many years, is yes. CDFW's comments were relevant and justified. The text added to the EIR is misleading and addresses the wrong issue of occurrence likelihood. The DEIR should be revised in response to CDFW's comments. Response to Comment No. Ai-6b The Project would comply with all applicable herbicide and rodenticide regulations. Reply: This response does not go far enough. Compliance with existing regulations is still resulting with too much use of rodenticides to the detriment of Mammalian Carnivores throughout California. As I recommended in my comments of 19 May 2023, "The project should commit to no use of rodenticides and avicides. It should commit to no placement of poison bait stations outside the building." Response to Comment No. Ai-9a The injury or death of limited individuals of SSC, if present, due to Project construction activities would not contribute to a loss of population viability of these species and would not result in impacts that would meet this threshold of significance. As a result, additional mitigation measures requiring focused surveys for SSC species are not necessary to reduce Project impacts to a less -than -significant level. Reply: The response is purely speculative, and completely unsubstantiated by evidence. Not for one SSC species has the City presented any evidence that the project's takings of members of that species would results in no significant impacts to the population. 32 Response to Comment No. Ai-9b Nevertheless, as shown above, to be responsive to the commenter's concerns, Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1 has been revised to include a relocation and avoidance plan, worker awareness training, and additional details regarding biological monitoring responsibilities and protocols, even though their inclusion is not necessary to reduce Project impacts to a less -than -significant level. Reply: A relocation plan brings additional risks of harm to wildlife at the receiving sites. Displacement by relocation often results in the deaths of animals undergoing relocation or the deaths of others in the areas receiving translocated plants or animals (Griffith et al. 1989, Dodd and Seigel 1991, Schulz 1997). Conspecifics outside the project area can be injured or killed or starved as a result of competition with desperate animals that are translocated from the project. In one study of relocated burrowing owls (an SSC), for example, many of the translocated owls collided with windows and automobiles soon after release (Schulz 1997). The process of translocation appears to be traumatic for the translocated individuals, as it probably also is for the conspecifics having to deal with the translocated animals released into their territories. Rather than revise the DEIR to include a relocation plan that would further jeopardize wildlife, I recommend that the City take seriously the recommended mitigation measures of CDFW. Thank you for your consideration, ,4-, 4e Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. LITERATURE CITED CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, California. Dodd, C. K. and R. A. Seigel. 1991. Relocation, repatriation and translocation of amphibians and reptiles: Are they conservation strategies that work? Herpetologica 47:336-350• Franzeb, K. E. 1978. Breeding bird densities, species composition, and bird species diversity of the Algodones Dunes. Western Birds 9:9-20. Green, R. H., and R. C. Young. 1993• Sampling to detect rare species. Ecological Applications 3:351-356• 33 Griffith, B., J.M. Scott, J.W. Carpenter, and C. Reed. 1989. Translocation as a Species Conservation Tool: Status and Strategy. Science 245:477-480 Holling, C.S. (ed.). 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Hutto. R. L. 2016. Should scientists be required to use a model -based solution to adjust for possible distance -based detectability trials? Ecological Applications 26:1287- 1294. Kozma, J. M. and N. E. Mathews. 1997. Breeding bird communities and nest plant selection in Chihuahuan Desert habitats in south-central New Mexico. Wilson Bulletin 109:424-436• Rincon. 2023. Shadowbox Studios Project Biological Resources Assessment. Prepared for Shadowbox Studios, Atlanta, Georgia. Schulz, T. A. 1997. Observations, resightings, and encounters of rehabilitated, orphaned, and relocated burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research Reports 9:128-131. Smallwood, K. S. 1997. Interpreting puma (Puma concolor) density estimates for theory and management. Environmental Conservation 24(3):283-289. Smallwood, K. S. 1999• Scale domains of abundance among species of Mammalian Carnivora. Environmental Conservation 26:102-111. Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Habitat models based on numerical comparisons. Pages 83-95 in Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, J. M. Scott, P. J. Heglund, M. Morrison, M. Raphael, J. Haufler, and B. Wall, editors. Island Press, Covello, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility -scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jWMg.22216 Smallwood, K. S. and E. L. Fitzhugh. 1995• A track count for estimating mountain lion Felis concolor californica population trend. Biological Conservation 71:251-259 Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2017. Comparing bird and bat use data for siting new wind power generation. Report CEC-500-2017-019, California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research program, Sacramento, California. http://www.energ_y ca.gov/2017Publications/CEC-5oo-2017-019/CEC-5oo-2017- 34 oig. �df and http_//www.energy.ca.goy/2o17publications/CEC-goo-2017-019/CEC- 500-2017-o19-APA-F.pdf Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2018. Nest -site selection in a high -density colony of burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research 52:454-470• Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, J. Mount, and R. C. E. Culver. 2013. Nesting burrowing owl abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Wildlife Society Bulletin: 37:787-795• Strusis-Timmer, M. 2009 Habitat associations and nest survival of Yellow Warblers in California. Master's Theses. 3682. DOI: https://doi.org/lo.31979/etd.sb3f-z3a6 https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd theses/�682 Thompson, W. L. 2002. Towards reliable bird surveys: Accounting for individuals present by not detected. The Auk 119:18-25. Timmer, M., D. L. Suddjian, S. Lambrecht, and S. Bros-Seemann. 2011. Nesting success of the yellow warbler in a disturbed riparian forest in coastal California. Western Birds 42:96-102. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) presence/absence survey guidelines, February 28, 1997• Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, Carlsbad, California. Walters, C.J. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. McGraw-Hill, New York. Walters, C. J. and C. S. Holling. 1990. Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology 71:2060-2068. 35 Kenneth Shawn Smallwood Curriculum Vitae 3108 Finch Street Davis, CA 95616 Phone (530) 756-4598 Cell (530) 601-6857 puma(c�r�,dcn.org Ecologist Expertise Born May 3, 1963 in Sacramento, California. Married, father of two. • Finding solutions to controversial problems related to wildlife interactions with human industry, infrastructure, and activities; • Wildlife monitoring and field study using GPS, thermal imaging, behavior surveys; • Using systems analysis and experimental design principles to identify meaningful ecological patterns that inform management decisions. Education Ph.D. Ecology, University of California, Davis. September 1990. M.S. Ecology, University of California, Davis. June 1987. B.S. Anthropology, University of California, Davis. June 1985. Corcoran High School, Corcoran, California. June 1981. Experience • 480 professional publications, including: • 83 peer reviewed publications • 24 in non -reviewed proceedings • 371 reports, declarations, posters and book reviews • 8 in mass media outlets • 87 public presentations of research results Editing for scientific journals: Guest Editor, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2012-2013, of invited papers representing international views on the impacts of wind energy on wildlife and how to mitigate the impacts. Associate Editor, Journal of Wildlife Management, March 2004 to 30 June 2007. Editorial Board Member, Environmental Management, 10/1999 to 8/2004. Associate Editor, Biological Conservation, 9/1994 to 9/1995. Member, Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (SRC), August 2006 to April 2011. The five -member committee investigated causes of bird and bat collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, and recommended mitigation and monitoring measures. The SRC 1 Smallwood CV 2 reviewed the science underlying the Alameda County Avian Protection Program, and advised the County on how to reduce wildlife fatalities. Consulting Ecologist, 2004-2007, California Energy Commission (CEC). Provided consulting services as needed to the CEC on renewable energy impacts, monitoring and research, and produced several reports. Also collaborated with Lawrence -Livermore National Lab on research to understand and reduce wind turbine impacts on wildlife. Consulting Ecologist, 1999-2013, U.S. Navy. Performed endangered species surveys, hazardous waste site monitoring, and habitat restoration for the endangered San Joaquin kangaroo rat, California tiger salamander, California red -legged frog, California clapper rail, western burrowing owl, salt marsh harvest mouse, and other species at Naval Air Station Lemoore; Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord; Naval Security Group Activity, Skaggs Island; National Radio Transmitter Facility, Dixon; and, Naval Outlying Landing Field Imperial Beach. Part-time Lecturer, 1998-2005, California State University, Sacramento. Instructed Mammalogy, Behavioral Ecology, and Ornithology Lab, Contemporary Environmental Issues, Natural Resources Conservation. Senior Ecologist, 1999-2005, BioResource Consultants. Designed and implemented research and monitoring studies related to avian fatalities at wind turbines, avian electrocutions on electric distribution poles across California, and avian fatalities at transmission lines. Chairman, Conservation Affairs Committee, The Wildlife Society --Western Section, 1999-2001. Prepared position statements and led efforts directed toward conservation issues, including travel to Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress for more wildlife conservation funding. Systems Ecologist, 1995-2000, Institute for Sustainable Development. Headed ISD's program on integrated resources management. Developed indicators of ecological integrity for large areas, using remotely sensed data, local community involvement and GIS. Associate, 1997-1998, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis. Worked with Shu Geng and Mingua Zhang on several studies related to wildlife interactions with agriculture and patterns of fertilizer and pesticide residues in groundwater across a large landscape. Lead Scientist, 1996-1999, National Endangered Species Network. Informed academic scientists and environmental activists about emerging issues regarding the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws. Testified at public hearings on endangered species issues. Ecologist, 1997-1998, Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology. Conducted field research to determine the impact of past mercury mining on the status of California red -legged frogs in Santa Clara County, California. Senior Systems Ecologist, 1994-1995, EIP Associates, Sacramento, California. Provided consulting services in environmental planning, and quantitative assessment of land units for their Smallwood CV 3 conservation and restoration opportunities basedon ecological resource requirements of 29 special -status species. Developed ecological indicators for prioritizing areas within Yolo County to receive mitigation funds for habitat easements and restoration. Post -Graduate Researcher, 1990-1994, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, U.C. Davis. Under Dr. Shu Geng's mentorship, studied landscape and management effects on temporal and spatial patterns of abundance among pocket gophers and species of Falconiformes and Carnivora in the Sacramento Valley. Managed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture. Assisted with landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California. Work experience in graduate school: Co -taught Conservation Biology with Dr. Christine Schonewald, 1991 & 1993, UC Davis Graduate Group in Ecology; Reader for Dr. Richard Coss's course on Psychobiology in 1990, UC Davis Department of Psychology; Research Assistant to Dr. Walter E. Howard, 1988-1990, UC Davis Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, testing durable baits for pocket gopher management in forest clearcuts; Research Assistant to Dr. Terrell P. Salmon, 1987-1988, UC Wildlife Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing empirical models of mammal and bird invasions in North America, and a rating system for priority research and control of exotic species based on economic, environmental and human health hazards in California. Student Assistant to Dr. E. Lee Fitzhugh, 1985-1987, UC Cooperative Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing and implementing statewide mountain lion track count for long-term monitoring. Fulbright Research Fellow, Indonesia, 1988. Tested use of new sampling methods for numerical monitoring of Sumatran tiger and six other species of endemic felids, and evaluated methods used by other researchers. Projects Repowering wind energy projects through careful siting of new wind turbines using map -based collision hazard models to minimize impacts to volant wildlife. Funded by wind companies (principally NextEra Renewable Energy, Inc.), California Energy Commission and East Bay Regional Park District, I have collaborated with a GIS analyst and managed a crew of five field biologists performing golden eagle behavior surveys and nocturnal surveys on bats and owls. The goal is to quantify flight patterns for development of predictive models to more carefully site new wind turbines in repowering projects. Focused behavior surveys began May 2012 and continue. Collision hazard models have been prepared for seven wind projects, three of which were built. Planning for additional repowering projects is underway. Test avian safety of new mixer -ejector wind turbine (MEWT). Designed and implemented a before - after, control -impact experimental design to test the avian safety of a new, shrouded wind turbine developed by Ogin Inc. (formerly known as F1oDesign Wind Turbine Corporation). Supported by a $718,000 grant from the California Energy Commission's Public Interest Energy Research program and a 20% match share contribution from Ogin, I managed a crew of seven field biologists who performed periodic fatality searches and behavior surveys, carcass detection trials, nocturnal behavior surveys using a thermal camera, and spatial analyses with the collaboration of a GIS Smallwood CV 4 analyst. Field work began 1 April 2012 and ended 30 March 2015 without Ogin installing its MEWTs, but we still achieved multiple important scientific advances. Reduce avian mortality due to wind turbines at Altamont Pass. Studied wildlife impacts caused by 5,400 wind turbines at the world's most notorious wind resource area. Studied how impacts are perceived by monitoring and how they are affected by terrain, wind patterns, food resources, range management practices, wind turbine operations, seasonal patterns, population cycles, infrastructure management such as electric distribution, animal behavior and social interactions. Reduce avian mortality on electric distribution poles. Directed research toward reducing bird electrocutions on electric distribution poles, 2000-2007. Oversaw 5 founds of fatality searches at 10,000 poles from Orange County to Glenn County, California, and produced two large reports. Cook et al. v. Rockwell International et al., No. 90-K-181 (D. Colorado). Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried and surface -deposited radioactive and hazardous chemical wastes at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Provided expert reports based on four site visits and an extensive document review of burrowing animals. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities. Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals. I testified in federal court in November 2005, and my clients were subsequently awarded a $553,000,000 judgment by a jury. After appeals the award was increased to two billion dollars. Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation. Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried radioactive wastes at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Washington. Provided three expert reports based on three site visits and extensive document review. Predicted and verified a certain population density of pocket gophers on buried waste structures, as well as incidence of radionuclide contamination in body tissue. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities. Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals. Expert testimony and declarations on proposed residential and commercial developments, gas -fired power plants, wind, solar and geothermal projects, water transfers and water transfer delivery systems, endangered species recovery plans, Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Communities Conservation Programs. Testified before multiple government agencies, Tribunals, Boards of Supervisors and City Councils, and participated with press conferences and depositions. Prepared expert witness reports and court declarations, which are summarized under Reports (below). Protocol -level survey. special -status species. Used California Department of Fish and Wildlife and US Fish and Wildlife Service protocols to search for California red -legged frog, California tiger salamander, arroyo southwestern toad, blunt -nosed leopard lizard, western pond turtle, giant kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, Swainson's hawk, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle and other special -status species. Conservation of San Joaquin kangaroo rat. Performed research to identify factors responsible for the decline of this endangered species at Lemoore Naval Air Station, 2000-2013, and implemented habitat enhancements designed to reverse the trend and expand the population. Smallwood CV 5 Impact of West Nile Virus on yellow -billed magpies. Funded by Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, 2005-2008, compared survey results pre- and post -West Nile Virus epidemic for multiple bird species in the Sacramento Valley, particularly on yellow -billed magpie and American crow due to susceptibility to WNV. Workshops on HCPs. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison with organizing and conducting a 2-day workshop on Habitat Conservation Plans, sponsored by Southern California Edison, and another 1- day workshop sponsored by PG&E. These Workshops were attended by academics, attorneys, and consultants with HCP experience. We guest -edited a Proceedings published in Environmental Management. Mapping of biological resources along Highways 101, 46 and 41. Used GPS and GIS to delineate vegetation complexes and locations of special -status species along 26 miles of highway in San Luis Obispo County, 14 miles of highway and roadway in Monterey County, and in a large area north of Fresno, including within reclaimed gravel mining pits. GPS mapping and monitoring at restoration sites and at Caltrans mitigation sites. Monitored the success of elderberry shrubs at one location, the success of willows at another location, and the response of wildlife to the succession of vegetation at both sites. Also used GPS to monitor the response of fossorial animals to yellow star -thistle eradication and natural grassland restoration efforts at Bear Valley in Colusa County and at the decommissioned Mather Air Force Base in Sacramento County. Mercury effects on Red -legged Frog. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison and US Fish and Wildlife Service in assessing the possible impacts of historical mercury mining on the federally listed California red -legged frog in Santa Clara County. Also measured habitat variables in streams. Opposition to proposed No Surprises rule. Wrote a white paper and summary letter explaining scientific grounds for opposing the incidental take permit (ITP) rules providing ITP applicants and holders with general assurances they will be free of compliance with the Endangered Species Act once they adhere to the terms of a "properly functioning HCP." Submitted 188 signatures of scientists and environmental professionals concerned about No Surprises rule US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, all US Senators. Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan alternative. Designed narrow channel marsh to increase the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild of giant garter snake, Swainson's hawk and Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. The design included replication and interspersion of treatments for experimental testing of critical habitat elements. I provided a report to Northern Territories, Inc. Assessments of agricultural production system and environmental technology transfer to China. Twice visited China and interviewed scientists, industrialists, agriculturalists, and the Directors of the Chinese Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture to assess the need and possible pathways for environmental clean-up technologies and trade opportunities between the US and China. Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Conducted landscape ecology study of Yolo County to spatially prioritize allocation of mitigation efforts to improve ecosystem functionality within the Smallwood CV 6 County from the perspective of 29 special -status species of wildlife and plants. Used a hierarchically structured indicators approach to apply principles of landscape and ecosystem ecology, conservation biology, and local values in rating land units. Derived GIS maps to help guide the conservation area design, and then developed implementation strategies. Mountain lion track count. Developed and conducted a carnivore monitoring program throughout California since 1985. Species counted include mountain lion, bobcat, black bear, coyote, red and gray fox, raccoon, striped skunk, badger, and black -tailed deer. Vegetation and land use are also monitored. Track survey transect was established on dusty, dirt roads within randomly selected quadrats. Sumatran tiger and other felids. Upon award of Fulbright Research Fellowship, I designed and initiated track counts for seven species of wild cats in Sumatra, including Sumatran tiger, fishing cat, and golden cat. Spent four months on Sumatra and Java in 1988, and learned Bahasa Indonesia, the official Indonesian language. Wildlife in agriculture. Beginning as post -graduate research, I studied pocket gophers and other wildlife in 40 alfalfa fields throughout the Sacramento Valley, and I surveyed for wildlife along a 200 mile road transect since 1989 with a hiatus of 1996-2004. The data are analyzed using GIS and methods from landscape ecology, and the results published and presented orally to farming groups in California and elsewhere. I also conducted the first study of wildlife in cover crops used on vineyards and orchards. Agricultural energy use and Tulare County groundwater study. Developed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture, and collaborated on a landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California. Pocket gopher damage in forest clear -cuts. Developed gopher sampling methods and tested various poison baits and baiting regimes in the largest -ever field study of pocket gopher management in forest plantations, involving 68 research plots in 55 clear -cuts among 6 National Forests in northern California. Risk assessment of exotic species in North America. Developed empirical models of mammal and bird species invasions in North America, as well as a rating system for assigning priority research and control to exotic species in California, based on economic, environmental, and human health hazards. Peer Reviewed Publications Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2018. Nest -site selection in a high -density colony of burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research 52:454-470. Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, E. L. Walther, E. Leyvas, S. Standish, J. Mount, B. Karas. 2018. Estimating wind turbine fatalities using integrated detection trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1169-1184. Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Long search intervals under -estimate bird and bat fatalities caused by Smallwood CV 7 wind turbines. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:224-230. Smallwood, K. S. 2017. The challenges of addressing wildlife impacts when repowering wind energy projects. Pages 175-187 in K6ppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts: Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland. May, R., Gill, A. B., K6ppel, J. Langston, R. H.W., Reichenbach, M., Scheidat, M., Smallwood, S., Voigt, C. C., Huppop, O., and Portman, M. 2017. Future research directions to reconcile wind turbine —wildlife interactions. Pages 255-276 in K6ppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts: Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland. Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Monitoring birds. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Siting to Minimize Raptor Collisions: an example from the Repowering Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q Johnson, D. H., S. R. Loss, K. S. Smallwood, W. P. Erickson. 2016. Avian fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America: A comparison of recent approaches. Human —Wildlife Interactions 10(1):7-18. Sadar, M. J., D. S.-M. Guzman, A. Mete, J. Foley, N. Stephenson, K. H. Rogers, C. Grosset, K. S. Smallwood, J. Shipman, A. Wells, S. D. White, D. A. Bell, and M. G. Hawkins. 2015. Mange Caused by a novel Micnemidocoptes mite in a Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaelos). Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 29(3):231-237. Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Mete, A., N. Stephenson, K. Rogers, M. G. Hawkins, M. Sadar, D. Guzman, D. A. Bell, J. Shipman, A. Wells, K. S. Smallwood, and J. Foley. 2014. Emergence of Knemidocoptic mange in wild Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in California. Emerging Infectious Diseases 20(10):1716- 1718. Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Introduction: Wind -energy development and wildlife conservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37: 3-4. Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Comparing bird and bat fatality -rate estimates among North American wind -energy projects. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37:19-33. + Online Supplemental Material. Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, J. Mount, and R. C. E. Culver. 2013. Nesting Burrowing Owl Abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Wildlife Society Bulletin: 37:787-795. Smallwood CV 3 Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, B. Karas, and S. A. Snyder. 2013. Response to Huso and Erickson Comments on Novel Scavenger Removal Trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 77: 216-225. Bell, D. A., and K. S. Smallwood. 2010. Birds of prey remain at risk. Science 330:913. Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, S. A. Snyder, and J. E. DiDonato. 2010. Novel scavenger removal trials increase estimates of wind turbine -caused avian fatality rates. Journal of Wildlife Management 74: 1089-1097 + Online Supplemental Material. Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2009. Map -based repowering and reorganization of a wind resource area to minimize burrowing owl and other bird fatalities. Energies 2009(2):915- 943. htt2://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/4/915 Smallwood, K. S. and B. Nakamoto. 2009. Impacts of West Nile Virus Epizootic on Yellow -Billed Magpie, American Crow, and other Birds in the Sacramento Valley, California. The Condor 111:247-254. Smallwood, K. S., L. Rugge, and M. L. Morrison. 2009. Influence of Behavior on Bird Mortality in Wind Energy Developments: The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1082-1098. Smallwood, K. S. and B. Karas. 2009. Avian and Bat Fatality Rates at Old -Generation and Repowered Wind Turbines in California. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1062-1071. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Wind power company compliance with mitigation plans in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Environmental & Energy Law Policy Journal 2(2):229-285. Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander. 2008. Bird Mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:215-223. Smallwood, K. S. 2007. Estimating wind turbine -caused bird mortality. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2781-2791. Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander, M. L. Morrison, and L. M. Rugge. 2007. Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1513- 1524. Cain, J. W. III, K. S. Smallwood, M. L. Morrison, and H. L. Loffland. 2005. Influence of mammal activity on nesting success of Passerines. J. Wildlife Management 70:522-531. Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Habitat models based on numerical comparisons. Pages 83-95 in Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, J. M. Scott, P. J. Heglund, M. Morrison, M. Raphael, J. Haufler, and B. Wall, editors. Island Press, Covello, California. Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and L. S. Hall. 2002. Creating habitat through plant relocation: Lessons from Valley elderberry longhorn beetle mitigation. Ecological Restoration 21: 95-100. Smallwood CV 9 Zhang, M., K. S. Smallwood, and E. Anderson. 2002. Relating indicators of ecological health and integrity to assess risks to sustainable agriculture and native biota. Pages 757-768 in D.J. Rapport, W.L. Lasley, D.E. Rolston, N.O. Nielsen, C.O. Qualset, and A.B. Damania (eds.), Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida USA. Wilcox, B. A., K. S. Smallwood, and J. A. Kahn. 2002. Toward a forest Capital Index. Pages 285- 298 in D.J. Rapport, W.L. Lasley, D.E. Rolston, N.O. Nielsen, C.O. Qualset, and A.B. Damania (eds.), Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida USA. Smallwood, K.S. 2001. The allometry of density within the space used by populations of Mammalian Carnivores. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:1634-1640. Smallwood, K.S., and T.R. Smith. 2001. Study design and interpretation of Sorex density estimates. Annales Zoologi Fennici 38:141-161. Smallwood, K.S., A. Gonzales, T. Smith, E. West, C. Hawkins, E. Stitt, C. Keckler, C. Bailey, and K. Brown. 2001. Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 36:40-49. Geng, S., Yixing Zhou, Minghua Zhang, and K. Shawn Smallwood. 2001. A Sustainable Agro- ecological Solution to Water Shortage in North China Plain (Huabei Plain). Environmental Planning and Management 44:345-355. Smallwood, K. Shawn, Lourdes Rugge, Stacia Hoover, Michael L. Morrison, Carl Thelander. 2001. Intra- and inter -turbine string comparison of fatalities to animal burrow densities at Altamont Pass. Pages 23-37 in S. S. Schwartz, ed., Proceedings of the National Avian -Wind Power Planning Meeting IV. RESOLVE, Inc_, Washington, D.C. Smallwood, K.S., S. Geng, and M. Zhang. 2001. Comparing pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) density in alfalfa stands to assess management and conservation goals in northern California. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 87: 93-109. Smallwood, K. S. 2001. Linking habitat restoration to meaningful units of animal demography. Restoration Ecology 9:253-261. Smallwood, K. S. 2000. A crosswalk from the Endangered Species Act to the HCP Handbook and real HCPs. Environmental Management 26, Supplement 1:23-35. Smallwood, K. S., J. Beyea and M. Morrison. 1999. Using the best scientific data for endangered species conservation. Environmental Management 24:421-435. Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Scale domains of abundance among species of Mammalian Carnivora. Environmental Conservation 26:102-111. Smallwood, K.S. 1999. Suggested study attributes for making useful population density estimates. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 35: 76-82. Smallwood CV 10 Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1999. Estimating burrow volume and excavation rate of pocket gophers (Geomyidae). Southwestern Naturalist 44:173-183. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1999. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) density. Southwestern Naturalist 44:73-82. Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Abating pocket gophers (Thomomys spp.) to regenerate forests in clearcuts. Environmental Conservation 26:59-65. Smallwood, K. S. 1998. Patterns of black bear abundance. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 34:32-38. Smallwood, K. S. 1998. On the evidence needed for listing northern goshawks (Accipter gentilis) under the Endangered Species Act: a reply to Kennedy. J. Raptor Research 32:323-329. Smallwood, K. S., B. Wilcox, R. Leidy, and K. Yarris. 1998. Indicators assessment for Habitat Conservation Plan of Yolo County, California, USA. Environmental Management 22: 947-958. Smallwood, K. S., M. L. Morrison, and J. Beyea. 1998. Animal burrowing attributes affecting hazardous waste management. Environmental Management 22: 831-847. Smallwood, K. S, and C. M. Schonewald. 1998. Study design and interpretation for mammalian carnivore density estimates. Oecologia 113:474-491. Zhang, M., S. Geng, and K. S. Smallwood. 1998. Nitrate contamination in groundwater of Tulare County, California. Ambio 27(3):170-174. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1997. Animal burrowing in the waste management zone of Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Proceedings of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society Meeting 33:88-97. Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and J. Beyea. 1997. Monitoring the dispersal of contaminants by wildlife at nuclear weapons production and waste storage facilities. The Environmentalist 17:289-295. Smallwood, K. S. 1997. Interpreting puma (Puma concolor) density estimates for theory and management. Environmental Conservation 24(3):283-289. Smallwood, K. S. 1997. Managing vertebrates in cover crops: a first study. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 11:155-160. Smallwood, K. S. and S. Geng. 1997. Multi -scale influences of gophers on alfalfa yield and quality. Field Crops Research 49:159-168. Smallwood, K. S. and C. Schonewald. 1996. Scaling population density and spatial pattern for terrestrial, mammalian carnivores. Oecologia 105:329-335. Smallwood CV 11 Smallwood, K. S., G. Jones, and C. Schonewald. 1996. Spatial scaling of allometry for terrestrial, mammalian carnivores. Oecologia 107:588-594. Van Vuren, D. and K. S. Smallwood. 1996. Ecological management of vertebrate pests in agricultural systems. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 13:41-64. Smallwood, K. S., B. J. Nakamoto, and S. Geng. 1996. Association analysis of raptors on an agricultural landscape. Pages 177-190 in D.M. Bird, D.E. Varland, and J.J. Negro, eds., Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, London. Erichsen, A. L., K. S. Smallwood, A. M. Commandatore, D. M. Fry, and B. Wilson. 1996. White- tailed Kite movement and nesting patterns in an agricultural landscape. Pages 166-176 in D. M. Bird, D. E. Varland, and J. J. Negro, eds., Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, London. Smallwood, K. S. 1995. Scaling Swainson's hawk population density for assessing habitat -use across an agricultural landscape. J. Raptor Research 29:172-178. Smallwood, K. S. and W. A. Erickson. 1995. Estimating gopher populations and their abatement in forest plantations. Forest Science 41:284-296. Smallwood, K. S. and E. L. Fitzhugh. 1995. A track count for estimating mountain lion Felis concolor californica population trend. Biological Conservation 71:251-259 Smallwood, K. S. 1994. Site invasibility by exotic birds and mammals. Biological Conservation 69:251-259. Smallwood, K. S. 1994. Trends in California mountain lion populations. Southwestern Naturalist 39:67-72. Smallwood, K. S. 1993. Understanding ecological pattern and process by association and order. Acta Oecologica 14(3):443-462. Smallwood, K. S. and E. L. Fitzhugh. 1993. A rigorous technique for identifying individual mountain lions Felis concolor by their tracks. Biological Conservation 65:51-59. Smallwood, K. S. 1993. Mountain lion vocalizations and hunting behavior. The Southwestern Naturalist 38:65-67. Smallwood, K. S. and T. P. Salmon. 1992. A rating system for potential exotic vertebrate pests. Biological Conservation 62:149-159. Smallwood, K. S. 1990. Turbulence and the ecology of invading species. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Davis. Smallwood CV 12 Peer -reviewed Reports Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2017. Comparing bird and bat use data for siting new wind power generation. Report CEC-500-2017-019, California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research program, Sacramento, California. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2017publications/CEC- 500-2017-019/CEC-500-2017-019.pdf and http://www.energy.ca.gov/2017publications/CEC- 500-2017-019/CEC-500-2017-019-APA-F.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2016. Bird and bat impacts and behaviors at old wind turbines at Forebay, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report CEC-500-2016-066, California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research program, Sacramento, California. http://www.energv.ca.gov/publications/displayQneReport.php? pubNum=CEC-,roo- 2016-o66 Sinclair, K. and E. DeGeorge. 2016. Framework for Testing the Effectiveness of Bat and Eagle Impact -Reduction Strategies at Wind Energy Projects. S. Smallwood, M. Schirmacher, and M. Morrison, eds., Technical Report NREL/TP-5000-65624, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado. Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2014. Final 2013-2014 Annual Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, and B. Karas. 2013. Final 2012-2013 Annual Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt doc/p274_ventus_vasco_winds _2012_13_avian _ bat monitoring report year_l.pdf Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, D. Bell, J. DiDonato, B. Karas, S. Snyder, and S. Lopez. 2009. Range Management Practices to Reduce Wind Turbine Impacts on Burrowing Owls and Other Raptors in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research — Environmental Area, Contract No. CEC-500-2008-080. Sacramento, California. 183 pp. http://www.energy.ca.gov/ 20081)ublications/CEC-500-2008-080/CEC-500-2008-080.PDF Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2009. Map -Based Repowering of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Based on Burrowing Owl Burrows, Raptor Flights, and Collisions with Wind Turbines. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research — Environmental Area, Contract No. CEC-500-2009-065. Sacramento, California. http:// www. energy.ca. gov/publications/displayOneRel2ort.php?pubNum=CEC-500-2009-065 Smallwood, K. S., K. Hunting, L. Neher, L. Spiegel and M. Yee. 2007. Indicating Threats to Birds Posed by New Wind Power Projects in California. Final Report to the California Energy Smallwood CV 13 Commission, Public Interest Energy Research — Environmental Area, Contract No. Amami Sacramento, California. Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2005. Bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, March 1998 — September 2001 Final Report. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-500-36973. Golden, Colorado. 410 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2004. Developing methods to reduce bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research — Environmental Area, Contract No. 500-01-019. Sacramento, California. 531 pp. http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/500-04-052/2004-08-09_500-04-052.PDF Thelander, C.G. S. Smallwood, and L. Rugge. 2003. Bird risk behaviors and fatalities at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Period of Performance: March 1998December 2000. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-500-33829. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia. 86 pp. Thelander, C.G., S. Smallwood, and L. Rugge. 2001. Bird risk behaviors and fatalities at the Altamont Wind Resource Area — a progress report. Proceedings of the American Wind Energy Association, Washington D.C. 16 pp. Non -Peer Reviewed Publications Smallwood, K. S., D. Bell, and S. Standish. 2018. Skilled dog detections of bat and small bird carcasses in wind turbine fatality monitoring. Report to East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Methods manual for assessing wind farm impacts to birds. Bird Conservation Series 26, Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo. T. Ura, ed., in English with Japanese translation by T. Kurosawa. 90 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mitigation in U.S. Wind Farms. Pages 68-76 in H. H6tker (Ed.), Birds of Prey and Wind Farms: Analysis of problems and possible solutions. Documentation of an International Workshop in Berlin, 21st and 22nd October 2008. Michael-Otto-Instiut im NABU, Goosstroot 1, 24861 Bergenhusen, Germany. hlt2://bergenhusen.nabu.de/forschung/greifvoegel/ Smallwood, K. S. 2007. Notes and recommendations on wildlife impacts caused by Japan's wind power development. Pages 242-245 in Yukihiro Kominami, Tatsuya Ura, Koshitawa, and Tsuchiya, Editors, Wildlife and Wind Turbine Report 5. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo. Thelander, C.G. and S. Smallwood. 2007. The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area's Effects on Birds: A Case History. Pages 25-46 in Manuela de Lucas, Guyonne F.E. Janss, Miguel Ferrer Editors, Birds and Wind Farms: risk assessment and mitigation. Madrid: Quercus. Neher, L. and S. Smallwood. 2005. Forecasting and minimizing avian mortality in siting wind turbines. Energy Currents. Fall Issue. ESRI, Inc., Redlands, California. Smallwood CV 14 Jennifer Davidson and Shawn Smallwood. 2004. Laying plans for a hydrogen highway. Comstock's Business, August 2004:18-20, 22, 24-26. Jennifer Davidson and Shawn Smallwood. 2004. Refined conundrum: California consumers demand more oil while opposing refinery development. Comstock's Business, November 2004:26-27, 29-30. Smallwood, K. S. 2002. Review of "The Atlas of Endangered Species." By Richard Mackay. Environmental Conservation 30:210-211. Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Review of "The Endangered Species Act. History, Conservation, and Public Policy." By Brian Czech and Paul B. Krausman. Environmental Conservation 29: 269- 270. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) burrow volume. Abstract in Proceedings of 44th Annual Meeting, Southwestern Association of Naturalists. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Estimating prairie dog and pocket gopher burrow volume. Abstract in Proceedings of 44th Annual Meeting, Southwestern Association of Naturalists. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Animal burrowing parameters influencing toxic waste management. Abstract in Proceedings of Meeting, Western Section of the Wildlife Society. Smallwood, K.S, and Bruce Wilcox. 1996. Study and interpretive design effects on mountain lion density estimates. Abstract, page 93 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 51h Mountain Lion Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp. Smallwood, K.S, and Bruce Wilcox. 1996. Ten years of mountain lion track survey. Page 94 in D.W. Padley, ed. Abstract, page 94 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 51h Mountain Lion Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp. Smallwood, K.S, and M. Grigione. 1997. Photographic recording of mountain lion tracks. Pages 75-75 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 51h Mountain Lion Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp. Smallwood, K.S., B. Wilcox, and J. Karr. 1995. An approach to scaling fragmentation effects. Brief 8, Ecosystem Indicators Working Group, 17 March, 1995. Institute for Sustainable Development, Thoreau Center for Sustainability — The Presidio, PO Box 29075, San Francisco, CA 94129-0075. Wilcox, B., and K.S. Smallwood. 1995. Ecosystem indicators model overview. Brief 2, Ecosystem Indicators Working Group, 17 March, 1995. Institute for Sustainable Development, Thoreau Center for Sustainability — The Presidio, PO Box 29075, San Francisco, CA 94129- 0075. Smallwood CV 15 EIP Associates. 1996. Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Yolo County Planning and Development Department, Woodland, California. Geng, S., K.S. Smallwood, and M. Zhang. 1995. Sustainable agriculture and agricultural sustainability. Proc. 7th International Congress SABRAO, 2nd Industrial Symp. WSAA. Taipei, Taiwan. Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1994. Landscape strategies for biological control and IPM. Pages 454-464 in W. Dehai, ed., Proc. International Conference on Integrated Resource Management for Sustainable Agriculture. Beijing Agricultural University, Beijing, China. Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1993. Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. California Alfalfa Symposium 23:105-8. Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1993. Management of pocket gophers in Sacramento Valley alfalfa. California Alfalfa Symposium 23:86-89. Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1992. The use of track counts for mountain lion population census. Pages 59-67 in C. Braun, ed. Mountain lion -Human Interaction Symposium and Workshop. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins. Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1989. Differentiating mountain lion and dog tracks. Pages 58-63 in Smith, R.H., ed. Proc. Third Mountain Lion Workshop. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix. Fitzhugh, E.L. and K.S. Smallwood. 1989. Techniques for monitoring mountain lion population levels. Pages 69-71 in Smith, R.H., ed. Proc. Third Mountain Lion Workshop. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix. Reports to or by Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (Note: all documents linked to SRC website have since been removed by Alameda County) Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Data Needed in Support of Repowering in the Altamont Pass WRA. hltp://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p284_smallwood_ data needed_ in support_of repowering_ in the_altamont pass_wra.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Long -Term Trends in Fatality Rates of Birds and Bats in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt doc/r68_smallwood _altamont_fatality rates _lon _ erm.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Inter -annual Fatality rates of Target Raptor Species from 1999 through 2012 in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p268_ smallwood_inter annual_ comparison_ of fatality rates _1999_2012.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2012. General Protocol for Performing Detection Trials in the FloDesign Study of the Safety of a Closed -bladed Wind Turbine. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p246_ smallwood_flodesign detection_ trial protocol.pdf Smallwood CV 16 Smallwood, K. S.,1. Neher, and J. Mount. 2012. Burrowing owl distribution and abundance study through two breeding seasons and intervening non -breeding period in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt doc/p245_smallwood_ et al burrowing owl density 2012.pdf Smallwood, K. S 2012. Draft study design for testing collision risk of Flodesign wind turbine in former AES Seawest wind projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt doc/p238_smallwood_floeesign draft study design Mril_2012 Smallwood, L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2012. Winter 2012 update on burrowing owl distribution and abundance study in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. http://www. altamontsrc.org/alt doc/p232_smallwood_ et al winter owl survey update.pdf Smallwood, S. 2012. Status of avian utilization data collected in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, 2005-2011. hltp://www.altamontsrc.org/alt doc/p231_smallwood_ apwra _use _data _2005_2011.pdf Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2011. Monitoring Burrow Use of Wintering Burrowing Owls. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p229_smallwood_et al progress_ monitoring_ burrowing owl_ burrow_use.pdf Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2011. Nesting Burrowing Owl Distribution and Abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p228_smallwood_et al for _nextera_burrowing owl_distrib uti on_ and abundance study.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Draft Study Design for Testing Collision Risk of Flodesign Wind Turbine in Patterson Pass Wind Farm in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). hltp://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p100_src_document_list with reference numbers.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Sampling Burrowing Owls Across the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p205_smallwood neher progress_ on sampling _burrowing owls_ across_Ewra.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Proposal to Sample Burrowing Owls Across the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt doc/pl98_smallwood proposal to sample_ burrowing owls_ across_Ewra.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Comments on APWRA Monitoring Program Update. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt doc/p191_smallwood_comments _ on_Ewra_monitoring progra m update.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Inter -turbine Comparisons of Fatality Rates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt doc/p189_smallwood_ report of apwra fatality rate patterns.pdf Smallwood CV 17 Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of the December 2010 Draft of M-21: Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Bird Collision Study. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt doc/p190_smallwood review of december 2010 monitoring report.pdf Alameda County SRC (Shawn Smallwood, Jim Estep, Sue Orloff, Joanna Burger, and Julie Yee). Comments on the Notice of Preparation for a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report on Revised CUPs for Wind Turbines in the Alameda County portion of the Altamont Pass. hqp://www.altamontsrc.org/alt doc/p183_src_ integrated_ comments_ on nop.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of Monitoring Implementation Plan. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt doc/p180_src_ comments_ on_dip.pdf Burger, J., J. Estep, S. Orloff, S. Smallwood, and J. Yee. 2010. SRC Comments on Ca1WEA Research Plan. hltp://www.altamontsrc.org/alt doc/pl74_smallwood_ review_ of calwea_ removal study plan.pdf Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). SRC Comments on Monitoring Team's Draft Study Plan for Future Monitoring. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt doc/pl68_src_ comments_ on_m53_mt draft study plan for fut ure monitoring.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Second Review of American Kestrel -Burrowing owl (KB) Scavenger Removal Adjustments Reported in Alameda County Avian Monitoring Team's M21 for the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. hltp://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p171_smallwood kb removal rates follow up.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Assessment of Three Proposed Adaptive Management Plans for Reducing Raptor Fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt doc/pl61_smallwood_ assessment of amps.pdf Smallwood, K. S. and J. Estep. 2010. Report of additional wind turbine hazard ratings in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area by Two Members of the Alameda County Scientific Review Committee. hitp://www.altamontsrc.org/alt doc/pl53_smallwood_estep additional_ hazard_ratings.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Alternatives to Improve the Efficiency of the Monitoring Program. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt doc/pl58_smallwood_ response_ to memo_ on monitoring costs Smallwood, S. 2010. Summary of Alameda County SRC Recommendations and Concerns and Subsequent Actions. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt doc/pl47_smallwood_ summary of src_ recommendations _and _concerns _1 11_l0.pdf Smallwood, S. 2010. Progress of Avian Wildlife Protection Program & Schedule. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt doc/pl48_smallwood progress of avian wildlife protection rogram_1 11_l0.pdf Smallwood CV 18 Smallwood, S. 2010. Old -generation wind turbines rated for raptor collision hazard by Alameda County Scientific Review Committee in 2010, an Update on those Rated in 2007, and an Update on Tier Rankings. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt doc/P155_smallwood_src_ turbine ratings and_status.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of American Kestrel -Burrowing owl (KB) Scavenger Removal Adjustments Reported in Alameda County Avian Monitoring Team's M21 for the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt doc/p154_smallwood_ kb_ removal_ rates_041610.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Fatality Rates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area 1998-2009. Alameda County SRC document P-145. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Comments on Revised M-21: Report on Fatality Monitoring in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. P 144 SRC Comments on 2009 Draft Monitoring Report M21. Smallwood, K. S. 2009. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt doc/p129_smallwood_ search_ interval_ summaries _suplemental_to m39.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Smallwood's review of M32. Alameda County SRC document P-111. 6 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/plll_smallwoods review of m32.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2009. 3rd Year Review of 16 Conditional Use Permits for Windworks, Inc. and Altamont Infrastructure Company, LLC. Comment letter to East County Board of Zoning Adjustments. 10 pp + 2 attachments. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Weighing Remaining Workload of Alameda County SRC against Proposed Budget Cap. Alameda County SRC document not assigned. 3 pp. Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). 2008. SRC comments on August 2008 Fatality Monitoring Report, M21. Alameda County SRC document P-107. 21 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt doc/p107_smallwood_ review_ of July 2008_ monitoring report m2l.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Burrowing owl carcass distribution around wind turbines. Alameda County SRC document 106. 8 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt doc/Pl06_smallwood_ burrowing owl _carcass _distribution _ around_ wind_turbines.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Assessment of relocation/removal of Altamont Pass wind turbines rated as hazardous by the Alameda County SRC. Alameda County SRC document P-103. 10 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt doc/p103_assessment of src_recommendations _to relocate rated turbines.pdf Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2008. Summary of wind turbine -free ridgelines within and around the APWRA. Alameda County SRC document P-102. 4 pp. Smallwood CV 19 Smallwood, K. S. and B. Karas. 2008. Comparison of mortality estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area when restricted to recent fatalities. Alameda County SRC document P- 101. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. On the misapplication of mortality adjustment terms to fatalities missed during one search and found later. Alameda County SRC document P-97. 3 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Relative abundance of raptors outside the APWRA. Alameda County SRC document P-88. 6 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Comparison of mortality estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Alameda County SRC document P-76. 19 pp Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). 2010. Guidelines for siting wind turbines recommended for relocation to minimize potential collision - related mortality of four focal raptor species in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Alameda County SRC document P-70. Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). December 11, 2007. SRC selection of dangerous wind turbines. Alameda County SRC document P-67. 8 pp. Smallwood, S. October 6, 2007. Smallwood's answers to Audubon's queries about the SRC's recommended four month winter shutdown of wind turbines in the Altamont Pass. Alameda County SRC document P-23. Smallwood, K. S. October 1, 2007. Dissenting opinion on recommendation to approve of the AWI Blade Painting Study. Alameda County SRC document P-60. Smallwood, K. S. July 26, 2007. Effects of monitoring duration and inter -annual variability on precision of wind -turbine caused mortality estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC Document P44. Smallwood, K. S. July 26, 2007. Memo: Opinion of some SRC members that the period over which post -management mortality will be estimated remains undefined. SRC Document P43. Smallwood, K. S. July 19, 2007. Smallwood's response to P24G. SRC Document P41, 4 pp. Smallwood, K. S. April 23, 2007. New Information Regarding Alameda County SRC Decision of 11 April 2007 to Grant FPLE Credits for Removing and Relocating Wind Turbines in 2004. SRC Document P26. Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, and J. Burger [J. Yee abstained]). April 17, 2007. SRC Statement in Support of the Monitoring Program Scope and Budget. Smallwood, K. S. April 15, 2007. Verification of Tier 1 & 2 Wind Turbine Shutdowns and Relocations. SRC Document P22. Smallwood CV 20 Smallwood, S. April 15, 2007. Progress of Avian Wildlife Protection Program & Schedule. Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). April 3, 2007. Alameda County Scientific Review Committee replies to the parties' responses to its queries and to comments from the California Office of the Attorney General. SRC Document 520. Smallwood, S. March 19, 2007. Estimated Effects of Full Winter Shutdown and Removal of Tier I & H Turbines. SRC Document S 19. Smallwood, S. March 8, 2007. Smallwood's Replies to the Parties' Responses to Queries from the SRC and Comments from the California Office of the Attorney General. SRC Document 516. Smallwood, S. March 8, 2007. Estimated Effects of Proposed Measures to be Applied to 2,500 Wind Turbines in the APWRA Fatality Monitoring Plan. SRC Document 515. Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). February 7, 2007. Analysis of Monitoring Program in Context of 1/1//2007 Settlement Agreement. Smallwood, S. January 8, 2007. Smallwood's Concerns over the Agreement to Settle the CEQA Challenges. SRC Document S5. Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). December 19, 2006. Altamont Scientific Review Committee (SRC) Recommendations to the County on the Avian Monitoring Team Consultants' Budget and Organization. Reports to Clients Smallwood, K. S. 2018. Addendum to Comparison of Wind Turbine Collision Hazard Model Performance: One-year Post -construction Assessment of Golden Eagle Fatalities at Golden Hills. Report to Audubon Society, NextEra Energy, and the California Attorney General. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2018. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Rooney Ranch and Sand Hill Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to S-Power, Salt Lake City, Utah. Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Summary of a burrowing owl conservation workshop. Report to Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, Morgan Hill, California. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2017. Comparison of wind turbine collision hazard model performance prepared for repowering projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Inc., Office of the California Attorney General, Audubon Society, East Bay Regional Park District. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2016. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Summit Winds Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to Salka, Inc., Washington, D.C. Smallwood CV 21 Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Mitigating golden eagle impacts from repowering Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area and expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir. Report to East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan Conservancy and Contra Costa Water District. Smallwood, K. S. 2016. Report of Altamont Pass research as Vasco Winds mitigation. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Inc., Office of the California Attorney General, Audubon Society, East Bay Regional Park District. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2016. Siting Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor collisions at Sand Hill Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to Ogin, Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015a. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Golden Hills Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Reportto NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015b. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Golden Hills North Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015c. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at the Patterson Pass Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to EDF Renewable Energy, Oakland, California. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2014. Early assessment of wind turbine layout in Summit Wind Project. Report to Altamont Winds LLC, Tracy, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Review of avian use survey report for the Longboat Solar Project. Report to EDF Renewable Energy, Oakland, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Information needed for solar project impacts assessment and mitigation planning. Report to Panorama Environmental, Inc., San Francisco, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Monitoring fossorial mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, California: Report of Progress for the period 2006-2014. Report to East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2013. First -year estimates of bird and bat fatality rates at old wind turbines, Forebay areas of Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to FloDesign in support of EIR. Smallwood, K. S. and W. Pearson. 2013. Neotropical bird monitoring of burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia), Naval Air Station Lemoore, California. Tierra Data, Inc. report to Naval Air Station Lemoore. Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Winter surveys for San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) and Smallwood CV 22 burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) within Air Operations at Naval Air Station, Lemoore. Report to Tierra Data, Inc. and Naval Air Station Lemoore. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2013. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) conservation research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2012 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2012). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2012. Fatality rate estimates at the Vantage Wind Energy Project, year one. Report to Ventus Environmental, Portland, Oregon. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2012. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at North Sky River. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, LLC. Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Monitoring Fossorial Mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, California: Report of Progress for the Period 2006-2011. Report to East Bay Regional Park District. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2011. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2011 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2011). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Draft study design for testing collision risk of F1oDesign Wind Turbine in Patterson Pass, Santa Clara, and Former AES Seawest Wind Projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). Report to F1oDesign, Inc. Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Comments on Marbled Murrelet collision model for the Radar Ridge Wind Resource Area. Report to EcoStat, Inc., and ultimately to US Fish and Wildlife Service. Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Avian fatality rates at Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, 2008-2011. Report to Pattern Energy. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2011. Siting repowered wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Tres Vaqueros, Contra Costa County, California. Report to Pattern Energy. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2011. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2010 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2010). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Wind Energy Development and avian issues in the Altamont Pass, California. Report to Black & Veatch. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2010. Siting repowered wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at the Tres Vaqueros Wind Project, Contra Costa County, California. Report to the East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California. Smallwood CV 23 Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2010. Siting repowered wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Vasco Winds. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, Livermore, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Baseline avian and bat fatality rates at the Tres Vaqueros Wind Project, Contra Costa County, California. Report to the East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2010. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2009 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2009). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 86 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mammal surveys at naval outlying landing field Imperial Beach, California, August 2009. Report to Tierra Data, Inc. 5 pp Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mammals and other Wildlife Observed at Proposed Site of Amargosa Solar Power Project, Spring 2009. Report to Tierra Data, Inc. 13 pp Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Avian Fatality Rates at Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, 2008-2009. Report to members of the Contra Costa County Technical Advisory Committee on the Buena Vista Wind Energy Project. 8 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Repowering the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area more than Doubles Energy Generation While Substantially Reducing Bird Fatalities. Report prepared on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy. 2 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2009. Surveys to Detect Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and California Black Rail at Installation Restoration Site 30, Military Ocean Terminal Concord, California: March -April 2009. Report to Insight Environmental, Engineering, and Construction, Inc., Sacramento, California. 6 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Avian and Bat Mortality at the Big Horn Wind Energy Project, Klickitat County, Washington. Unpublished report to Friends of Skamania County. 7 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Monitoring Fossorial Mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, California: report of progress for the period 2006-2008. Unpublished report to East Bay Regional Park District. 5 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2008 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2008). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 84 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Habitat Assessment for California Red -Legged Frog at Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 48 Smallwood CV 24 M9 Smallwood, K. S. and B. Nakamoto 2008. Impact of 2005 and 2006 West Nile Virus on Yellow - billed Magpie and American Crow in the Sacramento Valley, California. 22 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Former Naval Security Group Activity (NSGA), Skaggs Island, Waste and Contaminated Soil Removal Project (IR Site 42), San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County, California: Re -Vegetation Monitoring. Report to U.S. Navy, Letter Agreement — N68711-04LT-A0045. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 10 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Burrowing owls at Dixon Naval Radio Transmitter Facility. Report to U.S. Navy. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 28 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2007 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2007). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 69 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2007. A Monitoring Effort to Detect the Presence of the Federally Listed Species California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, and Wetland Habitat Assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Installation Restoration (IR) Site 30, Final Report to U.S. Navy, Letter Agreement — N68711-05LT-A0001. U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, California. 8 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2007. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2006 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2006). U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Daly City, California. 165 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2006. Response to third review of Smallwood and Thelander (2004). Report to California Institute for Energy and Environment, University of California, Oakland, CA. 139 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2006. Biological effects of repowering a portion of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California: The Diablo Winds Energy Project. Report to Altamont Working Group. Available from Shawn Smallwood, pumakyolo.com . 34 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2006. Impact of 2005 West Nile Virus on Yellow -billed Magpie and American Crow in the Sacramento Valley, California. Report to Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, Elk Grove, CA. 38 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2005 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2005). U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team Smallwood CV 25 (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 160 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California tiger salamander and California red -legged frog at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter agreements N68711- 04LT-AO042 and N68711-04LT-A0044, U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 60 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, and wetland habitat assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Sampling for rails, Spring 2006, Installation Restoration (IR) Site 1. Letter Agreement — N68711-051t-A0001, U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 9 pp. Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2006. Final Report: Station -wide Wildlife Survey, Naval Air Station, Lemoore. Department of the Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT) West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, 2001 Junipero Serra Blvd., Suite 600, Daly City, CA 94014-1976. 20 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. Former Naval Security Group Activity (NSGA), Skaggs Island, Waste and Contaminated Soil Removal Project, San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County, California: Re -vegetation Monitoring. Department of the Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT) West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, 2001 Junipero Serra Blvd., Suite 600, Daly City, CA 94014-1976. 8 pp. Dorin, Melinda, Linda Spiegel and K. Shawn Smallwood. 2005. Response to public comments on the staff report entitled Assessment ofAvian Mortality from Collisions and Electrocutions (CEC-700-2005-015) (Avian White Paper) written in support of the 2005 Environmental Performance Report and the 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report. California Energy Commission, Sacramento. 205 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2005. Estimating combined effects of selective turbine removal and winter -time shutdown of half the wind turbines. Unpublished CEC staff report, June 23. 1 p. Erickson, W. and S. Smallwood. 2005. Avian and Bat Monitoring Plan for the Buena Vista Wind Energy Project Contra Costa County, California. Unpubl. report to Contra Costa County, Antioch, California. 22 pp. Lamphier-Gregory, West Inc., Shawn Smallwood, Jones & Stokes Associates, Illingworth & Rodkin Inc. and Environmental Vision. 2005. Environmental Impact Report for the Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, LP# 022005. County of Contra Costa Community Development Department, Martinez, California. Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse, and wetland habitat assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Smallwood CV 26 Targeted Sampling for Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, Fall 2005 Installation Restoration (IR) Site 30. Letter Agreement — N68711-051t-A0001, U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 6 pp. Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse, and wetland habitat assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter Agreement — N68711-051t-A0001, U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 5 pp. Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. Skaggs Island waste and contaminated soil removal projects, San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County, California. Report to the U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 6 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2004. 2004 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 134 pp - Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005a. Assessment To Support An Adaptive Management Plan For The APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, January 19. 19 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005b. Partial Re -assessment of An Adaptive Management Plan For The APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, March 25. 48 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005c. Combining biology -based and policy -based tiers of priority for determining wind turbine relocation/shutdown to reduce bird fatalities in the APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, June 1. 9 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2004. Alternative plan to implement mitigation measures in APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, January 19. 8 pp. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2005. Repowering the APWRA: Forecasting and minimizing avian mortality without significant loss of power generation. California Energy Commission, PIER Energy -Related Environmental Research. CEC-500-2005-005. 21 pp. [Reprinted (in Japanese) in Yukihiro Kominami, Tatsuya Ura, Koshitawa, and Tsuchiya, Editors, Wildlife and Wind Turbine Report 5. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo.] Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2004. Kangaroo rat survey at RMA4, NAS Lemoore. Report to U.S. Navy. 4 pp. Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2004. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California clapper rails and wetland habitat assessment at Pier 4 of the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter Agreement N68711-04LT-A0002. 8 pp. + 2 pp. of photo plates. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2003. 2003 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat Smallwood CV 27 (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 56 pp. + 58 figures. Smallwood, K. S. 2003. Comparison of Biological Impacts of the No Project and Partial Underground Alternatives presented in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Jefferson - Martin 230 kV Transmission Line. Report to California Public Utilities Commission. 20 pp. Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2003. Kangaroo rat survey at RMA4, NAS Lemoore. Report to U.S. Navy. 6 pp. + 7 photos + 1 map. Smallwood, K. S. 2003. Assessment of the Environmental Review Documents Prepared for the Tesla Power Project. Report to the California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy. 32 pp. Smallwood, K. S., and M. L. Morrison. 2003. 2002 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 45 pp. + 36 figures. Smallwood, K. S., Michael L. Morrison and Carl G. Thelander 2002. Study plan to test the effectiveness of aerial markers at reducing avian mortality due to collisions with transmission lines: A report to Pacific Gas & Electric Company. 10 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2002. Assessment of the Environmental Review Documents Prepared for the East Altamont Energy Center. Report to the California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy. 26 pp. Thelander, Carl G., K. Shawn Smallwood, and Christopher Costello. 2002 Rating Distribution Poles for Threat of Raptor Electrocution and Priority Retrofit: Developing a Predictive Model. Report to Southern California Edison Company. 30 pp. Smallwood, K. S., M. Robison, and C. Thelander. 2002. Draft Natural Environment Study, Prunedale Highway 101 Project. California Department of Transportation, San Luis Obispo, California. 120 pp. Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Assessment of ecological integrity and restoration potential of Beeman/Pelican Farm. Draft Report to Howard Beeman, Woodland, California. 14 pp. Smallwood, K. S., and M. L. Morrison. 2002. Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 29 pp. + 19 figures. Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Rocky Flats visit, April 4th through 6th, 2001. Report to Berger & Montaque, P.C. 16 pp. with 61 color plates. Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Affidavit of K. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. in the matter of the U.S. Fish and Smallwood CV 28 Wildlife Service's rejection of Seatuck Environmental Association's proposal to operate an education center on Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge. Submitted to Seatuck Environmental Association in two parts, totaling 7 pp. Maggey, D., and K.S. Smallwood. 2001. Maranatha High School CEQA critique. Comment letter submitted to Tamara & Efren Compedn, 16 pp. Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Preliminary Comments on the Proposed Blythe Energy Project. Submitted to California Energy Commission on March 15 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 14 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and D. Mangey. 2001. Comments on the Newhall Ranch November 2000 Administrative Draft EIR. Prepared for Ventura County Counsel regarding the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan EIR. 68 pp. Maggey, D. and K. S. Smallwood. 2000. Newhall Ranch Notice of Preparation Submittal. Prepared for Ventura County Counsel regarding our recommended scope of work for the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan EIR. 17 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Preliminary Staff Assessment of the Contra Costa Power Plant Unit 8 Project. Submitted to California Energy Commission on November 30 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 4 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the California Energy Commission's Final Staff Assessment of the MEC. Submitted to California Energy Commission on October 29 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 8 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Biological Resources Mitigation Implementation and Monitoring Plan (BRMIMP). Submitted to California Energy Commission on October 29 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 9 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Preliminary Staff Assessment of the Metcalf Energy Center. Submitted to California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 11 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Preliminary report of reconnaissance surveys near the TRW plant south of Phoenix, Arizona, March 27-29. Report prepared for Hagens, Berman & Mitchell, Attorneys at Law, Phoenix, AZ. 6 pp. Morrison, M.L., K.S. Smallwood, and M. Robison. 2001. Draft Natural Environment Study for Highway 46 compliance with CEQA/NEPA. Report to the California Department of Transportation. 75 pp. Morrison, M.L., and K.S. Smallwood. 1999. NTI plan evaluation and comments. Exhibit C in W.D. Carrier, M.L. Morrison, K.S. Smallwood, and Vail Engineering. Recommendations for NBHCP land acquisition and enhancement strategies. Northern Territories, Inc., Sacramento. Smallwood CV 29 Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Estimation of impacts due to dredging of a shipping channel through Humboldt Bay, California. Court Declaration prepared on behalf of EPIC. Smallwood, K. S. 1998. 1998 California Mountain Lion Track Count. Report to the Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C. 5 pages. Smallwood, K.S. 1998. Draft report of a visit to a paint sludge dump site near Ridgewood, New Jersey, February 26th, 1998. Unpublished report to Consulting in the Public Interest. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Science missing in the "no surprises" policy. Commissioned by National Endangered Species Network and Spirit of the Sage Council, Pasadena, California. Smallwood, K.S. and M.L. Morrison. 1997. Alternate mitigation strategy for incidental take of giant garter snake and Swainson's hawk as part of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan. Pages 6-9 and iii illustrations in W.D. Carrier, K.S. Smallwood and M.L. Morrison, Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan: Narrow channel marsh alternative wetland mitigation. Northern Territories, Inc., Sacramento. Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Assessment of the BIOPORT model's parameter values for pocket gopher burrowing characteristics. Report to Berger & Montague, P.C. and Roy S. Haber, P.C., Philadelphia. (peer reviewed). Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Assessment of plutonium releases from Hanford buried waste sites. Report Number 9, Consulting in the Public Interest, 53 Clinton Street, Lambertville, New Jersey, 08530. Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Soil Bioturbation and Wind Affect Fate of Hazardous Materials that were Released at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Report to Berger & Montague, P.C., Philadelphia. Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Second assessment of the BIOPORT model's parameter values for pocket gopher burrowing characteristics and other relevant wildlife observations. Report to Berger & Montague, P.C. and Roy S. Haber, P.C., Philadelphia. Smallwood, K.S., and R. Leidy. 1996. Wildlife and Their Management Under the Martell SYP. Report to Georgia Pacific, Corporation, Martel, CA. 30 pp. EIP Associates. 1995. Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan Biological Resources Report. Yolo County Planning and Development Department, Woodland, California. Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1995. Analysis of the 1987 California Farm Cost Survey and recommendations for future survey. Program on Workable Energy Regulation, University -wide Energy Research Group, University of California. Smallwood, K.S., S. Geng, and W. Idzerda. 1992. Final report to PG&E: Analysis of the 1987 California Farm Cost Survey and recommendations for future survey. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, San Ramon, California. 24 pp. Smallwood CV 30 Fitzhugh, E.L. and K.S. Smallwood. 1987. Methods Manual — A statewide mountain lion population index technique. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Salmon, T.P. and K.S. Smallwood. 1989. Final Report — Evaluating exotic vertebrates as pests to California agriculture. California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento. Smallwood, K.S. and W. A. Erickson (written under supervision of W.E. Howard, R.E. Marsh, and R.J. Laacke). 1990. Environmental exposure and fate of multi -kill strychnine gopher baits. Final Report to USDA Forest Service—NAPIAP, Cooperative Agreement PSW-89-001 OCA. Fitzhugh, E.L., K.S. Smallwood, and R. Gross. 1985. Mountain lion track count, Marin County, 1985. Report on file at Wildlife Extension, University of California, Davis. Comments on Environmental Documents I was retained or commissioned to comment on environmental planning and review documents, including: • The Villages of Lakeview EIR (2017; 28 pp); • Notes on Proposed Study Options for Trail Impacts on Northern Spotted Owl (2017; 4 pp); • San Gorgonio Crossings EIR (2017; 22 pp); • Replies to responses on Jupiter Project IS and MND (2017; 12 pp); • MacArthur Transit Village Project Modified 2016 CEQA Analysis (2017; 12 pp); • Central SoMa Plan DEIR (2017; 14 pp); • Colony Commerce Center Specific Plan DEIR (2016; 16 pp); • Fairway Trails Improvements MND (2016; 13 pp); • Review of Avian -Solar Science Plan (2016; 28 pp); • Replies to responses on Initial Study for Pyramid Asphalt (2016; 5 pp); • Initial Study for Pyramid Asphalt (2016; 4 pp); • Agua Mansa Distribution Warehouse Project Initial Study (2016; 14 pp); • Santa Anita Warehouse IS and MND (2016; 12 pp); • CapRock Distribution Center III DEIR (2016: 12 pp); • Orange Show Logistics Center Initial Study and MND (2016; 9 pp); • City of Palmdale Oasis Medical Village Project IS and MND (2016; 7 pp); • Comments on proposed rule for incidental eagle take (2016, 49 pp); • Grapevine Specific and Community Plan FEIR (2016; 25 pp); • Grapevine Specific and Community Plan DEIR (2016; 15 pp); • Clinton County Zoning Ordinance for Wind Turbine siting (2016); • Hallmark at Shenandoah Warehouse Project Initial Study (2016; 6 pp); • Tri-City Industrial Complex Initial Study (2016; 5 pp); • Hidden Canyon Industrial Park Plot Plan 16-PP-02 (2016; 12 pp); • Kimball Business Park DEIR (2016; 10 pp); • Jupiter Project IS and MND (2016; 9 pp); • Revised Draft Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan of 2015 (2016, 18 pp); 0 Palo Verde Mesa Solar Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (2016; 27 pp); Smallwood CV 31 • Reply Witness Statement on Fairview Wind Project, Ontario, Canada (2016; 14 pp); • Fairview Wind Project, Ontario, Canada (2016; 41 pp); • Supplementary Reply Witness Statement Amherst Island Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 38 pp); • Witness Statement on Amherst Island Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 31 pp); • Second Reply Witness Statement on White Pines Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 6 pp); • Reply Witness Statement on White Pines Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 10 pp); • Witness Statement on White Pines Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 9 pp); • Proposed Section 24 Specific Plan Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians DEIS (2015, 9 pp); • Replies to comments 24 Specific Plan Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians FEIS (2015, 6 pp); • Willow Springs Solar Photovoltaic Project DEIR (2015; 28 pp); • Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Project DEIR (2015, 9 pp); • Columbia Business Center MND (2015; 8 pp); • West Valley Logistics Center Specific Plan DEIR (2015, 10 pp); • World Logistic Center Specific Plan FEIR (2015, 12 pp); • Bay Delta Conservation Plan EIR/EIS (2014, 21 pp); • Addison Wind Energy Project DEIR (2014, 32 pp); • Response to Comments on the Addison Wind Energy Project DEIR (2014, 15 pp); • Addison and Rising Tree Wind Energy Project FEIR (2014, 12 pp); • Alta East Wind Energy Project FEIS (2013, 23 pp); • Blythe Solar Power Project Staff Assessment, California Energy Commission (2013, 16 pp); • Clearwater and Yakima Solar Projects DEIR (2013, 9 pp); • Cuyama Solar Project DEIR (2014, 19 pp); • Draft Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) EIR/EIS (2015, 49 pp); • Kingbird Solar Photovoltaic Project EIR (2013, 19 pp); • Lucerne Valley Solar Project Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration (2013, 12 pp); • Palen Solar Electric Generating System Final Staff Assessment of California Energy Commission, (2014, 20 pp); • Rebuttal testimony on Palen Solar Energy Generating System (2014, 9 pp); • Rising Tree Wind Energy Project DEIR (2014, 32 pp); • Response to Comments on the Rising Tree Wind Energy Project DEIR (2014, 15 pp); • Soitec Solar Development Project Draft PEIR (2014, 18 pp); • Comment on the Biological Opinion (08ESMF-00-2012-F-0387) of Oakland Zoo expansion on Alameda whipsnake and California red -legged frog (2014; 3 pp); • West Antelope Solar Energy Project Initial Study and Negative Declaration (2013, 18 pp); • Willow Springs Solar Photovoltaic Project DEIR (2015, 28 pp); • Alameda Creek Bridge Replacement Project DEIR (2015, 10 pp); • Declaration on Tule Wind project FEIR/FEIS (2013; 24 pp); • Sunlight Partners LANDPRO Solar Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (2013; 11 pp); • Declaration in opposition to BLM fracking (2013; 5 pp); • Rosamond Solar Project Addendum EIR (2013; 13 pp); • Pioneer Green Solar Project EIR (2013; 13 pp); 0 Reply to Staff Responses to Comments on Soccer Center Solar Project Mitigated Negative Smallwood CV 32 Declaration (2013; 6 pp); • Soccer Center Solar Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (2013; 10 pp); • Plainview Solar Works Mitigated Negative Declaration (2013; 10 pp); • Reply to the County Staff s Responses on comments to Imperial Valley Solar Company 2 Project (2013; 10 pp); • Imperial Valley Solar Company 2 Project (2013; 13 pp); • FRV Orion Solar Project DEIR (PP12232) (2013; 9 pp); • Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project (3013; 6 pp); • Reply to Staff Responses to Comments on Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project (2013; 8 pp); • FEIS prepared for Alta East Wind Project (2013; 23 pp); • Metropolitan Air Park DEIR, City of San Diego (2013; ); • Davidon Homes Tentative Subdivision Map and Rezoning Project DEIR (2013; 9 pp); • Analysis of Biological Assessment of Oakland Zoo Expansion Impacts on Alameda Whipsnake (2013; 10 pp); • Declaration on Campo Verde Solar project FEIR (2013; I 1pp); • Neg Dec comments on Davis Sewer Trunk Rehabilitation (2013; 8 pp); • Declaration on North Steens Transmission Line FEIS (2012; 62 pp); • City of Lancaster Revised Initial Study for Conditional Use Permits 12-08 and 12-09, Summer Solar and Springtime Solar Projects (2012; 8 pp); • J&J Ranch, 24 Adobe Lane Environmental Review (2012; 14 pp); • Reply to the County Staff s Responses on comments to Hudson Ranch Power H Geothermal Project and the Simbol Calipatria Plant 11(2012; 8 pp); • Hudson Ranch Power H Geothermal Project and the Simbol Calipatria Plant 11(2012; 9 pp); • Desert Harvest Solar Project EIS (2012; 15 pp); • Solar Gen 2 Array Project DEIR (2012; 16 pp); • Ocotillo Sol Project EIS (2012; 4 pp); • Beacon Photovoltaic Project DEIR (2012; 5 pp); • Declaration on Initial Study and Proposed Negative Declaration for the Butte Water District 2012 Water Transfer Program (2012; 11 pp); • Mount Signal and Calexico Solar Farm Projects DEIR (2011; 16 pp); • City of Elk Grove Sphere of Influence EIR (2011; 28 pp); • Comment on Sutter Landing Park Solar Photovoltaic Project MND (2011; 9 pp); • Statement of Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. Regarding Proposed Rabik/Gudath Project, 22611 Coleman Valley Road, Bodega Bay (CPN 10-0002) (2011; 4 pp); • Declaration of K. Shawn Smallwood on Biological Impacts of the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS) (2011; 9 pp); • Comments on Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance (2011; 13 pp); • Comments on Draft EIR/EA for Niles Canyon Safety Improvement Project (2011; 16 pp); • Declaration of K. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., on Biological Impacts of the Route 84 Safety Improvement Project (2011; 7 pp); • Rebuttal Testimony of Witness 922, K. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D, on Behalf of Intervenors Friends of The Columbia Gorge & Save Our Scenic Area (2010; 6 pp); 0 Prefiled Direct Testimony of Witness 922, K. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D, on Behalf of Smallwood CV 33 Intervenors Friends of the Columbia Gorge & Save Our Scenic Area. Comments on Whistling Ridge Wind Energy Power Project DEIS, Skamania County, Washington (2010; 41 pp); • Evaluation of Klickitat County's Decisions on the Windy Flats West Wind Energy Project (2010; 17 pp); • St. John's Church Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (2010; 14 pp.); • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Results Radio Zone File 92009-001 (2010; 20 pp); • Rio del Oro Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report (2010;12 pp); • Answers to Questions on 33% RPS Implementation Analysis Preliminary Results Report (2009: 9 pp); • SEPA Determination of Non -significance regarding zoning adjustments for Skamania County, Washington. Second Declaration to Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. and Save Our Scenic Area (Dec 2008; 17 pp); • Comments on Draft I Summary Report to CAISO (2008; 10 pp); • County of Placer's Categorical Exemption of Hilton Manor Project (2009; 9 pp); • Protest of CARE to Amendment to the Power Purchase and Sale Agreement for Procurement of Eligible Renewable Energy Resources Between Hatchet Ridge Wind LLC and PG&E (2009; 3 pp); • Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project EIR/EIS (2009; 142 pp); • Delta Shores Project EIR, south Sacramento (2009; 11 pp + addendum 2 pp); • Declaration of Shawn Smallwood in Support of Care's Petition to Modify D.07-09-040 (2008; 3 pp); • The Public Utility Commission's Implementation Analysis December 16 Workshop for the Governor's Executive Order 5-14-08 to implement a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2020 (2008; 9 pp); • The Public Utility Commission's Implementation Analysis Draft Work Plan for the Governor's Executive Order 5-14-08 to implement a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2020 (2008; 11 pp); • Draft IA Summary Report to California Independent System Operator for Planning Reserve Margins (PRM) Study (2008; 7 pp.); • SEPA Determination of Non -significance regarding zoning adjustments for Skamania County, Washington. Declaration to Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. and Save Our Scenic Area (Sep 2008; 16 pp); • California Energy Commission's Preliminary Staff Assessment of the Colusa Generating Station (2007; 24 pp); • Rio del Oro Specific Plan Project Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (2008: 66 pp); • Replies to Response to Comments Re: Regional University Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (2008; 20 pp); • Regional University Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (2008: 33 pp.); • Clark Precast, LLC's "Sugarland" project, Negative Declaration (2008: 15 pp.); • Cape Wind Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (2008; 157 pp.); • Yuba Highlands Specific Plan (or Area Plan) Environmental Impact Report (2006; 37 pp.); 0 Replies to responses to comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration of the proposed Smallwood CV 34 Mining Permit (MIN 04-01) and Modification of Use Permit 96-02 at North Table Mountain (2006; 5 pp); • Mitigated Negative Declaration of the proposed Mining Permit (MIN 04-01) and Modification of Use Permit 96-02 at North Table Mountain (2006; 15 pp); • Windy Point Wind Farm Environmental Review and EIS (2006; 14 pp and 36 Powerpoint slides in reply to responses to comments); • Shiloh I Wind Power Project EIR (2005; 18 pp); • Buena Vista Wind Energy Project Notice of Preparation of EIR (2004; 15 pp); • Negative Declaration of the proposed Callahan Estates Subdivision (2004; 11 pp); • Negative Declaration of the proposed Winters Highlands Subdivision (2004; 9 pp); • Negative Declaration of the proposed Winters Highlands Subdivision (2004; 13 pp); • Negative Declaration of the proposed Creekside Highlands Project, Tract 7270 (2004; 21 pp); • On the petition California Fish and Game Commission to list the Burrowing Owl as threatened or endangered (2003; 10 pp); • Conditional Use Permit renewals from Alameda County for wind turbine operations in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (2003; 41 pp); • UC Davis Long Range Development Plan of 2003, particularly with regard to the Neighborhood Master Plan (2003; 23 pp); • Anderson Marketplace Draft Environmental Impact Report (2003: 18 pp + 3 plates of photos); • Negative Declaration of the proposed expansion of Temple B'nai Tikyah (2003: 6 pp); • Antonio Mountain Ranch Specific Plan Public Draft EIR (2002: 23 pp); • Response to testimony of experts at the East Altamont Energy Center evidentiary hearing on biological resources (2002: 9 pp); • Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, The Promenade (2002: 7 pp); • Recirculated Initial Study for Calpine's proposed Pajaro Valley Energy Center (2002: 3 pp); • UC Merced -- Declaration of Dr. Shawn Smallwood in support of petitioner's application for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (2002: 5 pp); • Replies to response to comments in Final Environmental hupact Report, Atwood Ranch Unit III Subdivision (2003: 22 pp); • Draft Environmental Impact Report, Atwood Ranch Unit III Subdivision (2002: 19 pp + 8 photos on 4 plates); • California Energy Commission Staff Report on GWF Tracy Peaker Project (2002: 17 pp + 3 photos; follow-up report of 3 pp); • Initial Study and Negative Declaration, Silver Bend Apartments, Placer County (2002: 13 pp); • UC Merced Long-range Development Plan DEIR and UC Merced Community Plan DEIR (2001: 26 pp); • Initial Study, Colusa County Power Plant (2001: 6 pp); • Comments on Proposed Dog Park at Catlin Park, Folsom, California (2001: 5 pp + 4 photos); • Pacific Lumber Co. (Headwaters) Habitat Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Report (1998: 28 pp); 0 Final Environmental Impact Report/Statement for Issuance of Take authorization for listed Smallwood CV 35 species within the MSCP planning area in San Diego County, California (Fed. Reg. 62 (60): 14938, San Diego Multi -Species Conservation Program) (1997: 10 pp); • Permit (PRT-823773) Amendment for the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, Sacramento, CA (Fed. Reg. 63 (101): 29020-29021) (1998); • Draft Recovery Plan for the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas). (Fed. Reg. 64(176): 49497-49498) (1999: 8 pp); • Review of the Draft Recovery Plan for the Arroyo Southwestern Toad (Bufo microscaphus californicus) (1998); • Ballona West Bluffs Project Environmental Impact Report (1999: oral presentation); • California Board of Forestry's proposed amended Forest Practices Rules (1999); • Negative Declaration for the Sunset Skyranch Airport Use Permit (1999); • Calpine and Bechtel Corporations' Biological Resources Implementation and Monitoring Program (BRMIMP) for the Metcalf Energy Center (2000: 10 pp); • California Energy Commission's Final Staff Assessment of the proposed Metcalf Energy Center (2000); • US Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7 consultation with the California Energy Commission regarding Calpine and Bechtel Corporations' Metcalf Energy Center (2000: 4 pp); • California Energy Commission's Preliminary Staff Assessment of the proposed Metcalf Energy Center (2000: 11 pp); • Site -specific management plans for the Natomas Basin Conservancy's mitigation lands, prepared by Wildlands, Inc. (2000: 7 pp); • Affidavit of K. Shawn Smallwood in Spirit of the Sage Council, et al. (Plaintiffs) vs. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. (Defendants), Injuries caused by the No Surprises policy and final rule which codifies that policy (1999: 9 pp). Comments on other Environmental Review Documents: • Proposed Regulation for California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5 (2015: 12 pp); • Statement of Overriding Considerations related to extending Altamont Winds, Inc.'s Conditional Use Permit PLN2014-00028 (2015; 8 pp); • Draft Program Level EIR for Covell Village (2005; 19 pp); • Bureau of Land Management Wind Energy Programmatic EIS Scoping document (2003: 7 pp-); • NEPA Environmental Analysis for Biosafety Level 4 National Biocontainment Laboratory (NBL) at UC Davis (2003: 7 pp); • Notice of Preparation of UC Merced Community and Area Plan EIR, on behalf of The Wildlife Society —Western Section (2001: 8 pp.); • Preliminary Draft Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan (2001; 2 letters totaling 35 pp.); • Merced County General Plan Revision, notice of Negative Declaration (2001: 2 pp.); • Notice of Preparation of Campus Parkway EIR/EIS (2001: 7 pp.); • Draft Recovery Plan for the bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Range (Ovis candensis) (2000); • Draft Recovery Plan for the California Red -legged Frog (Rana aurora draylonii), on behalf of The Wildlife Society —Western Section (2000: 10 pp.); • Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Statement, on behalf of The Wildlife Society —Western Section (2000: 7 pp.); Smallwood CV 36 • State Water Project Supplemental Water Purchase Program, Draft Program EIR (1997); • Davis General Plan Update EIR (2000); • Turn of the Century EIR (1999: 10 pp); • Proposed termination of Critical Habitat Designation under the Endangered Species Act (Fed. Reg. 64(113): 31871-31874) (1999); • NOA Draft Addendum to the Final Handbook for Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permitting Process, termed the HCP 5-Point Policy Plan (Fed. Reg. 64(45): 11485 - 11490) (1999; 2 pp + attachments); • Covell Center Project EIR and EIR Supplement (1997). Position Statements I prepared the following position statements for the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, and one for nearly 200 scientists: • Recommended that the California Department of Fish and Game prioritize the extermination of the introduced southern water snake in northern California. The Wildlife Society -- Western Section (2001); • Recommended that The Wildlife Society —Western Section appoint or recommend members of the independent scientific review panel for the UC Merced environmental review process (2001); • Opposed the siting of the University of California's loth campus on a sensitive vernal pool/grassland complex east of Merced. The Wildlife Society --Western Section (2000); • Opposed the legalization of ferret ownership in California. The Wildlife Society --Western Section (2000); • Opposed the Proposed "No Surprises," "Safe Harbor," and "Candidate Conservation Agreement" rules, including permit -shield protection provisions (Fed. Reg. Vol. 62, No. 103, pp. 29091-29098 and No. 113, pp. 32189-32194). This statement was signed by 188 scientists and went to the responsible federal agencies, as well as to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. Posters at Professional Meetings Leyvas, E. and K. S. Smallwood. 2015. Rehabilitating injured animals to offset and rectify wind project impacts. Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 9-12 March 2015. Smallwood, K. S., J. Mount, S. Standish, E. Leyvas, D. Bell, E. Walther, B. Karas. 2015. Integrated detection trials to improve the accuracy of fatality rate estimates at wind projects. Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 9-12 March 2015. Smallwood, K. S. and C. G. Thelander. 2005. Lessons learned from five years of avian mortality research in the Altamont Pass WRA. AWEA conference, Denver, May 2005. Neher, L., L. Wilder, J. Woo, L. Spiegel, D. Yen-Nakafugi, and K.S. Smallwood. 2005. Bird's eye view on California wind. AWEA conference, Denver, May 2005. Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander and L. Spiegel. 2003. Toward a predictive model of avian Smallwood CV 37 fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Windpower 2003 Conference and Convention, Austin, Texas. Smallwood, K.S. and Eva Butler. 2002. Pocket Gopher Response to Yellow Star -thistle Eradication as part of Grassland Restoration at Decommissioned Mather Air Force Base, Sacramento County, California. White Mountain Research Station Open House, Barcroft Station. Smallwood, K.S. and Michael L. Morrison. 2002. Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. White Mountain Research Station Open House, Barcroft Station. Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1989. Differentiating mountain lion and dog tracks. Third Mountain Lion Workshop, Prescott, AZ. Smith, T. R. and K. S. Smallwood. 2000. Effects of study area size, location, season, and allometry on reported Sorex shrew densities. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society. Presentations at Professional Meetings and Seminars Repowering the Altamont Pass. Altamont Symposium, The Wildlife Society — Western Section, 5 February 2017. Developing methods to reduce bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, 1999- 2007. Altamont Symposium, The Wildlife Society — Western Section, 5 February 2017. Conservation and recovery of burrowing owls in Santa Clara Valley. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, Newark, California, 3 February 2017. Mitigation of Raptor Fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Sacramento, California, 6 November 2015. From burrows to behavior: Research and management for burrowing owls in a diverse landscape. California Burrowing Owl Consortium meeting, 24 October 2015, San Jose, California. The Challenges of repowering. Keynote presentation at Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 10 March 2015. Research Highlights Altamont Pass 2011-2015. Scientific Review Committee, Oakland, California, 8 July 2015. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions: Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. US Fish and Wildlife Service Golden Eagle Working Group, Sacramento, California, 8 January 2015. Evaluation of nest boxes as a burrowing owl conservation strategy. Sacramento Chapter of the Western Section, The Wildlife Society. Sacramento, California, 26 August 2013. Predicting collision hazard zones to guide repowering of the Altamont Pass. Conference on wind Smallwood CV 38 power and environmental impacts. Stockholm, Sweden, 5-7 February 2013. Impacts of Wind Turbines on Wildlife. California Council for Wildlife Rehabilitators, Yosemite, California, 12 November 2012. Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats. Madrone Audubon Society, Santa Rosa, California, 20 February 2012. Comparing Wind Turbine Impacts across North America. California Energy Commission Staff Workshop: Reducing the Impacts of Energy Infrastructure on Wildlife, 20 July 2011. Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. California Energy Commission Staff Workshop: Reducing the Impacts of Energy Infrastructure on Wildlife, 20 July 2011. Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. Alameda County Scientific Review Committee meeting, 17 February 2011 Comparing Wind Turbine Impacts across North America. Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Trondheim, Norway, 3 May 2011. Update on Wildlife Impacts in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Raptor Symposium, The Wildlife Society —Western Section, Riverside, California, February 2011. Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. Raptor Symposium, The Wildlife Society - Western Section, Riverside, California, February 2011. Wildlife mortality caused by wind turbine collisions. Ecological Society of America, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 6 August 2010. Map -based repowering and reorganization of a wind farm to minimize burrowing owl fatalities. California burrowing Owl Consortium Meeting, Livermore, California, 6 February 2010. Environmental barriers to wind power. Getting Real About Renewables: Economic and Environmental Barriers to Biofuels and Wind Energy. A symposium sponsored by the Environmental & Energy Law & Policy Journal, University of Houston Law Center, Houston, 23 February 2007. Lessons learned about bird collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass and other US wind farms. Meeting with Japan Ministry of the Environment and Japan Ministry of the Economy, Wild Bird Society of Japan, and other NGOs Tokyo, Japan, 9 November 2006. Lessons learned about bird collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass and other US wind farms. Symposium on bird collisions with wind turbines. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo, Japan, 4 November 2006. Responses of Fresno kangaroo rats to habitat improvements in an adaptive management framework. California Society for Ecological Restoration (SERCAL) 13th Annual Conference, UC Santa Smallwood CV Im Barbara, 27 October 2006. Fatality associations as the basis for predictive models of fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. EEI/APLIC/PIER Workshop, 2006 Biologist Task Force and Avian Interaction with Electric Facilities Meeting, Pleasanton, California, 28 April 2006. Burrowing owl burrows and wind turbine collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. The Wildlife Society - Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, February 8, 2006. Mitigation at wind farms. Workshop: Understanding and resolving bird and bat impacts. American Wind Energy Association and Audubon Society. Los Angeles, CA. January 10 and 11, 2006. Incorporating data from the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) system into an impact assessment tool for birds near wind farms. Shawn Smallwood, Kevin Hunting, Marcus Yee, Linda Spiegel, Monica Parisi. Workshop: Understanding and resolving bird and bat impacts. American Wind Energy Association and Audubon Society. Los Angeles, CA. January 10 and 11, 2006. Toward indicating threats to birds by California's new wind farms. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, May 26, 2005. Avian collisions in the Altamont Pass. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, May 26, 2005. Ecological solutions for avian collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. EPRI Environmental Sector Council, Monterey, California, February 17, 2005. Ecological solutions for avian collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. The Wildlife Society —Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, January 19, 2005. Associations between avian fatalities and attributes of electric distribution poles in California. The Wildlife Society - Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, January 19, 2005. Minimizing avian mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area. UC Davis Wind Energy Collaborative Forum, Palm Springs, California, December 14, 2004. Selecting electric distribution poles for priority retrofitting to reduce raptor mortality. Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Bakersfield, California, November 10, 2004. Responses of Fresno kangaroo rats to habitat improvements in an adaptive management framework. Annual Meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration, South Lake Tahoe, California, October 16, 2004. Lessons learned from five years of avian mortality research at the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area in California. The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Calgary, Canada, September 2004. The ecology and impacts of power generation at Altamont Pass. Sacramento Petroleum Association, Smallwood CV 40 Sacramento, California, August 18, 2004. Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. California Burrowing Owl Consortium meeting, Hayward, California, February 7, 2004. Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. California Burrowing Owl Symposium, Sacramento, November 2, 2003. Raptor Mortality at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. National Wind Coordinating Committee, Washington, D.C., November 17, 2003. Raptor Behavior at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Annual Meeting of the Raptor Research Foundation, Anchorage, Alaska, September, 2003. Raptor Mortality at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Annual Meeting of the Raptor Research Foundation, Anchorage, Alaska, September, 2003. California mountain lions. Ecological & Environmental Issues Seminar, Department of Biology, California State University, Sacramento, November, 2000. Intra- and inter -turbine string comparison of fatalities to animal burrow densities at Altamont Pass. National Wind Coordinating Committee, Carmel, California, May, 2000. Using a Geographic Positioning System (GPS) to map wildlife and habitat. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000. Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000. The indicators framework applied to ecological restoration in Yolo County, California. Society for Ecological Restoration, September 25, 1999. Ecological restoration in the context of animal social units and their habitat areas. Society for Ecological Restoration, September 24, 1999. Relating Indicators of Ecological Health and Integrity to Assess Risks to Sustainable Agriculture and Native Biota. International Conference on Ecosystem Health, August 16, 1999. A crosswalk from the Endangered Species Act to the HCP Handbook and real HCPs. Southern California Edison, Co. and California Energy Commission, March 4-5, 1999. Mountain lion track counts in California: Implications for Management. Ecological & Environmental Issues Seminar, Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Sacramento, November 4, 1998. "No Surprises" -- Lack of science in the HCP process. California Native Plant Society Annual Conservation Conference, The Presidio, San Francisco, September 7, 1997. Smallwood CV 41 In Your Interest. A half hour weekly show aired on Channel 10 Television, Sacramento. In this episode, I served on a panel of experts discussing problems with the implementation of the Endangered Species Act. Aired August 31, 1997. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) density. Southwestern Association of Naturalists 44th Meeting, Fayetteville, Arkansas, April 10, 1997. Estimating prairie dog and pocket gopher burrow volume. Southwestern Association of Naturalists 44th Meeting, Fayetteville, Arkansas, April 10, 1997. Ten years of mountain lion track survey. Fifth Mountain Lion Workshop, San Diego, February 27, 1996. Study and interpretive design effects on mountain lion density estimates. Fifth Mountain Lion Workshop, San Diego, February 27, 1996. Small animal control. Session moderator and speaker at the California Farm Conference, Sacramento, California, Feb. 28, 1995. Small animal control. Ecological Farming Conference, Asylomar, California, Jan. 28, 1995. Habitat associations of the Swainson's Hawk in the Sacramento Valley's agricultural landscape. 1994 Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Flagstaff, Arizona. Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. Seed Industry Conference, Woodland, California, May 4, 1994. Habitats and vertebrate pests: impacts and management. Managing Farmland to Bring Back Game Birds and Wildlife to the Central Valley. Yolo County Resource Conservation District, U.C. Davis, February 19, 1994. Management of gophers and alfalfa as wildlife habitat. Orland Alfalfa Production Meeting and Sacramento Valley Alfalfa Production Meeting, February 1 and 2, 1994. Patterns of wildlife movement in a farming landscape. Wildlife and Fisheries Biology Seminar Series: Recent Advances in Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, U.C. Davis, Dec. 6, 1993. Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. California Alfalfa Symposium, Fresno, California, Dec. 9, 1993. Management of pocket gophers in Sacramento Valley alfalfa. California Alfalfa Symposium, Fresno, California, Dec. 8, 1993. Association analysis of raptors in a farming landscape. Plenary speaker at Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Charlotte, North Carolina, Nov. 6, 1993. Landscape strategies for biological control and IPM. Plenary speaker, International Conference on Integrated Resource Management and Sustainable Agriculture, Beijing, China, Sept. 11, 1993. Smallwood CV 42 Landscape Ecology Study of Pocket Gophers in Alfalfa. Alfalfa Field Day, U.C. Davis, July 1993. Patterns of wildlife movement in a farming landscape. Spatial Data Analysis Colloquium, U.C. Davis, August 6, 1993. Sound stewardship of wildlife. Veterinary Medicine Seminar: Ethics of Animal Use, U.C. Davis. May 1993. Landscape ecology study of pocket gophers in alfalfa. Five County Grower's Meeting, Tracy, California. February 1993. Turbulence and the community organizers: The role of invading species in ordering a turbulent system, and the factors for invasion success. Ecology Graduate Student Association Colloquium, U.C. Davis. May 1990. Evaluation of exotic vertebrate pests. Fourteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference, Sacramento, California. March 1990. Analytical methods for predicting success of mammal introductions to North America. The Western Section of the Wildlife Society, Hilo, Hawaii. February 1988. A state-wide mountain lion track survey. Sacramento County Dept Parks and Recreation. April 1986. The mountain lion in California. Davis Chapter of the Audubon Society. October 1985. Ecology Graduate Student Seminars, U.C. Davis, 1985-1990: Social behavior of the mountain lion; Mountain lion control; Political status of the mountain lion in California. Other forms of Participation at Professional Meetings • Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Berlin, Germany, March 2015. • Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Stockholm, Sweden, February 2013. • Workshop co -presenter at Birds & Wind Energy Specialist Group (BAWESG) Information sharing week, Bird specialist studies for proposed wind energy facilities in South Africa, Endangered Wildlife Trust, Darling, South Africa, 3-7 October 2011. • Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Trondheim, Norway, 2-5 May 2011. • Chair of Animal Damage Management Session, The Wildlife Society, Annual Meeting, Reno, Nevada, September 26, 2001. Smallwood CV 43 • Chair of Technical Session: Human communities and ecosystem health: Comparing perspectives and making connection. Managing for Ecosystem Health, International Congress on Ecosystem Health, Sacramento, CA August 15-20, 1999. • Student Awards Committee, Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000. • Student Mentor, Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000. Printed Mass Media Smallwood, K.S., D. Mooney, and M. McGuinness. 2003. We must stop the UCD biolab now. Op - Ed to the Davis Enterprise. Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Spring Lake threatens Davis. Op -Ed to the Davis Enterprise. Smallwood, K.S. Summer, 2001. Mitigation of habitation. The Flatlander, Davis, California. Entrikan, R.K. and K.S. Smallwood. 2000. Measure O: Flawed law would lock in new taxes. Op -Ed to the Davis Enterprise. Smallwood, K.S. 2000. Davis delegation lobbies Congress for Wildlife conservation. Op -Ed to the Davis Enterprise. Smallwood, K.S. 1998. Davis Visions. The Flatlander, Davis, California. Smallwood, K. S. 1997. Last grab for Yolo's land and water. The Flatlander, Davis, California. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. The Yolo County HCP. Op -Ed to the Davis Enterprise. Radio/Television PBS News Hour, FOX News, Energy in America: Dead Birds Unintended Consequence of Wind Power Development, August 2011. KXJZ Capital Public Radio -- Insight (Host Jeffrey Callison). Mountain lion attacks (with guest Professor Richard Coss). 23 April 2009; KXJZ Capital Public Radio -- Insight (Host Jeffrey Callison). Wind farm Rio Vista Renewable Power. 4 September 2008; KQED QUEST Episode #111. Bird collisions with wind turbines. 2007; Smallwood CV 44 KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. December 27, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. May 3, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. February 8, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick & Shawn Smallwood), California Energy Crisis: 1 hour. Jan. 25, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Headwaters Forest HCP: 1 hour. 1998; Davis Cable Channel (host Gerald Heffemon), Burrowing owls in Davis: half hour. June, 2000; Davis Cable Channel (hosted by Davis League of Women Voters), Measure O debate: 1 hour. October, 2000; KXTV 10, In Your Interest, The Endangered Species Act: half hour. 1997. Reviews of Journal Papers (Scientific journals for whom I've provided peer review) Journal Journal American Naturalist Journal of Animal Ecology Journal of Wildlife Management Western North American Naturalist Auk Journal of Raptor Research Biological Conservation National Renewable Energy Lab reports Canadian Journal of Zoology Oikos Ecosystem Health The Prairie Naturalist Environmental Conservation Restoration Ecology Environmental Management Southwestern Naturalist Functional Ecology The Wildlife Society --Western Section Trans. Journal of Zoology (London) Proc. hit. Congress on Managing for Ecosystem Health Journal of Applied Ecology Transactions in GIS Ecology Tropical Ecology Wildlife Society Bulletin Peer J Biological Control The Condor Committees • Scientific Review Committee, Alameda County, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area • Ph.D. Thesis Committee, Steve Anderson, University of California, Davis • MS Thesis Committee, Marcus Yee, California State University, Sacramento Smallwood CV 45 Other Professional Activities or Products Testified in Federal Court in Denver during 2005 over the fate of radio -nuclides in the soil at Rocky Flats Plant after exposure to burrowing animals. My clients won a judgment of $553,000,000. I have also testified in many other cases of litigation under CEQA, NEPA, the Warren-Alquist Act, and other environmental laws. My clients won most of the cases for which I testified. Testified before Environmental Review Tribunals in Ontario, Canada regarding proposed White Pines, Amherst Island, and Fairview Wind Energy projects. Testified in Skamania County Hearing in 2009 on the potential impacts of zoning the County for development of wind farms and hazardous waste facilities. Testified in deposition in 2007 in the case of O'Dell et al. vs. FPL Energy in Houston, Texas. Testified in Klickitat County Hearing in 2006 on the potential impacts of the Windy Point Wind Farm. Memberships in Professional Societies The Wildlife Society Raptor Research Foundation Honors and Awards Fulbright Research Fellowship to Indonesia, 1987 J.G. Boswell Full Academic Scholarship, 1981 college of choice Certificate of Appreciation, The Wildlife Society —Western Section, 2000, 2001 Northern California Athletic Association Most Valuable Cross Country Runner, 1984 American Legion Award, Corcoran High School, 1981, and John Muir Junior High, 1977 CIF Section Champion, Cross Country in 1978 CIF Section Champion, Track & Field 2 mile run in 1981 National Junior Record, 20 kilometer run, 1982 National Age Group Record, 1500 meter run, 1978 Community Activities District 64 Little League Umpire, 2003-2007 Dixon Little League Umpire, 2006-07 Davis Little League Chief Umpire and Board member, 2004-2005 Davis Little League Safety Officer, 2004-2005 Davis Little League Certified Umpire, 2002-2004 Davis Little League Scorekeeper, 2002 Davis Visioning Group member Petitioner for Writ of Mandate under the California Environmental Quality Act against City of Woodland decision to approve the Spring Lake Specific Plan, 2002 Served on campaign committees for City Council candidates Smallwood CV 46 Representative Clients/Funders Law Offices of Stephan C. Volker EDF Renewables Blum Collins, LLP National Renewable Energy Lab Eric K. Gillespie Professional Corporation Altamont Winds LLC Law Offices of Berger & Montague Salka Energy Lozeau I Drury LLP Comstocks Business (magazine) Law Offices of Roy Haber BioResource Consultants Law Offices of Edward MacDonald Tierra Data Law Office of John Gabrielli Black and Veatch Law Office of Bill Kopper Terry Preston, Wildlife Ecology Research Center Law Office of Donald B. Mooney EcoStat, Inc. Law Office of Veneruso & Moncharsh US Navy Law Office of Steven Thompson US Department of Agriculture Law Office of Brian Gaffney US Forest Service California Wildlife Federation US Fish & Wildlife Service Defenders of Wildlife US Department of Justice Sierra Club California Energy Commission National Endangered Species Network California Office of the Attorney General Spirit of the Sage Council California Department of Fish & Wildlife The Humane Society California Department of Transportation Hagens Berman LLP California Department of Forestry Environmental Protection Information Center California Department of Food & Agriculture Goldberg, Kamin & Garvin, Attorneys at Law Ventura County Counsel Californians for Renewable Energy (CARE) County of Yolo Seatuck Environmental Association Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program Save Our Scenic Area Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound East Bay Regional Park District Friends of the Swainson's Hawk County of Alameda Alameda Creek Alliance Don & LaNelle Silverstien Center for Biological Diversity Seventh Day Adventist Church California Native Plant Society Escuela de la Raza Unida Endangered Wildlife Trust Susan Pelican and Howard Beeman and BirdLife South Africa Residents Against Inconsistent Development, Inc. AquAlliance Bob Sarvey Oregon Natural Desert Association Mike Boyd Save Our Sound Hillcroft Neighborhood Fund G3 Energy and Pattern Energy Joint Labor Management Committee, Retail Food Industry Emerald Farms Lisa Rocca Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Kevin Jackson Southern California Edison Co. Dawn Stover and Jay Letto Georgia-Pacific Timber Co. Nancy Havassy Northern Territories Inc. Catherine Portman (for Brenda Cedarblade) David Magney Environmental Consulting Ventus Environmental Solutions, Inc. Wildlife History Foundation Panorama Environmental, Inc. NextEra Energy Resources, LLC Adams Broadwell Professional Corporation Ogin, Inc. Smallwood CV 47 Representative special -status species experience Common name Species name Description Field experience California red -legged frog Rana aurora draytonii Protocol searches; Many detections Foothill yellow -legged frog Rana boylii Presence surveys; Many detections Western spadefoot Spea hammondii Presence surveys; Few detections California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense Protocol searches; Many detections Coast range newt Taricha torosa torosa Searches and multiple detections Blunt -nosed leopard lizard Gambelia sila Detected in San Luis Obispo County California horned lizard Phrynosoma coronatum frontale Searches; Many detections Western pond turtle Clemmys marmorata Searches; Many detections San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrons mutica Protocol searches; detections Sumatran tiger Panthera tigris Track surveys in Sumatra Mountain lion Puma concolor californicus Research and publications Point Arena mountain beaver Aplodontia rufa nigra Remote camera operation Giant kangaroo rat Dipodomys ingens Detected in Cholame Valley San Joaquin kangaroo rat Dipodomys nitratoides Monitoring & habitat restoration Monterey dusky -footed woodrat Neotoma fuscipes luciana Non -target captures and mapping of dens Salt marsh harvest mouse Reithrodontomys raviventris Habitat assessment, monitoring Salinas harvest mouse Reithrodontomys megalotus Captures; habitat assessment distichlus Bats Thermal imaging surveys California clapper rail Rallus longirostris Surveys and detections Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Numerical & behavioral surveys Swainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni Numerical & behavioral surveys Northern harrier Circus cyaeneus Numerical & behavioral surveys White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus Numerical & behavioral surveys Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Large area surveys Least Bell's vireo Vireo bellii pusillus Detected in Monterey County Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus Research at Sierra Nevada breeding sites Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia hypugia Numerical & behavioral surveys Valley elderberry longhorn Desmocerus californicus Monitored success of relocation and habitat beetle dimorphus restoration Analytical Arroyo southwestern toad Bufo microscaphus californicus Research and report. Giant garter snake Thamnophis gigas Research and publication Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Research and publication Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis Research and reports Alameda whipsnake Masticophis lateralis Expert testimony euryxanthus EXHIBIT D smart mobility 794 Sawnee Bean Road Thetford Center VT 05075 Norman Marshall, President (802) 356-2969 nmarshall@smartmobility.com July 17, 2023 Richard M. Franco Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 601 Gateway Blvd., Suite 1000 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Subject: Responses to the Shadowbox Studio Project Draft Final EIR Dear Mr. Franco, The Shadowbox Studio Project Draft Final Environmental Impact Report ("DFEIR") includes responses to my comment letter dated concerning the vehicle miles traveled ("VMT") impacts of the proposed project as presented in the DEIR (May 19, 2023). In my previous comments, I stated: The DEIR's assertion that the project is in a VMT-efficient location is based on an outdated transportation model with a base year of 2012 that is known to underestimate commute VMT. Census data indicate that the actual average commute distances of workers employed in the project area is 2.8 times as great as asserted in the DEIR. The DEIR must be revised to include a realistic estimate of VMT impacts. The DFEIR does not address the substantive problem with the project VMT analysis raised in this comment — that the significance threshold and Project VMT estimate were derived from an outdated model known to underestimate VMT— but instead offers as a defense that the analysis is an "apples -to - apples" comparison (DFEIR, p. 2-1012). While "apples -to -apples" comparisons are generally of value, they are not when both "apples" are rotten. In this case, it is just a mindless exercise of comparing one inaccurate number with another inaccurate number. As I pointed out in my comments, the 2020 model incorporates census data (which was not used in the 2016 model) to "calibrate the tail of the trip length distribution, because there were few observations of these long commute patterns captured in the [California Household Travel Survey (CHTS) data]." As I also explained, the census data showed average commute lengths 65% higher than the average in the CHTS date used to calibrate the outdate model. None of these facts are addressed or refuted in the FEIR. VMT efficiency has not been adequately demonstrated for this proposed project, and additional VMT mitigation is required. The DFEIR makes two false claims about my VMT estimate: The first false claim is that I incorrectly calculated work VMT per employee as including round trip commuting because the "State" definition is "VMT per employee is a one-way trip distance" (DFEIR, p. 2-1012). This is false. There is no such "State" definition. The Office of Policy Research's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018) includes the phrase "VMT per employee" three but the phrase is not defined. The plain meaning of VMT per employee per day is roundtrip VMT. Most documents related to SIB 743 fail to spell out that VMT per employee includes both directions assuming the plain language interpretation is understood, but here are two examples from Fehr and Peers (the firm that has done a lion's share of SIB 743 VMT analysis) that does. Daily Home -Based Work VMT per Worker — weekday VMT generated by each worker for trips to or from the workplace and the worker's home.' Home -based work VMT includes only vehicle trips directly between work and home or home and work.2 The second false claim is that I ignored carpool, transit, bike and walk trips (DFEIR, p. 2-1012) which are clearly accounted for on page 7 of my May letter. Despite the DFEIR providing no evidence that the model can accurately estimate average commute distances, it assumes that the model can magically account for the unusual characteristics of the workforce for the proposed project. The DFEIR states: The calculation of work VMT per employee is based on the residential location of the worker and the mode split of the employee travel to the Project Site. There is nothing in the calculation of work VMT per employee that is affected by the length of the employee's tenure on -site. The regional travel demand forecast model used to predict the geographic distribution of Project employees takes into account the regional distribution of both residential and employment land uses and estimates the most likely distribution of employees based on the regional pattern of employment opportunities. Accordingly, the calculation of work VMT is made independent of the temporary vs. short-term vs. permanent employment status. (DFEIR, p. 2-1030) Yes, this excerpt describes a problem that I raised in my comments — that the VMT estimate does not consider whether short-term employees might have longer average commutes than ' Mila, Ronald, Fehr and Peers. VMT in CEQA: Changes in Transportation Analysis. Presented to Town of Los Gatos, October 8, 2019 z Fehr and Peers. SB 743 Implementation Decisions — Prepared for City/County of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County and its Member Agencies, p. 15. September 29, 2021. 2 permanent employees. As the model cannot assess this issue, analysis must be done outside the model. In my previous comments, I stated: The project's greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions are also underestimated in the DEIR. The number of daily vehicle trips assumed in the air quality analysis is less than the number of trips reported in the transportation analysis. The default average trip lengths used in the air quality analysis are lower than the distances calculated from Census data. After VMT is calculated correctly, the GHG analysis should be redone with the corrected VMT. The DFEIR addresses the first part of this comment by making a small adjustment in CalEEMod (DFEIR, Table 4.7-2, p. 2-1032) to make the number of trips consistent between the transportation and air quality analyses, but the second part of the comment is not addressed. The VMT underestimation translates directly to underestimated emissions, including greenhouse gas emissions. Sincerely, Norman L. Marshall 3 Resume NORMAN L. MARSHALL, PRESIDENT nmarshall@smartmobility.com EDUCATION: Master of Science in Engineering Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, 1982 Bachelor of Science in Mathematics, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, 1977 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: (32 Years, 18 at Smart Mobility, Inc.) Norm Marshall helped found Smart Mobility, Inc. in 2001. Prior to this, he was at RSG for 14 years where he developed a national practice in travel demand modeling. He specializes in analyzing the relationships between the built environment and travel behavior and doing planning that coordinates multi -modal transportation with land use and community needs. Regional Land Use/Transportation Scenario Planning Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation System (PACTS) —the Portland Maine Metropolitan Planning Organization. Updating regional travel demand model with new data (including AirSage), adding a truck model, and multiclass assignment including differentiation between cash toll and transponder payments. Loudoun County Virginia Dynamic Traffic Assignment— Enhanced subarea travel demand model to include Dynamic Traffic Assignment (Cube). Model being used to better understand impacts of roadway expansion on induced travel. Vermont Agency of Transportation -Enhanced statewide travel demand model to evaluate travel impacts of closures and delays resulting from severe storm events. Model uses innovate Monte Carlo simulations process to account for combinations of failures. California Air Resources Board — Led team including the University of California in $250k project that reviewed the ability of the new generation of regional activity -based models and land use models to accurately account for greenhouse gas emissions from alternative scenarios including more compact walkable land use and roadway pricing. This work included hands-on testing of the most complex travel demand models in use in the U.S. today. Climate Plan (California statewide) —Assisted large coalition of groups in reviewing and participating in the target setting process required by Senate Bill 375 and administered by the California Air Resources Board to reduce future greenhouse gas emissions through land use measures and other regional initiatives. Chittenden County (2060 Land use and Transportation Vision Burlington Vermont region) — led extensive public visioning project as part of MPO's long-range transportation plan update. Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization — Implemented walk, transit and bike models within regional travel demand model. The bike model includes skimming bike networks including on -road and off -road bicycle facilities with a bike level of service established for each segment. Chicago Metropolis Plan and Chicago Metropolis Freight Plan (6-county region)— developed alternative transportation scenarios, made enhancements in the regional travel demand model, and used the enhanced 4 model to evaluate alternative scenarios including development of alternative regional transit concepts. Developed multi -class assignment model and used it to analyze freight alternatives including congestion pricing and other peak shifting strategies. Municipal Planning City of Grand Rapids — Michigan Street Corridor — developed peak period subarea model including non - motorized trips based on urban form. Model is being used to develop traffic volumes for several alternatives that are being additional analyzed using the City's Synchro model City of Omaha - Modified regional travel demand model to properly account for non -motorized trips, transit trips and shorter auto trips that would result from more compact mixed -use development. Scenarios with different roadway, transit, and land use alternatives were modeled. City of Dublin (Columbus region) — Modified regional travel demand model to properly account for non - motorized trips and shorter auto trips that would result from more compact mixed -use development. The model was applied in analyses for a new downtown to be constructed in the Bridge Street corridor on both sides of an historic village center. City of Portland, Maine — Implemented model improvements that better account for non -motorized trips and interactions between land use and transportation and applied the enhanced model to two subarea studies. City of Honolulu — Kaka'ako Transit Oriented Development (TOD) — applied regional travel demand model in estimating impacts of proposed TOD including estimating internal trip capture. City of Burlington (Vermont) Transportation Plan — Led team that developing Transportation Plan focused on supporting increased population and employment without increases in traffic by focusing investments and policies on transit, walking, biking and Transportation Demand Management. Transit Planning Regional Transportation Authority (Chicago) and Chicago Metropolis 2020— evaluated alternative 2020 and 2030 system -wide transit scenarios including deterioration and enhance/expand under alternative land use and energy pricing assumptions in support of initiatives for increased public funding. Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Austin, TX) Transit Vision — analyzed the regional effects of implementing the transit vision in concert with an aggressive transit -oriented development plan developed by Calthorpe Associates. Transit vision includes commuter rail and BRT. Bus Rapid Transit for Northern Virginia HOT Lanes (Breakthrough Technologies, Inc and Environmental Defense.) — analyzed alternative Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) strategies for proposed privately -developing High Occupancy Toll lanes on 1-95 and 1-495 (Capital Beltway) including different service alternatives (point-to-point services, trunk lines intersecting connecting routes at in -line stations, and hybrid). Roadway Corridor Planning 1-30 Little Rock Arkansas — Developed enhanced version of regional travel demand model that integrates TransCAD with open source Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) software, and used to model 1-30 alternatives. Freeway bottlenecks are modeled much more accurately than in the base TransCAD model. 5 South Evacuation Lifeline (SELL) — In work for the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, used Dynamic Travel Assignment (DTA) to estimate evaluation times with different transportation alternatives in coastal South Caroline including a new proposed freeway. Hudson River Crossing Study (Capital District Transportation Committee and NYSDOT) —Analyzing long term capacity needs for Hudson River bridges which a special focus on the 1-90 Patroon Island Bridge where a microsimulation VISSIM model was developed and applied. PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS (partial list) DTA Love: Co -leader of workshop on Dynamic Traffic Assignment at the June 2019 Transportation Research Board Planning Applications Conference. Forecasting the Impossible: The Status Quo of Estimating Traffic Flows with Static Traffic Assignment and the Future of Dynamic Traffic Assignment. Research in Transportation Business and Management 2018. Assessing Freeway Expansion Projects with Regional Dynamic Traffic Assignment. Presented at the August 2018 Transportation Research Board Tools of the Trade Conference on Transportation Planning for Small and Medium Sized Communities. Vermont Statewide Resilience Modeling. With Joseph Segale, James Sullivan and Roy Schiff. Presented at the May 2017 Transportation Research Board Planning Applications Conference. Assessing Freeway Expansion Projects with Regional Dynamic Traffic Assignment. Presented at the May 2017 Transportation Research Board Planning Applications Conference. Pre -Destination Choice Walk Mode Choice Modeling. Presented at the May 2017 Transportation Research Board Planning Applications Conference. A Statistical Model of Regional Traffic Congestion in the United States, presented at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. MEMBERSHIPS/AFFILIATIONS Associate Member, Transportation Research Board (TRB) Member and Co -Leader Project for Transportation Modeling Reform, Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU) 0 SCOPE Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment TO PROMOTE, PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENT, ECOLOGY AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE SANTA CLARITA VALLEY POST OFFICE BOX 1182, SANTA CLARITA, CA 91386 www.scope.org 7-12-23 Erika Iverson, Planning City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Sent via email to eiverson@santa-clarita.com Re: Newhall Studio Project 21-109 draft FEIR initial comments Please copy to all members of the Planning Commission Dear Ms. Iverson and Planning Commission Members SCOPE is a planning and conservation non-profit group now celebrating its 35' year of work in the Santa Clarita Valley. These comments are made on the FEIR for this project. We continue to assert that the DEIR is inadequate in several areas. Our concerns were not addressed in the response to comments as detailed below. The draft FEIR has added new and substantive revisions to the "Final EIR" as "error" or an "inadvertent omission" from the DEIR. This seems to be an attempt to circumvent the recirculation of the EIR. We request that an additional hearing beyond the July 181h hearing be added and the EIR recirculated to include such important deficiencies as leaving out the So. Cal. Mountain lion along with its usage of the Placerita Creek as a wildlife corridor. Overall Inadequacy of the DEIR. The purpose of an EIR is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of decisions before they are made. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 CalAth 1112, 1123, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 231, 864 P.2d 502.) The Notice of Preparation for this lists many areas of concern and finds the majority of them as potentially significant (see Appendix A). CEQA requires that each area of significance be analyzed so that mitigation can be ascertained. Instead this EIR for the most part (with the exception of biological, tribal and paleontological impacts) found major impacts described by the community and agencies to be non-existent. We re -iterate, this is absurd on its face. A huge 24/7 industrial project that will require some 2500 parking spaces, massively increase the allowable building heights beyond current City Standards in an area that is currently vacant land will have a major impact on noise, light, aesthetics, traffic, GHG and air quality as well as other areas. By failing to inform the public, as required by law, and provide mitigation measures, it deprives the public and decision makers of the assurance that proposed improvements will really come to pass. General Plan Inconsistency Our General Plan was updated in 2012. It did not include a large industrial project on this property, but instead the area is zoned for the much -needed housing. Thus, a general plan SCOPE Comments on Project 21-109 Page 2 amendment is needed. Therefore, this project is not currently consistent with our General Plan. However, the document brazenly states multiple times that is consistent in all areas even though it will not be consistent until numerous permits to allow this inconsistency are granted. This constitutes a failure to disclose the real and major impacts of this proposal. The response to this comment is that all that is needed to build studios is a conditional use permit. Even the draft FEIR contradicts this statement on page 1-2 where it describes the number of planning approvals that will be necessary to approve this project. Further, an industrial building is NOT a mixed -use development. According to the City Codes the MNX zone is defined thus: "This zone is intended for mixed use development, which is encouraged in order to create neighborhoods that integrate residential uses with complementary commercial services, including retail and office uses."' Where are the residential uses? This project is NOT an MNX qualified project as it contains no housing. It is a commercial project. A plan amendment to commercial is needed to comply with the General Plan. Inconsistency with emergency planning required in the Circulation Plan - Fire Evacuation o Objective C 2.5: Consider the needs for emergency access in transportation planning. ❑ Policy C 2.5.2: Ensure that new development is provided with adequate emergency and/or secondary access for purposes of evacuation and emergency response; require two points of ingress and egress for every subdivision or phase thereof, except as otherwise approved for small business subdivisions where physical constraints preclude a second access point. Threshold 4.8(g): Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. The response to comments states "As discussed in Response to Comment No. 08-25, the Draft EIR included an FPP that evaluated the Project's potential to ignite new fires and an extensive evacuation modeling analysis that accounted for Project employees and existing adjacent residents (see Appendix N of the Draft EIR)" There is no stated evacuation Plan in Appendix N. This section describes hazard reduction, but not a plan of how people would be moved out of the area. It does evaluate various times for evacuation of the area as defined as being bounded by the area south of Parvin Drive on the north, In general, the Evacuation Shed is bounded by the area south of Parvin Drive on the north, Quigley Canyon Road and Melody Movie Ranch on the east, The Master's University campus and Placerita Canyon Road on the south, and Railroad Avenue on the west" and "assumed that this evacuation shed would require a total of 1,340 cars to evacuate the area based on one vehicle per dwelling unit plus vehicles associated with students and faculty/staff at The Master's University."Z First, no map is included for this area, so it is indeterminable whether "bounded by" means "including" or "adjacent to". Second, the 2500 cars and additional vehicles on the site are not included in this evaluation. Third, the evaluation included only half of Placenta Canyon. It seems to assume that half the Canyon will evacuate in a different direction. This will not be possible if a fire sweeps in from the east, moving west through the canyon. ' 17.35.020 Mixed Use Neighborhood (MXN) Zone 2 Gibson Report, Appendix N SCOPE Comments on Project 21-109 Page 3 Thus, we continue to assert that: The EIR must describe an evacuation plan for its employees and the existing adjacent residents. This is a deficiency. It is also inconsistent with the General Plan. This Plan is inconsistent with the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan. The combined Conservation and Open Space Element establishes a policy framework for the designation and long-term preservation of open space within the planning area and addresses community benefits derived from open space, such as providing land for park and recreational facilities, habitat preservation, scenic views, and water recharge and watershed protection. The Conservation and Open Space Element states that rivers and streams located within the valley's canyons "provide scenic visual relief from urbanization". Placerita Creek transects the northern portion of the Project Site, and is a tributary to the south fork of the Santa Clara River. It's floodplain also provides ground water recharge and a wildlife corridor for animals to access the Santa Clara River, and a major wildlife connection between the San Gabriel, Santa Susana and San Padres mountain ranges which the DEIR failed to discuss and to mitigate impacts on it.3 The response to our comments was that we provided no proof. The plain meaning and definition of the open space element and the fact the Placerita Creek is a creek, speaks for itself as a fact. Further, the Biology section of the DEIR should have monitored animal movement along Placerita Creek. It failed to do so. Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change The EIR fails to acknowledge or discuss the City's 2012 Climate Action Plan that requires returning to a baseline Of 2006 emissions. The response to this statement was that the developer did not have to abide by the CAP because the planning cycle ended in 2020. While the City has not updated its Plan to extend it beyond 2020, that does not mean that the developer is not required to abided by it. Further, the Plan requires an additional 12% reduction in GHG for any projects that were not in the original 2021 CAP. This project was not in the 2012 CAP Therefore GHS emissions must be reduced an additional 13% to comply with the Plan. Failure to Provide a Real Project Alternatives During the staff report for the June 201h meeting, starting at approximately minute 22 of the meeting recording, staff member Erica Iverson, made the statement that Alternative 3 would not really reduce impacts as it was purported to do in the DEIR, that it was only there as a pro forma requirement of CEQA. We ask that the DEIR include real and viable alternatives for the decisionmakers and the public to review as required by law. Conclusion As the courts have explained, a prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs "if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision -making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process."4 An inadequate under DEIR under 3 Mitigation must include setbacks, riparian re —vegetation for cover, light glare reduction, and any other mitigation that the Fish and Wildlife Dept. would suggest. 4 Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355; see also San Joaquin RaptorlWildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 722 (error is prejudicial if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision making and informed public participation, thereby SCOPE Comments on Project 21-109 Page 4 CEQA must be revised to provide legally adequate analysis of, and mitigation for, all of the Project's potentially significant impacts. These revisions will necessarily require that the DEIR be recirculated for additional public review. Until the DEIR has been revised and recirculated, to address the insufficiencies described in our May 22 letter and this correspondence, along with those described by others which we hereby incorporate by reference, the City may not lawfully approve the Project. Thank you for your careful evaluation of this matter. Sincerely, Lynne Plambeck, thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process); Galante Vineyards, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 1117 (decision to approve a project is a nullity if based upon an EIR that does not provide decision -makers and the public with information about the project as required by CEQA); County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 946 (prejudicial abuse of discretion results where agency fails to comply with information disclosure provisions of CEQA). Friends of the Santa Clara River PO Box 7713Ventura, California 93006 (805) 628-2250 www.fscr.org 7-12-23 Erika Iverson, Planning City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Sent via email to eiverson@santa-clarita.com Re: Newhall Studio Project 21-109 FEIR comments Please copy to all members of the Planning Commission Dear Ms. Iverson and Planning Commission Members Friends of the Santa Clara River (FSCR) was formed in 1993 to provide public oversight and demand protection for the Santa Clara River and its tributaries. The Placerita Creek and its floodplain are tributaries to the Santa Clara River. Thus, we continue to participate in this process to advocate for the stewardship and preservation of the river and its water resources. The Santa Clara River provides water supply and habitat for humans and other species, including many endangered and fully protected species, along its reaches. Without careful stewardship, these resources will not exist for future generations. We continue to have concerns that this project will significantly impact this important natural resource. Inadequate Response to comments The response to comments (pdf page 2-1039, 2-1039) claims that ARk storms and rainfall in excess of FEMA COLMAR letters 50 and 100 year floods don't have to be addressed. Yet, as we stated, this area has already G'"`"`""`r.&H `'b Veulurl t ° The ERect recently exceeded such rainfall years due to ARk storms (atmospheric Nato lr w^d rivers)' as predicted by USGS2 to occur as a result of global warming. Please - see local rainfall data provided by the LA Almanac3 derived from data provided by the Western Regional Climate Center. ARk storms and atmospheric rivers cause excessive amounts of rainfall in specific locations and are not accounted for in FEMA 50 and 100 year flood predictions. The ' An ARkStorm (for Atmospheric River 1,000) is a "megastorm" proposed scenario based on repeated historical occurrences of atmospheric rivers and other major rain events first developed and published by the Multi -Hazards Demonstration Project (MHDP) of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in 2010 and updated as ARkStorm 2.0 in 2022 2 https://www.usgs.gov/centers/western-geographic-science-center/science/arkstorm 3 http://www.laalmanac.com/weather/wel34aa.php floodplain of Placerita creek has acted to protect up and down stream residents from such new phenomena by allowing the creek to spread out across the flood plain. Contrary to the response to comments stating that we provided no data to substantiate these statements, we included both references and diagrams. We provided a quote, along with reference documentation from the State Climatologist, Michael Anderson, Ph.D., P.E. at California Department of Water Resources Division of Flood Management who said': "Variability in annual precipitation statewide and across the regions of the state has increased since the early 1980s, peaking in the late 1990s for most climate divisions (Figure 3)6 (He & Guatam, 2016). This shows that dry and wet precipitation extremes have become more frequent." The US EPA has also reported that the best way to protect communities from flooding is to protect the floodplain6, as indicated by the citation provided in our DEIR comments We re -iterate our concern that the DEIR contains no study relating to loss of ground water re- charge, but only the conclusionary statement that that water will be returned to the creek and therefore, no significant impact will occur'. We note that the creek area is substantially smaller than the 12 acres of flood plain and will therefore not be able to provide the same amount of groundwater recharge as the flood plain. Two other comment letters plus the comment letter from the Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency also raised this concern. We therefore continue to assert that this EIR is deficient in its failure to asses loss of ground water recharge from impermeable surfaces and that a mitigation requirement to address this issue must be provided.. This project proposes to riprap and narrow the streambed (in violation of the Placerita Community Standards District). Yet we cannot know exactly how much this will affect the flood plain because no mapping of the jurisdictional waters has been provided in the DEIR. Again the DEIR and the response to comments makes the conclusionary statement that no significant impacts will occur. We do not agree. The CA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, along with ourselves and several other commentors, noted this impact as being siggnificant, and suggested various mitigation proposals that might reduce such impacts. However, these comments weere ignored. The Decifiencies in this EIR Require Re -noticing and Recirculation The project proponent attempts to remedy some deficiencies (although not those indicated above) by providing new data in a section titled "ERRATA AND CLARIFICATIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR". This section does not provide sufficient disclosure to address such important issues as the omission of certain species, including the mountain lion, failure to discuss the creek's function as a wildlife corridor and substantial additional disclosure to the GHG section. These impacts should have been disclosed and discussed in the DEIR. ' haps:Hoehha.ca.2ov/climate-change/report/2018-report-indicators-climate-change-california, p.89 s Ibid, ht!ps:Hoehha.ca.gov/climate-change/report/2018-report-indicators-climate-change-california, https: Hoehha. ca.gov/media/epic/downloads/cc_precipitation20l 8.pdf 6 https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/manage-flood-risk ' DEIR, ES-19 and re -iterated in the FEIR as stated above. 2 CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when "feasible" by requiring consideration of environmentally superior alternatives and adoption of all feasible mitigation measures.$ The EIR serves to provide agencies and the public with information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project and to "identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced."' These important functions of CEQA, which protect both our environment and our communities, cannot be provided when a project proponent obfuscates or omits information regarding significant impacts, fails to disclose other impacts or tries to disclose them as "errata" in the FEIR. Significant impacts cannot be addressed and mitigated if they are not disclosed in the first place. The DEIR must be re -circulated, impacts must be adequately disclosed and real mitigation (not "project design features"), provided so the public can be assured that this project is the best it can be. Thank you for your time and attention to these issues. Sincerely, James M. Danza, MS, AICP Chair, Friends of the Santa Clara River 8 CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2), (3); see also Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley, 52 CAM at p. 564 1 CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2). P: (626) 314-3821 0 139 South Hudson Avenue F: (626) 389-5414 Mitchell M. Tsai Suite 200 E: info@mitchtsailaw.com Attorney At Law Pasadena, California 91101 VIA E-MAIL July 17, 2023 Erika Iverson Planner City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Em: Eiverson&santa-clarita.com RE: City of Santa Clarita's Shadowbox Studios FEIR Comment Letter Dear Erika Iverson, On behalf of the Southwest Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters ("Southwest Carpenters" or "SWMSRCC"), our office is submitting these comments for the City of Santa Clarita's (the "City") Shadowbox Studios project (the "Project") and its Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR"), to be considered on the July 18, 2023 Planning Commissions hearing. The Southwest Mountain States Carpenters is a labor union representing 63,000 union carpenters in 10 states, including California, and has a strong interest in well -ordered land use planning and in addressing the environmental impacts of development projects. Individual members of the Southwest Carpenters live, work, and recreate in the City and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project's environmental impacts. The Southwest Carpenters expressly reserves the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearing and proceeding related to this Project. California Government Code ("Gov. Code") § 65009, subd. (b); Public Resources Code ("Pub. Res. Code") § 21177, subd. (a); see Bakersfield Citi.ZensforLocal Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1199-1203; see also Galante Vineyards v. Monterey hater Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.AppAth 1109, 1121. The Southwest Carpenters incorporates by reference all comments raising issues regarding the Project or its EIR submitted before the close of the public hearing on City of Santa Clarita — Shadowbox Studios Project July 17, 2023 Page 2of16 the Project before the issuance of the notice of determination. See Pub. Res. Code 21177; Citizens for Clean Energy v City of Irloodland (2014) 225 Cal.AppAth 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected to the project's environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties). I. THE PROJECT WOULD BE APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT A. Background Concerning the California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. 14 California Code of Regulations ("CCR" or "CEQA Guidelines") 15002(a)(1). "Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR `protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.' [Citation.]" Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564. The EIR has been described as "an environmental `alarm bell' whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return." Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm rs. (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354 ("Berkeley Jets"); County of Ingo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810. Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines 15002(a)(2) and (3). See also, Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; Laurel Heights IynproveynentAss'n v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400. The EIR serves to provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to "identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced." CEQA Guidelines 5 15002(a)(2). If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only upon finding that it has "eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible" and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are "acceptable due to overriding concerns" specified in CEQA section 21081. CEQA Guidelines § 15092(b)(2)(A—B). City of Santa Clarita — Shadowbox Studios Project July 17, 2023 Page 3of16 B. The EIR Must Be Recirculated Since New Significant Information Was Added to the EIR and Must Provide Adequate Responses to Comments. CEQA requires recirculation if new significant information is added to the EIR after the Draft EIR is circulated. CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5. CEQA provides "examples" of issues that trigger recirculation as: (1) new significant impact would result from a nena mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, (2) a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted to reduce those to insignificant levels; (3) a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant impacts; (4) "the draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded." Id. at subdivision (a). Moreover, recirculation requires notice pursuant to Section 15087, and consultation pursuant to Section 15086. CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5(d). Here, the FEIR lists the above -mentioned requirements and provides: "Only minor changes to the text of the Draft EIR occurred since public circulation, and none of the changes constitute "significant new information," which would require its recirculation..... None of these circumstances have arisen from comments on the Draft EIR; therefore, recirculation is not required." (FEIR, 1-3.) And yet immediately after those introductory pages, the FEIR provides an extensive comment letter from California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW"), which, inter alia, identifies numerous omissions in the EIR about the potential protected species, requires their disclosure, as well as provides numerous mitigation measures. The City's response to the CDFW letter acknowledges the omissions in the EIR, as to some omissions, it claims the EIR, despite its circulation in 2023, was based on studies and baseline in 2019 where some species were not yet identified as protected, and ultimately adds new mitigation measures to the EIR, which had not previously been circulated to the public. As such, contrary to the City's claims that "none" of the circumstances triggering the recirculation in the EIR occurred, the draft EIR was indeed inadequate as it failed to provide full and complete disclosures about biological impacts or their severity, and it also failed to provide mitigation measures for same. Those issues trigger new notice and recirculation of the EIR. In addition, per the City's Staff Report of June 20, 2023 ("Staff Report"), which appears to suggest that Alternative 3 is the proposal to be adopted, "All of the impacts City of Santa Clarita — Shadowbox Studios Project July 17, 2023 Page 4of16 of the proposed Project can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Alternative 3 would have lower impacts in areas of air quality, energy, GHG emissions, public services, transportation, and utilities; however Alternative 3 would still require the same mitigation measures as the project to ensure impacts remain less than significant." (Staff Report, p. 3.) To the extent the City now claims that Alternative 3 will have no impacts with the proposed mitigation measures, including the new biological resources mitigation measures proposed by CDFW and somewhat added to the FEIR, the conclusion of no significant impacts to biological impacts with Alternative 3 is unsupported, since the Draft EIR had not even disclosed, let alone considered numerous biological impacts and had not even considered whether the FEIR's added mitigation measures would indeed reduce the biological impacts to the less than significant level. As such, recirculation is required to disclose the biological impacts of the Project and the feasibility or efficiency of the proposed mitigation measures, as well as to analyze and show whether the Project's impacts with Alternative 3 would indeed be reduced to the level of insignificance. Similar to the comments from CDFW, the FEIR contains the comment by Paul Hubler, Chief Strategy Officer Southern California Regional Rail Authority/ Metrolink, who identified potential infeasibility of the proposed Project or road infrastructure improvements, as well as the omissions in the Draft EIR re same, stating: "The proposed modifications to the roadways at the railroad crossings and the railroad crossings themselves should account for the future addition of more tracks through the crossing. Given the width of the right of way here, the design should support up to at least three tracks being added. In addition, the Site Plan (Exhibit 3) seems to show the development encroaching on the ROW, which would not be acceptable. This would need to be clarified, as it is not possible to tell what the encroaching elements are from the level of detail in the image." (Emph. added.) The identified and emphasized issues in the quote above show potential significant impacts and also omissions in the EIR. Yet, the City's response to that comment solely provides: "The proposed grade crossing modifications layout and the number of tracks were closely coordinated with Metrolink for several years, including multiple diagnostics meetings, and do not preclude City of Santa Clarita — Shadowbox Studios Project July 17, 2023 Page 5of16 expansion for additional tracks. The Metrolink Engineering team reviewed and accepted the proposed configuration. The proposed grading within the ROW was requested by the Metrolink Engineering team to address some drainage erosion to the existing tracks. If Metrolink would like to change this request, the Project would be able to accommodate that accordingly." (Emph. added.) As such, the City's response ignores the omissions in the EIR, the commenter's request for more specification to allow meaningful informed review and comment, and only suggests that the Project or its location was previously accepted and, upon Metrolink's request, may change accordingly. Similarly, the City's summary response that the proposed project or its expansion of tracks is acceptable because it was previously coordinated with Metrolink is inadequate. There is no record of what those discussions entailed, what was previously requested by Metrolink or whether the City indeed incorporated those requests. In fact, in light of Metrolink's comment, it is quite likely that the City failed to incorporate Metrolink's suggestions at all. Moreover, the fact that the Project may be repositioned or changed to prevent grading in the ROW further suggests that the Project's description is not complete, accurate, finite or stable. All of this information is significant and requiring recirculation of the EIR. In addition, Metrolink's comment provides other general comments and recommendations to mitigate various impacts, including noise. To those, the City lists a number of changes to be implemented to accommodate and yet does not discuss those changes or actions and their related impacts in the circulated Draft EIR. As just an example (intended to be simply illustrative and not conclusive), Metrolink proposed a 6 foot fence, whereas the City provides that the fence will be 12 feet high. Specifically, to address Metrolink's recommendations, the City provides the following list, in pertinent parts: "2. All trees would be set back from the railroad ROW to avoid encroachment into railroad property. 3. A 12-foot tall security fence primarily made of woodcrete would be installed along the majority of the perimeter of the Project Site. Open rail wrought iron fencing would be installed along the southwestern corner of the Project Site, adjacent to the proposed office building. City of Santa Clarita — Shadowbox Studios Project July 17, 2023 Page 6of16 4. The proposed support building, which would extend along the majority of the western boundary of the Project Site, would provide the necessary acoustical buffer from the railroad noise to the sound stages. 5. The Project will coordinate with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and SCRRA and secure required permits and/or approvals regarding any proposed roadway/railroad or pedestrian/railroad crossing improvements associated with the Project. 6. The Project will coordinate with the CPUC and SCRRA and secure required permits and/or approvals regarding any utility lines crossing the railroad ROW. 7. Pole -mounted drive aisle lights would be installed along the 12-foot tall woodcrete fence along the western boundary of the Project Site." (Emph. added.) The emphasized issues in the above -quoted paragraph indicate potential significant impacts that the Draft EIR had not discussed or even identified. For example, the location of new trees along the railroad ROW raises an issue about whether those trees will be able to survive. The Project proposes to remove 13 mature protected oak trees, potentially reduced to only 12 oak trees; in turn, the Project proposes to plant many new trees. But the fact that the new trees would be planted close to the ROW suggests that they may not necessarily be able to survive. The Draft EIR needs to be recirculated to ensure that the new trees' location will allow them to grow and thereby if the impacts caused by the removed oak trees will indeed be mitigated to the less than significant level. Similarly, the fact that a 12-foot tall security fence made of woodcrete would be installed instead of the Metrolink's proposed 6-foot fence suggests the Project may have aesthetic impacts which had not been considered or mitigated in the Draft EIR. Also, the City's comment that "necessary acoustical buffer" would extend along the majority of the Project's western boundary to reduce noise impacts fails to provide complete information about what that acoustical buffer would be and hence fails to provide any evidence as to whether such unidentified buffer will indeed reduce the Project's noise impacts to the level of insignificance, as the Final EIR appears to claim for Alternative 3. As such, the Final EIR is incomplete and inaccurate as it omits critical information about the noise impacts. City of Santa Clarita — Shadowbox Studios Project July 17, 2023 Page 7of16 The FEIR also proposes that there will be lighting on the 12-foot fence; while such lighting will ensure safety and deter improper railroad crossing, they also raise new aesthetic impact issues as they will become a source of new light and glare, especially on the 12-foot fence, instead of the 6-foot one as proposed by Metrolink. Similarly, the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") comment mentions that the Draft EIR failed to provide an accurate estimate of the Project's operational impacts in light of the potential use of generators and portable or stationary devices that would have emissions, fails to disclose health impacts of the Project in light of the air quality and GHG impacts, recommends a Health Risk Assessment, as well as mentions that the Project is located within 25 feet of residential development. The City's response to this comment and concern is: "The comment notes that the Draft EIR included the operation of six emergency generators operating for up to four hours per day. The comment further stated that, given the nature of the Project, other stationary sources, such as boilers, internal combustion engines, and spray booths, could be typical of the film and television studio campus. It further asserts that failing to account for these additional sources could lead to an underestimation of the total operational emissions. Subsequent to the initial analysis, it was determined that no generators would be included as part of the base Project. Generators, as needed, would be brought on -site by individual production entities, which would need to permit the generator use independent of the Project development. No changes to the emissions inventories in the Draft EIR have been made as emission levels are less than significant even with the inclusion of emissions from the previously assumed six generators. Thus, the emissions inventory and impact analysis in the Draft EIR are conservative. Currently, it is unknown if any other permitted or non -permitted stationary or portable sources of toxic air pollutants (TACs) or pollutants would be included as part of the Project. Therefore, the EIR correctly analyzed the known. CEQA does not require the analysis of activities that are not known parts of the Project. It would be speculative City of Santa Clarita — Shadowbox Studios Project July 17, 2023 Page 8of16 at best to assume any of the mentioned sources. Accordingly, no additional analysis is necessary. Additionally, the comment states that daily values for generator emissions were multiplied by 12 to derive the maximum emissions of four hours per day but was unable to determine how the emissions, specifically diesel particulate matter (DPM), were calculated. As stated in the assumptions, the six generators were assumed to be Tier 3 based on the data sheet for the model anticipated to be used. The generators were assumed to operate 20 minutes per month for testing...." (FEIR, p. 2-71, emph. added.) The City similarly claims: "The comment states that the Draft EIR did not contain a comprehensive assessment of health risk associated with mobile, stationary, and portable sources during Project operations. As discussed in detail in Response to Comment No. A3-3 above, there are no additional known sources of stationary or portable TACs associated with the operation of the Project. Additionally, generators would not be part of the Project and, as needed, would only be implemented by production that was leasing space from the studio. These generators would need to be permitted through the South Coast AQMD and the risk associated with the generators would be required to be below regulatory thresholds as part of the permitting process." (FEIR, p. 2-73, emph. added.) The City's response fails CEQA mandates. In the face of the expressly identified six generators in the EIR running for at least 4 hours a day, the City now claims no generators will be used — solely to avoid studying their emission impacts and rebut the agency's challenge about the EIR's underestimation of same. The City further uses this disclaimer of the use of generators to support its conclusion that no Health Risk Assessment is required. As for operational and stationary devices and their operational emissions and impacts as is typical for the nature of the Project, the City's response is merely that those devices will be used by individual leasing production companies and will require respective permits and therefore their use is unknown at this time and any analysis would be speculative. Notably, the City does not deny that the Project's operation may utilize such stationary or portable devices. The City's response as to the City of Santa Clarita — Shadowbox Studios Project July 17, 2023 Page 9of16 emissions, reliance on future permitting, and refusal to require a health risk assessment despite the acknowledged possibility of such additional operational emissions in close proximity to the residential sensitive receptors is error. While CEQA does not require to speculate, what the SQACMD pointed out is not speculation — it is a reasonably foreseeable impact related to the nature of the Project and therefore needs to be considered in the worst case scenario. That the individual production companies may or may not seek permits for the use of their devices in the future does not obviate the need for the City to account for their potential use in the EIR and estimate their emission impacts and health risks, especially where the Project is so massive and also so close to the residential areas. In other words, that the Project may not have impacts is not relevant for CEQA — what matters is that the Project may have impacts due to the potential use of production company devices. Hence, the City may not avoid their impacts by claiming such analysis would be speculative. The above -noted examples in the omissions and inadequate responses of comments by the City in the EIR are merely illustrative. The City should recirculate the EIR to remove all inconsistencies and include the information that even state agencies identified as omitted in the EIR, as well as should include a complete and accurate information about the Project, its impacts, and its proposed mitigation measures, including for biological impacts, noise, air/GHG, and health impacts of the Project. B. The Project Description Is Inadequate. The DEIR must be recirculated because it also lacks an adequate Project description. "[A]n accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient" environmental document. County of Ingo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 200. "A curtailed or distorted project description may stultify the objectives of the reporting process" as an accurate, stable, and finite project description is necessary to allow "affected outsiders and public decision -makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e., the "no project" alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance. Ibid. at pp. 192-93, see also Mira Monte Homeov)ners Assn. v. County of Ventura (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 357, 365 [212 Cal.Rptr. 127]. "CEQA compels an interactive process of assessment of environmental impacts and responsive project modification which must be genuine. It must be open to the public, premised upon a full and meaningful disclosure of the scope, purposes, and effect of a consistently described project, with flexibility to respond to unforeseen City of Santa Clarita — Shadowbox Studios Project July 17, 2023 Page 10 of 16 insights that emerge from the process." (Id., at p. 366, internal quotation marks omitted.) (Burbank -Glendale -Pasadena AirportAutbority v. Hensler(1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 577, 592, emph. added.) CEQA Guidelines, section 15124 requires a project describe in enough detail to allow for evaluation of its potential environmental impacts: (a) the project's precise location and boundaries; (b) a clearly written statement of objectives sought by the proposed project; (c) a description of the project's technical, economic, and environmental characteristics; and (d) a statement describing a list of agencies, permits, and approval which the project expects to use. For reasons provided above, including the lack or use of generators, the use of operational stationary or portable production devices, the added mitigation measures or potential design changes in the Project to mitigate impacts, the Project fails to provide an accurate, finite, and stable Project description and thereby precludes meaningful public comment. Further, the Staff Report provides: "As such, the overall development footprint and grading for Alternative 3 would be the same as the proposed project, and have the same oak tree impacts. Alternative 3 would still use the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) property for excess parking. Lastly, Alternative 3 would require the same roadway improvements as the proposed project. With a reduction in the overall project size, the employment numbers for the studio facility would be reduced by approximately 10 to 15 percent, reducing the number of individual one -directional trips to 5,494 as compared to the 6,993 individual one -directional trips generated by the project." (Staff Report, p. 3, emph. added.) The Staff Report further provides that the Alternative 3 will reduce the impacts of the Project to less than significant. However, that conclusion is inaccurate as it appears to consider only part of the Project's impacts, and ignores the reasonably foreseeable impacts of the street improvements that the Project proposes with Alternative 3. Thus, per the Staff Report's information — improperly missing from the EIR — the Project proposes significant street improvements, including adding of numerous lanes on different streets: City of Santa Clarita — Shadowbox Studios Project July 17, 2023 Page 11of16 • Widening of the rail crossing at 13th Street and Railroad Avenue from two traffic lanes to five traffic lanes. In addition to widening of the intersection, the railroad crossing would be upgraded to meet the current safety standards as directed by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC); • Widening of 13th Street from two traffic lanes to six traffic lanes, Arch Street from two traffic lanes to six traffic lanes, and 12th Street from two traffic lanes to three traffic lanes; • Installation of a four -leg, signalized intersection at 13' Street and Arch Street; • Installation of a four -leg, signalized intersection at Arch Street and 12' Street; and • Installation of a three -leg, half signalized intersection of Placenta Canyon Road and Dockweiler Drive. • Requiring the 13th Street at -grade crossing to stage construction such that access to Placerita Canyon will remain open during construction." (Staff Report, p. 3, emph. added.) Beyond omission of this information in the original EIR, requiring recirculation, the above -noted changes also suggest that, by adding so many lanes on so many streets, the Project will also induce other local or regional travel unrelated to the Project's own employees. Yet, the EIR fails to consider this reasonably foreseeable impact and the Staff Report, solely based on the reduced Alternative 3 and reduced number of employees, concludes that the Project will have no significant traffic impacts. For all the above -noted reasons, the EIR must be recirculated and accurate information about the Project's impacts and their mitigation must be provided. C. The EIR Is Based on Inaccurate Baseline Assumptions and Flawed Impact Anal The Project has incrementally expanded over time and will likely continue to expand given its proposed phases, approximately two to three years. Currently, the Project requires discretionary actions from the City, such as certification of the Final EIR, approval of at least one conditional use permit, including one for all new development within the Planned Development Overlay and for studio use within the MXN zone, at least one Minor Use Permit for the provision of less than the minimum residential density required in the MXN zone, a tentative map to subdivide the Project site into City of Santa Clarita — Shadowbox Studios Project July 17, 2023 Page 12of16 five lots, an Oak Tree Permit for the encroachment into the protected zone and removal of oak trees, a ridgeline alteration permit for proposed development activity within 100 feet vertically and/or horizontally from a designated significant ridgeline as identified in the land use element of the general plan, approval of a zone change to modify the boundaries of the Jobs Creation Overlay Zone south of Placenta Creek and to change the zoning of the northern portion of the site from NU5 to MXN, and approval of a General Plan Amendment to modify the general plan land use designation from NU5 to MXN to remain consistent with the proposed zone change and to make text changes to the discussion regarding the North Newhall Area according to the Land Use Element of the General Plan concerning allowable development potential and building height in the area (FEIR 1-2). And yet, the Project may require permits and possible modifications, associated with its street improvements or use of various generators and stationary/portable movie production devices, or encroachment onto the ROW. The EIR fails to account for future changes or permits and fails to view those as part of the same Project. The FEIR's failure to consider the impacts of the whole of the action and the potential expansion of uses on the Project site or its choice to defer such analysis to a later time when individual movie production contractors apply for permits is in violation of CEQA's piecemealing prohibition. (Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cru.Z (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1170, 1208-1209 ["The requirements of CEQA cannot be avoided by piecemeal review which results from `chopping a large project into many little ones -each with a minimal potential impact on the environment -which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences.' (Bo.Zung v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 283-284.")].) The danger of piecemealing is many -fold. First, it precludes consideration of impacts of the "whole of an action" under CEQA Guidelines § 15387, as has happened here. As explained by courts: "[O]nly through an accurate view of the project may the public and interested parties and public agencies balance the proposed project's benefits against its environmental cost, consider appropriate mitigation measures, assess the advantages of terminating the proposal and properly weigh other alternatives...." (City of Santee v. County of San Diego, supra, 214 Cal.App.3d at p. 1454, 263 Cal.Rptr. 340.) Here, the failure to consider the expansion of the wastewater treatment plant as part of the project under consideration resulted in an inaccurate project description City of Santa Clarita — Shadowbox Studios Project July 17, 2023 Page 13of16 and incomplete identification and analysis of the environmental effects of the development project (Santiago County Tlater Dist. v. County of Orange, supra, 118 Cal.App.3d at p. 829, 173 Cal.Rptr. 602.) As stated in **717 Citizens Assn. for Sensible Developynent of Bishop Area v. County of Ingo (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151, 166, 217 Cal.Rptr. 893, "[t]he danger of filing separate environmental documents for the same project is that consideration of the cumulative impact on the environment of the two halves of the project may not occur. This danger was here realized." Thus, because the FEIR did not "adequately apprise all interested parties of the true scope of the project for intelligent weighing of the environmental consequences of the project," informed decision making was precluded. The FEIR is inadequate as a matter of law. (City of Santee P. County of San Diego, supra, 214 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1454-1455, 263 Cal.Rptr. 340.) The certification by the Board of the FEIR as complete and adequate constituted an abuse of discretion. (County of Ingo v. City of I,osAngeles, supra, 71 Cal.App.3d at p. 200, 139 Cal.Rptr. 396.) (San Joaquin Raptorl Vildl fe Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 734-735.) Piecemealing also alters the accurate baseline of the CEQA analysis. Thus, under CEQA, the baseline environmental conditions (to measure the Project's impacts against) must be set as early as possible when the Project's environmental review begins. (CEQA Guidelines § 15125(a)(1).) Here, the environmental review of the project began at least in 2019, and likely earlier, given the surveys conducted. Further, for CEQA purposes, the fact that a project is entitled or is warranted under the general plan is not relevant for the baseline. (CEQA Guidelines § 15125(a)(3) ["An existing conditions baseline shall not include hypothetical conditions such as those that might be allowed, but have never actually occurred under existing permits or plans as the baseline."]). So the General Plan's designation is not relevant to the baseline or current property's existence as a vacant lot. Here, the Project is not even consistent with the General Plan as it seeks to change the General Plan designation. Apart from the fact that this raises a potential land use impact under CEQA, the Project's inconsistency with the City's General Plan is also a violation of the Planning and Zoning Law, which the EIR does not adequately City of Santa Clarita — Shadowbox Studios Project July 17, 2023 Page 14 of 16 disclose. The Project is both vertically inconsistent with the General Plan, as well as — due to its massive proposed land use changes, including massive street modifications and infrastructure improvements — the Project also causes a horizontal inconsistency between the elements of the General Plan, including land use and circulation elements. Yet, the Project seeks an amendment only to the General Plan's land use element and not to the circulation element to support the changes. This omission is even more critical as the Project appears to add numerous lanes on various streets and, as such, triggers the need to amend the Circulation Element to view the proposed amendments in total, along with the City's other circulation infrastructure. Moreover, to the extent the City plans to omit or later amend the Circulation Element to account for the changes the Project proposes, these amendments are also in violation of both CEQA, which requires to consider the impacts of the whole of an action, and the Planning and Zoning Law, which requires concurrent amendments to the land use and circulation elements. This also raises the potential need to add an Environmental Justice Element to the City's general plan, to ensure the Project does not affect any disadvantaged communities. The Applicant is trying to use various 2019 baselines and surveys instead more updated or recent baselines post-covid, and thereby inflates the baseline through its 2019 approvals and other changes in the surrounding area, in order to minimize and understate the changes it proposes. This is the classic case of trying to end run CEQA, where courts agree a different baseline must be used. "Of course, were there evidence of an attempted end run around CEQA, use of a different baseline may well be appropriate." (Hollyn,00dians Encouraging Rental Opportunities P. City of Los An (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 768, 781, fn. 11.) (See also, POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 52, 83 [use of an inflated baseline had the effect of understating the increase of impacts, requiring reversal]; County ofAmador v. El Dorado County Tlater Agency (1999) 76 Cal.AppAth 931, 953 ("County ofAmador') [without an accurate baseline, the "analysis of impacts, mitigation measures and project alternatives becomes impossible."]) The Project appears to have manifestly piecemealed the Project by initially proposing a smaller scale project for approval now and will likely incrementally increasing the scale and intensity of the Project. The Project represents a classic case of piecemealing where the same applicant fails to accurately disclose the full scope of the project during the initial environmental review and incrementally increases the project after the initial City of Santa Clarita — Shadowbox Studios Project July 17, 2023 Page 15of16 environmental document is approved, in order to avoid analyzing the impacts of the "whole of the action" as CEQA requires. That is what CEQA prohibits and to which the case law is clear. (Amiv Enterprises, Inc. P. Soutb Valley Area Planning Corn. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1348-1351 [requiring an EIR for the whole of an action, including permitted and even built, out single family homes and rejecting the applicant's argument about vested rights, "Compliance with these existing laws was thus required notwithstanding the City's failures and/or Arviv's misleading project descriptions which may have prevented the City from appreciating the full scope of the proposed development." Id. at 1350]) For these reasons as well, the EIR must be recirculated to provide adequate disclosures about the Project's scope, baseline, potential expansion of uses, and future discretionary actions, including the Project's vertical and, as related, the associated horizontal inconsistency with the City's General Plan, the need for amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan, and review of the Project's proposed changes to the streets and circulation vis-a-vis the City's existing circulation infrastructure. II. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, we respectfully request the City to deny the Project, its FEIR, and order the applicant to revise the Project to ensure its consistency with all applicable laws and regulations as detailed above, as well as to study the "whole of the action" and use the accurate bona fide project description and baseline for purposes of CEQA review. "CEQA contemplates serious and not superficial or pro forma consideration of the potential environmental consequences of a project. Leonof v. Monterey County Bd. Of Supervisors (1990) 222 Ca1.App.3d 1337, 1347, 272 Ca1.Rptr. 372; emphasis added; Burbank -Glendale -Pasadena Ai0ortAutbority v. Hensler (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 577, 593, fn. 3. If the City has any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, City of Santa Clarita — Shadowbox Studios Project July 17, 2023 Page 16of16 Jason A. Cohen Attorneys for Southwest Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters x #a ea « - § 2 ca ,m,mdO]e _ZO PH ( j mae'a:ViN 6 y: }SHgea3AV ao m a e:m:«: _ 7�i 'qd@dQ dNSSDOnISXOG«OOdS .«« a10 E ©� x #a ea « - § 2 ca ,m,mdO]e - @_ j mae'a:ViN 6 S: }SHgea3AV ao m a e:m:«: _ 7�i d@dO dNS SDOnISXOG«OOdS .«« ©� in x 0ll '£6 GVOH]IVH VI o m my aoJa3do]3n3a w o mrm y sp Q G N lZ£66 VO 'VlldVIO V1NVS M U � o£a 4 m oov vn I 1S Hl£l aNV3AV aV0?JIIV?J J0 ?J3N?JOJ3N m en x 7�i d112id�O d1NdSamNm Wmsoicin1SX08MOCIVHS aaaa �oaro $-W J g ors$ m mo as o 4 . . ®a Saw oawa a os 'ca w §`¢¢a '� ao��- ay�y �w� w"'o,, �w; m��aa awe.��=awoeaamaaaase�rw�-w�osaoa=' �oa a�o�o . -�� � a i g € € € € € €_€ �w a E.... a a P as a� a� ��_ ® HH ® ®� e e�ezmamm��w�maa o�=eaa4�aoe�'sa �.=o44��a.44 aim o„aga as o w .�a =.==a=a........ s®n-- ---- -- - -dada d d d dm dddddddddddddddd � m m 8m 8m8 a8 a8a8ms� �. d..... d. d. V M N Z O O Q Q 4 > > > W w w J W W W F LU � 4 4 CO H nnnn nnn n y, o 0]] 'ss avoa]iVa VI _ m m� aoJa3do]3n3a 3o n v w o m rm 0> y s zwa w Q G 1ZM VO'VildVIO ViNVS o o m oov vn I 1S Hl£l aNV 3AV aV0?JIIV?J J0 ?J3N?JOJ 3 N m gn x 7�i NViNV�O d1NVSamNmsoicin1SX08MOCIVHS aaaa oa G_ _ ors$ m mo m o 4' $g_� a -_M s a,€ a a = a o a s�mM-M ill a�a U H aj m„m„�may€ _„�ma€„wma€ „�ma�€„a_a€m wa -aaff.=-„„.�- w w §. HH H H 8G8G. .: a...�¢.a. V co N r Z O w J W H K w w Z O w w W 2 F Q O z i y, o 0]] '£s avoa]lva VI m y ao3 a3dol3n3a w o m 0 0 rm -� 7 aG �zMvO'vllavIOvlNvs 1S Hl£l aNV 3AVaVOHIIVa d0 a3Na0O 3 N n V F W d112id�O dlNdS 4 mco- ~" , SOIaf11S XOBMOadHS a = 0£4 4 E awe p _ e <o n & � aaaaa mHm a�a�o og�; §�� - w s m�M, — t- M , $,g000`M H F �m ® dam Saw oawa a os 'ca w §`¢sa a �� s a a=aao �� oa��a�s a® e $� '� aa-- w a ' woa® osaa=®ao= � msom� m w; m£aa awe.�=awooaawaa�aserw�-w�osaoa=' �oa a oho o - a� m mam a_-, s _ m- mm sm� a a_g �_ �a �. s� xo�w�� . . - a .aaaa a a m„m„m„m„m„m„m �eff4�„�„�. . o HUHN MO RR_��d a e .1 g � e e s r mmm __ ____ a aRa�F�aaa ., see a'x sere a«s%as<s ®no "" ----- . .. a.. ...... n nnnnnn nn I\ z F- r Q W W W r W w 3 O Q W W W r ¢ w O W J W 2 r 0 0 O r Q W W W 2 r Q z z MI-M � 771 1 in x 0ll '£6 GVOH]IVH VI o m y :aoJ a3do]3n3a w o mnm Qj -n? Q lZMVJ'VildVIOV1NVs y wep U m � oov vn I 1S Hl£l aNV �3AV aV0?JIIV?J J0 ?J3N?JOJ �3N � m _ - � � e. 4 7�i mN .d112id�O d1NdSWmSOIaf11SX08M04�/HSo ................................... mAA m mm mm AAmm A A m I mmm mmA mm m mm m®Am A 11111m , =Om - l MI 1 I J J m,. � rrii 1 M mmA - 1 l J 1 ` ME A mmm m V, o 0II's6avoallvavl my HOJa3dO]3n3a w o mnm 0; 1ZS66VO'VildVIOVINVS _ 4 1S Hl£l ONV 3AVOVOHIIVH dO H3NHOO 3 N 7�i ViNV�O d1NVSymsoicin1SX08M0CIVHS aaaa oa 3m $4'^w�44 � '" 0 4 c 9"'��� S _ �a$$o454�$a Eaa ��w es�oo je�oe m�a4 �$�o$s o�a�"m ��mo 4��m�o §-W _e��9 w �3a wo§®o sa aII®ao`>.== o.3soo w wa aoa= Boa �W3 w sF- '0 a S4o3�- 8:mg`3�wo s e `s m 'am -� o a a a a a- �y3y mo4 §a'YW �.� �awo oa aw aa�aa Mgr w'-w�oa -U �"•o,, � §� �8§ § a .11 ��wP OEwa - 8 `3 $ $ $ $............... Up m Ss„�4,. m k�1Gao Y 3oG GY�GG >4�§ �Ea .: » §§ _ ����a�B..�:�� H'--9 W � w 5'�a W 3 3 3 r e<n mom mmm __ ____ a ARe�a�aaa vase am es® a«s%a s<s s®n 4$4444444444444444 ----------dada.... dddddddddddddddd =............. ao •w � m m 8m 8m8 a8 a8a8ms� www�w�w ... ........ N Z Z 0 — 0 W J W W J W z O � p a F a w > W J J W W r h r N u W W y, o 0]] 'ss avoa]iva VI _ m aoJ a3do]3n3a s w a w o m rm o; = s zwa w Q G 1ZM VO'VildVIO ViNVs m o m oov vn I 1S Hl£l aNV3AV aV0?JIIV?J J0 ?J3N?JOJ3N m en x s $ �mm va In ViNV�O d1NVS a mNm 4 ~ ` SOIaf11S X08M04�/HS aaaa oar o o o 1 o � � a � � � §soma �.� w�mo m � w wow � .w m to $ 4 $g i H$ m� � tl� " w s m.$$o4g4 �a as w $ w 4m a ��o um " -_ _ g G_ r w $ $oo __e�oa ors$ m mo m o 4........ 1 _' ®a Saw oawa a os 'ca w §`¢¢a a �$ s � E a sa-- w . ...... ao��- y uw� w "'o,, . s=mgxU m a � w u�a wa w; m�aa awe.�=awoeaamaa�aserw�-w�osaoa=' �oa aoo � € € €€€ €_€ �w a E.... a a ... P as ee �ezmam m��w�maa o�=ea a4 ��oe�'sa �.=o 44 ��a.44 almsaa ; as o w s�a as®n-- ---- -- - -dada d d d dm dddddddddddddddd � m m 8m 8m8 8 a8a8ms� �. d..... d. d. Sun e 77 M _ Sun mivw Z O Z O Z O r r r > w > w — > w w w w � w LU co — co w w _ w J J J cc F- a Q a o-Q a A �Irl� III, — I A I ® ' E C C c— C I --- A � —L-- A —L-- A in x 0ll '£6 GVOH]IVH VI o my aoJa3do]3n3a r _ c� o 1ZM VO 'VlldVIO V1NVS =m N U o£a 4 m oov vn I 1S Hl£l aNV 3AV aV0?JIIV?J J0 ?J3N?JOJ 3 N m gn xo 7UAViNV�O d1NdS a mm ~ ` SOIaf11S X08M04�/HS aaaa a 1 w wow � to $ 4 $g i H-m� n tl� " - w s m�$$o4g4 $a as w $ -w4m a4 ��o$ $off g G_ r w $,goo __e�oa ors$ m mo m o 4_' ®a Saw oawa a os 'ca w §`¢sa a �� s w; �3 S, ........ 1-A'! 'M a s e- o a a wH, �soa-- fflffl -M m�aa awe.�=awoo.awaa�aserw�-w�osaoa=' �oa aoo � a € € €€€ €_€ �w �a �. s� xo�w�� - a Eaaaa a a m„m„m„m„m„m„m �e Ho �� ® ® ®� o ..»....._=.. a..... e e�ezma=�m��w�maa o�=eaa4 ��oe�sa �.=o44��a.44 aim o„aga as oaa s®n---- ---- --- ddddddddm dddddddddddddddd � m m =8m 8m8 a8 a8a8ms� �.d.�.�.d.d. 3Nn HJ1tlW P7 N ,• � o :96 1 Z Z Z F H H ''H W '•'1 W W W 11 EdW H co `'I UI F Z J J cc Q Q OI a ►I u �o E- o E o rEJ � L --- A 7�1 ---- A y, o 0]] 'ss avoa]iva VI _ m anda3dol3n3a s w c> w o m rm Oj = sea w Q G 1ZM VO'VildVIO ViNVs M o m oov vn I 1S Hl£l aNV3AV aV0?JIIV?J d0 ?J3N?JOJ3N m en x 7�i N m ViNV�O d1NVS ~ ` SOIaf11SX08M04�/HS §�� - w s m�M, — t- M , $,g000`MH F �m ® dam Saw oawa a os 'ca w §`¢sa a �� s a a=aao �� oa��a�s a® e $� '� a sa-- w a ' woa® osaa=®ao=>:== � o.�soo w � msom� � �- awe.�=awooaawaa�aserw�-w�osaoa=' �oa a oho o - m- m� m sm� a �w �a �. m„m„m„m �e ff4�„�„��� Min mm— MN sa gUIll 11H § o $.$.$.e s e e s """""""" � m m 8G 8G8 G8 G8G oa�aco Z O w J W W w W cr ¢ H ¢ a 0 u a JL-- y, o 0]] '£s avoallva 'VI m y ao3 a3dol3n3a w o m rm 07 Ca Qy lZMVO'VildVIOVINVS 1S Hl£I aNV 3AV4VOHIIVH JO H3NHOO 3 N � W N d112id�O dlNdS 4 c~ ' SOIaf11S XOBMOadHS a M 4 aaaaa mam M. og�; m�$$o4g4 $a as ��m - $off. ' g G_ r w $,goo __e�oa ors$ m mo m o 4_' maaa a =aa.,� ® a�Gaw o am a a a s -a o a a a awa a s =y�y sy.y seazaawa4§oow��:amaso _ m=a�$oeo�§ '�����.-:. a�rwa=w�oa.o .' �oao ®a� �5�§�_� awW Y�o 6waa wa's`§a a a a ,- „ a a ag-..�-..s...... spa �aa,w s-a�a `awo ��= 3 °° a Eaaaa - a° o=H =®=.o owe„� aaa w�. s�wo=oo� „�aaw § a„ao=, �ao�-�w y o ,,.,, ,,,,�„�„�„�„�„�„� R. s, R. R. o Un- 44 4som®s4k ac�oo�sG'w =ww o4saa :§ _ a= ==�_����I=®®W ............ "" " " """ �mm8G N N N \ >_ J _ J LU W_ - -__— W W O O W Q ------ ----- V � I m o /\\%\/\ �\ J y, o 0]] '£s avoa]lva VI m y ao3 a3dol3n3a w o m 0 0 rm 7 �z£I,svO'vllavIOvlNvs 1S Hl£6 aNV 3AVaVOHIIVa d0 a3Na0O 3 N n V F W d112id�O dlNdS 4 mco- ~" , SOIaf11S XOBMOadHS a E awe p 71 n�& aaaaa mam a o a 3§w oawa a os Ica w § asa m�$ g ag s-- wsaa-a a �,a€,�,�a wed aff-....-..-.... ........... ,,....... H awe a=was"�a s m'seoae s �.��a aaw wa -ate a Hg- =�w=w€a ,��xw�o,���� o=�oxaoww�oHR 4 a ewa�= w ._ » _. __ �� � _ �— se��osm'sa44a�m„�a ww H H _r e<n mom mmm __ ____ a ARe�a���� vase am es® a«s%a s<s U dddddddddddddddddddm dddddddddddddddd . m m 8m 8m8 a8 a8 a. . .Fc FeF.F. F:F o< N N N Z Z z z -� F- o� o H H F a - > J W J J J W W W W F H _ F CO L \ (n W O O w z\vl U � ,_III � I II 77�77�7 - - - ��� c—M it - e _ o - I y, o 0]] '£s avoallva 'VI m y ao3 a3dol3n3a w o m nm Oj lZMVO'VildVIOVINVS 1S Hl£I aNV 3AV4VOHIIVH JO H3NHOO 3 N n V F W d112id�O dlNdS 4 mco- ~" ' soicin1S XOBMOadHS a 0£4 4 0o HH, 7�w aaaaa mom a o $4-WY Jmmog$4ma!i; 4H,- ioa ®R-,�o3 .r . g a a=aao '� a-- w �soa- g- �w� w "W,,. s=mgxwo w; m� as awe.=awoo.awaa�ase rw�-w�osaoa=' �oa -UU �� � a ag __ �a m„ m„ m„ m„ m„ e e�ezmamm��w�maa o�=eaa4 ��oe�sa �.=o44��a.44 aim o„aga as o w s�$�$�a =�==a=a=======ao r e<n mom mmm __ ____ a ARe�a���� vase am es® a«s%a s<s s®n ddddddddddddddddddm dddddddddddddddd Jm�8m N Z O w J :. 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 0 0 I y, o 0]] '£s avoallva 'VI m y a33 a3dol3n3a w o m nm Oj lZMVO'VildVIOVINVS 1S Hl£I aNV 3AV4VOHIIVH JO H3NHOO 3 N n V F W d112id�O dlNdS 4 mco- ~" ' SOIaf11S XOBMOadHS o o m In 0£4 4 0o Eaw�p - $ o aaaaa mom a o $4-WY Jmmog$4ma!i; 4H,- ioa ®R-,�o3 .r . g a a=aao '� a-- w aaa woa®osaa=®ao=>:== o.�.00 w �soa- g- �w� w "W ,,. s=mgxwo w; m� as awe.=awoo.awaa�ase rw�-w�osaoa=' �oa -UU �� � a ag __ �a m„ m„ m„ m„ m„ e e�ezma�m��w�maao�=eaa4��oe�sag.=sz„��a. „a�msaazaaa o w s�$�$�a =�==a=a=======ao r e<nm�m mmm __ ____ a ARro�a���� veeeaees® a«s%a s<ss®n ddddddddddddddddd dmdddddddddddddddd Jm�8m8m8 N Z O r Q w J W 7��] 2 Z y I —0L-j —-\"__..._1 ?i A LA Rii V, o 0II's6avoal1vavl m aoJ a3dol3n3a r _ Z 3 0 o @ v w o mnm o; -O Q� 1ZMVO'VildVIOVINVS oo _ 4 1S Hl£l ONV 3AV OVOHIIVH 30 H3NHOO 3 N Q 7�i �mm va Nd112id�O d1NdS ~ ` SOIaf11SXO8MO4�/HS §�� - w s m�M, — t- M , $,g000`M H F �m ® dam Saw oawa a os 'ca w §`¢sa a �� s a a=aao �� oa��a�s a® e $� '� a s a a a a a a-- w a ' woa® osaa=®ao=>:== � o.�soo w � msom� � �- awe.�=awooaawaa�aserw�-w�osaoa=' �oa a oho o - m- m� m sm� a �w �a �. m„m„m„m �eff4�„�„��� Min mm— MN sa gUIll 11H § o $.$.$.e s e e s "" --""""" � m m 8G8G8G8G8G�asa V N 0 m 0 0 a w J W r CO w Cl) N 0 m z O w J W r w ti N N 0 m z 0 a w J W x r 0 0 co n N ii 0 J m U' z U 0 r ¢ W W N CD 0 m z O a w J W x r Er z y, o 0]] 'ss avoa]iva VI _ maoJa3do]3n3a 6 \ P r 1ZMVO'VlldVIOV1NVS N 1S Hl£l aNV 3AV aV0?JIIV?J J0 ?J3N?J0O 3 N m - w gn 4 7�i NViNV�O d1NVS¢soicin1SX08MOCIVHS aaaa -H� w 4o44=$$644��- " ® S44o"aa"$aM- r`�-' ��-ago- osoa�oaaa- G� §oo "� �. w s o§ c w § a'm am'aga m w a gz§oo a< gom =a=a a 'ffifl ® HE E 0 Saw oawa a os 'ca § ¢sa w a -k v�= aao `�¢aa�6s®ao�=r� ��waoso w am a a� s a� s ....a aaa= d° d g DO '22 �azow„� �4�e4� m �4 =waeo�'sa G�wox�occ o�� �4sa �wa�a " :_ » ®_ _® M'l— =®®w w =�d a e ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "mm9a9 a8 a8 a8 aoaga co LO z O a w J W 2 H O co w 0 O z w Y z O a w J W 2 I. — cc O z y, o m� 0]] 'ss avoa]iva VI aoJa3do]3n3a _ w o mnm o; 1ZMVO'VildVIOViNVs MN m oov vn I 1S Hl£l aNV3AV aV0?JIIV?J J0 ?J3N?JOJ3N m o en x $ �mm va N dll2id�O d1NdS a s soicin1S X08MOCIVHS aaaa Fw Wm oa o o � � a � � � §soma �.� w�mo m � w wow � -� m i. H�mun 5 � 3m �a$$o454�$a Eaa $4'^w�44 �$�o$s _ '" e 4 c ��w m�a4 um _ _ _ G� r es�oo ��mo 4��m�. .4� ? - _ '� g _� [ 9"'��� S _ __je�oe _e��9 o�a�"m - _ F." _ oywa4a .s„'ca w� §`¢sa4� a� - a§- 5 s__�_ _ E. w s s ...... �3a wo§®o sa aII®ao`>.== o.3soo w S4o3�- a aa.3. �W3 w §.....� 8:mg`3�U m 'am w wa mo4§a'YW�.��awo oa aw aa�aa Mgr w'-w�.a ao.= ... a§off. -� �8§_ o §� ............... . m Up Ss„�4,. m Y 3.G W >4�§ ....a� k�1Ga. GY�GG �Ea ........€€._ .. �...... w 3 3 3 .. 4$4444444444444444 W •w �=��iaiaiiiiiiiao r e<n mom mmm __ ____ a ARe�a�aaa vase am es® a«s%a s<s s®n----------dada.... dddddddddddddddd � m m 8m 8m8 a8 a8a8ms� www�w�w ... ........ f0 «J V co O O O O r r r r > w > w > w > w W W W w r r x x w co Q Q w m z a r a � a:> r W Q w r r T ¢ ¢ 0 o W j) J U Z Z O U w w Z W z w 2 = < 2 2 Q � Q r Q cc r Q ccr r O rn cc) P- O 0 0 0 a a a a w w w w w w w w w w w w W r w r eD 2 2 � W O O m z a r r r N > r > r N w N N cc w W O O U 7 (1) 0 U U O O U Z W Z w U Z Z 2 = W w Q U 2 2 cc Q Q r r ¢ r ¢ r $ p � _ o :•� w �8 3 � y � � � 3 � s � S s Es.��g �e � � .fix ��� deb 4£ o � g Ub�8 o 83 �O= Eb48 5➢ ° 0 U U w i _mo mu �go��� aka two moo ?j^ap�pm Um�n o°� `�o UU� z ww Jm m� am G� `� w uaarc R�� FUa,N�Qjln W N4iNw 24a arcw Oq QaU'm(5nKU$ In :S221 L-1 133HS 333 - 3NIlHOIVW �`zIS s r�r. .i000:117 . I i j,j�I W N 30 00 W 44 0 x� Mg a Q z N � o ., £-1 133HS 33S - 3NlHOiVN _ F I I T T t l! I I I I I I I I 1-1133Hs33s 3NnHDivw ♦ I � f f Fl-1 �0 j ! I I I II o II ��I r' I� - ar I � I m E pq 9 P® I '/I r•� F- � a IN ICI E - s �I i9 o I I _ I � H ♦ n ♦ �� �d I g s� � `♦ � � � n w p� Z � € e € M E gg � • � \ t� Z-1 133HS 33S - 3NIlHJ1VW -------------- yJr 6� 3 1pn;19�a "pp 1 s11eaA ';0s =aAss aye Q • L3 e`.h• -- �= MoM do ll Wll vvo�� oYYO {7 . oiYY�J IN � 8 a ar 8 a 8 b � II Imo.,. o®I��al JYYYY j7 NYYY+J MENEM oil ON at IIIIIIIII�������h ,.. ■ iQio l i ii ■lye .emu • cF IEL I■ 1110 111: ■ � III 111 � ■ • III 111+ � ■ III ■ 111 °. ; � •. ; III 111 ■ III • 0104 ii • .rail • lm • III■B � �i� ■ �� _" rl urn - MENEM41 llllllll� NO n ii ■IJ\ \■� �. ■.!lJ. \■ mono +`tl■ 4..��� :;�■ JnoOmomo■■mono J■■■.�n■uo :•• momo nova;;; Y b �� .ono■■ _� , • ,� \� !! ii � II � ii • . ii • § , �#aea« q ,m - n § �® m,m� e 2.! ko } ° j \ \\(!� §+ } t ©e= p);!/ - } <G ma 6' a :ViN 6 i /»\\ 2a��ea� aom a e:m:«: !C \2 UE LI :~ \a )d@dQdNS SnISXOG«OS << 1111111Hi§ 7�i #a ea « % _ a : gb / § M. :a m� e .\ ! _ ., w : . z J\ ± /\} ; 2 k (+\ #gyp):!/ } ma6'a:� 6 u e"1 / SH �m«� ao a a e:m:«: } % d`\ } \ (\\� d @d Q d N S ® � \ (\ \ 5 SD OnIS XOG«OOd S \ \ \ .d / / j y p 0II'£6OVOH]IVH VI m HOd O3dOl3A3O ,rw _ W c� O $ �n ' s o�mV a a =zg4 = m Q lZM VO 'VildVIO V1NVS r £ x v o U 2 1S Hl£l ONV 3AV OVOHIIVH dO H3NHOO 3 N sa,A IE 3 Na a wN wViNV�O ViNdS asoicin1SX08MOCIVHS Ew Hill I m`+o o+ 1 + + 6 � m m' w + + + WL� co t+4 co ' + co co co � LO + +z Q �+- e + W / �+ w e ®m - m _ + a +� m+ m+w 0 0 o + co 0 1- oo + +o �+ �+ o �+ �+ �+ �+ �+ �+ �+ -+ �+o m+ m+ P+ + + P+ m+ ' ++ + "<0 + + �+ �+ �+ + + + + � + "+ of �+ + 4� �+ �+ o + � r� e� mto z + + o f o"ti d of + e o +o a _ m+ P+ "+ z + mm m0 co mN W W W W J `+ + m.m.+ ry + H- (n CO(n m J ry (n co(n co + + + U W n P+ + o �+ + + my mug mm (W7(W7 (nm" (nm" (nm" (nm" 1y M M W we 6b. of 3wu zL(¢ �wPOE 31tla neJl txTJ SVVld 9NUH9IrX�a�wi�3�6EE\R\'9 '3 NH zE[3-IEEE-R 3 N31 9NNntltp wlN1.tl3Limp -^^•---d^- 0]]'£6av0a]iva VI .e2 10 on o's 4, -1 v, 2 OF lz£l6 V0'ViIHVl0 V1NVS x v o U _ 1S Hl£l 0NV 3AV 0V0H]lVH 30 H3NHOO 3 N g m g� au U z E£„8 x_ g /n c� N Mo US s�H �N rh��N w a VLL SOIaf11S X08M0(1VHS I mom e'r 11 a; �a a a o 0 0 we os. of 3wu zL(¢ �wP0E 31tla neJl txTJ SVVld 9NUH9IrX�a�wi�3I6EE\R\'9 '—N— EE[3-IEEE-R 3w—I—M— wlN,.tl3Limp-^^•-^^-d^�,,.,.F�, m.,,,e O OII '£6 OVOH]IVH VI Q� ~_ Q lZ£l6VO'Vll?JVlOV1NVS Ag IS Hl£l ONV 3AV OVOHIIVH 3O H3NHOO 3N •AJ 1 c� still w c mm N d112id�O d1NdS a Eat vLL SOIaf11S XOBMOadHS m uu adimpI Him; m 6� a J mm3A=A,6a a aw�a a o00 W �t � � w Q 00 I L N rt M L Ln 01 w o yam A a¢� V+ N M W I -+ + 1 -t ++ + + + + J `+ + �+ jt r+ �+ t t J t V Q U U ° +Ilm w J - 7 S + Q� AT Q V+ a D+ + + + + LL m+ + V+ + �# of m+ + + N m + M W we os. of 3wu zL(¢ �wPOE 31tla neJl txTJ SVVld 9NUH9IrX,a�wi�3,6EE\R\'9 '—N— --IEEE-R 3w—I—M— wlN,.tl3Limp •-^^-d^�,,.,.F�, m.,,,e y O 0II'£6GVOH]IVH VI M m aoJa3dol3n3a fiw m a„ ®gR z w m lZ£16VO'VIRJVIOVINVS U m m o U d12d�O d1NdS soicin1S X08MOCIVHS § =l 71� = 1S Hl£l (INV 3AV aVOHIIVH 30 H3NHOO 3 N Lne w b W m LLJ I �+ m+ + f}u0 d J - L Q 00 L N m a Q LU o +d� +o + + U + m� +m+m+a OO M v + + + J 10 w — z m dLL _ t J + Q U U t J o W S Q N Q Q + � e o � �s No + �+ + a+ ++ W + + + weCs.0i 3wu 1— —I .3ltla neJlt-Ntlli9NUH9C A—\ \\16EEVZ\.9 —N— SET-0- TZ —N-5-0 O 0II '£6 GVOH]IVH VI 3 - HOdaa 3dol3n3 Q C� ~_ Qu lZ£16VO'Vll?JVlOV1NVS 1S Hl£l (INV 3AV aVOHIIVH d0 H3NHOO 3 N d112id�O d1NdS SOIaf11S XOBMOadHS 4 e �W 3aA =zgA3,6 N6aa Q�z�aFao��£„°a � wUn JgmmR�ssw 'o c Lu � w M W °t t t 9t °t °t °t °t °t c'+ + o+ o+ o+ o+ o+ n ~ / we 050i 3wLL Iz. 1 1 31tla —N— --IEEE-R —N-1 9NNntltp zo., t13Limp 0II'S60VOH]IVa VI 4 .eg � m a0d03d0I3A30w lu & z "b W o No Q � g =-_n U, 1.1.1 0 m �m � o Q lZ£16V0'VlIaVI0V1NVS 'r uagU-.,� N U x v I iS HiCl ONV 3AV OVOHIIVH d0 a3Na0O 3 N _ o�co e aszq� 6 n a,E 1 LU SOIaf11SX08M04dHS mmear a as a a w a a o we 050i 3wLL ZZ(¢ �wPOE 31tla neJl txTJ SVVld 9NUH9IrX�a�wiZ3�6EE\R\'9 '—N— [E[3-IEEE-R —N-1 9NM— ZOINZ t13Limp w-•---d^- O 311 '£6 GVOHI IVH VI P r - _ r m 00 m HOd a3dol3n3a �w m' f z Lu \t o E * m 9g g oh ow o W ego g a M- m C lZ£16VO'VildVIOV1NVS + r U 1S Hl£l (INV 3AV GVOHIIVH JO H3NHOO 3 N q = P? o a=- z F s c= N se ead 2 N a coo 'tF�P=e �N. Ell dll2id�OdlNdS oem=rs e Lu Lu (D g �LL soicin1SX08MOCIVHS Hi3q�hs �6a a a LU M rl — W 1 m+ + m+ a "+ "+ "+ o+�+ �LLI + + o + �+ + + + + 4j - �+ + + 6 "+ 0 I� 1 + + t + + + a ���~m+ Q G + + + + + w �+ �+ �+ m+ + m+ 1 0+ of �+ �+ �+ m+ m+Pam+ 1 0+ o+ o+ ++ m+ ++ m+ a v M W + + } J + + m+ J Q 1 + �+ + + + �+ "+ ""+ "+ o+ + �+ �t �t t m+ m+ J - W S o+ + �+ �+ m+ m+ ¢ g + �+ + �+ m+ P+ + m+ 1 �+ + o + + + + �+ m+ + �+ �+ + + P+ -+ mt m+ �+ + + �+ �+ o+ o+ �+ mid -+ -+ �+ + P+ + o+ + �+ p+ Er �+ P++ + „ 1 I �+ + + + mt �+ m+ + + r+ + + + 1 + v� m ro OO OO + o\o+ n M W weos. of 3wu zL(¢�wPOE 31tla neJl txTJ SVtlli 9NUH9I7X�a�wi�3�6EE\R\'9 '—N— R—N-9NNntltp wND iHLamp w^•-^^-d^�.,.F�, m.,,,e J N 0II'S64VOaIIVa VI .eg Q M m aoJa3dol3n3a �,w z � LLJ '—' os v�'vliavl� vl�g n �y > e J 0 �z azg4 m \` s�6 lvvs x v o U _ 1S Hl£l aNV 3�V aVOaIIVa IO a3Na0� 3 N g It w ViNV�O ViNdS z E =8 7�i s w =E$ a a LU a �LL soicin1S X08MOCIVHS �� m eap 6a a a a s — + - J + +i o m ^ o �+ �+ 0 0- 0o m - Z I - ++ +00 + + �+ 1 �+ + + �+ I ry+ + + + + + + _ 1 _+ ` P+ ~+ _+ m+ + + a �+ + �+ a+ "+ P+ + _+ "+ W 1 -� -+ \� o o+ o� ++ + + I I =+ 1 _ = -+ P+ -+ -+ m I 1 9 + I�+ �+ �+ + + �+ _+ "+ ® w -+ �+° �+ m+ m+ m+ + + 1 �+ �+ �+ "+ mom �+ �� �+ + m+ + 6 1 0 o " I o+ o m m m+ m + + +� m I+ I °o+ 1 �+ �+ _+ ry+N+ r+ �+ 0 0+ o o �+ + a ° —N— -- C TZ —N-5NM— zo y, o 0]] 'ss avoallva 'VI _ m :HOJ a3dO]3n3a CIDc� @ o w o m ;nm o; -O Q� lZ£16V0'VlIaVI0V1NVS y =M V : ga 4 iS HiCl ONV 3AVOVOHIIVa d0 a3Na0O 3 N m - e s � a ViNV�O d1NVS e w y 4 ~ ` SOIaf11S X08M04�/HS aaaa o o om 1101111 111,111111011 � s o m a 2 mY f°u� gym aes ��m�am g e�Eae' s i`s 44 @Y=R R - R}YRRRSR�q AF BE IN 11 Mollin�illillil 201111111111111111 III aM111011 11 w of ------- ------ — ` I Ng FW I I I c� gWg¢ I i i lL 55 ggsw;�w: MP -Hp Y M %P J �5 3.� zF 0000�omw6 � vi ' a a I a � O O' c � I I IIII I I ®�_:, o. 3 � IIIIIIn llllll �_ �x4 1 r-- A= 3 I eY .� mm, III .1 , 1 M 9FEE� M agg _ W; P1 "------'r------ ? I II I --------- ' - - - -- I - Its ---------- I- Gm9 i T IGmU Gm& CD gg � o x O Q 1 -----------------------; - Ld 1 X H H O m N CJ w > o m �nm O O W m ^M moV vu�i N w a Wes= �LL OII '£6 OVOH]IVH VI aola3dol3n3a lZ£66 VO'VildVIO V1NVS 1S Hl£l ONV 3AV OVOHIIVH d0 H3NHOO 3 N ViNV�O d1NVS SOIaf11S X08MOadHS M 4 a aaaa w a 7�o .� Cl) �m� og pN w u (,7 OC Q LU EL z cc U 0 W Z co Q F om Vl Q --------------------------------"'-------------- -- ---... - - - `--------- o - ___ - .nm------------------------------- _ ea�was 10 _ _"• �A Y a - etz sa e k - nr `JNIb31d0 _ W- vm.o ge � � a III g � i e_ I i i � i i44 �i pia -------- s_________ _ �1336US I .wm"', s 3Nn eas-------- a f �e--- --------------- -J 0 z CD W J CD `1 Q N_ cc 0 J 0 c.> x #a ea « iz- § c® ,m,mdO]e - $ k on - § 2§ ma e' a :ViN 6 y! - § aHgea� ao m a e:m:«: _ \ 7�i \\d@dO dNS SDOnISXOG«OOdS x #a ea « iz- § co® ,m,mdO]e - \ _ on - § 2§ ma 6' a :ViN 6 y: - § aHgea� ao m a e:m:«: _ \ 7�i \\d@dO dNS SDOnISXOG«OOdS J / O-W-Mo �( IN #i1 �,� o ULO co � a ITI \ l^ IIII ` r � �n, Irk � r ��\��✓ \ /S% j \` II I� �� 1 �� I �I� i 0/ , /�j�r � ,� � � �❑ � \\��� �. /" — r�l� �kil// II• 'i h _ ri F I u a s k= I I I a 7 IIIII - 1 P 1�r 1o5 o3I 1 II IIIIIII� I_I I '�", '7� ��-: .Ix I ❑�a '� � �" rr - — <L� �..I I �I I 'III I t tozg L (J� 3, p O C] 9 Orl _ 7 v '�1 IIIII ❑ ,LI � III -� ❑ � � i � III 1 I I � --�I ...I -. �� � ,�/��� II 1 I a �,� ���� vi — ryS� ❑ h i a I I p °s t Th A .E I I II I,G IIr7 °� II III 't R 111 1 I �I iCJ t III < I IP o a a � I•= I IJ x r - 61 � I , L no xI LJ . _ I �t a�!t - I E. V r �I +t• � - � _ � 11 � III I IIl I =� 1 Q 4I -I i — pp it IIII J I�-L ] f Jf �� CIS. I , _ 'IF �� r \ �I \� Ell 41 FI >e 4 - -- 'A '�7�f31 qqi e tr 0 �� ,�� � ���\�^� � � �� ICI I,�� �•, V E I I �� �: fv � veab� � �� �✓/a�� � �_ �� II'44p p,lhh �'" I �'// ��✓,/ ice. ��A\�A �p� '� 1 ��� � �\\�� �A \�? � ���p �i lj� `1"��\� i %� 77 / _ CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, April 18, 2023 6:00 PM City Council Chambers 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 AGENDA In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Division at (661) 255-4330. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. (28CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II) Any writings or documents distributed to a majority of the members of the Planning Commission regarding any open session item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office located at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120, during normal business hours. These writings or documents will also be available for review at the meeting. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL FLAG SALUTE COMMISSION SECRETARY ANNOUNCEMENT APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF REGULAR MEETING MINUTES — The minutes of the Planning Commission are submitted for approval. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Planning Commission approve the minutes of the February 21, 2023 Regular Meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PROJECT (MASTER CASE 21-109) - Request for the development of full -service film and television studio campus consisting of approximately 1.3 million square feet, including 19 sound stages, a two-story production support warehouse building, three-story office building, catering facilities, as well as a four-story (five level) parking structure and a surface parking lot. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Planning Commission: 1. Receive the staff presentation on the Project Description and Draft Environmental Impact Report; 2. Open the public hearing to receive testimony from the applicant and the public; 3. Provide direction to staff on the hearing schedule and project issues; and 4. Continue the public hearing to May 16, 2023. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Pursuant to Government Code section 54954.3 members of the public are afforded the opportunity to address the Commission. This time has been set aside for the public to address the Commission on items NOT listed on the agenda. The Commission will not act upon these items at this meeting other than to review and/or provide direction to staff. All speakers must submit a speaker's card to the Commission Secretary PRIOR to the beginning of this portion of the meeting, and prepare a presentation not to exceed three minutes (with double the time allotted to non-English speakers using a translator). ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATION On April 14, 2023, I, Patrick Leclair, do hereby certify that I am the duly appointed and qualified Senior Planner for the City of Santa Clarita and that the foregoing agenda was posted at City Hall. Patrick Leclair Senior Planner Santa Clarita, California Page 2 Tuesday, February 21, 2023 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Chair Eichman called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL City Council Chamber Chair Eichman, Vice -Chair Berlin, Commissioner Ayala, Commissioner Burkhart, and Commissioner Ostrom were present. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Burkhart led the flag salute. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE CHAIRPERSON A motion was made by Vice -Chair Berlin and seconded by Commissioner Ostrom to elect Commissioner Burkhart as Vice -Chairperson. The motion was carried by a voice vote of 5-0. A motion was made by Commissioner Ostrom and seconded by Chair Eichman to elect Vice - Chair Berlin as Chairperson. The motion was carried by a voice vote of 5-0. COMMISSION SECRETARY ANNOUNCEMENT Lisa Howe gave the Secretary Announcement. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A motion was made by Vice -Chair Burkhart and seconded by Commissioner Ostrom to approve the agenda. Said motion was carried by a voice vote of 5-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Vice -Chair Burkhart and seconded by Commissioner Eichman to approve the minutes from the January 17, 2023, meeting. w z R w O J Q O W a a Q Packet Pg. 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM 1 TIME EXTENSIONS FOR THE SAND CANYON RANCH PROJECT (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 62868 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 63003) The applicant is requesting two-year time extensions for Tentative Parcel Map 62868 and Tentative Tract Map 63003, which were originally approved by the Planning Commission on July 20, 2010. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Planning Commission: 1. Conduct the public hearing and receive testimony from the public; 2. Adopt Resolution P23-03, approving Master Case 22-220, Time Extension 22-011, to allow for a two-year time extension to Tentative Parcel Map 62818, with an expiration date of January 20, 2025; 3. Adopt Resolution P23-04, approving Master Case 22-221, Time Extension 22-012, to allow for a two-year time extension to Tentative Tract Map 63003, with an expiration date of January 20, 2025; and 4. Determine that a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted for Master Case 05-208 and Master Case 06-183 by the Planning Commission on July 20, 2010, and that no further California Environmental Quality Act clearance is required. Andy Olson, Associate Planner, presented on the item. Commissioner Ayala asked about the timing of project completion. Staff responded. There were no public speakers on this item. The public hearing was opened and closed at 6:08 p.m. A motion was made by Commissioner Ostrom and seconded by Commissioner Eichman, to adopt Resolution P23-03, approving Master Case 22-220, Time Extension 22-011, to allow for a two-year time extension to Tentative Parcel Map 62818, with an expiration date of January 20, 2025; Adopt Resolution P23-04, approving Master Case 22-221, Time Extension 22-012, to allow for a two-year time extension to Tentative Tract Map 63003, with an expiration date of January 20, 2025; and determine that a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted for Master Case 05-208 and Master Case 06-183 by the Planning Commission on July 20, 2010, and that no further California Environmental Quality Act clearance is required. Said motion was carried by a roll -call vote of 5-0. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Dennis Ostrom, Commissioner SECONDER: Lisa Eichman, Chair AYES: Eichman, Ostrom, Burkhart, Berlin, Ayala w z R w O J Q O W a a Q Page 2 Packet Pg. 4 ITEM 2 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAM HP-1.13 (SITES IDENTIFIED IN MULTIPLE PLANNING PERIODS) Zoning Code Amendment for Implementation of Housing Element Program HP- 1.13 (Sites Identified in Multiple Planning Periods) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Planning Commission: 1. Conduct the public hearing and receive testimony from the public; and 2. Adopt Resolution P23-02 recommending the City Council: a) find the project is exempt from CEQA under Section 15061(b)(3), the common-sense exemption; and b) approve (n Master Case 23-006 (Unified Development Code Amendment 23-001). z R Erika Iverson, Associate Planner, presented on the item. 0 J Vice -Chair Burkhart asked about the impact of allowable building height. Staff responded. O W Commissioner Eichman asked about the impact to development proposals, currently under a review, on these sites. Staff responded. Q Commissioner Ayala asked about low-income/affordable housing units. Staff responded. Commissioner Ostrom asked if any sites could be removed from the list. Staff responded. There were no public speakers on this item. The public hearing was opened and closed at 6:19 p.m. A motion was made by Vice -Chair Burkhart and seconded by Commissioner Ayala, to adopt Resolution P23-02 recommending the City Council: a) find the project is exempt from CEQA under Section 15061(b)(3), the common-sense exemption; and b) approve Master Case 23-006 (Unified Development Code Amendment 23-001). Said motion was carried by a roll -call vote of 4-1. RESULT: APPROVED [4 TO 1] MOVER: Timothy Burkhart, Commissioner SECONDER: Patsy Ayala, Commissioner AYES: Lisa Eichman, Timothy Burkhart, Renee Berlin, Patsy Ayala NAYS: Dennis Ostrom PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT Chair Berlin asked about the status of the City's Housing Element. Staff responded. Patrick Leclair gave the Planning Manager's report. Page 3 Packet Pg. 5 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT Chair Berlin thanked Commissioner Eichman for her time served as Planning Commission Chair. She also congratulated Patrick Leclair for his promotion to Planning Manager. Chair Berlin also thanked Erika Iverson and Patrick Leclair for the Study Session tour of the Shadowbox Studios Project and Wiley Canyon Project sites. She also asked about the schedule release of the associated Environmental Impact Reports. Patrick Leclair responded. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION There were no speakers for public participation. w z ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Ostrom made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:23 p.m. and Commissioner 0 Eichman seconded the motion. Said motion was carried by a voice vote of 5-0. Q 0 W a a a ATTEST: PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR Page 4 Packet Pg. 6 O Agenda Item: 1 1. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION %? AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING MANAGER APPROVAL: DATE: April 18, 2023 SUBJECT: Shadowbox Studios Project (Master Case 21-109) APPLICANT: LA Railroad 93, LLC LOCATION: Northeast corner of Railroad Avenue & 13th Street CASE PLANNER: Erika Iverson RECOMMENDED ACTION Planning Commission: 1. Receive the staff presentation on the Project Description and Draft Environmental Impact Report; 2. Open the public hearing to receive testimony from the applicant and the public; 3. Provide direction to staff on the hearing schedule and project issues; and 4. Continue the public hearing to May 16, 2023. REQUEST The applicant, LA Railroad 93, LLC, is requesting approval of an Architectural Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Development Review, General Plan Amendment, Hillside Development Review, Minor Use Permit, Oak Tree Permit, Ridgeline Alteration Permit, Tentative Tract Map, and Zone Change to allow for the development of a nearly 1.3 million square foot, full -service film and television studio campus on an approximately 93-acre site. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The intent of this meeting is to open the public hearing process, provide the Planning Commission with an introduction and overview of the Project and the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), and establish a tentative public hearing schedule for the Project. A Planning Commission Study Session and site visit was conducted on February 21, 2023, to provide the Planning Commission context for the site setting and surroundings. On April 6, Page 1 Packet Pg. 7 O 2023, the DEIR was released for a 45-day public review and comment period and will close on May 22, 2023. Staff is proposing the following dates for the Project hearing schedule: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Tuesday, May 16, 2023 Tuesday, June 6, 2023 August 2023 / September 2023 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Project introduction, summary of DEIR, public comments Response to Planning Commission and public comments Response to Planning Commission and public comments, Final EIR, and recommendation to City Council City Council Public Hearings The Project site has General Plan land use and zoning designations of Mixed -Use Neighborhood (MXN) and Non -Urban 5 (NU5) and is located within an area that is specifically identified in the General Plan as the North Newhall Area (NNA). The General Plan establishes a limitation on the overall allowable floor area for non-residential development (excluding parking facilities) in the NNA to 450,000 square feet. The Project site is also located within the Placenta Canyon Special Standards District (PCSSD) and within the Planned Development Overlay zone. As summarized in the table below, the surrounding land uses include a mix of commercial, residential, as well as the metro rail line. Summary of Surrounding Area General Plan Zone Land Use Project Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Proposed Shadowbox Studios Site Proj ect MXN; MXN w/ MXN; MXN w/ NU5 JCOZ NU5 JCOZ North OS; UR3 OS; UR3 HOA owned slope/Single Family uses beyond South MXN; URl MXN; URl Commercial Uses; Single Family uses beyond East UR1; UR2; NU5 URI; UR2; NU5 MWD Right-of-way; Single Family uses beyond West PI; CC; SP PI; CC; SP Metro Rail Line; Commercial and Residential uses along Railroad Avenue JCOZ=Jobs Creation Overlay Zone; OS=Open Space; UR=Urban Residential; PI=Public/Institutional; CC=Community Commercial; SP=Specific Plan; HOA=Homeowners Association; and MWD=Metropolitan Water District Page 2 Packet Pg. 8 O The applicant is seeking approval of a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change that would establish a General Plan land use and zoning designation of MXN over the entirety of the Project site, as well as a Zone Change to apply the JCOZ over the southerly portion of the Project site (area south of Placerita Creek) in order to permit the development of a full -service film and television studio campus. Further information is provided below in the Project Description section of this agenda report. BACKGROUND The applicant has worked to refine the project proposal over the past two and half years, based on input from City of Santa Clarita (City) staff through the One Stop review and formal entitlement application processes, as well as feedback from outreach in the community. One Stop Review In October of 2020, the applicant submitted a conceptual project proposal for the development of a film and television studio facility consisting of approximately 1.4 million square feet of sound stages, production support warehouse, two office buildings, a commissary and an eight -level parking structure including two subterranean levels and six above grade levels. The conceptual project proposal included a contemporary architectural style and proposed sound stage buildings throughout the Project site, including on the north side of Placerita Creek. Formal Project Submittal On May 28, 2021, the applicant submitted a formal entitlement application for the development of a film and television studio facility consisting of approximately 1.3 million square feet of sound stages, production support warehouse, a three-story office building, catering facilities, and a four-story (five, above ground, level) parking structure. The formal submittal reduced the number of sound stage buildings, and solely proposed surface parking on the north side of Placerita Creek. All other structures were located south of Placerita Creek. In addition, the architectural design concept was changed to contemporary Craftsman and western Victorian styles intended to comply with the architectural character for the Newhall community as identified in the Community Character and Design Guidelines. The Project was reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC) and the applicant has worked to address comments provided throughout the DRC process. The current Project Description is summarized below under Project Description. Community Outreach by the Applicant The applicant was informed at the time of the One Stop Review, that community outreach was a required component of the application process in conformance with the North Newhall Area development standards of the PCSSD. The applicant has hosted multiple meetings with homeowner groups, including the Placerita Canyon Property Owner's Association, Placerita Canyon Corporation, Circle J Ranch Homeowner's Association, as well as with individual residents in the Placerita Canyon. In addition, the applicant has met with Master's University, the Newhall School District, and a number of other organizations. A complete summary of the organizations and groups that the applicant has contacted during the application review is provided in the attached Applicant Community Outreach Summary. Page 3 Packet Pg. 9 O Project Setting The Project is located at the northeast corner of Railroad Avenue and 13th Street in the community of Newhall. The Project site is approximately 93 acres of undeveloped land, that has been cleared of a majority of its natural vegetation. The southern and central portion of the Project site is relatively flat land that has been disturbed and or cleared by past uses related to temporary parking for special events or filming in the area. The northern portion of the Project site is traversed by Placerita Creek and features a prominent ridgeline through its northeast corner. The Project site is bound to the south by 13th, Arch, and 12th Streets; commercial uses are located immediately south, fronting 13th, Arch, and 12th Streets, with single-family uses within Placerita Canyon just beyond. The metro rail line is located immediately west with Railroad Avenue beyond. A mix of commercial uses and a mobile home park front Railroad Avenue in the vicinity of the Project site. A Homeowner's Association (HOA) maintained hillside is located immediately to the north with single-family uses beyond. The east is bound by the MWD right- of-way, with single-family uses along Alderbrook Drive beyond. The Project proposes to utilize an additional 11.4-acres of the MWD right-of-way immediately east, south of Placerita Creek, for additional parking and a plant nursery (subject to agreement with MWD). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is seeking approvals for the development of a full -service film and television studio campus on the approximately 93-acre site. The Project would construct 19 soundstages, a three-story office building, a four-story (five parking levels) parking structure, a two-story warehouse support building, three catering buildings, and a facilities mechanical building, as well as the construction of an all-weather bridge across Placerita Creek that would connect to a surface parking lot on the north side of the creek. The Project also proposes to utilize the adjacent 11.4-acre MWD property along the eastern boundary of the project site, south of Placerita Creek, to provide additional vehicle and trailer parking spaces. A plant nursery is also proposed along the entire length of this MWD parking area and adjacent to the alley behind the residences along Alderbrook Drive. Use of the MWD property is subject to approval by MWD and is not required to support the operation of the studio campus. The development of the proposed project would require several off -site improvements, which include railroad crossing improvements at 13th Street, and improvements of the roadway alignments on 13th Street, Arch Street, Dockweiler Road, 12th Street, and Placerita Canyon Road. The Project would require approximately 400,000 cubic yards of cut and fill to be balanced across the site, alteration along the base of a General Plan designated significant ridgeline, and the removal or encroachment of 13 oak trees. Sound Stages The Project would construct 19 sound stages, varying in size from approximately 16,000 square feet to 42,000 square feet for a total of 475,000 square feet of sound stage floor area. The sound stage buildings are located centrally on the Project site and have a maximum height of 55 feet. Warehouse Support Building The Project would construct an approximately 565,000 square -foot warehouse building that provides for warehousing, workshops, and other studio support space. The warehouse building would be two -stories, 50 feet in height, located adjacent to the metro rail line right-of-way and south of Placerita Creek. Page 4 Packet Pg. 10 O Office Building and Parking Structure The Project would construct an approximately 200,000 square -foot, three-story office building, providing administrative and production office space. The office building would be located at the southeast corner of the Project site, adjacent to 13th Street. The proposed parking structure would be situated immediately north of the office building and would be four -stories (five levels of parking including a roof deck level) and approximately 48 feet to the roof level parapet. The elevator shafts would reach 57 feet, and would be located centrally within the structure. Additional administrative mailroom and security office space would be provided on the ground floor level of the parking structure. Catering and Facilities Building The Project would provide approximately 30,000 square feet of onsite catering facilities within three, single -story, approximately 18 feet in height, buildings located at the southeast corner of the Project site. The catering buildings are situated in a U-shape, oriented around a central outdoor private park area. Each catering building provides for food -truck parking at each end, allowing for up to 12 food truck services. The facilities maintenance building, approximately 5,600 square feet, would be a single -story building located adjacent to the studio campus entrance to provide support office, workshop, storage, and equipment rooms for facilities maintenance. Entry Gates and Parking The primary entrance to the studio campus, Gate 1, is located at the north leg of the intersection at 13th and Arch Streets. Gate 1 is set back 420 feet from the intersection at 13th and Arch Streets and demarcated by a gatehouse with overhead entrance signage. This primary entrance is three traffic lanes at the intersection and expands to four lanes at the gatehouse. Gate 2, located on the east leg of the intersection at 13th and Arch Streets, is the secondary access. Gate 2 is set back 190 feet from the intersection and provides three lanes from the intersection to the gate. A third access point, Gate 3, is located at the southwest corner of the Project site on 12th Street, setback 400 feet from the public street right-of-way. Gate 3 will not provide Project related ingress, but does allow Project related egress by way of a right turn out onto 12th Street. Gate 3 will provide emergency service ingress to the Project site. The Project site will provide a total of 2,684 parking spaces throughout the studio campus. The five -level parking structure provides 1,072 parking stalls. The surface parking lot, north of Placerita Creek will provide 1,157 parking spaces and will be accessed by way of an all-weather bridge to be constructed across Placerita Creek. An additional 455 surface parking spaces are provided throughout the studio campus, south of Placerita Creek, including 221 vehicle parking spaces, 15 delivery van spaces, and 219 trailer spaces. The applicant is proposing the use of the MWD right-of-way, immediately east of the Project site, for an additional 257 trailer parking spaces. The parking within the MWD right-of-way would be in excess of code required parking and is not required to support the Project operation. Parking requirements for studio use are not established by the City's Unified Development Code (UDC) and, are therefore determined by the Director. A Parking Analysis was prepared to determine the required parking ratios for the studio campus. The Parking analysis applied Page 5 Packet Pg. 11 O parking ratios from the City's UDC to the individual buildings, based on the use of each building and determined that the required parking would be 2,969 spaces. After the application of the allowable 20% reduction of parking under the Jobs Creation Overlay Zone, the required parking would be 2,375 spaces. The parking analysis further conducted a parking demand analysis to ensure the Project included adequate supply of parking stalls for the studio campus operations. Parking demand rates collected at other Southern California studio campus projects were applied in order to compare parking demand patterns to the proposed supply. In addition, the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking model was applied to the proposed Project. The results of both these analyses indicate that the provided parking supply of 2,684 spaces will exceed the peak parking demand for the Project. The Parking Analysis is included as Appendix B of the Transportation Assessment for the Shadowbox Studios Project. Landscape The conceptual landscape plan provides approximately 12 acres of landscape coverage (13 percent of the Project site) and includes the planting of 450 trees as well as planting of 211 mitigation oak trees. The studio campus would install 12-foot tall perimeter fencing around the entirety of the Project site. The majority of the fencing would be woodcrete (precast concrete with a wood plank appearance), with open wrought -iron fencing along the frontage of 13th Street, adjacent to the proposed office building. Wrought iron fencing is also proposed along the Railroad Avenue frontage, north of Placerita Creek. A variety of trees, including 84-inch box size oaks are proposed along the Project frontage at 13th, Arch and 12th Streets. The conceptual landscape plan proposes planting of trees along the inside of the woodcrete wall fronting Railroad Avenue. A variety of trees, including oak trees are proposed around the perimeter of the north surface parking lot and within parking lot planters located at the end caps of the parking rows. A variety of accent trees are proposed adjacent to the studio, office, and warehouse support buildings. A tree hedge is proposed between the Project site and the MWD right-of-way, south of Placerita Creek. The existing row of mature trees along the MWD right-of-way between homes on Alderbrook Drive and the MWD property are proposed to remain in place. Oak Trees A total of 16 oak trees are located on the Project site. The Project would relocate four oak trees onsite and remove nine, including the removal of seven heritage oaks. The applicant has prepared an oak tree mitigation plan that would plant 211 new oak trees on the Project site. This mitigation plan includes a variety of oak species in a range of box sizes, including 17 Coast Live Oaks in 84-inch boxes to be installed at prominent locations along the Project entrances at 13th and Arch Streets. In addition, many of the mitigation oaks are proposed to be planted around the north surface parking lot and along the base of significant ridgeline at the northeast portion of the Project site. The proposed oak tree planting can be seen on the conceptual landscape plans. Oak tree mitigation for any removals would be required in accordance with the City's Oak Tree Ordinance. Grading The Project proposes 400,000 cubic yards of cut and fill to balance across the Project site. Grading activities include grading along the base of the significant ridgeline at the northeastern corner of the project site. The peak of the ridgeline will remain intact, and as indicated in the Oak Tree discussion above, the graded portion of the slope will be planted with mitigation oaks trees. Page 6 Packet Pg. 12 O Off -Site Improvements By way of background, the City's Capital Improvement Projects Division has a City Council approved design concept for the extension of Dockweiler Drive to Railroad Avenue at 13th Street. Dockweiler Drive would connect to Arch Street at 12th Street and reconfigure the alignment of Placerita Canyon Road, creating an intersection of Placerita Canyon Road with Dockweiler Drive. The City's design concept includes a roundabout at Dockweiler Drive and 12th Street. The Project will include several offsite improvements in order to accommodate the projected traffic demand for the studio campus use, including widening of the right-of-way of 13th, Arch, and 12th Streets along the Project site's frontage to accommodate additional vehicle lanes. All additional right-of-way would be accommodated on the Project site. The roadway improvements for the Project would modify the City's design concept for the Dockweiler Drive extension. The Project design includes modification to the intersection of the new alignment of Placerita Canyon Road with Dockweiler Drive, and two new signalized intersections at 13th and Arch Streets and at Arch and 12th Streets. In addition, the metro rail line crossing at 13th Street and Railroad Avenue would be modified to accommodate the widening of 13th Street to three traffic lanes in each direction, and the Railroad Avenue striping would be modified to allow for double left turn lanes onto 13th Street from southbound Railroad Avenue traffic. Class I trails would be required along the Project frontage of 13th, Arch, and 12th Streets that would connect to future Class I trails along Railroad Avenue and to a future Class I trail connection from Dockweiler Drive to the Jan Heidt Metrolink Station. North Newhall Area The Project site is located within an area specifically identified in the General Plan as the NNA. The NNA is approximately 200 acres, generally bound by the MWD right-of-way on the east, Newhall Creek on the south and west, and a significant ridgeline south of Via Princessa on the north. The General Plan establishes a maximum residential density of 775 units and a maximum of 450,000 square feet of non-residential (commercial) development (excluding parking facilities) for the NNA. As such, the applicant is seeking a text amendment to the General Plan to increase the commercial floor area limitation for development of the studio campus. Specifically, the applicant is seeking to increase the maximum commercial floor area by 1,135,000 square feet for a total of 1,585,000 square feet of commercial floor area in General Plan for the NNA, as shown in the table below: Commercial Square Existing Commercial Floor Area in NNA 107,000 SF Future Commercial Development in NNA 193,000 SF Proposed Shadowbox Studios Project 1,285,000 SF Total Proposed Amendment 1,585,000 SF Specifically, the General Plan text would be amended as indicated in the strikethrough and underline text below: Based on the NNA gross acreage of 200 acres, the ALUV and CC designations theoretically could allow for approximately 4.3 million square feet of commercial development and up to 3,600 Page 7 Packet Pg. 13 0 residential units in the NNA. However, this NNA site has a number ofpronounced Land Use City of Santa Clarita General Plan June, 2011 L-64 physical constraints and other limitations that severely limit it from being developed to the maximum allowable standards. Those constraints include oak trees, an active creek which is a blue -line stream, the railroad, the MWD right-of- way, drainage/hydrology issues, and potential circulation/traffic issues. Due to these known property development constraints, and the sensitivity ofany land development to adjacent existing rural equestrian residential neighborhoods, any proposed projects) on this NNA site shall not exceed a total of 775 residential units and an aggregate total of 454 " 1, 585, 000 square feet of non-residential development, excluding parking facilities. Proposed projects on the NNA shall incorporate a landscape buffer along the MWD right-of-way and detached single- family residences adjacent to the MWD right-of-way. Density of development should transition downward to the east, toward the NIWD right away. Being that the NNA is part of the PCSSD, the area north ofPlacerita Creek will be zoned NU-5 consistent with all like properties. The applicant is also requesting a text amendment to clarify the height allowances specified in the NNA. The current General Plan text regarding height in the NNA reads: Building Heights shall be subject to the same Unified Development Code requirements that apply to all of Placerita Canyon. There are multiple zoning designations within Placenta Canyon, including the MXN zoning designation on the Project site, each with their own height limitation as established by the UDC. In conjunction with the applicant's request to apply the JCOZ overly on the southerly portion of the Project site, the applicant requests the following text amendment to the General Plan as follows in order to clarify the applicable height regulations: With the exception of development within the Jobs Creation Overlay Zone (JCOZ), building heights shall be subject to the same Unified Development Code requirements that apply to all of Placerita Canyon Placerita Canyon Special Standards District The Project site is located within the PCSSD which provides additional development standards in recognition of the rural equestrian character of the Placerita Canyon area. The PCSSD specifically identifies development standards for property within three areas; Residential Zones, Commercial/Industrial Zones, and NNA. These PCSSD development standards do not regulate use, which is dictated by the underlying zoning, but are intended to guide development to ensure compatibility with the existing community. The applicant has proposed to comply with the NNA development standards of the PCSSD where applicable, as outlined below: Public Participation/Outreach • Be subject to public participation and outreach led by the applicant(s) or the applicant's representative, at the onset of and during conceptual planning and prior to formal submittal of a proposed project to the City. Outreach would include, but is not limited to, the Placerita Canyon Property Owners' Association. ■ The applicant has conducted ongoing outreach as described above in the Community Outreach Section of this agenda report and also as summarized in the attached Applicant Outreach Summary. Page 8 Packet Pg. 14 O Trafc Intrusion/Gateways • Be internally and externally pedestrian -oriented, and have equestrian and bicycle amenities and accommodations; • Understand and acknowledge that any development at these locations will increase existing vehicular traffic and create new vehicular traffic, and that there will be impacts to equestrian and pedestrian circulation in the existing neighborhood, and therefore to minimize those impacts, special attention must be given to mitigate impacts caused by such identified access points; • Layout and orientation of any developments shall be designed to discourage and where possible prevent additional trips into Placerita Canyon caused by or resulting from such developments; • Include defined entry gateways or monuments into the PCSSD, at Railroad Avenue, complete with landscaping and architectural elements with signage expressly stating there is no through traffic allowed; and • A traffic study shall be prepared for all new developments that are projected to generate two hundred fifty (250) or more new daily trips, within the areas encompassed by the NNA. The traffic study shall analyze those potentially impacted intersections within the NNA area and those that lie within a one (1) mile radius of the subject development site. ■ Concentrated Project traffic at the intersection of 131h and Arch Streets by locating the main Project entrance (Gate 1) and secondary entrance (Gate 2) at the proposed signalized intersection of 13th and Arch Streets; ■ No Project related trips will be permitted to enter the Project site from the 12th Street driveway (Gate 3). Gate 3 will allow Project related egress, by way of a right turn out of Gate 3, west bound toward Arch Street. Gate 3 will provide emergency ingress only; and ■ A Traffic Analysis was prepared for the Project and included as Technical Appendix L to the DEIR. Bu ering and Transitions • Preserve the existing rural equestrian community, generally known as Placerita Canyon, and provide adequate buffers and graduated transitional design to ensure existing neighborhood protection and compatibility of character resulting from any proposed development; • Incorporate the current Santa Clarita Valley Trails Advisory Committee (SCVTAC) network of multi -use trails into adjacent neighborhoods which shall have rural and equestrian characteristics; and • Require use of the MWD right-of-way as a landscaped buffer (subject to MWD approval) between the NNA within the PCSSD and the rest ofPlacerita Canyon, which landscaping shall consist of low water, low maintenance landscape material. Situated taller buildings on the central and western portion of the Project site, further from residential uses to the east and south. Single -story buildings are situated at the southeast portion of the Project site, along 12th Street, where the Project site is closer to residential uses; Incorporated Class I trail along the Project frontage of 13th, Arch, and 12th Streets; and Page 9 Packet Pg. 15 O ■ Proposed use of MWD right-of-way for additional parking, and to store plant materials that would support the studio production. Architecture • Consist of three hundred sixty (360) degree architectural design with pedestrian - scaled building massing and forms where adjacent to existing residences, with the use of landscaping to visually soften hard edges of buildings; • Structures shall have varied building heights and designs shall create east/west sight lines. Building heights up to thirty-five (35) feet may be permitted. Additional height, not to exceed fifty (50) feet, may be permitted subject to the approval of a conditional use permit; • Have transitional densities, as described above, decreasing in density and height in an easterly direction towards the MWD right-of-way away from Railroad Avenue, to include the MWD right-of-way as a landscaped buffer and detached single-family residences adjacent to the MWD right-of-way; and • Building heights shall be subject to the same Unified Development Code requirements that apply to all of Placerita Canyon. ■ Each building has been designed with 360-degree architecture; and ■ Structures are varied in height, from 18 feet to 55 feet. The single -story catering buildings are approximately 18 feet in height at the southeast corner of the Project site. The studio buildings are located centrally on the Project site and are 55 feet at the peak of the pitched roofline. The project request includes a Zone Change in order to implement the JCOZ over the southerly portion of the Project site, which permits the 55-foot building height as proposed. Flood Control • Waterway bottoms and sides shall not be improved with concrete or hard impervious surfaces and shall be maintained in a natural appearance; • Fencing shall not be permitted to cross riverbeds or waterways in a manner which denies or interferes with easy trail access; and • On -site flood control mitigation would provide assistance or relief to other hydrology/drainage impacts within Placerita Canyon due to changes of topography on NNA properties. ■ The existing alignment and natural bottom of Placerita Creek will be maintained; ■ Bank stabilization of Placerita Creek will be done with buried rock bank protection to preserve the natural appearance of the creek, and address hydrology/drainage impacts with Placerita Canyon; and ■ Fencing is not proposed within Placerita Creek. Housing ZT pes • It is not the City's intent to see affordable housing located on this site; and • The desired housing type in the NNA will attract residents who will assist in the economic revitalization of Downtown Newhall (Old Town Newhall). ■ The Project proposal does not include residential uses. • Economic Development Page 10 Packet Pg. 16 0 • Based on the area's proximity to the nearby Metrolink station and Old Town Newhall, development in the NNA would be supportive of revitalization efforts, with an appropriate mix of retail, office, restaurant, and general commercial square footage combined with neighboring and integrated housing types. ■ The Project proposes a full -service film and television studio campus near Metrolink and bus line services, anticipated to employ over 2,000 people and would have positive impact in indirect employment in the NNA, and Old Town Newhall Specific Plan area. Recreation • Include a site -specific and a community -based recreational component. ■ Private onsite amenities are proposed offering passive and active recreation opportunities including the Shadow Oak Park situated in the center of the catering buildings, a half basketball court, outdoor seating areas between studio buildings, and a dog park; and Public Class I trail will be provided along the Project frontage of 13th Arch, and 12th Streets, as well as provision for Class I trail along Railroad Avenue from 13th to 15th Street, and a Class I trail connection from Dockweiler Drive to the Jan Heidt Metrolink Station. In addition, the following general development standards for new development in the PCSSD also apply and could be conditioned for a project where applicable. • Trails. 19 Riding and hiking trails shall be provided as depicted on the latest Placerita Canyon Backbone Trails exhibit on file with Parks, Recreation and Community Services, to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services; Ar Trails shall be fenced to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services, with fences of a rustic wood appearance; Ar Trail access shall be provided at all river crossings; Ar There shall be no obstructions including, but not limited to, landscaping, trash receptacles, or other similar structures within a designated trail; and Ar Fencing shall not be permitted to cross riverbeds in such a manner as to deny trail access. A property maintenance or homeowner maintenance association shall be established to maintain the private access route, private roads and drives, trail easements and other specific project amenities in all new residential projects ofgreater than four (4) dwelling units and all new commercial, industrial and institutional projects; Street lights, in accordance with City standards, shall be installed only at road -to - road intersections; exterior lighting shall be designed to minimize off -site illumination, within the requirements for public safety. Exterior lighting on residential parcels shall be of top -shielded design to prevent direct off -site illumination; hoods shall be used to direct light away from adjacent parcels. Exterior lighting on nonresidential parcels shall be prohibited except where necessary for the safety ofpedestrian and vehicular traffic, as determined by the City. To minimize off - site illumination where lights are required, cut-offfixtures in keeping with a rural Page 11 Packet Pg. 17 O equestrian architectural style will be specified; • River bottoms and sides shall not be improved with concrete. Fencing shall not be permitted to cross riverbeds in such a manner as to deny trail access; • Bridges shall be limited to those required for public safety and shall be designed to accommodate equestrian access; • All new residential projects ofgreater than four (4) dwelling units and all new commercial, industrial and institutional projects (including expansion thereof) shall connect to public sewer systems. Utilities shall be undergrounded to the nearest off - site connection; and • Existing and future drainage shall be accommodated to provide adequate carrying capacity and erosion protection and shall not create or extend detrimental hazards or consequences upstream. Jobs Creation Overlay Zone The applicant is seeking to apply the JCOZ over that portion of the Project site located south of Placerita Creek. The purpose of the JCOZ is to support the General Plan objective of promoting the creation of strong regional and local economies via the implementation of strategic land use planning policies. Specifically, the JCOZ will: (1) attract and promote the creation of high - quality jobs within the City's four (4) targeted industries, which include aerospace, biomedical, entertainment, and technology; (2) enhance the City's overall jobs/housing balance; and (3) provide greater employment opportunities throughout the entire City. The JCOZ also provides for specific design standards and incentives, in addition to the underlying zone including allowance for building heights for office buildings between three and five stories, and industrial buildings up to 55 feet by right. Other incentives include an allowance for parking reduction up to 20 percent and review of sign review permit at no fee. ENTITLEMENT SUMMARY Implementation of the Project will require the approval of the following entitlements: Architectural Design Review 21-016 An Architectural Design Review is required for the proposed building architectural design to ensure that the proposed architecture complies with all of the provisions of the Section 17.51.020 of the UDC and General Plan, and to be consistent with the City's Community Character and Design Guidelines. Conditional Use Permit 21-010 A Conditional Use Permit is required for new development within the Planned Development Overlay zone in accordance with Section 17.38.060 of the UDC. Development Review 21-012 A Development Review is required for the proposed physical design and layout prior to the issuance of any building permit for subdivision developments or commercial developments in accordance with Section 17.23.120 of the UDC. General Plan Amendment 21-002 A General Plan Amendment (GPA) is required to change the land use designation of the NU5 Page 12 Packet Pg. 18 O portion of the Project site to MXN. In addition, the General Plan text for the NNA, which includes the Project site, limits the overall floor area for nonresidential development; a GPA is required to amend this limitation. A General Plan text amendment is also requested in order to clarify the height regulations applicable to properties within the NNA. Hillside Development Review 21-001 A Hillside Development Review is required for all development on slopes in excess of 10 percent average cross -slope or greater with an approval by the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 17.51.020 of the UDC. Minor Use Permit 21-016 A Minor Use Permit is required to reduce the residential density below the minimum required density of the MXN zone in accordance with Section 17.35.020 of the UDC. Oak Tree Permit (Class 4) 421-001 A Class 4 Oak Tree Permit is required for the encroachment and/or the removal of four or more oak trees with an approval by the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 17.51.040 Oak Tree Preservation of the UDC. The Project includes the removal of 13 oak trees, including seven heritage trees. Ridgeline Alteration Permit 21-001 A Ridgeline Alteration Permit (RAP) is required to protect and/or restrict development on identified significant ridgelines with an approval by the City Council in accordance to Section 17.38.070 of the UDC. Ridgeline Preservation overlay zones establish 100-foot zones either horizontally, or vertically, on either side of an identified ridgeline. The Project includes grading along the base of the significant ridgeline at the northeastern corner of the Project site. The peak of the ridgeline will remain intact; thus, the alteration would not be materially detrimental to the visual character of the community. Tentative Tract Map 83513 A Tentative Tract Map (TTM) is required for the subdivision of more than four lots in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and Section 17.25.110 of the UDC. The Project includes a request to merge and subdivide the Project site into five lots for the development of the studio campus. The design of the subdivision and improvements would not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The Project is located in an existing developed area of the City. The Project would not obstruct any public access. Zone Change 21-001 A Zone Change is required to amend the City's Zoning Map in order to designate the NU5 zoned portion of the Project site as MXN. In addition, a Zone Change is required in order to overlay the JCOZ on the southerly portion of the Project site (the portion south of Placerita Creek). ENVIRONMENTAL The proposed development constitutes a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). After Project submittal, staff determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Page 13 Packet Pg. 19 0 would be required for this Project pursuant to CEQA. Michael Baker International, Inc., was contracted by the City to assist with the preparation of the Project EIR. On March 29, 2022, staff circulated the Notice of Preparation for the Project EIR with a 30-day comment period that closed on April 28, 2022. A Scoping Meeting was held on April 21, 2022 with approximately 30 people in attendance. Topics of concern include traffic, flood and drainage, preservation of Placerita Creek, preservation of the PCSSD. A Draft EIR (DEIR) has been completed and circulated for Planning Commission and public review for 45 days beginning April 6, 2023, and ending May 22, 2023. The DEIR is available for review at City of Santa Clarita City Hall in the City Clerk's Office, the City of Santa Clarita Old Town Newhall Library, and is available to view online on the Planning Division website at the following web address: <https://www.santa-clarita.com/city-hall/departments/community-development/planning- division/environmental-impact-reports-under-review/shadowbox-studios-prof ect> SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT DEIR The Shadowbox Project DEIR analyzes the environmental impacts of the Project and identifies issues for which there is a potential for significant environmental impacts and reasonable measures to mitigate the potential impacts. Section 4.0 Environmental Analysis of the DEIR includes analyses of the impacts to each area and summarized in the below section: • 4.1 Aesthetics • 4.2 Air Quality • 4.3 Biological Resources • 4.4 Cultural Resources • 4.5 Energy • 4.6 Geology and Soils • 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions • 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials • 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality • 4.10 Land Use and Planning • 4.11 Noise • 4.12 Population and Housing • 4.13 Public Services • 4.14 Transportation/Traffic • 4.15 Tribal Cultural Resources • 4.16 Utilities and Service Systems • 4.17 Wildfire MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation measures have been applied to reduce potential significant environmental impacts from the Project and are summarized in the Executive Summary of the DEIR If a potentially significant impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of Page 14 Packet Pg. 20 O mitigation, it is categorized as a significant and unavoidable impact. The results of the analyses presented in the DEIR have indicated all mitigation measures would fully mitigate the potential impacts and the Project would not result in any significant, unavoidable impacts. The applicant has agreed to implement all proposed mitigation measures. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Section 5.0 Alternatives of the DEIR contains a discussion of the following three alternatives to the Project: 1. No Project/No Development 2. Existing Zoning Alternative 3. Reduced Studio Facility Alternative ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS The following sections are summaries of the analysis in the Project DEIR. For a full discussion of each of the issues analyzed below and all the conclusions reached, refer to the individual discussions in Section 4.0 of the DEIR. 4.1 Aesthetics The Aesthetics section (beginning on page 4.1-1) of the DEIR evaluates the potential aesthetic resources, scenic vistas, light, and glare impacts that may result from the Project. Site photographs of existing conditions and visual simulations depicting the proposed development were included in the DEIR in Figures 4.1-1A to 4.MD; and Figures 4.1-2 to 4.1-4. Scenic Resources and Scenic Vistas The Project site includes a ridgeline, identified as a Significant Ridgeline in the City's General Plan Conservation Element. A portion of the designated ridgeline at the northeast corner of the Project site would be graded along its base for development of the Project. While grading would occur at the base, the ridgeline would remain intact. The Project would be consistent with Conservation and Open Space Element Policies because the Project would leave the ridgeline intact and preserve the existing alignment and natural bottom of Placerita Creek. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, requiring no mitigation. Lighting Impacts Compliance with the City's existing outdoor lighting restrictions, and PCSSD development standards, would prevent off -site light spillage, require down directed lighting, and would ensure that the Project's lighting sources would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, resulting in less than significant impacts requiring no mitigation. Design Impacts The proposed buildings would utilize materials and design elements consistent with the Community Character and Design Guidelines for the Newhall community. Therefore, the Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings, resulting in less than significant impacts requiring no mitigation. Page 15 Packet Pg. 21 O 4.2 Air Quality The Air Quality section (beginning on page 4.2-1) of the Draft EIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have on air quality. The South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) has established significance thresholds to assess the impact of Project related air pollutant emissions: volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10), and particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5). California Emissions Estimator Model was utilized to model construction and operational emissions for VOCs, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5. The maximum daily construction and operational emissions of the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds and therefore, have less than significant impacts. 4.3 Biological Resources The Biological Resources section (beginning on page 4.3-1) of the DEIR evaluates the potential impacts on plant and animal resources that could result from the Project. Biological resource impacts are addressed in terms of potential effects that could result from Project construction (temporary impacts) and long-term operation (permanent) on endangered and protected species; wetland, riparian, and other sensitive habitat; the movement of native or migratory fish and wildlife; and jurisdictional waters defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Special Status Plant and Wildlife Impacts No plant species that are listed as rare, threatened, or endangered on the Federal Endangered Species Act or the California Endangered Species Act, or special -status plants were observed on the Project site during seasonal rare plant surveys, jurisdictional delineation survey, or the field reconnaissance survey. Impacts to special -status plants would be less than significant. Seven special -status wildlife species have a moderate to high potential to occur on the Project site. Three special -status species were observed during field surveys including Southern California rufous -crowned sparrow, Cooper's hawk, and yellow warbler. The Project site is potentially suitable habitat for these special -status species and implementation of the Project would have potential impact to existing habitat. Mitigation measures MM-BIO-1 through MM- BIO-3, which require best management practices (BMPs) during construction, biological monitoring during ground disturbance or vegetation removal, and preconstruction bird surveys during nesting season, would be imposed to reduce potential significant impacts. The Project would result in permanent impacts to 1.39 acres of big sage scrub habitat and 0.002 acres of scale broom scrub habitat, vegetation communities considered sensitive by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The Project would also have temporary impacts during construction to 0.57 acres of scale broom scrub. With implementation of mitigation measure MM-BIO-4, requiring compensatory mitigation at a 1:1 ratio through onsite restoration, off -site restoration or the purchase of credits through a mitigation bank, the Project would have a less than significant impact to sensitive vegetation communities. Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands The Project would result in 2.31 acres of permanent impacts and 0.24 acres of temporary impacts Page 16 Packet Pg. 22 O to non -wetland waters of the United States, and 2.77 acres of permanent impacts and 3.89 acres of temporary impacts to CDFW streambed and associated riparian habitat. Compensatory mitigation is required for permanent impacts as part of the Clean Water Act Section 404 and 401 permits, MM-BIO-S. In addition, MM-BIO-1 requires BMPs for heavy construction equipment that would prevent leaks of oil, fuels, or residues into wetlands. As such, with mitigation measures incorporated, the Project would have a less than significant adverse effect on state or federally -protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Oak Trees The Project site contains 16 oak trees that are protected by the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. The Project consists of the removal of 13 oak trees, including seven heritage sized oak trees. The City would require replacement oak trees to be planted in the landscaped areas of the Project site to offset the loss of the removed oak trees. If planting on -site is not possible, the applicant may donate the replacement oak trees to the City or provide the equivalent monetary value of the replacement trees to the City's Oak Tree Fund. Compliance with the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, including the Standards for Performance of Permitted Work of the Oak Tree Preservation Guidelines, would ensure that the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and impacts would be less than significant. 4.4 Cultural Resources The Cultural Resources section (beginning on page 4.4-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have on historical and archeological resources, or impact any potential to disturb any human remains. The analysis in this section is based on the "Phase 1 Paleontological and Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Shadowbox Studios Project" technical report prepared by ArchaeoPaleo Resource Management, Inc (2022), which is included as Appendix E of the DEIR. No historical resources were identified during the course of the study, and therefore, the Project would have no impact on a historical resource. Archaeological resources were identified within the Project site during the cultural resource investigations, indicating a potential to discover presently unknown resources during Project excavation work. The Project site is not known to be on an active, previously active, or informal cemetery and as such, the Project's potential to disturb human remains interred outside a formal cemetery is considered low. Mitigation measures MM-CR-1 through MM-CR-S are proposed to avoid accidental destruction of potentially significant archaeological resources. 4.5 Energy Consumption The Energy Consumption section (beginning on page 4.5-1) of the DEIR evaluates potential short- and long-term energy consumption impacts as a result of the Project. The impact analysis focuses on the three sources of energy that are relevant to the Project: electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel for vehicle trips associated with the Project as well as the fuel necessary for Project construction. The Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. The increase in electricity and automotive fuel consumption over existing conditions is negligible (less than one percent). The Project would not place a substantial demand on regional energy supply or require significant additional capacity, or Page 17 Packet Pg. 23 O significantly increase peak and base period electricity demand. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. 4.6 Geolny and Soils The Geology and Soils section (beginning on page 4.6-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have regarding seismic hazards, soils constraints, and paleontological resources. The grading plan would involve an estimated excavation (cut) of 400,000 cubic yards, and 380,000 cubic yards of Pill (accounts for shrinkage and compaction of fill material). All earthwork would be balanced on site. Information and analyses presented in this section are based on the "Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development, Northwest of 13th and Arch Streets, City of Santa Clarita, California," prepared by LGC Valley, Inc., as provided in Appendix G of the DEIR would reduce the following impacts to less than significant: seismic ground shaking, seismic - related ground failure, landslide hazards, erosion, and unstable soil conditions. The Project area is sensitive for paleontological resources. To avoid a potentially significant impact to any unfound paleontological resources, mitigation measures MM-GEO-1 through MM-GEO-S will be implemented to require worksite training for construction personnel, monitoring of excavation work by a qualified paleontologist who can identify fossil materials, and provide instructions to avoid and recover those materials. With these measures, significant impacts to paleontological resources would be avoided. 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The Greenhouse Gas Emissions section (beginning on page 4.7-1) of the DEIR identifies and quantifies the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated by the Project and analyzes Project compliance with applicable plans, policies and regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The total amount of Project -related GHG emissions from construction activities, and project operations, as well as a project consistency analysis is outlined in the Tables 4.7-2 to 4.7- 4 in the DEIR. The Project is consistent with or would not conflict with the plans, policies, regulations, and GHG reduction actions/strategies outlined in the 2022 Scoping Plan, 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), and the City's General Plan. Furthermore, because the Project is consistent and does not conflict with these plans, policies, and regulations, the Project's incremental increase in GHG emissions would not result in a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, Project -related impacts with regard to GHG emissions would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Hazards and Hazardous Materials section (beginning on page 4.8-1) of the DEIR discusses the existing and historical hazardous conditions of the Project site and analyzes potential hazards and hazardous material impacts that could occur during Project construction and operation. The analysis in this section is based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared for the Project by Environmental HELP, Inc., included as Appendix H of the DEIR. The Phase I ESA did not identify any prior developed land uses or agricultural uses on the Project site and Page 18 Packet Pg. 24 O the Project site is not listed in any of the state or federal environmental databases that identify underground fuel tank sites, hazardous waste generations sites, or hazardous waste storage and disposal sites. Construction activities are temporary in nature and would involve limited transport, use, and disposal of construction related hazardous materials that would occur in conformance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, and as a result would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. Similarly, long term operations of the Project could involve use of hazardous materials, including cleaning products, paints, solvents, adhesives, and other chemical materials used in building maintenance, and set building, which are typical for a commercial development and would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. Handling, storage, and disposal of any hazardous materials would occur in conformance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. 4.9 Hydrolou and Water Quality The Hydrology and Water Quality section (beginning on page 4.9-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have with respect to water quality, drainage, and flooding. Project construction and operation would generate a variety of potential stormwater pollutants; however, through required compliance with existing regulatory standards, the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade the quality of surface water or groundwater. The Project would be subject to the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit, which includes the preparation, and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP). The SWPPP would include BMPs and erosion control measures to prevent pollution in storm water discharge. A portion of the Project site is within a FEMA Zone A floodplain associated with Placenta Creek. The Hydrology Report prepared for the Project modeled 25-year and 50-year storm events in order to design adequate underground infiltration chambers, infiltration/drainage basins, and other hydromodifications to ensure the Project off -site flow rate would be equal to or below the existing flow rate. With these design features, the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would impede or redirect flows. As such, impacts would be less than significant. All work would be done in compliance with Los Angeles County (County) drainage requirements and the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit requirements. Consequently, no significant unavoidable Project or cumulative Project impacts to hydrology or water quality would occur and no mitigation measures are required. 4.10 Land Use and Planning The Land Use and Planning section (beginning on page 4.10-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts to land use and planning, and discusses relevant land use policies and regulations of the City and other state regional plans. The determination of consistency with applicable land use policies and ordinances is based on the Southern California Association of Page 19 Packet Pg. 25 O Governments (SCAG) 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, the City's General Plan elements, and the City's Municipal Code. The Project site is located within a Priority Growth Area, identified by the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS due to proximity to existing transit, and would support the goals of the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS to improve mobility, accessibility, reliability, and support healthy communities by developing a large employment generator near mass transit opportunities. The Project would generally not conflict with the policies identified in the City's General Plan Elements, including the Land Use Element, Circulation Element, Noise Element, Conservation and Open Space Element, and Safety Element for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. The Project has been designed to be consistent with the City's Community Character and Design Guidelines for the Newhall community and the PCSSD. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with the California Building Code, the California Green Building Code, and the Building Energy Efficiency Standards to support the state and City's energy and water conservation efforts. Therefore, impacts related to land use and planning were determined to be less than significant. 4.11 Noise The Noise section (beginning on page 4.10-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential noise and vibration impacts of the Project. Construction The Project would generate temporary construction noise levels that would expose nearby receptors to increased noise levels. However, construction activities would be temporary and restricted to established time limitations identified in the City's Municipal Code. Since construction noise levels would be temporary and would comply with the City's Noise Ordinance, impacts resulting from construction would be considered less than significant. The vibration from construction activities experienced at the nearest sensitive receptor would be lower than the 0.24 inch -per -second peak particle velocity (PPV) human annoyance threshold, and below the residential damage threshold of 0.4 inch -per -second PPV, therefore less than significant. Project Noise Changes to traffic noise were calculated based on the traffic volumes from the Project Traffic Impact Analysis. The overall Project contribution to traffic volumes result in noise level increases of less than 3 decibels (dBA) on the majority of the roadway segments. One roadway segment at Arch Street between 13th Street and 12th Street would result in traffic noise level increase of 3 dBA; however, there are only commercial uses present on this segment and no sensitive receptors. Therefore, the Project would not significantly increase noise levels along the roadway segments analyzed (i.e., noise increase would not exceed 3.0 dBA). The Project's stationary noise levels range from 34 dBA to 47 dBA with stationary noise sources including mechanical equipment, landscape maintenance, waste hauling, and parking areas. The noise sources would not exceed the City's residential exterior noise standards of 65 dBA during daytime hours, and 55 dBA during nighttime hours and therefore, would be less than significant. The fully developed/occupied Project's normal activities would not generate significant increases in local noise levels and mitigation would not be required. Page 20 Packet Pg. 26 O 4.12 Population and Housing The Population and Housing Section (beginning on page 4.12-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts of the Project's contribution to population, housing, and employment growth within the City, in relation to the growth forecasts established by the SCAG, and to relevant goals, policies, and objectives of the City's General Plan. Construction Construction of the Project would result in short-term employment opportunities that could indirectly increase population and demand for housing in the Project vicinity. However, construction jobs differ from other employment sectors because there is no permanent or regular place of work. Construction workers typically remain at a job site for a limited time where their highly specialized job skill is needed to complete a specific phase of construction and they do not typically relocate their home as a result of temporary employment at a job site. Construction of the Project would not result in substantial unplanned population growth, and therefore would be less than significant. Operation The Project is anticipated to generate approximately 2,333 employment opportunities which represents 2.6 percent of the County's estimated job growth between 2022 and 2026, and 120.8 percent of the City's estimate job growth for those same years as estimated by SCAG. The City's Economic Development Element of the General Plan seeks a 2:1 jobs to housing balance. The increase in employment opportunities that would be provided by the Project, as well as the indirect employment growth generated by the Project, would further improve the City's jobs to housing balance. The Project would be consistent with the County's forecasted employment growth between 2022 and 2026 and is consistent with the City's Economic Development Element of the General Plan which seeks a job to housing balance of 2:1, and impacts would be less than significant. 4.13 Public Services The Public Services section (beginning on page 4.13-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential for implementation of the Project to impact the provision for public services including fire service, police protection, and other public facilities. Fire Protection The Fire Protection section (beginning on page 4.13-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have with respect to fire services in the City. The Project site is located in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) and is within the jurisdiction of Fire Station 73, located at 24875 Railroad Avenue, directly across Railroad Avenue from the Project site. Compliance with existing Fire Code standards pertaining to building design, internal circulation, fire flows, and emergency access would be sufficient to maintain desired levels of fire protection services to this area. No new or expanded fire station facilities would be required to address this Project's impacts. Police Protection Services The Project would result in an increase in demand on existing Los Angeles County Sheriff Page 21 Packet Pg. 27 O Department (LASD) services, however, the proposed Project does not include new residential uses, therefore would not result in unplanned population growth. The Project would be required to play applicable development and law enforcement impact fees. In addition, the Project would include several design features and security measures that reduce opportunity for criminal activity to occur at the Project site, including security fencing, security cameras, and licensed security personnel, and would be required to consult with LASD prior to approval of building permits. With implementation of these project design features, payment of impact fees, and permit requirements, impacts would be less than significant. Schools, Parks, and Other Public Facilities Implementation of the Project would not result in increased demand for schools or require the construction of new schools. The need for new school facilities is typically associated with a permanent residential population increase that generates an increase in enrollment large enough to result in the need for new or expanded schools. The Project would result in no impacts associated with development of a public park. Since the Project would not include a residential component, it is not anticipated that additional demand for library services such that new or expanded libraries would be necessary or would occur. Therefore, impacts to library services would be less than significant 4.14 Transportation/Traffic The Transportation section (beginning on page 4.14-1) of the DEIR evaluates the potential transportation impacts that may result from the Project. The analysis in this section is primarily based on the "Transportation Assessment for Shadowbox Studios" (Traffic Study) prepared by Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. (January 2023). Transportation impacts are evaluated based on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) rather than the Level of Service (LOS) or any other measure of a project's effect on automobile delay, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines. The VMT analysis was prepared in accordance with the City's Transportation Analysis Updates (TAU) which establishes the City's transportation impact thresholds and provides guidance for preparation of transportation studies in the City. The Project consists of the development of a 1.3 million square -foot studio campus, therefore the VMT analysis is reported as home -based work VMT per employee. Based on the City's TAU, employment/commercial/industrial projects that exceed 15 percent below the Citywide baseline VMT for home -based work VMT per employee would result in a significant transportation impact. The City's threshold is 15.7 VMT per employee. The VMT analysis show that the Project would generate an average home -based work VMT per employee of 14.0 which is less than the level of significance. Therefore, results in a less than significant impact. Although LOS is not the metric required by CEQA to evaluate performance of the circulation system, the Traffic Analysis did analyze the LOS at 23 intersections and includes a list of recommended improvements at the following intersections in order to improve intersections where Project traffic affects intersection operations. These recommendations will be considered by the City Traffic Engineer and may be incorporated as conditions of approval and, or further modified by the City Traffic Engineer: • At Intersection 91, Bouquet Canyon Road & Newhall Ranch Road, the Project would adjust signal timing to accommodate changes in demand patterns from existing to future Page 22 Packet Pg. 28 O travel patterns. This would include the installation of a northbound right -turn overlap and a "No U-Turn" sign in the westbound direction. • At Intersection #2, Bouquet Canyon Road & Valencia Boulevard / Soledad Canyon Road, the Project would modify the median to install a new eastbound through lane. With the addition of the lane, a total of four eastbound through lanes would be provided. • At Intersection #3, Railroad Avenue / Bouquet Canyon Road & Magic Mountain Parkway, the Project would modify the southbound alignment to add a new through lane. With the addition of the lane, a total of three southbound through lanes would be provided. • At Intersection #9, Sierra Highway & Newhall Avenue, the Project would modify the northbound alignment to add a new through lane. With the addition of the lane, a total of three northbound through lanes would be provided. • At Intersection #13, Wiley Canyon Road & Lyons Avenue, the Project would restripe the southbound approach to provide an additional left -turn lane. With the addition of the lane, a total of two southbound left -turn lanes would be provided. • At Intersection #14, Valley Street / Orchard Village Road & Lyons Avenue, the Project would modify the existing eastbound right -turn lane to a through/right-turn lane. With the modification, the approach would provide two through lanes and one through/right-turn lane. • At Intersection #19, Valle Del Oro & Dockweiler Drive, the Project proposes to signalize the intersection. • At Intersection 922, Sierra Highway & State Route (SR) 14 Southbound Ramps, the Project would eliminate the median to provide an additional southbound left -turn lane. With the modification, a total of two southbound left -turn lanes would be provided. • At Intersection 923, SR 14 Northbound Ramps & Placerita Canyon Road, the Project proposes to change this intersection to an all -way stop and add a northbound left -turn lane on Placerita Canyon Road. With the addition of the lane, a total of two northbound left -turn lanes would be provided. 4.15 Tribal Cultural Resources The Tribal Cultural Resources section (beginning on page 4.15-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have on tribal cultural resources. The Project site is located within ancestral tribal territory of the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (FTBMI). Consultation with FTBMI determined that Project site is considered to be sensitive and both the City and the applicant have agreed to implement construction control measures and monitoring of ground disturbing activities to prevent accidental damage or destruction to tribal cultural resources. With those measures, as specified in mitigation measures MM-TCR-1 through MM- TCR-7, potential impacts would be avoided or reduced to less than significant. 4.16 Utilities and Service Systems The Utilities and Service Systems section (beginning on page 4.16-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have with respect to water supply, wastewater, storm drain, and dry utilities (electric, gas, and telecommunications) infrastructure. Water Supply Page 23 Packet Pg. 29 O The Project would require water service provided by Santa Clarita Valley (SCV) Water's Santa Clarita Water Division. A Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared for the Shadowbox Studios Project by SCV Water and determined that SCV Water would have sufficient water supplies to meet the Project's water demand. The Project would connect to the existing 12-inch water line in 131h Street and 121h Street and proposed four connections to provide domestic and fire protection service to the Project. The Project would not require relocation or construction of new expanded water facilities that would cause environmental effects. Impacts would be less than significant. Wastewater The Project would connect sewer lines to an existing 18-inch sewer line that extends along the eastern boundary of the Project site. Wastewater would be conveyed and treated at the Saugus and Valencia Water Reclamation Plants which have sufficient capacity to convey and treat the flows generated by the fully developed Project. Therefore, the Project would not require the construction of new or expanded wastewater collection or treatment facilities and impacts would be less than significant. Stormwater The stormwater drainage facilities developed on -site would be designed to contain stormwater from a 100-year storm. Infiltration and biofiltration basins are designed to hold a greater capacity than the water quality volume required by the County of Los Angeles Public Works. As such, the Project would not require new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities outside of the Project limits; therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on existing municipal storm drain facilities. No unique impacts would result from the proposed on -site drainage improvements beyond the impacts evaluated for the overall Project footprint. Dry Utilities The Project area is already served by electricity, natural gas, and telecommunication service providers. The Project would require connections to existing infrastructure, such as electricity lines and natural gas mains in surrounding roadways. As such, the Project would not require major reconstruction or expansion of existing off -site infrastructure facilities, resulting in less than significant impacts requiring no mitigation. 4.17 Wildfire The Wildfire section (beginning on page 4.17-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have with respect to wildfire hazards. The north portion of the Project site and surrounding lands have been designated by the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as a VHFHSZ. By replacing the existing undeveloped landscape that has flammable vegetation with non-flammable landscape materials designed to comply with the County's fuel modification standards, installing a pressurized water system, constructing an internal street network to provide access by emergency response vehicles, the built Project would substantially reduce the fuel loads onsite and could, thereby, reduce the volume of smoke and pollutants that could be generated if a wildfire were to occur onsite in the current conditions. A traffic evacuation assessment, prepared by Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc., analyzed emergency evacuation under the existing roadway conditions, and the future with Project roadway conditions. The results showed the future with Project roadway conditions would reduce the evacuation Page 24 Packet Pg. 30 O congestion period for travel through the Dockweiler corridor. Project Design Features for pre -construction planning and during -construction control measures are proposed by the Project, which include the preparation of a Construction Fire Prevention Plan and implement all construction -phase flammable vegetation removal, fuel modification landscape materials, and irrigation systems required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Implementation of these control measures in addition to the emergency response protocols established by public safety agencies and the City's Hazard Mitigation Plan would sufficiently reduce the Project's potential impacts during construction to less than significant. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES In preparing an EIR, alternative projects must be analyzed in accordance with CEQA to determine if a revision to the Project could result in an environmentally superior Project that meets the Project objectives. The DEIR for the Shadowbox Studios Project analyzed three alternatives: Alternative 1: No Project/No Development All EIR documents are required to evaluate the "No Project" Alternative to evaluate the potential impact on the environment if the Project is not developed as compared with the Project. Under this alternative, no development would occur, therefore all impacts would remain at current levels. Development would not be precluded with this alternative, and any future development would likely require additional analysis under CEQA. Alternative 2: Existing Zoning Alternative The Existing Zoning 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 extend north across Placerita Creek. Approximately 1.8 acres would be dedicated for public right-of-way. The MXN designation provides for a base density of up to 18 dwelling units per acre plus inclusion of commercial uses. The Existing Zoning Alternative would propose development at the 18 unit per acre level, for a total of 725 units. An additional 27.5% density bonus (199 units) could be on the MXN portion of the site in accordance with State and Local Density Bonus Law, based on the provision of 15% of the units as Low -Income Apartments within the MXN area. The total unit count within the MXN area would be 924 units, comprised of a mix of rental apartments and for -sale attached dwelling units (averaging approximately 23 units per acre overall). This density can be accomplished within the MXN height limits and all other City of Santa Clarita zoning regulations applicable to the site. To meet the MXN criteria for commercial uses, 50,000 square feet of commercial/mixed use buildings are proposed along the 13th and Arch Street frontages, which would retain a similar massing and perimeter landscaping as the Project. This Alternative proposes to 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. This Alternative would remove three less oak trees than the Project. The NU-5 allowed density would be requested as a Page 25 Packet Pg. 31 O Clustered Density planning area, in order to develop the area southerly of the creek as a NU-5 overall density cluster site. A total of 50 units of detached residential housing would be included in the NU-5 area southerly of the creek. The NU-5 area would also include a 2.4-acre park and incorporate trails along the creek and throughout the development area. In total, the Alternative would develop 974 residential units, and 50,000 square feet of commercial floor area. The roadway circulation for this Alternative anticipates a three-legged intersection at 13th and Arch Streets. Because this Alternative is primarily residential, the VMT trip generation would be higher than the Project and this Alternative would generate more average daily traffic trips, with 8,551 daily trips as compared to the Project that would generate 6,993 average daily trips. Alternative 3: Reduced Studio Alternative 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, comprising 400,000 square feet of sound stages; 396,000 square feet of workshops, warehouses, and support uses; 140,000 square feet of production and administrative offices; and 44,000 square feet of flex/catering and other specialty services. Alternative 3 would provide 2,102 parking spaces; additional spaces would be included to accommodate delivery vans, loading areas, and trailer parking as proposed for the Project. Overall building massing would be similar to, or only slightly reduced from, the Project. The production support buildings along the metro rail line corridor would remain at the same height to provide both a perimeter fagade and sound attenuation to the sound stages on the interior of the Project site. The production support buildings would remain unchanged or potentially extended farther to the south, toward the parking structure and office building. The office building massing would remain similar to the Project, with some reduction in total building square footage and potentially only two stories of offices over a ground -level parking area. All other structures would retain similar footprints and massing as the Project. Although this alternative would reduce the development's square footage, Alternative 3 would require the same amount of grading as the Project, including the portion of the Project site within the property for use as an excess parking field. As with the Project, Alternative 3 would construct a bridge over Placerita Creek and develop the north parking lot. Because this alternative would disturb the same footprint as the Project, 13 oak trees would be removed with the same number of replacement trees as the Project. Perimeter walls, fencing, and perimeter landscaping, as well as all off -site improvements, would remain the same as the Project. Employment would be reduced by approximately 10 to 15 percent but would still meet the economic impact objectives of the studio activities. Similarly, VMT would be reduced and the average daily trip generated by this Alternative would be less than the Project, with an average daily trip generation of 5,494 as compared to the Project average daily trip generation of 6,993. As with the Project, Alternative 3 would involve a zone change to modify the boundaries of the JCOZ to incorporate the portion of the Project zoned MXN south of Placenta Creek, and change the zoning of the northern portion of the Project site from NU5 to MXN. Project Alternative Comparison Page 26 Packet Pg. 32 O Alternative 1, the "No Project" Alternative, would result in the least environmental impacts, and therefore would be considered the Environmentally Superior Alternative. However, Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines states that if the Environmentally Superior Alternative is the "No Project" Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an Environmentally Superior Alternative among the other alternatives. Of the remaining alternatives previously evaluated, Alternative 3 was found to be environmentally superior over the proposed Project because it would have a slightly lesser level of impact than the Project due to the overall reduction in square footage (e.g., air quality, energy, GHG, public services, transportation, and utilities), while still meeting the basic objectives of the Proj ect. NOTICING All notices required by law were completed which consisted of a legal advertisement in The Signal newspaper on March 28, 2023, and notification of public hearing by mail to all property owners and occupants within 1,000-foot radius of the project site (1,446 notices). Three signs were also posted at the site on April 4, 2023. As of the writing of this staff report, staff has received seven email correspondences from the community. In addition, the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association conducted a resident survey that was submitted to staff. ATTACHMENTS Applicant Community Outreach Summary Architectural Site Plan Building Elevations Landscape Concept Lighting Photometric Plan DEIR Notice of Availability Parking Plan Renderings Tentative Tract Map Zone Change Exhibit Public Comments Public Notice Page 27 Packet Pg. 33 1.a Organizations and Groups: Bridge to Home Boys & Girls Club California Film Commission California Institute of the Arts Circle J Ranch HOA College of the Canyons Golden State Gateway Coalition Hart High School Hollywood Chamber of Commerce Homes 4 Families Los Angeles County Fire Dept (Helispot) NAACP of SCV Newhall School District Rotary Club Santa Clarita Film Office SCV Chamber of Commerce SCV Economic Development Corporation SCV Historical Society SCV Senior Center SCV Water Agency Sierra Club The Master's University Valley Industrial and Commerce Association Zonta Club of SCV Placerita Canvon Pronertv Owner's Association: Board of Directors: General Membership: October 1, 2020 December S, 2020 May 6, 2021 June 26, 2021 February 3, 2022 August 2, 2022 Placerita Canyon Corporation (Gate Managers): Board of Directors: February 26, 2023 Placerita Residents — Alderbrook Drive: 2020 to present: Continuing dialogue with various residents of Alderbrook Drive, including an October 27, 2022 Alderbrook-specific outreach meeting with over 20 residents to hear their thoughts on the project, answer questions and consider possible partnership opportunities. Placerita Residents — Misc.: 2020 to present:. Numerous briefings with Placerita residents in groups of 2-20 at a time. Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 34 1.a Local Film and Television Studios: Disney Studio/Golden Oak Ranch Rancho Deluxe Movie Ranch LA North Studios Melody Ranch Sable Movie Ranch Santa Clarita Studios Viacom/CBS Local Film and Television Related Businesses: Elite Media Technologies Laemmle Theater LA Film Locations SCV Locations, Inc. Triscenic Production Services Universal Locations, Inc. Elected Officials: Congressman Mike Garcia State Senator Scott Wilk Former Assemblywoman Suzette Martinez Valladares LA County Supervisor Kathryn Barger William S. Hart Union High Governing Board Trustee Bob Jensen William S. Hart Union High Governing Board Trustee, Joe Messina William S. Hart Union High Governing Board Trustee Cherise Moore Community Members: The Shadowbox Studios team has also met individually with dozens of business owners and community leaders; numerous film -industry residents; and countless other members of the Santa Clarita Valley community. Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 35 -.7" ­"`­—'—:---'— ` 0]]'C6GVOH]I'v"H' V] I ca :HOJ (]3dO]3A3(l \ } H ZO , mM VO'VildVIO ViNVS M N iS Hg (INV 3AV (IVOHIIVH JO H3NHOO 3 N gn 4 \c5LF ViNV�O ViNVS lq 7�i snisXOOMOCIVHS oici lo 55E ` 0]]'C6GVOH]I'v"H' V] :HOJ G3dO 13A30 \ cli Z 3: Q a 00 mM VO'VildVIO ViNVS iS HiC� (INV 3AV (IVOHIIVH a H3NHOO 3 N j \H, G2e� ViNV�O ViNVS \)} 7�i soicinisXOOMOCIVHS 0]]'C6GVOH]lVH V] m my:HOJ (]3dO]3A3(l Z 3: Q a 00 �ZM VO'VildVIO ViNVS M N iS HiCl (INV 3AV (IVOHIIVH JO H3NHOO 3 N ViNV�O ViNVS In 7�i co F! Lr I soicinisXOOMOCIVHS a AHM"iHIM"', I'M HqWn$off--------- - - HMHFmH MN 'N H9 H� M W ....... . mwm -Eq . H H, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C%j 0 LU LU LU w LU LU CO F- LU < w 0 co 0]]'C6GVOH]lVH V] m my :HOJ (]3dO]3A3(l co Z a oc --M Ca 0 1ZM VO'VildVIO ViNVS n iS HiCl (INV 3AV (IVOHIIVH JO H3NHOO 3 N E Mll U) ViNV�O ViNVS a no ,I soicinisXOOMOCIVHS a 6A j q M.-Hou.- W!" H --H, Hl, m V H M i -MMh H", fflgo - - - - - - . . . - - - - - - - - 'M —MnUm. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lmflufl"HM . . . . . . . . . . . . . W It Hqffln� M. .. ... . ...... . . . . . . .............. E e E E E E 0 P F- w Ed 0) K w z 0 F- w w 0 z i 0]]'C6GVOH]IVH V] M :HOJ G3dO 13A30 co Z 3: -8 a mnm oc 1ZM VO'VildVIO ViNVS yM N iS HiCl (INV 3AV (IVOHIIVH JO H3NH0O 3 N gn 4 ViNV�O ViNVS lq 7�i o i ci n i sXOOMOCIVHS s o a to AH . . . 6A�oa -p M" M, M, H -'MMM A M im U HM W-H H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H— ...... .............. a o OII 'ss GVOH]lVH 'VI V, m y HOJ a3dO]3n3a o m c� w m m 00 wep Q U 1ZMVO'VildVIOVINVS y m oov �� I iS HiCl ONV 3AVOVOHIIVH d0 H3NHOO 3 N e $ N y; I I V ViNV�O d1NVS G s m m w < ' soicin1S XOOMOCIVHS aaaa mNm oa o 1 to $ 4 $g =$rn1 4 " HHH -_e�oa ®a Saw oawa a os 'ca w §`¢sa N a a=aao �� a�, oaa�s a® e $� '� a s e- o a a a a a a a-- w aaa w u—saa=®ao=>:== o.�soo w �soa- �- y a a„�. ww� w"',,. s=mgxwo �ww�awa aw;.�=awooaawga'.Q-N �-wwosaoa=' �oa a o o o - �� w a a w- ,a _ '��� a ag a �w �a xo�w- a Eaaaa a a m„m„m„m„m„m„m �e ff4„„��. ®w®i ®" dill a e I g � § ^ .mm8G Y o000 00 or Ho 00000 o rQ ter- 11 M.— z O z O a > > W J W J W W 2 2 M Er O O I z 0]]'C6GVOH]lVH V] M :HOJ G3dO 13A30 Z Q a 03: 0 �ZM VO'VildVIO ViNVS iS HiC� (INV 3AV (IVOHIIVH JO H3NHOO 3 N g n 4 H, ViNV�O ViNVS 7 o�Lr soicinisXOOMOCIVHS o �i 11111L m . =Om - J ® �. Mlm J J �. Mm nif F L!I o OII 'ss GVOH]IVH 'VI v, m HOd a3dO]3n3a ioco w o mnm o; 1ZMVO'VildVIOVINVS =MN 1S Hl£l ONV 3AVOVOHIIVH d0 H3NHOO 3 N q $ �mm va N ViNV�O d1NVS a ym oa SOIaf11S X08M04�/HS aaaa o '" F fi", S _ e shoo �Hmo 4m�o _�oe _ - _� HIM - § - �� 5 s--�- a 6awaia�5� w �3a wo§®o sa aII®ao`>.== o.3soo w wa aoa= -oa �W3 $ sF� S4o3�- ��- `s - a �y3y - mo4 §a'YW �.� �awo oa aw aa�aa Mgr w'-w�oa - 0 0 $ $ m.m.m .m .m.m.m� k�1Gao Y 3oG GY�GG >4�§ �Ea .: » €€._ III Ia���..�:"�� IM W ���5�'m am- -�o-,�4��.��'�544 ���.'.a ss a - a��s'6 w 5'.����a Ww 3 3 3 n e<n mom mmm __ ____ a ARe�a�aaa vase am es® a«s%a s<s s®n 4$4444444444444444 ddddddddddddd..... .............. iaiaiiiiiiiao www�w�w d......... N Z Z O — O W J W W J W 17 0 z O � p a F a w > W J J W W r h r N u W W o OII 'ss GVOH]lVH 'VI N v, m y HOJ a3dO]3n3aco a 3o n w o m rm Oj s zwa w Q �zMvO'vllavlOvlNvs = iS HiCl (INV 3AVOVOHIIVH d0 H3NHOO 3 N m e m �mm va N ViNV�O ViNVS s$ oa o soicin1S XOOMOCIVHS aaaa o o a §soma. wmo m w wow j .w m Ea a so wm.�.as"$�'n -4� ��mo 4m�o . e _eR�9 o$s$"m § ® w?_� §_� - �� �" - a a` d 8-- w wa mo4§a'Y'��.��awo oa aw aa�aa �Sr w'-w�oa aoa= Boa a§0 - 0 0 at' gY g 9g ar'$ 3 ____aq �. �3 - '� § � �, d 3� �� § $ d � Yo�w�� � $ $ �$$$$ $ $ � 3$�� H � ®� ® H ® Ss Y aoc >4�§ ad k§acao GY�GG �Ea .: » §g .. ��H .. ���5��'mamR�m'��w.a�aa4 ��o��4��.��'�544��.'.a ss a�m o�a�s'�a� 6 w 5'.����a 3 3 3 4$4444444444444444 w �I iaiai�i�i�iao n e<n mom mmm __ ____ a ARe�a�aaa vase am es® a«s%a s<s s®n------------ddddddm dddddddddddddddd � m m 8.... a8 a.a8ms� �.d.....d.d. www�w�w IF9 Sun e 77 Ch _ 3mn euvwclj Z O Z O Z O r r r Q > w > w — > w w w w � w LU co - co w w _ w J J J Er4 a a o-Q a A �Irl� III, — I A I ® ' E C C C— C I --- A � —L-- A —L-- A V, o OII 'ss GVOH]IVH 'VI m y HOJ a3dO]3n3a c� o w a m m 00 '' Q 1ZMVO'VildVIOVINVS wep U I 1S HiCl ONV 3AVOVOHIIVH d0 H3NHOO 3 N m e s $ N ' ViNV�O d1NVS a mNm 4 ~ ` SOIaf11S X08M04�/HS aaaa 2M, om to $ 4 $g Ai! i$Jpm H " $W , g h. mg$� N a s e- o a a a a a a a-- w aaa woa ®o sa a=®ao=>: �soa-- ,,,�y "'o,,s=mgxwo m a �w��awa awe.�=awooaawaa�aserw�-w�osaoa=' �oa aoo o - �� ��a a_-,e M _ ,- � a ag __ ___ a - a_g �_ € € I. �. s� xo�w�� - a Eaaaa a a ..................... „m„m„m„m„m„m W� as ®a �a�'� a� a� §�,��_ ® ® ®� e e�ezmamm��w�maa o�=eaa4 sa �.=o44��aa 44 MIN as o w i� .......... ii ddddddddddddddd------------------- - - - - --a-a8a8ms� �.d.�.�.d.d. 3Nn HJ1tlW P7 N ,• � o :96 1 Z Z Z F H H ''•'1 W '•'1 W W 11 W 11 W W •'I � `'I UI F Z J J cc cc Q Q u �o E- o E o rEJ � L --- A 7�1 ---- A o OII 'ss GVOH]IVH 'VI v, m y HOJ a3dO]3n3aco a 3o o Oj n Q w m rm sea w �zMvO'vllavlOvlNvs = iS HiCl ONV 3AVOVOHIIVH d0 H3NHOO 3 N m e $ �mm va N ViNV�O ViNVS a s � & soicin1S XOOMOCIVHS aaaa mNm oa o to $ 4 $g -rJp n 41� " �� �w ®a Saw oawa a os 'ca w §`¢sa N a a=aao �� a�, oaa�s a® e $� '� a s e- o a a a a a a a-- w aaa w u—saa=®ao=>:== o.�soo w �soa- �- y a a„�. ww� w"',,. s=mgxwo �ww�awa aw;.�=awooaawga'.Q-N �-wwosaoa=' �oa a o o o - �� w a a w- ,a _ '��� a ag a �w �a xo�w- a Eaaaa a a m„m„m„m„m„m„m �e ff4„„��. ® M a e I g � § ^ .mm8G co Z O w J W W w W cr ¢ H ¢ a 0 u a JL-- 3 o OII 'ss aVOH]lVH 'VI m y ao3 a3dO]3n3a c� w 0> W N �� n Q $N �zs�svO'vllavlOvlNvs y=^ �o�My4 m iSHiClONV 3AVOVOHIIVad0a3Na0O 3N - - a e N d1Rid�OdlNdS s$ oa soicin1S X08MOCIVHS aaaa o m�$$o4g4 $a as w $ -w4m a4 ��o$ $off--- g $,goo e�oa ors$ m mo m o o _' a Saw oawa a os 'ca = w §`¢sa o am a a '�awa i s a a wo§®osa"s®ao=>:== _ o.�soo w sy.y seazaawa �.�=a.00�aw=" - = aW �'� w 4 oow- a��rwa=w�oa.o .' �oa � �o 0 ® a�awW Y�o6 waa wa's`§a a a .. spa �aa ,A o �. s-a�a `awo ��= 3°° a Eaaaa - a° o=o aaa w-. „s'�wo=oa„ao=, �ao�-�w y H. o ,,....................... 44 4 om® k ac�oo�sG'w =ww o4 aao:§ _ _1. ___Ha=_=®®W "" --"""" "` � m m 8G 8G8 G8 G8G oa�a .�: � �¢.a. N N N \ > W _/ _ -__— W W O O W771 - - Q --- ---- V I � m o o Z O LU LU �i XO OII '£6 OVOH]IVH VI v, m :HOd a3dO]3n3(l 3o o Oj n Q w m �m sM a �� Q� lZ£l6VO'Vll?JVIOVINVS yjN ohoo�o x moot/ vn _ 1S Hl£6 ONV 3AVOVOHIIVH JO H3NHOO 3 N a z ViNVd OViNVS N N �H$ m soicin1S XOOMOCIVHS aaaa oa o wow j n _ a wed § awe a=was"�a s m'seoaeH R. ®® ®' is® w€a se a.���_®� w - ezma�����w�maao�=saa4��osm'sa �.=o44���a 44a�m„�a�aa a„ o ww �ww= o .. i i i. i i i i...o w s a s s aw www�w�w A� =�==a=a=======ao _r e<n mom mmm __ ____ a ARe�a���� vase am es® a«s%a s<s U dddddddddddddddddddm dddddddddddddddd . m m 8m 8m8 a8 a8 a. . N N N z -� z z z F- o� o H H F 0 Q - > J W J J J W W W W F H _ F CO L \ (n W \vl O O w z � ,_III � I II %y!�� - - - �� l ZE MUNI III, II _ I e _ o - I r v, p 0II '£s GVOH]lVH 'VI m y ao3 a3dol3n3a w m o m nm Oj lZMVO'VildVIOVINVS 1S Hl£l 4NV 3AV4VOHIIVH JO H3NHOO 3 N 4 W FLL ViNV�O d1NVS co ' SoiciniS X08MOadHS o M ¢ Ua a 4 0£4 aaaaa mom a�a�o a §soma, wmo m w wow - m lm�$$o4g4 �iH O -_-iR ®R-H ors$ m mo m o 4 _' ®a Saw oawa a os 'ca w §`¢sa a �� s a a a a a a-- ,,,�y xo§g�Qp_s oo n�3333 .......... m„m„mMOM-�� e�a �.......... ew�a- o w� ............ ddddddm dddddddddddddddd � m m 8m 8m8 a8 a8a8ms� �.d.�.�.d.d. N Z O w J :. 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 0 0 I v, p 0II '£s GVOH]lVH 'VI m y a33 a3dol3n3a w m o m nm Oj lZMVO'VildVIOVINVS 1S Hl£l 4NV 3AV4VOHIIVH JO H3NHOO 3 N 4 W FLL ViNV�O d1NVS co ' SoiciniS X08MOadHS B o M m a 4 0£4 mom aaaaa a�a�o a §soma, wmo m w wow - m lm�$$o4g4 �iH O -_-iR ®R-H ors$ m mo m o 4 _' ®a Saw oawa a os 'ca w §`¢sa a �� s a a a a a a-- w aaa woa®osaa=®ao=>:== o.�soo w �soa-- ,,,�y ,w� �w; m��aa awe.��=awooaawaa�ase�rw�-w�osaoa=' �oa a�oo -�� �� a �o �a - a Eaaaa a a m„m„m„ m„ m„ m„ m .„ �e ff ��„�„��� �� as ® a e e�ezma�m��w�maao�=eaa4��oe�sag.=sz„��aa„a�msaazaaa oo w r e<nm�m mmm __ ____ a ARro�a���� veeeaees® a«s%a s<ss®n d d d d d d d d d d ddddddd dmdddddddddddddddd �mm8m8m8 a8 a8 a8ms� �.d.�.�.d.d. N Z O r Q w J W 2 7��] Z y I —0L-j —-\"__..._1 ?i A LA Rii p 0]] 'ss avoa]iva v] `fill V, m :aod a3dol3n3a N r w o mnm Oj N 1ZMVO'VildVIOViNVs oo 1S Hl£l aNV 3nV aV0?JIIV?J d0 ?J3N?J0O 3 N m - gn 4 $ �mm vam N ` I' , ViNV�O V1NVS s oa soicin1S X08MOCIVHS aaaa o to $ 4 $g =$rn1 4 " HHH __e�oa ®a Saw oawa a os 'ca w §`¢sa N a a=aao �� a�, oaa�s a® e $� '� a s e- o a a a a a a a-- w aaa wwa®�osaa=®ao=>:== o.�soo w �soa- �- y a a„�. ww� w"',,. s=mgxwo �ww�awa aw;.�=awooaawga'.Q-N �-wwosaoa=' �oa a o o o - �� w a a w- ,a _ '��� a ag a �w �a xo�w- a Eaaaa a a m„m„m„m„m„m„m �eff4„„��. H ® M a e I g � § ^ .mm8G8G8G8G8G�asa.a.��¢.a. V N 0 m 0 0 a w J W r CO w Cl) N 0 m z O w J W r w ti N N 0 m z 0 a w J W x r 0 0 co n N ii 0 J m U' z U 0 r ¢ W W N CD 0 m z O a w J W x r Er z o 0]]'s6GVOH]IVH V] HOJ a3dol3n3a r _ r 1ZMVO'VlldVIOV1NVS N x �o V 2 1S Hl£l aNV 3AV aV0?JIIV?J d0 ?J3N?J0O 3 N m - gn 4 ViNV�O d1NVSw w ¢soicin1SX08MOCIVHS 7�i aaaa w - "- �- G � w aao o�=r� ��waoso w am n. a a� s a� s a aaa= w; u§ § osoas"'oW§ 6waa�'s6§o?§ o �§ a� a ,..g �a3 d Edddd d° d ffl m =a'�oxocc�4:®__�o»_fi ��_®��w�� co LO z O a w J W 2 H O co w 0 O z w Y z O a w J W 2 I. — cc O z XO 0ll '£6 GVOH]IVH VI v, 6 \ P m HOJa3dol3n3a co @ w o mnm o; lZMVJ'VildVIOV1NVs g MN q $ s �oov a� I 1SHl£IaNV 3/VaVO?JIIV?JJ0?J3N?JOJ 3N m__ o� gn4 �mm va N ViNV�O d1NVS a soicin1S X08MOCIVHS aaaa Fw oa o �� '" � e 4 c�$!o$s _ a o m��a o"� w? w $ - §�-�3 § _ A8 ®a� 3aW _� 6awaia os„'$ca o a-saa4o 'g _ w e$ sF� y`s$_ o a a a a a �3a wo§® osaaII®ao`>.== o.3soo w S4o3� - `s �M a"'�' �w f,'a Ewa �, 8� `3 Y 3oG W k�1Gao GY�GG >4�§ . .... .. ........ 4 ��o��4��.=�'�544��.'.a ss a�m w 4$4444444444444444 Ww r e<n mom mmm __ ____ a ARe�a�aaa vase am es® a«s%a s<s s®n ddddddddddddddddddm dddddddddd------ - - - - --a-a8a8ms� www�w�w �.d.�.�.d.d. Co «J V co O O O O r r r r w w w w w w w w W W W w r r x x w co Q n Q w m z a r a i > r F- W Q w r r T ¢ ¢ 0 o W u) J U Z Z O U w w Z W z w 2 = < 2 2 Q � Q r Q cc r Q ccr r O m cc) P- O 0 0 0 a a a a w w w w w w w w w w w w W r w r eD 2 2 Er � W O O m z a r r r N > r > r N w N N Ir w W O O U 7 (1) 0 U U O O U Z W Z w U Z Z 2 = W w Q U � 2 2 ¢ Q Q r cc r Err r $ p � _ o :• w �8 3 y 3 s S s Es. 2 h � � .fix ��� deb 4£ o � g Ub�8 o 83 �O= Eb48 5➢ ° 0 U U w U Ug= 0 i _mo mu �go��� aka two ?j^ap�pm Um�n o°� `�o UU� z ww z6 Jm m� am G� `� w uaarc ap w Q� z w � -w W N4iN 24a arcw Oq QaU'm(5nKU$ L-1 133HS 333 - 3NIlHOIVW �`zIS s rON .iNow I7 . I i j,j�I W N 30 00 W 44 0 x� mg a Q z N � o y £-1 133HS 33S - 3NPH�1WJ w rr ••rr ag �� Rg I-1 133Hs 33s - 3NnHDivw 0 ON A. 3III^S^IIIII v M.z g a m N 3:0 0 a N N Z-1 133HS 33S - 3NIlHO1VW 1pn;19�a "pp 1 s11eaA ';0s =aAss aye Q e Y � Momdo 11WIl vvo�� oYYO {7 . oiYY�J IN � 8 a ar 8 a 8 b � gggg §2 | § § §§| $ I!0HF o § � a Z�§ r�� a : - } M6 0 § �Cf) 2 � F- L § ,, #a a \� q � CO § �® ,m,mdO]e ko + / \ ° / ± \\(!� §+ ;! /) 2 e!p}ma 6'a:�6 ) SH�ea� aom a e:m:«: d; LUI \\= @QS SnISXOG«OS 2 < 7�i } #a a \ VI% § M. R :a mdO]e .\ w : + : [ ma 6' a :VA 6 / SH �m«� ao a a e:m:«: } % d`\u} \ 2 u e gq; (\\� \::r=oil ® \ (\ \ 5 j d @d Q d N S \ SD OnIS XOG«OOd S \ \ All I I I I I I I IT / O 0ll'S64VOalIVamVI� y to & :aoda3dol3n3aLn Q = m $_E — I 1S Hl£l NV 3�V VOaIIVa d0 a3Na0� 3N q ca�zsv�'vliav��vlNvs �z= �'oa ViNV�O ViNVS w 71� 4e;.- aSOIf1SX08MOdHS w� m a 1 6 ~+LU � - m' � m o m + + + "+ -- N 0 Lo W "+ Q ,�I �cp N + m+ m+ V �LL + �m� �z mry "+ "+ + �m U) LO + _ +z Q e "+ + `+ �+ + W / w - m + a +co m+ m+w 0 0 o + co 0 oo + +o �+ �+ o �+ �+ �+ �+ m+ __+ m+ + + ++ Pm+ ' "+<0 + + �+ �+ �+ + � + �+ �+ �+ +o r� + "+ o� +o �+ + 4+0 o+ �+ + 4+ o �+ r� lb +`+ +`+`+ +`+ +m+�+m+m+r+r+ +�+ + z + V"+ + o ti m+ m+ P+ "+ + +� P+ + + m+ co co + + "+ W W W W J `+ m.+ V + (n m " (n m J ry (n m (n m + �+ " + + U W m+ m+ ® _Ai® - Q o+ P+ + "+ my coin corn + e+ Qb Q� (W7(7 (W7(7 m ry+ o + m+ _m <J°'�0m ��m m+ �+co co + 1y M M W we 6b. of 3wu zL(¢ �wPOE 31tla neJl txTJ SVVld 9NUH9IrX�a�wi�3�6EE\R\'9 '3 NH zE[3-IEEE-R 3 N31 9NNntltp wlN1.tl3Limp -^^•---d^- 0ll'£6GVoallVH VIA _ =$s z m aoya3dMWO �w ��e z¢ $ o s ' NMI lZ£l6 Vo'VllaVlo V1NVS In x v o U _ 1S Hl£l (INV 3AV oVoallVH 3o a3Naoo 3 N g m q U z MR/ n c� N s azA N rh � N w V filoil °� d112TOWNdS go, a$a e wU=y �& g a vLL SoiciniS X08MOCIVHS FIT<ll weos. of 3wu zL(¢�wPOE 31tla neJl txTJ SVVld 9NUH9IrX�a�wi�3�6EE\R\'9 '—N— EE[3-IEEE-R—N-1 9NM— wlN1.tl3Limp-^^•-^^-d^�,,.,.F�, m.,,,e y O 0ll'H6IVI 3 aoJ(]3da3do]3l3n3a QlZ£16V0'VlIaVlOV1NVS 1S Hl£l ONV 3nV OVOHIIVH 3O a3NHOO 3 N d112id�O d1NdS SOIaf11S XOBMOadHS E a�Vim` a $04 m 7�i ' � wJ ���a6< Lu a W �t � � w Q 00 I L N rt I � M L Ln 01 w ko a¢� V+ N M W I -tilo= + 11LL. 1111.0 o + p `+ �+ �+ t + J t V Q U + + U + J - 7 S + Q� Q V+ a D+ + + + + +Ig + M W we os. of 3wu zL(¢ �wPOE 31tla neJl txTJ SVVld 9NUH9IrX,a�wi�3,6EE\R\'9 '—N— --IEEE-R 3w—I—M— wlN,.tl3Limp •-^^-d^�,,.,.F�, m.,,,e y O III '£6 aV0?JIIV?JVI� a ®� M m :HOd a3dol3n3a Q — lZM VJ'VildVIO V1NVs FuJ J dz m g1S Hl£l NV 3AV VOHIIVH d0 H3NHOO 3 N Ln d12d�� d1NdS 2 LU baSOIaf1S X08M04VHS ; 711 �i% m+ + JU) �' W a Lr Y}u0 d J - Q � I L N m N aO � + Eg ®+ _ ry 19 o+ m+ Q Lu o +d� +o + + U + m� + m+ m+ 19 + OO �+ `+ P+ Q `+ P+ - + +o + - M v + + o m+"+ + + J w - +� a z m dLL _ t J + Q U o U �-l w J o W S Q N Q Q + e o � s ++ m+ �r + W we�.0i 3wu zzOZ �wmE.3ltla neJl txTJ SVtlli 9NUH9CFX�a�wi�3�6EE\iz\'9 '—N— S--IEEE-R—N-9NNnwa y o ill '£6 VI 3 - aoJ (]3dO]3a3dol3n3a QQ lZ£16VO'VllaVlOV1NVS 1S Hl£l aNV 3nV aVoallVH 3o a3NHOO 3 N d112id�O d1NdS SOIaf11S XOBMOadHS � m �Fs��- 6 Rmssw i�q��� -- �z F�„8d 71� e azg3 6 N a to � w:LU mIm3A=A, 6aa LU aw�aa M W °t t t 9t °t °t °t °t °t c'+ + o+ o+ o+ o+ o+ n ~ / °t °t °t °t °t °t °t °t t °t °t we 050i 3wLL Iz. 1 1 31tla —N— --IEEE-R —N-1 9NNntltp zo., t13Limp OII '£6 0VOH]IVH VIA m :ao3a3dol3n3a INLn Q lZ£66VO'VildVIOV1NVS q„ U x v I iS Hl£l ONV 3AV OVOHIIVH d0 H3NHOO 3 N ql 71� a � o�"d12d�� dlNdS e as $ 4SOIf1SX08M0dHS m ea an w� L M co III o+ o o+ + + z o+ of J m+ w ' o+ m Y I00 + 0 ! M L LO + + w �+ �+ �+ �+ ++++ P} �+ �+ �+ M �' M + + + �+ a+ �4j �+ + + + o+�+ + 4 �+ + �+ o+ o+ Z + + + + J t+ o+ � `+ A u r+ mt �t ";+ "t �+ o+ + + + �+ f m+ "+ + �ti ® �+ + P+ + �+ o o m° �+ + o® W / oy / / we 050i 3wLL ZZ(¢ �wPOE 31tla neJl txTJ SVVld 9NUH9IrX�a�wiZ3�6EE\R\'9 '—N— [E[3-IEEE-R —N-1 9NM— zo., t13Limp w-•---d^- y O 011 '£6 4VOalIVa VI I s 00 s to:ao3a3dol3n3ax�p * L, ®� oW lZ£16VO'VllaVlOV1NVS + ego g r ow a =gg= m d C 1S Hl£l (INV 3AV aVOHIIVa d0 a3Na0O 3 N00 U coo B. 'T N use 'tF�P=e ViNV�O ViNVS ead��.. Na LU � � SOIaf11SX08M04�/HSm3 qhs 6a a a g M rl — W 1 m+ + m+ a "+ "+ "+ o+�+ �LLI + + o + �+ + + + + 4j - F-t �+ �+ + �+ + + s+ + 1 �$+ + �+ + �+ + + 6 "+ 0 I� �+ g �+ + m+ + m+ m+ 1 a Q G LU + `+ + + 0.+ + �+ �+ �+ m+ + m+ -+ �+ �+ -+ P+ =+ =+ =t m+ m+Pam+ 1 I + o+ + � � m M W m } J Q 1 + �+ �+ + "+ "+ "+ + "+ o+ t �t -t + W S 1 +�+oo + m+ Ww qjl + �+ + �+ + �+ �+ o+ o+ �+ mid 1 + + -+ -+ �+ + P+ + o+ + �+ p+ 1 I �+ + + + mt �+ m+ �+ o+ ry+ m+ �+ + + r+ + + + 1 + ++R+++ v� m + + ro OO OO + o\o+ n M W weos. of 3wu zL(¢�wPOE 31tla neJl txTJ SVtlli 9NUH9I7X�a�wi�3�6EE\R\'9 '—N— R—N-9NNntltp wND iHLamp w^•-^^-d^�.,.F�, m.,,,e 0II'£6avoallvamvl� " a-) s m :ao3a3dO]3n3a Q - $ LU �zM vO'vllavlO v1Nvs no J azg4 m x v o = 1S Hl£l (INV 3AV OVOHIIVH dO a3NHOO 3 N g qm lv� q w z E =8 x_ g a. U ViNV�O ViNdS s w =E$ a a w= a �LL SOIaf11SX08M04�/HS ����M 6a a a a s g J — + - J + +i o m ^ o �+ �+ 0 0- 0o m - Z I - ++ ++ + + � m+ "+ " 1 + + @ ®+ �+ + + + + + + + _ 1 �+ `� P+ ~+ ~+ m+ + a + + + 1 �+ �+ "+ m+ m+ "+ W + + + + m� + �+ m+ �e �+ ;D+ m+ m+ I ® + 1 �+ o +-+ + + + "+ I �+ �+ �+ o+O+ " 1 � �� �� -+ P+ -+ -+ m I �+ + ;D+ �+ + �+ + + + , �+ �+ �+ + `+ m+ "+ 4 �+ �t �+ + "+ e "+ + ® w �+ �+ �+ m+ m+ m+ + + 1 o �+ �+ �+ + �+ :+ ¢� m+ m+ + + m o m g mom , "+ "+ "+ + 1 �+ �+ + �+ "+ "+ + m+ m+ �+ + °o+ ry+N+ r+ —N— -- C TZ —N-5NM— zo 1.f NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO: Distribution List Lead Agency: Consulting Firm: Agency Name: City of Santa Clarita Name: Michael Baker International StreetAddress: 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 StreetAddress: 3760 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 270 CiVState/Zip: Santa Clarita, CA 91355 City/State/Zip: Long Beach, CA 90806 Contact: Erika Iverson, Senior Planner Contact: Madonna Marcelo, EIR Project Manager Telephone: (661) 255-4962 Telephone: (213) 627-1036 SUBJECT: Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed Shadowbox Studios Project (Master Case 21-109) Pursuant to Section 15085 and 15087(a), Title 14, California Code of Regulations, this Notice is provided to announce that the City of Santa Clarita has completed a Draft EIR for the proposed project described below and that it is available for public review. Project Description and Location: As shown in Exhibit 1, Regional Location Map, the project site lies in the southwestern portion of the City of Santa Clarita, in the Newhall community, and is located approximately 2 miles east of Interstate 5 (1-5), 2 miles west of the Antelope Valley Freeway (State Route 14), and 2 miles south of the Santa Clara River. As shown in Exhibit 2, Project Vicinity Map, the project site is situated at the northeast corner of Railroad Avenue and 13th Street and bounded by 12th Street, Arch Street, and 13th Street on the south; Railroad Avenue on the west; Metropolitan Water District (MWD) right-of-way (ROW) on the east; and homeowners association (HOA) maintained slopes associated with adjacent residential uses to the north. The project site is located less than 0.5 miles north of the Jan Heidt Newhall Metrolink Station. The project proposes to develop a full -service film and television studio campus on a vacant 93.5-acre site and would consist of approximately 475,500 square feet of sound stages; approximately 565,400 square feet of workshops, warehouses, and support uses; approximately 209,300 square feet of production and administrative offices; and approximately 35,600 square feet of catering and other specialty services. Upon completion, the campus would have an overall building area of approximately 1,285,800 square feet. The project would involve construction of 19 sound stages, a large support building, a parking structure, an office building, a catering building, and a mechanical building south of Placerita Creek. All 19 sound stages would be situated in the center of the project site. The three-story office building and four-story (five -level), 1,072-space parking structure with four aboveground levels and one subterranean level are proposed at the northeastern corner of Railroad Avenue and 13th Street. The two-story support building would extend along Railroad Avenue south of Placerita Creek. Other proposed ancillary and specialty use buildings include three catering buildings and a mechanical building with a substation located to the east and southeast of the main entrance at the intersection of Arch Street and 13th Street. The main entrance to the proposed campus would gated, and set back from the intersection of Arch Street and 13th Street to accommodate the queueing of vehicles entering the campus in the project's entrance driveway rather than on 13th Street or Arch Street. Landscaping for the main entrance would extend from the project's entrance driveway to segments of 13th Street, Arch Street, and 12th Street immediately adjacent to the project site's southern boundary. Packet Pg. 70 1.f Approximately 13 percent, or 528,156 square feet (approximately 12-acres), of the project site would be landscaped. Thirteen of the 16 oak trees on the project site, including seven heritage trees, would be removed to accommodate the project. However, the project would replace the removed trees with 211 oak trees, including coast live oak, Engelmann oak, valley oak, and southern live oak, as well as 450 trees of different non -oak varieties. A plant nursery is also proposed along the entire length of the parking area proposed in the adjacent MWD ROW along the eastern boundary of the project site to the south of Placerita Creek and adjacent to the alley behind the residences along Alderbrook Drive (subject to agreement with MWD). In addition, the project would include several private outdoor amenities including, a small private park (i.e., Shadow Oak Park) in the center of a courtyard formed by the three catering buildings, patios in front of each of the catering buildings, several outdoor seating and picnic areas along the western fagade of the proposed support building and outdoor break areas between the stage buildings, as well as a half basketball court along the western fagade of the proposed support building (between the two picnic areas), and a small dog park at the northern end of the proposed support building. In addition to the 1,072-space parking structure, approximately 455 surface parking spaces would be provided throughout the main campus and located immediately adjacent to the buildings. An additional 1,157-space employee parking lot is proposed on the north side of Placerita Creek, for a total of 2,684 parking spaces on the project site. This employee parking lot would be connected to the main campus by an all-weather bridge and would be served by an internal shuttle system to provide easy access for employees. Subject to an agreement with MWD, the project also proposes to utilize the adjacent MWD ROW along the eastern boundary of the project site, south of Placerita Creek, to provide approximately 257 trailer parking spaces for production personnel and base camp parking. In addition to the main entrance, two other gates would be provided to access the project site. The entrance to Gate 2 would be located immediately east of the main entrance at the eastern leg of the intersection of Arch Street and 13th Street. The entrance to Gate 3 would be located along 12th Street immediately east of the proposed catering buildings; this gate would provide project -related egress only and be restricted to a right -turn onto 12th Street. Gate 3 would provide for emergency service ingress and egress. A metal sliding gate would also be provided within the MWD ROW, east of Gate 3 at the southeasternmost corner of the project site along 12th Street adjacent to the alley behind Alderbrook Drive, to provide emergency access. The project would also be conditioned to construct a Class I multi -purpose path along the project frontage on 12th, Arch, and 13th Streets. The Class I multi -purpose path would be a completely separate right-of- way for the exclusive use of bicyclists and pedestrians with the path visibly marked. In addition, the project would be conditioned to either (1) pay an in -lieu fee to contribute toward improvements or (2) construct a connection to provide a link for pedestrians and bicyclists between the project site and the Jan Heidt Newhall Metrolink Station and Old Town Newhall dining and entertainment district. In addition to the Class I multi -purpose path along the frontage of the project on 13th, Arch, and 12th Streets, the project includes several off -site improvements, including widening of 13th, Arch, and 12th Streets; and railroad crossing improvements at 13th Street, including the widening of the crossing at 13th Street and Railroad Avenue to accommodate the wider turning radii and new gates. In conjunction with the project, modifications to the previously -approved Dockweiler Drive Extension Project are proposed, which involve roadway improvements to 13th Street, Arch Street, 12th Street and Placerita Canyon Road, including accommodating the additional lane geometry at the intersection of Arch Street and 13th Street to widen the railroad crossing; pedestrian and bike bridge from the Jan Heidt Newhall Metrolink Station on Railroad Avenue to the future extension of Dockweiler Drive; modifications to the turning radius at the intersection of 13th Street and Railroad Avenue to accommodate WB-67 semi - truck dimensions; and implementation of temporary storm drain improvements to accommodate surface water runoff from Dockweiler Drive prior to completion of the proposed project. Shadowbox Studios Project Draft EIR Page 12 Packet Pg. 71 1.f Impacts: The Draft EIR analyzed the project's environmental impacts with respect to the following topics: • Aesthetics • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Energy • Geology and Soils • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Noise • Population and Housing (Employment) • Public Services • Transportation/ Fraffic • Tribal Cultural Resources • Utilities and Service Systems • Wildfire • Cumulative Impacts • Alternatives Hazardous Substances or Wastes Site Listing: The project site is not listed on any of the sites enumerated under Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code, which identify sites known to contain hazardous waste facilities, land designated as hazardous waste property, hazardous waste disposal sites and others. Public Review: The public review and comment period for the Draft EIR will be from April 6, 2023, to May 22, 2023. The Draft EIR for the Shadowbox Studios Project is available for review at the following locations: City of Santa Clarita City Hall, City Clerk's Office Old Town Newhall Library 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120 24500 Main Street Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Santa Clarita, CA 91321 The Draft EIR for the Shadowbox Studios Project is also available for public review on the City of Santa Clarita website at: https://www.santa-cladta.com/city-hall/departments/community-development/planning/environmental- i m pact-reports-u nder-review. Written comments may be submitted to the City during the public review period to the contact person below. City of Santa Clarita Planning Division Attn. Erika Iverson, Senior Planner— Shadowbox Studios Project Draft EIR 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Comments may also be submitted via email to eiverson@santa-clarita.com. Date: April 6, 2023 Name/Title: Erika Iverson, Senior Planner Telephone: (661) 255-4962 Shadowbox Studios Project Draft EIR Page 13 Packet Pg. 72 1.f J Map Detail I u �..—. 1 �"� •� J City of Santa Clarita `f 1 R •�� I ' o a }� •.. — 100 `♦ +i "4 �+ •♦� 'F R a n N,wh an x an n 0.$ Canyon CI S 1 $akadadC',+y Country. • 1•'Y Rd =>'R"' Santa Clarita a �•i;. Newhall '° 1 •. 11Y9 � ,a 1 w a 1 " 1 G ay' LEGEND Project Site City of Santa Clarita C11:11swofrh Source: ESRI streetmap, 2018; Los Angeles County, 2018. 0 NOT TO SCALE 0 4 Granada F � ,av Syfrrrar 6. C" cp A� Sr ando 6 ar W ,n twgrpt S SHADOWBOX STUDIOS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Regional Location Map I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 02/2023 - 11187935 Packet Pg. 73 21 W Residential Existing Metrolink ff Rail Line 4 A �,,t-ens-44,aA N Reside, Placerlta Middle School Newhal Pjr Stud", Or frr 14 00 D, 0-ik -;r Town A Country F Commercial S) "gh School Pori rt Hqh School r. -71 Existing cw Newhall El Rail Line Residential S-haul Oul Lady of vS iAe NrPetwil Ikid Help Credo KFC --yonr, Avc I.Commerchil Old Town Newhall' Y. Source: ESPI streetmap, 2018; Los Angeles County, 2018. 0 NOT TO SCALE I N T E R IN A T 1 0 IN A L 03/2023 - 11187935 SHADOWBOX STUDIOS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Project Vicinity Map I Packet Pg. 74 1 1.f M L u c 0. L J Y J a z c - a z a w z Packet Pg. 75 o j 00]] 'ss avoa]iva v] �®l V, m o :ao3 a3dol3n3a _ � c� w o m ;nm o; @ 1ZMVO'VildVIOViNVs =aW� 1S Hl£l aNV 3nV aV0?JIIV?J J0 ?J3N?J0O 3 N m - gn 4 $ 4 �mm va W = FLL N ' ViNV�O d1NVS e w y ¢� s soicin1S X08MOCIVHS aaaa o o 101111111 10111111 IN I 8 � s o Riijie m a 2 mY f°u� gym aes ��m�am 44 @Y=R R - R}YRRRSR�q AF e IMP � BE 11111 Mollin'llil�l�Ill 11111 w of - — — — — — — — — — - -------------------- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ------ — ` I Ng FW � I I c� gWg¢ I i i lL <_ NH-H s �. w��j� zF 0000�omw6 ' a a I a � O O' c � I I I�IIII ®�_:,'g o. � Illllln llllll �_ �x4 - Hr 1 Ep r-- ----- ---' III agg _ W; a EnNp c y „mc "------'r------ ---------'----- I ----------- ' Its - I L '�y ym- m m m mmm Gm9 i T r � o CD _ — — ------------ : ' a x -----------------------; - 1 1 0 x H H o m N CJ w > o m �nm o O W m ^M moV vu�i N w a Wes= �LL OII '£6 OVOH]IVH VI ao3a3dO]3n3a lZ£66 VO'VildVIO V1NVS 1S Hl£l (INV 3AV OVOHIIVH d0 H3NHOO 3 N ViNV�O d1NVS SOIaf11S X08MOadHS o m _ _ ;g Q M 4 b¢'?� q & 7�i a aaaa w a L .T Cl) tpd-CO J �m� og pN w U) OCLU EL Q z Ucc H 0 U W Z � Q F om WW ------... - ___ - .nm--------------------------- _ ea�was 10 _"• �A Y a - etz sa e k - nr `JNIb31d0 _ W- vm.o ge � � a III g � i e_ I i i � i i44 �i pia •� �� __ --------- s_---------- _ - _ c _ ___- I .wog"', s 3Nn eas-- ----- a f�e---------- ----J 0 z CD W J CD Y Q N_ cc 0 J 0 c.> "^ ^ x 0]] #a eIVH / f / _ 2a m,m� e _ co, _ on - § 2§ mae'a:ViN 6 aHgea3AV ao m a e:m:«: _ \ _ § | j \G2e� d @d O d N S ■H / g 6 \\} SD OnIS XOG«OOd S "^ ` ^ x 0]] #a eIVH / / _ 2a m,m� e _ co, _ on - § 2§ ma 6' a :ViN 6 aHgea3AV ao m a e:m:«: _ \ § | j \G2e� d @d O d N S ■H / g 6 \\} SD OnIS XOG«OOd S v, XO OII '£6 OVOH]lVH Vl my ao3a3dO]3n3a w m > o m 00 rm -� 7 aG lz£16V0'V1IaVIOV1NVs 1S Hl£l ONV 3AVOVOHIIVa dO a3NHOO 3 N 4 W FLL ViNV�O d1NVS co ' SOIaf11S X08MOadHS N = r w_ w w a w Q J 8 M 4 7�i a a oa a aaaa S V, 0ll '£6 aVoallVH V] m aoJ a3do13n30 r _ w w o Oj Q °y �zs�6vO'vllavIOvlNvs - w N o£a 4 m moo vn Z 1S Hl£l aNV 3AV(IV0allVa J0 a3Na0J 3 N gn x 7�i dll2id�O d1NdSSOIaf11SX08M04�/HS Lc) n +r u, w > > F a. uai K w w J J w w \ P :` t^ w cr Q III I I I I I � y •. \ /��Illlili = 0]]'C6GVOH]lVH V] :HOJ G3dO 13A30 m C0 Z a m rm00 Ca Oy lZM VO'VildVIO ViNVS iS HiCl (INV 3AV (IVOHIIVH JO H3NH0O 3 N gn 4 H, ViNV�O ViNVS Hq 7I soicinisXOOMOCIVHS M�i nlm\\\\\ It I Ioml 11MOM\ w LLJ w CD z w 0II '£6 GVOH]lVH oVI a, . Q H m y ao3 a3dol3n3a w o m nm 00 =O GN lZMVO'VildVIOVINVS x 00o J 1S Hl£6 4NV 3AV4VOHIIVH d0 H3NHOO 3 IN 4 W FLL ' ViNV�O d1NVS co SOIanis X08MOadHS © I � 'i1° LLI > �� w a ol a Lu z W Q Q Q ¢ l l h �7 N xa t w U W a x a r - w w Q r x r w z LLI qL Iw e M 4 dm 7�i a aaaa a s �a IIIIIIIIIIy �' t� LU illllll LU w /I �I CO w ri LU I,, W IS Q kcc -� p J{11111111111111111f � ¢ cc - _ 111111111 t�� o = klll 11 l 11 l l l l l: } JhhNFhF�llllllllll4 'II'1II11 ilfll��IIIIINIII�� ': 'IIIIIIIIIII `IIIIIIIIII Illllllllll '' � � �1fIIIJIi I �11N1111I � F � � � 1lIllUllf � I I� �JJIIIIIII �'��, ® I lull ;I `rlllllllll w;l I WN ry . 4dd 11 111 u �, �IIIllill uww. I IIIIIIIII i ° illllflll e IIIIIIIII 111111111 Illllllll: �Illllii h� � 11' .xi Q w r U W a x a m z w a 0 a v, XO 0II '£6 GVOH]IVH VI a. . m n HOd a3dol3n3a w o m nm Qj =O Qy lZ£66VO'VildVIOVINVS x mop vuM� _ 1SH1£l4NV 3AV4VOHIIVHJOH3NHOO 3N N I W dll2id�O d1NdS � 4 ~ ` SOIaf11S X08MOCIVHS aaaa W JI,II1; Wa CO "MA, .. Wcl- W M z W �Ii Ilili Q ��� �lllllull p Q -HtHII�I . O - t III I I IIIII'.` J \1��Y f�v �'Illiii1111t�- Q IIIIIIIIIC6 �. IIIIIyy��� y�lllllllllk�= IIII _ �'-Jllllllllftt �'IIIIIIIII r r tillIIII 'IIIIIIIII �. I- fittt, IlII n. �Illlfl�lll - � lllllllll�. :� r ,Illilllll � ' � llllllllll �: 'IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII I W r U W a CO Q a IL O cc J x O z = W WO a z Z D G o Q cq ¢ �f I ........ ..V] 0]]'C6GVOH]1VH M :HOJ 03dO 13A30 Z a on iu 0 F, lZCl6 VO'VildVIO ViNVS iS HiCl (INV 3AV (IVOHIIVH JO H3NH0O 3 N gn 4 ViNV�O ViNVS 7�i soicinisXOOMOCIVHS J— A� Off .......... 0]]'C6GVOH]lVH V] co y HOJ (]3dO]3A3(l Z 900 0 E lZM VO'VildVIO ViNVS , iS HiCl (INV 3AV (IVOHIIVH JO H3NHOO 3 N H ViNV�O ViNVS co F! Lr s o i ci n i sXOOMOCIVHS LO clj z 0 LLI LLI IL 'I Lu(,j) ca I -- cc: 0 yy CL CL Cl) z 2 M 0 � 0 cr Zli CL 211 11 z 0 w Lu Lu CD 0 0]]'C6GVOH]IVH V] M :HOJ G3dO 13A30 Ci 00 mM VO'VildVIO ViNVS iS Hg (INV 3AV (IVOHIIVH JO H3NHOO 3 N gn 4 ViNdO ViNVS 7�i if soicinisXOOMOCIVHS Wm v, w x 4 o m N o m nm on 00o J W FLL ' co 011 '£s GVOH11VH V1 HOd MdO13AK lZMVO'VlldVIOV1NVS 1S Hl£l 4NV 3AVGVOH11VH JO H3NHOO 3 N ViNV�O d1NVS SOIanis X08MOadHS a, . M Y a Y Q O O 0 Q z Z Q U z Z ch J 7 00 0 Z I Er W H I U N 1 —1 co 3 W W > U w cc w a II If. ri HI MM IM - IIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIII f IIIII fllllll cli 0£4 4 gn _ $ o a a a oa f a aaaa o U z 0 J_ 7 m Q _ w U a w a O 0 z m 0 w U Q tL J 0]]'C6GVOH]IVH V] Co Od (]3dO]3A3(l Z a Fc*-j j 2 ma VO'VildVIO ViNVS M N iS HiC� (INV 3AV (IVOHIIVH a H3NHOO 3 N lul) gn 4 j \G2e� ViNV�O ViNVS In Ti soicinisXOOMOCIVHS ULO co a N VA a uHill III till All I El � t =I , L 3 IIIIIIL € � I u ❑rl y',l III ❑ IIII � l 11 � � =�I I 1�� IIIII I - v I I � - "� 1�r I ry c I � II II e g I I� to I f a e - ti, y II a I » I•= I IIII x - 61 a[ rI A L� U � III _ I " - ✓ , _ /� _ fir'-_ Z +�° wuvw — III Ill Ire Q _ _ .I � ��l -c — rr�7 � �I — a''✓ ��--'�——ia3ks�� - �s — �. I I � T, 7Ll I J II �I .YTI (soipn;S xogmopegS) }iq!gx3 OBuEgO auoZ :}u8wg3ePV 4- 0 A N N N O N ca 4-0 U) U �N � O � L j 0 Lo >v QL O X O� L.L o 0 M M O� a d c.� M a 1.k From: Dianna Lambrecht To: Erika Iverson Subject: Re: Shadowbox Studios Project - Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Report Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 4:15:11 PM CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. I am very happy with the project!!! A real asset to the community!!!! On Apr 6, 2023, at 3:24 PM, Erika Iverson <EIVERSONasanta-clarita.com> wrote: Hello: You are receiving this email because you have indicated that you would like to receive notifications on the Shadowbox Studios Project, Master Case 21-109. This email is to inform you that the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Shadowbox Studios is available for public review. The public review and comment period for the DEIR will be from April 6, 2023, to May 22, 2023. The DEIR is available for public review on the City of Santa Clarita website at:https://www.santa-clarita.com/city-hall/departments/community development/planning/environmental-impact-reports-under-review The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission will conduct the first public hearing on this matter on the following date, during which the project will be introduced and described: DATE: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 TIME: At or after 6:00 p.m. LOCATION: City Hall, Council Chambers 23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Please see the attached Notice of Availability for additional information on the release of the DEIR. Thank you, Erika Iverson Senior Planner Planning Division City of Santa Clarita Packet Pg. 94 1.k Phone: (661) 255-4962 Email: eiversonlcDsanta-clarita.com <i mage001.j pg> <Shadowbox Studios NOA_final_signed.pdf> 7 0 r co x 0 3 0 c� cn r c m E E 0 U 2 IL r c m E c� r Y Q Packet Pg. 95 1.k From: Joe Morelli To: Erika Iverson Subject: Master case 21-109 City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission for the Hearing on Shadowbox studio project. Date: Thursday, April 6, 2023 11:56:10 PM CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Dear Ms.Iverson: My name is Joe Morelli. I'm a resident here in Placerita Canyon. I have a questions and concerns for the city about this project. Jeff Weber purchased this property but did not do his due diligence. On December 10th, 2020 there was a One -Stop 20-016 requesting proposal for a movie studio facility. Which the city found many key issues wrong with the project. That require a General Plan Amendment along with General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments and Minor Use Permits and other things. o The project doesn't Pit the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District to protect, maintain and can preserve and enhance and secluded, historical rural equestrian character of a community. o Additionally, it is the purpose of these special standards to ensure that new and expanding 3 structures are compatible with a characteristics of surrounding single-family residential 0 neighborhood.... per section 17.39.020(A) These are just some of the cities key issues with the project and why it's wrong with this sight that the City pointed out. Also with Mixed Use guide per the City to preserve the character of existing neighborhood and protected from adverse impacts to the residents. So how does this project improve Placerita Canyon historic rural equestrian community.... It does not.. There's no 55 foot tall building's in the whole Newhall area and definitely not 20 of them on 65 usable acres. Parking for almost 3000 and 257 trailers. There's not a dozen 55 ft tall buildings in the whole of Santa Clarita. So why does Placerita Canyon need 20 of them all in one small area. This project is larger than a Santa Clarita Mall in both size and height. At least the mall has four major streets and multiple exits all around it. Again, Jeff Weber did not do his due diligence when he purchased the property and is now trying to make it fit into this area after the City has already told him it doesn't belong here. So I'm asking the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission not to make General Plan Amendments, Zoning Changes and Minor Use Permits to make this project fit our area. This project doesn't belong here and that's it. So why make it fit.... For the better of who the residents or just money. I'm all for jobs and there's a better place for this project and size. The Whitaker-Bermite property Golden Valley and Centerpointe all concrete tilt -ups and no residential around. Packet Pg. 96 1.k Golden Valley 4 Lane major road straight shot to the 14 highway. Not a D rated crossing at 13th street and Railroad.The traffic study is a D rating before and is a D rating after the project. So where's their any improvements a D is a D but with new shiny lights. Infact 4 traffic lights in a 1/4 mile. How does traffic lights fit into Placerita Canyon community or standards... not at all. Please don't make this project fit Placenta Canyon by rezoning and planning changes. Thanks, Joe Morelli born and raised here in the SCV and a resident of Placerita Canyon that is going to be affected by this project. I remember as a child going to Tumble In getting a root beer slushy then going to the summer carnival that would be in the open space and seeing the cows in the dairy down the road... many many years ago... 7 0 r x 0 3 0 c� t U) Packet Pg. 97 Carl J. Kanowsky, A Professional Corporation Rogerpoumanian, A.P.C., Of Counsel April 7, 2023 VIA U. S. MAIL and EMAIL Ms. Erica Iverson City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Valencia, CA 91355 RE: Planning Commission Hearing on Shadowbox Studios Project MASTER CASE NO.: 21-109 Dear Ms. Iverson: 26481 Summit Circle Santa Clarita, CA 91350 Phone: (661) 290-2656 Fax: (661) 290-2697 www.kanowskvlaw.com cikgkanowskylaw.com roeer@kanowskylaw.com As you know, this office represents the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association ("PCPOA"). Enclosed with this letter are two previous letters that we have sent to the City concerning the Shadowbox (formerly, Blackhall) project. Those letters outlined many of the concerns PCPOA has regarding Shadowbox. Placerita Canyon is a quiet, residential community governed by a Special Standards District. The purpose of this Special Standards District is outlined in the Municipal Code. Adopted in June 2013, Santa Clarita Municipal Code section 17.39.020 states, "The purpose of the Placerita Canyon special standards district (PCSSD) is to protect, maintain, preserve and enhance the secluded, rural equestrian character of the community, to enhance the community's unique appeal and to help mitigate the cumulative impacts of residential development. Additionally, it is the purpose of these special standards to ensure that new and expanded structures are compatible with the characteristics of surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods, and protect the light, air, and privacy of existing single-family residences from negative impacts. These standards are also intended to ensure reasonable access to public riding and hiking trails, and to minimize the need for installation of infrastructure such as sewers, street lights, concrete sidewalks and concrete flood control systems that would alter the community's character, while providing for adequate drainage and other community safety features." Since Shadowbox has opted to place its development in a neighborhood with these unique characteristics, it should have anticipated its proposal must satisfy these guidelines. PCPOA's prior correspondence with the City details how it appears that Shadowbox fails to accomplish this. Packet Pg. 98 Erica Iverson City of Santa Clarita April 7, 2023 Page 2 of 2 The letters also discuss areas of concern outside of the PCSSD, with traffic being a major issue. PCPOA is concerned about this Project because 1) it fails to meet PCSSD standards; 2) it requires many changes to both the Placerita neighborhood as well as the City itself in needing a General Plan Amendment and a Zone Change (If the Shadowbox project was acceptable for this area, then why does it need the numerous changes to make it fit?); 3) it changes physical aspects of Placerita as it needs permissions to both alter the ridgeline as well as develop surrounding hillsides; and 4) it appears to run counter to other already existing, funded, and approved projects, such as the extension of Dockweiler. The Dockweiler extension is moving forward. Representatives from the City are meeting with residents and business owners who will be impacted by the extension to, among other things, work out an agreement with those people about compensation for the losses o they will suffer under that project. Part of those discussions has been the planned Traffic Circle or Roundabout at the junction of 12th Street and the extended Dockweiler. LO x However, the Shadowbox plan calls for traffic signals (and not a roundabout) at this ° location. This is one example of how Shadowbox runs counter to Dockweiler. We o request the City to do a side -by -side comparison of Shadowbox and Dockweiler. Whatever differences are found should be explained and analyzed. Dockweiler is going n forward based on certain assumptions and goals to be achieved. How do the changes r Shadowbox requests impact those assumptions and goals? Are some of the goals frustrated by Shadowbox's own traffic design? If they are, then the plan for Dockweiler E needs to be re-examined. o Standing alone, the City approved the Dockweiler extension to improve traffic and address safety issues. Is Shadowbox in compliance with those goals? These are issues that should be addressed. Once the draft EIR has been reviewed, PCPOA will have additional comments and concerns. In concept, PCPOA is not opposed to a movie studio in Placerita Canyon so long as its impact to the existing community is minimal, and the project adheres to the Standards adopted ten years ago. As it stands now, based on the project presented last year, Shadowbox does not meet these requirements. Sincerely, KANOWSKY & ASSOCIATES h%mil / Carl J. K wsky, Esq. CJK/as Encl. cc: Clients Packet Pg. 99 1.k From: Frances Zamora To: Erika Iverson Subject: MASTER CASE 21-109 Date: Friday, April 7, 2023 7:27:44 PM CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Ms Iverson, I want to voice my concerns over this project. I've been here since 1955 and we've seen a lot of changes.But this has to be one of the worst and to think the city would like us to believe this wouldn't have any or very little affect on not just the residents of Placertia Cyn but all that drive thur Newhall Ave.I take it the city not aware of how bad traffic is and let alone when we have accidents or more Big trucks added to the mixed. How is it the city spent millions to fight cemex because it was harmful and bad for the community but to allow this large individual complex with 19, 55ft high buildings that doesn't fit into the Placenta canyon residential area there's no 55ft tall buildings in Newhall so why start now. This project doesn't fit into the special standards of Placerita cyn. Don't rezone and change planning to make this fit here. It doesn't belong in the our o community. r Thanks Frances Zamora o 3 0 M t U) Packet Pg. 100 1.k From: Spero Bowman To: Erika Iverson Cc: Lorraine Bowman; Spero Bowman Subject: Development of Shadowbox Studios Project will HARM the character and quality of our Placerita Canyon Neighborhood Date: Friday, April 7, 2023 9:31:44 PM CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. To Whom it May Concern: Placerita Canyon is an historic neighborhood, a hold out of open space, majestic oak trees, and the friendly blend of diverse human elements; uncrowded ranch style homes, mix of high and low income families, the respectful Melody Ranch studios, and a private college campus that beautifully reflects the rustic country style of our canyon. Despite the diversity, there is a shared taste for remote habitat away from the busy -noisy city scene and a mutual respect for personal privacy. There's a price paid to live in Placerita Canyon, although paying the same property tax as other o neighborhoods, Placerita Canyon does not receive the same city services. Its worth it, though, to live amongst natural beauty, enjoy space between oneself and your neighbors, breathe fresh air, and to in rest in the quiet nights. o The project to build a film and TV studio campus on 93 acres adjacent to the Placerita neighborhood -0°a threatens the character of the community and the value of its property and homes. The traffic will t pollute the air, pierce the quiet with the drone cars, and impose busy streets impeding entry and exit U) from the canyon. The studios will bring employees and clientele into the canyon who do not share r the community character nor inclined to respect it. The natural terrain of the open space buffering the neighborhood from railroad with its beautiful oak trees, will be replaced by ugly, industrial box E type buildings. o Our home is a stones throw from the property where these studios will be built. In addition to the lasting demise of the canyon beauty and quiet, we will have to endure months of building invasions on our daily lives; noise, dirt, extra traffic. It doesn't seem fair. We bought this home, and paid a higher price for location, in order to enjoy the special ambiance of `Placerita Canyon' living. I hope city representatives act to protect the unique character of the Placerita Canyon neighborhood, as well as preserve the property values of home owners. Spero and Lorraine Bowman 22209 Oak Orchard Road Newhall Packet Pg. 101 1.k From: Carmen Ledesma To: Erika Iverson Subject: Project Applicant: LA Railroad 93, LLC Date: Saturday, April 8, 2023 4:11:42 PM CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. To whom it may concern, my name is Savino Ledesma and I live in the Alderbrook Drive neighborhood. I have received a letter about the project proposal to use the Metropolitan Water District property along the south of Placerita Creek to provide vehicle and trailer parking spaces. If this proposal goes through it will ruin the wildlife around my neighborhood. That space should not be used for parking for trailers or vehicles. It will also cause a lot of noise pollution which will disturb the neighborhood which may be non stop traffic. Thank you, Savino 7 0 r x 0 3 0 M t U) Packet Pg. 102 1.k From: cathv zamora To: Erika Iverson Subject: Master Case 21-109 Date: Monday, April 10, 2023 8:02:09 AM CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Hello Ms. Iverson, I want to voice my concern over this project. The location is a very poor one I truly don't understand how one can say it won't have an effect. How can the city not be aware that Newhall Ave is two lanes that goes to 3 and back to 2 lanes than let's not forget when the buses are stopped its a problem now on top of the traffic from when the train is stopped at Market St .Now we want to add more lanes coming into 13st mixed with bid rigs and more vehicles and let us not forget the extra stop lights .It will be worst than Serria hwy and Via Princessa that is a poor design and can never be fixed. I don't understand how one buys a property that knows he is very limited to what he can do with it.Than wants the city to bend to what he would like to have. He was told up front it won't fit or work but here we are the city wanting to make it fit for one person at the expense of so many. The size of all the tall o industry buildings doesn't fit into Placenta canyon residential community or within the special standards district. in x 0 Thank you Cathy Zamora 0 M t U) Packet Pg. 103 1.k From: Russ Hand To: "Jeff Weber"; Erika Iverson Cc: "Carl Kanowsky"; "Teresa Todd" Subject: FW: Survey Report Now Posted Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 4:11:48 PM Attachments: 2023.01.PCPOA.Resident Survey Reoort.odf CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Hi All, I am forwarding you a summarized survey report of a survey taken by the Placerita Canyon residents in regards to the Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio project. https://pcpoa.com/placerita-resident-survey-report-regarding-blackhall-shadowbox-studios-project/ Any updates on the DEIR? Best, Russ Russell D. Hand CPA 4111 W Alameda Ave., Ste 505 Burbank, CA 91505 Phone 818-972-9811 Fax 818-972-2779 This transmission is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited Packet Pg. 104 PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project January 2023 Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association Prepared by POINT OF VIEW COMMUNICATIONS, LLC PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project 1.k TABLE OF CONTENTS Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association PCPOAMission Statement.................................................................................. 3 PCPOASpecific Purposes.................................................................................... 3 Prologue......................................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary ProjectSummary................................................................................................... Background............................................................................................................. Process...................................................................................................................... Key Findings and Conclusions............................................................................. 8 Recommendations.................................................................................................. 10 Survey Background............................................................................................................. 11 SurveyPurpose....................................................................................................... 12 Methodology........................................................................................................... 12 Survey Results Section 1. Familiarity With and Attitudes Toward the Project .................. 13 Section 2. Possible Benefits Associated with the Studio Project ................ 15 Section 3. City Roundabout Design............................................................... 16 Section 4. General Concerns........................................................................... 17 Section 5. Traffic Impacts................................................................................ 21 Section 6. Final Thoughts................................................................................ 22 Section 7. Alternative Uses If Project Not Approved ................................... 23 Appendices Appendix A. Survey Instrument.......................................................................... 24 Appendix B. Postcard Mailed to Residential Addresses .................................... 31 Appendix C. Complete Survey Report................................................................ 32 Appendix D. Placerita Canyon Special Standards ............................................. 55 U) 0 0 r co x 0 3 0 Cn Packet Pg. 106 PCPOA Mission Statement To maintain Placerita Canyon's rural and equestrian lifestyle, preserve the oak trees and equestrian rights, monitor and maintain zoning and environmental standards, cooperate in solving health and safety problems within the canyon, and monitor Source: PCPOA.com environmental tests for public safety. PCPOA Specific Purposes Endeavor to maintain conditions in Placerita Canyon that promote, protect and preserve its rural lifestyle and way of life; preserve the oak trees and other protected species; protect and preserve equestrian rights and opportunities; monitor and assert any appropriate position relating to zoning, permit applications, environmental standards, and land uses relating to the protection and preservation of conditions consistent with the Special Standards District of the General Plan of the City of Santa Clarita as applied to Placerita Canyon, and the interests of the members of this Corporation;, limit densification of development and traffic and safety conditions within Placerita Canyon and areas contiguous thereto that may adversely affect Placerita Canyon and its residents; and contribute or assist in resolving health and safety issues within Placerita Canyon and surrounding areas. Source: PCPOA Bylaws adopted/amended July, 28, 2008; Article III, Section 3.02 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project Prologue As a preface to the Executive Summary and Survey Report that follows, a brief statement of the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association's (PCPOA) mission, along with Placerita Canyon's unique nature and historical significance to the Santa Clarita Valley, is warranted. PCPOA is the unified community of property owners within Placerita Canyon and represented by nine members elected to serve on its Board of Directors. It is the voice of the canyon. This survey was conducted by PCPOA in accordance with its ongoing commitment to residents and property owners to communicate openly, solicit opinions, and represent the best interests of the canyon. The Board of Directors strives to be inclusive and transparent in representing Placerita Canyon. The Board values in the highest regard its mission statement to maintain the rural and equestrian lifestyle that is the hallmark of this distinguished and historic area. Appropriately noted, the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District overlay was adopted by the City of Santa Clarita to preserve and protect this hallowed land. Arguably, there is no place like Placerita Canyon in the city of Santa Clarita or possibly in California. From its historical roots encompassing its golden legacy to its dirt roads that serve the dual purpose as horse trails, it is unique. From its heritage oak trees to its Western legacy, it is irreplaceable. To highlight just some of the area's historical value, California gold was first discovered in Placerita Canyon (south of Highway 14) by Francisco Lopez under the "Oak of the Golden Dream" in 1842. In the early 1900s - when there were only 46-stars in the U.S. flag - Placerita Canyon was the site of Saxonia Park, a popular gathering spot for people of German descent. In 1952, famed actor Gene Autry purchased a 22-acre property now known as Melody Ranch Studios with western -movie legends gracing its domain, including icons such as John Wayne, Harry Carey, John Ford, and many others. The studio hosted the city's Cowboy Poetry & Music Festival for several years. The canyon's legacy continues to evolve, which was a catalyst to this survey. Determination of the canyon's future evolution is a shared responsibility between the city of Santa Clarita, jurisdictional agencies, developers and, most importantly, residents. The Board appreciates the candor of those who participated in this study and respects the varying opinions expressed. For any questions regarding this report, contact PCPOA at placeritacanyonpoa@gmail.com. 7 0 r x 0 3 0 c� t U) Packet Pg. 108 PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project 1.k Executive Summary Project Summary Shadowbox Studios, a studio rental company formerly known as Blackhall Studios, embarked on an environmental review process in or before April 2022 to study the North Newhall Area (NNA) 93.5-acre parcel it purchased in 2020 for the purpose of building 19-sound stages plus auxiliary buildings for a full buildout of 1,293,000 sq. ft. of commercial space. This report provides a deep -dive exploratory study into opinions, attitudes, concerns, and preferences of Placerita Canyon residents and property owners to determine prevailing points of view. The study also serves as a benchmark for future surveys to identify changes as the proposed development moves through the review and approval process. Background Wffl- he 17.39.020 As the voice of Placerita Canyon, PCPOA has taken an Placerita Canyon Special Standards active role in representing the canyon and vetting proposed development projects as they impact the area. Following the April 10, 2018, Santa Clarita City Council approval of the Dockweiler Extension Alternative #2 alignment (13th Street at Railroad Avenue), PCPOA has resolutely worked with city staff to minimize the impacts of the extension on the canyon, while soliciting input from residents. When the Environmental Impact Report was finalized and approved in 2018, planned development for the North Newhall Area (NNA) was a development project consisting of 310 single- family homes. The NNA lies within the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District in its entirety with specific language regarding conditions placed upon the 93.5-acre parcel. Exhibits 1 and 2 (See Appendix D for the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District or visit https://pcpoa.com/n-content/ uploads/2017/08/Placerita-Canyon-Special-Standards-District. pdf) Process An online platform (Survey Monkey) was used to administer the survey, record responses, and tabulate results. The survey was both qualitative and quantitative in design; one survey per property address. After removing duplications, 73 surveys (17.5% response rate) were analyzed for this report. The survey was open from Aug. 25 to Oct. 11, 2022 with residents receiving a variety of notifications regarding its availability: postcard via U.S. Mail, private Facebook group, OneCall phone District. A. Intent and Purpose. The purpose of the Placerita Canyon special standards district (PCSSD) is to protect, maintain, preserve and enhance the secluded, rural equestrian character of the community, to enhance the community's unique appeal and to help mitigate the cumulative impacts of residential development. Additionally, it is the purpose of these special standards to ensure that new and expanded structures are compatible with the characteristics of surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods, and protect the light, air, and privacy of existing single-family residences from negative impacts. These standards are also intended to ensure reasonable access to public riding and hiking trails, and to minimize the need for installation of infrastructure such as sewers, streetlights, concrete sidewalks and concrete flood control systems that would alter the community's character, while providing for adequate drainage and other community safety features. 7 0 in x 0 3 0 t U) system for registered users, and signs posted at the Side Store. Exhibit Packet Pg. 109 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project Excerpt from the 17.39.020 Placerita Canyon Special Standards District. E. North Newhall Area. The following requirements shall apply to those properties in the Placerita Canyon special standards district that are within the North Newhall Area (NNA), as identified in the General Plan. The future uses and development within this area require careful advance planning and consideration of any potential projects shall be required to address each of the following subject areas: 1. Public Participation/Outreach. a. Be subject to public participation and outreach led by the applicant(s) or the applicant's representative, at the onset of and during conceptual planning and prior to formal submittal of a proposed project to the City. Outreach would include, but is not limited to, the Placerita Canyon property owners' association. 2. Traffic Intrusion/Gateways. a. Be internally and externally pedestrian -oriented, and have equestrian and bicycle amenities and accommodations; b. Understand and acknowledge that any development at these locations will increase existing vehicular traffic and create new vehicular traffic, and that there will be impacts to equestrian and pedestrian circulation in the existing neighborhood, and therefore to minimize those impacts, special attention must be given to mitigate impacts caused by such identified access points; c. Layout and orientation of any developments shall be designed to discourage and where possible prevent additional trips into Placerita Canyon caused by or resulting from such developments; d. Include defined entry gateways or monuments into the Placerita Canyon special standards district, at Railroad Avenue, complete with landscaping and architectural elements with signage expressly stating there is no through traffic allowed; and e. A traffic study shall be prepared for all new developments that are projected to generate two hundred fifty (250) or more new daily trips, within the areas encompassed by the NNA. The traffic study shall analyze those potentially impacted intersections within the NNA area and those that lie within a one (1) mile radius of the subject development site. 3. Buffering and Transitions. a. Preserve the existing rural equestrian community, generally known as Placerita Canyon, and provide adequate buffers and graduated transitional design to ensure existing neighborhood protection and compatibility of character resulting from any proposed development; b. Incorporate the current Santa Clarita Valley Trails Advisory Committee (SCVTAC) network of multi -use trails into adjacent neighborhoods which shall have rural and equestrian characteristics; and c. Require use of the MWD right-of-way as a landscaped buffer (subject to MWD approval) between the NNA within the PCSSD and the rest of Placerita Canyon, which landscaping shall consist of low water, low maintenance landscape material. 0 0 r co x 0 3 0 Cn Exhibit 2 Packet Pg. 110 PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project 1.k 4. Architecture. a. Consist of three hundred sixty (360) degree architectural design with pedestrian - scaled building massing and forms where adjacent to existing residences, with the use of landscaping to visually soften hard edges of buildings; b. Structures shall have varied building heights and designs shall create east/west sight lines. Building heights up to thirty-five (35) feet may be permitted. Additional height, not to exceed fifty (50) feet, may be permitted subject to the approval of a conditional use permit; c. Have transitional densities, as described above, decreasing in density and height in an easterly direction towards the MWD right-of-way away from Railroad Avenue, to include the MWD right-of-way as a landscaped buffer and detached single-family residences adjacent to the MWD right-of-way; and d. Building heights shall be subject to the same Unified Development Code requirements that apply to all of Placerita Canyon. 5. Flood Control. a. Waterway bottoms and sides shall not be improved with concrete or hard impervious surfaces and shall be maintained in a natural appearance; b. Fencing shall not be permitted to cross riverbeds or waterways in a manner which denies or interferes with easy trail access; and c. On -site flood control mitigation would provide assistance or relief to other hydrology/ drainage impacts within Placerita Canyon due to changes of topography on NNA properties. 6. Housing Types. a. It is not the City's intent to see affordable housing located on this site; and b. The desired housing type in the NNA will attract residents who will assist in the economic revitalization of Downtown Newhall. 7. Economic Development. a. Based on the area's proximity to the nearby Metrolink station and Old Town Newhall, development in the NNA would be supportive of revitalization efforts, with an appropriate mix of retail, office, restaurant, and general commercial square footage combined with neighboring and integrated housing types. S. Recreation. a. Include a site -specific and a community -based recreational component. 0 0 r co x 0 3 0 c� Cn Packet Pg. 111 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project Key Findings and Conclusions There were seven key findings in this report: 1. Regarding familiarity with the proposed project, most respondents (96%) were aware of the project. At the onset of the survey, the pulse of respondents toward whether the studio project fits with the canyon was nearly even with 47% agreeing the project fits and 49% in disagreement. However, analyzing the strength of convictions, 2 1 % strongly agreed as compared to 3 1 % who strongly disagreed. Written comments for those in disagreement that the project fits the canyon were passionate in tone and specific as to their reasons for opposing. Those in favor were less committed to their position and mostly focused on the project being better than possible alternatives. 2. Regarding possible benefits associated with the project, the majority of respondents (67%) cited improvement of the 13th Street railroad crossing as the most important; a new entryway monument o into the canyon was the least important (28%). 0 r 3. Regarding the city -approved roundabout design versus the alternative of signalized lights at the x 0 3 intersection of Dockweiler Drive/12 Streets/Arch Street, respondents ranked four attributes from most -°a important to least important. Providing a calming measure to help reduce vehicle speed scored highest c� U) as a benefit for the roundabout followed by minimizing the presence of signalized lights in the canyon. r c Least important attribute was ensuring a dedicated signal light at Placerita Canyon Road; second least m E important was adding to the rural nature of Placerita Canyon. E 4. Regarding general concerns for the proposed project, 74% of respondents have concerns about the project as compared to 26% not having concerns. In written comments provided, concerns included traffic; size, scale, and suitability to the existing neighborhoods; safety and lack of exits in case of emergency; noise; hours of operation; industrial use in a residential area; large trucks and other vehicles; impact on Placeritos; flooding for upstream neighbors; signalized lights in the canyon; need for additional access not through the canyon or 13th Street; and, cumulative impact with other commercial and religious facilities already operating in the canyon. Drilling down, respondents were asked to rate the importance of 10 general concerns. Traffic impact was the most important (95% rated as very or somewhat important) followed by entrance/exit gates all on one side (87%) and presence of several signalized lights in the canyon (82%). Interestingly, no respondent reported any of these three concerns as unimportant. Change of the canyon's culture and adherence to the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District each reported 8 1 % as very or somewhat important. Size of the project (77%), hours of operation (75%), and setting precedence for other large- scale projects (71%) completed the middle tier. Least important but above the 50th percentile, were potential for flooding in the canyon (68%) and removal and/or relocation of oak trees (62%). Packet Pg. 112 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project Key Findings and Conclusions (continued) Examining the same 10 general concerns, respondents were asked to rank each concern with #1 being most important to #10 being least important. Collapsing the responses, 74% ranked traffic impacts as their #1, #2, or #3 choice with 82% ranking this concern in the top five. Size of the project with a 30-point spread following traffic was the second -highest ranking concern in the #1, #2, or #3 spot. Presence of signalized lights in the canyon, entrance/exit gates all on one side, adherence to the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District, and change of canyon's culture rounded out the middle tier. In the bottom tier was hours of operation, potential for flooding in the canyon, setting precedence for other large-scale projects, and removal and/or relocation of oak trees. 5. Examining traffic impacts specifically, respondents were asked to rate on a 5-point scale with #1 0 being very important and #5 being very unimportant the ability to enter/exit the canyon, traffic flow, 0 r traffic volume, trucks and large vehicles, and signalized lights in the canyon. Ingress and egress were X universally important (100%) for those responding followed closely by the remaining four factors 0 studied. Written comments added disruption of the existing community, potential for bottlenecks, and -00 impact on the back gate during emergencies as additional factors for consideration. The cumulative M U) effects of existing neighborhoods, educational and religious institutions, the Dockweiler extension, r and present and proposed studio production facilities could overwhelm the limitations of a rural, c equestrian community. 6. Correlating with the beginning of the survey where respondents were almost evenly divided on whether the project was a good fit for the canyon or not, a follow-up question was asked near the end of the survey whether Placerita Canyon will be better off with the studio project. There was a marked shift in opinion as 43% of those responding answered yes, while 57% answered no. Examining written comments throughout the survey, patterns emerged. While divided, those who expressed concerns for the project were passionate in their positions providing concrete specifics. Those expressing favor for the project did so with resignation that seemed to lack conviction. 7. In the event the proposed studio project is not approved by the Santa Clarita City Council, respondents were asked what type of development they would most likely support in the NNA. This was an open-ended question. Nearly half of those responding indicated a park or recreational area would be supported. One -quarter favored residential housing development with emphasis on homes and lots compatible with the existing neighborhood. A few favored the studio project but with conditions, including a smaller size and/or alternative entry. Some favored other industrial uses with a smaller footprint or institutional uses, such as a cultural center or instructional/educational facility. Packet Pg. 113 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project Recommendations PCPOA will continue to monitor the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) when it becomes available to: • Evaluate the traffic study and its impacts on the existing community and provide thoughtful consideration for its sufficiency. • Support the prior approval by the city and residents for the roundabout design for the Dockweiler/12th Streets/Arch Street intersection as the traffic calming measure it is intended to be. • Continue to work in good faith with Shadowbox Studios to identify alternative ingress/egress points of access to prevent all entry/exit gates from feeding into the canyon -side of the property, and to address all other concerns. y 0 • r Evaluate the size, scale, and suitability of the project given its logistical and geographic constraints. X 0 3 • Advocate for the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District as recorded and urge adherence to the -0 cU conditions in place. U) • Communicate with residents, city staff, City Council members, and Planning Commission members to share concerns. • Conduct another survey, if warranted, as the approval process continues. Packet Pg. 114 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project SURVEY BACKGROUND In October 2017 and again in February 2018, the Placerita Canyon Properties Owners Association (PCPOA) submitted written objections through its attorney to the City of Santa Clarita City Council regarding the proposed Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Project. Council ultimately approved the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and finalized the report with the Alternative #2 alignment (13th Street) on April 10, 2018. On July 9, 2019, Council awarded the design contract for the project. After that action, City staff invited PCPOA to participate in the intersection design for Dockweiler Drive/Placerita Canyon Road/12 Streets/ Arch Street. City staff presented three designs: a five -legged roundabout, a four -legged roundabout with signalized offset-T, and signalized light with a signalized offset-T. Over several months, the Board met with city staff and proposed three alternative designs. On March 5, 2020, PCPOA hosted a meeting with residents and city staff to present six designs in an open house format. Comment cards were distributed, and feedback solicited. The survey results indicated the preferred design choice by residents was the four -legged roundabout with a signalized offset-T for Placerita Canyon Road. The least preferred design was a signalized light at Dockweiler Drive/12th Streets/Arch Street. At the terminus of the Dockweiler Drive Extension where it will connect with Arch and 13th Streets lies a 93.5-acre parcel zoned Mixed Use Neighborhood (MX-N) and Non -Urban Residential (NU5). The parcel lies within the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District and is subject to its conditions. When the Dockweiler Extension project was approved by City Council in April 2018, the proposed land use of the 93.5 acre property, known as the North Newhall Area (NNA), was for a development of 310 single family homes. The traffic impact report in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) indicates that at City buildout in 2035, the increase in daily vehicle trips at the 13th Street and Railroad Avenue crossing would be 600 additional vehicle trips daily with the Dockweiler Drive Extension. Today, a studio rental company consisting of 19-sound stages plus auxiliary buildings for a full buildout of 1,293,000 sq. ft. of commercial space is proposed for the NNA. The current proposed land use significantly differs from the proposed land use the Council based their Dockweiler Extension approval on. At the April 21, 2022, Notice of Preparation Scoping Meeting for Blackball Studios DEIR (later changed name to Shadowbox Studios), it came to light that the roundabout intersection design would not work for the studio project, as per Jeff Weber representing the project. The PCPOA stands behind the City's design of a roundabout for the Dockweiler/12 Streets/Arch Street intersection. 7 0 r x 0 3 0 M t U) Packet Pg. 115 PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project 1.k At the time of this writing, the PCPOA Board of Directors has not taken a position for or against the studio project. Rather, in doing its due diligence, the Board again reached out to residents to determine what is in the overall best interests of the canyon. SURVEY PURPOSE In August 2022, several members of the PCPOA Board of Directors met with Jeff Weber, representing Shadowbox Studios, along with his attorney Hunt Braly and lobbyist John Musella. Carl Kanowsky, representing PCPOA, was also in attendance. At the conclusion of the meeting, Weber asked the PCPOA board to rank in order of importance the benefits of the roundabout as the preferred intersection design at Dockweiler/12th Streets/Arch Street. The board determined that to best represent the opinions of canyon residents and property owners, a survey would be conducted. Scope of the survey included: 1. Familiarity with the studio project, 2. Ranking of four advantages of the roundabout, 3. Benefits associated with the studio project, 4. General concerns with the project, 5. Rating concerns and traffic impacts as to level of importance, 6. Forced ranking of concerns, 7. Overall sentiment to the project and its impact on Placerita Canyon, and 8. Type of development respondents would most likely support on the property. Additionally, the 2022 survey serves as a benchmark for future studies and changes, if any, in opinions, attitudes, and concerns and preferences as the proposed project potentially moves forward. METHODOLOGY Survey was designed as a combination quantitative and qualitative survey utilizing demographic questions, multiple choice, rank order, 5-point rating scale, open-ended questions, and ability to add optional comments, as appropriate. (See Appendix A for instrument used.) It was conducted online using the Survey Monkey platform. Survey was open to Placerita Canyon residential property owners and residents from August 25 to October 11, 2022. One survey per property address was allowed. Communication of survey availability included: -- Postcard mailed to 416 residential addresses. (See Appendix B.) -- One Calls to 343 registered phone numbers. (6 total) -- Facebook private group notification (436 members) 7 0 r x 0 3 0 M t U) Packet Pg. 116 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project Links to additional reading material were provided in the introduction: 1. Blackhall Studios Initial Study, 2. PCPONs response to the City of Santa Claritas Notice of Preparation of the Draft Environmental Review Report, and 3. Press release by Shadowbox Studios announcing name change and strategic investment from Silver Lake. Original survey close date was September 30, 2022. Due to a glitch on the Survey Monkey platform, it was detected that some respondents timed out before responses were recorded. Working with the platform personnel, a workaround was developed. Property owners and residents where responses recorded were notified by phone and advised their survey was received and not to resubmit. Property owners and residents were then notified via One Call and Facebook group that if not contacted, to take the survey again. The deadline was extended and closed Oct. 11, 2022. o r Removing duplications of property addresses, a total of 73 surveys (17.5% return rate) were recorded. x Average time spent on the survey was 12-13 minutes. 3 0 c� Cn SURVEY RESULTS ta The complete survey results are presented in Appendix C. The following results are presented by collapsing categories, where appropriate. Percentages were rounded to the nearest whole number so that some categories may not total 100 % in the written presentation. In each section, a summary of results is given followed by an analysis of the data gleaned. Some questions gave respondents the option to provide written comments. This report pulls a sampling of comments as quotes to include in the presentation for demonstrative purposes only; comments in their entirety can be found in Appendix C. SECTION 1 Familiarity With and Attitudes Toward the Project Familiarity with the Proposed Blackhall/Shadowbox Project on 13th Street and Railroad Avenue Of the 73 responses received, 70 respondents (96%) were familiar with the project. Nine additional comments were received. Comments in opposition to those in favor were 2:1. Those opposed cited the project to be a disruptor to the existing neighborhood and the appropriateness of industrial space in an area currently zoned for residential. ANALYSIS Communication has been good in that the overwhelming majority of respondents are familiar with the proposed project, though some commented minimal familiarity. Packet Pg. 117 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project Statements Best Describing Attitudes Toward Overall Project Of the 72 responses received (1 skipped), 47% agree the project fits with the canyon -- 15 respondents (20.83%) strongly agree; 19 respondents (26.39%) somewhat agree. Comparatively, 49% disagree the project fits with the canyon -- 22 respondents (30.56%) strongly disagree; 13 respondents (18.06%) somewhat disagree. Note: 4% (3 respondents) had no opinion. There were 29 additional comments received on this question. Overall, the tonality and conviction of those opposed to the project was strong and cited traffic, access into the canyon, inappropriateness of industrial use, change of rural nature of the canyon, special standards district, and size of the project. For those in favor of the project, responses were somewhat lukewarm and predominately focused on the project being better than possible alternatives. Examples of comments in opposition: "the size and scope of this development has a density and use that is inconsistent with the general rural, non -industrial zone and intended use of Placerita Canyon" "Tragic will be a huge problem" Placerita Canyon is a rural neighborhood connected to the charming downtown Newhall district... our families and community deserve better." " Ihis industrial project does not fit or belong in our residential community." Examples of comments in favor: "The brewing alternative to this project is approx. 2,500 housing units." I don't feel the project suits the Placerita Canyon lifestyle, but among our choices of what will be built there, this may be the o best option" 0 "Id rather have a big open field but since r X EVERYTHING changes, I choose this over 0 apartments and more people." "Great for our property values, so much 0 c� better- than 3,000-5,000 homes like Five U Point or Villa Metro. ANALYSIS Consistent with comments made by residents in meetings, those in favor of the project are not necessarily enthusiastic with the proposal but consider it a better alternative to what could be developed. Statements made were generalizations and future what -if scenarios. Some in favor based their comments on misconceptions regarding the number of residential units allowed on the property, which is currently a maximum of 750 units. Those opposed to the project held deeper convictions to their opinions and cited specifics. Packet Pg. 118 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project SECTION 2 Perceived Benefits Possible Benefits Associated with the Studio Proiect On a scale of 1 to 5, respondents were asked to rate six possible benefits of the studio project from very important to very unimportant. Ends speculation of what will inhabit that open space — 53% reported it was very or somewhat important; 22% reported it was very or somewhat unimportant; 18% reported neither important nor unimportant; 7% reported the benefit not applicable. Railroad crossing will be improved -- 67% reported it was very or somewhat important; 10% reported it was very or somewhat unimportant; 17% reported neither important nor unimportant; 7% reported the o benefit not applicable. co x 0 Belief it will help home values -- 46% reported it was very or somewhat important; 25% reported it was 3 very or somewhat unimportant; 23% reported neither important nor unimportant; 10% reported the benefit not applicable. Cnn_, New entryway monument into the canyon -- 42% reported it was very or somewhat important; 28% reported it was very or somewhat unimportant; 25% reported neither important nor unimportant; 4% reported the benefit not applicable. Expansion of trail system along Railroad Avenue -- 51% reported it was very or somewhat important; 20% reported it was very or somewhat unimportant; 27% reported neither important nor unimportant; 3% reported the benefit not applicable. Economic benefit to the Santa Clarita Valley -- 49% reported it was very or somewhat important; 25% reported it was very or somewhat unimportant; 2 1 % reported neither important nor unimportant; 6% reported the benefit not applicable. In a separate open-ended question, respondents were asked to provide additional benefits they believed could be achieved with the studio project other than the six benefits measured. Of the 47 responding, almost half cited no benefit to the canyon at all. For those answering with additional benefits, common themes of job creation, riddance of homeless in the field, and gentrification of the canyon were cited. Examples of comments: "Jobs for the community." "None. This project is a negative to the residents of Placerita Canyon in all forms. Only the studio and City Hall benefit from this disaster." "Possibly deter the homelessfrom taking root in that area. Could have the reverse effect" Packet Pg. 119 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project ANALYSIS Improvement of the 13th Street railroad crossing was the most important benefit reported followed by ending speculation on the property and expansion of the trail systems along Railroad Avenue. It should be noted that the 13th Street Improvement is a City project approved with the Dockweiler Extension and not dependent upon the studio project. Further, according to the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District, an entryway monument into the canyon is a requirement for any development on that project site. SECTION 3 City Roundabout Design Roundabout advantages in rank order Respondents were provided background information with history on the roundabout traffic circle o selection in 2020 and a rendering of the City approved project (Exhibit 3). The backgrounder stated the studio's stance that the roundabout does not work with their project as proposed and that a signalized r x light is required at the intersection of Dockweiler/12th/Arch streets, along with an added signalized light with seven lanes at the 90-degree turn (known as the `elbow') at 13th Street and Arch Street. At the time of -°a c� the survey, it was not clear if the light at Placerita Canyon Road to enter and exit Dockweiler Drive would remain in the design plan. N Of the four advantages cited as to why a roundabout at the intersection of Dockweiler/12th/Arch streets should be reconsidered, respondents were asked to rank order the attributes. Of the 69 responding, the choices were as follows: #1. Provides a calming measure to help reduce vehicle speed. 69% (43 respondents) ranked as #1 or #2 with a weighted score of 3.18 #2. Minimizes the presence of signalized lights in the canyon. 61% (39 respondents) ranked as #1 or #2 with a weighted score of 2.76 #3. Adds to the rural nature of Placerita Canyon. 35% (22 respondents) ranked as #1 or #2 with a weighted score of 2.42 #4. Ensures dedicated signal light at Placerita Canyon Road. 26% (17 respondents) ranked as #1 or #2 with a weighted score of 1.93 Note: The remaining 8% without a #1 or #2 choice answered as not applicable. ANALYSIS In a hierarchy of needs, reducing vehicle speed is the most important attribute of the traffic circle followed by minimizing the presence of signalized lights in the canyon. Of much lesser importance was the roundabout's adding to the rural nature of the canyon and ensuring a dedicated signal light at Placerita Canyon Road. Packet Pg. 120 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project Exhibit 3 SECTION 4 General Concerns Concerns related to the studio project as proposed All 73 respondents answered this question with 74% (54 respondents) having concerns about the project and 26% (19 respondents) not having concerns. Of the total, 36 respondents added written comments. In no particular order, a sampling of responses cited the following as concerns: Traffic • Size, scale, and suitability of project to existing neighborhoods • Safety with only one way in and out • Lack of exits in case of emergency • Noise • Hours of operation • Industrial use in a residential area • Large trucks and other vehicles • Impact on Placeritos if it becomes a shortcut • Flooding for upstream neighbors • Signalized lights in the canyon • Need for additional access not through the canyon or 13th Street • Cumulative impact with The Master's University growth and increased enrollment, new school at the former Town & Country Farm School, multiple churches in the area, horse ranch, and Melody Ranch Studios. ANALYSIS Many of the concerns cited are surveyed further in subsequent questions. Some comments did include suggestions to improve the project, such as an entrance at Railroad Ave. and 15th Street, studio quiet hours from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., and installation of speed bumps on Placeritos. Packet Pg. 121 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project Rating and ranking of general concerns On a scale of 1 to 5, respondents were asked to rate 10 general concerns for the studio project from very important to very unimportant. There were 64 respondents who answered all or parts of this question. Traffic impacts - 95% reported it was very or somewhat important; no one reported it was very or somewhat unimportant; 2% reported neither important nor unimportant; 3% reported the benefit not applicable. Entrance/exit gates all on one side - 87% reported it was very or somewhat important; no one reported it was very or somewhat unimportant; 8% reported neither important nor unimportant; 5% reported the benefit not applicable. Presence of several signalized lights in the canyon - 82% reported it was very or somewhat important; no one reported it was very or somewhat unimportant; 15% reported neither important nor unimportant; o 3% reported the benefit not applicable. 0 r Change of canyon's culture - 8 1 % reported it was very or somewhat important; 10% reported it was very 0 or somewhat unimportant; 6% reported neither important nor unimportant; 3% reported the benefit not o applicable. U) Adherence to the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District - 8 1 % reported it was very or somewhat r c important; 8% reported it was very or somewhat unimportant; 8% reported neither important nor E unimportant; 3% reported the benefit not applicable. o Size of project - 77% reported it was very or somewhat important; 5% reported it was very or somewhat unimportant; 13% reported neither important nor unimportant; 5% reported the benefit not applicable. Hours of operation - 75% reported it was very or somewhat important; 3% reported it was very or somewhat unimportant; 17% reported neither important nor unimportant; 5% reported the benefit not applicable. Setting precedence for other large-scale projects - 71% reported it was very or somewhat important; 6% reported it was very or somewhat unimportant; 19% reported neither important nor unimportant; 3% reported the benefit not applicable. Potential for flooding in the canyon - 68% reported it was very or somewhat important; 15% reported it was very or somewhat unimportant; 15% reported neither important nor unimportant; 3% reported the benefit not applicable. Removal and/or relocation of oak trees - 62% reported it was very or somewhat important; 16% reported it was very or somewhat unimportant; 19% reported neither important nor unimportant; 3% reported the benefit not applicable. Packet Pg. 122 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project Of the 10 concerns listed, respondents were asked to rank each concern with #1 being most important and #10 being the least important. Of the 62 responding, the results were as follows: #1. Traffic impacts. 74% (46 respondents) ranked as #1, #2 or #3 with 82% (51 respondents) ranking in the top five. #2. Size of the project. 44% (27 respondents) ranked as #1, #2 or #3 with 56% (35 respondents) ranking in the top five. #3. Presence of several signalized lights in the canyon. 34% (21 respondents) ranked as #1, #2 or #3 with 63% (39 respondents) ranking in the top five. #4. Entrance/exit gates all on one side. 31% (19 respondents) ranked as #1, #2 or #3 with 56% (35 respondents) ranking in the top five. #5. Adherence to the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District. 29% (18 respondents) ranked as #1, #2 or #3 with 53% (33 respondents) ranking in the top five. #6. Change of canyoes culture. c 29% (18 respondents) ranked as #1, #2 or #3 with 45% (28 respondents) ranking in the top five. #7. Hours of operation. r co x 16% (10 respondents) ranked as #1, #2 or #3 with 39% (24 respondents) ranking in the top five. 3 #8. Potential for flooding in the canyon. -0 13% (8 respondents) ranked as #1, #2 or #3 with 34% (21 respondents) ranking in the top five. c� N #9. Setting precedence for other large-scale projects. r 13% (8 respondents) ranked as #1, #2 or #3 with 56% (35 respondents) ranking in the top five. # 10. Removal and/or relocation of oak trees. E 4% (3 respondents) ranked as #1, #2 or #3 with 27% (17 respondents) ranking in the top five. 0 10, In a separate open-ended question, respondents were asked to provide additional concerns they had with the studio project. Of the 41 responding, many reiterated many of the concerns previously measured such as traffic impacts, large size of the project, lack of ingress/egress in times of emergency or crisis, safety, and general incompatibility with Placerita Canyon. Other concerns not previously cited included: • Lights and noise • Cumulative impact of Dockweiler and the studio project • Increase in crime, theft, and vandalism • Disruption of nature and displacement of wildlife • Lack of access to Interstate 5 by connecting Via Princessa to the studio project • Need for park space and buffer zones ANALYSIS Traffic impacts are the major concern and measured in further detail in a subsequent question. In the written comments, many respondents were specific in their apprehension as to how the project will affect canyon residents, its rural equestrian lifestyle, and long-term impacts. A few were concerned the project may be delayed or not happen. Packet Pg. 123 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project Examples of comments for general concerns: "Safety concerns with only one way in/out of the area for first responders and residents during fire, natural crisis, etc." `A studio is very similar to a heavy manufacturing business because they use a lot of large trucks and other vehicles. As such, a project of this kind is not suited for this neighborhood. A housing development would add a lot of traffic, but at least it would be cars, not trucks." "The roundabout is a deal breaker." "The presence of multiple signalized lights will turn Placeritos Blvd into a short cut for bothresidents and students to avoid a light or cut down on traffic delays. This will ruin the peacefulnature of our neighborhood." o "Traffic impact. Flooding. Noise. Rural community impact." "The size and scale of this project is enormous and is not appropriate for the property. p Impactsnot only to the canyon but surrounding areas of Newhall will not be able to 3 be mitigatedproperly given the limitations of the project with the railroad tracks and -°a adjacent homes." U) "This large industrial complex Will be open 24 hours A -day all year long these are rented buildings. 19 productions trucks coming and going all day and night long every day all yearlong. Non stop production. This doesn't fit a residential area at all. I F Examples of comments for other concerns: "Traffic, lights, noise, getting out of the canyon in an emergency." "Noise, lights, traffic, disrupting nature and wild life living in canyon.... its all too much for this small community." `Added lighting to the canyon. We are a rural and equestrian area. That means limited or no lights." I feel between the Masters expansion and this commercial studio our residential community will be negatively altered forever." "That it may not happen." WWW Packet Pg. 124 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project SECTION 5 Traffic Impacts Traffic Impacts On a scale of 1 to 5, respondents were asked to rate five traffic impacts listed from very important to very unimportant with 1 being very important and 5 being very unimportant. There were 61 respondents answering all or part of the question. Ability to enter/exit the canyon - 100% reported it was very or somewhat important for a weighted average of 1.07 Traffic flow - 100% reported it was very or somewhat important for a weighted average of 1.12 Traffic volume - 95% reported it was very or somewhat important; no one reported it was very or 7 0 somewhat unimportant; 3% reported neither important nor unimportant; 2% reported the benefit not applicable for a weighted average of 1.17 co x 0 Trucks and large vehicles - 94% reported it was very or somewhat important; 2% reported it was 3 0 very or somewhat unimportant; 3% reported neither important nor unimportant for a weighted average of 1.33 Cn Signalized lights in the canyon - 92% reported it was very or somewhat important; 2% reported it was very or somewhat unimportant; 7% reported neither important nor unimportant for a weighted average of 1.54 Of the 61 respondents, 15 offered additional written comments expressing concerns stated in previous comments. Other comments included disruption to the existing community, potential for bottlenecks, and impact on the back gate during emergencies. ANALYSIS Traffic is a major concern for all responding. Ingress and egress for canyon residents was universally important. Significant importance was also placed on traffic volume, trucks and large vehicles, and signalized lights. The cumulative impacts of existing neighborhoods, The Master's University, churches, Dockweiler extension, Melody Ranch Studio operations, and the proposed 1,293,000 sq. ft. studio project could overwhelm the limitations of a rural, equestrian community. Examples of comments: "You can't put something that big in front of the Canyon and not expect for it to be a huge problem traffic problem." "Too much traffic, noise, people, lights." "The point is absolutely NOT to have any increased traffic or trucks as a result of either the studio or the Dockweiler extension." "Too much traffic, noise, people, lights." `Again this is 19 studios open 24 hours a day that is deliveries all day all night trucks heavy volume of traffic lights noise is unacceptable." Packet Pg. 125 PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project 1.k SECTION 6 Final Thoughts Will Placerita Canyon be better off with the studio project? Near the end of the survey, respondents were asked if they believe Placerita Canyon will be better off with the studio project. Of the 67 responding, 43% (29 respondents) answered Yes; 57% (38 respondents) answered No. There were 29 respondents who offered optional written comments to the Yes or No question. Subjectively measuring tonality of responses, 12 were in opposition and 12 in favor. Five responses were focused on topics not discernable to respondents' support or oppose intention: No Dockweiler extension, extension at Lyons Ave., a Via Princessa connection or build a road at the base of Circle J to access Highway 14, and open space to remain as is. ANALYSIS There was no overall consensus at the conclusion of the survey as to whether Placerita Canyon will or will not be better off with the proposed studio project. Respondents were divided on this issue. However, correlating with the beginning of the survey where respondents were almost evenly divided on whether the project was a good fit for the canyon or not, this follow-up question near the end of the survey indicated a marked shift in opinion as a fewer number responding answered in the affirmative, while those in disagreement increased. Reviewing written comments throughout the survey, one thing was abundantly clear. Those who expressed concerns on the project were passionate in their positions providing concrete specifics. Those who expressed favor with the project did so in a resolved manner lacking conviction for the most part. Examples of comments in favor: `Bit better than a housing development. "If we handle things right, lay ground rules and not be star struck by the thought of a Movie Studio in our backyard." Examples of comments in opposition: "I understand the economic impact for the city this project will bring, but the location is in the heart of the Newhall area with limited access. Afar better location would be on the Whitaker Bermite property that has several access points, including the cross valley connector." "It will severely, and irrevocably damage the rural nature of the Canyon, or whatever is left after Master's College gets done taking over." "This project is larger than the mall that is open 24 hours a day with 19 studios that means 19diierent productions going on all at the same time that is hundreds of trucks in and out all dayall night Non - Stop. This will create such a nightmare of traffic noise that will be unacceptableand I don't understand again how you need to have a general plan amendment and zoningchanges just to make it fit in the special standards district that means it does not fit into thespecial standard district and should not even be thought of ' "We aren't a commercial zones" No 7 0 r x 0 3 0 c� t U) Packet Pg. 126 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project SECTION 7 Alternative Uses If Project Not Approved If not this, then what? At the conclusion of the survey and as a final question, respondents were asked if not the studio project, what type of development they would most likely support on the property. There were 56 respondents who provided input to this question. 26 respondents favored a park or recreational area. 12 respondents favored residential housing development with emphasis on homes and lots compatible with the existing neighborhood. • 6 respondents favored the studio project some with conditions, including smaller size, alternative entry, and back gate passes for residents. 0 a r • 3 respondents favored other industrial uses, such as a nursery or something with a smaller o footprint, or institutional uses as a cultural center or instructional/educational facility. 3 • 3 respondents stated they favored anything but a large industrial complex. 0 M • The remaining respondents did not see any development on the property or specify anything but business or something consistent with the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District. E ANALYSIS In the event the proposed studio project is not approved by the Santa Clarita City Council, nearly half of those responding indicated a park or recreational area would be a project they would support. Other development projects that residents could support include residential housing development with emphasis on homes and lots compatible with the existing neighborhood. For uses outside the area's current zoning, some favored the studio project but with conditions, including a smaller size and/or alternative entry along with other industrial uses with a smaller footprint or institutional uses, such as a cultural center or instructional/educational facility. Examples of comments: `Placerita Canyon Cultural Center or the Santa Clarita Cultural Center. Hart District instructional facility, such as another continuation school, alternative schools, vocational school." "Something with a smaller footprint and less traffic congestion" "That's the kicker. The studio project is better than dense housing that would be the only acceptable housing to a developer or an industrial complex or even more commercial businesses. So if I had to pick the lesser of all options the studio might be the best choice. It's just difficult to completely know what our Canyon will be like after a Studio is built. Everyonecan guess, make promises and statements but as we all know, all of those works can blow away like the wind." Packet Pg. 127 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project APPENDIX A Survey Instrument Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association The PCPOA board is conducting a brief survey to understand opinions on the proposed Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Development Plan (recent name and ownership change) on the 93.5-acre vacant land at 13th Street and Railroad Avenue. A Draft Environmental Impact Report is currently underway and expected to be presented to the City Planning Commission and City Council beginning late this year or early next year. At this time, PCPOA has not taken a position of support or opposition to the project but did provide a letter to the City addressing concerns during the Notice of Preparation process last spring. The PCPOA Board views it as a high priority to address this important, emerging issue in a way that best represents the opinions of canyon residents and property owners. Limit one survey per property address. Some background: The current project as proposed is the development of an approximate 1.34 million square foot television and movie studio campus with 19 leased sound stages and additional ancillary buildings operating year- round. Until the Dockweiler Drive Extension is completed, the only ingress and egress will be at the 13th Street and Railroad Avenue crossing. Also, of the three studio entrance/exit gates proposed, all are on the south side of the property facing and/or feeding into Placerita Canyon. For a complete review of the project's Initial Study, visit Blackball Studios Initial Study Click to review PCPOAs response to the City of Santa Clarita's Notice of Preparation of the Draft Environmental Review Report, Press Release: Shadowbox Studios, Formerly Blackball Studios, Announces $500 Million Strategic Investment From Silver Lake to Support Over $1.5 Billion Premium Soundstacre Platform and Unveils Corporate Rebrandincr Thank you in advance for participating in this survey. By completing this survey, we will keep you informed via our monthly newsletter on the progress as the review and approval process unfolds. The survey closes Friday, September 30, 2022. Please note that questions in this survey pertain to the proposed Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio project. For all other issues, email placeritacanyonpoa@gmail.com 7 0 r W x O O M t U) Packet Pg. 128 PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project 1.k * 1. Who is completing the survey? Name F Property Address F Email Address F Phone Number 2. Before this survey, were you familiar with the proposed Blackhall/Shadowbox project on 13th Street and Railroad Avenue? OYes O No Comment (optional) 3. Which of the following statements best describes how you feel about the overall project? OStrongly agree this project fits with the canyon OSomewhat agree this project fits with the canyon ONo opinion OSomewhat disagree this project fits with the canyon O Strongly disagree this project fits with the canyon Comment (optional) Packet Pg. 129 PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project 1.k 4. Of the possible benefits associated with the studio project, how would you rate the following? Neither Very Somewhat Important nor Somewhat Very Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Unimportant N/A Ends speculation of what will inhabit that open 0 0 0 0 0 0 space Railroad crossing will be O O O O O 0 improved Belief it will help home O O O O O 0 values New entryway monument into the 0 0 0 0 0 0 canyon Expansion of trail system 0 0 0 0 0 0 along Railroad Ave. Economic benefit to the 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santa Clarita Valley 5. What, if any, other benefits do you believe could be achieved with this project? 7 O O x O O ca t U) N c a) E E O U v O d r c a) E t v c� r r Q Packet Pg. 130 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project In March 2020, residents were surveyed regarding the Dockweiler/12th Street/Arch Street intersection and Placerita Canyon Road access point. The roundabout traffic circle with a dedicated signal at Placerita Canyon Road was the preferred design. Since that time the City has proceeded to design the intersection accordingly (see rendering). New information has come to light that the roundabout does not work for the studio project. The proposed project requires a signalized light at the intersection of Dockweiler/12th /Arch streets and a signalized light with seven lanes at the 90-degree turn (known as the 'elbow') at 13th Street and Arch Street. At this time, it is not clear if the light at Placerita Canyon Road to enter and exit Dockweiler Drive will remain in place. Rendering of the approved 4-Legged Roundabout with Signalized Offset T A W-4JV* IM 5WOME" T LEL&M L . S. CHIC Iceal LE IR Doff" CUt II.Ya CJ L CA SPIKE u7, 37 4+4GlSYNEILf� ii#Ei1 EXTEN F H PiROaIiE CLARITA IM FnCIT WrMuI:nUM • 44TRJ911R4E 7 6. The PCPOA board has cited four advantages of the roundabout and why it should be reconsidered. Please rank in the order of importance, if they apply, for each of the following with # 1 being most important and #4 being least important. Provides a calming measure to help reduce vehicle speed. ❑ N/A 76 Minimizes the presence of signalized lights in the canyon. ❑ N/A JL Adds to the rural nature of Placerita Canyon. ❑ N/A JL W Ensures dedicated signal light at Placerita Canyon Road. ❑ N/A Q Packet Pg. 131 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project * 7. Do you have concerns related to the project as proposed? OYes O No (skip to Question 12) Comments (optional) 8. If you have concerns, please rate the level of importance or unimportance with each of the following. Neither Very Somewhat Important nor Somewhat Very Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Unimportant N/A Size of project O O O O O O Traffic impacts O O O O O Presence of several signalized lights in the U O O O O �. canyon Entrance/exit gates all O O O O 0 Uon one side Hours of operation O O O O O O Removal and/or O O O O O O relocation of oak trees Change of canyon's O O O O 0 culture Adherance to the Placerita Canyon Special O O O O Standards District Setting precedence for other large-scale O O O O C projects Potential for flooding in O O O C the canyon Q Packet Pg. 132 PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project 1.k 9. For the concerns listed, please rank with # 1 being most important and # 10 being the least important to you. l Size of project ❑ N/A Traffic impacts ❑ N/A Presence of several signalized lights in the canyon ❑ N/A Entrance/exit gates all on one side ❑ N/A s Hours of operation ❑ N/A # Removal and/or relocation of oak trees ❑ N/A r Change of canyon's culture ❑ N/A r 1 Adherance to the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District ❑ N/A Ar', Setting precedence for other large-scale projects ❑ N/A Potential for flooding in the canyon ❑ N/A 10. What other concerns do you have with this project? r Q Packet Pg. 133 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project 11. Specific to traffic impacts, please rate the level of importance or unimportance with each of the following. Ability to enter/exit the canyon Traffic flow Traffic volume Trucks and large vehicles Signalized lights in the canyon Comments (optional) Neither Very Somewhat Important nor Somewhat Very Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Unimportant N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12. Do you believe Placerita Canyon will be better off with this project? 0 Yes 0 No Explain (optional) 13. If not this studio project, what type of development would you most likely support on this property? r Q Packet Pg. 134 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project APPENDIX B Postcard Mailed to Residential Addresses (Actual Size = 11" x 6") CPCPOA Manta Your Opinion 'lh.t V 'F1M luy W i I I;-.f4 i uW i W id mwvi y P. tint kitw l k j4lllmA7 -A4 lh e I L J411IV �1►id :T t+r i� }fxrJh,' L)t%vk mcm FLm Lrwtm maw, and i,A%i-hjp zhuryptF 11te k mK Lh Nl m h.M It 'U" wA ]a W rftJ .le womw. A 14,rft HoirI.MIIIf#iit..l Illlpwq R9T- t laturltav r LiWermay aril riiptowd I.- owe pfe med illm t 4'mF llbhhmg 1 lmmm K wmn wA LAq R.;,,e%',H L*rWunlfthLCase AiLkVt.K,x edaly lw;l }'v,Ir. AA lllls runt. It P.-k,, llama mM 9ikem 6 v*mkm 4 muyj t or tibm'"Ai n'. IN-I'h!tiI IRRalml lhfaa hLraWllrr n, lhir I'll%'aMiR-41IIg kL.JJ:rl h• 11111 IRt Ill.t 41,'t'.N: 'Lhc P(T1VL 9Li,,ard tirw%il ■c r hkOi pulat°iq WiadchrtAihii.hh"alAkri, emic4 ,lrlgl'ivwlc Ilia wmi ihik Lk l mili'{h wlI 4beoominmVfxrn4vo la€alrnlp. &IKl lmipgrLy 4m jbjr L.Iaui9 Mnr %Llry rs prr Imijirrl.r _iitMrrc3. n.. ehat4.�,r�... rr.i Ilv rurrmnl Fnwcyc am r�r,o I, -I.. is c.. L 1,m..•r..i.ri. allllrea;1"o1 hlffmMeabLpia.ri..acMewL,u,narhJmrrriawn LnfalmrWJYWF16l9lWMhP4 .Ja a Arl,l "61tl6VW JMLUL i-t•'hu.Ur-.0, ,wrg awr rvaw.9. 5-Wlfi 1W Ji;`._"VLlPr 1}nro l'icw n.Lrr:i L: rwrklML M. c h o brho us"eprtn VdII. he m Ihr 13M Mnit Qallr, l lwrelrw r n .sl rlPy 51.+._;� rh+ ihrr. rrir mran{+:';rx r4} L l nrr w ke , all+rrr ap �.....,...:I:. .'... a i�.} Lwgrr+l*• I� Irlf ,�_I,Yr thi�+l lrl� InI.I Irla.Wua e'anotrr -%.I., .,I.. - .I .nl-, rmYh]tlairlr tk itattdtrr*ha 4p FCP+OAa .m lh.nL w, a.III blusrl *l~ w pj=KJrLAJmq an thh, wirer Wr.tix{!lsr no Ilur unr y, we %'0 k. r i iy c�fiera l y ii inn rn.�ilh..tr nrrr4HI=4.n the rmWriw is I'hc are/ rrrll arrrirrrl hP•,`., �. v...n.l�dJ. 7 0 r x 0 3 0 cts t fn Packet Pg. 135 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding BLackhaLL/Shadowbox Studio Project APPENDIX C Complete Survey Report Q2 Before this survey, were you familiar with the proposed Blackhall/Shadowbox project on 13th Street and Railroad Avenue? Answered:73 Skipped:0 Yes No 1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes 95.89% 70 No 4.11% 3 TOTAL 73 # COMMENT (OPTIONAL) 1 This project does not belong in Placerita canyon. 2 We're all very excited about this best use of the property 3 Placerita Canyon is a rural neighborhood connected to the charming downtown Newhall district. Along with our charming and peaceful town we are so proud of, our community is also accompanied by adjacent neighborhoods, parks, a college university, high school, middle school and grammar school. Cramming large industrial buildings, sound studios, and movie billboards on the sides of buildings that connects to peaceful residential neighborhoods significantly disrupts the charming rural newhall vibe. An industrial park will drastically take away from the Newhall/Placerita Canyon serenity in which our community takes pride in, including our right to the peace and quiet enjoyment of our town. Our families and community deserve better. 4 This project is not fit our residential area. If this project would fit our area why does it need a general plan amendment zoning changes plus other permits and other city approvals. 5 And was opposed to it. 6 Minimally 7 I don't want to see anything go in that area and displace the wildlife and open space, but I'd rather see a movie studio over a neighborhood. 8 Familiar with original proposal 9 Somewhat N O_ 3 r X O O cts t U) N r C d E E O U v 3 d C E L v tts r Q Packet Pg. 136 PCPOA Survey Regarding BLackhaLL/Shadowbox Studio Project 1.k Q3 Which of the following statements best describes how you feel about the overall project? Answered:72 Skipped:1 Strongly agree this project... Somewhat agree this project... No opinion Somewhat disagree thi... Strongly disagree thi... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Strongly agree this project fits with the canyon 20.83% 15 Somewhat agree this project fits with the canyon 26.39% 19 No opinion 4.17% 3 Somewhat disagree this project fits with the canyon 18.06% 13 Strongly disagree this project fits with the canyon 30.56% 22 TOTAL 72 # COMMENT (OPTIONAL) 1 This industrial project does not fit or belong in our residential community. 2 Would rather have nothing in the field but I believe studios would be better than housing..... 3 Its not the project we have no roads its all due to safety 4 This project is simply too large for this area. I have run a company and worked in the motion picture industry for 40 years and I have worked on all the studios. The amount of traffic 19 leased stages would create would be unreal between all of the crafts trucks( lighting, electricians, grips, painters, carpenters, prop), the tractor trailers and employees coming in and out of the canyon at all hours of the day and night, it would simply destroy access for residents. I do hope a smaller project is considered. 5 Better this than what was originally planned. 6 Great for our property values, so much better than 3000-5000 homes like five point or villa metro - which are the preferred way to build due to land and building costs and the city's pressure on home builders to 'pack them in as tight as possible' and thus increase taxes to the c ity 7 The road into studio should come from extension of Lyons Avenue -- quit trying to appease Laurene Weste..... do what's best for the Canyon and Community 8 While I love the open space as is, I would prefer a studio in this field over additional homes or apartments. 9 The brewing alternative to this project is apx 2500 housing units. r Q Packet Pg. 137 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project 10 1 would strongly disagree, but for fear that what replaces it would be even worse. 11 this is a quiet royal residential area 12 Placerita Canyon is a rural neighborhood connected to the charming downtown Newhall district. Along with our charming and peaceful town we are so proud of, our community is also accompanied by adjacent neighborhoods, parks, a college university, high school, middle school and grammar school. Cramming large industrial buildings, sound studios, and movie billboards on the sides of buildings that connects to peaceful residential neighborhoods significantly disrupts the charming rural newhall vibe. An industrial park will drastically take away from the Newhall/Placerita Canyon serenity in which our community takes pride in, including our right to the peace and quiet enjoyment of our town. Our families and community deserve better. 13 This large industrial complex that is larger than the Valencia Mall does not fit the special standards district of Placerita Canyon. Also being open 24 hours a day 7 days a week 365 days a year traffic coming and going all day all night all year long is not acceptable for our rule equestrian lifestyle and neighborhood. 14 A traffic nightmare, we are a designated special district and this project does not fit in with this. 15 1 dont feel the project suits the Placerita Canyon lifestyle, but among our choices of what will be built there, this may be the best option. N 16 The Project itself and the Roundabout damages the rural feel of living in the canyon. It is better 0 than the previously proposed low income housing and the crime problems associated with that type of project. 17 traffic will be a huge problem. X 18 Does not conform with ssd which is part of the general plan and can only be amended through p legal procedures and hearings. 19 I'd rather have a big open field but since EVERYTHING changes, I choose this over L apartments and more people. U) 20 If you've lived in the canyon as long as I have, you'll recall that you had to leave your house to before Grace Baptist Church let out on Sunday. On Placeritos, cars would back up all the way C past Aden. With the craziness of a 24/7 studio with traffic flowing in and out, I promise it will E be a nightmare with a canyon that has one way in and out, a growing college, a horse ranch, Melody Ranch Studio, multiple churches and a newly formed school replacing the Town & E Country Farm school. I would strongly suggest to our city mangers to locate any project entrance and exit at 15th with no entry off of 13th. v 21 We already have one Studio as a model, and its better than high density housing 3 22 1 don't want to see anything go in that area and displace the wildlife and open space, but I'd d rather see a movie studio over a neighborhood. 23 I'm worried about the impact on traffic in the canyon and getting in and out L 24 My belief is that to fit the canyon, any changes should fit a rural, spread out, unique, horse v ca happy environment, honoring the oak trees and hillsides. r Q 25 This proposal much larger than original 26 While I do not want affordable housing to utilize the vacant land, I feel that the studio proposal will end up much like the studios/sound stages north of the proposed that are adjacent to the lumber vard. These are a comDlete industrial eve sore. One wav in and one wav out and no residential properties nearby. This development will not only increase traffic into our neighborhood, it will also delay residents trying to get home which will likely cause excessive speed to be used by the frustrated landowners. This means they will haul ass up placeritos because there is no speed suppression on that only public thoroughfare. Already people use placeritos instead of placerita to avoid the speed bumps. Entrances should be created at the owner's expense crossing the railroad tracks further north of 13th keeping it completely independent of our 2 lane entrance. Further, where are these people going to eat? We have so few restaurants in the local area, that most are so crowded already that I limit my patronizing. Now it will be a joke. How about getting some new restaurants in the area. Newhall is outgrowing its infrustructure 27 The size and scope of this development has a density and use that is incosistent with the general rural, non -industrial zone and intended use of Placerita Canyon. 28 So far it is better than all the housing projects presented 29 Movie studio doesnY really fit with the equestrian feel of Placerita Canyon, but it's much more desirable than having additional housing developments. Packet Pg. 138 PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project 1.k Q4 Of the possible benefits associated with the studio project, how would you rate the following? Answered:72 Skipped:1 Ends speculation ... Railroad crossingwil... Belief it will help home... 1 New entryway, monument int...I 1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Expansion of trail system... Economic benefit to t... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 500/c Very Import... Somewhat I... Neither Im... Somewhat ... VeryUnimp... N/A O_ 3 r X O O cts t U) N r C a) E E O U d r C a) E t v c� r r Q Packet Pg. 139 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project Ends speculation of what will inhabit that open space Railroad crossing will be improved Belief it will help home values New entryway monument into the canyon Expansion of trail system along Railroad Ave. Economic benefit to the Santa Clarita Valley VERY SOMEWHAT NEITHER SOMEWHAT VERY NIA TOTAL WEIGHTE IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT UNIMPORTANT UNIMPORTANT AVERAGE NOR UNIMPORTANT 22.22% 30.56% 18.06% 6.94% 15.28% 6.94% 16 22 13 5 11 5 72 2.6 44.44% 22.22% 16.67% 1.39% 8.33% 6.94% 32 16 12 1 6 5 72 2.0 26.76% 19.72% 22.54% 5.63% 15.49% 9.86% 19 14 16 4 11 7 71 2.5 18.06% 23.61% 25.00% 5.56% 23.61% 4.17% 13 17 18 4 17 3 72 2.9 25.35% 25.35% 26.76% 2.82% 16.90% 2.82% 18 18 19 2 12 2 71 2.5 29.17% 19.44% 20.83% 2.78% 22.22% 5.56% 21 14 15 2 16 4 72 2.6 N _O 7 Co K O 3 O O t N to r C N E E O U v a r C N E r Y Q Packet Pg. 140 PCPOA Survey Regarding BLackhaLL/Shadowbox Studio Project 1.k 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Q5 What, if any, other benefits do you believe could be achieved with this project? Answered:47 Skipped:26 RESPONSES None at all. Theirs no benefit to our canyon. No benefits to us Adds local jobs Due to no roads unless you come in from the oppisite end private entry to and from studios road run along train tracks Revitalize the area Security on that property New park for kids in the canyon, access to the Paseos, bike trail to connect to Circle J Jobs created More jobs for the local community. Rather have this than dense housing - but that's a sad compromise None none for Masterita Cyn residents Placerita Canyon is a rural neighborhood connected to the charming downtown Newhall district Along with our charming and peaceful town we are so proud of, our community is also accompanied by adjacent neighborhoods, parks, a college university, high school, middle school and grammar school. Cramming large industrial buildings, sound studios, and movie billboards on the sides of buildings that connects to peaceful residential neighborhoods significantly disrupts the charming rural newhall vibe. An industrial park will drastically take away from the Newhall/Placerita Canyon serenity in which our community takes pride in, including our right to the peace and quiet enjoyment of our town. Our families and community deserve better. There is no benefit to the residents of placerita canyon with a large industrial complex that's open all year long. None for the Canyon. Avoiding low income housing/retail on that site. The benefits will be to the studio making the money, to the detriment of the Rural Equestrian Lifestyle. Perhaps it will help to improve the aesthetics of the storefronts as you enter the canyon. Most of the above are not benefits. While some of the questions might be important, with the exception of the first question, they are worded as a positive benefit. Your answers ask about the level of importance. You are asking one thing and giving possible answers for something else. I dont believe this project will be a benefit to the Placerita Canyon community. if we align ourselves with the studio, they might be a strong voice for our canyon. I believe Masters University really tries to partner with us. they might/hopefully do the same. and they have money. I do not see any benefit to property owners in Placerita Cyn. I cannot imagine the traffic jams and homeowners trying to exit the Cyn r Q Packet Pg. 141 PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project 1.k 22 None to canyon residents 23 Jobs, improvements to railroad crossing. I'm glad it is a group who is trying really hard to work with the people who live in Placerita Canyon. They are trying to make us happy. MORE residential homes will not be something that anyone cares about once it's gone. It will just be a bunch MORE people here who will do whatever they want to. 24 none to the canyon home owners 25 Entry into Canyon 26 Jobs 27 A movie studio will keep houses out. 28 None 29 If traffic provisions are not a first priority before any building begins then there are no benefits to this project. 30 Of the items listed above, none of those are an issue. I do know that a movie studio would bring jobs and adding to purchases / hotels made locally. 31 No benefits, lots of problems 32 1 don't see any benefits from this large project in an area that would be heavily impacted in a variety of ways 33 Work in the canyon for motion picture workers 34 Gentrification of canyon, clean up big dirt field. 35 None. This project is a negative to the Residents of Placerita Canyon in all forms. Only the studio and City Hall benefit from this disaster. 36 Possibly deter the homeless from taking root in that area. Could have the reverse effect. 37 N/A 38 We wouldn't be subjected to low income house and apartments 39 Better than a ton of houses 40 Jobs for the community 41 Beautification of the area, less homeless starting fires. 42 I'm worried about the traffic and commercial vehicles, the lights and noise emitting from the place. I think about the only benefit is it will drive the homeless out of the field. 43 Increase property values. Find something to do with that space that does not devalue our Canyon 44 Added safety and protection from the homeless and transient due to the studio security. 45 Better than mixed income housing. Better than vacant lot. Compliments Dockwiler extension. Tax benefit. Upgraded flood drainage for canyon. 46 None 47 No benefit from the project Packet Pg. 142 PCPOA Survey Regarding BLackhaLL/Shadowbox Studio Project 1.k Q6 The PCPOA board has cited four advantages of the roundabout and why it should be reconsidered. Please rank in the order of importance, if they apply, for each of the following with #1 being most important and #4 being least important. Answered:69 Skipped:4 Provides a calming meas... Minimizes the presence of... Adds to the rural nature... Ensures dedicated... 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 NIA Provides a calming measure to help reduce vehicle speed. 41.94% 27.42% 19.35% 3.23% 8.06% 26 17 12 2 5 Minimizes the presence of signalized lights in the canyon. 25.00% 35.94% 12.50% 17.19% 9.38% 16 23 8 11 6 Adds to the rural nature of Placerita Canyon. 22.22% 12.70% 36.51% 19.05% 9.52% 14 8 23 12 6 Ensures dedicated signal light at Placerita Canyon Road. 12.12% 13.64% 15.15% 43.94% 15.15% 8 9 10 29 10 TOTAL SCORE 62 3.18 64 2.76 63 2.42 66 1.93 r Q Packet Pg. 143 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project Q7 Do you have concerns related to the project as proposed? Answered:73 Skipped:0 Yes No (skip to Question 12) PM 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes 73.97% 54 No (skip to Question 12) 26.03% 19 TOTAL 73 # COMMENTS (OPTIONAL) 1 The size and scale of this project is enormous and is not appropriate for the property. Impacts not only to the canyon but surrounding areas of Newhall will not be able to be mitigated properly given the limitations of the project with the railroad tracks and adjacent homes. 2 This large industrial complex Will be open 24 hours A -day all year long these are rented buildings. 19 productions trucks coming and going all day and night long every day all year long. Non stop production. This doesn't fit a residential area at all. 3 No additional entrance to the project from Via Princessa 4 Yes, traffic, lights, getting out of the canyon in an emergency, overall size of structures.... 5 Of course, we have no roads for amount of traffic its not the studio its the city 6 112th, 13th. and ach st. will need to be regrade traffic and noise 7 traffic. Safety concerns with only one way in/out of the area for first responders and residents during fire, natural crisis, etc 8 The size of project and traffic 9 Lack of exits if there is an emergency 10 Traffic. Noise. Beautification. 11 The calming circle is defined as a residential only device. A roundabout is for commercial vehicles and is much greater in size. Neither is supposed to be within one half mile from a train track crossing --this calming circle will be a total fail as planned and will probably cause deaths 12 Mainly just the Dockweiler connection. It's pointless and will fill the canyon with unnecessary people and vehicles. 13 A studio is very similar to a heavy manufacturing business because they use a lot of large trucks and other vehicles. As such, a project of this kind is not suited for this neighborhood. A housing development would add a lot of traffic, but at least it would be cars, not trucks. 14 Will change what is left of the Placeria Canyon original unique lifestyle - not in a good way 15 this is a quiet rural residential area this does not belong in Placerita Q Packet Pg. 144 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding BLackhaLL/Shadowbox Studio Project 16 1 have many concerns the size for the area the enormous amount of traffic that it's going to be generating with over 3400 parking spots and 90 of them for trucks. Hours of operation are going to be all day long all night long all year long. This is unacceptable for any residential area especially ours. Again this is a residential community that is very unique. As a resident I do not benefit in any way from this project. 17 Very few people wanted the Dockweiler extension, few wanted the roundabout, and fewer want a light. MAKE IT ALL GO AWAY! 1 18 The presence of multiple signalized lights will turn Placeritos Blvd into a short cut for both residents and students to avoid a light or cut down on traffic delays. This will ruin the peaceful nature of our neighborhood. 19 Your survey is designed to get answers that support what you prefer, not get honest answers from homeowners. Create an new survey that asks the preferences of homeowners and to what extent they like a certain proposal, if they do at all. Your survey asks how much an option is liked, not whether it is liked or not. 20 the roundabout is a deal breaker. 21 1. City needs to see an honest circulation study is commissioned and performed. 2. Property is in a flood plain. Study needs to reflect mitigation and protection needs for upstream residents. 22 If you've lived in the canyon as long as I have, you'll recall that you had to leave your house before Grace Baptist Church let out on Sunday. On Placeritos, cars would back up all the way N p past Aden. With the craziness of a 24/7 studio with traffic flowing in and out, I promise it will be a nightmare with a canyon that has one way in and out, a growing college, a horse ranch, Melody Ranch Studio, multiple churches and a newly formed school replacing the Town & fn Country Farm school. I would strongly suggest to our city mangers to locate any project XX entrance and exit at 15th with no entry off of 13th. 0 p 23 1. Truck and crew traffic in the canyon (should use Railroad not Plaseritos or Plaserita 2. Studio congestion at the entrance to the Studio and 13th street 3. Noise (Construction on stage, gun fire, special effects, etc) (other Studios such as CBS Radford and Fox use Quiet L Hours for surrounding residents) 4. Quiet Hours (10 pm - 7 am) V% 24 1 moved to my specific house because it was directly next to the open space. I have special needs children who I wanted to protect from traffic and give them a safe rural place to live. Ike inquired about buying a few acres right next to me to protect this but no luck. The city of Santa Clarita continues to urbanize after years of luring people here to awesome town with its beautiful hills and open space. Any project at all is heartbreaking. 25 We have no signalized lights now. Project proposes four signalized lights 26 If MWD land is used as a parking lot, that puts 24 hour traffic and lights 30 ft from my back yard. Also round -about puts small business on 12th street with problematic egress and parking 27 This roundabout would be horrendous to the canyon residents and an alternative entrance should be considered off of Railroad Ave. and 15th street. This way the studio does not interfere with the daily lives of the Placerita Canyon Residents. 28 Once started get done ASAP 29 Still allows easy access to 12th street which harbors the majority of vehicles into the canyon. Install speed bumps on placeritos or remove the ones on placerita. The way it is designed will make traffic worse on placerita 30 Density of buildings and ancillary traffic throughout the day. All other business/schools, etc. have limited usage and time spectrum. 31 Access into the lot needs to be addressed 32 1 don't want the master's students speeding on Placeritos to avoid Placerita 33 Our concern is only the Dockweiller rd connection! We do not want to connect Newhall to Canyon Country - especially not through Placerita Canyon. Have Dockweiller Road stay the way it is now. Or have Dockweiller road connect to Railroad avenue at a different spot. Do NOT connect Dockweiller road through Placerita canyon - we are a peaceful Equestrian Zone- not a throughway for Canyon Country. 34 An alternative would me a park similar to central park or Aquatic center to be used by all of Santa Clarita 35 Additional traffic at the railroad tracks and potential for more traffic/damage to the gate on the east end. 36 Traffic impact. Flooding. Noise. Rural community impact. Packet Pg. 145 PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project 1.k Q8 If you have concerns, please rate the level of importance or unimportance with each of the following. Answered:64 Skipped:9 Size of project ■ Traffic impacts Presence of several... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Very Import... Somewhat I... Neither Im... Somewhat... Very Unimp... N/A N _O 7 r CO K O O ca t N to r C N E E O U 2 3 a r C N E c� r Y Q Packet Pg. 146 PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project 1.k Entrance/exit gates all on... Hours of operation Removal and/or relocation o... Change of canyon's... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Very Import... Somewhat I... Neither Im... Somewhat ... VeryUnimp... N/A Ul O_ 7 CO X O 3 O c,s CO r c m E E O U V 7 a r c m E M U c,s r r Q Packet Pg. 147 PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project 1.k Adherance to the Placerit... Setting precedence f... 1 Potential for flooding in ... ,6 1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Very Import... Somewhat I... Neither Im... Somewhat... ® Very Unimp... N/A N _O 7 CO K O 3 O c� Cn r C N E E O U 2 a r C N E t V r Q Packet Pg. 148 PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project 1.k VERY SOMEWHAT NEITHER SOMEWHAT VERY NIA TOTAL IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT UNIMPORTANT UNIMPORTANT NOR UNIMPORTANT Size of 51.61% 25.81% 12.90% 0.00% 4.84% 4.84% project 32 16 8 0 3 3 62 Traffic 88.71% 6.45% 1.61% 0.00% 0.00% 3.23% impacts 55 4 1 0 0 2 62 Presence of 59.68% 22.58% 14.52% 0.00% 0.00% 3.23% several 37 14 9 0 0 2 62 signalized lights in the canyon Entrance/exit 68.85% 18.03% 8.20% 0.00% 0.00% 4.92% gates all on 42 11 5 0 0 3 61 one side Hours of 52.38% 22.22% 17.46% 1.59% 1.59% 4.76% operation 33 14 11 1 1 3 63 Removal 49.21% 12.70% 19.05% 3.17% 12.70% 3.17% and/or 31 8 12 2 8 2 63 relocation of oak trees Change of 64.52% 16.13% 6.45% 4.84% 4.84% 3.23% canyon's 40 10 4 3 3 2 62 culture Adherance to 68.25% 12.70% 7.94% 3.17% 4.76% 3.17% the Placerita 43 8 5 2 3 2 63 Canyon Special Standards District Setting 50.00% 20.97% 19.35% 4.84% 1.61% 3.23% precedence 31 13 12 3 1 2 62 for other large-scale projects Potential for 45.16% 22.58% 14.52% 3.23% 11.29% 3.23% flooding in 28 14 9 2 7 2 62 the canyon Packet Pg. 149 PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project 1.k Q9 For the concerns listed, please rank with #1 being most important and #10 being the least important to you. Answered:62 Skipped: 11 Size of project 6 Traffic impacts Presence of several... Entrance/exit gates all on... Hours of operation Removal and/or relocation o... Change of canyon's... Adheranceto the Placerit... Setting precedence f... Potential for flooding in ... 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Size of 21.82% 10.91% 16.36% 9.09% 5.45% 12.73% 5.45% 3.64% 7.27% 1.82% 5.45% project 12 6 9 5 3 7 3 2 4 1 3 Traffic 41.07% 25.00% 16.07% 5.36% 3.57% 5.36% 0.00% 3.57% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% impacts 23 14 9 3 2 3 0 2 0 0 0 Presence of 8.93% 21.43% 7.14% 21.43% 10.71% 10.71% 10.71% 7.14% 0.00% 0.00% 1.79% several 5 12 4 12 6 6 6 4 0 0 1 signalized lights in the canyon Entrancelexit 0.00% 14.29% 19.64% 19.64% 8.93% 5.36% 8.93% 10.71% 7.14% 3.57% 1.79% gates all on 0 8 11 11 5 3 5 6 4 2 1 one side Hours of 5.26% 5.26% 7.02% 5.26% 19.30% 12.28% 14.040/u 8.77% 7.02% 10.53% 5.26% operation 3 3 4 3 11 7 8 5 4 6 3 Removal 3.57% 1.79% 0.00% 10.71% 14.29% 12.50% 14.29% 7.14% 10.71% 21.43% 3.57% and/or 2 1 0 6 8 7 8 4 6 12 2 relocation of oak trees Change of 7.02% 12.28% 12.28% 8.77% 8.77% 14.04% 10.53% 12.280% 8.77% 3.51% 1.75% canyon's 4 7 7 5 5 8 6 7 5 2 1 culture Adherance to 7.02% 10.53% 14.04% 12.28% 14.04% 8.770/n 8.77% 14.04% 5.26% 5.26% 0.00% the Placenta 4 6 8 7 8 5 5 8 3 3 0 Canyon Special Standards District Setting 5.17% 3.45% 5.17% 1.72% 5.17% 12.07% 8.62% 18.97% 29.31% 6.90% 3.45% precedence 3 2 3 1 3 7 5 11 17 4 2 for other large-scale projects Potential for 10.530/. 0.00% 3.51% 7.02% 5.26% 3.51% 14.04% 5.26% 17.540/u 31.58% 1.75% flooding in 6 0 2 4 3 2 8 3 10 18 1 the canyon Q Packet Pg. 150 PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project 1.k Q10 What other concerns do you have with this project? Answered:41 Skipped:32 # RESPONSES 1 Not appropriate for the location. 2 1 don4 believe this project fits the special standards district that is Placerita Canyon... also if this project fits then why does it require a general plan amendment,zoning changes and all different kind permits. 3 The amount of traffic to enter and exit the canyon Traffic through the canyon 4 Traffic combination of this project and the Dockweiler extension. 5 Traffic, lights, noise, getting out of the canyon in an emergency. 6 will this project be in stages and take years to complete like other studio @placerita cny and the freeway 7 Traffic. Safety in/out area during natural crisis. 8 Traffic flow connecting to Dockwiler 9 We love to ride bikes and cruise around the canyon and to turn side store and with so much traffic I would want dedicated bike paths/sidewalks for my kids. I would want the landscaping to hide all these big industrial buildings so that it doesn't depreciate my property value. I would want a park and access to the paseos 10 That the city or the pcpoa will slow down the approval and/ or construction 11 This is my only comment and I have not filled out anything else (some of the number fields have been auto populating, and I hope I was able to clear them all). 1. This is a huge parcel of land, the city and land owner have a significant financial interest and the PC homeowners opinions are not going to make much of an impact. 2. Our "Special Standards" are all but GONE. The "RY 8 acre property adjacent to mine was recently re -zoned to "R3" (multiple family homes/apartments/condos with 11 dwellings per acre!!!). Somehow Master's college has been able to "work with " the city and what was a one family home Oust above us) is now a dorm with 12 ppl...... Special Standards"???? 3. If the Studio project doesn't go thru... my fear is that the city could be forced (by the State of Ca) to build multi dwelling apartments, or whatever "they" think the area needs and they don't give a hoot about the PC, our "life style" or any "Special Standards" a few elite enjoy, while they need housing for the masses!!! 4. The city is know for bulldozing projects thru that benefit the city (and or persons within the city government) for financial gain and do just the opposite of what "the people" want. We have lived here 38 years and love this canyon and don't want anything built on that property but unfortunately, something will be built. We feel that a Studio will be better option than more any housing projects. The access to this property is NOT suitable for anything really. They have not figured it out but the longer it takes the more likely developers will drop out and we might get housing projects with roads subsidized by the State of California!!! Maybe we could ask for: 1. A buffer zone (1-2 acres) donated at the end of the canyon with low use from the Studio or green area? 2. Ask that they city to look at the possibility of moving the entrance to this property (off Dockweiler) down the road and on the inside of the tracks. This would decrease traffic on the at grade crossing and maybe we don't need any traffic circle? Move the entrance and keep the traffic ON THEIR land??? Thank you for putting this survey together and I do realize it hard to get data because I didn't follow the format! 12 None. Something will happen to the land it is inevitable. 13 Traffic and increase in theft and vandalism. 14 The overall traffic and flow of cars in and out of the canyon is a large concern. Gate access out of the back of the canyon is very important to ensure residents can safely leave in the event of an emergency. 15 Railroad is already a mess traffic -wise. There are no plans to improve the road there. There have already been numerous human/vehicle accidents. This will only compound this problem 16 Trucks! 17 concerned with the amount of extra traffic it will create Packet Pg. 151 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project 18 Placerita Canyon is a rural neighborhood connected to the charming downtown Newhall district. Along with our charming and peaceful town we are so proud of, our community is also accompanied by adjacent neighborhoods, parks, a college university, high school, middle school and grammar school. Cramming large industrial buildings, sound studios, and movie billboards on the sides of buildings that connects to peaceful residential neighborhoods significantly disrupts the charming rural newhall vibe. An industrial park will drastically take away from the Newhall/Placerita Canyon serenity in which our community takes pride in, including our right to the peace and quiet enjoyment of our town. Our families and community deserve better. 19 My major concern is that the city is going to approve this project for City tax revenue at the expense of the residents of the canyon. This city is going to sell out my family for tax money. 20 This opens up for a lot of people to be in our neighborhood, and because it's bringing more people it can bring more crime once they see the properties and what's here. 21 They are all #1 22 Our main concern is traffic on our quiet peaceful street not from the project/studio itself but from the canyon and College students using our Placeritos Blvd to avoid traffic delays from the signals and to take short cuts. Residents are the worst speeders of them all and we are not able to have speedbumps on our street. 23 All are a 1, except for the question of flooding. That would be a 2. 24 n/a to O_ 25 noise, lights, traffic, disrupting nature and wild life living in canyon.... its all too much for this O small community 26 That they will wait to long and not build it K O 27 ? O 28 That the Studio is moving into an established community that is loved by all, we can't let a large revenue business take over our community. After they are established in a few years issues will be put to the test fn 29 It will be unsafe for anyone (not just kids) to drive around the neighborhood in golf carts, r bicycles, and motorbikes. People on horses will definitely need to rethink being out on the street. The beautiful bobcats and coyotes will tragically be displaced. 30 Added lighting to the canyon. We are a rural and equestrian area. That means limited or no E lights 31 1 have already stated that traffic is a primary concern without additional access provided to Placerita Canyon 32 Change is always unsettling and we have seen so many changes in the Canyon already. Our home is feeling less and less like the lifetime home we bought 30 years ago. 33 Project is too large for property. This is not an urban area. I'm worried the Santa Clarita City council is just interested in the money and not how it affects the people who actually have to live with it. 34 Too big for this area. SCV has to many traffic and congestion issues. We need more natural area and less mega projects 35 Everything was addressed 36 All of it is a negative to my Neighborhood and all of it will negatively impact the entire reason my Family was raised here and why we remain here. 37 How about a nice park? The closest one that you wont get stabbed or raped at is near the entrance to circle J 38 1 feel between the Masters expansion and this commercial studio our residential community will be negatively altered forever 39 Traffic. Having a big Construction project AND combining placerita with Dockweiller road does not make sense. Filming is good for SCV. We want to support filming. There just needs to be thoughtful ways to get the crews in and out without effecting our way of life. 1. Do NOT do the Dockweiller extension 2. Have the studio build another egress /ingress on Railroad Avenue on the northern part of their project.— combine it with Via Princesssa road to get to the freeway .... And that way the film crews will not be in our canyon. They can come in through the 1-5 — and not the 1-14. 40 That it may not happen. 41 None Packet Pg. 152 PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project 1.k Q11 Specific to traffic impacts, please rate the level of importance or unimportance with each of the following. Answered:61 Skipped:12 Ability to enter/exit t... Traffic flow Traffic volume 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Very Import... Somewhat I... Neither Im... Somewhat ... Very Unimp... N/A N _O 7 r CO K O 3 O c� Cn C N E E O U 2 a r C N E c� r Y Q Packet Pg. 153 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project Trucks and large vehicles N _O 7 Signalized N lights in th... X O 3 O r c m 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% E E O Very Import... Somewhat I... Neither Im... Somewhat... V Very Urimp... N/A 7 a r c m VERY SOMEWHAT NEITHER SOMEWHAT VERY NIA TOTAL WEIGHTEC t IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT UNIMPORTANT UNIMPORTANT AVERAGE V NOR r UNIMPORTANT Q Ability to 93.44% 6.56% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% enter/exit 57 4 0 0 0 0 61 1.07 the canyon Traffic 88.14% 11.86% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% flow 52 7 0 0 0 0 59 1.12 Traffic 85.00% 10.00% 3.33% 0.00% 0.00% 1.67% volume 51 6 2 0 0 1 60 1.17 Trucks 77.59% 17.24% 3.45% 0.00% 1.72% 0.00% and large 45 10 2 0 1 0 58 1.33 vehicles Signalized 55.93% 35.59% 6.78% 1.69% 0.00% 0.00% lights in 33 21 4 1 0 0 59 1.54 the canyon Packet Pg. 154 PCPOA Survey Regarding BLackha(L/Shadowbox Studio Project 1.k # COMMENTS (OPTIONAL) 1 This area cannot handle large trucks coming going all day all night for light for 19 production studios. As it is now they use that vacant lot just to have some vehicles in there and it's a madhouse with traffic being jammed up and they're only here for a few hours. 2 1 don't want lights - I want round abouts 3 There's already another school in the canyon, which may cause more traffic congestion at times than the studio —no one has been concerned about that. The school Will be having up to 1200 students, that's a potential of 1200 cars in and out every morning and afternoon. I doubt if that will be the case at the studio on a daily basis Monday through Friday. 4 Comments mentioned on previous comment. The increase in traffic makes the back gate even more important for emergency exit out of the canyon with the main exit being filled with additional traffic and cars. 5 this does not belong in the Canyon 6 Placerita Canyon is a rural neighborhood connected to the charming downtown Newhall district. Along with our charming and peaceful town we are so proud of, our community is also accompanied by adjacent neighborhoods, parks, a college university, high school, middle school and grammar school. Cramming large industrial buildings, sound studios, and movie billboards on the sides of buildings that connects to peaceful residential neighborhoods significantly disrupts the charming rural newhall vibe. An industrial park will drastically take away from the Newhall/Placerita Canyon serenity in which our community takes pride in, including our right to the peace and quiet enjoyment of our town. Our families and community deserve better. 7 Again this is 19 studios open 24 hours a day that is deliveries all day all night trucks heavy volume of traffic lights noise is unacceptable. 8 You can't put something that big in front of the Canyon and not expect for it to be a huge problem traffic problem. 9 too much traffic, noise, people, lights 10 We live in a rural community, we are not the valley or west side 11 The point is absolutely NOT to have any increased traffic or trucks as a result of either the studio or the Dockweiler extension. 12 Im glad its not more homes. We are bursting at the seams with our infrastructure We need more restaurants approved in the area. I have nothing against the studios however I wonder how they can afford to continue business in So Cal. Get the traffic situation rectified and I won't take issue to whatever is built there. 13 Signalized lights in the canyon will be a bottleneck. 14 J If we work with them they will give us what we want. 15 This absolutely impacts the entire reason we have chosen to purchase a home in the canyon. Packet Pg. 155 PCPOA Survey Regarding BLackhaLL/Shadowbox Studio Project 1.k Q12 Do you believe Placerita Canyon will be better off with this project? Answered:67 Skipped:6 No 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes 43.28% 29 No 56.72% 38 TOTAL 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 EXPLAIN (OPTIONAL) I understand the economic impact for the city this project will bring, but the location is in the heart of the Newhall area with limited access. A far better location would be on the Whitaker Bermite property that has several access points, including the cross valley connector. This project will destroy our lives in this canyon. It will completely change this peaceful community and will destroy Placerita Canyon. I will move if this project comes into our canyon. Would rather have nothing developed in the field, but between the studios and housing, would take the studio... Change is inevitable. Hope to take control of narrative and change in a positive manner. Better than putting hundreds of apartments and homes on this property as previously planned. Absolutely. The property will be developed for once and for all, without a bunch of junkie condos which have been proposed numerous times, and eventually what happened. If done correctly for all the right reasons -- the betterment of all Placerita Canyon residents.... Extend Lyons Avenue But no Dockweiler extension I believe it will be better off because a studio would fit better with the culture of the canyon than additional homes or apartments!! The alternative is apx 2500 housing units! It changes the whole structure of our canyon and our lives Placerita Canyon is a rural neighborhood connected to the charming downtown Newhall district. Along with our charming and peaceful town we are so proud of, our community is also accompanied by adjacent neighborhoods, parks, a college university, high school, middle school and grammar school. Cramming large industrial buildings, sound studios, and movie billboards on the sides of buildings that connects to peaceful residential neighborhoods significantly disrupts the charming rural newhall vibe. An industrial park will drastically take away from the Newhall/Placerita Canyon serenity in which our community takes pride in, including our right to the peace and quiet enjoyment of our town. Our families and community deserve better. r Q Packet Pg. 156 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project 13 This project is larger than the mall that is open 24 hours a day with 19 studios that means 19 different productions going on all at the same time that is hundreds of trucks in and out all day all night Non -Stop. This will create such a nightmare of traffic noise that will be unacceptable and I don't understand again how you need to have a general plan amendment and zoning changes just to make it fit in the special standards district that means it does not fit into the special standard district and should not even be thought of. 14 It will severely, and irrevocably damage the rural nature of the Canyon, or whatever is left after Master's College gets done taking over. 15 as opposed to what? 16 But it's better than APARTMENTS. We have no choice here, things are going to change. 17 if we handle things right, lay ground rules and not be star struck by the thought of a Movie Studio in our back yard 18 It will be unsafe for anyone (not just kids) to drive around in golf carts. People on horses will need to rethink being out on the street. The beautiful bobcats and coyotes will tragically be displaced. 19 It would be better for the Canyon for the wide open space to remain as is. 20 To big for property site. 21 All of the studio (or anything like it) and the Dockweiler extension is doing nothing more than p moving commercial everything closer to my driveway. O 22 Actually, Not really would be my response. It will take care of managing the massive amount of ground squirrels in that field that have now infested the canyon. Between a studio and K Masters, there is a lot of vehicles that will affect the canyon and the drivers dont care how that 0 effects us 3 23 Bit better than a housing development -0 M 24 We aren't a commercial zone! 25 Just be creative and find a way to not have to use our rural canyon to become a traffic filled N highway. 1. Use Via princessa on the north.OR 2. Build your own special road north of placerita canyon at the base of circle J to get to the 1-14 so we never see the trucks and traffic. d E 26 Better than multiple unit housing options E 27 It seems like the best option of what could possibly go in that space, and it will provide an O extra layer of security. v 28 Many benefits listed above 3 29 As someone who will be living directly behind the project, I currently enjoy the rural, calm and d quiet community. This project will cause stress on livestock and impact the environment. I don't care about property values. I care about keeping our current way of living. When the current film projects park in the empty field area, a lot of traffic is caused by the trucks and L cars going in and out. I can only imagine how much more traffic it will be with both projects. to Why not move this project to the area by the 14 freeway and Sierra highway. M Packet Pg. 157 PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project 1.k ig 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Q13 If not this studio project, what type of development would you most likely support on this property? Answered:56 Skipped:17 RESPONSES Placerita Canyon Cultural Center or the Santa Clarita Cultural Center. Hart District instructional facility, such as another continuation school, alternative schools, vocational school. Not sure but a super large industrial complex does not belong here. We're a residential community a park or homes. A large open area with improvements by the city similar to Central Park. Including horse trails. Residential development as currently zoned. Park, open space, golf course, athletic field for the college half acre lot housing anything that will bring about growth to the area (financially, better school system, etc). The studio project is a good idea this one is too large A decent park. Newhall lacks parklands. OR housing that fits with our special standards. The city should have placed central park here, in the more central location. Perhaps another park or equestrian center. Mixed use with houses and retail Maybe a sod farm This seems a good option. On a Zoom call during the pandemic the studio seemed to want to be a good neighbor willing to listen to any suggestions. My two suggestions are is the studio pays for 2 gate keys for every household and provides exclusive horse rails on the backside of the property all the way to where Railrooad curves at the foothills Nursery Of course open space or a part would be incredible but I would prefer a studio over additional homes or apartments. A residential development is the best we can hope for. It would add to traffic, but be less destructive to the neighborhood than a huge commercial business. Anything but a commercial monster not sure. only not businesses Single story ranch style homes and open a road to connect to the bridge at circle j for easy access out of the canyon and a quicker route to the hospital. I'm not sure what should be developed here but this large industrial complex or anything the size of a large industrial complex should not be. A park and/or sport complex like Central Park on Bouquet Canyon. An outside place for people to enjoy, especially being close to downtown Newhall where the city is trying to build up and bring people. Park or other recreation A park A very large sporting complex. Change the property to open space and leave it as is. If you must have a project in that space, at least put a outlet on 15th street where there is already a light and leave some of the open area undeveloped or create a park. 90 1 acre lots - single family homes a park, stable, Sports complex. Equestrian facilities. Q Packet Pg. 158 PCPOA Survey Regarding BLackhaLL/Shadowbox Studio Project 1.k 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Minor League Baseball Stadium! Just build the studio More safe trails! I don't really want anything there if I'm being honest. I like open space. single family 1/2 acre property park Parks and bike trails. Large custom homes in gated community Something with a smaller footprint and less traffic congestion I cannot see any type of development on this property until different proposals and actual work is carried out to improve access to Placerita Canyon. That's the kicker. The studio project is better than dense housing that would be the only acceptable housing to a developer or an industrial complex or even more commercial businesses. So if I had to pick the lesser of all options the studio might be the best choice. It's just difficult to completely know what our Canyon will be like after a Studio is built. Everyone can guess, make promises and statements but as we all know, all of those works can blow away like the wind. Residential with housing sites limited to 1/4 acre or bigger, some Townhouses with generous landscaping. All with respect to Placerita Creek and riverbed. Bring the space back to its natural state in some form The Project is fine you need to figure out an alternative entry to the studio. We would rather have a multi million dollar business providing jobs and value to the canyon then additional homes. A development consistent with the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District that is the only rightful contingent to the property. A couple high end restaurants and an park with a lake with lots of trees Large lot single homes. Some limited mixed -use. Recreation fields / Park / Open Space trails. None green space Dedicated open space Open space/ trails A park. Athletic fields - softball fields for hart high school!! SCV needs another football field dedicated just for all of the high schoolers . SCV needs a swimming pool competition Natatorium - the swimmers do not have enough pools. (For softball baseball -We could charge admission like the softball field of dreams) Another park with water features for the kids . Park as noted previously Mixed use with an emphasis on multifamily homes Santa Clarita fair grounds Single family homes Equestrian area or Park. Maybe something like Hansen dam park where it's pet friendly and people ride their horses enjoy their day and run trails r Q Packet Pg. 159 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project APPENDIX D Placerita Canyon Special Standards Placerita Canyon Property Owners Assoc a# can 17.39.020 Placerita Canyon.Special Standards District. ................................................................................................................................................................. A. Intent and Purpose. The purpose of the Placerita Canyon special standards district (PCSSD) is to protect, maintain, preserve and enhance the secluded, rural equestrian character of the community, to enhance the community's unique appeal and to help mitigate the cumulative impacts of residential development. Additionally, it is the purpose of these special standards to ensure that new and expanded structures are compatible with the characteristics of surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods, and protect the light, air, and privacy of existing single-family residences from negative impacts. These standards are also intended to ensure reasonable access to public riding and hiking trails, and to minimize the need for installation of infrastructure such as sewers, streetlights, concrete sidewalks and concrete flood control systems that would alter the community's character, while providing for adequate drainage and other community safety features. B. Property Development Standards. The following requirements shall apply in all zones in the area identified as Placerita Canyon on the official zoning map and as described in subsection (G) of this section: 1. Animals which are kept or maintained as pets shall be permitted to continue when in accordance with the following: a. Two (2) horses or other similar animals which, in the opinion of the Director, are neither obnoxious nor detrimental to the public welfare may be kept on a lot or parcel of land which has a minimum area of five thousand (5,000) square feet, but less than fifteen thousand (15,000) square f eet. b. The requirements of Chapter 17 " (Animal Keeping) with respect to animal keeping are met, with the exception of the minimum lot area above. 2. Any new development shall adhere to the following standards or provide the following amenities: 7 0 r W x 0 3 0 M t U) a. Trails. Packet Pg. 160 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project 17.39.020 Placerita Canyon Special Standards District i. Riding and hiking trails shall be provided as depicted on the latest Placerita Canyon Backbone Trails exhibit on file with Parks, Recreation and Community Services, to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services; ii. Trails shall be fenced to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services, with fences of a rustic wood appearance; iii. Trail access shall be provided at all river crossings; iv. There shall be no obstructions including, but not limited to, landscaping, trash receptacles, or other similar structures within a designated trail; in 0 v. Fencing shall not be permitted to cross riverbeds in such a manner as to deny trail in access; x 3 vi. All new residential projects of greater than four (4) dwelling units and all new 0 M t commercial, industrial and institutional projects (including expansion thereof) shall provide U) trail easements, consistent with community goals and the Placerita Canyon backbone trails r E exhibit, to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services; E 0 U vii. Unobstructed multipurpose pathways for both pedestrian and equestrian uses shall be v developed in each new development to the satisfaction of both the Director of Public Works 0 a and the Director of Parks, Recreation, and Community Services. Although alignments that r E are not adjacent to roadways will generally be preferred, road easements may be used when c� the Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services determines that other Q locations are inappropriate; and viii. Trail construction shall be completed and maintained in accordance with the conditions set forth by the Department of Parks, Recreation, and Community Services. All information pertaining to trail requirements shall be shown on the tentative parcel or tract map and on the final parcel or tract map prior to the final map recordation; b. A property maintenance or homeowner maintenance association shall be established to maintain the private access route, private roads and drives, trail easements and other specific project amenities in all new residential projects of greater than four (4) dwelling units and all new commercial, industrial and institutional projects; Packet Pg. 161 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding BlackhaU/Shadowbox Studio Project 17.39.020 Placerita Canyon Special Standards District c. Street lights, in accordance with City standards, shall be installed only at road -to -road intersections; exterior lighting shall be designed to minimize off -site illumination, within the requirements for public safety. Exterior lighting on residential parcels shall be of top -shielded design to prevent direct off -site illumination; hoods shall be used to direct light away from adjacent parcels. Exterior lighting on nonresidential parcels shall be prohibited except where necessary for the safety of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, as determined by the City. To minimize off -site illumination where lights are required, cut-off fixtures in keeping with a rural equestrian architectural style will be specified; d. River bottoms and sides shall not be improved with concrete. Fencing shall not be permitted to 0 cross riverbeds in such a manner as to deny trail access; �a r e. Bridges shall be limited to those required for public safety and shall be designed to 0 accommodate equestrian access; c c� f. All new residential projects of greater than four (4) dwelling units and all new commercial, t N industrial and institutional projects (including expansion thereof) shall connect to public sewer systems. Utilities shall be undergrounded to the nearest off -site connection; and m E E 0 U g. Existing and future drainage shall be accommodated to provide adequate carrying capacity 2 and erosion protection and shall not create or extend detrimental hazards or consequences 0 IL upstream. c m E C. Residential Zones. t c� r Y Q 1. Residential Areas a. Street paving, curbs, gutters and sidewalks shall not be required of new development. Minimum City standards for all-weather access shall be provided. An engineering analysis shall be required to determine how all-weather access will be provided for emergency vehicles. Surface material may consist of graded dirt, gravel, or asphaltic concrete to achieve the required standards. b. On -street parking shall not be permitted in a designated trail. c. Street trees shall not be required. d. Fences. Non -view -obscuring fences, not to exceed five (5) feet in height, shall be permitted to be located within the twenty (20) foot front yard setback. Where a non -view -obscuring fence is Packet Pg. 162 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding BlackhaU/Shadowbox Studio Project 17.39.020 Placerita Canyon Special Standards District constructed within the twenty (20) foot front yard setback, and is five (5) feet in height, the applicant shall be required to landscape the frontage of their property along the property line that abuts the adjacent right-of-way. View -obscuring walls or fences that are higher than three (3) feet six (6) inches shall not be permitted to be located within the twenty (20) foot front yard setback. 2. Melody Ranch. (Applicable only to the area bounded by Oak Orchard Road on the north, Oak Creek Avenue on the east, Placerita Creek on the south, and to a line approximately nine hundred ninety (990) feet from and parallel to Oak Creek Avenue on the west.) Melody Ranch is a permitted use in the NU5 zone, subject to the following: the primary land use shall include full service motion picture and television studios including facilities for production of feature films, television series, commercials, telethons, videos U) 0 and all related facilities and audience participation. Incidental community activities and social events are 'a 0 r permitted. Related office space and limited commercial retail sales incidental to the primary use shall be N x permitted. .0 3 0 D. Commercial/Industrial Zones. 1° t Cn 1. Landscaping Requirements. m E a. Adequate buffering between residential and nonresidential areas shall be provided, in 0 U accordance with the provisions of this code; 2 0 IL b. Street trees shall be required; c m E c. Landscaped berms or other landscape treatment shall be used to screen the view of parking c� areas from the street; and Q d. Landscape plans shall incorporate twenty-four (24) inch box trees. 2. Lot Orientation. Properties fronting on Lyons Avenue shall be oriented with their primary access on Lyons Avenue. Site orientation shall discourage use of Placerita Canyon Road as a primary access. 3. Noise Limits. Any loud music (live or recorded) shall comply with the noise limits as set forth in Section (Noise Limits). E. North Newhall Area. The following requirements shall apply to those properties in the Placerita Canyon special standards district that are within the North Newhall Area (NNA), as identified in the General Plan. The future uses and development within this area require careful advance planning and consideration of any potential projects shall be required to address each of the following subject areas: Packet Pg. 163 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding BLackhaLL/Shadowbox Studio Project 17.39.020 Placerita Canyon Special Standards District 1. Public Participation/Outreach. a. Be subject to public participation and outreach led by the applicant(s) or the applicant's representative, at the onset of and during conceptual planning and prior to formal submittal of a proposed project to the City. Outreach would include, but is not limited to, the Placerita Canyon property owners' association. 2. Traffic Intrusion/Gateways. a. Be internally and externally pedestrian -oriented, and have equestrian and bicycle amenities and accommodations; in 0 b. Understand and acknowledge that any development at these locations will increase existing in x vehicular traffic and create new vehicular traffic, and that there will be impacts to equestrian and �0 3 pedestrian circulation in the existing neighborhood, and therefore to minimize those impacts, -00 M special attention must be given to mitigate impacts caused by such identified access points; t U) r c. Layout and orientation of any developments shall be designed to discourage and where E possible prevent additional trips into Placerita Canyon caused by or resulting from such E 0 developments; V 2 0 d. Include defined entry gateways or monuments into the Placerita Canyon special standards a r district, at Railroad Avenue, complete with landscaping and architectural elements with signage E expressly stating there is no through traffic allowed; and c� r r Q e. A traffic study shall be prepared for all new developments that are projected to generate two hundred fifty (250) or more new daily trips, within the areas encompassed by the NNA. The traffic study shall analyze those potentially impacted intersections within the NNA area and those that lie within a one (1) mile radius of the subject development site. 3. Buffering and Transitions. a. Preserve the existing rural equestrian community, generally known as Placerita Canyon, and provide adequate buffers and graduated transitional design to ensure existing neighborhood protection and compatibility of character resulting from any proposed development; Packet Pg. 164 1.k PCPOA Survey Regarding BlackhaU/Shadowbox Studio Project 17.39.020 Placerita Canyon Special Standards District b. Incorporate the current Santa Clarita Valley Trails Advisory Committee (SCVTAC) network of multi -use trails into adjacent neighborhoods which shall have rural and equestrian characteristics; and c. Require use of the MWD right-of-way as a landscaped buffer (subject to MWD approval) between the NNA within the PCSSD and the rest of Placerita Canyon, which landscaping shall consist of low water, low maintenance landscape material. 4. Architecture. a. Consist of three hundred sixty (360) degree architectural design with pedestrian -scaled in 0 building massing and forms where adjacent to existing residences, with the use of landscaping to D visually soften hard edges of buildings; r X 0 3 b. Structures shall have varied building heights and designs shall create east/west sight lines. -0 Building heights up to thirty-five (35) feet may be permitted. Additional height, not to exceed fifty M t Cn (50) feet, may be permitted subject to the approval of a conditional use permit; r c m E c. Have transitional densities, as described above, decreasing in density and height in an E easterly direction towards the MWD right-of-way away from Railroad Avenue, to include the MWD 0 V 2 right-of-way as a landscaped buffer and detached single-family residences adjacent to the MWD 0 right-of-way; and IL c m E d. Building heights shall be subject to the same Unified Development Code requirements that c� apply to all of Placerita Canyon. Q 5. Flood Control. a. Waterway bottoms and sides shall not be improved with concrete or hard impervious surfaces and shall be maintained in a natural appearance; b. Fencing shall not be permitted to cross riverbeds or waterways in a manner which denies or interferes with easy trail access; and c. On -site flood control mitigation would provide assistance or relief to other hydrology/drainage impacts within Placerita Canyon due to changes of topography on NNA properties. Packet Pg. 165 PCPOA Survey Regarding BLackhaLL/Shadowbox Studio Project 1.k 17.39.020 Placerita Canyon Special Standards District 6. Housing Types. a. It is not the City's intent to see affordable housing located on this site; and b. The desired housing type in the NNA will attract residents who will assist in the economic revitalization of Downtown Newhall. 7. Economic Development. a. Based on the area's proximity to the nearby Metrolink station and Old Town Newhall, development in the NNA would be supportive of revitalization efforts, with an appropriate mix of retail, office, restaurant, and general commercial square footage combined with neighboring and integrated housing types. 8. Recreation. a. Include a site -specific and a community -based recreational component. F. Applicability. The preceding standards shall apply as appropriate to any land division, land development, building permit for either a new structure or a specified addition to an existing structure, or grading permit. Modifications to any standards in this subsection are only available pursuant to the terms and conditions of a conditional use permit, as provided for in Section (Conditional Use Permit). G. Description of District Boundaries. Beginning at a point in the boundary of Tract No. 1078, recorded in Book 18, Page 169, of Maps, said point being the northwest corner of said Tract No. 1078; thence northeasterly, and easterly along the northwesterly, and northerly boundary of Tract No. 1078 to a point in the northerly boundary of Tract No. 1079, recorded in Book 18, Page 155, of Maps; thence easterly along the northerly boundary of said Tract No. 1079 to a point, said point being the northeasterly corner of said Tract No. 1079; thence northerly along the northerly prolongation of the easterly boundary of said Tract No. 1079 to a point in the northerly right-of-way boundary of the Los Angeles aqueduct; thence southeasterly and southerly along the northerly, and easterly boundary of said right-of-way to a point in the northerly boundary of Tract No. 10699, recorded in Book 165, Pages 36-37 of Maps; thence easterly along the northerly boundary of said Tract No. 10699 and, thence continuing along the easterly prolongation of the northerly boundary of said Tract No. 10699 to a point in the westerly right-of-way boundary of Sierra Highway; thence southwesterly along the said westerly right-of-way to the intersection of a line parallel 7 0 r x 0 3 0 c� t U) r c m E E 0 U 0 a r c a� E t c� r Q Packet Pg. 166 PCPOA Survey Regarding Blackhall/Shadowbox Studio Project 1.k 17.39.020 Placerita Canyon Special Standards District with and 215 feet northerly measured at right angles from the southwesterly boundary of Tract No. 1274 recorded in Book 18 Pages 110-111 of Maps; thence northwesterly along said parallel line to a point in southerly boundary of said Tract No. 1274; thence northwesterly and westerly, along the southerly boundary of said Tract No. 1274 to a point, said point being the northeast corner of the parcel of land as described in Document No. 5906 recorded December 10, 1964, as shown on Record of Survey 95-78 thence southwesterly, westerly, and northwesterly along the southeasterly, southerly, and southwesterly boundary of said Record of Survey, to a point, said point being the westerly corner of said Record of Survey, thence southwesterly along the southeasterly boundary of Lot 194 of said Tract No. 1078 to the southwest corner of said tract; thence northwesterly along the southwesterly boundary of said tract to the point of beginning. Except: that portion that lies within the boundaries of Tract No. 44452 recorded in Book 1137 Pages 59- 68, Tract No. 34143 recorded in Book 969 Pages 7-14, and Tract No. 34144 recorded in Book 969 Pages 15-20, all of Maps. (Ord. 13-8 § 4 (Exh. A), 6/11 /13) N 0 0 r x 0 3 0 c� t Cn r c E E 0 U v IL r c m E c� r Y Q Packet Pg. 167 Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association Post Office Box 220301 Santa Clarita, California 91322 - - PCPOA.com PLaceritaCanyonPOA@gmaiL.com The PCPOA is formed under Section 501(c)4 of the Internal Revenue Code as a Public Benefit Corporation. 1.1 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT -�' 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION: Master Case 21-109; General Plan Amendment 21-002, Zone Change 21-001, Tentative Tract Map 21-002, Conditional Use Permit 21-010, Development Review 21-012, Minor Use Permit 21-016, Ridgeline Alteration Permit 21-001, Hillside Development Review 21-001, Oak Tree Permit 421-001, Architectural Design Review 21-016, Environmental Impact Report 21-002 PROJECT APPLICANT: LA Railroad 93, LLC PROJECT LOCATION: Northeast Corner of Railroad Avenue and 131h Street. Assessor Parcel Numbers 2834-001-007; 2834-001-012 to -015; 2834-002- 046; 2834-003-044; 2834-004-045; 2834-005-041; 2834-006-041; 2834-007-045; 2834-008-039; 2834-010-043; 2834-011-021; 2834- 012-023; 2834-013-041; 2834-014-043; 2834-015-021; 2834-016-041; 2834-017-021; 2834-020-111; 2834-020-114; 2834-021-134; 2834- 022-067. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting entitlements for the development of the Shadowbox Studios Project, an approximately 1.3 million square foot full -service film and television studio campus on an approximately 93-acre site. The project would involve construction of 19 soundstages, a three-story office building, a four-story (five parking levels) parking structure, a two-story warehouse support building, and three catering buildings, as well as the construction of an all-weather bridge across Placerita Creek that would connect to a surface parking lot on the north side of the creek. The project also proposes to utilize the adjacent 11.4-acre Metropolitan Water District (MWD) property along the eastern boundary of the project site, south of Placerita Creek, to provide additional vehicle and trailer parking spaces. A plant nursery is also proposed along the entire length of this parking area and adjacent to the alley behind the residences along Alderbrook Drive. Use of the MWD property is subject to approval by MWD and is not required to support the operation of the studio campus. The development of the proposed project would require several off -site improvements, which include railroad crossing improvements at 13th Street, and improvements of the roadway alignments on 13th Street, Arch Street, Dockweiler Road, 12th Street, and Placerita Canyon Road. The Project would require approximately 400,000 cubic yards of cut/fill to be balanced across the site, removal or encroachment of 13 oak trees, and alteration along the base of a significant ridgeline. The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission will conduct the first public hearing on this matter on the following date, during which the project will be introduced and described: DATE: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 TIME: At or after 6:00 p.m. LOCATION: City Hall, Council Chambers 23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Packet Pg. 169 1.1 No formal action relative to this project will occur at this hearing. The Planning Commission will open the public hearing, receive testimony, and continue the public hearing to a future date. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) is currently being prepared to identify the project's potential environmental impacts and will be available for public review in April 2023. A Notice of Availability will be posted and advertised to the public upon release of the DEIR. An initial presentation of the DEIR will occur at the April 18, 2023, Planning Commission hearing. If you wish to challenge the action taken on this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearings described in this notice, or written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clarita at, or prior to, the public hearings. If you wish to have written comments included in the materials the Planning Commission receives prior to the public hearing, it must be submitted to the Community Development Department by Friday, April 7, 2023. For further information regarding this proposal, you may contact the project planner at the City of Santa Clarita, Permit Center, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 140, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Telephone: (661) 255-4330. Website: www.santa-clarita.com/planning. Send written correspondence to: 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Project Planner: Erika Iverson, eiverson e,santa-clarita.com. Patrick Leclair Planning Manager Published: The Signal, March 28, 2023. Packet Pg. 170 0 Agenda Item: I CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING MANAGER APPROVAL: ~ DATE: May 16, 2023 SUBJECT: Shadowbox Studios Project APPLICANT: LA Railroad 93, LLC LOCATION: Northeast corner of Railroad Avenue & 13th Street CASE PLANNER: Erika Iverson RECOMMENDED ACTION Planning Commission: 1. Receive the staff presentation in response to Planning Commission direction; 2. Continue the public hearing to receive testimony from the applicant and the public; 3. Close the public hearing, and provide direction to staff on the hearing schedule; and 4. Continue the Project to June 20, 2023. REQUEST The applicant, LA Railroad 93, LLC, is requesting approval of an Architectural Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Development Review, General Plan Amendment, Hillside Development Review, Minor Use Permit, Oak Tree Permit, Ridgeline Alteration Permit, Tentative Tract Map, and Zone Change to allow for the development of a nearly 1.3 million square foot, full -service film and television studio campus on an approximately 93-acre site. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING On April 18, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to receive an introduction and overview of the project and the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), and to establish a tentative public hearing schedule for the project. The intent of this meeting is to respond to the Planning Commission direction from the April 18 public hearing, and to receive direction from the Planning Commission on the public hearing schedule and the preparation of recommendation for the project. On April 6, 2023, the DEIR was released for a 45-day public Page 1 Packet Pg. 9 0 review and comment period which is set to close on May 22, 2023. Staff will prepare the Draft Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), inclusive of responses to the comments received during the DEIR public review period and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission, following the close of the DEIR public review period. Staff is proposing the following dates for the project hearing schedule: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Project introduction, summary of DEIR, public comments Tuesday, May 16, 2023 Response to Planning Commission and public comments Tuesday, June 20, 2023 Response to Planning Commission and public comments, Final EM, and recommendation to City Council August 2023/September 2023 City Council Public Hearings APRIL 18, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOLLOW-UP At the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on April 18, 2023, staff provided an overview of the project and DEIR. The Planning Commission received staff s presentation, the applicant's presentation, and testimony from the public. The Planning Commission requested clarification and additional information on several topics as follows: 1. Traffic and Proposed Roadway Improvements 2. Placerita Canyon Special Standards District 3. Emergency Evacuation 4. Oak Trees 5. Placerita Creek 6. Project Aesthetics Additional information is provided on these topics as follows: 1. Traffic and Proposed Roadway Improvements All proposed projects in the City of Santa Clarita (City) are subject to review for conformance with the City's Transportation Analysis Updates (TAU) which comprise the City's guidelines for studying the effects of a project on the City's circulation network. The City's TAU establishes criteria for both Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), which is the criteria required for analysis under state law for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and Level of Service (LOS) impacts. As outlined in the agenda report for the April 18, 2023, Planning Commission hearing and discussed in the staff presentation, the project VMT is below the City's established threshold for home -based work VMT per employee, and therefore found to have a less than significant impact. Although LOS is not the metric required under CEQA to evaluate transportation Page 2 Packet Pg. 10 0 impacts, the City's TAU requires LOS analysis to determine impacts to the City's circulation network. The applicant prepared a Transportation Analysis (TA) in conformance with the City's TAU, which has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineering Division. The TA is used as the basis to determine, what, if any, roadway improvements are necessary in order to support a proposed project and ensure it does not negatively impact the City's circulation network, as well as determine what measures should be incorporated to reduce VMT impacts, if any, resulting from the project. This is done by examining existing traffic counts, and looking at future traffic counts inclusive of anticipated new development along with the projected project traffic counts. In the case of Shadowbox Studios, the existing traffic counts for the TA were taken prior to the Covid-19 stay-at-home orders, and then increased by one percent per year to account for general growth in regional traffic between the year the counts were taken and 2021, when the TA was prepared. By way of reference, traffic trips have not yet returned to pre- Covid-19 stay-at-home order levels. Again, the TA is the basis for determining any roadway improvements necessary to support the addition of project traffic on the City's circulation network. Specific to the Shadowbox Studios project, the planned General Plan roadway improvement for the Dockweiler Drive extension further informs the design of the proposed roadway improvements. The City's planned Dockweiler Drive extension alignment would extend Dockweiler Drive from its current terminus, and would connect to Arch Street and reconfigure the alignment of Placerita Canyon Road, creating an intersection of Placerita Canyon Road with Dockweiler Drive. The Dockweiler Drive extension project would also create an intersection of 12th Street with Dockweiler Drive and it would widen the railroad crossing at 13th Street and Railroad Avenue. Based on the anticipated traffic demand for the project in the TA, and the City's planned Dockweiler Drive extension project, the applicant proposal includes offsite improvements for the studio campus use, including rights -of -way widening at 13th, Arch, and 12th Streets along the project site's frontage to accommodate additional vehicle lanes. The project is proposing a signalized intersection at 13th Street and Arch Street, which would be the main entrance to the studio campus. The north leg of the intersection at 13th and Arch Streets is the entrance to Gate 1, the primary project entrance, and the east leg of the intersection is the entrance to Gate 2, the secondary entrance. Importantly, Gate 1 is setback over 400 feet from the intersection and is at least three vehicle -lanes wide, increasing to four vehicle lanes wide, nearest the gate. Similarly, Gate 2 is setback almost 200 feet from the intersection and is also three vehicle -lanes wide. This allows for ample on -site queuing of project related traffic, alleviating offsite queuing of project related traffic on the public streets. The project also proposes a signalized intersection at 12th Street and Arch Street. This is where the project roadway improvements would connect to the City's planned Dockweiler Drive extension project. The south leg of the intersection would become Dockweiler Drive, the east and west legs of the intersection would be 12th Street, and the north leg of the intersection would be Arch Street along the studio campus frontage. Similar to the City's planned Dockweiler Drive extension project, the project proposes a half -signalized intersection at Placerita Canyon Road and Dockweiler Drive and would modify the intersection at 13th Street and Railroad Avenue. The proposed Arch Street Lane Design is attached. Page 3 Packet Pg. 11 0 The applicant has prepared a traffic simulation, based on the anticipated vehicle trips identified in TA, to show the peak hour vehicle movement at the proposed intersections in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The applicant has shared this simulation with City staff as well as with the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association (PCPOA) and intends to present the simulation to the Planning Commission at the hearing on May 16, 2023. In addition, the applicant will provide information regarding the operations of their studio campus facility and queuing for the studio campus use. Based on review of the TA, staff has determined that the applicant's proposed roadway improvements are sufficient to accommodate the traffic demand for the proposed studio campus. The TA also made additional off -site improvement recommendations for modifications to signal timing and/or modifications to lane striping and median configurations to a number of intersections within the TA study area, where Project related traffic would affect intersection operations. These recommendations would be incorporated as Conditions of Approval. Traffic Engineering staff will provide a presentation at the May 16, 2023, Planning Commission hearing to further discuss existing traffic conditions in the vicinity of the project site. 2. Placerita Canyon Special Standards District (PCSSD) The PCSSD was established in recognition of the rural equestrian character of the Placerita Canyon area and provides additional development standards intended to guide development for compatibility with the existing Placerita Canyon community, and its unique identity. It is important to note that the PCSSD does not regulate use. Rather, the underlying zoning for an individual property within PCSSD regulates the use permitted on that property. The PCSSD does establish development standards for property within three areas: Residential Zones, Commercial/Industrial Zones, and the North Newhall Area (NNA). The project site is located within the NNA. Accordingly, the project was evaluated for its conformance to the NNA development standards of the PCSSD. Each category of the NNA development standards of the PCSSD is discussed below: North Newhall Area Public Participation/Outreach • Be subject to public participation and outreach led by the applicants) or the applicant's representative, at the onset of and during conceptual planning and prior to formal submittal of a proposed project to the City. Outreach would include, but is not limited to, the Placerita Canyon Property Owners' Association. • The applicant has conducted ongoing outreach in the community, dating back to October of 2020. The applicant has hosted multiple meetings with homeowner groups, including the PCPOA, Placerita Canyon Corporation, Circle J Ranch Homeowner's Association, as well as with individual residents in the Placerita Canyon. In addition, the applicant has met with The Master's University, the Newhall School District, the property owner of the adjacent Arch Street commercial center, and a number of other organizations. A complete summary of the organizations and groups that the applicant has Page 4 Packet Pg. 12 0 contacted during the application review is provided in the attached Applicant Community Outreach Summary. Trafc Intrusion/Gateways • Be internally and externally pedestrian -oriented, and have equestrian and bicycle amenities and accommodations; The proposed project is a closed studio campus so the internal pedestrian orientation is designed to support studio operations. Externally to the site, and at the direction of staff, the applicant has incorporated a Class I trail, which consists of a separated right of way including a two-way path for bicycles, and a pedestrian path, along the project frontage of 13th, Arch, and 12th Streets. The Class I trail would not preclude equestrian use. In addition, the applicant would be required to provide for a Class I trail connecting Dockweiler Drive to the Jan Heidt Metrolink Station. The applicant would also be conditioned to provide a Class I trail along Railroad Avenue, from 13th Street to 15th Street. Understand and acknowledge that any development at these locations will increase existing vehicular traffic and create new vehicular traffic, and that there will be impacts to equestrian and pedestrian circulation in the existing neighborhood, and therefore to minimize those impacts, special attention must be given to mitigate impacts caused by such identified access points; • The project has been designed to concentrate project related traffic at the proposed intersection of 13th Street and Arch Street. In response to community outreach, the applicant committed to eliminating project related ingress at Gate 3 (12th Street). Gate 3 would serve as emergency ingress only. Project related traffic would be permitted to exit Gate 3 by way of a right -turn out onto 12th Street, away from Placeritos Boulevard and away from the residential uses in Placenta Canyon. As discussed above, the project would include multi -use Class I trails along the frontage at 13th, Arch, and 12th Streets to provide for pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle connections from Placenta Canyon to Railroad Avenue. Layout and orientation of any developments shall be designed to discourage and where possible prevent additional trips into Placerita Canyon caused by or resulting from such developments; • The project has been designed to concentrate project related traffic at the intersection of 13th and Arch Streets by locating the main project entrance (Gate 1) and secondary entrance (Gate 2) at the proposed signalized intersection of 13th and Arch Streets. No project related trips would be permitted to enter the project site from the 12th Street driveway (Gate 3). Gate 3 would allow project related egress, by way of a right turn out of Gate 3, westbound toward Arch Street. Gate 3 would provide emergency ingress only. As designed, vehicle traffic related to the project, would be directed away from Placenta Canyon Road and Placeritos Boulevard. As discussed in detail above, Gates 1 and 2 are setback from the intersection of 13th and Arch Streets, Page 5 Packet Pg. 13 0 designed with multiple vehicle lanes in order to provide ample on -site queuing of project related traffic. Include defined entry gateways or monuments into the PCSSD, at Railroad Avenue, complete with landscaping and architectural elements with signage expressly stating there is no through traffic allowed; • The City's planned Dockweiler Drive Extension project would change the circulation pattern from Railroad Avenue at 13th Street. As such, there would be through access from the intersection at 13th Street and Railroad Avenue. The applicant has offered to provide entry signage into Placenta Canyon with "No through traffic" signs at Placeritos Boulevard and/or Placenta Canyon Road. While a design concept has not been approved, the applicant would be conditioned to work with staff and PCPOA to provide signage, if recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. A traffic study shall be prepared for all new developments that are projected to generate two hundred fifty (250) or more new daily trips, within the areas encompassed by the NNA. The traffic study shall analyze those potentially impacted intersections within the NNA area and those that lie within a one (1) mile radius of the subject development site. • A TA, in compliance with the City's TAU, was prepared for the project and has been included as Technical Appendix L to the DEIR, whose findings have been incorporated into the proposed project design. Buffering and Transitions • Preserve the existing rural equestrian community, generally known as Placerita Canyon, and provide adequate buffers and graduated transitional design to ensure existing neighborhood protection and compatibility of character resulting from any proposed development; The project proposes building heights ranging from 18 to 55 feet. Taller buildings have been situated on the central (studio buildings) and western portions (office, parking structure, and warehouse) of the project site, further from residential uses to the east and south. Single - story buildings (catering facilities) would be situated at the southeast portion of the project site, along 12th Street, where the project site is closer to residential uses. The Metropolitan Water District (MWD) right-of-way is approximately 200-feet wide and separates the project site from the nearest residential uses to the east. The applicant is proposing use of the MWD right-of-way to provide excess parking and a plant nursery in support of studio operations. There is an existing row of mature pepper trees located within the MWD right-of-way, along the unpaved alley behind the existing homes on Alderbrook Drive that would remain in place. • Incorporate the current Santa Clarita Valley Trails Advisory Committee (SCVTAC) network of multi -use trails into adjacent neighborhoods which shall have rural and equestrian characteristics; and 0 The SCVTAC is no longer an active committee. However, as Page 6 Packet Pg. 14 0 described above, multi -use trails have been incorporated into the project design to provide connectivity from the adjacent neighborhoods. At staff s direction, the applicant has incorporated a multi -use, Class I trail along the project frontage of 13th, Arch, and 12th Streets. In addition, the applicant would be required to provide for a multi -use Class I trail connecting Dockweiler Drive to the Jan Heidt Metrolink Station. The applicant would also be conditioned to provide a Class I trail along Railroad Avenue, from 13th Street to 15th Street. Require use of the MWD right-of-way as a landscaped buffer (subject to MWD approval) between the NNA within the PCSSD and the rest of Placerita Canyon, which landscaping shall consist of low water, low maintenance landscape material. Any use of the MWD right-of-way is subject to approval of MWD. The MWD right-of-way is improved with a water transmission pipeline and the right-of-way is needed for operation and maintenance of the MWD facilities therein. As a result, MWD does not approve of installation of permanent structures and permanent landscaping in their right-of-way. The adjacent residential properties to the east of the project site are separated by the MWD right-of-way and an unpaved alleyway. A row of mature pepper trees lines the length of the unpaved alleyway. The alleyway and the existing trees are proposed to remain in their existing condition with the project. The applicant proposal includes installation of a 12-foot wall, just east of the alleyway and pepper trees. The applicant proposes to use the MWD right-of-way for additional parking and to store plant materials that would support the studio production. The plant nursery allows the applicant to store plant materials that are used in the soundstage sets while providing greenery and buffering from adjacent uses, but is portable in the event of MWD maintenance activities. Architecture • Consist of three hundred sixty (360) degree architectural design with pedestrian - scaled building massing and forms where adjacent to existing residences, with the use of landscaping to visually soften hard edges of buildings; Each building has been designed with 360-degree architecture, using an architectural theme that is consistent with the Community Character and Design Guidelines for the Newhall community. • Structures shall have varied building heights and designs shall create east/west sight lines. Building heights up to thirty-five (35) feet may be permitted Additional height, not to exceed fifty (50) feet, may be permitted subject to the approval of a conditional use permit; Structures are varied in height, from 18 feet to 55 feet. The single - story catering buildings are approximately 18 feet in height at the southeast corner of the project site, where buildings are nearest residential uses and to maintain lower profile and allow east/west sight line. Development has been set back from Placerita Creek, maintaining an east/west sightline along the creek and base of the northerly Page 7 Packet Pg. 15 0 hillside. The studio buildings are located centrally on the project site and are 55 feet at the peak of the pitched roofline. Buildings along the western portion of the site include a three-story, 48-foot office building, 45-foot parking structure, and a two-story, 50-foot warehouse building. The project request includes a Zone Change in order to implement the Jobs Creation Overlay Zone QCOZ) over the southerly portion of the project site, which, if approved, would permit the 55-foot building height as proposed. Have transitional densities, as described above, decreasing in density and height in an easterly direction towards the MWD right-of-way away from Railroad Avenue, to include the MWD right-of-way as a landscaped buffer and detached single-family residences adjacent to the MWD right-of-way; and As described above, the project has been designed to locate taller buildings on the central and western portions of the project site, further from residential uses to the east and south. The single -story catering facilities are situated at the southeast portion of the project site, along 12th Street, where the project site is closer to residential uses. The MWD right-of-way separates the project site from the nearest residential uses to the east. The applicant is proposing use of the MWD right-of-way to provide excess parking and a plant nursery in support of studio operations. There is an existing row of mature pepper trees located within the MWD right-of-way, along the unpaved alley behind the existing homes on Alderbrook Drive that will remain in place. Building heights shall be subject to the same Unified Development Code requirements that apply to all of Placerita Canyon. There are multiple zoning designations on properties within the PCSSD including residential, mixed -use, and commercial zoning designations. Each zoning designation dictates the allowable height. As discussed above, the project request includes a Zone Change in order to implement the JCOZ over the southerly portion of the project site, which would permit the 55-foot building heights as proposed with this project. Flood Control • Waterway bottoms and sides shall not be improved with concrete or hard impervious surfaces and shall be maintained in a natural appearance; The existing alignment and natural soft bottom of Placerita Creek would remain intact with the project. The banks of the creek would be stabilized with buried rock bank protection that would have soil fill on top and be re -vegetated to preserve the natural appearance of the creek. An illustrative section of the proposed bank stabilization is provided in the discussion below related to Placerita Creek. Fencing shall not be permitted to cross riverbeds or waterways in a manner which denies or interferes with easy trail access; and • The fencing plan for the project does not interfere with any existing trail access, nor does it impact existing waterways. Page 8 Packet Pg. 16 0 On -site flood control mitigation would provide assistance or relief to other hydrology/drainage impacts within Placerita Canyon due to changes of topography on NNA properties. • As outlined in the discussion below related to Placerita Creek, the project proposes bank stabilization in order to limit erosion of Placerita Creek. A Hydrology Study and Low Impact Development Report were prepared to assess the existing and post -construction stormwater runoff. Hydromodifications, including an infiltration/detention basin and underground infiltration chambers, have been incorporated into the project design to ensure that the volume and rate of flow from stormwater runoff into the creek would not exceed the existing conditions. Housing Types • It is not the City :s intent to see at housing located on this site; and • The desired housing type in the NNA will attract residents who will assist in the economic revitalization of Downtown Newhall (Old Town Newhall). This is not applicable as the project proposal does not include residential uses. Economic Development • Based on the area's proximity to the nearby Metrolink station and Old Town Newhall, development in the NNA would be supportive of revitalization efforts, with an appropriate mix of retail, office, restaurant, and general commercial square footage combined with neighboring and integrated housing types. • The project proposes a full -service film and television studio campus near Metrolink and bus line services, anticipated to employ over 2,000 people and would have positive impact on indirect employment in the NNA, and Old Town Newhall Specific Plan area. Recreation • Include a site -specific and a community -based recreational component. • Private on -site amenities are proposed offering passive and active recreation opportunities including the Shadow Oak Park situated in the center of the catering buildings, a half basketball court, outdoor seating areas between studio buildings, and a dog park. The project proposal includes a public amenity in the form of a multi -use Class I trail along the project frontage of 13th, Arch, and 12th Streets, as well as provision for a multi -use Class I trail along Railroad Avenue from 13th to 15th Street, and a multi -use Class I trail connection from Dockweiler Drive to the Jan Heidt Metrolink Station. In addition, to the NNA development standards, the PCSSD has general criteria for all new development in the PCSSD. Many of these criteria are duplicative with NNA development standards. A discussion on the project's conformance with the applicable general development standards is outlined here: Page 9 Packet Pg. 17 0 • Trails. Riding and hiking trails shall be provided as depicted on the latest Placerita Canyon Backbone Trails exhibit on file with Parks, Recreation and Community Services, to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services; AF Trails shall be fenced to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services, with fences of a rustic wood appearance; AF Trail access shall be provided at all river crossings; AF There shall be no obstructions including, but not limited to, landscaping, trash receptacles, or other similar structures within a designated trail; and AF Fencing shall not be permitted to cross riverbeds in such a manner as to deny trail access. The inclusion of multi -use Class 1 trails described in the NNA discussion above, has been incorporated into the project design at the direction of staff through the Development Review Committee process, in response to the trail requirements identified in the PCSSD. The project fencing does not conflict or deny access to existing trails. A property maintenance or homeowner maintenance association shall be established to maintain the private access route, private roads and drives, trail easements and other specific project amenities in all new residential projects of greater than four (4) dwelling units and all new commercial, industrial and institutional projects; This does not apply to the project specifically, as all roadways and trails adjacent to the project are public; however, the project will be conditioned, as appropriate, to ensure maintenance of applicable amenities and landscaped areas. Furthermore, the project would be conditioned to maintain all private driveways and roadways on the project site. Street lights, in accordance with City standards, shall be installed only at road -to - road intersections; exterior lighting shall be designed to minimize off -site illumination, within the requirements for public safety. Exterior lighting on residential parcels shall be of top -shielded design to prevent direct off -site illumination; hoods shall be used to direct light away from adjacent parcels. Exterior lighting on nonresidential parcels shall be prohibited except where necessary for the safety of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, as determined by the City. To minimize off - site illumination where lights are required, cut-off fixtures in keeping with a rural equestrian architectural style will be specified; Any street light improvements associated with the project's proposed roadway design will be designed in conformance with the City's requirements. As it pertains to the on -site lighting, the applicant has prepared a site -specific lighting plan to ensure that necessary lighting is provided for safety and security while minimizing offsite effects from fixture glare. Specifically, the applicant is utilizing cut-off fixtures and back -light -control options as well as proposing the use of energy management controls in conjunction with occupancy sensors that will reduce the light output when motion is not detected. The applicant's Lighting Design Criteria is attached and provides details of the proposed energy management controls. Page 10 Packet Pg. 18 0 River bottoms and sides shall not be improved with concrete. Fencing shall not be permitted to cross riverbeds in such a manner as to deny trail access; • This has been addressed in the discussions below regarding Placerita Creek and the discussion for compliance with the NNA development standards above. Placenta Creek would not be channelized with concrete side walls or floor. The project fencing would not deny access to existing trails. Bridges shall be limited to those required for public safety and shall be designed to accommodate equestrian access; The studio campus is proposed to be a private, closed campus. The proposed bridge within the project site is not part of, or accessible to, the larger Placerita Canyon area, as it is located within a private development. The bridge is designed to be of the same height as the existing Placenta Creek bridge crossing on Railroad Avenue. All new residential projects of greater than four (4) dwelling units and all new commercial, industrial and institutional projects (including expansion thereof) shall connect to public sewer systems. Utilities shall be undergrounded to the nearest off - site connection; and The applicant has completed a sewer area study as outlined in the DEIR for the project and would be conditioned to connect to the public sewer system as well as underground utility services. Existing and future drainage shall be accommodated to provide adequate carrying capacity and erosion protection and shall not create or extend detrimental hazards or consequences upstream. • This has been addressed in the Placerita Creek discussion below. The project has been designed to ensure that the site drainage would not increase the volume or rate of flow from the current condition. 3. Emergency Evacuation The applicant prepared an emergency evacuation analysis in order to understand the potential impact of the project on evacuation times from the Placerita Canyon community, in the event of an emergency. The analysis compares the time to evacuate the Placenta Canyon community today, under the existing conditions, as well as the time to evacuate the Placenta Canyon Community in the future roadway condition, with the proposed project. The analysis concludes that the evacuation time under the existing condition is 154 minutes. Under the future condition with the proposed project roadway conditions, the evacuation time is reduced by more than half, to 67 minutes. The analysis considered the worst -case scenario, in which all evacuation trips would exit through the intersection of 13th Street and Railroad Avenue. It should be noted that, with the project and the extension of Dockweiler Drive, there would be an additional evacuation route out of the Placerita Canyon community that does not exist today, having the potential to further reduce the evacuation times in the analysis. Questions were raised at the Planning Commission hearing on April 18, 2023, as to the number of access points to the project and, more specifically, questions on the possibility of an additional emergency egress point to the north or west of the project site. Potential Page 11 Packet Pg. 19 0 locations for additional point(s) of emergency egress were identified at the April Planning Commission hearing as a railroad crossing at 15th Street and Railroad Avenue, creating a west point -of -entry to the project site, and/or a connection to the existing Metropolitan Water District (MWD) right-of-way to the north of the project site. As it relates to a new rail crossing at 15th Street, the City's experience with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) indicates that for any new rail crossing, at least one, but typically two existing rail crossings would be required to be closed for any request of a new grade crossing. The CPUC does not distinguish between emergency crossing, private crossing, or public crossing so a new crossing of any kind is treated the same under their review. In general, policies from the CPUC, Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRAA), and the Federal Highway Administration discourage new grade crossings and require closure of at least one existing crossing with the application request for a new grade crossing. In regard to access through the MWD property as a means of emergency egress, the applicant did engage MWD regarding use of the access for emergency egress. The right of way is used for access and maintenance to MWD facilities and from time -to -time there may be maintenance and/or equipment within this area. The MWD cannot guarantee that their right-of-way will remain free and clear at all times and thus unable to provide an easement for emergency use. However, the applicant's proposal would not preclude use of the MWD right of way as an evacuation route in the event of an emergency. There is a gate between the MWD right-of-way and the project Site, on the north side of Placerita Creek that, in an emergency, could be opened and allow egress to the north. In an extreme event, it should be noted that local Sheriff's Officers and Los Angeles County Fire Department officials would use whatever access routes, including the MWD right-of-way, are deemed necessary to direct traffic out of an impacted area. It should be further noted, that although the project, under future roadway conditions, shows an improvement in anticipated evacuation times from the Placerita Canyon community, the applicant is also studying an emergency plan for the studio campus that could be put into place upon operation of the campus. If deemed appropriate, the Planning Commission could consider the preparation of a site -specific emergency plan as a Condition of Approval. 4. Oak Trees The applicant prepared an Oak Tree Report as part of the project analysis and is proposing to relocate four oak trees and remove nine oak trees as part of the project. A total of 18 oak trees were included in the study area of the Oak Tree Report, with 16 oak trees located on the project site, and 2 oak trees located off site. A graphic illustration, Oak Tree Map, of the locations of the existing oak trees is provided as an attachment and each tree has been assigned a number. The two trees located offsite will remain in place (Trees #6 and #17). In addition, three on -site oaks trees (Trees #14, #15, and #16) would remain in place. One tree in particular, Tree #1, was discussed at the Planning Commission hearing on April 18, 2023, due to its visibility along the project's Arch Street frontage. A picture of this tree is provided as an attachment. The applicant has provided an Oak Narrative (attached) outlining the proposed oak tree removals, relocations, and the mitigation proposal. The current mitigation proposal Page 12 Packet Pg. 20 0 includes the planting of 211 oak trees in various box sizes, including 17, 84-inch box sized trees. The 84-inch box sized trees are proposed to be installed at prominent locations, primarily at the project entry, most visible to the public. In addition, the mitigation proposal includes a grove of oaks, planted along the project's north hillside where trees would be visible from public views along Railroad Avenue. At this time, staff has not prepared the Conditions of Approval related to removal of any oak trees, but mitigation for the removal and/or relocation of any protected oak tree would be required in accordance with the City's Oak Tree Ordinance. Relocated oaks are considered a tree removal when calculating the required mitigation and must be accounted for in the mitigation plan. 5. Placerita Creek Placerita Creek traverses the project site from east to west. As part of the project analysis, the applicant prepared a Hydrology Report and a Low Impact Development Report to assess the existing and proposed drainage conditions for the project site to ensure that the project design does not increase the existing volume of, or rate of flow, for water runoff, and more importantly, to ensure the project would not cause erosion or other impacts from stormwater runoff into Placerita Creek. In order to ensure that the volume and rate of flow from stormwater runoff into the creek does not exceed the existing conditions, the project design incorporates the use of an infiltration/detention basin, and underground infiltration chambers, to capture runoff and regulate flows. The project also includes stabilization of the creek banks with buried rock bank protection that will be vegetated to maintain the natural appearance of the creek. There will be no change to the existing floor of the creek bed, which will remain in its natural, soft bottom condition. The project will not channelize the creek with concrete side walls or floor. The proposed stabilization of the creek and will be discussed by the applicant at the May 16, 2023, Planning Commission hearing. 6. Project Aesthetics Following discussion at the Planning Commission hearing on April 18, 2023, the applicant proposed a modification to the fence line along the Railroad Avenue frontage. The proposed 12-foot tall fencing is designed for security and privacy necessary for studio operations. The applicant proposed the use of a wood-crete fence that gives the appearance of a horizontal wood -slat fence, but has durability of a block wall. As originally designed, the fence would be installed uniformly in a straight line. The applicant has revised the fence proposal, and suggests staggering the wall in 50-foot to 150-foot sections. In addition, rather than installing trees on the interior side of the fence, the landscape plan would be revised to alternate the trees on the interior and exterior side of the fence. This will break up the massing of the wall and add texture that was lacking in the original proposal. A graphic plan view and elevation view is provided below. Page 13 Packet Pg. 21 0 FLOWERING VINES AGAVE AND SMALL TALL FLOWER!NG'VI.NES SMALLTALL GROUNDCOVER. TREES TREES VINES ON FENCE PUBLIC COMEMNTS As of the writing of this agenda report, and since the Planning Commission hearing on April 18, 2023, staff received 16 additional email correspondences from the community, including nine in support of the project, six neutral positions, and one in opposition. The public comment period on the Draft EIR is open until May 22, 2023. At the writing of this agenda report, staff has not received specific comments on the DEIR from the any of the public agencies that were notified of the release of the DEIR. Staff has received two requests to extend the comment period on the DEIR. One such request is from the attorney representing the PCPOA requesting at least 15 days of an extension. The second request is from SCOPE, requesting an additional 120 days of extension to review the DEIR. Extension of the public comment period is subject to the discretion of the Planning Commission. Copies of those requests, along with the new community comment letters noted above, are provided as an attachment. CONCLUSION The public comment period on the DEIR is set to close on May 22, 2023. Following the close of the DEIR public review period, staff will prepare the Draft Final EIR, inclusive of response to the comments received during the DEIR public review period. The Draft Final EIR would be presented to the Planning Commission at a future public hearing along with a staff recommendation on the project for consideration by the Planning Commission, tentatively set for June 20, 2023. ATTACHMENTS Architectural Site Plan Arch Street Lane Design Lighting Design Criteria Oak Narrative Oak Tree Map Oak Tree 1 Page 14 Packet Pg. 22 0 Applicant Community Outreach Summary Public Comments Page 15 Packet Pg. 23 TXO n'N (WOH'II'v"�I'vi :�JOJ C]3dO]3A3(1 co a, a 3:0 00 o zo 2MV3 ViNVIOVAVS VIMV10 VINVS u)� �!� soionis XOBMOOVHS u5 ff iS HiC I GNV'3AV CIVOdllVd JO d3N�JOO'3'N m Tn'(WOH'II'v"�I'vi N :�JOJ C]3dO]3A3(1 6 cm CO3, a 3:0 00 'ELL 2MV3 ViNVIOVAVS iS HiCl GNV'3AV CIVOdllVd JO d3N�JOO'�'N U) .5.5 VIMV10 VINVS : 7g�� soionis XOBMOOVHS 1 O h s 4 i A .sm,sa iz m' ff T7 o� 82 ___ ____ o- A�Ai ... '� — i 0 0 El 9 01 ❑ zi zi zi < — I � oow o i I i i i ---------- ----------------- III ma Illaa®a �s & ASSOCIATES, INC. ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS 1.c LIGHTING DESIGN CRITERIA - Shadowbox Studios by: Kenneth Lucci, P. E. dated October 8, 2022 The exterior lighting design approach for the Shadowbox Project is to provide necessary and appropriate illumination for the project area. The outdoor lighting should provide for night-time safety and security while minimizing adverse offsite effects from fixture glare and preserving the dark sky. The lighting fixture selection has included exterior fixtures with site specific features to reduce glare while maintaining a safe environment for pedestrians and vehicle traffic. Exterior fixtures will not be "drop lens" type fixtures or exposed source lighting fixtures. Pole lighting and building mounted lighting fixtures will be selected as cut-off fixtures with minimal light spillage to adjacent project areas and no light spillage beyond the project property lines. Control of the exterior fixtures will be a combination of energy management controls in conjunction with occupancy sensors. The energy management system will energize the lighting fixtures to an "on" condition as desired but `occupancy type step dimming' will provide for the local control of each fixture. The lighting fixture embedded occupancy sensor will provide an automatic reduction of lighting level output (to approximately 37%) if there is no movement in the area and maintain this reduced level of lighting until the sensor detects movement. When this occurs, the lighting level will be increased in 3 seconds to 100% until movement is no longer detected and then will maintain this 100% level for 5 minutes when the light level will ramp down to 37% and this light level will be maintained until future movement is detected and the process is repeated. This minimizes unnecessary lighting while maintaining security in the area. The intent of the lighting design is to provide no lighting in the environmentally sensitive areas. Cut-off fixtures and Back -Light -Control (BLC) options will be provided for lighting fixtures near these sensitive areas . Similarly for the perimeter areas of the property, it is the intent of the project to have no light trespass or spillage to adjacent properties. The design criteria for lighting levels are based on Illuminating Engineering Society Standard IES RP-33-14 Lighting for Exterior Environments. This document provides recommended lighting levels for various task areas in outdoor areas. Recommended lighting levels range from .5 to 2.0 footcandles with a 3:1 average to minimum ratio depending on activity to be performed and the task difficulty. The use of LED type lighting fixtures (color temperature will be 4000-degree K for exterior fixtures) will allow the lighting system design to minimize glare from lighting fixtures and distribute the lighting evenly over the project area with higher light levels only in areas requiring increased security or safety. The parking structure roof area will be limited to 20-foot-tall pole lights (type BLC — with back light control) installed at least one row from the perimeter of the building to further shield these lighting fixtures while the building interior lighting fixtures will be installed in the structure "bays" to assist on shielding these interior fixtures from the surrounding neighborhood. 3251 Corle Mal paso # 511, Camarillo, CA 93012-8094 ■ Phone (895) 389-6520 Fax (805) 389-6519 ■ www.lucciland.com Packet Pg. 27 & ASSOCIATES, INC. ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS 1.c The lighting design demonstrates 0.0-foot candles at all property lines and complies with Section 12.51.050 (Outdoor Lighting Standards) and Section 17.39.020 (Placerita Special Standards District). The lighting design intent is to concentrate on providing safe lighting for the project area while minimizing the impact of the lighting system on the adjacent properties and maintaining a "dark sky" environment. 3251 Corle Mal paso # 511. Camarillo, CA 93012-8094 ■ Phone (895) 389-6520 Fax (805) 389-6519 ■ www.lucciland.com Packet Pg. 28 1.d September 29, 2022 ---1 i i ®\ 11 Wd Wil The existing oak tree survey provided by Arboressence, includes both Quercus agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and Quercus lobata (Valley Oak). Of the existing (18) eighteen trees included in the Arborist's survey and assessment, four trees are proposed to be relocated and nine trees are proposed to be removed, and five Quercus sp. shall be protected in place. Each tree has been evaluated for health, structure and feasibility for the purpose of protecting each tree in place. The proposed grading was evaluated to assure all means of review were taken to protect the existing oak trees. Due to the impact and potential health and safety issues, the proposed oak tree protection plan was determined. The trees proposed for removal are generally noted as having average to poor or declining health. The structural form in most cases poses a health and safety risk due to high risk of limb failures. The oaks to be protected in place are located at the project perimeter where they will be prominent and viewable to the community. Three of these oaks (#14, #15, #16) are on the hillside near the adjacent residential community. One oak (#6) is visible at the westerly project boundary along Railroad Avenue and another tree (#17) shall remain on Arch Street. The catering complex will feature Shadow Oak Park with two relocated oaks featured prominently at the center of the project. These relocated oaks (#8, #18) will provide a focal point and along with additional mitigation oaks, to create a shaded oasis for the studio community to gather, refresh and connect. The two oaks selected for relocation have a good health rating, have a desirable structure and are likely to thrive in their new location. The proposed mitigation oaks will be distributed throughout the site with an emphasis on the larger specimen oaks proposed for the primary project entry. These majestic oaks shall be featured prominently and will complement the character and design standards established bythe Placerita Canyon Special Standards District. As noted above, large specimen mitigation oaks will be featured in Shadow Oak Park to be appreciated by studio employees and guests. An oak woodland is proposed as a part of the Hillside Development at the north lot graded slope. Additional oaks are proposed around the project perimeter to establish the character of the campus. In all, two hundred and eleven (211) mitigation oaks with sizes up to 84" box shall be featured prominently at the Shadowbox Studios campus. In compliance with the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, all relocated, protected and proposed mitigation oaks will adhere to requirements pertaining to installation, establishment, monitoring and recommendations from the Consulting Arborist. 3195E Airport Loop Drive, Studio One • Costa Mesa , CA 92626-1949.399.0870• www.cdpcinc.com x°WX 6659 Morro Road•Atoscadero, CA 93422-T. 805.466.3385•F: 805.466.3204 Packet Pg. 29 1� (;oafoJd soipn3S xogmopeyS) deW sajl Aeo :3uawy3e33b' U) w a 0 z Cn X w w 0 CO LU Y FARM (;oafoJd solpn3S xogmopeLIS) deW sajl oleo :3uawy3e33b' ryry �IE�inE= fllu �� NMI I � , Ip I I II 117 � h N N N N w N t5 Q M rs a m C Y R O a FU U t6 i t6 U cu cu U) (;oafoJd soipn3S xogmopeyS) deW sajl Aeo :3uawy3e33b' a �o a o � b a a w 0 UFO � U Zy3� a�s 0G (� a 0 14 w/ d x o y�o y3 0 LL w N N NLU U O T U W C 6 Q D l6X O` N OU> W a= I w w w Y Q O .29 L 0 (u U L N UN N N W cu N 4 i t5 � `u Q V / 0 m � Q 0 �N Q 2 N c %dmpnj s _peLI m ©w_!¥oa_Lj3e m U) � � O 0— W of N � W W ry � v � 0 7�{ }55 *)) $)$ _ \ ) /\\ \\ } \\ _ §/§ )\ \J¥ _ \\} fn }\\\2 /\/} j6 ]a2) ;2m( LU ee3je \\)jL f)\] J�0-4 "TT i � .C: L ƒ O cu C) cu � cu C) cu C: cu U) � � � � (;oafoJd soipn3S xogmopeyS) deW sajl Aeo :3uawy3e33b' E v m ro c � w U) c O U �� V y � W E a a N LL o o « �� 4 U a o o LU w b y 0. Q D l6 O O U> w a= U F W mN ��� c"uac� � Ica g �(^�� CO W ODa f7O0 — cmco AA Co vcc a me LUciY y��S = m �q� I cn c� un m flr � I 0 i U CM LU Usk dC.7 UP 9 fn H@ W _. - W '� etxonalo wt -- •, O M s a m C Y R L a O LL— U L cu U cu 4� rcu � V i L,J L yyL. �JJ Tim r) Ti• cei W W Q 0 (;°afoJd soipn3S xogmopeyS) deW sajl Aeo :3uawy3e33b' `t* 6 ° b on m iF y w o w v a b rn 9 'x o m o m o o m w a p 5 m m ga�� 5 � 15 O O N 2 'ate .212 a°ii f0 N IN LL Z` D N S Z` D N ° D > 's G C +N+ W f0 G .G N j F O Ul Q U fn 2Lu U N Fp ❑ N ? R ❑ f6 co 0 o a° ° •, E o o a° ° .� m o a° p y N �. Q UJ .6 o 01 M M U 9 Df O M U .d Ll1 O M U O =e»+ +Z x -call =v3+ +Zs =Fn+ +Z x o Q ao # eyyya O c a w c c C� -o _ v' w _' m w e c C7 _ >.5 s N o U [�-i 'I. ,� Y o`� °° o OU>Luda' OU>LU aX 2'. OU> W a U ° N a 0 A i 0 r� d + e+ m d z Q O H Z U Q F W Ln U W O N a I J I w w Of 0 �•J V ) ^0 LL U Of El 0 0 I w LU ry Y 0 (;oafoJd soipn3S xogmopeyS) deW sajl Aeo :3uawy3e33b' Ul C N C N N f0 a y � � L O- p] � O m U O N m O N N �Y = E a� f0 `c 2r E U O (p L o n 2 Q y a a a �O N� d a. o oa a U o m Q m m a m o af U u) n m 1. C ` m u) c N p C N N c 0 0 N 3 Q a > u) O ,— N�N��UN'3 ~ U '� N Q C N I3+ + Z2' '�''�q U N j a w T E _ C U EE of W c c '6 _ O == UU Fcnm H Q o m.X o m O U> w a m U F o R V►►; L 0 4-- cu U cu •L cu U cu rcu � V i L�J V ) ^0 LL U of LU ry v Q 0 (;oafoJd soipn3S xogmopeLIS) deW sajl Aeo :3uawy3e33b' n O N m a y 3 cCCtl � Q C m U N C n m U q U�FFU+ Q U� .�.. N E m-2 ? m w .L.. m m P Q •N � .�... a � O �❑� r L � ❑O❑ O� D O U O_ N N` Wb❑ N � U O.a N ma mm F33 d3 m m `m U)Na O 7 _ y G, O bi W m O N O yN .d CO [n � N ,n � � N ❑� 'Efj � '� N •� q W Q� a C U F O U� w M ' 00 VJ f6 w N = to + + Z b o v�i a 0- 'o al y I w m CD X00 O Y C C y O gyp, `n OU>wa� > taw . .29 L O LL— FU U L N U N N N W cu N }i � r`^u Q V i 0 0 �N Q 2 (;oafoJd soipn3S xogmopeyS) deW sajl Aeo :3uawy3e33b' 1 C � m O Z. N a N o d b L VJ 9 N O R m U a a Omp a xt n 0 W # y o m o o/ y m m d LL d a LLJ N 3 N O ? Q m 3 o EziC° N C fn tA+ Z Q a w f6t� �z Ztu-�c'y wecC�a� obs O o off m Y y 2 O U> W a m .0 �.1 11 ` cardro9NZ 9U NO AM Ll fl w H' �#L Qw d LU F W ¢ O 'J � O a y d JLu +y+y wr CD � b U co o I _I. t� S o ts < a d at. ;, o L' w 0 0 : , (, LU aLL O�X ev Q _ W Na° . ,..�..... w a mom _ z X Yom `� 8 00a 4 F-- `I � m0 yam O U / I G U U Q w �ai w Y Q TT{F• KO�Q Z W �a a Q WLU �, U I� 0 m .E L 0 cu U cu cu CD N N N N W cu N }i N � r`^u Q VJ O Q O �N Q r 0 Z a 00 U) w w ry Y a 0 ry w J w Y U 0 0 r 0 W WN L.f_ (;oafoJd soipn3S xogmopeyS) deW sajl Aeo :3uawy3e33b' a � w .Q CL y y v 2 O _ El L_ N 0 E CC a N W y U O m d N 0 d O a s y a s W a aci a`� a y o aci m a a o Q m o'o�'e G 0 o m v O c e "� �' p? a�i o �' A H .� Uin+Zd'❑ 8 miss+Za'❑ Y U a m a ci N t4 rn x C o o N� o_ Q N W m B a� W c c C7 -o o o o m v ti H ~ m m o Y c y a H a m o � a ?: 7 O> w a x O( i> a M F ���:�Ifflllllll11111113111 ±Jf � :: - �` Q Q _ h o 0 Im �., m m ! O y O # O # 0m LU Q W Q W my w CO H U H W a U O LU z O Q U O J 7 X W M s a m C Y R L a 0 cu U cu cu N UN N N W cu N 4 i t5 cu^ Q V / O W � Q O �N Q 2 N V ) 0 0— U Of N Z Q W W ry Y 0 z O U U) (;oafoJd soipn3S xogmopeyS) deW sajl Aeo :3uawy3e33b' N ik w Of 0 0 it W W O v s a m C Y R L a 0 4-- cu U cu cu U cu rcu � V i L (;pafoJd soipn3S xogmopeyS) deW sajl Aeo :3uawy3e33b' 1 Z O O o m C Q G iUi U N C o 'C iE 5 5.8 VNi N N O o IS x xa aa °� C c ? w O s = ri Z`D 2D Z'D C �U LL W an d tq ,> a pp y o m w O tO O V W O t0 O b0 O CO O w U 0 tie»+ +z A 3 tie»+ +z o-' c�en+ +z �,, a P, d w d O+ f6 W c c U` a o O LL'p Sr > ro .E ❑ # m W c c C7 a o O O y Lco # fu w c c C7 o itN �, b Z N � Q O rod a�i �Vj Q o m N n o x o o o y U o E m o .E o g O F �'n C Y p y o. o Q o m x P O F LL F OU>Lu d a' OU>LU am OU> W aa � M 0 Z Q N W W ry Y Q 0 L 0 cu U cu cu N N O N W cu N }i N � r)`^u Q V 0 m N Q cn 41 (;oafoJd soipn3S xogmopeyS) deW sajl Aeo :3uawy3e33b' no a •� � � � o 10 a� ro w- m�8 v 0 L4 p d 0. Im D U rb.9 U X � m N m G ttl 2w CU F1 F r 30 U O w O o W U A O p U U N U w Ofn5va o p� x, ' a'2 c A� •m yp7m o, m w W a d ttt0yyy9 G b N U p O Wvp O W O N O N y O O t00 W � � � ❑»+z� �B o»+z++CL � lk o Ys in m y `o pi Jy # � `° o �bvE # � `° 0 5F ac � `° o cH•°a z� w C`J� > oc'� w.. Oc °'•`S w.. C7c v•od�b O� w c c U` -o o •� .p '�' ,y w c c C7 -o o � v o y w c c U` -o o � °' o ai q Y O y n O U d Y c w o. o O U m Y y o. o p' G b C7 Qom R a S Qom R a i U Co Q o m.X P O U> W a= O U> W a m 0 0> W a m ly W Q fy F W r Y O O / r ui I x. Y Lu 2' w W H Y Q O w Ir 0 v u w Of Y Q O .29 L 0 U cu N N cu N }i rn rcu^ Q VJ O m � Q O �N Q 2 N 0 N w w ry v Q 0 w J w Y U 0 W W �i m (;oafoJd solpn3S xogmopeLIS) deW sajl oleo :3uawy3e33b' w 0 0 � � U N g Y� o O F R w �/ of nd sy .a C N U O & Ern - C +tea'^ R ro C T u.l o w Y y n o L O U Lu � W tl m �1 3 IL 1 o i tl � w yy - - - O .r w LU w W I o a H U W L � " N v . C m � W g o _ o � v a 0 a m U N sy O Ll p O ctl � e U U c c N R FL � W a of m Y q N N N t ti m 0] th + + K uJ o p 00 a •� � y o LLJ C O •."i j d W Y c 0 O a= Q o, x m p� J7 id U F. 4 O U P W 4_ m z w CD Y F ow (;oafoJd soipn3S xogmopeyS) deW sajl Aeo :3uawy3e33b' a (' L a g Z N Q U ® Q x c� Lij c� =, r— LU¢ 0 J Q Q —• _ d LL Oct Ir cD aQm w O Q i O N (0 N 0 w O O x s N L N. - �a mmom._o m E y d 3,5 t U D1 C y Y � n c m_ c c U •%p �`p N m a a m a O � c na o W aci `oaU m c r 3 o 0 >.�.0 e 7m a O c U N Qa To 4 w c y Y c a mo _ O .0 a � U W O w.3 LU ` w coic a' w Of ~ N U N U C H <fnK m LL' CF N Y � O � N N N N C6 04 4C + Q 0 W Q U O J LU L�J 1.f Coast live oak #1 Blackhall Studios Railroad and 13th Street Santa Clarita June 24, 2021 Coast live oak #1, decaying stump at base of main stem Packet Pg. 45 1.g Organizations and Groups: Bridge to Home Boys & Girls Club California Film Commission California Institute of the Arts Circle J Ranch HOA College of the Canyons Golden State Gateway Coalition Hart High School Hollywood Chamber of Commerce Homes 4 Families Los Angeles County Fire Dept (Helispot) NAACP of SCV Newhall School District Rotary Club Santa Clarita Film Office SCV Chamber of Commerce SCV Economic Development Corporation SCV Historical Society SCV Senior Center SCV Water Agency Sierra Club The Master's University Valley Industrial and Commerce Association Zonta Club of SCV Placerita Canvon Property Owner's Association: Board of Directors: General Membership: October 1, 2020 December 5, 2020 May 6, 2021 June 26, 2021 February 3, 2022 August 2, 2022 Placerita Canyon Corporation (Gate Managers): Board of Directors: February 26, 2023 Placerita Residents — Alderbrook Drive: 2020 to present: Continuing dialogue with various residents of Alderbrook Drive, including an October 27, 2022 Alderbrook-specific outreach meeting with over 20 residents to hear their thoughts on the project, answer questions and consider possible partnership opportunities. Placerita Residents — Misc.: 2020 to present: Numerous briefings with Placerita residents in groups of 2-20 at a time. Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 47 1.g Local Film and Television Studios: Disney Studio/Golden Oak Ranch Rancho Deluxe Movie Ranch LA North Studios Melody Ranch Sable Movie Ranch Santa Clarita Studios Viacom/CBS Local Film and Television Related Businesses: Elite Media Technologies Laemmle Theater LA Film Locations SCV Locations, Inc. Triscenic Production Services Universal Locations, Inc. Elected Officials: Congressman Mike Garcia State Senator Scott Wilk Former Assemblywoman Suzette Martinez Valladares LA County Supervisor Kathryn Barger William S. Hart Union High Governing Board Trustee Bob Jensen William S. Hart Union High Governing Board Trustee, Joe Messina William S. Hart Union High Governing Board Trustee Cherise Moore Community Members: The Shadowbox Studios team has also met individually with dozens of business owners and community leaders; numerous film -industry residents; and countless other members of the Santa Clarita Valley community. Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 48 1.h Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 7:48 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Studio Project 21-109 From: Cher Gilmore <chergilmore@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 11:18 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Studio Project 21-109 CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. To the Planning Commission: Please require the developer for this project to change the plan in order to save the heritage oak and other oaks on this property (12 oaks total). Old growth trees are our best tool for slowing down climate change because they absorb so much CO2 -- far more than newly planted trees, which take about 10 years to even BEGIN absorbing carbon. How can we even think of chopping down these magnificent and crucial natural wonders? And for what? Another building? This project will change the whole character of Old Town Newhall. Please allow more time for review by extending the comment period to 120 days. Also, please copy this message to all planning commissioners. Thank you, Cher Gilmore 26834 Circle of the Oaks Santa Clarita, CA 91321 661-251-1718 Packet Pg. 49 1.h From: Erika Iverson To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Stusio Project 21-109 Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 7:51:06 AM -----Original Message ----- From: Lisa <luvntreezAyahoo.com> Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 10:59 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSONAsanta-clarita.com> Subject: Stusio Project 21-109 CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Please ask the developer to change the plan to save the heritage oak and other oaks on this property. This project will change the whole character of Old Town Newhall. Please allow more time for review by extending the comment period to 120 days. Please copy to all planning commissioners. Sent from my iPhone Packet Pg. 50 1.h From: Erika Iverson To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Stusio Project 21-109 Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 7:46:19 AM From: Dan G <dgfxdgfx@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 6:09 AM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Stusio Project 21-109 CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Please ask the developer to change the plan to save the heritage oak and other oaks on this property. This project will change the whole character of Old Town Newhall. Please allow more time for review by extending the comment period to 120 days. Please copy to all planning commissioners. Packet Pg. 51 1.h SCOPE Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment TO PROMOTE, PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENT, ECOLOGY AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE SANTA CLARITA VALLEY POST OFFICE BOX 1182, SANTA CLARITA, CA 91386 www.scope.org 5-1-23 Erika Iverson, Planning City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Sent via email to eiverson@santa-clarita.com Re: Newhall Studio Project 21-109 Request for an extension to review the EIR Please copy to all members of the Planning Commission Dear Ms. Iverson and Planning Commission Members SCOPE is a planning and conservation non-profit group now celebrating its 351h year of work in the Santa Clarita Valley. This project proposes to build a huge industrial development on an area of floodplain currently zoned for housing. It will fundamentally change the character of the Newhall neighborhood and old town district which the City has strived to create and which the City has spent enormous amounts of public funds to promote. It will destroy a number of oaks including the iconic heritage oak located in the middle of this flood plain which is older than the town of Newhall itself. The EIR was released just prior to the Easter and Passover holidays when many people had their minds on family and religious celebrations and thus may not have been aware of its release. It is also a massive document requiring a great deal of reading and research. Due to all of these factors and the importance of widespread community involvement on a project that will so dramatically change the character of an existing neighborhood, we request that you extend the comment period to at least 120 days for this document. It is vitally important that you receive input from a wide variety of community members on this project and that community members have adequate time to provide you with a full array of information to help you make the best decision for our community. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Lynne Plambeck, Packet Pg. 52 1.h President Packet Pg. 53 1.h From: Erika Iverson To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Shadowbox Studio access Date: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 1:17:37 PM Lisa, Please include the below comments into the record -----Original Message ----- From: Jason Crawford <JCRAWFORD(a-,)santa-clarita.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 11:53 AM To: Clay Rawlins <cmudl@mac.com> Cc: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: RE: Shadowbox Studio access Hi - Thanks for your email. I am cc'ing the Senior Planner for this proposed project, Erika Iverson, so she can include your email with the comments received on the project. Jason C Jason Crawford Director of Community Development City of Santa Clarita Phone: (661) 255-4969 -----Original Message ----- From: Clay Rawlins <cmudIAamac.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 11:42 AM To: Jason Crawford <JCRAWFORD(a-,)santa-clarita.com> Subject: Shadowbox Studio access CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. The main entrance to the proposed Shadowbox Studio facility should be through a Railroad underpass at the intersection of 15th St. and Railroad Ave. The topography from 13th St to Placerita Creek support this theory and the precedent has been set with the CPUC for a development in Canyon Country. The rail line can remain in service with a temporary reroute during construction of the overpass. Extending Dockweiler Dr. into Placerita Cyn. is a very shortsighted and problematic solution. Dockweiler Dr. should connect to Market St and not create a route to avoid Downtown Newhall. Thanks for reading Clay Rawlins Santa Clarita Packet Pg. 54 1.h From: Erika Iverson To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Master Case 21-109 Date: Monday, April 24, 2023 9:32:47 AM From: Jeff Secor <secor6@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 5:36 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Master Case 21-109 CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. My name is Jeff Secor and we live at 21224 Placerita Canyon Road. I worked for the City of Los Angeles for 31 years as a Building Maintenance Supervisor. What you are proposing, no pun intended, is going to be a train wreck if implemented. We have lived in the canyon for 22 years. We thinking leaving that space open for a park would be the best for our community, but the reality is that we know it won't happen. We see how the Dockweiler project plan owas and is being handled, with no regard to the huge traffic problems that will occur on 13th Street. Instead of taking the road to Market Street, it was all decided beforehand that you never planned to do that. As you know, virtually all of the residents of Placerita Canyon and Dockweiler were opposed to the road project. The studio project is better than a low cost housing project, but the way these two projects are propose is not going to work. The City of Los Angeles usually doesn't listen to the voice of the communities they do projects in, such as road changes or buildings. The residents would voice their opinions about the impact it would have on their lives, but the city would go ahead anyway with whatever they wanted, many of which turn out disastrously. We know how these projects will impact our canyon, especially traffic congestion that will be horrific if this project is not modified or scratched. Politicians and developers want this project and may need to be open to some changes that may cost more money up front. My proposal is that Dockweiler be brought down to Market Street. It will serve the college better for their traffic needs as well. The 13th Street train entrance should be left and upgraded somewhat, not expanded. The studio should not have access through there. A dedicated entrance and rail Packet Pg. 55 1.h crossing should be made at the extreme end of the property for their entrance and exit only. These can be done, of course, for a cost which I think in the long run will help all the parties impacted by these projects to work together. Also, the size of the building and layout exceed what needs to be placed there as has been mentioned by other residents of the canyon. You should be listening to the concerns of those who live here, not to outsiders or people that are paid to promote the self interests of others with no regard to the human factor. Again, the way it stands, this will be a train wreck for everyone involved in this canyon. Thank you, Jeff & Sharon Secor Packet Pg. 56 1.h From: Erika Iverson To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Shadow Box Project Date: Monday, April 24, 2023 9:32:06 AM From: Cher Gilmore <chergilmore@sbcgloba1.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 5:24 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Shadow Box Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. To the SCV Planning Commission: First of all, please distribute this message to all commissioners. My message: The Shadow Box Studio Project has plans that include destroying the big heritage oak in the middle of the flood plain. This is completely unnecessary. We need all the old -growth trees we can keep alive to help fight climate change, and these old oaks are supposed to be protected in this community! Please require the project to design AROUND the oak and save it. Thank you! Cher Gilmore 26834 Circle of the Oaks Newhall, CA 91321 661-251-1718 Packet Pg. 57 1.h From: To: Subject: Date: Erika Iverson Lisa Howe FW: Shadow Box Project Wednesday, April 19, 2023 3:35:20 PM From: Eli Bronwein <ebronwein@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 4:51 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Re: Shadow Box Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Dear Commissioner, Please preserve the big Heritage Oak that's located in the middle of the flood plain of the Shadow Box Project. It is not only a beautiful and historic part of the Santa Clarita Valley, but also essential to the health of the environment —reducing air pollution, stabilizing the ground during flooding, and providing an important habitat for endangered species. It would, therefore, be most advantageous to incorporate the Heritage Valley Oak into the project, thus saving it. (Please forward this message to all the planning commissioners involved) Thankyou. Sincerely, Elliot Bronwein Newhall, CA 91321-1388 Packet Pg. 58 1.h May 7, 2023 TO: Erika Iverson Associate Planner at City of Santa Clarita RE: Master Case 21-109 City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission for the Hearing on Shadowbox studio project Ms. Iverson, I am writing to express my and my husband Russ's concern about this Shadowbox studio project. The location for this project is not zoned for the size and type of project. There is no regard forthe residents who are living in this rural neighborhood, the oaktrees which will be removed, that are supposed to be protected, or the impact it will have on the flow of traffic in and out of the canyon which right now, at times, backs up on Newhall Avenue from the Highway 14 exit to the railroad crossing into the canyon. Traffic in the canyon will become so congested with the number of vehicles proposed for this site. Why doesn'tthe city see the Negative impact this project will have on our rural way of living in Placerita Canyon? How can someone who is not living in our area think they know what is best for our city and especially our neighborhood. The Shadowbox project has an apparent lack of concern for the welfare of our neighborhood, or the negative impact the Shadowbox project will have on our way of life. Thank you for your time. Russ and Sharon Melton 24763 Golden Oak Lane Newhall, Ca 91321 Packet Pg. 59 1.h Savino Ledesma 24723 Alderbrook Drive Newhall, CA 91321 (661) 414-6995 savino.ledesma101@gmail.com 27th April 2023 To whom it may concern, My name is Savino Ledesma and I have been a homeowner on Alderbrook Drive for over 12 years. I have lived in Santa Clarita for over 25 years. My wife and I have been able to grow our family and live comfortably in this area. I am writing this letter in concern of the Blackhall Studio Project possible construction. This project is too big for this area. This is a neighborhood with small exits including the Placerita Canyon exit and 13th Street intersection. These exits will not accommodate residents' needs if the studio is created. It will cause more traffic. In case of emergency, residents, the students and faculty at Master's University will have a hard time evacuating which can put many people in danger. Finally, at times the railroad crossing goes through maintenance and malfunctions. When this happens traffic gets backed up and causes delays. The studio will cause even more traffic. Construction will also ruin the wildlife that we have in this area. This area will destroy the habitats and displace the animals that live nearby. The proposal to use the Metropolitan Water District property along the south of Placerita Creek to provide vehicle and trailer parking spaces will also destroy the wildlife. This space should not be used for parking trailers or vehicles. Sincerely, Savino Ledesma Packet Pg. 60 1.h Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 7:49 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve Shadowbox Studios From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 6:21 AM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve Shadowbox Studios CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. d 0 L a N O Re: Approve Shadowbox Studios M r rn Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, c 3 As a resident of Placerita Canyon, and a direct neighbor to the proposed Shadowbox Studios project, I am writing to express my support for this project. Throughout the process, the developer has worked side -by -side with our community z to ensure our thoughts, comments and questions are heard. Further, it has been great to see some of our ideas U) implemented in the project throughout the past couple of years. As you have seen from the renderings, our Placerita c Canyon Community Characteristics have been incorporated in the project. The stages feature an equestrian aesthetic E that honors our lifestyle. I want to see this lifestyle protected and to continue, and that is what Shadowbox Studios has E promised to do. I recognize that development on this property will occur at some point. I don't think we want to see ti thousands of houses or apartments here. That would be a real traffic nightmare. This project is the next best option for our community. Moreover, I applaud the efforts from the developer on working with the City towards a trail extension Z and access from Placerita to downtown Newhall and Metrolink. The enhancement would be of great significance for our a community. Placerita Canyon has a long history of movie ranches and filming from Disney Ranch on the South to Melody Ranch in the middle of Placerita Canyon. This city, and Placerita Canyon, have an abundance of talented people who s work in the film industry. How great it would be for these people to be able to regularly work close to their homes and r maybe even walk or ride their bikes to the studio. On behalf of my neighbors in Placerita Canyon, I hope the Planning Q Commission sees this as the best possible project for our community and the City. Please the project and allow it to move on to the next step. Sincerely, Todd Kostjuk tkostiuk@masters.edu 21726 Placerita Cyn Rd Newhall, CA 91321 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info( a �oneclickpolitics.com Packet Pg. 61 1.h Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 7:49 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve Shadowbox Studios From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 3:04 AM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve Shadowbox Studios CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. d 0 L a N O Re: Approve Shadowbox Studios M r rn Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, c 3 As a resident of Placerita Canyon, and a direct neighbor to the proposed Shadowbox Studios project, I am writing to express my support for this project. Throughout the process, the developer has worked side -by -side with our community z to ensure our thoughts, comments and questions are heard. Further, it has been great to see some of our ideas U) implemented in the project throughout the past couple of years. As you have seen from the renderings, our Placerita c Canyon Community Characteristics have been incorporated in the project. The stages feature an equestrian aesthetic E that honors our lifestyle. I want to see this lifestyle protected and to continue, and that is what Shadowbox Studios has E promised to do. I recognize that development on this property will occur at some point. I don't think we want to see ti thousands of houses or apartments here. That would be a real traffic nightmare. This project is the next best option for our community. Moreover, I applaud the efforts from the developer on working with the City towards a trail extension Z and access from Placerita to downtown Newhall and Metrolink. The enhancement would be of great significance for our a community. Placerita Canyon has a long history of movie ranches and filming from Disney Ranch on the South to Melody Ranch in the middle of Placerita Canyon. This city, and Placerita Canyon, have an abundance of talented people who s work in the film industry. How great it would be for these people to be able to regularly work close to their homes and r maybe even walk or ride their bikes to the studio. On behalf of my neighbors in Placerita Canyon, I hope the Planning Q Commission sees this as the best possible project for our community and the City. Please the project and allow it to move on to the next step. Sincerely, Josiah Patton 0osiahpatton2001@gmail.com 23601 Ashwood PI Valencia, CA 91354 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info( a �oneclickpolitics.com Packet Pg. 62 1.h Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 7:49 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve Shadowbox Studios From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 2:59 AM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve Shadowbox Studios CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. d 0 L a N O Re: Approve Shadowbox Studios M r rn Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, c 3 As a resident of Placerita Canyon, and a direct neighbor to the proposed Shadowbox Studios project, I am writing to express my support for this project. Throughout the process, the developer has worked side -by -side with our community z to ensure our thoughts, comments and questions are heard. Further, it has been great to see some of our ideas U) implemented in the project throughout the past couple of years. As you have seen from the renderings, our Placerita c Canyon Community Characteristics have been incorporated in the project. The stages feature an equestrian aesthetic E that honors our lifestyle. I want to see this lifestyle protected and to continue, and that is what Shadowbox Studios has E promised to do. I recognize that development on this property will occur at some point. I don't think we want to see ti thousands of houses or apartments here. That would be a real traffic nightmare. This project is the next best option for our community. Moreover, I applaud the efforts from the developer on working with the City towards a trail extension Z and access from Placerita to downtown Newhall and Metrolink. The enhancement would be of great significance for our a community. Placerita Canyon has a long history of movie ranches and filming from Disney Ranch on the South to Melody Ranch in the middle of Placerita Canyon. This city, and Placerita Canyon, have an abundance of talented people who s work in the film industry. How great it would be for these people to be able to regularly work close to their homes and r maybe even walk or ride their bikes to the studio. On behalf of my neighbors in Placerita Canyon, I hope the Planning Q Commission sees this as the best possible project for our community and the City. Please the project and allow it to move on to the next step. Sincerely, Paul Coleman colemanpl@masters.edu 1515 W H Bar Ranch Rd Payson, AZ 85541 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info( a �oneclickpolitics.com Packet Pg. 63 1.h Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 7:49 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve Shadowbox Studios From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 2:29 AM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve Shadowbox Studios CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. d 0 L a N O Re: Approve Shadowbox Studios M r rn Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, c 3 As a resident of Placerita Canyon, and a direct neighbor to the proposed Shadowbox Studios project, I am writing to express my support for this project. Throughout the process, the developer has worked side -by -side with our community z to ensure our thoughts, comments and questions are heard. Further, it has been great to see some of our ideas U) implemented in the project throughout the past couple of years. As you have seen from the renderings, our Placerita c Canyon Community Characteristics have been incorporated in the project. The stages feature an equestrian aesthetic E that honors our lifestyle. I want to see this lifestyle protected and to continue, and that is what Shadowbox Studios has E promised to do. I recognize that development on this property will occur at some point. I don't think we want to see ti thousands of houses or apartments here. That would be a real traffic nightmare. This project is the next best option for our community. Moreover, I applaud the efforts from the developer on working with the City towards a trail extension Z and access from Placerita to downtown Newhall and Metrolink. The enhancement would be of great significance for our a community. Placerita Canyon has a long history of movie ranches and filming from Disney Ranch on the South to Melody Ranch in the middle of Placerita Canyon. This city, and Placerita Canyon, have an abundance of talented people who s work in the film industry. How great it would be for these people to be able to regularly work close to their homes and r maybe even walk or ride their bikes to the studio. On behalf of my neighbors in Placerita Canyon, I hope the Planning Q Commission sees this as the best possible project for our community and the City. Please the project and allow it to move on to the next step. Sincerely, Cora McClain coralynnmcclain@gmail.com 830 W Cheyenne Rd Colorado Springs, CO 80906 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info( a �oneclickpolitics.com Packet Pg. 64 1.h Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 7:49 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve Shadowbox Studios From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 2:20 AM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve Shadowbox Studios CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. d 0 L a N O Re: Approve Shadowbox Studios M r rn Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, c 3 As a resident of Placerita Canyon, and a direct neighbor to the proposed Shadowbox Studios project, I am writing to express my support for this project. Throughout the process, the developer has worked side -by -side with our community z to ensure our thoughts, comments and questions are heard. Further, it has been great to see some of our ideas U) implemented in the project throughout the past couple of years. As you have seen from the renderings, our Placerita c Canyon Community Characteristics have been incorporated in the project. The stages feature an equestrian aesthetic E that honors our lifestyle. I want to see this lifestyle protected and to continue, and that is what Shadowbox Studios has E promised to do. I recognize that development on this property will occur at some point. I don't think we want to see ti thousands of houses or apartments here. That would be a real traffic nightmare. This project is the next best option for our community. Moreover, I applaud the efforts from the developer on working with the City towards a trail extension Z and access from Placerita to downtown Newhall and Metrolink. The enhancement would be of great significance for our a community. Placerita Canyon has a long history of movie ranches and filming from Disney Ranch on the South to Melody Ranch in the middle of Placerita Canyon. This city, and Placerita Canyon, have an abundance of talented people who s work in the film industry. How great it would be for these people to be able to regularly work close to their homes and r maybe even walk or ride their bikes to the studio. On behalf of my neighbors in Placerita Canyon, I hope the Planning Q Commission sees this as the best possible project for our community and the City. Please the project and allow it to move on to the next step. Sincerely, Casey Cole coleci@masters.edu 4475 Westview Lane Titusville, FL 32780 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info( a �oneclickpolitics.com Packet Pg. 65 1.h Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 7:48 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve Shadowbox Studios From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 2:19 AM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve Shadowbox Studios CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. d 0 L a N O Re: Approve Shadowbox Studios M r rn Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, c 3 As a resident of Placerita Canyon, and a direct neighbor to the proposed Shadowbox Studios project, I am writing to express my support for this project. Throughout the process, the developer has worked side -by -side with our community z to ensure our thoughts, comments and questions are heard. Further, it has been great to see some of our ideas U) implemented in the project throughout the past couple of years. As you have seen from the renderings, our Placerita c Canyon Community Characteristics have been incorporated in the project. The stages feature an equestrian aesthetic E that honors our lifestyle. I want to see this lifestyle protected and to continue, and that is what Shadowbox Studios has E promised to do. I recognize that development on this property will occur at some point. I don't think we want to see ti thousands of houses or apartments here. That would be a real traffic nightmare. This project is the next best option for our community. Moreover, I applaud the efforts from the developer on working with the City towards a trail extension Z and access from Placerita to downtown Newhall and Metrolink. The enhancement would be of great significance for our a community. Placerita Canyon has a long history of movie ranches and filming from Disney Ranch on the South to Melody Ranch in the middle of Placerita Canyon. This city, and Placerita Canyon, have an abundance of talented people who s work in the film industry. How great it would be for these people to be able to regularly work close to their homes and r maybe even walk or ride their bikes to the studio. On behalf of my neighbors in Placerita Canyon, I hope the Planning Q Commission sees this as the best possible project for our community and the City. Please the project and allow it to move on to the next step. Sincerely, Saige Schupbach schupbachsa@masters.edu 2700 Deer Creek Drive Parker, CO 80138 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info( a �oneclickpolitics.com Packet Pg. 66 1.h Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 7:48 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: SUPPORT the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 1:59 AM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: SUPPORT the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: SUPPORT the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to show my utmost support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much - need project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge the Planning Commission to recommend approval of this project, so it can receive its final approval from the City Council and begin construction. Sincerely, Ms. Barbara Myler barbara@summitwestpr.com PO Box 55133 Valencia, CA 91381 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info( a �oneclickpolitics.com c m E 0 U c� a a� E s ca r a Packet Pg. 67 1.h Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 7:48 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: SUPPORT the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 1:35 AM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: SUPPORT the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: SUPPORT the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to show my utmost support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much - need project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge the Planning Commission to recommend approval of this project, so it can receive its final approval from the City Council and begin construction. Sincerely, Ms. Tamara Gurney tgurnev@missionvalleybank.com 26701 McBean Parkway Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info( a �oneclickpolitics.com c m E 0 U c� a a� E s ca r a Packet Pg. 68 1.h Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 7:48 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve Shadowbox Studios From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 12:12 AM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve Shadowbox Studios CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. d 0 L a N O Re: Approve Shadowbox Studios M r rn Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, c 3 As a resident of Placerita Canyon, and a direct neighbor to the proposed Shadowbox Studios project, I am writing to express my support for this project. Throughout the process, the developer has worked side -by -side with our community z to ensure our thoughts, comments and questions are heard. Further, it has been great to see some of our ideas U) implemented in the project throughout the past couple of years. As you have seen from the renderings, our Placerita c Canyon Community Characteristics have been incorporated in the project. The stages feature an equestrian aesthetic E that honors our lifestyle. I want to see this lifestyle protected and to continue, and that is what Shadowbox Studios has E promised to do. I recognize that development on this property will occur at some point. I don't think we want to see ti thousands of houses or apartments here. That would be a real traffic nightmare. This project is the next best option for our community. Moreover, I applaud the efforts from the developer on working with the City towards a trail extension Z and access from Placerita to downtown Newhall and Metrolink. The enhancement would be of great significance for our a community. Placerita Canyon has a long history of movie ranches and filming from Disney Ranch on the South to Melody Ranch in the middle of Placerita Canyon. This city, and Placerita Canyon, have an abundance of talented people who s work in the film industry. How great it would be for these people to be able to regularly work close to their homes and r maybe even walk or ride their bikes to the studio. On behalf of my neighbors in Placerita Canyon, I hope the Planning Q Commission sees this as the best possible project for our community and the City. Please the project and allow it to move on to the next step. Sincerely, Charles Beck cgaming9000@gmail.com 5171 Victoria Place Westminster, CA 92683 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info( a �oneclickpolitics.com Packet Pg. 69 1.h Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 7:47 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve Shadowbox Studios From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 11:38 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve Shadowbox Studios CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. d 0 L a N O Re: Approve Shadowbox Studios M r rn Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, c 3 As a resident of Placerita Canyon, and a direct neighbor to the proposed Shadowbox Studios project, I am writing to express my support for this project. Throughout the process, the developer has worked side -by -side with our community z to ensure our thoughts, comments and questions are heard. Further, it has been great to see some of our ideas U) implemented in the project throughout the past couple of years. As you have seen from the renderings, our Placerita c Canyon Community Characteristics have been incorporated in the project. The stages feature an equestrian aesthetic E that honors our lifestyle. I want to see this lifestyle protected and to continue, and that is what Shadowbox Studios has E promised to do. I recognize that development on this property will occur at some point. I don't think we want to see ti thousands of houses or apartments here. That would be a real traffic nightmare. This project is the next best option for our community. Moreover, I applaud the efforts from the developer on working with the City towards a trail extension Z and access from Placerita to downtown Newhall and Metrolink. The enhancement would be of great significance for our a community. Placerita Canyon has a long history of movie ranches and filming from Disney Ranch on the South to Melody Ranch in the middle of Placerita Canyon. This city, and Placerita Canyon, have an abundance of talented people who s work in the film industry. How great it would be for these people to be able to regularly work close to their homes and r maybe even walk or ride their bikes to the studio. On behalf of my neighbors in Placerita Canyon, I hope the Planning Q Commission sees this as the best possible project for our community and the City. Please the project and allow it to move on to the next step. Sincerely, Sofia Rosales sofial0roca@outlook.com Magnolia 835 col. Jacarandas Apodaca, KS 66634 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info( a �oneclickpolitics.com Packet Pg. 70 1.h Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 7:47 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: SUPPORT the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 11:18 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: SUPPORT the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: SUPPORT the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to show my utmost support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much - need project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge the Planning Commission to recommend approval of this project, so it can receive its final approval from the City Council and begin construction. Sincerely, Karina Winkler gm.hixva@excelhotelgroup.com 27501 Wayne Mills Place Valencia, CA 91355 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info( a �oneclickpolitics.com c m E 0 U c� a a� E s ca r a Packet Pg. 71 1.h Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 7:47 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: SUPPORT the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 10:42 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: SUPPORT the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: SUPPORT the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to show my utmost support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much - need project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge the Planning Commission to recommend approval of this project, so it can receive its final approval from the City Council and begin construction. Sincerely, Jennifer Abbott -Aston 0ennifer@humanelementcompany.com 24043 Saint Moritz Drive Valencia, CA 91355 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info( a �oneclickpolitics.com c m E 0 U c� a a� E s ca r a Packet Pg. 72 1.h Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 7:47 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: SUPPORT the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 10:13 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: SUPPORT the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: SUPPORT the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to show my utmost support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much - need project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge the Planning Commission to recommend approval of this project, so it can receive its final approval from the City Council and begin construction. Sincerely, Mr. Henry Rodriguez henrv@voursfteam.net 18978 Soledad Canyon Rd Santa Clarita, CA 91351 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info( a �oneclickpolitics.com c m E 0 U c� a a� E s ca r a Packet Pg. 73 1.h Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 7:46 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: SUPPORT the Shadowbox Studios Project From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 6:30 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: SUPPORT the Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: SUPPORT the Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to show my utmost support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much - need project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge the Planning Commission to recommend approval of this project, so it can receive its final approval from the City Council and begin construction. Sincerely, Mr. Brett Thomas gm.bwva@excelhotelgroup.com 27513 Wayne Mills PI Valencia, CA 91355 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info( a �oneclickpolitics.com c m E 0 U c� a a� E s ca r a Packet Pg. 74 1.h From: Erika Iverson To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve Shadowbox Studios Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 7:51:21 AM From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 12:09 AM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve Shadowbox Studios CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve Shadowbox Studios Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, As a resident of Placenta Canyon, and a direct neighbor to the proposed Shadowbox Studios project, I am writing to express my support for this project. Throughout the process, the developer has worked side -by -side with our community to ensure our thoughts, comments and questions are heard. Further, it has been great to see some of our ideas implemented in the project throughout the past couple of years. As you have seen from the renderings, our Placerita Canyon Community Characteristics have been incorporated in the project. The stages feature an equestrian aesthetic that honors our lifestyle. I want to see this lifestyle protected and to continue, and that is what Shadowbox Studios has promised to do. I recognize that development on this property will occur at some point. I don't think we want to see thousands of houses or apartments here. That would be a real traffic nightmare. This project is the next best option for our community. Moreover, I applaud the efforts from the developer on working with the City towards a trail extension and access from Placerita to downtown Newhall and Metrolink. The enhancement would be of great significance for our community. Placerita Canyon has a long history of movie ranches and filming from Disney Ranch on the South to Melody Ranch in the middle of Placerita Canyon. This city, and Placenta Canyon, have an abundance of talented people who work in the film industry. How great it would be for these people to be able to regularly work close to their homes and maybe even walk or ride their bikes to the studio. On behalf of my neighbors in Placerita Canyon, I hope the Planning Commission sees this as the best possible project for our community and the City. Please the project and allow it to move on to the next step. Sincerely, Jefferson Henson ihensonomasters.edu 28215 Lorita Lane Santa Clarita, CA 91350 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneelickpolities.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(aoneclickpolitics. com Packet Pg. 75 1.h From: Erika Iverson To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve Shadowbox Studios Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 9:59:24 AM From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 9:53 AM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve Shadowbox Studios CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve Shadowbox Studios Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, As a resident of Placenta Canyon, and a direct neighbor to the proposed Shadowbox Studios project, I am writing to express my support for this project. Throughout the process, the developer has worked side -by -side with our community to ensure our thoughts, comments and questions are heard. Further, it has been great to see some of our ideas implemented in the project throughout the past couple of years. As you have seen from the renderings, our Placerita Canyon Community Characteristics have been incorporated in the project. The stages feature an equestrian aesthetic that honors our lifestyle. I want to see this lifestyle protected and to continue, and that is what Shadowbox Studios has promised to do. I recognize that development on this property will occur at some point. I don't think we want to see thousands of houses or apartments here. That would be a real traffic nightmare. This project is the next best option for our community. Moreover, I applaud the efforts from the developer on working with the City towards a trail extension and access from Placerita to downtown Newhall and Metrolink. The enhancement would be of great significance for our community. Placerita Canyon has a long history of movie ranches and filming from Disney Ranch on the South to Melody Ranch in the middle of Placerita Canyon. This city, and Placenta Canyon, have an abundance of talented people who work in the film industry. How great it would be for these people to be able to regularly work close to their homes and maybe even walk or ride their bikes to the studio. On behalf of my neighbors in Placerita Canyon, I hope the Planning Commission sees this as the best possible project for our community and the City. Please the project and allow it to move on to the next step. Sincerely, Kathy Unger kunger o masters. edu 21726 Placenta Canyon Road Santa Clarita, CA 91321 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneelickpolities.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(aoneclickpolitics. com Packet Pg. 76 1.h From: Erika Iverson To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve Shadowbox Studios Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 7:45:54 AM From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2023 7:11 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve Shadowbox Studios CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve Shadowbox Studios Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, As a resident of Placenta Canyon, and a direct neighbor to the proposed Shadowbox Studios project, I am writing to express my support for this project. Throughout the process, the developer has worked side -by -side with our community to ensure our thoughts, comments and questions are heard. Further, it has been great to see some of our ideas implemented in the project throughout the past couple of years. As you have seen from the renderings, our Placerita Canyon Community Characteristics have been incorporated in the project. The stages feature an equestrian aesthetic that honors our lifestyle. I want to see this lifestyle protected and to continue, and that is what Shadowbox Studios has promised to do. I recognize that development on this property will occur at some point. I don't think we want to see thousands of houses or apartments here. That would be a real traffic nightmare. This project is the next best option for our community. Moreover, I applaud the efforts from the developer on working with the City towards a trail extension and access from Placerita to downtown Newhall and Metrolink. The enhancement would be of great significance for our community. Placerita Canyon has a long history of movie ranches and filming from Disney Ranch on the South to Melody Ranch in the middle of Placerita Canyon. This city, and Placenta Canyon, have an abundance of talented people who work in the film industry. How great it would be for these people to be able to regularly work close to their homes and maybe even walk or ride their bikes to the studio. On behalf of my neighbors in Placerita Canyon, I hope the Planning Commission sees this as the best possible project for our community and the City. Please the project and allow it to move on to the next step. Sincerely, Peter Shickle shicklepd(&,gmail.com 27538 Violin Canyon Rd, Apt 102 Castaic, CA 91384 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneelickpolities.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(aoneclickpolitics. com Packet Pg. 77 1.h From: Erika Iverson To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve Shadowbox Studios Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 7:45:44 AM From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2023 12:50 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve Shadowbox Studios CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve Shadowbox Studios Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, As a resident of Placenta Canyon, and a direct neighbor to the proposed Shadowbox Studios project, I am writing to express my support for this project. Throughout the process, the developer has worked side -by -side with our community to ensure our thoughts, comments and questions are heard. Further, it has been great to see some of our ideas implemented in the project throughout the past couple of years. As you have seen from the renderings, our Placerita Canyon Community Characteristics have been incorporated in the project. The stages feature an equestrian aesthetic that honors our lifestyle. I want to see this lifestyle protected and to continue, and that is what Shadowbox Studios has promised to do. I recognize that development on this property will occur at some point. I don't think we want to see thousands of houses or apartments here. That would be a real traffic nightmare. This project is the next best option for our community. Moreover, I applaud the efforts from the developer on working with the City towards a trail extension and access from Placerita to downtown Newhall and Metrolink. The enhancement would be of great significance for our community. Placerita Canyon has a long history of movie ranches and filming from Disney Ranch on the South to Melody Ranch in the middle of Placerita Canyon. This city, and Placenta Canyon, have an abundance of talented people who work in the film industry. How great it would be for these people to be able to regularly work close to their homes and maybe even walk or ride their bikes to the studio. On behalf of my neighbors in Placerita Canyon, I hope the Planning Commission sees this as the best possible project for our community and the City. Please the project and allow it to move on to the next step. Sincerely, Bob Dickson bdickson(&,masters.edu 21726 Placenta Canyon Rd Santa Clarita, CA 91321-1235 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneelickpolities.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(aoneclickpolitics. com Packet Pg. 78 1.h From: Erika Iverson To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve Shadowbox Studios Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 7:45:33 AM From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2023 12:19 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve Shadowbox Studios CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: Approve Shadowbox Studios Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, As a resident of Placenta Canyon, and a direct neighbor to the proposed Shadowbox Studios project, I am writing to express my support for this project. Throughout the process, the developer has worked side -by -side with our community to ensure our thoughts, comments and questions are heard. Further, it has been great to see some of our ideas implemented in the project throughout the past couple of years. As you have seen from the renderings, our Placerita Canyon Community Characteristics have been incorporated in the project. The stages feature an equestrian aesthetic that honors our lifestyle. I want to see this lifestyle protected and to continue, and that is what Shadowbox Studios has promised to do. I recognize that development on this property will occur at some point. I don't think we want to see thousands of houses or apartments here. That would be a real traffic nightmare. This project is the next best option for our community. Moreover, I applaud the efforts from the developer on working with the City towards a trail extension and access from Placerita to downtown Newhall and Metrolink. The enhancement would be of great significance for our community. Placerita Canyon has a long history of movie ranches and filming from Disney Ranch on the South to Melody Ranch in the middle of Placerita Canyon. This city, and Placenta Canyon, have an abundance of talented people who work in the film industry. How great it would be for these people to be able to regularly work close to their homes and maybe even walk or ride their bikes to the studio. On behalf of my neighbors in Placerita Canyon, I hope the Planning Commission sees this as the best possible project for our community and the City. Please the project and allow it to move on to the next step. Sincerely, Matt Green mgreen o masters.edu 25306 Via Dia Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneelickpolities.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(aoneclickpolitics. com Packet Pg. 79 1.h April 24, 2023 Honorable Members of the Santa Clarita Planning Commission: Re: Shadowbox Studios In 1975, I bought my first home in Placerita Canyon at the corner of Aden and Placerita Canyon, and my present home on Placerita Canyon, across from Melody Ranch, in 1986. I was a member of the PCOPA board in the late '80s, and I feel I was instrumental in stopping a metro link station at the 13th and Railroad and the previous alignment of Dockweiler. I mention this to add some authenticity to my history of Placerita Canyon. I am strongly in favor of the Showbox Studio development. The present board members of the PCPOA are a smart, hardworking, and dedicated group of caring individuals. However, as a past board member, I know the board only reflects the opinion of a portion of the residents in the canyon. Whether it be apathy, inconvenience, or simply not feeling overly affected by the current events of the canyon. The purpose of this letter, after talking with several homeowners who agree with me and who have asked me to convey our feelings to you about the Shadowbox project, is to make you aware of our observations and concerns (which are few). It is true that any development on this land impacts the residents of Placerita Canyon more than anyone else in the City of Santa Clarita. It is also true that any development impacts everyone living in the city. Some projects would increase housing, while others would create jobs and income for the city. What we all know, as homeowners in Placerita, is this land will not remain vacant. Something will be built. Most undoubtedly something that is much more intrusive to the community by adding more traffic than the Shadowbox project and not being in congruence with the neighborhood or as beneficial to the city. Unfortunately, Placerita Canyon is not a bucolic neighborhood. It could best be described as rustic. Our entrance goes over railroad tracks, by a SO -year -old strip mall, whose backside is small manufacturing shops and mini storage before Packet Pg. 80 1.h entering a neighborhood composed of a burgeoning college and dormitories, a sports field, trailer park, a mix of eclectic million -dollar homes in the middle and ending through oil fields and refinery, all within two miles. However, as residents of Placerita Canyon, we love it. In the face of change, years ago, we even created a Special Standards District (SSD) to help preserve some of the characteristics of our rural community. Interestingly, of the five major components of the SSD, the Shadowbox Studios project meets those standards, with the exception of preserving and enhancing "the secluded, rural equestrian character of the community." Unfortunately, time itself has eroded this standard. As someone who has lived on Placerita Canyon, across from Melody Ranch, and owns a horse and rides throughout the canyon two to three days a week for the last five years, there are less than 10 homeowners that I know of who now board and ride a horse in the canyon. Even this is a rairity. The concept that this is an "equestrian" community" originated in 1922. In 1952 Gene Autry set aside 10 acres for his movie town Melody Ranch. 70 years later the rural community exists without an equestrian lifestyle. Walking and bicycling account for 99% of the daily outdoor activity in the canyon. What does remain is the most important restriction for building homes in Placerita Canyon. It is the minimum 1/z acre residential lot size. It sets the tone for the entire canyon. This restriction will remain with the Shadowbox Studios project. That being said, as with any project on this site, there are concerns that must be addressed. #1 The bottleneck at 13th Street and Railroad Avenue This is the most important issue. However, note that the project has three emergency exits. There also is a fourth, Placerita Canyon to the east. These gates are open during an emergency or inclement weather. #2Providing emergency egress to the north. This would be beneficial if it could happen. But if not, it is not necessary for the safety of the residents of Placerita Canyon. #3 The impact on property values, as compared to shopping or housing projects or a business park, we believe having the Shadowbox Studios would be a much -preferred entrance to the canyon. Packet Pg. 81 1.h We appreciate your efforts to help our neighborhood in its evolution and to remain fluid in allowing Placerita Canyon to continue to represent the Golden Age of life in Newhall and the City of Santa Clarita. And, rest assured, your approval of Shadowbox Studios will continue to preserve the movie -making history of Placerita Canyon. Sincerely, Anthony Matthess 21244 Placerita Canyon Rd Newhall, CA 91321 acmatthess@gmail.com Packet Pg. 82 1.h From: Erika Iverson To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: SUPPORT - Shadowbox Studios Project Date: Monday, April 24, 2023 9:31:44 AM From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 4:49 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: SUPPORT - Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: SUPPORT - Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to show my utmost support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -need project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge the Planning Commission to recommend approval of this project, so it can receive its final approval from the City Council and begin construction. Sincerely, Diane kenney 1 adydikenney(&,yahoo. com 26034 Lucerne ct Valencia, CA 91355 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneelickpolities.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info(aoneclickpolitics. com Packet Pg. 83 1.h From: Erika Iverson To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Shadowbox Studio Date: Monday, April 24, 2023 7:42:27 AM -----Original Message ----- From: Linda Tarnoff <haveahunchranchAaol.com> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 10:50 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSONAsanta-clarita.com> Cc: Jason Crawford <JCRAWFORD(a-,)santa-clarita.com>; Patrick Leclair <PLECLAIRAsanta-clarita.com> Subject: Shadowbox Studio CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. As this long anticipated proposal comes to the Planning Commission for review, I am writing to express my strong support. In the 21 years I have called Placerita Canyon my home, numerous projects, primarily residential, had been proposed, none of which advanced. I would like to mention that the first project brought to my attention was a proposal for over 1500 apartments which the developer at the time pulled out indicating that a project of that nature was not suitable for our area. I believe that rings true to this day. Therefore, given the uptick in content creation, television and motion picture filming, when Shadowbox was initially proposed for the project site, I became intrigued by its potential. No doubt, the project as configured is large with community impacts such as increased traffic which need to be addressed. Then again so would have the 2000 plus multiple unit dwellings that are lurking in the distance. Having met with Shadowbox representatives, I feel comfortable with their ongoing commitment to work with our community to maintain our rural character in their plans, including themed architecture as well as local enhancements such as signage and both bicycle and equestrian trail connectivity. As Shadowbox proceeds through the planning process, it is my hope that the Planning Commission view this project as an opportunity for entire Santa Clarita while taking into consideration local concerns. At some point, something is going to be built on that long vacant land. Why not it be this studio? Thank you for your due diligence review and hopefully future recommendation to the City Council for approval. Sincerely, Linda Tarnoff Chair, Placerita Advisory Committee on Trails Sent from my iPad Packet Pg. 84 9.h From: Erika Iverson To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: SUPPORT - Shadowbox Studios Project Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 10:35:01 AM Lisa, Letters continue to come in. We'll need to continue to log letters as they come in. Thanks From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 9:33 AM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: SUPPORT - Shadowbox Studios Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Re: SUPPORT - Shadowbox Studios Project Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, I am writing to show my utmost support for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, this much -need project will elevate our City and build upon its reputation for a live, work, and play city for its residents. It's no secret that Santa Clarita has built the reputation of Hollywood north. Just last year, our City saw an increase in location filming, which generated an estimated $38.5 million in economic impact to the local community. Filming here benefits our local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses, homeowners, and nonprofits. Our local hotels, restaurants, attractions, and shopping centers receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue that helps fund roads, programs, recreation, and public safety for Santa Clarita. Queue in Shadowbox Studios. This studio will meet the growing need for studio space, not just in our City, but in Los Angeles County. Further, as demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow, Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita. I am pleased to say the studio promises to build on the community's stout filmmaking heritage. For our local economy, the proposed project is estimated to generate over 2,000 onsite jobs, over 5,000 operations jobs, and approximately 4,000 construction jobs. Also, it is slated to have over $1 billion in annual economic impact. Indeed, as Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita builds on the century -long legacy of SCV film production, the objective would be to help make Santa Clarita a first option for the film content creators. I urge the Planning Commission to recommend approval of this project, so it can receive its final approval from the City Council and begin construction. Sincerely, Dr. Chris Raigosa christianraigosa o att.net 27107 Tourney Rd Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact Packet Pg. 85 1.h info(_doneclickpolitics, corn Packet Pg. 86 1.h From: Erika Iverson To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Shadow box hearing tonight Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 3:35:27 PM -----Original Message ----- From: John Paterson <johnpindustAaol.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 9:00 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSONAsanta-clarita.com> Subject: Shadowbox hearing tonight CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Hello - I spoke briefly this evening in favor of the project. I want to be clear that I live in Placerita Canyon on Oak Orchard and have for over 10 years. I support the project. I do not have business interests in Placerita. The opponents said no one living in Placerita supported the project and that the supporters were outside the Canyon. Not true. John Paterson Sent from my iPhone Packet Pg. 87 1.h ADAMSKI MOROSKI MADDEN CUMBERLAND & GREEN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Post Office Box 3835 • San Luis Obispo, California 93403-3835 T 805-543-0990 • F 805-543-0980 • www.ammcglaw.com April 19, 2023 Joseph Michael Montes, Esq. VIA EMAIL City Attorney for City of Santa Clarita Burke Williams & Sorensen LLP 444 S. Flower Street, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2953 j montesgbwsl aw. com Re: Master Case Number 21-109 Request for Extension of Time to Comment or Otherwise Respond to the Draft EIR Joe: I hope this finds you well. My firm has been retained by the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association ("PCPOA") to represent their interests concerning the proposed Shadowbox Studios Project. My partner, Ty Green, and myself will be working on this matter. Ty's email address is: Greengammcglaw.com; my email address is: JeffHgammcglaw.com. We understand that comments to the draft EIR are due on or before May 22, 2023. I am assuming you are aware of not only the enormity of the project but the voluminous nature of the report, over 500 pages with over 5,000 pages of appendices. It is not feasible for PCPOA to be able to substantively respond to all the draft's details by that date. PCPOA requests a minimum of an additional 15 days upon which to comment and present substantive responses to the Draft EIR. Moreover, we believe that, given the scope and complexity of this project, special circumstances exist to exceed the 60-day maximum review period. We therefore request that the review period be extended to allow for a total comment period of 90 days. We would appreciate your response as soon as possible given the looming deadline. Ty and I look forward to working with you and City Staff. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Very truly yours, ADAMSKI MOROSKI MADDEN CUMBERLAND & GREEN LLP /s/ Jeff Hacker JEFFREY A. HACKER JAH:tlg j:Aclients\placerita canyon poa\corr\ltr to montes 4.19.23 re ext re draft eir.docx Paso Robles Office: 1948 Spring Street • Paso Robles, CA 93446-1620 • T 805-238-2300 • F 805-238-2322 Packet Pg. 88 1.h Joseph Michael Montes, Esq. City Attorney for City of Santa Clarita April 19, 2023 Page 2 cc: Erika Iverson, Planner, EIversongSanta-Clarita.com Patrick LeClair, Director of Planning, PLeClairgSanta-Clarita.com Client Packet Pg. 89 0 Agenda Item: I CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING MANAGER APPROVAL: ~ DATE: June 20, 2023 SUBJECT: Shadowbox Studios Project (Master Case 21-109) APPLICANT: LA Railroad 93, LLC LOCATION: Northeast corner of Railroad Avenue and 13th Street CASE PLANNER: Erika Iverson RECOMMENDED ACTION Planning Commission: 1. Receive the staff presentation in response to Planning Commission direction; 2. Continue the public hearing to receive testimony from the applicant and the public; 3. Provide direction to staff on the hearing schedule; 4. Continue the Public Hearing to July 18, 2023; and 5. Take other action as determined by the Planning Commission. REQUEST The applicant, LA Railroad 93, LLC, is requesting approval of an Architectural Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Development Review, General Plan Amendment, Hillside Development Review, Minor Use Permit, Oak Tree Permit, Ridgeline Alteration Permit, Tentative Tract Map, and Zone Change to allow for the development of a nearly 1.3 million square foot, full -service film and television studio campus on an approximately 93-acre site. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING At the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on May 16, 2023, staff provided a staff Page 1 Packet Pg. 9 0 report and presentation in response to comments and requests for additional information as directed by the Planning Commission at the April 18, 2023 meeting. The Planning Commission received the staff report, applicant's presentation, and testimony from the public. The Planning Commission requested clarification on various topics, directed staff to address the remaining questions, and bring back a recommendation on the project for consideration at the June 20, 2023 meeting, following the close of the public comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Staff is working to prepare the Draft Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), inclusive of responses to the all the comments received during the DEIR public review period. Once the Draft Final EIR is complete, the Planning Commission will be able to make a recommendation to the City Council on the project. The purpose of this meeting is addressing the remaining questions from the Planning Commission and to receive direction from the Planning Commission on the public hearing schedule and the preparation of a recommendation for the project. Staff is proposing the following dates for the project hearing schedule: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Project introduction, summary of DEIR, public comments - Completed Tuesday, May 16, 2023 Response to Planning Commission and public comments - Completed Tuesday, June 20, 2023 Response to Planning Commission and public comments Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Response to Planning Commission and public comments, Draft Final EIR, and recommendation to City Council Date to be determined City Council Public Hearings MAY 16, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOLLOW-UP Following the May 16, 2023 Planning Commission meeting, a memo was prepared and sent to the Planning Commission on June 9, 2023 (PC Memo), to provide response to the request from the Planning Commission for further information on the topics of Alternative 3, street improvement plans, emergency operation plan, oak trees, the zoning and building height, operational characteristics for the project, and to provide visual simulations of the project. Further discussion on the topics of Alternative 3, street improvement plans and emergency operation plans, oak trees, and operational characteristics is provided below. Based on questions and comments raised by the Planning Commission at the April 18, 2023, and May 16, 2023 meetings, part of the discussion topics outline language for conditions of approval that staff has begun drafting for incorporation into the project Conditions of Approval for consideration by the Planning Commission. In addition, further discussion on the topic of outreach is provided to address questions from the Planning Commission about business outreach in the vicinity. Page 2 Packet Pg. 10 0 Alternative 3 As discussed in the PC Memo and as outlined in the Alternatives analysis of the DEIR, Alternative 3 evaluated a reduced studio project. Additional information is discussed below regarding the characteristics of the reduced project analyzed in the DEIR. Alternative 3 considered a reduced studio project that would retain the same type of uses and general site plan layout as the proposed project. The total floor area in Alternative 3 assumed a reduction of approximately 24 percent for a total floor area of 980,000 square feet, comprising 400,000 square feet of sound stages; 396,000 square feet of warehouse/support uses; 140,000 square feet of office space; and 44,000 square feet of catering and maintenance facilities. The sound stage buildings would be reduced in number, but would still maintain a height of 55 feet. The warehouse/support building would shrink in size, but the overall height would remain at 50 feet. The office building would become two -stories over a ground floor parking level. The parking structure would remain in the same location, but potentially be reduced by one level of parking. The catering and facilities maintenance buildings would remain as single -story buildings. Perimeter fencing and landscaping would be the same as the proposed project. Alternative 3 would provide 2,102 parking spaces, and would still construct a bridge over Placenta Creek to the north parking lot. As such, the overall development footprint and grading for Alternative 3 would be the same as the proposed project, and have the same oak tree impacts. Alternative 3 would still use the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) property for excess parking. Lastly, Alternative 3 would require the same roadway improvements as the proposed project. With a reduction in the overall project size, the employment numbers for the studio facility would be reduced by approximately 10 to 15 percent, reducing the number of individual one -directional trips to 5,494 as compared to the 6,993 individual one -directional trips generated by the project. All of the impacts of the proposed Project can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Alternative 3 would have lower impacts in areas of air quality, energy, GHG emissions, public services, transportation, and utilities; however Alternative 3 would still require the same mitigation measures as the project to ensure impacts remain less than significant. When drafting an EIR, the Alternatives analysis is prepared for the purposes of evaluating the potential to reduce or lessen any of the significant effects of the project as well as to foster informed decision making. The project as proposed by the applicant is before the Planning Commission, and it is at the discretion of the Planning Commission to determine the appropriate recommendation on the project, which, if recommended for approval, could include the recommendation for one of the alternatives analyzed in the (DEIR). Street Improvement Plans As discussed in the PC Memo, the Transportation Analysis (TA) prepared for the project analyzed the project both with and without the completion of the City of Santa Clarita's (City) planned extension of Dockweiler Drive. The proposed street improvements for the project would be required with or without the completion of the connection to Dockweiler Drive. The specific street improvements that would be required for the project prior to the Certificate of Occupancy Page 3 Packet Pg. 11 0 include: • Widening of the rail crossing at 13th Street and Railroad Avenue from two traffic lanes to five traffic lanes. In addition to widening of the intersection, the railroad crossing would be upgraded to meet the current safety standards as directed by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC); • Widening of 13th Street from two traffic lanes to six traffic lanes, Arch Street from two - traffic lanes to six traffic lanes, and 12th Street from two traffic lanes to three traffic lanes; • Installation of a four -leg, signalized intersection at 13th Street and Arch Street; • Installation of a four -leg, signalized intersection at Arch Street and 12th Street; and • Installation of a three -leg, half signalized intersection of Placerita Canyon Road and Dockweiler Drive. • Requiring the 13th Street at -grade crossing to stage construction such that access to Placerita Canyon will remain open during construction. If the Dockweiler Drive extension is not completed at the time of the project, the following intersection improvement would be required in place of the three -leg intersection at Placerita Canyon Road and Dockweiler Drive: • Extend Arch Street to Placerita Canyon Road and complete the two -leg intersection of Placerita Canyon Road and Arch Street. Lastly, part of the proposed project roadway improvements includes the incorporation of a Class I, multi -use trail along the project frontage of 13th, Arch, and 12th Streets. The Class I trail cross- section would be required to consist of a 4-foot wide landscape buffer, a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk for pedestrians, and a 10-foot wide asphalt path for two-way bike traffic and additional space, as needed for lodgepole fencing. Installation of the Class I trail would be required to be completed prior to first occupancy, along with the project roadway improvements described above. In addition to the Class I trail along the project frontage, the following Conditions of Approval would be recommended for consideration for trails: • A fee payment toward the trail that would connect the Dockweiler Drive Extension to the Newhall Metrolink station, including the pedestrian bridge over Newhall Creek and other future improvements associated with enhancing mobility in the Newhall area, in accordance with the City's Non -Motorized plan. Emergency Evacuation As outlined in the PC Memo, an Emergency Evacuation Analysis was also prepared for the project to study the evacuation time from the Placerita Canyon area. The analysis compared the existing condition, without the project and without the roadway improvements, to the proposed project including the roadway conditions described above. For purposes of determining the most conservative assessment, the analysis assumed that all evacuation routes would be directed through the intersection of Railroad Avenue and 13th Street and assumed Dockweiler Drive would not be available. The assessment concludes that the evacuation time out of Placerita Canyon would be reduced by more than half under the project conditions. Therefore, with the installation of the roadway improvements identified in the TA for the project, even without the connection to Dockweiler Drive being available, the existing evacuation time that would be experienced today, would be improved under the project conditions. Page 4 Packet Pg. 12 0 In the PC Memo, the applicant provided a narrative to outline what an Emergency Operation Plan includes. The applicant would prepare a site -specific EOP for the studio facility prior to opening the facility, to establish a plan that can be enacted in any type of emergency in order to protect life and property. The EOP would identify types of events or situations where sheltering in place could be implemented, as well as determining if and when the MWD right-of-way to the north could be opened as an evacuation route. Staff would recommend the following Conditions of Approval be considered for the project: • Require the applicant to complete installation of the roadway improvements, as described above, prior to the first occupancy of the project to ensure the roadways provide the adequate capacity for the project and evacuation; • Require the applicant to prepare construction phasing and traffic detour plans prior to street plan approval for any roadway improvements. Traffic detour plans must ensure that access to the Placenta Canyon is maintained at all times during roadway construction. The detour may require additional interim roadway and intersection improvements for the duration of the detour, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and • Require the applicant to prepare a site -specific Emergency Operation Plan (EOP) prior to Certificate of Occupancy. The EOP would be required to include a site -specific evacuation plan for the studio campus and, include a training program for all security personnel and tenants of the studio campus to ensure preparedness in the event of an emergency. The Planning Commission has asked in previous meetings about the rail line and what would occur in the event of a rail line incident that might block the rail crossing at 13 th Street and Railroad Avenue. In the unfortunate event the rail crossing is blocked, it would be up to the local emergency/law authorities to establish any plans for temporary alternative routes or detours around the rail crossing as it now. It should be noted, that the proposed widening of the 13 th Street rail crossing is designed to meet the most current safety standards of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and rail line authorities. Any improvement plans for the crossing require coordination and approval by the CPUC, Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), Metro, and Metrolink. The possibility of providing a secondary access to the Project site at 15th Street and Railroad Avenue has been explored by the applicant, however, policies of the CPUC, SCRAA, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) discourage new grade crossings and require closure of at least one existing crossing, but in the City's experience it would likely require at least two existing crossings, with the application request for a new grade crossing. The CPUC does not distinguish between emergency crossing, private crossing, or public crossing so any new crossing is treated the same under their review. Oak Trees The Oak Tree Report prepared for the project provides an assessment for each oak tree on the project site. The applicant provided a summary of each tree and its health status in the PC Memo. The City Arborist has reviewed the Oak Tree Report and based on -site inspection of the oak trees, agrees with the assessment provided in the Oak Tree Report. The applicant's original proposal includes the removal of 13 oak trees. Upon review of the Oak Tree Report and site Page 5 Packet Pg. 13 0 inspection, the City Arborist has worked with the applicant to reduce the number of oak tree removals to 12. The recommended Condition of Approval for the oak tree removals would: • Permit the removal of 12 on -site oak trees, six of which are heritage in size and identified in the applicant's Oak Tree Report as oak tree numbers 1H, 2H, 3H, 4H, 5H, and 7H, and the remaining six removals are non -heritage and identified in the applicant's Oak Tree Report as oak tree numbers 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13. • Require a bond for the International Society of Arboriculture (hereafter ISA) Dollar Value of the oak trees, proposed for removal, would prior to the issuance of grading permits, and the removal of any oak trees. The current ISA Dollar Value as documented in the applicant's Oak Tree Report is listed at $790,800.00 dollars. The applicant would be required to mitigate for the ISA Dollar Value of all oak trees approved for removal, subject the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Ordinance and Preservation and Protection Guidelines. • Specific conditions regarding location for planting of mitigation oak trees would require larger specimen size oak trees to be planted in high visibility visible to residents and guests in the Placerita Canyon Community, at the landscaped corners of Shadowbox Studio Gates 1, 2, and 3 as shown on the preliminary landscape plan. Project Operations The staff presentation and staff report for the May 16, 2023 meeting discussed the project access and outlined how all vehicle trips associated with the studio facility would enter the project site from the proposed signalized intersection at 13th Street and Arch Street. Gate 1, the main entrance, is located on the north leg of the proposed intersection of 13 th Street and Arch Street. Gate 2, the secondary entrance, is located on the east leg of the intersection. Both gates are setback from the intersection, allowing vehicles to queue on the Project site instead of the public street. The combined stacking length on the project site for both gates is 2,100 linear feet. For context, assuming a 60-foot queue length per large 53-foot trailer vehicle, the capacity provided would accommodate 35 trailer vehicles in the queue. In addition, Gate 1 is designed as a three - lane entry that widens to four lanes, dedicating a lane for express entry by cardholders. Gate 2 is a three -lane entry. The provision for on -site queueing and multiple entry lanes ensures vehicle traffic can clear the entry gates and not cause impact on the public roadway. Project -related vehicle trips would not be permitted to enter the project site from Gate 3, which is located on 12th Street. Gate 3 is designed as an exit only, and is designed to permit a right turn out only (west toward Arch Street). This keeps vehicle traffic associated with the studio facility on Arch Street and away from the Placerita Canyon neighborhood. Gate 3 would allow for emergency service vehicles to enter the project site. The studio facility operates 24 hour per day and would have nighttime trips associated with the studio facility. The applicant operation plan would limit vehicle entry and exit during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. to Gate 1 only. This directs all vehicle traffic to the interior of the studio facility and keeps vehicle traffic away from the easterly internal drive aisle of the studio facility. The operation plan would also prohibit large trucks from entering or exiting both the north parking lot and the MWD parking lot during the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Staff recommendations would include Conditions of Approval including: Page 6 Packet Pg. 14 0 • Require vehicle traffic use Gate 1 for entrance and exit during hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. and restricting large trucks (53-foot) from entering or exiting the north parking lot and the MWD parking lot during the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. • Require that Gate 3 is restricted to egress only and must be designed as a right turn exit, west bound on 12th Street. Emergency service only would be permitted to use Gate 3 as an entrance. • Require the applicant to install gateway signage at the entrance to Placenta Canyon at Placeritos Boulevard and Placenta Canyon Road. The requirement would include signage to expressly state that no through traffic is allowed. • Require 24-hour security personnel on -site, and require the studio facility establish a contact phone number for studio facility operations that would be made available to the public and posted at each entry gate. Business Outreach The applicant has continued to conduct outreach in the community and since the May 16, 2023 meeting, met again with the Placenta Canyon Property Owners Association and several businesses along 13th Street, Arch Street, 12th Street and Pine Street. An updated summary of the applicant outreach is attached. Separately, City staff is organizing outreach efforts to work with and inform Railroad Avenue business owners of the plans for future Railroad Avenue street improvements that would impact street parking along their frontage on Railroad Avenue as part of the Dockweiler Drive extension project. The outreach plan includes both an informational flyer and direct meetings with the impacted businesses. Initial outreach is anticipated to begin this summer. CONCLUSION Staff is preparing the Draft Final EIR, inclusive of response to all the comments received during the DEIR public review period. The Draft Final EIR is expected to be issued on July 6, 2023, and would be presented to the Planning Commission at a future public hearing along with a staff recommendation on the project for consideration by the Planning Commission, tentatively set for July 18, 2023. ATTACHMENTS PC Memo - June 9, 2023 Applicant Outreach Summary Public Comments Page 7 Packet Pg. 15 1.a CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Chair Berlin and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Patrick Leclair, Planning Manager ; DATE: June 9, 2023 SUBJECT: SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PROJECT (MASTER CASE 21-109) The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Planning Commission with additional clarification and information on a number of topics, in advance of the Planning Commission hearing, scheduled for June 20, 2023, on the Shadowbox Studios Project (Project) as requested by the Planning Commission. At the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on May 16, 2023, following a staff presentation, an applicant presentation, and testimony from the public, the Planning Commission requested clarification and additional information on several topics as follows: 1. Alternative 3 2. Zoning 3. Building Height 4. Emergency Operation Plan 5. Street Improvement Plan 6. Project Operation 7. Oak Trees 8. Project Renderings Additional information is provided on these topics below. Alternative 3 The Planning Commission inquired about Alternative 3, the reduced studio alternative. Alternative 3 considered a studio Project with a reduction in floor area of approximately 24 percent. The overall development footprint would remain the same, and require the same amount of grading. The overall building massing for Alternative 3 would be similar to the Project as the warehouse/production support and sound stage buildings would generally remain in the same location on the Project site and be the same height as the Project proposal. The perimeter fencing and landscaping would be the same as the Project. Because the development footprint and grading remain the same, the oak tree impacts would be unchanged. There would be a reduction in employment of approximately 10 to 15 percent. When comparing the impacts between the Project and Alternative 3, Alternative 3 has slightly lower impacts in areas of air quality, energy, GHG emissions, public services, transportation, and utilities. While impacts in these areas are slightly less than the Project, Alternative 3 would still Packet Pg. 16 Shadowbox Studios Planning Commission Memo June 9, 2023 Page 2 1.a require the same mitigation measures as the Project to ensure impacts remain less than significant. In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an analysis of project alternatives is prepared for purposes of evaluating the potential to reduce or lessen any of the significant effects of the project and for purposes of fostering informed decision making. It is at the discretion of the Planning Commission to determine the appropriate recommendation on the Project, which, if recommended for approval, could include the recommendation for one of the alternatives analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Zoning The Project site is located within the Mixed -Use Neighborhood (MXN) zone. The studio use is permitted in the MXN zone with approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). While the Project site is also located within the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District (PCSSD), there is nothing in the PCSSD that would preclude the Project site from operating as a studio. The PCSSD does not regulate the types of uses allowed on a property. A studio use can be permitted within the PCSSD. Building Hei6t The Project proposal includes a maximum building height of 55 feet. The proposed buildings range in height from 18 feet (catering buildings) to 55 feet (peak of the sound stages). The applicant has prepared additional site sections (Attachment A), to provide further situational context for the building locations in relationship to the street frontages of Railroad Avenue, 13 th Arch, and 12th Streets, as well as the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) property and the residential uses beyond. Attachment A provides five site sections as follows: • Section 1 provides the relationship between the catering building and 12th Street. The catering building is a maximum of 18 feet in height and setback 74 feet from the street right-of-way. As shown in the site section, 12th Street is approximately slightly higher than the elevation of the building pad for the catering building. • Section 2 provides the relationship between the catering building and Arch Street. The catering building is a maximum of 18 feet in height, and is setback 54 feet from the street right-of-way. • Section 3 shows the relationship between the office building and the 13th Street frontage. The maximum building height is 48 feet and is setback 39 feet from the right-of-way. The office building pad elevation is slightly lower than the elevation of 13th Street. • Section 4 shows the production support building along Railroad Avenue. The production support building is a maximum height of 50 feet and setback from the right-of-way nearly 170 feet. The parking structure is not depicted in the site section, but is also setback 170 feet from Railroad Avenue. It is situated between the production support building and the office building, and is 45 feet in height, with an elevator shaft of 57 feet. • Section 5 show the relationship between the sound stage buildings and the MWD property, and residential properties to the east. The sound stage buildings have a maximum height of 55 feet at the peak of the ridge. The buildings are located approximately 325 feet from the residential uses to the east. As seen in the site section, the sound stage building pad is lower than the MWD property and residential properties to the east. Packet Pg. 17 Shadowbox Studios Planning Commission Memo June 9, 2023 Page 3 1.a The site is located within the MXN zone, which permits a building height of 50 feet. The MXN zone contemplates a mix of residential and commercial uses, and specific to the Shadowbox Studios proposal, the studio use is permitted in the MXN zone with approval of a CUP. Properties to the south, across 13th Street, and extending to Market Street are also within the MXN zone, allowing the development of residential and commercial uses and building heights of 50 feet. Properties to the west, across Railroad Avenue, and north of 13th Street, are in the Community Commercial (CC) zone. Properties to the west, across Railroad Avenue, and to the south are located within the Old Town Newhall Specific Plan (ONSP). Development in the CC and ONSP zones can be permitted over 35 feet with the approval of a CUP. In analysis of the proposed Project, staff has looked at development in the Newhall area, and looked at permitted building heights in the vicinity of the Project area to evaluate the Shadowbox Studios Project. As shown in Attachment B development in the Newhall area in recent years, with the revitalization of Old Town Newhall and buildout of The Masters University Master Plan, includes several projects with building heights that exceed 35 feet. Emergency Operation Plan The Planning Commission inquired about the preparation of an Emergency Operation Plan (EOP) for the Shadowbox Studios Project. Any staff recommendation on the Project would include a Condition of Approval to require Shadowbox Studios to prepare a site -specific EOP prior to Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant's consultant, Dudek, has prepared a narrative to outline what an EOP is and what information is contained in the EOP, provided here as Attachment C. A component of the EOP would include training of security personnel and tenants of the studio to ensure preparedness for emergency events. Street Improvement Plan The Planning Commission inquired about an interim street improvement plan in the event the Shadowbox Studios Project were to be operational prior to the completion of the Dockweiler Drive Extension project. The Transportation Assessment (TA) prepared for the Project provided an analysis of the Project without the completion of the Dockweiler Drive Extension project. The TA concludes that the street improvements to complete the widening of the rail crossing at 131h Street and Railroad Avenue, as well as the widening of 13th, Arch, and 12th Streets would be required, with or without the construction of Dockweiler Drive. Any staff recommendation on the Project would include Condition(s) of Approval to require installation of the widened rail crossing at 13th Street and Railroad Avenue, designed to meet the current design and safety standards of the California Public Utilities Commission, as well as installation of the widening of 13th, Arch, and 121h Streets prior to occupancy of the studio. The TA finds that even without the connection to Dockweiler Drive, the intersections in the immediate vicinity of the Project operate at acceptable levels of service with these improvements in place. Thus, completion of those improvements, required prior to operation of the studio use, eliminate a need for any interim condition. The applicant's consultant has prepared further discussion on this topic in Attachment D. It should also be noted that the Emergency Evacuation Analysis prepared for the Project studied the evacuation time from the Placerita Canyon area without consideration of the Dockweiler Drive Extension. The emergency analysis that was prepared assumed that all evacuation trips Packet Pg. 18 Shadowbox Studios Planning Commission Memo June 9, 2023 Page 4 1.a would exit the Placerita Canyon area through the intersection of 13th Street and Railroad Avenue. The analysis compared the time to evacuate the Placerita Canyon community today, under the existing conditions, with the time to evacuate the Placerita Canyon community under the proposed Project conditions that include the widening of the rail crossing at 13th Street and Railroad Avenue, as well as the widening of 13th, Arch, and 12th Streets. Under the proposed Project conditions, and without the Dockweiler Drive connection, the evacuation time is reduced by more than half. Project Operations The Planning Commission inquired about operational aspects of the Project, including hours of operation, truck deliveries, and the adequacy of the vehicle queuing at the Project entry gates. The applicant has prepared a narrative to outline the operational characteristics including queuing capacity, hours of operations, truck deliveries, and management of nighttime noise for clarification of the operational characteristics of the studio campus in Attachment E Oak Trees The Planning Commission inquired about the assessment of the existing Oak Trees on the Project site. The applicant has prepared a narrative to summarize the findings of the Oak Tree Report provided in Attachment F. The City Arborist has reviewed the applicant's Oak Tree Report and Attachment F and confirmed agreement with the assessment provided for each oak tree. Project Renderings Following discussion by the Planning Commissioners, the applicant has prepared photo simulations from three different perspectives to illustrate what the Project would look like along the street frontages. The depictions are representative of the proposed site plan layout, the architectural elevations prepared for each building, and the proposed landscaping along the street frontages. As shown in Attachment G, each perspective provides the current view alongside a view of the proposed Project. Landscaping is depicted at a growth of five or ten years as indicated in each simulation. Please contact me if you have any questions. PL:EI:lh Attachments cc: Jason Crawford, Director of Community Development Erika Iverson, Senior Planner David Peterson, Senior Planner Rachel Clark, Planning Secretary Packet Pg. 19 Tn'N CIVOHIIV�FVI Co :�JOJ C]3dO]3A3(1 CO3, 0, U) 2MV3 ViNVIDVAVS 'iS HiC I GNV'3AV CIVOdllVd JO d3N?JOO'3'N --- VIMV10 VINVS soionis X08M00VHS g aaaa 05 Lo w > z z Q z J 0 0 cr CD < wU) w F- 12' LU w I 0 q1fl— 0 CL z OD C) D D 03 12 < > 0 CL of f ce) C14 0 — - — - — - 0— 46' TO 50' co 52 AT SABLES z z z 7w O O2 C) F- LU co LU 22� LU U) CP > I 55' RIDGE 45--3- EAVE (D Z Z EE Z4 > LU x L) co 47TO 48' CD m w > CD LU z LL, -01 < C) D co LU 21 CD W/o) cli LU CD LL c) z LL LL LL « Ln V \k§!k k)}ƒm �� £ t AMEMEMW .. $ � 2 2 ° c . . � � (- $ ■��;_ . Z = . e I c \ \ \ b )}]\§ > > \ « )§!e� / �■0 MEMORANDUM To: Dennis Hardgrave, Development Planning Services, Inc. From: Dudek Fire Protection Planning Team - Michael Huff, Sr. Director Subject: Shadowbox Studios - Santa Clarita: Emergency Operations Plan Summary Date: June 1, 2023 cc: N/A Attachment(s): N/A Emergency Operations Plans (EOPs) in California cities almost all utilize a state format and customize it some for their particular needs. EOPs have been customized for individual entities including college campuses, camps, construction sites, and others. The Shadowbox Studios plans to provide a facility -focused EOP The following is a summary of these plans: The EOP is for use by counties, cities and other entities to respond to major emergencies and disasters. It describes the roles and responsibilities of all county/city departments, and the relationship between the county/city and its departments and the jurisdictions. The EOP contains information on the jurisdiction and lists all of the hazards thatthe county/city/entity is susceptible to. Those hazards include but are not limited to: • Earthquake • Flooding • Drought • Dam Failure • Nuclear - related incidents • Water, Gas or Energy Shortage • Terrorism • Tsunami • Wildland Fire • Urban Fire • Transportation Accidents • Hazardous materials incidents • Landslides. The EOP describes a comprehensive emergency management system which provides for a planned response to disaster situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, terrorism and nuclear -related incidents. It delineates operational concepts relating to various emergency situations, identifies components of the Emergency Management Organization, and describes the overall responsibilities for protecting life and property and assuring the overall wellbeing of the population. The plan also identifies the sources of outside support which might be provided (through mutual aid and specific statutory authorities) by other jurisdictions, state and federal agencies and the private sector. The plan cites authorities and references to support the plan and has five objectives: 1. To provide a system for the effective management of emergency situations. 2. To identify lines of authority and relationships. 3. To assign tasks and responsibilities. 4. To ensure adequate maintenance of facilities, services and resources. 5. To provide a framework for adequate resources for recovery operations. The EOP for Shadowbox Studios would be distributed to the management, security personnel, and tenants of the studio. Training of security personnel and tenants of the studio would be provided, and informational graphics would be posted on the site as required under the EOP. Packet Pg. 22 1.a ibson transportation consulting, inc. SHADOWBOX STUDIOS INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS PRIOR TO DOCKWEILER EXTENSION IMPLEMENTATION The Planning Commission asked if the Shadowbox Studios project could be constructed prior to the full implementation of the Dockweiler Extension. The Transportation Assessment confirms that the project traffic can be adequately accomodated on surrounding streets after completion of the 13th Street rail crossing and the build -out of 13th Street, Arch Street, and 12th Street, and prior to the completion of the Dockweiler Extension. This scenario was studied in the Transportation Assessment included in the Draft EIR. The full occupancy of the Shadowbox Studios was studied under Future Conditions both with and without the Dockweiler Extension to determine what roadway improvements would be necessary to support the Project under each scenario. Page 70 of The Transportation Assessment (Appendix L of the Draft EIR) states: There is a potential for the Project to be opened prior to the construction of the DDEP, in which case the Railroad crossing upgrade and the 13t" Street improvements would be accelerated and installed with the Project. This scenario was analyzed without the DDEP and associated shifts in traffic volumes, but with the DDEP improvements along the Project frontage and at the railroad crossing. Thus, the Transportation Assessment already contemplates that full occupancy of the studio Project would require that the 13t" Street Corridor improvements be implemented along with the Project in the event that the Dockweiler Extension was delayed for whatever reason. Table 18 shows that even without the Dockweiler Extension, the key intersections in the vicinity of the Project would operate at acceptable Levels of Service: Future with Project Level of Service Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 5. Railroad Ave. & 13t" St. C D 16. Arch St. & 13t" St. C C 17. Arch St. and 12t" St. A B The section of 13t" Street between Railroad Avenue and Arch Street would be widened to its ultimate cross-section as shown in Figure 22 from the Transportation Assessment (attached). All the additional right-of-way needed to develop this roadway improvement would come from the Shadowbox Studios site and therefore could be dedicated by the Project prior to implementation of the Dockweiler Extension. 555 W. 5th Street, Suite 3375 Los Angeles, CA 90013 i 213.683.0088 1 213.68 Packet Pg. 23 1.a ■ bson transportation consulting, inc. The portion of Arch Street between 13th Street and 12' Street might have to be constructed as a temporary 4-lane roadway if the right-of-way purchases associated with the Dockweiler Extension are not yet complete. Again, much of the right-of-way for this roadway section will come from the Shadowbox Studios site and therefore could be dedicated to the City in order to develop a strong connection between the 12th Street corridor and 13th Street. This would ensure continuous access to Railroad Avenue from the Canyon neighborhoods. The above improvements and conditions are consistent with the Evacuation Analyses summarized on pages 80-85 and in Appendix H of the Transportation Assessment. 555 W. 5th Street, Suite 3375 Los Angeles, CA 90013 i 213.683.0088 1 213.68 Packet Pg. 24 ((60VLZOW)408f0id solpn;S xogmopeLIS) £ZOZ `6 aunt - ouaaW Od :;uawyoe}}V co LU co Ni�pp QtLY1�N LL I a� a w Y � N Ur N � d LL 1.a MEMORANDUM: Shadowbox Studios Operations FAQ's City of Santa Clarita (Master Case 21-109) Prepared by Shadowbox Studios - June 8, 2023 Studio Operations FAQ's & Answers: 1. Is there adequate queuing area onsite so that vehicle traffic will not back up off of the Shadowbox property and onto the public streets? A: Yes. The Queuing Analysis and Traffic Simulation prepared by Gibson Transportation and shown at the May 16, 2023 Planning Commission hearing confirms that there is more than adequate queuing area onsite and will not interfere with nor will it back up on to any of the adjacent or nearby public streets. The analysis provided by Gibson confirms that Shadowbox Studios provides significantly more queuing area than other Los Angeles -area studios and also generates less overall traffic due to the reduced percentage of office space and administrative or corporate functions at Shadowbox Studios in comparison to other large Los Angeles -area studios. The combined total length of entry queuing stacking at Gates #1 and #2 is approximately 2,100 linear feet. Gate 1 begins as a three -lane entry and widens to four lanes to accommodate express entry for cardholders and Gate 2 is a three -lane entry. Gate 3 is a clearly designed and identified for "exit only" for right turns onto 121" Street and will not be used as an entrance except by public safety emergency vehicles. 2. What are the studio's operating hours? A: 24 hours, with primary operations occurring indoors. See below for transportation and night-time responses 3. What are the hours of truck deliveries? A: There are typically 4 different types of truck traffic onsite: *Normal course of production traffic... typically 6am-10pm *Nighttime course of production traffic... typically 10pm-6am *Return to base from Location shoots... typically 7pm-7am *Food truck deliveries and catering truck arrivals... typically 3am-5am 4. How will you manage nighttime noise? A: A point of contact will be established for the community and City to reach out to the Shadowbox Operations and Security Departments. The following operating policies will be enforced: *Direct all vehicular traffic between 10pm and 6am to GATE 1 entrance and exit only. *Direct all large trucks (53' trailers) between 10pm and 6am to warehouses and stages only (no large truck entrance to or exit from North Lot or MWD Lot during these hours) *Allow cast trailers and other vehicles (but not large trucks) between 10pm and 6am to park on North Lot or MWD Lot, but not to back up any vehicles that will prompt back-up beepers. *Develop and communicate to tenants and employees standard operating procedures related to noise mitigation, with special attention to nighttime hours. S. Will there be outdoor shooting? A: On occasion outdoor shooting may occur. Shadowbox Studios would limit outdoor shooting throughout studio campus to 6am-10pm unless a permit is obtained through the City of Santa Clarita film office. Packet Pg. 26 1.a 0 N U r u d O L. a N _O 3 r U) x O O cC t Cl N O N O C 3 Packet Pg. 27 MEMORANDUM: Shadowbox Studios Oak Tree Summary City of Santa Clarita (Master Case 21-109) Oak Tree Report by Arbor Essence, Kerry Norman. Memorandum by Development Planning Services June 8, 2023 1.a This memorandum summarizes the information contained in the Shadowbox Studios Draft EIR Arbor Essence "Protected Oak Tree Report", dated July 1, 2021. Any updated oak tree information is included in italics within this summary. A total of (16) protected trees are included as part of this report and are identified as coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) and Valley Oak (Quercus lobata). The final Oak Tree Mitigation Plan and Landscape Plans for the Shadowbox Studios project shall be prepared and approved by the City of Santa Clarita prior to issuance of a Grading Permit by the City. As outlined in the preliminary Oak Tree Mitigation Plan the poor health of the subject site trees and their locations results in a recommendation to mitigate their removal with a robust mix of oak tree species and sizes to be located in prominent locations on the Studio project site. The result will be an increase in both the quantity and health of specimen trees at this gateway location. The site contains 7 heritage size trees. A heritage oak tree is defined as any oak tree measuring one hundred eight (108) inches or, in the case of a multiple trunk tree, two (2) or more trunks measuring seventy-two (72) inches each or greater in circumference, measured four and one-half (4 1/2) feet above the natural grade surrounding such tree. The oak tree report identified a total of 13 protected oaks as being proposed for removal as part of this project, including 7 Heritage trees. The final Oak Tree Mitigation Plan will identify the trees to be removed and provide for valuation and mitigation tree sizes, species, and location. Two additional trees are not included in this summary. Tree #17 is offsite within the shopping center on Arch Street and will remain in place. Tree #18 may be within the MWD ownership and, depending on the outcome of negotiations with MWD and the City approval of the Final Oak Tree Mitigation Plan, will either remain in place or be relocated to the Shadowbox Oak Park. SUMMARY OF TREES: (See DEIR Appendix G "Protected Oak Tree Report" for photos & valuation information) Coast Live Oak #1, Heritage (Grade C-) This tree has 3 primary stems and appears to be in good health but contains significant structural defects. It appears that a large stem growing towards the east failed some time ago continuing to grow horizontally above the ground, this stem also contains a large cavity. It is also apparent that at least two large stems were removed from the tree, one leaving a decayed stump in the lower portion of the main stem creating a hazard. Kerry Norman of Arbor Essence testified at the May 2023 Planning Commission that the tree is in danger of failure and poses a safety hazard. The tree is not a candidate for relocation. Coast Live Oak #2, Heritage (2021 Grade B — to be downgraded in final report) This tree appeared to be in good health in 2021, but suffered a large stem failure in 2022 resulting in a loss of approximately 40% of the trees crown. Additionally the remaining portion has developed very poor branching structure with several codominant stems. The tree is located growing just down slope of a wash/drainage on the east perimeter of the property which will be filled in and channelized with a storm drain pipe as identified in the approved Drainage Plans and Hydrology Report for the Studio project. The tree is not a candidate for relocation. Co N U r U as O a` N _O x 0 s 3 0 �a z M N Co N O C 3 0 E a� U a c a� E z a Packet Pg. 28 Coast Live Oak #3, Heritage (Grade C-) 1.a The tree appears to be in stable health; however the tree has suffered severe damage from fire leaving the trunk and scaffold limbs heavily scarred with areas of decay. The tree is considered high risk for limb failures. In 2022 several limb failures occurred, further deteriorating the visual appearance and health of the tree. The tree is not a candidate for relocation. Coast Live Oak #4, Heritage (Grade D) The tree appears to be in stable health; however the tree has suffered severe damage from fire leaving the trunk and scaffold limbs heavily scarred with areas of decay. A large stem failure has resulting in the loss of 50% of the trees crown. The tree is considered high risk for failure. The tree is located in an area to be graded for the project and is not a candidate for transplanting. Coast Live Oak #5, Heritage (Grade D) The tree appears to be in stable health; however the tree has suffered severe damage from fire leaving the trunk and scaffold limbs heavily scarred with areas of decay and the tree contains a large trunk cavity. This tree is considered a high risk for failure. The tree is located in an area to be graded for the project and is not a candidate for transplanting. Coast Live Oak #6, Heritage (Grade B) This tree is in good health with no apparent pest problems. Structure is fair. However, this tree canopy is within the Metro/SCRRA railroad tracks right of way. The trunk is located within a minor, seasonal drainage course which, due to the potential to impact the railroad right of way, will be filled in and channelized with a storm drain pipe as identified in the pending update to Drainage Plans and Hydrology Report for both the 13' Street Railroad Crossing and the Studio project. The tree is not a candidate for relocation. Valley Oak #7, Heritage (Grade D) o This tree appears to be in stable health but have significant structural and disease problems. The tree ai contains a large trunk wound that has been colonized by Laetiporus, a known wood decay fungi. Incipient decay was observed in the main trunk. The tree also displays a history of limb failures. This tree is considered 4 to be a high risk for failure, as the disease and decay will only worsen over time. The tree is located in an area to be graded for the project and is not a candidate for transplanting. U Valley Oak #8 (Grade B) a c This tree appears to be in stable health with moderate stress symptoms, probably drought induced. No apparent pest or major structural problems were observed in the tree. The footprint of building b22 (parking structure) and b23 office building will impact the location of oak #8 and cannot be redesigned as it is critical to a the functional operation of the entire facility. Oak #8 is proposed to be relocated to the Shadow Oak Park catering area. Valley Oak #9 (Grade B) This tree appears to be in stable health with moderate stress symptoms, probably drought induced. No apparent pest or major structural problems were observed in the tree. Oak#9 is located within the proposed 13th street extension area 131" Street/Dockweiler Drive project and was identified for removal in the prior Lyons Avenue/131" Street design and Certified EIR. Packet Pg. 29 Valley Oak #10 (Grade B) 1.a This tree appears to be in stable health with moderate stress symptoms, probably drought induced. No apparent pest or major structural problems were observed in the tree. Oak#10 is located within the proposed 13th street extension area 131" Street/Dockweiler Drive project and was identified for removal in the prior Lyons Avenue/13t" Street design and Certified EIR. Coast Live Oak #11 (Grade C-) This tree appears to be in stable healthy with moderate stress symptoms, probably drought induced. The tree has multiple codominant stems. There is a sizeable cavity at the base of the tree which contains a beehive. The basal trunk cavity creates a hazardous condition with likelihood of failure in the near future. The tree is located in an area to be graded for the project and is not a candidate for transplanting. Coast Live Oak #12 (Grade C-) This tree appears to be in stable health. Structure is very poor with the main stem growing horizontally along the ground to the northeast, there is also a basal cavity in the main stem. The tree is located in an area to be graded for the project and is not a candidate for transplanting. Coast Live Oak #13 (Grade C-) This tree appears to be in stable health but displays stress symptoms with dieback, probably drought induced Structure is multiple codominant stems with included bark. The tree is located in an area to be graded for the project and is not a candidate for transplanting. Coast Live Oak #14 (Grade D) :% 0 A portion of this tree appears to be in stable health. The tree is actually in a failing condition due to fire damage. Half the tree has failed and the main stems contain structural defects in the form of dried wood and cracking, there is also a beehive in trunk cavities. The tree is outside the main construction area and could be o preserved as habitat. This tree will remain in place. N ai as c Coast Live Oak #15 (Grade D) The tree appears to be in stable health but has been severely damaged by fire. The main stem contains a cavity in the crotch where main stems converge and the trunk is severely damaged. The tree is outside the main construction area and could be preserved as habitat. This tree will remain in place. U EL Coast Live Oak #16 (Grade D) c 0 E This tree does have a crown of healthy foliage; however the tree is in very poor condition. The tree is basically stump regrowth, contains a large trunk cavity with a beehive, and the tree is structurally failing. The tree is a outside the main construction area and could be preserved as habitat. This tree will remain in place. Packet Pg. 30 Shadowbox - Santa Clarita, CA View B 5 Years Growth V I S I p n S C a p e IMAGF®CONCEPTUAL -DRAFT EXHIBIT A Visualization Firm v3 s io nsc a p e i m ag ery. co m - � F Shadowbox - Santa Clarita, CA View C 10 Years Growth V i S i O n S c a p e !AGFP ` CONCEPTUAL - DRAFT EXHIBIT A Visualization Firm viscnscapeimcgery.com Shadowbox - Santa Clarita, CA View E 5 Years Growth V I S l p n S C a p e IMAGERY CONCEPTUAL - DRAFT EXHIBIT A Visualization Firm vmonscapeimagery.com 1.b Updated: 6/13/2023 Organizations and Groups: Bridge to Home Boys & Girls Club California Film Commission California Institute of the Arts Child & Family Center of SCV Circle J Ranch HOA College of the Canyons Golden State Gateway Coalition Hart High School Hollywood Chamber of Commerce Homes 4 Families Los Angeles County Fire Dept (Helispot) NAACP of SCV Newhall School District Rotary Club Santa Clarita Film Office SCV Chamber of Commerce SCV Economic Development Corporation SCV Historical Society SCV Senior Center SCV Water Agency Sierra Club The Master's University Valley Industrial and Commerce Association Zo nta Club of SCV Placerita Canyon Property Owner's Association: Board of Directors: General Membership: October 1, 2020 December 5, 2020 May 6, 2021 June 26, 2021 February 3, 2022 August 2, 2022 March 16, 2023 June 1, 2023 Placerita Canyon Corporation (Gate Managers): Board of Directors: February 26, 2023 Placerita Residents — Alderbrook Drive: 2020 to present: Continuing dialogue with various residents of Alderbrook Drive, including an October 27, 2022, Alderbrook-specific outreach meeting with over 20 residents to hear their thoughts on the project, answer questions and consider possible partnership opportunities. Newhall/Placerita Business Owners: Arch Street Strip Center: Mike Massoodnia, general partner Arch Street Businesses: Four Seasons Landscape; Dyck Veterinary; Round the Clock; Fiesta Taco; Perfect Look Salon; Side Store; Hahn Contractors; Pit -Pro Motorcycles Packet Pg. 34 1.b 121" St. Businesses: Newhall Valencia Mini -Storage; Dave Davis Plastering Pine Street Businesses: Catkart Racing; After Hours Auto Body; M&M Tire Service; Malam's Automotive 13T" Street Office building: Jim Tanner, general partner 131" Street Businesses: Picasso's Playmates AV Equipment Rental Brewery Draconum Clean Energy Systems (Placerita Canyon Road) Egg Plantation KHTS Radio Results Fitness SCVTV The Old Town Junction Village Church Walker & Lopez Barber Shop Placerita Residents — Misc.: 2020 to present: Numerous briefings with Placerita residents in groups of 2-20 at a time. Local Film and Television Studios: Disney Studio/Golden Oak Ranch Rancho Deluxe Movie Ranch LA North Studios Melody Ranch Sable Movie Ranch Santa Clarita Studios Viacom/CBS Local Film and Television Related Businesses: Elite Media Technologies Laemmle Theater LA Film Locations SCV Locations, Inc. Triscenic Production Services Universal Locations, Inc. Elected Officials: Congressman Mike Garcia State Senator Scott Wilk Former Assemblywoman Suzette Martinez Valladares LA County Supervisor Kathryn Barger William S. Hart Union High Governing Board Trustee Bob Jensen William S. Hart Union High Governing Board Trustee, Joe Messina William S. Hart Union High Governing Board Trustee Cherise Moore Community Members: The Shadowbox Studios team has also met individually with dozens of business owners and community leaders; numerous film -industry residents; and countless other members of the Santa Clarita Valley community. Packet Pg. 35 1.c Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 2:03 PM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Proposed Shadowbox Studios Project (Master Case 21-109) From: Robby Kennedy <robby@kenncoplumbing.com> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 1:51 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Cc: Jason Crawford <JCRAWFORD@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Proposed Shadowbox Studios Project (Master Case 21-109) CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, I am writing to you today to urge you to reconsider the enormity of the proposed Shadowbox Studios. This project, at its present proposed size does not fit into our mostly residential community. Here are a few of my thoughts: • The size and quantity of buildings is too much. Buildings fifty-five feet tall in an area that doesn't have any buildings even close in height is out of place. Please do not allow this! Twenty five to thirty feet in height should be the maximum. • Traffic. Why should all traffic funnel to only the South of this huge project. Seems like there should be another exit to the north along the Metropolitan Water District Right -of -Way. When the Bermite property is developed in the future, Via Princessa and Wiley Canyon Rd. will connect with Highway 14 which would help with freeway access heading northeast towards Palmdale. Also, any traffic heading north or northwest via Railroad Ave. would benefit from that access as well. If the 13t" street crossing was blocked by a train, access could be obtained using the same egress. • Hours of operation. Having large trucks moving around and parking all hours of the night along the backside of Alderbrook is not fair to those people that reside along that street. Workers typically are not quite and it would be a shame if the hours of operations isn't addressed. • The majority, not all, but the majority of people that spoke in favor of this project were people from out of the area and businesses that will profit from this project. The majority of residence in the canyon that I have spoken to are not totally against the project, they are just against the size of it as well as the traffic. I really hope the City of Santa Clarita will do the right thing and downscale this project or move it to an industrial location. Sincerely, Robert Kennedy, Jr. 21366 Placerita Canyon Road 0 N U 2. a 0 0 r x 0 3 0 �a z 0 c a� E E 0 U t� a as E s �a a Packet Pg. 36 Newhall, CA 91321 1.c 0 T" IL U c� d 0 L a 0 0 r x 0 m 3 0 ca z 0 c m E E 0 U t� a a� E s ca r a Packet Pg. 37 1.c Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 6:22 PM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Stusio Project 21-109 Heritage Oak destruction From: karen towles <kdbtowles@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 4:43 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com>; rberlin@santa-clarita.com; tburnhart@santa-clarita.com; payala@santa-clarita.com; leichman@santa-clarita.com; dostrom@santa-clarita.com; karen towles <kdbtowles@gmail.com> Subject: Stusio Project 21-109 Heritage Oak destruction CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Planning Commissioners, Please ask the developer to change the plan to save the heritage oak and other oaks on this property. I know that we are all trying to preserve the character of Old Towne Newhall. The heritage oak can never be replaced. We are a proud tree city and the oaks are the longest growing tree in our community. Please preserve them in this development and other developments proposed in the future. King regards, Karen Towles Packet Pg. 38 1.c Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 7:42 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Studio Project 21-109 -----Original Message ----- From: Randy Martin <drrandymartin@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 29, 2023 5:08 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Studio Project 21-109 0 CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. IL V 2 Please ask the developer to change the plan to save the heritage oaks and other oaks on this property. ° a This project will change the whole character of Old Town Newhall.Additional traffic on an at -grade rail road crossing may c present a dangerous situation for residents and future workers. Please protect the prominent ridgeline and the flood plain of Placerita Creek. Please allow more time for review by extending the comment period. copy to all planning ) commissioners. c 3 Dr. Randy Martin, OMD o 23812 Spinnaker Court z Valencia, CA 91355 Packet Pg. 39 1.c Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 9:12 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Studio Project 21-109 From: lynne winner <lynnewinner@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 9:08 AM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Studio Project 21-109 CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Please ask the developer to change the plan to save the heritage oaks and other oaks on this property. These oaks can be incorporated into the the design of the studio footprint. Having these large oak trees in the development will enhance the property for both employees and nature. If these oak trees are cut down, this project will change the whole character of Old Town Newhall. Additional traffic on an at -grade rail road crossing may present a dangerous situation for residents and future workers. Please protect the prominent ridgeline and the flood plain of Placerita Creek. Please DO allow more time for review by extending the comment period. sincerely, lynne winner Resident, Santa Clarita Valley Packet Pg. 40 1.c Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 1:25 PM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Studio Project 21-109 From: Eileen Daniels <eileendaniels@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 12:22 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Studio Project 21-109 c CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. IL 5 Im writing to ask the developer of this project to change the plan to save the heritage oaks and other oaks on this a�i property. This project will change the whole character of Old Town Newhall. ° a Additional traffic on an at -grade rail road crossing may present a dangerous situation for residents and future workers. 0 Please protect the prominent ridgeline and the flood plain of Placerita Creek. Also, please allow more time for review by 0 extending the comment period. a U) x 0 Please copy to all planning commissioners. 3 0 M Thank you for your consideration. z U) Eileen Daniels y Packet Pg. 41 1.c Erika Iverson From: Jason Crawford Sent: Thursday, May 2S, 2023 7:42 AM To: Erika Iverson; Patrick Leclair Subject: Fwd: Letter Concerning Shadowbox Studios Project, Master Case 21-09 Attachments: ShadowBoxStudiosFinalCommentLetterOS2S2023.pdf; NTSBReportBurbankMetrolinkCrash2003.pdf; FRBGlendale200SMetrolinkCrash Report. pdf; NTSBReportChatsworthMetrolinkCrash2008.pdf Jason C Begin forwarded message: From: Jennifer Kilpatrick <jekilpatrick@yahoo.com> Date: May 25, 2023 at 6:09:17 AM PDT To: Jason Gibbs <JGIBBS@santa-clarita.com>, Cameron Smyth <CSMYTH@santa-clarita.com>, Laurene Weste <LWESTE@santa-clarita.com>, mmclean@santaclarita.com, Bill Miranda <BMIRANDA@santa- clarita.com>, rberlin@santaclarita.com, tburkhart@santaclarita.com, payala@santa-clarita.com, leichman@santa-clarita.com, dostrom@santa-clarita.com, mhennaway@santa-clarita.com, Jason Crawford <JCRAWFORD@santa-clarita.com>, kstripin@santa-clarita.com, Carmen Magana <CMAGANA@santa-clarita.com>, Joe Montes - BWS <JMontes@bwslaw.com> Subject: Letter Concerning Shadowbox Studios Project, Master Case 21-09 c CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. E E E 0 May 25, 2023 U Ladies & Gentlemen: a Attach please find, please read and enter into the Administrative Record for the Santa E Clarita Planning Commission and Santa Clarita City Council meetings held after May 25, 2023 this email and the attached letter (at PDF #1) concerning Master Case 21-09, Q Santa Clarita Studios "Project"and the following 3 other pdfs which pertain to/are referred to in that May 25, 2023 letter.: (1) My letter dated May 25, 20231 (2) National Transportation Safety Board - NTSB Report Concerning 2003 Burbank Metrolink Train Crash, (3) Federal Railroad Board - FRB Report Concerning 2005 Glendale Metrolink Train Crash, and Packet Pg. 42 1.c (4) National Transportation Safety Board - NTSB Rport Concerning 2008 Chatsworth Metrollnk Train Crashnc Sincerely, Jennifer Kilpatrick J.D. cc: City Clerk's Office Packet Pg. 43 1.c Erika Iverson From: Jennifer Kilpatrick <jekilpatrick@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2023 12:12 AM To: Ken Striplin; Jason Crawford; Erika Iverson; Mike Hennawy; lynnepl1 @juno.com Subject: Letter & Attachments Concerning Shadowbox Studios Project, Master Case 21-09 Attachments: ShadowBoxStudiosFinalCommentLetterOS2S2023 (2).pdf; NTSBReportBurbankMetrolinkCrash2003.pdf; FRBGlendale200SMetrolinkCrash Report. pdf; NTSBReportChatsworthMetrolinkCrash2008.pdf; NTSBOxnard201 SMetrolinkCrashReport.pdf CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. 0 5/25/23 IL N U Ladies & Gentlemen: 0 L Please note the attached letter with attachments which I sent to the City Council members this a morning, concerning the potential for train crashes at the 13th Street at -grade crossing as a result of 0 increased traffic, and traffic jams, which will be caused in the proposed Shadowbox Studios Project is o built under the current proposed land use entitlements and the City's proposed conditions of approval. X Best regards, 0 o Jennifer Kilpatrick, J.D. �O cc: Lynne Plambeck, President, SCOPE Packet Pg. 44 1.c Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 9:13 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Master Case 21-09 - Please Read This Washington Post Story TODAY About Deadly Consequences of Freight Trains Blocking Sole Exits From Communities & Neighborhoods From: Jennifer Kilpatrick <jekilpatrick@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2023 7:25 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com>; Placerita Canyon <placeritacanyonpoa@gmail.com>; lynnepll@juno.com Subject: Re: Master Case 21-09 - Please Read This Washington Post Story TODAY About Deadly Consequences of Freight Trains Blocking Sole Exits From Communities & Neighborhoods CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Also see this 20 year old article by the U.S. DOT on how to solve train -blocks -public -road problems like are found in Placerita Canyon: Where The Rail Meets The Road Where The Rail Meets The Road A tunneling method used in Russia to run a highway beneath a train track could prove beneficial in some situations. On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 06:33:25 PM PDT, Jennifer Kilpatrick <jekilpatrick@yahoo.com> wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2023/long-trains-block-intersections- paramedics/?itid=hp-top-table-main p001 f002 0 N U a� 0 L. a N 0 U) X 0 0 ca z Packet Pg. 45 1.c Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 9:12 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Master Case 21-09 - Please Read This Washington Post Story TODAY About Deadly Consequences of Freight Trains Blocking Sole Exits From Communities & Neighborhoods From: Jennifer Kilpatrick <jekilpatrick@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2023 6:33 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com>; Placerita Canyon <placeritacanyonpoa@gmail.com>; 9 0 lynnepll@juno.com Subject: RE: Master Case 21-09 - Please Read This Washington Post Story TODAY About Deadly Consequences of Freight V Trains Blocking Sole Exits From Communities & Neighborhoods 2 CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. o a 0 https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2023/long-trains-block-intersections- paramedics/?itid=hp-top-table-main p001 f002 X 0 Remember that the City of Santa Clarita has absolutely no control over how long a freight train lilne 3 operator blocks the 13th Street at -grade crossing, andif all the traffic from Shadowbox Studios further 0 jam up that street, east of the train tracks, while waiting for the train to pass, and then waiting for the car traffic from the Project to clear. Eventually there will be a resident of Placerita Canyon trying to leave, and get to Henry Mayo Hospital Emergency Room, who will get stuck east of the Shadowbox Studio driveways, and that voter and c taxpayer will suffer grave consequences (like brain damage from a stroke that happens while they are L) stuck in traffic) OR DIE, thanks to the IDIOCY of Santa Clarita Planning Commissioner and City `-' Council members allowing Shadowbox Strudios to be built right next to the ONLY exit from Placerita a Canyon. And of course, as a result of the Shadowbox Studio and freight -train caused traffic jam, no ambulance will be able to get IN to Placerita Canyon by driving "in the opposite lane" as they often do in a dire 2 emergency. a Packet Pg. 46 1.c Remember that the City of Santa Clarita has absolutely no control over how long a freight train lilne operator blocks the 13th Street at -grade crossing, andif all the traffic from Shadowbox Studios further jam up that street, east of the train tracks, while waiting for the train to pass, and then waiting for the car traffic from the Project to clear. Eventually there will be a resident of Placerita Canyon trying to leave, and get to Henry Mayo Hospital Emergency Room, who will get stuck east of the Shadowbox Studio driveways, and that voter and taxpayer will suffer grave consequences (like brain damage from a stroke that happens while they are stuck in traffic) OR DIE, thanks to the IDIOCY of Santa Clarita Planning Commissioner and City Council members allowing Shadowbox Strudios to be built right next to the ONLY exit from Placerita Canyon. And of course, as a result of the Shadowbox Studio and freight -train caused traffic jam, no ambulance will be able to get IN to Placerita Canyon by driving "in the opposite lane" as they often do in a dire o emergency. N U 5 c� d 0 L a 0 0 r x 0 3 0 ca z Packet Pg. 47 1.c OF Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Headquarters Assigned Accident Investigation Report HQ-2005-08 Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRX) Glendale, California January 26, 2005 Note that 49 U.S. C: §20903 provides that no part of *an accident or incident report made by the Secretary of Transportation/Federal Railroad Administration under 49 U.S. C: §20902 may be used in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report. Packet Pg. 48 I.c DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FRA FACTUAL RAILROAD ACCIDENT REPORT FRAFile # HO-2005-8 FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 1.Name of Railroad Operating Train #1 la. Alphabetic Code lb. Railroad Accident/Incident No. Southern California Regional Rail Authority [SCAX] SCAX 012605 2.Name of Railroad Operating Train #2 2a. Alphabetic Code 2b. Railroad Accident/Incident Southern California Regional Rail Authority [SCAX] SCAX 012605 3.Name of Railroad Responsible for Track Maintenance: 3a. Alphabetic Code 3b. Railroad Accident/Incident No. Southern California Regional Rail Authority [SCAX] SCAX 012605 . U.S. DOT AAR Grade Crossing Identification Number 5. Date of Accident/Incident 6. Time of Accident/Incident Month Day Year 01 26 2005 I 06:05: Q AM ❑ PM 7. Type of Accident/Indicent 1. Derailment 4. Side collision 7. Hwy -rail crossing 10. Explosion -detonation 13. Other (single entry in code box) 2. Head on collision 5. Raking collision 8. RR grade crossing 11. Fire/violent rupture (describe in narrative) 3. Rear end collision 6. Broken Train collision 9. Obstruction 12. Other impacts 09 8. Cars Carrying 9. HAZMAT Cars 10. Cars Releasing 11. People 12. Division HAZMAT 0 Damaged/Derailed 0 HAZMAT 0 Evacuated 0 System 13. Nearest City/Town 14. Milepost 15. State Abbr Code 16. County (to nearest tenth) Glendale/Los 6.4 N/A CA LOSANGELES 17. Temperature (F) 18. Visibility (single entry) Code 19. Weather en (single try) Code 20. Type of Track Code (specify ifminus) 1. Dawn 3.Dusk 1. Clear 3. Rain 5.Sleet 1. Main 3. Siding 60 F 2. Day 4.Dark 4 2. Cloudy 4. Fog 6. Snow I 3 2. Yard 4. Industry 1 21. Track Name/Number 22. FRA Track Code 23. Annual Track Density 24. Time Table Direction Code Class (1-9, X) (gross tons in 1. North 3. East Mains 1 & 2 4 millions) 1.7 3 OPERATING TRAIN #1 25. Type of Equipment 1. Freight train 4. Work train 7. Yard/switching A. Spec. MoW Equip. Code 26. Was Equipment Code 27. Train Number/Symbol Consist (single entry) 2. Passenger train 5. Single car 8. Light loco(s). Attended? 3. Commuter train 6. Cut of cars 9. Maint./inspect.car 3 1. Yes 2. No I ML 100 28. Speed (recorded speed, if available) Code 30. Method(s) of Operation (enter code(s) that apply) 30a. Remotely Controlled Locomotive? R - Recorded a. ATCS g. Automatic block m. Special instructions 0 = Not a2re&atlly 4o 4ed E - Estimated 74 Mpg I E b. Auto train control h. Current of traffic n. Other than main track 1 = Remote control portable C.Auto train stop i. Time table/train orders o. Positive train control d. Cab j.Track warrant control p. Other (Specify in narrative) 2 = Remote control tower 3 = Remote control 29. Trailing Tons (gross tonnage, excluding cower units) e. Traffic k. Direct traffic control Code(s) transmitter - more than one 0 f.Interlocking 1.Yard limits remote control transmitter 0 e N/A N/A N/A N/A 31. Principal Car/Unit a. Initial and Number b. Position in Train a Loaded(yes/no) 32. If railroad employee(s) tested for drug/alcohol use, enter the number that were positive in coo rugs (1) First involved (derailed, struck, etc) N/A 1 yes the appropriate box. N/A N/A (2) Causing (if mechanical 0 0 33. Was this consist transporting passengers? (Y/N) cause reported) yes Y 34. Locomotive Units a. Head Mid Train Rear End 35. Cars Loade Empty End b. Manual 1 c. Remote d. Manual Ic. Remote a. Freight b. Pass. c. Freight I d. Pass. e. Caboose (1) Total in Train 0 0 0 1 0 (1) Total in Equipment Consist 0 3 0 0 0 (2) Total Derailed 0 0 0 1 0 (2) Total Derailed 0 2 0 0 0 36. Equipment Damage 37. Track, Signal, Way, 38. Primary Cause 39. Contributing Cause This Consist 6300000 & Structure Damage 1 301105 Code M402 Code N/A Number of Crew Members Length of Time on Duty 0. Engineer/ 41. Firemen 42. Conductors 43. Brakemen 44. Engineer/Operator 45. Conductor Operators N/A 0 1 0 Hrs 1 Mi 48 Hrs 1 Mi 48 Casualties to: 46. Railroad Employees 47. Train Passengers 48. Other 49. EOT Device? 1. Yes 2. No 2 50. Was EOT Device Properly Armed? 1. Yes 2. No N/A Fatal 0 8 0 51. Caboose Occupied by Crew? 1. Yes 2. No N/A Nonfatal N/A 8 0 OPERATING TRAIN #2 52. Type of Equipment 1. Freight train 4. Work train 7. Yard/switching A. Spec. MoW Equip. Code 53. Was Equipment Code Train Number/Symbol Consist (single entry) 2. Passenger train 5. Single car 8. Light loco(s). �54. Attended? 3. Commuter train 6. Cut of cars 9. Maint./inspect.car 2 1. Yes 2. No 1 ML 901 55. Speed (recorded speed, if available) Code 57. Method(s) of Operation (enter code(s) that apply) 57a. Remotely Controlled Locomotive? R - Recorded a. ATCS g. Automatic block m. Special instructions 0 = Not a remotely controlled E - Estimated 45 MPH I E b. Auto train control h. Current of traffic n. Other than main track 1 = Remote control portable O N U C� d �O L a N _O a+ U) X O M O t U) N C d E O U t1 3 a a� r_ d E t V a Form FRA F 6180.39 (11/06) Page 1 of 5 Packet Pg. 49 .c DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FRA FACTUAL RAILROAD ACCIDENT REPORT FRAFile # HO-2005-8 FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 56. Trailing Tons (gross tonnage, C. Auto train stop i. Time table/train orders o. Positive train control 2 = Remote control tower excluding cower units) d. Cab j.Track warrant control P. Other (Specify in narrative) 3 = Remote control Code(s) transmitter - more than one N/A e. Traffic k. Direct traffic control f. Interlocking 1. Yard limits e N/A N/A I N/A N/A remote control transmitter 1 0 58. Principal Car/Unit a. Initial and Number b. Position in Train a Loaded(yes/no) 59. If railroad employee(s) tested for drug/alcohol use, enter the number that were positive in Alcohol Drugs (1) First involved 3 (derailed, struck, etc) ML 000 148 yes the appropriate box. N/A N/A (2) Causing (if mechanical N/A 60. Was this consist transporting passengers? (Y/N) cause reported) 0 N/A N/A 61. Locomotive Units a. Head Mid Train Rear End 62. Cars Loade Empty End b. Manual 1 c. Remote d. Manual Ic. Remote a. Freight I b. Pass. c. Freight I d. Pass. e. Caboos (1) Total in Train 1 0 0 0 0 (1) Total in Equipment Consist 0 3 0 0 0 (2) Total Derailed 0 0 0 0 0 (2) Total Derailed 0 2 0 0 0 63. Equipment Damage 64. Track, Signal, Way, 65. Primary Cause 66. Contributing Cause This Consist 6065000 & Structure Damage 0 Code M402 Code N/A Number of Crew Members Length of Time on Duty 67. Engineer/ 68. Firemen 69. Conductors 70. Brakemen 71. Engineer/Operator 72. Conductor Operators I N/A 1 N/A Hrs 1 Mi 40 Hrs 1 Mi 40 Casualties to: 73. Railroad Employees 74. Train Passengers 75. Other 76. EOT Device? 1. Yes 2. No I 2 77. Was EOT Device Properly Armed? 1. Yes 2. No I N/A Fatal 1 2 0 78. Caboose Occupied by Crew? N/A 1. Yes 2. No Nonfatal 0 32 0 Highway User Involved Rail Equipment Involved 79. Type Code 83. Equipment Code C. Truck -Trailer. F. Bus J. Other Motor Vehicle 3.Train (standing) 6.Light Loco(s) (moving) A. Auto D. Pick -Up Truck G. School Bus K. Pedestrian 1.Train(units pulling) 4.Car(s)(moving) 7.Light(s) (standing) B. Truck E. Van H. Motorcycle M. Other (spec. in narrative) N/A 2.Train(units pushing) 5.Car(s)(standing) 8.Other (specify in narrative) N/A 80. Vehicle Speed 81. Direction geographical) Code 84. Position of Car Unit in Train (est. MPH at impact) N/A I1.North 2.South 3.East 4.West N/A N/A 82. Position Code 85. Circumstance Code 1.Stalled on Crossing 2.Stopped on Crossing 3.Moving Over Crossing 1. Rail Equipment Struck Highway User 4. Trapped N/A 2. Rail Equipment Struck by Highway User N/A 86a. Was the highway user and/or rail equipment involved Code 86b. Was there a hazardous materials release by Code in the impact transporting hazardous materials? 1. Highway User 2. Rail Equipment 3. Both 4. Neither N/A 1. Highway User 2. Rail Equipment 3. Both 4. Neither N/A 86c. State here the name and quantity of the hazardous materials released, if any. N/A 87. Type of 1.Gates 4.Wig Wags 7.Crossbucks 10.Flagged by crew 88. Signaled Crossing Warning Code 89. Whistle Ban Code Crossing 2.Cantilever FLS 5.Hwy. traffic signals 8. Stop signs 11.Other (spec. in narr.) (See instructions for codes) 1. Yes Warning 3.StandardFLS 6.Audible 9.Watchman 12.None 2. No 3. Unknown N/A Code(s) I N/A I N/A I N/A N/A N/A I N/A I N/A 90. Location of Warning Code 91. Crossing Warning Interconnected Code 92. Crossing Illuminated by Street Code 1. Both Sides with Highway Signals Lights or Special Lights 2. Side of Vehicle Approach 1. Yes 1. Yes 3. Opposite Side of Vehicle Approach N/A 2. No N/A 2. No N/A 3. Unknown 3. Unknown 93. Driver's 94. Driver's Gender Code 95. Driver Drove Behind or in Front of Train Code 96. Driver Code Age 1. Male and Struck or was Struck by Second Train 1. Drove around or thru the Gate 4. Stopped on Crossing 2. Female 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown 2. Stopped and then Proceeded 5. Other (specify in 0 1 N/A N/A 3. Did not Stop narrative) N/A 97. Driver Passed Standing Code 98. View of Track Obscured by (primary obstruction) Code Highway Vehicle 1. Permanent Structure 3. Passing Train 5. Vegetation 7. Other (specify in narrative) 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown I N/A 2. Standing Railroad Equipment 4. Topography 6. Highway Vehicle 8. Not obstructed N/A 101. Casulties to Highway -Rail 99. Driver Was Code 100. Was Driver in the Vehicle? Code Crossing Users Killed Injured 1. Killed 2.Injured 3. Uninjured N/A 1. Yes 2. No N/A 102. Highway Vehicle Property Damage 103. Total Number of Highway -Rail Crossing Users 0 0 (est. dollar damage) 0 (include driver) 0 104. Locomotive Auxiliary Lights? Code 105. Locomotive Auxiliary Lights Operational? Code 1. Yes 2. No N/A 1. Yes 2. No N/A 106. Locomotive Headlight Illuminated? Code 107. Locomotive Audible Warning Sounded? Code 1. Yes 2. No N/A 1. Yes 2. No N/A O N U a� C� d O a N _O a+ U) K O M O t U) N C d E E O U t1 3 a r_ d E S V r a Form FRA F 6180.39 (11/06) Page 2 of 5 Packet Pg. 50 1.c DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FRA FACTUAL RAILROAD ACCIDENT REPORT FRAFile # HO-2005-8 FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 108. DRAW A SKETCH OF ACCIDENT AREA INCLUDING ALL TRACKS, SIGNALS, SWITCHES, STRUCTURES, OBJECTS, ETC., INVOLVED. HQ-08- 2005.jpg HO-0 ',- zoci5 a�*' 47- �P' p Q =' a CJ d ar 1; v c � � N 0 N U v d 0 a N 0 U) x 0 M 0 ca z c m E 0 U t� a a� s ci r a Form FRA F 6180.39 (11/06) Page 3 of 5 Packet Pg. 51 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FRA FACTUAL RAILROAD ACCIDENT REPORT FRAFile # HO-2005-8 FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 109. SYNOPSIS OF THE ACCIDENT At approximately 6:00 a.m. PST, January 26. 2005, Metrolink ML100 (Train No. 1) was traveling at a recorded speed of 74 mph, eastbound on Main Track 2 heading from Burbank towards Los Angeles, California. At the same time, Metrolink 901 (Train No. 2) was traveling westbound at an estimated speed of 45 mph, with locomotive forward, on Main Track 1 and had just departed Glendale Station. Union Pacific Work Train, UGSVTD-18, (Train No. 3), was left unattended and secured on the Glendale Slide Track. The trains were operating on the Metrolink Valley Subdivision. The incident occurred at CP Currier, MP 6.40. The method of operation in the area of the incident is by a Traffic Control System. The maximum authorized speed for passenger trains is 79 mph. Event recorder records indicate that both trains were operating within authorized timetable speeds. For the purpose of this report all directions are established by the timetable in effect. Train no. 1, traveling with cab car forward, struck a Jeep Cherokee SUV at a measured distance of 155 feet east of the Chevy Chase highway -rail crossing (DOT 746812T, MP 6.51). The impact with the SUV caused Train no. 1 to derail and strike standing Train no. 3, derailing the lead locomotive of Train no. 3. The collision then caused two cars in Train no. 1 to jackknife, striking the side of two of the cars in westbound Train no. 2 and derailing them, as well. As a result of this accident, a conductor and 10 passengers were killed, while 2 crew members and 40 passengers were injured. Probable Cause: The Eastbound Metrolink train 100 collided with an obstruction (Jeep Cherokee SUV) placed on Main Track 2. 110. NARRATIVE The following information was obtained from an investigation that was conducted by the Federal Railroad Administration. Location and Method of Operation: Metrolink operates the Valley Subdivision in a timetable east -west direction between CP Taylor, MP 3.5, in the City of Los Angeles and ends in Lancaster, California, MP 76.6. The method of operation is a Traffic Control System, Centralized Traffic Control (CTC). The dispatcher is located in Pomona, California. The subdivision consists of multiple main track territory with sidings and crossovers. The maximum timetable speed for trains operating at the point of impact is 79 mph for passenger trains and 55 mph for freight trains. Circumstances prior to the accident: Train no. 1 (Metrolink 100 East, Cab Forward) The crew of Train no. 1 included a locomotive engineer and a conductor. They first went on duty at 4:07 a.m. in Moorpark, California. This is their home terminal and both received the statutory off duty period prior to reporting for duty. Train no. 1 consisted of one locomotive and three passenger cars. It was operated with the cab car forward. The train was scheduled to travel from Moorpark to Los Angeles, California and departed about 5:07 a.m. Prior to arriving in Los Angeles, it was scheduled for station stops in Burbank and Glendale, California. As Train no. 1 approached Chevy Chase grade crossing on Main Track 2, the engineer saw the approaching headlight of Metrolink 901 West (Train No. 2) on Main Track 1, and then noticed the outline of an automobile on Main Track 2. The engineer was in the right side of the cab forward car. The conductor was in the lower portion of the cab car. Train no. 2, (Metrolink901 West) The crew of Train No. 2 included a locomotive engineer and a conductor. They first went on duty at 4:25 a.m. at the Metrolink Central Maintenance Facility in Taylor Yard. This is their home terminal and both received the statutory off duty period prior to reporting for duty. They departed for Los Angeles Union Station at about 5:15 a.m. and arrived about 5:30 a.m. After boarding passengers, the train departed Los Angeles about 5:48 a.m. for their first stop in Glendale, California. They departed Glendale and headed to Burbank on Main Track 1. As Train No. 2 approached Chevy Chase grade crossing, the engineer observed Metrolink Train 100 (Train No. 1) approaching on the adjacent track on his left. The engineer noticed sparks from under the leading cab car and observed the train was derailed. The Accident: Train No.1 (Metrolink 100 East, Cab Car Forward) Approaching the accident site from MP 8.0 traveling east on Main Track 2, the grade for the first half mile ascends 0.08 percent. At MP 7.5 the grade descends -0.04 to -0.45, to -0.62, to -0.19 percent to MP 6.4 at the point of impact (POI). There is a 24 minute left hand curve and a 50 minute right hand curve between MP 8.0 and MP 6.4 The accident occurred at 6:05 a.m. After seeing the outline of the automobile, the engineer estimated that his train was traveling close to track speed of 79 mph. At this time he placed his train into Form FRA F 6180.39 (11/06) Page 4 of 5 Packet Pg. 52 IDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FRA FACTUAL RAILROAD ACCIDENT REPORT FRAFile # HO-2005-8 I FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION emergency braking. After striking the automobile, he was aware that his train had derailed. He then left the operating cab and warned the passengers to hold on. He then looked out of the window and saw that the train would impact a parked Union Pacific locomotive (Train No. 3) on the Glendale Slide Track. He then climbed the stairs to the upper level of the cab and warned the passengers to brace, before bracing himself. After the train came to rest, he observed a fire at what had been the leading end of the cab car. He used his personal cell phone to telephone the train dispatcher to report the emergency. The engineer and conductor were injured in the accident. The engineer was hospitalized then released 15 days later, the conductor was treated at the scene and lost 14 days of work. There were eight passengers killed, two employees injured and eight passengers injured. Train No. 2 (Metrolink 901 West) Approaching the accident site from MP 4.0 traveling west on Main Track 1, the grade ascends from 0.42 percent to 1.09 percent for a 1.4 miles. It then ascends from 0.27 percent to 0.71 percent for a distance of 0.7 of a mile and descends to 0.19 percent for a distance of 0.3 of a mile at point of impact. There is one 30 minute left hand curve between MP 4.0 and MP 6.4 (POI). The accident occurred at 6:05 a.m. After seeing the sparks from Train no. 1, the engineer estimated his train speed to be between 40 and 50 mph. He placed his train into emergency braking and shortly after the cab car of Metrolink 100 passed his locomotive, he felt his train derail. After his train came to a stop, he notified Metrolink dispatcher of the emergency via train radio and went back to the derailed cars to assist. The conductor of Train no. 2 sustained fatal injuries. There were two passenger fatalities and 32 passenger injuries. Post -Accident Investigation Emergency response personnel arrived about five minutes after the accident. Emergency triage units were set up on both sides of the accident site. A total of 119 Los Angeles City and County fire trucks, 29 private ambulances, 3 Los Angeles City helicopters, and police forces from the cities of Los Angeles and Glendale and Los Angeles County were on the scene. The accident scene was declared a crime scene when it was discovered that the vehicle placed on the track by a trespasser caused 11 fatalities and 42 injuries. The accident area was released to railroad investigation agencies after the police gathered and secured the evidence. The operator of the vehicle left on the track was charged with 11 counts of manslaughter. Post -Accident Signal Investigation The accident was near Chevy Chase Drive, Highway -Rail Grade Crossing, DOT # 746812T, MP 6.51 and at CP Currier, MP 6.4. This grade crossing has an advance warning system for vehicle traffic and consists of two standard five -inch masts near the edge of the road. Attached to each mast is a crossbuck, a 12 inch flashing light, light unit, gate arm, audible warning bell and a Safetran Grade Crossing Predictor (GCP) Model 3000. This provides train detection on an approach circuit sufficient to allow at least 20 seconds warning time during train movements. CP Currier consists of a universal crossover and siding. The signal system at CP Currier consists of General Railroad Signal colorlight signals, Union Switch & Signal with Model 23 dual controlled switches. The Metrolink signal inspection team consisted of a NTSB Investigator, FRA Signal Inspectors, and Metrolink Signal Manager and Contract Signal Inspectors. The team removed the seals at CP Currier, CP Allen, CP Taylor, and the signal house at Chevy Chase Drive. The inspections were observed by the NTSB and FRA inspectors. The relays and terminals in the houses were inspected for possible disarrangement of circuits, none were found. Data Logger Summaries from Chevy Chase Drive show a system warning time of 32 seconds on Main Track 2. From the post -accident signal investigation, there is no indication that the conditions observed and described above were contributing factors in the accident. Post -Accident Track Inspection: The track inspection team consisted of a NTSB Investigator, FRA Track Inspector, Director of Southern California Regional Rail Authority, Amtrak Division Engineer, and the Project Manager of Herzog Contracting Corporation. The post -accident observations found that the general construction of Main Track 2 consisted of 136-lbs. continuously welded rail (CWR). The rail was seated in 8 % x 16 inch double shoulder tie plates. The cross ties measured 9 x 7 inches by 9 feet spaced 19% inches on center. The cross ties were boxed anchored and supported by angular granite ballast in the cribs and outside on the shoulders. Track geometry measurements taken by the inspection team were recorded and found that the widest gage was measured at 56% inches. Maximum allowed in FRA Class 4 Track is 57% inches. The greatest cross level measurement was 1/4 inches. Maximum allowed in FRA Class 4 Track is 1 1/4 inches. There were no alignment deviations found. Track inspections and records were found to be in compliance with FRA Track Safety Standards. An Ultrasonic Rail Test conducted on October 29, 2004, found no rail defects in the area of the accident. On May 20, 2004, FRA Geometry T-16 Test Car surveyed the Metrolink Valley Subdivision. One cross level defect was recorded at MP 6.6, approximately 1000 feet west of the point of impact. This defective condition was repaired per FRA regulations. From the post -accident track inspection, there is no indication that the conditions observed and described above were contributing factors in the accident. Post -Accident Mechanical Inspection: The mechanical inspection team consisted of a NTSB Investigator, FRA Mechanical Inspector, Southern California Regional Rail Authority Mechanical Officers, and Representatives from Volpe, Dynamic Science Inc., and Bombardier. The Crash Worthiness investigation of the passenger cars found that the passenger cars in Train 901 and 100 were built prior 2002 except SCAX 197. This car was accepted by Metrolink in August 2002. All cars appeared to be in compliance with CFR Part 238 and 49 CFR Part 239. Mechanical inspection of Metrolink 901 West found that the automatic brake valve was placed in emergency application before the collision. It appears that the cab car of Metrolink 100 East derailed after colliding with the motor vehicle on the tracks. Metrolink 100 East then struck Union Pacific Locomotive 4323 parked on the Glendale Siding. The mechanical inspection was completed at the Metrolink Ventura facility and no exceptions taken on the paperwork. From the post -accident mechanical investigation, there is no indications that the conditions observed and described were contributing factors in the accident. Damages: Union Pacific Locomotive estimate, $240,000, Metrolink equipment, $12,365,000, Track and Signal, $301,105. Probable Cause: The Eastbound Metrolink train 100 collided with an obstruction (Jeep Cherokee SUV) placed on Main Track 2. C N U C� d O L IL N _O r U) K O O t U) N C d E E O U t1 3 a d s V r a Form FRA F 6180.39 (11/06) Page 5 of 5 Packet Pg. 53 5/26123, 12:06 AM NTSB Docket- Docket Management System Project Summary: Highway Investigation - 168 Docket Items - H\VY15MH006 Description: A Met roll nk commuter train struck a 1-ton truck towing a trailer near an active highway i railroad grade crossing_ As a result of the crash, 32 train cocipants were injured and a train engineer was fatally injured_ Mode: Highway City: Oxnard Project Type: Investigation Docket Information Creation Date: 08/22/2016 NTSB Number: HWY] 5MH006 State/Region: CA Public Release Date & Time: 08/29/2016 12:00 PM Docket Table of Contents Date of Accident: 32/24/2015 Country: United States Last Modified: 08/26/2016 154 PM Docket Items: 168 # Title Pgs Photo Type File 1 Accident Summary 3 0 Adobe PDF file View 2 Vehicle Factors Group Chairman Factual Report 19 2 Adobe PDF file View 3 Vehicle Attachment 1 - 2005 Ford and 2000 Wells Cargo - Vehicle Specifications 56 0 Adobe PDF file View 4 Vehicle Attachment 2 - 2005 Ford - Engine Visual Inspection Report from Navistar, Inc. 15 0 Adobe PDF file View 5 Vehicle Attachment 3 - 2005 Ford - Brake Specifications 2 0 Adobe PDF file View 6 Vehicle Attachment 4 - 2005 Ford - Maintenance Records 4 0 Adobe PDF file View 7 Vehicle Attachment 5 - 2005 Ford - NHTSA Recall History 4 0 Adobe PDF file View 8 Vehicle Attachment 6 - 2005 Ford - Field -Actions and Warranty Records 23 0 Adobe PDF file View 9 Vehicle Attachment 7 - 2005 Ford - Airbag Control Module Download Report 9 0 Adobe PDF file View 10 Vehicle Photograph 1 - Overall Damage to Truck Facing Front Left Corner (overturned) 1 1 Adobe PDF file View 11 Vehicle Photograph 2 - Overall Damage to Truck Facing Rear Right Corner (overturned) 1 1 Adobe PDF file View 12 Vehicle Photograph 3 - Overall Damage to Trailer Facing Front Right Corner 1 1 Adobe PDF file View 13 Vehicle Photograph 4 - Overall Damage to Trailer Facing Rear Left Corner 1 1 Adobe PDF file View 14 Vehicle Photograph 5 - Damage to Cab of Truck Facing Right Side Top 1 1 Adobe PDF file View 15 Vehicle Photograph 6 - Damage to Cab of Truck Facing Left Side Top 1 1 Adobe PDF file View 16 Vehicle Photograph 7 - Damage to Truck's Engine Facing Rear Right Corner (displaced from vehicle) 1 1 Adobe PDF file View 17 Vehicle Photograph 8 - Trailer Safety Chains 1 1 Adobe PDF file View Vehicle Photograph 9 - Damage to Spring -Loaded Chain Hook Keeper on the Trailer's Right Safety 18 1 1 Adobe PDF file View Chain Vehicle Photograph 10 - Steering Wheel Displaced from Truck Showing Deformation and Deployed 19 1 1 Adobe PDF file View Airbag Vehicle Photograph 11 - Circumferential Scuffing to Tread Surface of Outer Tire on Right Side of 2U 1 1 Adobe PDF file View Axle 2 E M a https //data.ntsh.gnv/Dncketl7NTS6Numhei=HWY15MH006 I Packet Pg. 54 5/26123, 12:06 AM NTSB Docket- Docket Management System 21 Signal Group Chairman Factual Report 8 2 Adobe PDF file View 22 Signal Attachment 2-Aspect Chart Santa Barbara 2 0 Adobe PDF file View 23 Signal Attachment 3 - Circuit Plans C0406 South Oxnard 19 0 Adobe PDF file View 24 Signal Attachment 4- C0413 C0400 Interlocking 2 0 Adobe PDF file View 25 Signal Attachment 5 - CP 43652 C0406 Data Downloads 366 0 Adobe PDF file View 26 Signal Attachment 6 - DOT 111460 74585B 02 25 09 30 GC 58 0 Adobe PDF file View 27 Signal Attachment 7 - DOT 111466 745855H 2 24 11 42GC 40 0 Adobe PDF file View Signal Attachment 8 - DOT 745854B Rose Ave Oxnard, CA Santa Barbara Sub MP 405.25 Long 28 3 0 Adobe PDF file View Term Tests Signal Attachment 9 - DOT 745854B Rose Ave Oxnard, CA Santa Barbara Sub MP 405.25 Short 29 10 0 Adobe PDF file View Term Tests Signal Attachment 10 - DOT 745854B Rice Ave Oxnard, CA Santa Barbara Sub MP 406.23 Circuit 30 8 0 Adobe PDF file View Plans Signal Attachment 11 - DOT 745854B Rice Ave Oxnard, CA Santa Barbara Sub MP 406.23 Long 31 3 0 Adobe PDF file View Term Tests Signal Attachment 12 - DOT 745854B Rice Ave Oxnard, CA Santa Barbara Sub MP 406.23 Short 32 6 0 Adobe PDF file View Term Tests Signal Attachment 13 - DOT 745854B Rice Ave Oxnard, CA Santa Barbara Sub MP 406.23 Tests 33 3 0 Adobe PDF file View After Incident 34 Signal Attachment 14- Last Six Month CO406 South Oxnard Monthly Tests 02272015 2 0 Adobe PDF file View 35 Signal Attachment 15-Signal Log 3 0 Adobe PDF file View 36 Signal Attachment 16 - Los Angeles Area Timetable #05 63 0 Adobe PDF file View o 37 Signal Attachment 17-Track Profile 2 0 Adobe PDF file View N 38 Signal Attachment 18-Santa Barbara Subdivision Timetable 5 0 Adobe PDF file View U 39 Operations Group Chairman Factual Report 8 0 Adobe PDF file View d .a 40 Engineer Certification 29 0 Adobe PDF file View it 41 Engineer Operational Tests 5 0 Adobe PDF file View Y! 42 Student Engineer Certification History 7 0 Adobe PDF file View 3 m 43 Student Engineer Operational Tests 5 0 Adobe PDF file View x a 3 44 Interview Student Engineer 56 0 Adobe PDF file View a R 45 Conductor Operational Tests 2 0 Adobe PDF file View w 46 Conductor Interview 46 0 Adobe PDF file View 47 U.S. DOT - Crossing Inventory Information 2 0 Adobe PDF file View E 48 Metrolink Delay Report 1 0 Adobe PDF file View 0 49 Metrolink Service Interruption Report 12 0 Adobe PDF file View 50 Metrolink Shift Report 3 0 Adobe PDF file View 3 a 51 Excerpts UPRR Special Instructions 49 0 Adobe PDF file View 52 Excerpts UPRR Timetable 7 0 Adobe PDF file View 53 Excerpts Amtrak Air Brake and Train Handling Instructions 54 0 Adobe PDF file View a 54 Metrolink Timetable No. 9 53 0 Adobe PDF file View 55 Metrolink General Track Bulletin from Cab Car 7 0 Adobe PDF file View 56 Metrolink General Track Bulletin from Conductor 7 0 Adobe PDF file View 57 Metrolink General Notice 6 0 Adobe PDF file View 58 Metrolink General Orders 22 0 Adobe PDF file View 59 Metrolink Warrant ML 102 4 0 Adobe PDF file View 60 FRA Train Sheet Report 4 0 Adobe PDF file View 61 ML 102 Train Consist 1 0 Adobe PDF file View 62 ML 102 All Vehicle Defect Reports 8 0 Adobe PDF file View 63 Metrolink Daily Inspection ML 102 Train 15 0 Adobe PDF file View 64 Cab Car 645 Maintenance Records 32 0 Adobe PDF file View 65 Cab Car ML 645 Daily Blue Card Inspection 1 0 Adobe PDF file View 66 ML Car 206 Mechanical Inspections 28 0 Adobe PDF file View 67 ML Car 211 Mechanical Inspection 25 0 Adobe PDF file View 68 ML Car 263 Mechanical Inspections 9 0 Adobe PDF file View 69 ML Locomotive 870 Mechanical Inspections 35 0 Adobe PDF file View 70 ML Locomotive 870 Daily Inspections 4 0 Adobe PDF file View 71 Motor Carrier Factors Group Chairman's Factual Report 36 5 Adobe PDF file View 72 Motor Carrier Attachment 1 -The Growers Company MCS-150 2 0 Adobe PDF file View https //data.ntsh.gnv/Dncketl7NTS6Numhei=HWY15MH006 I Packet Pg. 55 5/26123, 12:06 AM NTSB Docket- Docket Management System 73 Motor Carrier Attachment 2 - Harvest Management MCS-150 2 0 Adobe PDF file View 74 Motor Carrier Attachment 3 -The Grower's Company Labor Agreement 19 0 Adobe PDF file View 75 Motor Carrier Attachment 4 -The Grower's Company Driver Handbook 26 0 Adobe PDF file View 76 Motor Carrier Attachment 5 - Golden Gate Partnership Recognition Certificate 2 0 Adobe PDF file View 77 Motor Carrier Attachment 6 - Accident Driver's Training Records 43 0 Adobe PDF file View 78 Motor Carrier Attachment 7 - Driver Training Objectives 10 0 Adobe PDF file View 79 Motor Carrier Attachment 8 - Random Drug and Alcohol Testing 3 0 Adobe PDF file View 80 Motor Carrier Attachment 9 - How to Improve Safety Culture 3 0 Adobe PDF file View 81 Motor Carrier Attachment 10 - Accident Driver's Time Records 7 0 Adobe PDF file View 82 Motor Carrier Attachment 11 - BIT Inspections 4 0 Adobe PDF file View 83 Motor Carrier Attachment 12 - Accident Vehicle Manufacturer Data Plate 2 0 Adobe PDF file View 84 Motor Carrier Attachment 13 - The Grower's Company CRs 18 0 Adobe PDF file View 85 Motor Carrier Attachment 14 - Post Accident CR Harvest Management 12 0 Adobe PDF file View 86 Motor Carrier Attachment 15 - Harvest Management MCMIS Profile 73 0 Adobe PDF file View 87 Motor Carrier Attachment 16 - NTSB Interview Transcript with Motor Carrier 18 0 Adobe PDF file View 88 Motor Carrier Attachment 17 - Accident Driver DQ File 3 0 Adobe PDF file View 89 Motor Carrier Attachment 18 - Accident Driver DOT Medical Examination Report 7 0 Adobe PDF file View 90 Motor Carrier Attachment 19 - Accident Driver CDLIS Report 3 0 Adobe PDF file View 91 Motor Carrier Attachment 20 - Accident Driver FMCSA DIR Report 2 0 Adobe PDF file View 92 Motor Carrier Attachment 21 - Accident Driver Roadside Inspections 5 0 Adobe PDF file View 93 Motor Carrier Attachment 22 - Cash Advance for Accident Driver 3 0 Adobe PDF file View 94 Motor Carrier Attachment 23 - Accident Driver's Driving Instructions Provided by Motor Carrier 5 0 Adobe PDF file View 95 Motor Carrier Attachment 24 - Hotel Reservation for Accident Driver 2 0 Adobe PDF file View L) 96 Motor Carrier Attachment 25 - Motor Carrier Account of Accident Driver's 24Hour History 2 0 Adobe PDF file View 97 Motor Carrier Photos 1-11 7 11 Adobe PDF file View o 98 Highway Factors Group Chairman's Factual Report 21 0 Adobe PDF file View a. c Highway Attachment 1 - Highway -Rail Grade Crossing Accident/Incident Report dated November M 99 2 0 Adobe PDF file View 29, 2010 x 0 Highway Attachment 2 — Proposed Changes to the 2009 MUTCD — Edge Line Markings at 3 100 3 0 Adobe PDF file View a Highway -Rail and Light Rail Transit Grade Crossings R L 101 Highway Attachment 3 - Average Daily Traffic Volumes on South Rice Avenue and East Fifth Street 4 0 Adobe PDF file View Highway Attachment 4 - Cities of Port Hueneme/Oxnard Truck Traffic Study Final Report dated y 102 87 0 Adobe PDF file View � June 5, 2008 E Highway Attachment 6 - Collision Report Summary in the Vicinity of the South Rice Avenue and 0 U 103 10 0 Adobe PDF file View 2 East Fifth Street Intersection a 104 Highway Attachment 7-Scaled Post -Crash Diagram 2 0 Adobe PDF file View a Highway Photograph 1 — View of the Green Lane grade crossing looking to the northwest in Mount £ 105 Kisco, New York in which raised delineator posts have been used to prevent vehicles from 1 1 Adobe PDF file View inadvertently turning onto the tracks a Highway Photograph 2 — Another view of the Green Lane grade crossing looking to the southeast 106 in Mount Kisco, New York in which raised delineator posts have been used to prevent vehicles from 1 1 Adobe PDF file View inadvertently turning onto the tracks Highway Photograph 3 — View of South Rice Avenue looking to the south before the short term 107 1 1 Adobe PDF file View improvements Highway Photograph 4 — View of South Rice Avenue looking to the south after the short term 108 1 1 Adobe PDF file View improvements Highway Photograph 5 — View illustrating derailed and overturned Coach Car Number 206 at final 109 1 1 Adobe PDF file View rest with a portion of the car laying in the travel lanes of East Fifth Street looking to the west Highway Photograph 6 — View of remnants of truck at final rest located east of the grade crossing 110 and on the south side of the tracks with the grade crossing shown in the background looking to the 1 1 Adobe PDF file View west Highway Photograph 7 — View of island gate mechanism entangled with wreckage of the trailer at 111 final rest located in the northbound lanes of South Rice Avenue with the rear locomotive shown in 1 1 Adobe PDF file View the background looking to the east Highway Photograph 8 — View of the grade crossing and the path of the truck that inadvertently 112 1 1 Adobe PDF file View entered the railroad track right-of-way looking to the southwest Highway Photograph 9 — View of the grade crossing and looking back towards the path of the 113 1 1 Adobe PDF file View truck that inadvertently entered the railroad track right-of-way looking to the east https7/data.ntsh.gnv/Docket/7NTSBNumhei=HWY15MH006 I Packet Pg. Sfi 5/26123, 12:06 AM NTSB Docket- Docket Management System Highway Photograph 10 — View of the southbound lanes of South Rice Avenue standing in the 114 middle of the right through lane with the grade crossing shown in the background looking to the 1 1 Adobe PDF file View south Highway Photograph 11 — View of the southbound lanes of South Rice Avenue standing in the 115 1 1 Adobe PDF file View center median with the grade crossing shown in the background looking to the south Highway Photograph 12 — View of the grade crossing and the scrape and gouge marks located on 116 1 1 Adobe PDF file View the railroad track pad and adjacent asphalt transition looking to the west Highway Photograph 13 — View of the southbound right turn lane and turn lane -use arrow 117 pavement marking on South Rice Avenue with the grade crossing shown in the background looking 1 1 Adobe PDF file View to the north Highway Photograph 14 - View of the southbound right turn lane from the view of the accident 118 1 1 Adobe PDF file View driver's perspective looking to the south 119 Survival Factors Group Chairman Factual Report 13 0 Adobe PDF file View 120 Survival Factors Highway Attachment 1 - OPD Incident Detail Report 58 0 Adobe PDF file View 121 Survival Factors Highway Attachment 2 - OPD Injured Passenger Report 17 0 Adobe PDF file View 122 Survival Factors Highway Attachment 3 - LA Sheriff Incident Report 4 0 Adobe PDF file View 123 Survival Factors Highway Attachment 4 - OFD Incident Detail Report 6 0 Adobe PDF file View 124 Survival Factors Highway Attachment 5 - Unified Command Notes 16 0 Adobe PDF file View 125 Survival Factors Highway Attachment 6 - OFD NFIRS 10 0 Adobe PDF file View 126 Survival Factors Attachment 7 - Ventura County MCI Plan 49 0 Adobe PDF file View 127 Survival Factors Highway Attachment 8 - Ventura County MCI Report 5 0 Adobe PDF file View 128 Survival Factors Highway Attachment 9 - Oxnard CA Passenger Interviews 42 0 Adobe PDF file View o 129 Survival Factors Highway Attachment 10 - Oxnard CA OFD Engine 65 Interviews 26 0 Adobe PDF file View N 130 Survival Factors Highway Attachment 11 - Oxnard, CA OFD Engine 61 Interviews 27 0 Adobe PDF file View 131 Survival Factors Highway Attachment 12 - Oxnard, CA OFD Truck 61 Interviews 12 0 Adobe PDF file View d 132 Survival Factors Highway Attachment 13 - Oxnard, CA OFD Engine 63 and 64 Interviews 37 0 Adobe PDF file View a it 133 Survival Factors Highway Attachment 14 - Oxnard, CA OFD Truck 68 Interviews 26 0 Adobe PDF file View Y! 134 Survival Factors Highway Attachment 15 - Oxnard, CA OFD Engine 67 Interviews 20 0 Adobe PDF file View m 135 Survival Factors Highway Attachment 16 - Oxnard CA EMS Interviews 5 0 Adobe PDF file View x a 136 Human Performance Factual Report 11 0 Adobe PDF file View a 137 Human Performance Attachment 1 - 2005 Ford Driver's Time and Attendance Records 7 0 Adobe PDF file View R 138 Human Performance Attachment 2 - 2005 Ford Driver's Cell Phone Voice Call Data 8 0 Adobe PDF file View r 139 Human Performance Attachment 3 - Commercial Driver Medical Examination Report 7 0 Adobe PDF file View E 140 Human Performance Attachment 4- GPS Waypoint Location Data 2 0 Adobe PDF file View E 0 141 3D Laser Scanning Factual Report 14 0 Adobe PDF file View a 142 3D Laser Scanning Video Visualization - Cab Car 645 Exterior 1 0 Adobe PDF file View a 143 3D Laser Scanning Video Visualization - Cab Car 645 Interior 1 0 Adobe PDF file View 144 3D Laser Scanning Image - Cab Car 645 Exterior Front Left 1 0 Adobe PDF file View 145 3D Laser Scanning Image - Cab Car 645 Exterior Front Right 1 0 Adobe PDF file View 146 3D Laser Scanning Image - Cab Car 645 Exterior Left 1 0 Adobe PDF file View 147 3D Laser Scanning Image - Cab Car 645 Exterior Left Rear 1 0 Adobe PDF file View 148 3D Laser Scanning Image - Cab Car 645 Exterior Right 1 0 Adobe PDF file View 149 3D Laser Scanning Image - Cab Car 645 Exterior Right Rear 1 0 Adobe PDF file View 150 3D Laser Scanning Image - Car 206 Exterior Left Front A End 1 0 Adobe PDF file View 151 3D Laser Scanning Image - Car 206 Exterior Left Rear B End 1 0 Adobe PDF file View 152 3D Laser Scanning Image - Car 206 Exterior Right Front A End 1 0 Adobe PDF file View 153 3D Laser Scanning Image - Car 206 Exterior Right Rear B End 1 0 Adobe PDF file View 154 3D Laser Scanning Image - Car 211 Exterior Left A End 1 0 Adobe PDF file View 155 3D Laser Scanning Image - Car 211 Exterior Left Roof A End 1 0 Adobe PDF file View 156 3D Laser Scanning Image - Car 211 Exterior Planar View 1 0 Adobe PDF file View 157 3D Laser Scanning Image - Car 211 Exterior Right Front A End 1 0 Adobe PDF file View 158 3D Laser Scanning Image - Car 211 Exterior Right A end on Right Side of Image 1 0 Adobe PDF file View 159 Railroad Crashworthiness- Group Chairman's Factual Report 39 0 Adobe PDF file View 160 Railroad Crashworthiness- Group Chairman's Factual Report Exhibits 13 0 Adobe PDF file View 161 Materials Laboratory Factual Report 7 4 Adobe PDF file View 162 Mechanical Group Chairman Factual Report 9 13 Adobe PDF file View 163 Train Recorders Group Chairman Factual Report 9 2 Adobe PDF file View 164 Party Representative Signature Pages 11 0 Adobe PDF file View https //data.ntsh.gnv/Dncketl7NTS6Numhei=HWY15MH006 I Packet Pg. 57 5/26123, 12:06 AM NTSB Docket- Docket Management System 165 Party Representative Technical Review 24 0 166 Lead Car and Locomotive Event Recorders -Attachment 1 0 0 'I .0 Adobe PDF file View Comma -delimited data file View 167 Lead Car and Locomotive Event Recorders -Attachment 2 168 Onboard Image Recorder- Group Chairman's Factual Report 0 0 13 0 Privacy Accessibility Web Policies No FEAR Act FOIA Office of Inspector General Contact Us National Transportation Safety Board • 490 CEnfant Plaza, SW Washington, DC 20594 Connect With Ua fi@am W @NTSB W @NTSB_Newsroom NTSB Blog Comma -delimited data file View Adobe PDF file View USA.gov (USAGov en Espanol) Q https //data.ntsh.gnv/Dncketl7NTSBNumhei=HWY15MH006 I Packet Pg. 58 1.c National Transportation Safety Board Collision of Metrolink Train 111 With Union Pacific Train LOF65-12 Chatsworth, California September 12, 2008 14 o U u Accident Report NTSB/RAR-10/01 National Transportation Safety Board PB2010-916301 a Gl Packet Pg. 59 1.c NTSB/RAR-10/01 PB2010-916301 Notation 8175 Adopted January 21, 2010 Railroad Accident Report Collision of Metrolink Train 111 With Union Pacific Train LOF65-12 Chatsworth, California September 12, 2008 National Transportation Safety Board 490 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20594 0 N U c� d 0 L a 0 0 x 0 M 0 E E 0 U t� a a� s ca r a Packet Pg. 60 1.c National Transportation Safety Board. 2010. Collision of*Metrolink Train 111 With Union Pacific Train LOF65-12, Chatsworth, California, September 12, 2008. Railroad Accident Report NTSB/RAR-10/01. Washington, DC. Abstract: About 4:22 p.m., Pacific daylight time, on Friday, September 12, 2008, westbound Southern California Regional Rail Authority Metrolink train 111, consisting of one locomotive and three passenger cars, collided head-on with eastbound Union Pacific Railroad (UP) freight train LOF65-12 near Chatsworth, California. The Metrolink train derailed its locomotive and lead passenger car; the UP train derailed its 2 locomotives and 10 of its 17 cars. The force of the collision caused the locomotive of train 111 to telescope into the lead passenger coach by about 52 feet. The accident resulted in 25 fatalities, including the engineer of train 111. Emergency response agencies reported transporting 102 injured passengers to local hospitals. Damages were estimated to be in excess of $12 million. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is an independent federal agency dedicated to promoting aviation, railroad, highway, marine, pipeline, and hazardous materials safety. Established in 1967, the agency is mandated by Congress through the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 to investigate transportation accidents, determine the probable causes of the accidents, issue safety recommendations, study transportation safety issues, and evaluate the safety effectiveness of government agencies involved in transportation. The NTSB makes public its actions and decisions through accident reports, safety studies, special investigation reports, safety recommendations, and statistical reviews. Recent publications are available in their entirety on the Internet at <http://www.ntsb.gov>. Other information about available publications also may be obtained from the website or by contacting: National Transportation Safety Board Records Management Division, CIO-40 490 L'Enfant Plaza, SW Washington, DC 20594 (800) 877-6799 or (202) 314-6551 NTSB publications may be purchased, by individual copy or by subscription, from the National Technical Information Service. To purchase this publication, order report number PB2010-916301 from: National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia 22161 (800) 553-6847 or (703) 605-6000 The Independent Safety Board Act, as codified at 49 U.S.C. Section 1154(b), precludes the admission into evidence or use of NTSB reports related to an incident or accident in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report. c m E E 0 U t� a. E s ca r a Packet Pg. 61 NTSB Railroad Accident Report 1.c Contents Contents........................................................................................................................................ iii Figures.............................................................................................................................................v Acronymsand Abbreviations..................................................................................................... vi ExecutiveSummary.................................................................................................................... vii FactualInformation.......................................................................................................................1 AccidentSynopsis............................................................................................................................1 AccidentNarrative...........................................................................................................................1 EmergencyResponse.......................................................................................................................8 Command, Organization, and Resources..................................................................................9 ExtricationOberations............................................................................................................10 Injuries.............................................................................. Damage............................................................................. Personnel Information....................................................... Metrolink Train 111................................................... Union Pacific Leesdale Local .................................... PersonA..................................................................... Train and Mechanical Information ................................... Metrolink Train 111................................................... Leesdale Local........................................................... Wreckage.......................................................................... Metrolink Train 111................................................... UP Leesdale Local ..................................................... TopangaSwitch......................................................... Meteorological Information .............................................. Track Information............................................................. Signal Information............................................................ General...................................................................... . Review of Recorded Signal Data ............................... Operations Information..................................................... General...................................................................... . Operating Rules and Efficiency Testing .................... Medical and Toxicological Information ........................... Metrolink Engineer's Use of a Wireless Device ............... Pattern of Wireless Device Use ................................. Content of Text Messages ......................................... Leesdale Local Conductor's Use of a Wireless Device.... Tests and Research............................................................ Sight -Distance Tests of Trains ................................... Sight -Distance Tests of Signals ................................. National Transportation Safety Board iii Packet Pg. 62 NTSB 1.c Railroad Accident Report Testingof Signal System........................................................................................................39 Testing of Communications System.......................................................................................40 Inspection and Testing of Track.............................................................................................41 OtherInformation..........................................................................................................................41 Postaccident Actions by SCRRA............................................................................................41 Federal Rules Regarding Wireless Devices............................................................................43 FRA Emergency Order 20 (1996)..........................................................................................44 Analysis.........................................................................................................................................46 Exclusions......................................................................................................................................46 TheAccident..................................................................................................................................48 EmergencyResponse.....................................................................................................................49 Signalsand Train Control..............................................................................................................50 0 SignalAspect at CP Topanga.................................................................................................50 N Stackingof Routes..................................................................................................................51 Perceptions of Signal Aspects................................................................................................51 Performance of Train 111 Engineer...............................................................................................53 Train 111 Engineer's Use of Wireless Device...............................................................................55 a Leesdale Local Conductor's Use of Wireless Device....................................................................55 N Unauthorized Persons in Locomotive Cab....................................................................................56 2 Efficiency Testing and Management Oversight............................................................................56 In -Cab Audio and Image Recording Devices................................................................................58 c Metrolink Passenger Survivability.................................................................................................62 3 PositiveTrain Control....................................................................................................................63 ° ca z Conclusions...................................................................................................................................65 Findings..........................................................................................................................................65 ProbableCause...............................................................................................................................66 E Recommendations........................................................................................................................67 ° U NewRecommendations.................................................................................................................67 Previously Issued Recommendation Reclassified in This Report.................................................67 a ........................................................................................................... AppendixA• Investigation 72 E Appendix B: Recommendation History on Employee Performance Monitoring..................73 s r a National Transportation Safety Board iv Packet Pg. 63 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report Figures Figure 1. The accident occurred on Metrolink's Ventura Subdivision, about 33 miles westof Los Angeles.........................................................................................................................2 Figure2. Accident site.......................................................................................................5 Figure 3. CP Topanga as viewed from the cab of a locomotive positioned at Chatsworth station. Upper arrow indicates approximate location of the CP Topanga signal, which is about 5,288 feet away................................................................................................................................6 Figure 4. Overview of accident scene looking south.........................................................8 Figure 5. Bombardier BiLevel passenger coach of the type involved in this accident. ... 15 Figure 6. The force of the collision drove the Metrolink locomotive about 52 feet into the passenger space of the first coach behind the locomotive............................................................20 Figure 7. CP Topanga switch looking east, in the direction the Leesdale Local was traveling. Circles highlight damage to switch points and components consistent with the switch having been run through in a trailing point movement by the Metrolink train traveling in the oppositedirection..........................................................................................................................23 Figure 8. Westbound signal at CP Topanga displaying a red aspect (indicating stop.)...26 Figure 9. LG wireless device Model VX10000 similar to the device used by the Metrolink engineer on the day of the accident. (Internet photograph)..........................................29 Figure 10. Text messages sent and received by the Metrolink engineer on day of the accident and on previous 7 days. (Engineer did not work Saturday or Sunday.) ..........................32 Figure 11. Telephone calls sent and received by Metrolink engineer on day of accident andon previous 7 days...................................................................................................................33 Figure 12. View from the head end of a simulated Leesdale Local during train sight - distance testing. At a closing speed in excess of 80 mph, the trains would be only seconds from impact as the Metrolink train becomes visible around the curve..................................................37 National Transportation Safety Board V Packet Pg. 64 NTSB 1.c Railroad Accident Report Acronyms and Abbreviations BMI body mass index CFR Code of Federal Regulations Connex Connex Railroad, LLC CP control point FRA Federal Railroad Administration GPS global positioning system HIV human immunodeficiency virus NTSB National Transportation Safety Board OSA obstructive sleep apnea SCRRA Southern California Regional Rail Authority UP Union Pacific Railroad 0 T" IL U 0 L a N 0 r x 0 3 0 z C a) E E 0 U t� a a� E s ca r a National Transportation Safety Board Vi Packet Pg. 65 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report Executive Summary About 4:22 p.m., Pacific daylight time, on Friday, September 12, 2008, westbound Southern California Regional Rail Authority Metrolink train 111, consisting of one locomotive and three passenger cars, collided head-on with eastbound Union Pacific Railroad freight train LOF65-12 near Chatsworth, California. The Metrolink train derailed its locomotive and lead passenger car; the UP train derailed its 2 locomotives and 10 of its 17 cars. The force of the collision caused the locomotive of train 111 to telescope into the lead passenger coach by about 52 feet. The accident resulted in 25 fatalities, including the engineer of train 111. Emergency response agencies reported transporting 102 injured passengers to local hospitals. Damages were estimated to be in excess of $12 million. The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the September 12, 2008, collision of a Metrolink commuter train and a Union Pacific freight train was the failure of the Metrolink engineer to observe and appropriately respond to the red signal aspect at Control Point Topanga because he was engaged in prohibited use of a wireless device, specifically text messaging, that distracted him from his duties. Contributing to the accident was the lack of a positive train control system that would have stopped the Metrolink train short of the red signal and thus prevented the collision. The safety issues identified during this accident investigation are as follows: • Inadequate capability, because of the privacy offered by a locomotive operating compartment, for management to monitor crewmember adherence to operating rules such as those regarding the use of wireless devices or the presence of unauthorized persons in the operating compartment. 0 Lack of a positive train control system on the Metrolink rail system. As a result of its investigation of this accident, the National Transportation Safety Board makes recommendations to the Federal Railroad Administration. National Transportation Safety Board Vii Packet Pg. 66 1.c (This page intentionally left blank) 0 N U c� d 0 L a 0 0 r Cn x 0 3 0 ca z 0 c m E E 0 U t� a a� E s ca r a Packet Pg. 67 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report Factual Information Accident Synopsis About 4:22 p.m., Pacific daylight time, 1 on Friday, September 12, 2008, westbound Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) Metrolink train 111, consisting of one locomotive and three passenger cars, collided head-on with eastbound Union Pacific Railroad (UP) freight train LOF65-12 near Chatsworth, California. The Metrolink train derailed its locomotive and lead passenger car; the UP train derailed its 2 locomotives and 10 of its 17 cars. The force of the collision caused the locomotive of train 111 to telescope into the lead passenger coach by about 52 feet. The accident resulted in 25 fatalities, including the engineer of train 111. Emergency response agencies reported transporting 102 injured passengers to local hospitals. Damages were estimated to be in excess of $12 million. Accident Narrative At 5:54 a.m. on the morning of the accident, the two -member crew (conductor and engineer) who were aboard Metrolink train 111 at the time of the accident reported for duty at the Metrolink crew base in Montalvo, California. Once on duty, the crew participated in a job briefing where they discussed track warrants and bulletins from the various territories over which they would be operating that day. The crew departed the yard eastbound about 6:45 a.m. aboard train 106. The train made 10 station stops before arriving at Los Angeles Union Station at 8:25 a.m. (See figure 1.) At 8:32 a.m. the crewmembers took the train a few miles west to Metrolink's central maintenance facility, where they went off duty at 9:26 a.m. The conductor said he then went upstairs to the "quiet" room provided for employees and that the engineer, as was his usual practice during the mid -day relief,3 drove home. At 11:30 a.m. the three -member crew (engineer, conductor, and brakeman) of UP freight train LOF65-12 (hereinafter referred to as the Leesdale Local) reported for duty in Gemco, California. The Leesdale Local departed Gemco westbound at 12:30 p.m. with orders to service local industries along the route. The Metrolink train crew returned to duty at the central maintenance facility at 2:00 p.m. The conductor said the engineer spoke of having gotten a 2-hour nap during the mid -day break. The crew participated in a job briefing and was issued new track bulletins. They then traveled to the yard, boarded the equipment scheduled for train 111—which consisted of one locomotive, 1 Unless otherwise noted, all times in this report are Pacific daylight time. 2 Unless otherwise noted, directions referred to in this report are railroad timetable directions, which often differ from compass direction. 3 The Metrolink train crew worked split shifts. They operated trains during the morning and afternoon rush periods and were off during the middle of the day. National Transportation Safety Board 1 Packet Pg. 68 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report two regular passenger cars, and one passenger coach/cab control car 4—and departed at 3:03 p.m. in non -revenue service from the maintenance facility to Union Station, arriving at 3:12:03 p.m. Sylmar/San Fernando ••�a o0 .• �Qa� Y ,a���1 O Sun Valley 0 J�aC lip Accident c� �41 Accident site O r Figure 1. The accident occurred on Metrolink's Ventura Subdivision, about 33 miles west of Los Angeles. Verizon Wireless records of calls and text messages to and from the engineer's personal cell phone/wireless device showed that while the engineer was en route from the maintenance facility to Union Station he received a text message from an individual who will be referred to in this report as "Person A. ,5 This was the first of seven text messages Person A transmitted to the engineer from the time train 111 departed the maintenance facility until the accident. 4 The trains operated by the crew on the day of the accident were commuter trains configured in a "push-pull" arrangement that allows the train to operate in either direction without being turned. In the "pull" mode, the engineer operates from the locomotive at the head end of the train. In the "push' mode, the locomotive is at the rear of the train and the engineer occupies the operating compartment of a cab control car (a specially configured passenger coach) that, in the push mode, is at the head end of the train. At the time of this accident, the train was operating in the pull mode, and the engineer was in the locomotive at the head end. 5 As will be discussed later in this report, the engineer had, earlier in the day, exchanged a number of text messages with the individual identified as Person A. National Transportation Safety Board 2 Packet Pg. 69 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report While train 111 was at Union Station and before it began its westbound trip, the engineer received the second text message from Person A. The records indicated that the engineer responded with two text messages to Person A, the first sent at 3:23:59 p.m. and the next at 3:30:49 p.m.6 These were the first of six text messages the engineer would transmit to Person A that afternoon. At 3:21:42 p.m. and again at 3:26:11 p.m., the engineer made two cell phone calls, each lasting 75 seconds, to two different phone numbers (neither of them belonging to Person A). These were the only voice calls the engineer made while he was on duty on the afternoon of the accident. Meanwhile, the Leesdale Local had completed its westbound work assignments at Oxnard, California, and, at 3:13 p.m., had begun its eastbound return trip to Gemco, which is near the Metrolink Van Nuys station. The Leesdale Local departed Oxnard with two locomotive units pulling 17 cars. For this return trip, the engineer and the conductor were in the lead locomotive while the brakeman rode the trailing unit. Train 111 departed Los Angeles Union Station westbound on schedule at 3:34:54 p.m.' en route to Moorpark, California. The engineer occupied the locomotive at the head end of the train, and the conductor was in the last passenger car. The train would be operating on double main line track until reaching Control Point (CP)8 Raymer (located between the Van Nuys and Northridge stations), where the main line became single track. About 1 minute into the trip, the engineer received the third text message from Person A. Train 111's first two scheduled stops were Glendale and Downtown Burbank. As the train pulled away from the Downtown Burbank station, at 3:51:08, the Verizon network logged the transmission of the engineer's third text message to Person A. The engineer received the fourth text message from Person A while en route between the Burbank —Bob Hope Airport and Van Nuys stations, and the fifth while en route between the Van Nuys and Northridge stations. At this time, eastbound Amtrak train 784 was operating on the single track portion of the mainline and on the same track as train 111. The Metrolink dispatcher9 had aligned switches to route the Amtrak train onto the adjacent main line track at CP Raymer to allow the two trains to pass. Because the switch at CP Raymer was aligned for the eastbound Amtrak train's movement and against any westbound movement, the signal at the control point showed a red aspect, a stop indication, for train 111. Metrolink's operations center radio recordings captured the train 111 6 In this report, all times associated with the sending or receiving of calls and text messages are from Verizon records. In these records, the "sent" and "received" times are based on a GPS time reference and reflect the time the Verizon Wireless network equipment either receives or delivers a message. Thus, the reported "sent" time of a message does not necessarily correlate to the time the sender pressed the "send" button on the wireless device. Because the network must query the receiving device to make sure it is available before transmitting a message, the "received" time is more likely to reflect the actual time the message arrives on the recipient's device. 7 In this report, all times associated with signal, switch, and locomotive events are based on signal log and locomotive event recorder data synchronized to a GPS reference time. This synchronization correlates train position, data recorder, signal, and cell phone send/receive times to a common "master clock" that reflects actual GPS time. 8 A control point is a signal or a siding or crossover switch that is under the control of the dispatcher and that the dispatcher uses to manage train movements over the territory. 9 The dispatcher referred to in this report was responsible for all train movements over the territory extending from Glendale to Moorpark. National Transportation Safety Board 3 Packet Pg. 70 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report engineer calling this signal ("all red Raymer"). 10 After servicing the Van Nuys station, train 111 stopped short of the CP Raymer signal at 4:06:54 to wait for the Amtrak train to move to the other track and for the signal to clear for continued westbound movement. The wait lasted about 3 minutes, during which Verizon records show that the train 111 engineer transmitted the fourth and fifth of his six text messages to Person A. At the end of the stop, the engineer was recorded calling "back in green" (clear) at Raymer. About 2 minutes after train 111 departed CP Raymer, at 4:11 p.m., the eastbound Leesdale Local entered the single track mainline (the same track as train 111) at CP Davis traveling at a recorded speed of 46.6 mph. The dispatcher had aligned the switches so that the eastbound local would enter the 11,300-foot-long controlled siding at CP Topanga, just west of the Chatsworth station. (See figure 2.) The signal circuitry was designed such that, with this switch aligned for the siding, the westbound signal at CP Topanga could not display any aspect other than red (stop indication) for westbound trains entering the block of track11 governed by that signal. This indication required that train 111 stop short of CP Topanga until the Leesdale Local was safely in the siding. Once the train was in the siding, the switch would be realigned for westbound movement on the main line, the signal would be cleared, and train 111 could proceed.12 Signal data logs showed that the switch at CP Topanga was reversed (aligned for the siding) at 4:07:37 p.m. Train 111 arrived at Northridge station at 4:14:10 p.m. and departed 40 seconds later. Normal travel time between the Northridge and Chatsworth stations is about 6 minutes. The conductor of train 111 stated that after the train departed Northridge, he began walking through the train. Dispatching center recordings showed that, after departing Raymer, the train 111 engineer called the next three intermediate signals as "green." The next signal the train encountered was the signal at CP Bernson (milepost 446.8), for which Metrolink's operations center recorded the train 111 engineer calling a flashing yellow aspect (advance approach). Under an advance approach signal indication, trains are to "proceed prepared to stop at second signal." In this case, the second signal was the signal at CP Topanga, where train 111 was to stop and wait for the Leesdale Local to clear the main line. The train passed the CP Bernson signal at 4:17:45 p.m. at a recorded speed of 68 mph. Under Metrolink rules, the conductor of a train must repeat back over the radio any restrictive signal (an indication other than clear) called out by the engineer. Train 111's conductor was not recorded repeating back the flashing yellow signal the engineer called at CP Bernson. The conductor said he did not recall hearing the engineer call this signal. A few seconds after train 111's engineer was recorded calling out the flashing yellow aspect at CP Bernson, the engineer of the Leesdale Local was recorded calling out a "green" aspect at CP Davis. Signal data logs showed that this signal had cleared at 4:10:59 p.m. 10 Metrolink operating rules require that engineers announce over the radio the aspects or indications of all wayside signals the train encounters. For an announcement of any signal more restrictive than green (clear), the conductor must repeat back the announcement over the radio. 11 A block is a length of track of defined limits, the movement over which is governed by wayside signal indications 12 As will be discussed later in this report, the commands by the dispatcher to effect these actions had already been "stacked," or entered into the dispatching system at the Metrolink Operations Center. National Transportation Safety Board 4 Packet Pg. 71 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report A' Tunnel 28 Collision point IV Tunnel 27 T e 26 6a Q) CP Topanga Q) = signal location Not to scale Figure 2. Accident site. I& 4426 Siding track Chatsworth station Q)4451 Main track Chatsmrth St. Devonshire St. Q) CP Benson According to signal data logs, the next signal encountered by train 111 after CP Bernson (intermediate signal 4451, just east [geographically south] of the Chatsworth passenger station and the last signal before CP Topanga) was displaying a solid yellow approach13 indication. Train 111 passed signal 4451 at 4:18:41 p.m. Neither the engineer nor the conductor was recorded calling out this signal indication. At 4:20 p.m., Verizon Wireless network records logged a text message transmitted by the UP conductor from his personal cell phone. At 4:20:15 p.m., a yellow -over -yellow approach diverging14 signal indication displayed at intermediate signal 4426, indicating to the Leesdale Local's crew that their train would be entering the siding at CP Topanga. Train 111 stopped at Chatsworth station (about 1 mile east [geographically south] of CP Topanga) at 4:19:20 p.m. The stop lasted 57 seconds. The conductor stated that once the train stopped, he opened the train's platform side doors and stepped down from the rear car onto the platform to observe passengers stepping up and down from the train. The conductor stated that his routine was to step back up to at least the first step of the rear passenger car before making the final announcement of the train's impending departure and pressing the buttons to close the doors. He said the door closing sequence takes about 10 seconds, during which time the conductor keeps the door open so he can look down the side of the train. In the first of his three interviews with NTSB investigators, the conductor stated that when he looked forward alongside 13 Under an approach indication, trains are to "proceed prepared to stop at the next signal. Trains exceeding 40 MPH must begin reduction to 40 MPH as soon as head end passes signal." 14 Under an approach diverging indication, a train must "proceed prepared to advance on diverging route at next signal not exceeding prescribed speed through turnout(s)." National Transportation Safety Board 5 Packet Pg. 72 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report the train, he could see a green (clear) signal at CP Topanga. (See figure 3.) In subsequent interviews, the conductor stated that he had radioed the engineer to "highball 111 on a green signal." 15 Such an announcement was not recorded on any of the available recording devices. He stated that he did not hear a response from the engineer. Figure 3. CP Topanga as viewed from the cab of a locomotive positioned at Chatsworth station. Upper arrow indicates approximate location of the CP Topanga signal, which is about 5,288 feet away. Train 111's event recorder showed that at 4:20:07 p.m., the engineer moved the throttle from idle to position 2 and began releasing the train's air brakes. At 4:20:13 p.m., the throttle was moved to position 3. The conductor said that after he closed the crew door, he returned to his desk to update his delay report. He said he had not heard the engineer call any signal since the "green signals departing Northridge on our way to Chatsworth." The data recorder indicated that at 4:20:17 p.m., the brakes were fully released and the train speed was gradually increasing. At 4:20:19 p.m., the throttle was increased to its maximum position of 8, and train speed was 4 mph. 15 As will be discussed later in this report, several other individuals who were on the Chatsworth station platform stated that as train 111 departed the station, they had seen the CP Topanga signal displaying a green aspect. National Transportation Safety Board 6 Packet Pg. 73 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report While departing Chatsworth station, the train remained under the operating authority of the approach indication it had received at intermediate signal 4451. Under Metrolink rules, engineers operating under this indication are not to exceed 40 mph while being prepared to stop at the next signal. Additionally, Metrolink's delay -in -block rule (Rule 9.9, discussed later in this report), required engineers, after a station stop, 16 to keep train speeds below 40 mph and be prepared to stop before reaching the next signal, until such time as the next signal can be seen to display a proceed indication. At 4:20:20 p.m., the engineer activated the locomotive bell for 42 seconds. At 4:20:51 p.m., he sounded the locomotive horn for 11 seconds for the Devonshire Road grade crossing. At 4:21:03 p.m., Verizon records show that the engineer received the seventh text message from Person A. At 4:21:23 p.m., the engineer activated the locomotive bell for 19 seconds and also made a short (1 second) sounding of the locomotive horn. While the bell was on, the engineer began sounding the horn at 4:21:34 p.m. for the next crossing at Chatsworth Street. At 4:21:35 p.m. the train's speed was 52 mph. The engineer stopped sounding the horn at 4:21:41 p.m. The train's speed had increased to 54 mph. Over the next 5 seconds, the engineer moved the throttle first to 5, then to 6, back to 5, then to 7, then back to 3 and, finally, to throttle position 4. At that time, train 111 was about 1,200 feet from the signal at CP Topanga. At 4:21:46 p.m., the engineer initiated a minimum brake pipe pressure reduction that slowed the train. The train passed the CP Topanga signal at 4:21:56 p.m. traveling 44 mph. At 4:22:00 p.m., the engineer released the train's air brakes, and at 4:22:01 p.m., based on the time the transmission was logged as received by the Verizon network, he sent his sixth text message to person A. According to recorded data for the power -operated switch at CP Topanga (about 377 feet west of the westbound Topanga signal), train 111 ran through the switch at 4:22:02 P.M. 17 At this time, the train's brakes were off and the throttle remained in position 4. A few seconds later, the defect detector just west of the CP Topanga switch broadcast a "no defects" message indicating that train 111 had passed the detector. On the approach to CP Topanga, the eastbound Leesdale Local traversed two tunnels; the first (tunnel 27) was 924 feet long, and the second (tunnel 28) was 547 feet long. Exiting the second tunnel, the train entered a 6° right-hand curve. According to the Leesdale Local's crewmembers, as their train exited the second tunnel and entered the curve at 40 mph, the Metrolink train came into view. The Leesdale Local's crew activated the train's emergency air braking system, but the trains collided a few seconds later. The collision occurred at 4:22:23 p.m., about 22 seconds after the Verizon network logged receipt of the engineer's last text message. The point of collision was 634 feet from the east portal of tunnel 28. The event recorder indicated that the train 111 engineer made no change in throttle position or brake application during the 21 seconds that elapsed from the time the train ran through the CP Topanga switch until the collision occurred. Event recorder data indicated 16 The delay -in -block rule applied when a train was delayed for any reason, including a station stop, or whenever train speed had been reduced below 10 mph. 17 The switch had been aligned for the eastbound Leesdale Local to enter the siding. Train 111 had "run through" the switch from the opposite direction (against this alignment), which damaged the switch components. National Transportation Safety Board 7 Packet Pg. 74 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report that the Metrolink train was traveling about 43 mph and the Leesdale Local was traveling about 41 mph when the two trains collided head-on. (See figure 4.) Emergency Response The first 911 call about the accident was received by Los Angeles (City) Fire Department Operations Control Dispatch at 4:23 p.m. from a nearby resident. The dispatch was initially categorized as a "vehic" incident (a physical rescue assignment) but on the basis of numerous additional calls, the incident was upgraded to a "derail" incident, which doubled the resources dispatched. Figure 4. Overview of accident scene looking south. The dispatch center requested resources from the Ventura County, Los Angeles County, Culver City, and Beverly Hills fire departments. Los Angeles County Fire Department sent two urban search and rescue teams and helicopters. Ventura County Fire Department sent advanced life support rescues and two squads. Beverly Hills Fire Department and Culver City Fire Department sent rescue squads. The Los Angeles City Fire Department dispatched the department psychologist, critical response teams, safety officers, and incident management teams. The critical response teams National Transportation Safety Board 8 Packet Pg. 75 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report provided family assistance. The incident management teams included fire department officers on special duty, including a rail liaison officer. The city fire department's operations command was opened to coordinate with the emergency operations center. The general manager of the Emergency Management Division coordinated with different departments of the city to provide long-term logistics such as lighting, food, and water. Command, Organization, and Resources The first responding companies were initially dispatched to a residential area near the railroad. The first on -scene captain initially assumed charge of the incident and assigned fire suppression, extrication, and medical tasks. A battalion chief then assumed command when he arrived on scene and remained in charge until the arrival of the assistant chief. The assistant chief initially established a command post in a school parking lot. When a grassy field adjacent to the command post was selected as a helicopter landing zone, the command post was moved to a parking lot farther away. During the course of the response, the assistant chief established a fire suppression group, an extrication group, and a medical group. A hazardous materials group was established to obtain the train consist and confirm the content of the freight cars. A unified command system was established with responding agencies. The Los Angeles Police Department was in charge of security and perimeter control. Additional responding agencies were the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Los Angeles County Fire Department, Ventura County Fire Department, Metrolink, Union Pacific, California Office of Emergency Services, the Los Angeles County Coroner, three private ambulance services, and the Red Cross. Los Angeles city agencies that responded were the Department of Transportation, the Department of Public Works, and the Unified School District. Metrolink's chief of safety and security was in charge of Metrolink's response to the accident. A fence separating the railroad property from the adjacent school was opened to provide access between the trains and the command area. A medical triage area was established next to this fence line. Because of the number of injured passengers, private ambulances were requested to supplement the 28 fire department ambulances. Five air ambulances from Los Angeles Fire Department, the Los Angeles County Fire Department, and the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department responded. A total of 26 air ambulance flights were conducted. The fire department's medical director responded to the scene, along with two medical "caches" (trailers stocked with medical supplies). During the first 8 hours of the response, the fire department resources included 42 fire companies, 25 ambulances, 8 chief officers, 7 emergency medical services captains, 3 urban search and rescue teams, 5 helicopters, 2 command post units, and 2 communications support units. In total, 350 firefighters (from all fire departments), 150 sheriffs department deputies, and 440 Los Angeles Police Department officers responded. In all, more than 1,000 emergency personnel participated in the response effort. National Transportation Safety Board 9 Packet Pg. 76 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report Extrication Operations The earliest responders accessed the accident site from the rear yard of a house in the adjacent residential area. The first police officers to arrive on the scene used bolt cutters to cut through the fence and provide access to the accident site. Leesdale Local. The Leesdale Local had two locomotive units, each with two exits. The engineer and conductor were in the lead unit; the brakeman occupied the second unit. After the collision, the second unit remained upright, and the brakeman was able to exit unassisted through the rear cab door. Because the lead unit came to rest on its left side, the door on the right side of the cab (behind the engineer's seat) was too high for the crewmembers to reach. The second door, through the nose of the unit, was blocked by the Metrolink locomotive. As a result of the collision, a fire started that was fed by diesel fuel leaking from a fuel tank that had separated from the Metrolink locomotive. The leaking fuel tank had come to rest next to the occupied cab of the lead Leesdale Local locomotive. While efforts were underway to suppress the fire, firefighters heard pounding coming from the lead locomotive cab. They looked through the cab windows and saw that the two crewmembers were trapped inside. Firefighters attempted to break the windshield and cut a front window, but neither effort was successful. They were finally able to cut through the rubber molding around the window and remove it. Upon removing the window, they found that the cab was filled with smoke. According to the captain in charge of fire suppression, one of the crewmembers exited the cab with severe back injuries. The captain helped him to the triage area. The second crewmember was not able to move and could not exit the cab without assistance. Two firefighters removed him from the cab and carried him to the triage area. Metrolink Train 111. As firefighters set to work getting passengers out of the first passenger coach, which was the most seriously damaged car, additional deputies and officers from the California Highway Patrol began to arrive on scene. Firefighters working deeper into the car began handing debris to the deputies and officers, who then removed the debris from the car. As victims were removed from the wreckage, they were placed on backboards and carried from the car by a line of deputies and officers. This activity at the first passenger coach continued for 3 to 4 hours. Meanwhile, teams were searching the second and third passenger coaches. A police officer said that when he entered the second passenger coach, he saw that most of the passengers had exited but that six people were still in the car and that they could not move. Three were on the first level, and three were on the second level. Firefighters from the Los Angeles County Fire Department next arrived at the second and third cars and began triaging the passengers. In the third passenger coach were four or five passengers who received assistance. Survivors removed from all of the cars were first taken to a patient holding area on the north side of the train. As the patient numbers increased, they were moved to a patient collection area farther away from the train. Law enforcement officers helped carry the backboards and baskets used to move patients to the patient collection area. Chaplains began arriving on scene and assisted fire department personnel. A temporary morgue was established to the side of the wreckage. National Transportation Safety Board 10 Packet Pg. 77 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report Firefighters sent to walk the UP train to check the train's contents reported that they found nothing of concern. A UP representative told responders where to find a copy of the train consist, which the firefighters retrieved from the lead UP locomotive. Fire department and railroad resources were coordinated through a city fire department rail liaison officer working with Metrolink personnel. Overnight, Metrolink's security coordinator was placed in charge of the railroad's response. Metrolink had staged heavy equipment about a half mile away from the accident site. A UP representative also coordinated in the arrival and staging of heavy equipment and equipment operators. Battalion chiefs met periodically with representatives of the urban search and rescue teams and the railroads to plan operations. Rescue efforts continued until about 1:00 a.m. on September 13, at which time rescue operations transitioned to recovery operations. The Metrolink locomotive was pulled away from the first passenger car about 8:00 a.m. on September 13. Recovery operations continued until the final victim was recovered about 2:00 p.m. on September 13. Injuries Table 1. Injuries. Injury Type Train Crews Passengers Emergency Total Responders Fatal 1 24 0 25 Serious 3 25 0 28 Minor 1 71 1 73 None 0 0 0 0 Total 5 120 1 126 Title 49 CFR 840.2 defines fatality as the death of a person either at the time an accident occurs or within 24 hours thereafter. Title 49 CFR 830.2 defines serious injury as "an injury which: (1) requires hospitalization for more than 48 hours, commencing within 7 days from the date the injury was received; (2) results in a fracture of any bone (except simple fractures of fingers, toes or nose); (3) causes severe hemorrhages, nerve, or tendon damage; (4) involves any internal organ; or (5) involves second or third-degree burns, or any burn affecting more than 5 percent of the body surface." Damage The Metrolink train 111 locomotive sustained substantial crush damage in the collision, with damage estimated as $3.5 million. The first passenger coach behind the locomotive was destroyed, at a cost of $2.2 million. The remaining two Metrolink passenger coaches were substantially damaged, with repair costs estimated as $1.5 million. The UP estimated damages to the locomotives of the Leesdale Local as $1.2 million, with an additional $2.123 million in damages to cars and $200,000 losses in lading. Cleanup expenses were estimated as $500,000 for the UP and $670,000 for Metrolink. Damage to the track structure was estimated as $250,000. Total damages were estimated to be $12.143 million. National Transportation Safety Board 11 Packet Pg. 78 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report Personnel Information Metrolink Train 111 The engineer and conductor of Metrolink train 111 at the time of the accident worked a regularly assigned 5-day week, Monday through Friday, with Saturdays and Sundays off. The crew had worked together on this assignment since April 15, 2008. The crew was scheduled to arrive at Moorpark at 4:45 p.m. They would then operate train 118 from Moorpark, departing at 4:57 p.m. and arriving at Union Station at 6:20 p.m. The crew would then operate train 119 from Union Station to Montalvo, departing at 6:40 p.m. and arriving at Montalvo at 8:35 p.m. They would go off duty at 9:05 p.m. with an average total time on duty of 10 hours 37 minutes. Engineer. The engineer of Metrolink train 111, age 47, was hired by Connex Railroad, LLC,18 (Connex) on June 25, 2005. Between November 1998 and June 2005, he had worked as an engineer for Amtrak. Connex files disclosed no record of any formal disciplinary action with regard to the engineer. The engineer's record did show that he had received five "Letters of Counseling" (considered informal discipline) in the previous 4 years. In December 2005, he was counseled about his failure to report for duty on his assigned job. In December 2006, he was counseled about his failure to report that his conductor was late for a job assignment. In August 2006 and again in December 2006, he was counseled about the number of times he had been absent from work during the previous 12 months, a number that constituted a violation of the Connex attendance policy. Two days before the accident, the engineer was counseled about his responsibility for delaying train 119 on August 19, 2008, at Moorpark station. As will be discussed in more detail later in this report, the engineer had, on two occasions, received oral counseling about his cell phone use while on duty. The engineer's most recent recertification occurred on July 24, 2007 and was valid until September 10, 2010. Connex records disclosed that the engineer had successfully completed his last rules examination on May, 14, 2008. A check of the engineer's work history revealed his last missed workday was September 3, 2008, when he used an accrued personal day. Time sheets provided by Connex showed that the engineer worked the same schedule for the four days, Monday through Thursday, preceding the day of the accident. Under that schedule, he went on duty at 5:54 a.m. at Montalvo. He departed on train 106 at 6:44 a.m. and arrived at Los Angeles Union Station at 8:28 a.m. He was off duty from 9:26 a.m. until returning to work at 2:00 p.m. He departed Union Station westbound on train 111 at 3:35 p.m. and arrived at Moorpark at 4:45 p.m. He departed Moorpark eastbound at 4:57 p.m. on train 118 and arrived at Union Station at 6:20 p.m. At 6:40 p.m., he departed Union Station on train 119 and arrived at Montalvo at 8:35 p.m. He went off duty at 9:05 p.m. On the day of the accident, as on the previous 4 days, the engineer went on duty at 5:54 a.m. He operated a train from 6:44 a.m. until going off duty at 9:26 a.m. He returned to duty at 18 Connex Railroad, LLC, under contract to the SCRRA, provided the locomotive engineers and conductors for Metrolink trains, along with the management, administrative, and training services required to support rail operations. National Transportation Safety Board 12 Packet Pg. 79 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report 2:00 p.m. At 3:35 p.m., he departed on train 111. At the time of the accident, the engineer had most recently been on duty for the second portion of his workday for about 2 hours 22 minutes. Conductor. The train 111 conductor, age 57, was hired by Connex on June 25, 2005. He was previously employed as a conductor by Amtrak beginning in March 1997. According to Connex records, the conductor had successfully completed his last operational rules tests on May 13, 2008. Connex files disclosed no record of any formal disciplinary action with regard to the conductor. The conductor received informal discipline in the form of a "Letter of Counseling" regarding his responsibility for the delay of train 119 on August 19, 2008, at Moorpark station. The conductor said that he had worked on the Monday and Thursday before the accident and had been off on Tuesday and Wednesday. On each of his workdays, he awoke at 3:00 a.m. and left for work at 4:00 a.m. He departed on a train at 6:44 a.m. and worked until 9:26 a.m., when he went off duty. He worked the second part of his day from 2:00 p.m. until 9:05 p.m. He worked this same morning schedule on the day of the accident and was into the second portion of his workday when the accident occurred. At that time, he had been on duty for the second portion of his workday for about 2 hours 22 minutes, and awake for about 13 hours 22 minutes. Union Pacific Leesdale Local Three crewmembers (engineer, conductor, and brakeman) were on the Leesdale Local at the time of the accident. This was the regular assignment for the engineer and brakeman; the conductor was an extra-board19 employee filling in for the regularly assigned conductor. Engineer. The engineer, age 65, was hired by the UP railroad on April 3, 1969. UP files disclosed no record of any disciplinary action pertaining to the engineer in the 2 years prior to the accident. The engineer's most recent recertification occurred on September 3, 2008. It is valid until January 31, 2010. The engineer stated that he arose every day between 6:00 a.m. and 6:30 a.m., departed his residence for work at 10:30 a.m., and went on duty at 11:30 a.m. He said he usually went off duty between 6:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.20 He added he retired each evening no later than 11:30 p.m. At the time of the accident, he had been awake for approximately 10 hours and on duty for just under 5 hours. Conductor. The conductor, age 32, was hired by the UP Railroad on June 22, 1998. UP files disclosed no record of any disciplinary action with regard to the conductor in the 2 years prior to the accident. The conductor said that he awoke about 9:30 a.m. on Monday, September 8. He went on duty at 11:30 a.m. on the Leesdale Local, worked until about 6:30 p.m., and returned home. He 19 The extra board is a list of qualified employees available to fill in for regularly assigned workers or to work non-scheduled assignments. 20 According to UP records, with the exception of Tuesday, September 9, when he went off duty at 6:55 p.m., the engineer went on duty at 11:30 a.m. and off duty at 6:30 p.m. each day beginning Monday, September 8, through the day of the accident. National Transportation Safety Board 13 Packet Pg. 80 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report said he retired for the evening between 11:00 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. He did not work the following day, Tuesday, September 9, and awoke about 10:00 a.m. He retired for the evening about 11:45 p.m. He did not work the following day, Wednesday, September 10, and arose about 8:45 a.m. He retired for the evening about 1:00 a.m. the following day, Thursday, September 11. He arose later that day about noon, again did not work, and retired for the evening about 11:00 p.m. He awoke the following morning, Friday, September 12 at 9:30 a.m. when he was called for duty. He reported for duty at 11:30 a.m. to work the Leesdale Local. At the time of the accident, he had been awake for about 6 hours 42 minutes and on duty for just under 5 hours. Brakeman. The brakeman, age 64, was hired by the UP on January 2, 1965. UP files disclosed no record of any disciplinary action with regard to the brakeman in the 2 years prior to the accident. The brakeman recalled that on Tuesday, September 9, and Wednesday, September 10, he arose about 7:00 a.m., reported for work by 11:30 a.m., and went off duty about 7:00 p.m. On both evenings, he retired by 9:30 p.m. He awoke at 6:00 a.m. on Thursday, September 11, reported for duty at 11:30 a.m., and went off duty about 7:00 p.m. He retired for the evening between 9:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. He awoke the following morning, Friday, September 12, at 6:00 a.m. and reported for duty at 11:30 a.m. At the time of the accident the brakeman had been awake for almost 10 hours 30 minutes and on duty for just under 5 hours. Person A The individual referred to in this report as Person A is a teenager and a self -described "rail fan. ,21 He said he has several friends who were also rail fans (two of whom are referred to later in this report as "Person B" and "Person U) and that he met the accident engineer in May 2008 through one of those friends. He said he would occasionally see the engineer at various rail stations while he was watching trains and that the two would sometimes engage in brief conversations centered around rail operations or the engineer's career. The conversations were brief, he said, "because [the engineer] would usually be driving the train, and he'd come in, you know, say `Hi,' and leave." Person A said that he would occasionally send text messages to the engineer while he was on duty and that the engineer would respond "when he got a chance." Person A recalled having spoken to the engineer via cell phone about 12:30 p.m. on the day of the accident. He said the engineer sounded "happy and cheerful, like I always remembered him to be." He also remembered that they exchanged a "few" text messages that morning, "because that was a very busy shift for him." Person A recalled that after 3:35 p.m. on the afternoon of the accident, he received a text message from the engineer about every 15 minutes. He said he sent the engineer a text message shortly after 4:00 p.m. and received the last text message response from him at 4:22 p.m. He recalled the message pertained to an Amtrak train that was running behind schedule. 21 A rail fan is an individual for whom railroading is a hobby. Rail fans may focus their interest on one or several aspects of railroading, such as railroad history, locomotives, rolling stock, or overall train operations. National Transportation Safety Board 14 Packet Pg. 81 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report Person A said he was at home after receiving the text message at 4:22 p.m. and that he had turned on the news sometime after that time and learned of the accident. He said that when he heard that the accident had occurred at Chatsworth, he immediately knew it was the engineer's train, as it was the only Metrolink train that would have been there at that time. Train and Mechanical Information Metrolink Train 111 Metrolink train 111 consisted of one diesel-electric locomotive unit, two passenger coach cars, and one passenger coach/cab control car. The locomotive was about 58 feet long, and each of the cars was 85 feet long, for a total train length of 313 feet. The first two passenger cars of the train were conventional coaches manufactured by Bombardier Transportation Corporation (Bombardier) and delivered in the 2001-2002 time frame. The remaining passenger coach was, at the time of the accident, operating as a conventional passenger coach although it was also a cab control car with an operating compartment from which the train was run when operating in the "push" mode (locomotive at the rear). (See figure 5.) The cab control car was manufactured by the Urban Transportation Development Corporation (UTDC) (now a part of Bombardier) and delivered in December 1992. Both passenger coaches and the coach/cab control car are referred to as BiLevel coaches. ww�v� Figure 5. Bombardier BiLevel passenger coach of the type involved in this accident National Transportation Safety Board 15 Packet Pg. 82 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report The coach bodies were a semi-monocoque22 construction that incorporates a non -linear structural steel center sill element manufactured from a low -alloy high -tensile steel and an aluminum alloy superstructure. Structural test reports indicates a delivery requirement that the carbody structure resist a minimum static end (compressive) load of 800,000 pounds, as applied on the centerline of draft, without any permanent deformation to any member of the car structure. Collision posts are provided in the front bulkhead to help prevent carbody telescoping.23 Delivery documentation indicated that static end -load structural testing was successfully conducted on an exemplar railcar representing each delivery series of cars involved in this accident. The test results showed that the car structural design has been demonstrated to satisfy the requirements of the Association of American Railroad's Manual of Standards and Practices and of 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 229.141(a), both of which include a test requirement that the carbody structure resist a minimum static end (compressive) load of 800,000 pounds. Although referred to as "bi-level" or "double -deck," these coaches actually have three separate levels of passenger seating accommodations. The design incorporates two full decks (an upper and lower) in the center of the railcar, with an intermediate -level deck situated over the truck assemblies at each end of the car. All three decks provide passenger seating. The BiLevel coaches are all configured to the same basic passenger seating arrangement. The only significant difference between a conventional coach and a cab control car is that the latter is equipped with an operator's cab compartment at its leading end. The cab control car can accommodate 142 passengers; the conventional coach seats 143. Both coach designs have a crush load24 capacity of about 360 passengers. Two stairwells in each coach25 provide access between the lower -level deck, the intermediate level at each opposite end of the railcar, and the upper -level deck. Passengers enter and exit the coaches through four main pneumatically operated pocket door sets26on the lower - level deck of each railcar, with two sets of doors on each side. A vestibule area is provided between the main side -exit doors at each end of the lower -level deck. An emergency release handle adjacent to each main side -exit door may be used to release one of the sliding pocket door panels at each door location. A restroom is at one end of the lower -level deck. A door at each end bulkhead on the intermediate level provides passage to adjacent railcars. 22 In monocoque construction, the structural load is borne by the vehicle's external skin rather than by an internal frame. In semi-monocoque construction, internal bracing is added to supplement the load -bearing capability of the vehicle skin. 23 Telescoping occurs when a railcar body breaches the end -structure of another carbody and passes into the structure of that carbody, emulating a "telescoping" action. Telescoping can also occur when a single carbody is placed under severe compressive axial loading that causes a localized structural failure with consequent partial overlapping of the carbody sidewall panels. 24 The crush load is the maximum number of passengers that can possibly be riding in the railcar (standing and sitting). 25 The stairwells are located approximately 1/4 of the car length from each end of the car. 26 A pocket door is a door that opens by sliding horizontally into a narrow compartment within the wall adjacent to the doorway. National Transportation Safety Board 16 Packet Pg. 83 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report Passenger seating accommodations on board the Metrolink BiLevel railcars consist of a combination of transverse and longitudinal -mounted fixed seat assemblies, 27 with the seat assemblies installed on both sides of a longitudinally oriented center aisle passageway on all three deck levels. Almost all of the transverse mounted fixed seat assemblies in the Metrolink BiLevel coach railcar fleet are arranged in a "2+2," paired/side-by-side configuration (also referred to as a "paired seating sets" arrangement). Many of the paired seating sets are arranged in an opposing face-to-face layout with the balance of the paired seating sets arranged so that the paired seating sets are all facing in the same direction. Each Metrolink BiLevel railcar is equipped with eight workstation tables, four on the upper level and two at each end of the intermediate level. These tables are fitted between paired seating sets of opposing passenger seats. The tables are a basic design consisting of a one-piece tabletop assembly that is cantilevered from the carbody sidewall and supported by a single pedestal leg. The tabletops are trapezoidal in shape, approximately of a uniform size, and manufactured of a high-pressure laminate without any form of safety padding. Inspections and Maintenance. An examination of inspection and maintenance history records for each of the Metrolink cars and the locomotive unit involved in the accident revealed that the equipment had received all required inspections and scheduled maintenance. Postaccident Inspections. Investigators inspected the rear two Metrolink cars at the accident site and tested the air brake system.28 The air brake system on the cars was charged to 111 pounds per square inch (psi), then a 20-psi reduction was made and a leakage test conducted. The cars had 2-psi-per-minute brake pipe leakage.29 The air pressure reduction caused all the train tread and disc brakes to apply as designed. All the contact surfaces were smooth and work - polished. The brake pipe was recharged (pressurized), and the brake shoes released. An emergency application (a rapid reduction of brake pipe pressure to 0 psi) was then initiated from the locomotive unit. The brakes at each location again applied; however, the disc brake at one location on the cab control car subsequently released. The actuator at that location was found to be loose and moved more than normal when shaken by hand. The air brake systems on the Metrolink locomotive unit and first car were damaged in the accident to the extent that no meaningful test could be performed. The contact surfaces of both were inspected and found to be smooth and work -polished. The front truck on the locomotive unit had thermal cracking at several sites around the circumference of the wheels. 27 A fixed seat is a passenger seat that is permanently configured in a given location such that it cannot otherwise be readily reconfigured (by operational or maintenance personnel) to face any other direction. 28 Train brakes are activated using air pressure maintained in the "brake pipe," a continuous pipe extending from the locomotives to the last car in a train when all cars and their air hoses are coupled. (The term "brake pipe" is also used when referring to a single car.) A reduction in brake pipe pressure causes the brake shoes on each car to apply, with the degree of application proportional to the amount of the pressure reduction. When the reduction is stopped and brake pipe pressure increases, the brakes release. 29 Federal Railroad Administration regulations (49 Code ofFederal Regulations 238.313) allow up to 5-psi-per- minute leakage so long as such leakage does not affect service performance. National Transportation Safety Board 17 Packet Pg. 84 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report Event Recorders. The Metrolink locomotive unit was equipped with an event recorder that sustained significant thermal and crush damage in the accident. The damaged recorder was recovered and sent to the NTSB's Vehicle Recorders Laboratory in Washington, D.C., where investigators removed its memory module. On September 18, 2008, an NTSB investigator took the module to the recorder's manufacturer, Bach -Simpson, where the recorded data were successfully downloaded. The Metrolink cab control car (the last car of the train in this accident) also had an event recorder. This recorder was undamaged in the accident, and investigators downloaded its data on scene. Leesdale Local The UP Leesdale Local consisted of two diesel-electric locomotive units and 17 cars (7 loads and 10 empties). The train, including the locomotive units, weighed 1,523 tons and was 1,164 feet long. Postaccident Inspections. The rear seven cars from the Leesdale Local were inspected at Moorpark, California, on Sunday, September 14, 2008. The air brake system on the cars was charged to 90 pounds per square inch, gauge, (psig), then a 20-psi reduction was made and a leakage test conducted. The cars had 1/2-psi-per-minute brake pipe leakage, which was within Federal allowable limits. When the brake pipe pressure was reduced, the brakes applied at each location, as expected. When the brake system was recharged, all the brake shoes released normally except for those at one location where a new wheel was evident. Event Recorders. The Leesdale Local had event recorders on both locomotive units. Data from the event recorder on the second unit was downloaded at the scene. Data from the recorder on the lead unit could not be downloaded on scene;30 therefore the recorder was sent to the NTSB's Vehicle Recorders Laboratory in Washington, D.C. On September 28, 2008, with the assistance of the locomotive's manufacturer, data from the lead unit event recorder were successfully downloaded. Video Recorders. The Leesdale Local locomotives were also equipped with Wabtec/March Networks VideoTrax digital video recording device. These devices record audio, video, and some parametric data. The video cameras were mounted to provide a forward -facing view through the locomotive window. Black -and -white 720 x 480-pixel images are stored at a rate of 15 per second. A microphone captures sound from outside the locomotive cab. GPS time/date, position, and speed are captured along with horn and pneumatic control switch status (on or off). The recorders can store approximately 80 hours of video/audio/data on a 60 Gb removable hard disk. The video cameras on both locomotive units were sent to the UP playback station in Omaha, Nebraska, where an NTSB investigator coordinated retrieval of the information. 30 Locomotive event recorder data are typically downloaded while the recorder is installed in the locomotive and the unit is running. Damage to the lead unit of the Leesdale Local prevented this method of data retrieval. National Transportation Safety Board 18 Packet Pg. 85 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report Wreckage Because of the urgent need to conduct rescue operations for passengers of the Metrolink train, the accident site was significantly disturbed before NTSB investigators arrived on the scene. During the rescue and recovery efforts, some of the derailed railroad equipment was moved a short distance from where it initially came to rest and was available for examination. Investigators used map graphics (based on aerial photographs) as well as aerial and ground -based photographs to document the condition and location of this equipment before it was relocated. For the railroad equipment that had not been disturbed or relocated, investigators were able to examine and record observations of the physical aspects of the accident scene. The information in the remainder of this section is based on this combination of documentation and direct examination. Metrolink Train 111 The three Metrolink passenger coaches remained where they initially came to rest, although certain components of the lead passenger coach had been disturbed during the efforts to extricate passengers. For example, much of the carbody side and roof panels and many of the interior components (seats, floor, partitions, hand -hold stanchion posts) had been placed temporarily in a debris pile immediately adjacent to where the railcar initially came to rest. The other derailed railroad equipment, which included the Metrolink locomotive and almost all of the UP equipment, had been moved but remained available for subsequent post - recovery examination. Locomotive. The Metrolink locomotive, which had been operating in a cab -forward orientation, came to rest on its right side (relative to its normal direction of travel) with the locomotive carbody longitudinally oriented roughly parallel to the track centerline. Obvious severe collision impact damage was evident on the front end, both side panel areas, the operator's cab, and aft end of the locomotive. The locomotive's front end was firmly wedged against the front end of the lead UP locomotive, and its aft end penetrated the leading bulkhead panel of the passenger coach to which it was coupled. The rear portion of the locomotive came to rest within the confines of the occupant compartment of that first passenger car. In this position, the locomotive carbody occupied approximately 52 feet, or approximately the forward two- thirds, of the passenger coach. (See figure 6.) National Transportation Safety Board 19 Packet Pg. 86 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report rE' h Figure 6. The force of the collision drove the Metrolink locomotive about 52 feet into the passenger space of the first coach behind the locomotive. The operator's cab, which had been occupied solely by the train engineer, sustained a complete loss of survivable space. Post -recovery measurements of the locomotive indicated that the front and rear ends of the unit had been compressively displaced by about 15 feet and about 1 foot, respectively. The locomotive had thus, as a result of the collision, compressed from its original 58-foot length to a length of about 42 feet. The fuel tank separated from the locomotive and was found resting on the track ballast a short distance to the right side of the track, approximately adjacent to where the front of the locomotive came to rest. The tank was breached and lost some of its contents of diesel fuel, which burned in a fire. The lead power -truck assembly had separated from the locomotive and was found resting upright, close to the centerline of the track approximately adjacent to the mid -point of where the lead UP locomotive had come to rest. The aft power -truck assembly remained attached to the locomotive. First Passenger Coach. The first passenger coach aft of the locomotive sustained severe structural damage that compromised its occupant survivable space. According to the on -scene emergency responders and representatives of the Los Angeles County coroner department, of the 24 passengers that were fatally injured in the accident, 22 were in this coach at the time of the collision. One fatally injured passenger was determined to have been in the second passenger National Transportation Safety Board 20 Packet Pg. 87 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report coach, and the location of the other fatally injured passenger at the time of the collision could not be determined. The car showed no evidence of fire damage. As a result of the collision, the passenger coach derailed and came to rest at the immediate right side of the track leaning severely toward its right side. Because of the penetration of the aft end of the locomotive through the leading bulkhead panel, the forward one - quarter of the coach (encompassing the intermediate -level passenger compartment, which is above the lead -end truck) separated at the center sill and telescoped into the carbody, along with the lead truck, which remained attached to this section of the car. The telescoping action purged the entire interior carbody content in the forward two-thirds of the car such that only the outer sidewalls, which had bulged and peeled outward, and roof structure of the carbody shell remained. Within this area, the leading -end intermediate-, the lower-, and the upper -level passenger compartments sustained a complete loss of occupant survivable space. The aft intermediate -level passenger compartment (located above the aft -end truck), including the spaces of the aft stairwells, were generally undamaged. The aft truck assembly had separated from the car and was found resting upright on the track ballast immediately adjacent to its normal location on the car frame. The coupler shank at the aft end of the car was fractured and bent downward. The coupler head had separated from the shank, which caused this car to separate from the second passenger coach. The separation distance between the two cars was about 32 feet. Second Passenger Coach. The second passenger coach from the locomotive did not sustain severe structural damage in the accident, nor was its occupant survival space significantly compromised. Only one of the fatally injured passengers was identified as having been occupying this car at the time of the collision. Investigators were able to examine this car before it was moved from its original postaccident position. The car did not derail and came to rest in its normal orientation on the track. The car showed some interior damage and several ripples along the exterior carbody, but it exhibited no obvious exterior or interior catastrophic collision impact damage. The interior damage consisted primarily of fractured seatbacks, dislodged seats, bent and separated stanchion (vertical handhold) posts, dislodged or separated slider door and utility compartment panels, dislodged or separated work -station tables, and dislodged or separated ceiling panels. The car showed no evidence of fire damage. A number of emergency windows had been removed by emergency responders. The coupler shank at the leading end was fractured and bent upward, and the coupler head still engaged the aft coupler head of the first passenger coach. At its aft end, the car remained coupled to the third passenger coach. Third Passenger Coach. The third passenger coach, although equipped as a cab control car, was operating as a conventional coach at the time of the accident. Investigators were able to examine this car before it was moved from its original postaccident position. The car did not sustain severe structural damage during the collision, nor was its occupant survival space significantly compromised. The car showed no evidence of fire damage. National Transportation Safety Board 21 Packet Pg. 88 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report The car, which had been operating B-end forward, did not derail and came to rest in its normal orientation on the track. The car showed no evidence of exterior or interior catastrophic collision impact damage. The interior damage was similar to that exhibited by the second passenger coach, including emergency windows that had been removed during the response. UP Leesdale Local Lead Locomotive. Damage to the lead locomotive of the UP train consisted primarily of extensive frontal damage and some fire damage. No loss of occupant survival space in the locomotive cab occurred. Trailing Locomotive. The trailing locomotive had been disturbed from its immediate postaccident condition and relocated. As a result, no detailed assessment could be made of the damage the unit sustained during the collision. According to UP officials who were on the scene immediately after the accident, damage to the unit consisted primarily of substantial distortion to the roof of the operator's cab. A segment of the roof panel had apparently been struck by a derailed freight car during the collision. Topanga Switch Investigators examined the power switch machine at CP Topanga and found the switch points split in mid -stroke, indicating that the switch had been run through in the trailing position.31 (See figure 7.) Additional visual inspection revealed that the throw -rod, basket rod, and switch machine internal throw -rod were bent and damaged. Because of the nature and extent of the damage, Metrolink signal personnel had to replace the switch machine. Meteorological Information The Van Nuys surface weather station, about 6.2 miles east of Chatsworth, reported weather conditions at 3:51 p.m. on September 12, 2008, as follows: daylight, clear skies, haze, calm winds, and a temperature of 73' F with visibility of 4 miles. Track Information The main track preceding CP Topanga generally consists of 136-pound continuous welded rail.32 The rail is seated in 16 by 7 3/4-inch double shoulder tie plates that lie between the 31 Switch points are the movable, tapered rail sections that are moved either against or away from the stationary (stock) rail to allow a train to continue straight through the switch or to be diverted by the switch onto another track. Trains approaching the switch from the side with the tapered switch points are said to be making a "facing point" movement. Trains approaching from the opposite direction are making a "trailing point" movement. 32 Continuous welded rail (MR) consists of rail sections that have been welded together in lengths greater than 400 feet. National Transportation Safety Board 22 Packet Pg. 89 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report bottom surface of the rail and the top surface of timber crossties. The rail is fastened through the tie plates to standard timber crossties with four lag screws, two on the gauge side (between the rails) and two on the field side (outside the rails). A 6° curve begins just west of the Topanga switch. Beginning at this point, the crosstie type changes from wood to concrete. Figure 7. CP Topanga switch looking east, in the direction the Leesdale Local was traveling. Circles highlight damage to switch points and components consistent with the switch having been run through in a trailing point movement by the Metrolink train traveling in the opposite direction. In the wooden crosstie section, the ties are predominantly box anchored (four rail anchors per crosstie, two rail anchors applied to each rail, a rail anchor on each side of a crosstie) with rail anchors applied to every crosstie. The rail in the concrete tie sections is anchored on every tie with two elastic fasteners. Both areas of track are supported by a mixture of semi -angular granite ballast that fills the crosstie cribs. The depth of the ballast was estimated at 20 to 22 inches. The ballast shoulders measured 20 inches wide on tangent (straight track) and 24 inches wide in the curve. Investigators did not observe any fouled ballast conditions. The Topanga switch itself is constructed of continuous welded rail, with the switch point area completely welded (without rail joints). The switch uses Samson switch points and stock rails that are beveled for a protected fit of the switch point against the stock rail. National Transportation Safety Board 23 Packet Pg. 90 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report Leading up to CP Topanga westbound, the maximum authorized speed is 70 mph for passenger trains, which requires that the track be maintained to Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) class 4 standards. Between CP Topanga and tunnel 28, a permanent speed restriction of 40 mph is in effect because of the 6° curvature in the track. Because of the lower maximum speed, this track is maintained to FRA class 3 standards. Signal Information General Control points on the Ventura Subdivision between CP Davis and CP Bernson are equipped with Vital Harmon Logic Controller processors, and intermediate signals are equipped with Electro-Code 4 processors, both of which are provided by General Electric Transportation Services. The Metrolink centralized traffic control system between CP Davis and CP Bernson uses Safetran V-20 Colorlight signals and GRS Sentinel signals. The system uses US&S M-23A low - voltage power -operated switch machines. Signal track circuits are controlled by Electro Code 4 electronic coded track circuits between control points and d.c. track circuits within control point sections. Signals are arranged for movement in either direction. Until the dispatcher has selected and cleared a route for a train, or trains, the signals at either side of a control point are set to display a red aspect. Once the dispatcher has requested a route that is not precluded by existing train traffic, the signals governing that route change to display the appropriate aspects. The Metrolink Operations Center uses the Digicon computerized dispatching system to align routes for train movements. To facilitate traffic flow, dispatchers will often plan a sequence of train movements in advance and then "stack" requests for those routes in the Digicon system. The Digicon system will place those stacked requests in a queue and carry them out, in the order in which they were entered, as train movements allow. For example, on the day of the accident, the dispatcher selected the first route, which called for the eastbound Leesdale Local to proceed from CP Davis along the main track and through the siding at CP Topanga. Before this move could be completed, the dispatcher requested a second routing, which would allow train 111 to proceed westbound on the main track through the switch at CP Topanga. Because the first route the dispatcher had selected (for the Leesdale Local) took precedence, the request regarding train 111 was placed in the queue within the Digicon system. The Digicon system was designed to carry out this request —which involved realigning the Topanga switch for the main line and displaying a clear indication on the westbound Topanga signal —only after the Leesdale Local was in the siding and clear of the main track. Until then, the design of the Digicon system prevented it from transmitting the dispatcher's route commands for train 111 to the appropriate Harmon Vital Logic Controllers in the field. The logic circuits within the controllers are also designed not to allow conflicting or opposing routes. That is, once the switches are set for an eastbound train to move into the siding, the system will not (because of the interrupted electrical circuit caused by the movement of the switch) allow the westbound signal at CP Topanga to show any aspect other than red. National Transportation Safety Board 24 Packet Pg. 91 NTSB Railroad Accident Report 1.c Some of the signals on the Ventura Subdivision, including the signals at CP Topanga, are "approach lit," meaning that they will display a signal aspect only when a train enters the segment of track governed by that signal. At other times, the signals are in the "conservation" mode and remain dark as a way of reducing maintenance and extending the life of the signal lamps. Thus, even though the signal circuitry of the westbound CP Topanga signal called for a stop indication at the time of the accident, the red aspect of the signal did not actually illuminate until train 111 passed intermediate signal 4451, just east of the Chatsworth station, at 4:18:41 p.m. Review of Recorded Signal Data Downloaded data from Digicon event logs at the Metrolink dispatching center and signal event recorders in the field indicate that, at the time of the accident, the westbound signal at CP Topanga was displaying a red aspect (stop indication) and the dispatcher's stacked request to clear this signal was waiting in the queue in the Digicon dispatching system. The data logs for each signal reflect the aspect being displayed at any given time by a notation in the log indicating which (if any) repeater relays for the various aspects are energized. Because the current to energize the relay coil must pass through the lamp (light bulb) of the aspect, the relay can only be energized (which moves the relay armature to the "up" position) if the lamp for that aspect is intact and that current is flowing through it. If the lamp is not energized, or if the bulb is burned out, the armature of the repeater relay for that aspect will be in the "down" position. Signal event recorder logs for the westbound Topanga signal showed that as train 111 approached the westbound Topanga signal, the armature of the repeater relay for the red aspect was in the "up" position, indicating that the aspect was energized; the relays for the yellow and green aspects were down and therefore not energized. Operations Information General The SCRRA is the joint powers authority that oversees the Southern California commuter rail service known as Metrolink. The system comprises 7 rail routes, 56 stations, and 512 total route miles of track in six counties. Metrolink owns 37 locomotives and 135 commuter coaches and leases additional coaches. The system transports about 45,000 passengers each day. The accident occurred at milepost 444.1233 on Metrolink's Ventura Subdivision, about 33 miles west of Los Angeles. Timetable direction is east —west. This part of the subdivision features a single main track. All train movements are governed by wayside signal indications of a traffic control system administered from Metrolink's operations center in Pomona, California. A dispatcher at the operations center directly controls switches and signals at control points. (See 33 Milepost numbers decrease from east to west. National Transportation Safety Board 25 Packet Pg. 92 NTSB 1.c Railroad Accident Report figure 8.) Between control points, intermediate signals automatically display the signal indications appropriate for the existing track and traffic conditions. Trains operate in both directions on the single track main line, with the subdivision averaging 6 freight trains, 18 Metrolink trains, and 12 Amtrak trains daily. Maximum speeds are 60 mph for freight trains and 79 mph for passenger trains. Because of the curvature of the track in the area of the accident, maximum allowable speed (between mileposts 442.6 and 444.5) is 40 mph. M i 0 ■ , rc, s'--'-- _ . _ �: - •- � _,. ., Figure 8. Westbound signal at CP Topanga displaying a red aspect (indicating stop.) Transportation services and operating crews are provided by transportation contractor Connex.34 On June 25, 2005, Connex entered into a 5-year contract with SCRRA to provide Metrolink with operating crews, management personnel, and training support. These services had previously been provided by Amtrak. 34 Connex Railroad, LLC, is a unit of Veolia Transportation, Inc., which entered the U.S. transportation market in 2001. 0 IL U <.i d O a. N _O Cn K O 0 t Cn N a� C d E O t1 IL d s :.i a National Transportation Safety Board 26 Packet Pg. 93 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report Operating Rules and Efficiency Testing Train operations on the Metrolink system are governed by the General Code of Operating Rules, 5th edition, effective April 13, 2005, and by timetable and special instructions, supplemented by Metrolink's Manual oflnstructions effective 12:01 a.m. on September 1, 2007. Each railroad, under Title 49 CFR Part 217, "Railroad Operating Rules," must carry out a program of operational tests and inspections (efficiency tests) of operating crewmembers. The Metrolink efficiency testing program, administered by Connex, became effective on June 26, 2005. The program was revised on July 1, 2008. Under the program, tests were to be spread out and not confined to specific times and days of the month. The tests were to include Metrolink and foreign line crews operating over SCRRA property. At least half of the tests were to be on operating rules and special instructions. Testing methods included visual observation, monitoring of live and previously recorded radio and telephone transmissions, scrutiny of locomotive event recorder data, and use of radar or other approved wayside speed monitoring devices. Medical and Toxicological Information A review of the Metrolink engineer's railroad medical records showed that he had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and was being treated with multiple medications, including less - than -maximum doses of metformin, glipizide, and pioglitazone. The engineer also had high blood pressure, which records showed was being effectively controlled by use of the prescription medication benazepril. The engineer had been diagnosed HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) positive about 2 years before the accident. He was being treated with anti-retroviral medications, which he was noted to be tolerating "very well with no side effects." These HIV diagnosis and retroviral medications had not been reported to the railroad medical department. Laboratory evaluation dated September 3, 2008 noted that the virus was not detected in the engineer's blood. On July 6, 2007, an "Authorization to Work with Medication(s) and Without Work Restrictions" completed by the engineer's endocrinologist noted that the engineer was "fit for duty and can complete all duties of the position." The HIV diagnosis and antiretroviral medications were not noted on this form. One month before the accident, the engineer's weight was recorded as 254 pounds. His height was recorded as 6 feet during a company physical examination in 2005. In December 2004, records of a physician visit noted that the engineer "may have sleep apnea, but he has no way of knowing. He thinks he does snore a lot ...." The autopsy report on the engineer noted that his heart weighed 430 grams and that "All chambers are dilated." Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 219, Subpart C, "Post -Accident Toxicological Testing," toxicological specimens were obtained from the engineer and conductor of the Metrolink train and from the engineer, conductor, and brakeman of the Leesdale Local. The specimens were screened for cannabinoids, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, methamphetamines, phencyclidine, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, and ethyl alcohol. Tests results for the Metrolink engineer and conductor and the Leesdale Local engineer and brakeman National Transportation Safety Board 27 Packet Pg. 94 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report were negative for alcohol and the aforementioned drugs. The Leesdale Local conductor tested positive for cannabinoids (marijuana) in both blood and urine and negative for alcohol.35 Test documentation indicated that the conductor's blood and urine specimens had been taken at 1:30 a.m. on September 13, 2008, the morning after the accident. Remaining portions of the specimens obtained from the Metrolink engineer and conductor were sent to the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI) in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for independent and broader toxicological analyses. In those tests, the Metrolink engineer tested positive for benazepril36 and pioglitazone37 in the blood and urine. The Metrolink conductor tested positive for fluoxetine 38 and norfluoxetine39 in the blood and urine and for morphine (which had been administered during postaccident medical treatment) in the urine. The conductor's most recent physical examination had taken place in January 2006. At that time, the conductor had reported using fluoxetine, and his medical examination report had been reviewed and approved by the appropriate Connex authorities. Asked about his positive test results, the Leesdale Local conductor stated that he had smoked marijuana "three times at most" in July and August 2008, saying that those occasions were his first use ever. He said he had not used marijuana on the day of, or several days before, the accident. Metrolink Engineer's Use of a Wireless Device Based on Verizon Wireless records, at the time of the accident, the Metrolink train engineer was in possession of an LG Model VX10000 "Voyager" wireless device (figure 9).40 Among its features, the device is capable of browsing the Web, sending and receiving e-mail and text messages, downloading and playing music and video files, and capturing still images or video. As part of this investigation, the NTSB obtained Verizon Wireless records for the Metrolink engineer's account covering the day of the accident as well as the previous 28 days. These records included the time and date of incoming and outgoing telephone calls as well as the time and date of any text messages sent or received, picture/video messages sent or received, and use of the device's Web browser. The records indicate that between 6:05 a.m. and 4:22 p.m. on the day of the accident, the engineer sent or received a total of 95 text messages. During the time he was responsible for 35 Results indicated the blood specimen contained 13.7 nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml) of carboxy-THC (the metabolite of the active ingredient of marijuana), tetrahydrocannabinol (TUC), and 1.1 ng/ml of THC. The urine specimen contained 117 ng/ml of carboxy-THC. 36 Benazepril is a prescription medication used to treat high blood pressure. 37 Pioglitazone is a prescription medication used to treat type 2 diabetes. 38 Fluoxetine (trade name Prozac) is a prescription medication used to treat depression, obsessive -compulsive disorder, some eating disorders, and panic attacks. 39 Norfluoxetine is a metabolite of fluoxetine. 40 Investigators were not able to locate the engineer's wireless device after the accident. National Transportation Safety Board 28 Packet Pg. 95 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report operation of a train (morning and afternoon shifts), the engineer sent 21 text messages, received 21 text messages, and made four outgoing telephone calls. The records show no picture message activity on the day of the accident, and Verizon representatives told investigators that their records showed no Web activity or use of "data services" by the engineer's wireless device on the day of the accident.41 Figure 9. LG wireless device Model VX10000 similar to the device used by the Metrolink engineer on the day of the accident. (Internet photograph) The engineer began his morning shift on the day of the accident by moving train 106 out of the Montalvo station storage yard at 6:25 a.m. He operated the train in revenue service from 6:44 a.m. until arriving at Los Angeles Union Station at 8:25 a.m. He then operated in non - revenue service from Union Station to the central maintenance facility, arriving at 8:53 a.m. During these times, he sent 15 text messages, received 15 text messages, and made two phone calls (one lasting for 2 minutes 29 seconds, the other for 8 seconds). On the afternoon of the accident, as previously noted, the engineer sent six text messages and received seven during the time he was responsible for operating a train. Pattern of Wireless Device Use Investigators acquired the engineer's daily time tickets for the week before the accident and compared them with his cell phone records to determine whether the messaging activity on 41 Because the device was not recovered, the contents of its internal memory could not be accessed. National Transportation Safety Board 29 Packet Pg. 96 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report the day of the accident was out of the ordinary for this individual. The results of that comparison are shown in figure 10.42 Records covering the 28 days before the accident showed 5 days with no text messaging and 4 days with more than 100 text messages sent or received in a 24-hour period. Activity on the remaining 19 days averaged about 40 messages per day. The records also reflected the engineer's use of a wireless device to make voice calls while on duty. Figure 11 shows the telephone calls the engineer made or received (except for any that may have gone to voice mail) on the day of the accident and the preceding 7 days. The General Code of Operating Rules43 addresses the use of wireless or other electronic devices by train crewmembers as follows: Rule 1.10 Games, Reading, or Electronic Devices Unless permitted by the railroad, employees on duty must not: Play games. Read magazines, newspapers, or other literature not related to their duties. Use electronic devices not related to their duties. Metrolink Timetable No. 5 Additions and revisions to General Code of Operating Rules dated July 8, 2008, adds to Rule 1.10: [Unless permitted by the railroad, employees on duty must not:] Use cellular telephones when operating the controls of moving equipment except in emergencies. Connex Metrolink Notice No. 17.08, on July 8, 2008, added the following to the previous version of the notice: Electronic Devices: The inappropriate use of electronic devices by employees on duty has been shown to be a contributing factor in personal injuries and rule violations. While you are working you are obligated to be completely focused on your job and the safe transportation of passengers. As a result, under most circumstances employees are prohibited from having personal electronic devices turned on and/or in their immediate vicinity while working. 42 The times of train operation shown on the graph were taken from the engineer's time tickets, but these times may differ somewhat from the actual times that the engineer was responsible for operating a train. 43 These rules apply equally to all railroads operating over SCRRA tracks. National Transportation Safety Board 30 Packet Pg. 97 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report Here are some examples of when company or personal cellular phones must not be used: • While on the ground lining switches, meeting trains, standing next to main tracks or when performing other duties that require your undivided attention to safety and rules compliance • While in the control compartment of a moving train • To conduct non -railroad business while on or near trains • Here are some examples of when company or personal cellular phones may be used: • While in a layover facility • When communicating railroad business on a stopped train such as troubleshooting mechanical problems or reporting information relating to an incident as the incident commander • When in a crew transportation van • Conductors reporting information to dispatchers relating to delays, etc., as long as the Conductor is not in the control compartment of a moving train • Remember, when the train is moving or you are on the ground performing railroad business your personal electronic devices must be turned off and must not be within your reach -for example on the control stand or on your person. Personal electronic devices may be carried in your grip[44] if they are turned off. Conductors must have their company cellular phones "on" at all times while on duty. Metrolink conductors (who have overall responsibility for the train except for its mechanical aspects and train handling) are issued a company cell phone to facilitate their communication with dispatchers. Train 111's conductor told investigators that he was allowed to use the cell phone for company business when actually on board the train. On the day of the accident, he used his company -provided cell phone to report the collision. The Metrolink conductor said that about a month before the accident, in early August 2008, he observed the accident engineer using his cell phone while he (the engineer) was in the control compartment of a train preparing to leave the Moorpark station. He said he spoke to the engineer about it and the engineer, responding that he had been conducting union business, acknowledged that he needed to put the device away. The conductor said he later brought the incident to the attention of a supervisor but that he never heard back from the supervisor about 44 Grip refers to the bag of personal belongings most crewmembers carry to and from work assignments. National Transportation Safety Board 31 Packet Pg. 98 NTSB 1.c Railroad Accident Report any action that had been taken with regard to the inappropriate cell phone use. He also said he believed this to be an isolated event. cU t77 M D a� c 0 0 0 I- 160.0 140.0 12M 10d.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 0 - ❑ 'Minutes (total) 1 Minutes during train ops. 6:44 a.m. to 9:26 a.m. ® Minutes during train ops, 3:35 p.m. to 8:35 p.m, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday. Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. Friday. 09105/08 09106/08 09107/08 09168/08 09M9d18 09110108 09/11108 09/12108 until 4:22 p.m. Date Figure 10. Text messages sent and received by the Metrolink engineer on the day of the accident and on the previous 7 days. (The engineer did not work Saturday or Sunday.) At the March 3 and 4, 2009, public hearing on this accident held at NTSB headquarters in Washington, D.C., the Metrolink (Connex) manager of safety and operating practices recalled that he was the one to whom the conductor had reported the engineer's cell phone use. He said he immediately followed up with the engineer, briefing him not only on General Code Rule 1.10, but also on Connex's cell phone policy: During my conversation with him, I asked him where his phone was. He said it was stored away in his grip, that it was off. We talked about the cell phone policy. Confident that he understood the policy..., I did a couple observations within the next 2 weeks, and that was the last of any conversations or observations with the engineer [with regard to use of wireless devices]. National Transportation Safety Board 32 Packet Pg. 99 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report 200 W1 Lo 160 Z 140 G �+. 120 to 100 N 80 v 60 L E 40 3 Z OU Friday, Saturday. Sunday, Monday. Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, OM5108 09106108 09/07/08 09/08/08 09109/08 09/10/08 09//1108 Date Friday, 09/12108 until 4:22 P.m, Figure 11. Telephone calls sent and received by Metrolink engineer on day of accident and on previous 7 days. Also at the public hearing, the safety and operating practices manager stated that on one other occasion he had taken exception to the accident engineer's use of a wireless device while on duty. He said the incident occurred on September 7, 2006, shortly after the policy regarding use of electronic devices by train crews had gone into effect. Several Metrolink, UP, and Amtrak officers performed a joint "blitz" test in the Glendale and Burbank area to identify any possible problems regarding the use of electronic devices and to remind employees of the policy. The tests involved riding trains, stopping and boarding trains, and interviewing employees. The manager stated that he boarded the engineer's train at Burbank and arranged to have another manager call the engineer's cell phone.45 The phone, which was in the engineer's briefcase, began ringing while the manager and engineer were conducting a job briefing in the train's operating compartment. The manager said he told the engineer that he was in violation of the policy and that the violation would be entered into the company's efficiency test reporting 45 According to testimony at the public hearing on this accident, Connex used this method of detecting prohibited use of a wireless device until the issuance of Federal Emergency Order 26 (discussed later in this report) on October 7, 2008. National Transportation Safety Board 33 Packet Pg. 100 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report system. He said the engineer told him that he was aware of the policy but that he had forgotten to turn the device off when he had stowed it that morning. Connex provided the NTSB with results of crewmember efficiency tests conducted since June 25, 2005, that related to Rule 1.10. Of the 14 recorded observations, 10 resulted in citations for noncompliance with the rule. Three observations involved a crewmember having a personal cell phone turned on while operating the train. One of those was the aforementioned observation involving the engineer in this accident. The manager stated that, after the Chatsworth accident, Metrolink management had become "very aggressive with inspecting for cell phones," which included stopping and boarding trains en route between stations rather than at station stops and closely inspecting trains and crews. Asked if it was difficult to monitor use of a wireless device by an engineer alone in a locked locomotive, he stated: Oh, that's very difficult.... [A]s the train went by, you'd almost have to see a cell phone up to their ear. You'd have to board the train undetected. We do board the train en route from [a] station, but it is very difficult to get on a train. I'll get on the train, I'll have to unlock the door. Usually, the engineer will see you coming. It's extremely difficult to oversee. Content of Text Messages Verizon records for the 7 days prior to the day of the accident included the content of most of the text messages sent and received by the Metrolink engineer. Most of the text messages during the engineer's morning trip on the day of the accident appear to be to and from a coworker discussing some type of company correspondence. Six messages were to or from Person A. All of the messages during the afternoon (accident) trip were to or from Person A. These messages appear to be primarily discussing train schedules, how far behind schedule certain trains are, and where different trains may or may not "meet" (pass one another) along the track. A review of the content of all of the engineer's text messages over the previous 7 days (including those during and outside the times the engineer was responsible for operating a train) indicated that the engineer and Person A had been coordinating to allow Person A to operate train 111 on the evening of the accident, starting at about 7:45 p.m. The intent was for Person A to board the train at Moorpark and to operate it from Moorpark to Montalvo. A portion of one exchange on September 8, 2008, (the Monday before the Friday accident) reads: [Engineer to Person A ]: yea .... but I'm REALLY looking forward to getting you in the cab and showing you how to run a locomotive. [Person A to Engineer]: Omg dude me too. Running a locomotive. Having all of that in the palms of my hands. Its a great feeling. And ill do it so good from all my practice on the simulator. [Engineer to person A]: I'm gonna do all the radio talkin'...ur gonna run the locomotive & I'm gonna tell a how to do it. National Transportation Safety Board 34 Packet Pg. 101 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report Additionally, Person A and the engineer had arranged for a "ride -along" on the evening of Tuesday, September 9. Person A and Person B were to board the engineer's train at Chatsworth and ride it to Union Station, which they apparently did. The text messages concerning this "ride -along" were not as detailed as those outlining the plans to allow Person A to operate the train; however, messages on the following day (September 10) indicate that Person A was "up in the cab" and "touching the controls." In the same context of the previous evening's activities, the engineer referred to "how much [Person C] wanted to stay in the seat." On the morning of September 10, the engineer sent to Person B a message that read: "[Person B] you wanna run again tonight to montalvo??? if you can?" Later, another message to Person B read: "this time I'm taking a picture of you @ da throttle!!!" A subsequent message from the engineer to Person B read, "... we should have the 866 this evening...," referencing the locomotive unit number. Person B responded, "A bit tougher to get in and out of the cab but it should be fine". A number of messages between Person A and the engineer on the day of the accident, as well as on the days leading up to the accident, addressed concerns that the riders would be seen either entering the locomotive or while occupying the cab. Apparently, on the afternoon of the accident, the engineer e-mailed Person A with the plan for boarding the train at Moorpark, to which Person A responded: [Person A to Engineer]: Very crafty. Looks good man. And i will have my cell phone. About 6 minutes later, Person A messaged: [Person A to Engineer]: Ok got it printed out. Makes perfect sence [sic]. I think you'll be on the main. Connex Metrolink Notice No. 17.08, dated July 8, 2008, states: Head End Authorization: Only the engineer of record, conductor of record, mechanical riders, operating managers and others with proper written authorization are permitted on the head end and/or control compartment of Metrolink trains. The last message received by the engineer from Person A arrived at the engineer's wireless device at 4:20:57, about the time train 111 was accelerating out of Chatsworth station. Content of that message was as follows: "I would like that too [referring to a possible meet with other trains, the topic of a previous text message]. We already need to meet 796. That would be best." At 4:22:01, about 22 seconds before the collision, the Verizon network recorded that the engineer had sent the following response to Person A: "yea... usually @ north camarillo." Leesdale Local Conductor's Use of a Wireless Device Information came to light after the accident to the effect that the Leesdale Local's conductor may have been using a wireless device during the time he was responsible for the operation of his train. To follow up on this information, NTSB investigators obtained the National Transportation Safety Board 35 Packet Pg. 102 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report Verizon Wireless records for the conductor's account. These records include the time and date of incoming and outgoing telephone calls, as well as the time and date of text messages sent and received. The content of the text messages was not available because the date of the request for the records was beyond Verizon's standard retention period for those records. The Leesdale Local's conductor made three telephone calls while on duty on the day of the accident. These calls appear to be business -related, as they were all to a telephone number associated with the issuance of Metrolink track warrants (authorizations for a train to occupy a certain segment of track for a certain period of time). The records indicate that the conductor sent or received a total of 41 text messages while on duty between 11:30 a.m. and 4:20 p.m. on the day of the accident. According to the "Conductor's Report," the conductor was on a moving train between 12:29 p.m. and 1:55 p.m., and again from 3:13 p.m. until the accident at 4:22 p.m. During this time, the conductor sent or received a total of 35 text messages. His last outgoing text message was received and logged by the Verizon network at 4:20 p.m., about the time his train exited tunnel 26 and passed signal 4426. At the public hearing on this accident, the UP general manager of operating practices stated that the conductor's efficiency test records covering the previous 12 months showed no exceptions with regard to his use of electronic devices. At the time many of the text messages were sent, including the last one transmitted about 2 minutes before the collision, the conductor was occupying the locomotive cab along with the engineer. In postaccident interviews, the engineer did not mention that the conductor had used such a device on the day of the accident. Asked at the public hearing what action an employee should take in such a circumstance, the general manager of operating practices stated: A fellow crewmember should remind the employee of the rule requirement and tell them they need to turn the cell phone off to be in compliance to the rule. We would expect that of any manager onboard; we certainly would expect it between two crewmembers. Tests and Research Sight -Distance Tests of Trains For the sight -distance tests, exemplar locomotives simulating those of the Metrolink and UP trains were positioned facing each other at the point of collision. The locomotives were then moved away from each other in intervals of 60 feet (representing the approximate distance a 40- mph train will travel in 1 second) until the engineer aboard each locomotive could not see the other train. These tests revealed that each engineer's first view of the opposing train would have occurred when the trains were about 540 feet apart. At that point, at a closing speed of about 80 mph, the trains would have been 4 to 5 seconds from impact. (See figure 12.) National Transportation Safety Board 36 Packet Pg. 103 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report Figure 12. View from the head end of a simulated Leesdale Local during train sight -distance testing. At a closing speed in excess of 80 mph, the trains would be only seconds from impact as the Metrolink train becomes visible around the curve. Sight -Distance Tests of Signals Investigators also conducted sight -distance tests for the signals train 111 encountered before arriving at Chatsworth station as well as for the signal display and switch point configuration at CP Topanga. Signal Aspects East of CP Topanga. For each test of the signals east of CP Topanga, a Metrolink train consist was moved westbound (toward the signal) until the test engineer affirmed that he had a clear view of the signal aspect. The tests confirmed that the aspect of signal 4483 (the westbound signal immediately before CP Berrison), could be seen and identified from 1,832 feet. The aspect of the westbound signal at CP Berrison could be seen and identified from 5,353 feet. Signal 4451 (the intermediate signal train 111 encountered before entering Chatsworth station) could be seen and identified from 1,360 feet. Signal Aspect at CP Topanga. The westbound signal at CP Topanga consists of a three - aspect (green, yellow, red) signal head on a mast. Each aspect is 8 3/8 inches in diameter. The centers of the yellow and green lenses are 21 feet 6 inches above the ground. The center of the National Transportation Safety Board 37 Packet Pg. 104 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report red lens is 20 feet 5 inches above the ground. The control compartment of a locomotive typically positioned at the Chatsworth station is about 5,288 feet from the signal. The conductor of train 111 told investigators that, just before the train departed Chatsworth station, he could see the CP Topanga signal, and the signal aspect was green. Three individualsa station security guard and two rail fans —who were on the station platform at the time (and who were on a first -name basis with both the engineer and conductor of train 111) also stated that they had seen the Topanga signal displaying a green aspect after train 111 left the station. One of the rail fans told investigators that the CP Topanga signal was not readily visible from the Chatsworth station platform. He said the signal could be seen if one were to approach the edge of the platform and "lean out," and that this is what he had done as train 111 departed the station on the day of the accident. One of the rail fans also told investigators that it had been his experience at the Chatsworth station that it was not possible to see a red signal at CP Topanga in the daytime, only at night. On September 15, 2008, the NTSB conducted sight -distance tests of the signal to assess overall visibility of the signal from the vantage point of the Metrolink train conductor and engineer and to determine if ambient light conditions, reflections, or atmospheric conditions could affect an observer's interpretation of the signal aspects. These observations were carried out at the same time of day as the accident. For the tests, the Metrolink dispatcher aligned the CP Topanga switch for eastbound movement into the siding (as it was on the day of the accident) so that the westbound signal at CP Topanga would display a stop indication. About 4:20 p.m., investigators made unaided visual observations of the signal from the conductor's position on the platform as well as from the platform adjacent to the point at which the train 111 locomotive would have been positioned. Some observers reported seeing an intermittently visible "faint glimmer" of red; other observers reported seeing nothing. About 4:30 p.m., investigators boarded the cab of a three -car Metrolink train while it was positioned at its typical spot alongside the Chatsworth station platform. The Metrolink engineer who participated in the test stated that he could see the signal at Topanga, but he noted that he knew where to look through experience. The engineer was instructed to depart the station westbound as he normally would and to stop at the point where he could clearly distinguish the red CP Topanga signal. The engineer stopped short of the first road crossing (Devonshire Avenue) and said that he could clearly see the signal. Some members of the observation group reported seeing the signal clearly, while others reported still seeing only an intermittently visible flickering red. At this point the train had traveled 953 feet from the station and was still 4,335 feet from the signal. The train was then backed up and spotted normally at Chatsworth station. The Metrolink dispatcher aligned CP Topanga for the train's movement westbound in order to have the CP Topanga signal display a green aspect (clear indication). At 4:45 p.m., the signal displayed a flashing yellow aspect (advance approach indication) that was clearly visible to all observers both in the locomotive cab and in the cab control car. At 4:46 p.m., the CP Topanga signal displayed a green aspect that again was clearly visible to all observers. At 4:51 p.m., the signal displayed a red aspect. The red signal was faint National Transportation Safety Board 38 Packet Pg. 105 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report and only intermittently visible from both the locomotive cab and the conductor's position in the cab control car. Not all observers were able to see this signal aspect. CP Topanga Switch Alignment. To test visibility of the position of the switch points at the CP Topanga switch, investigators had an engineer back a Metrolink consist eastbound until he could no longer see the position of the switch points. This distance was determined to be about 615 feet. Testing of Signal System Postaccident inspection of the signal system found that all signal units and signal cases at the intermediate signals and at the control points Topanga, Bernson, and Davis were locked and sealed with no indications of tampering or vandalism to any of the signal equipment. Investigators examining the signal head of the westbound CP Topanga signal found the signal head to be clean internally with all electrical wiring and connections intact and in good overall condition. The signal head was found to be sealed against external light sources. Mechanical and electrical tests were performed on all switch and signal components at CP Topanga. The tests confirmed that, except for components damaged as a result of the accident, all switch and signal components worked as designed. Testing of the Vital Harmon Logic Controller confirmed that conflicting routes could not be cleared simultaneously. The Metrolink dispatch center aligned the route as it was at the time of the accident,46 and investigators used rolling shunts47 to simulate the movements of Metrolink train 111 and the Leesdale Local. Signal personnel positioned at CP Davis, at intermediate signal 4426; at the east - and westbound signals at CP Topanga, at intermediate signal 4451, and at CP Bernson confirmed that the signal system functioned as designed and intended. While the route was aligned for an eastbound train movement into the siding at CP Topanga, investigators, as a test, sent a request for the westbound Topanga signal to clear. The Harmon Vital Logic Controller at that location would not act on this command, and the westbound signal did not clear. The controller is designed to ensure that lamp output energy is in compliance with the requested signal aspect and that an internal or external fault will not result in an improperly displayed signal. With the eastbound signal at Topanga displaying clear, investigators applied battery power to the green signal lamp of the westbound signal. Within 1 second, the Harmon Vital Logic Controller detected the improperly illuminated lamp and, as designed, changed the eastbound Topanga signal from clear to stop and started a 6-minute timer, which effectively locked out the control point and prevented any commands from being acted upon. 46 On the day of the accident, the dispatcher had stacked the route for the westbound movement; on the day of the testing, the westbound route requests were not stacked. 47 Shunting the track refers to connecting the two rails electrically to simulate the presence of a train. With a rolling shunt, shunts are installed then repositioned in a pattern that simulates a train's movement along a block of track. National Transportation Safety Board 39 Packet Pg. 106 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report As an additional test, investigators had the CP Topanga switch aligned for eastbound movement into the siding and locked. They then initiated a request to clear the Topanga westbound signal. This test was performed once with the eastbound signal displaying clear and again with the signal displaying stop. The logic controller would not act on either command and did not clear the westbound signal. The validity of the downloaded signal event recorder data was confirmed by a review of recordings from the forward -looking video camera of the Leesdale Local, which showed that all signals encountered by the Local were displaying their proper aspects as indicated by the signal recorder data. Examination of the Metrolink signal data log and signal maintenance records did not identify any condition that would have prevented the signal system from operating as designed. Signal trouble reports for the 6 months preceding the accident were reviewed, and no exceptions were noted for the westbound signal at CP Topanga. Testing of Communications System On September 17, 2008, three communications tests were conducted to determine whether communication "dead spots" existed along the route of Metrolink train 111 that would have interfered with radio transmissions between train crewmembers or that would have prevented radio transmissions from being recorded by the dispatch center. All the tests were conducted using handheld radios, including the radio that was in the possession of the train 111 conductor on the day of the accident.48 The first test involved making radio transmissions every 2 minutes from on board an exemplar train as it traveled eastbound from the Simi Valley station to the Northridge station. The second test was the same as the first except that the train was traveling westbound from Northridge to Simi Valley. The dispatch center confirmed that the communications were successful, with the only exception being a loss of communication inside tunnel 26. The final test was done on the ground east and west of CP Topanga. The test was distance -based and was designed to evaluate communication between the handheld radio and the dispatch center. The only failed communications noted were within 100 feet of the portal of tunnel 28. The handheld radio being used by the conductor of Metrolink train 111 on the day of the accident was determined to be fully functional. Testing of the handset battery revealed that when fully charged, the battery lost capacity over a relatively short period of time, which reduced the radio's transmit power. Testing showed that after three to five talk cycles, the audible low - battery warning activated at the end of each subsequent talk cycle. 48 The in -cab radio the train 111 engineer used for all his radio transmissions on the day of the accident was destroyed in the accident and was therefore not available for testing. National Transportation Safety Board 40 Packet Pg. 107 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report Inspection and Testing of Track Investigators made postaccident inspections of the track geometry west of CP Topanga and took measurements at a total of 25 stations in the undisturbed track to the east of the point of collision. (No measurements were taken to the west of the point of collision because of disturbances to the track as a result of the accident and the subsequent repair work.) The measurements revealed track conditions as follows: Track Gage. Widest gage (distance between the inside faces of the running rails) was measured at 56 7/8 inches. FRA Track Safety Standards permit a maximum gage of 57 3/4 inches in class 3 track. Track Alignment. The maximum alignment (relative positions of the two rails laterally) deviation in undisturbed track measured 5/16 inch. FRA Track Safety Standards permit a maximum deviation of 1 3/4 inch in class 3 track. Cross Level. Greatest deviation in cross level (difference from the specified elevation between the two rails) was measured as 5/16 inch. FRA Track Safety Standards permit a maximum deviation of 1 11/16 inch in class 3 track. Overall, no unacceptable conditions were found in the geometry of the track. Other Information Postaccident Actions by SCRRA According to SCRRA representatives, after the accident, SCRRA put into place a Metrolink Enhanced Safety Action Plan that incorporates the following elements: Safety Culture • Elevated the Safety Department to report directly to the SCRRA chief executive officer (CEO), with safety manager required to meet with CEO at least weekly, to provide CEO with monthly written updates, and to provide the SCRRA board with quarterly updates. Created a Strategic Safety Leadership Team comprising all operating general managers, SCRRA contract managers, and the CEO. The leadership team: • Meets quarterly with the goal of sharing information on common problems, on best practices, and on future safety efforts by SCRRA. • Reviews safety performance by SCRRA and its contactors • Established a risk -assessment process. • Is developing goals with regard to training, efficiency testing, rules violations, injuries, audits/inspections. National Transportation Safety Board 41 Packet Pg. 108 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report SCRRA Organizational Structure • Hired an assistant director of equipment. • Hired a manager of field operations and three operations compliance officers. Established a new field operation unit responsible for efficiency testing of foreign line trains operating over SCRRA territory as well as performing oversight testing of the SCRRA contract operator. Created a System Safety Committee structure that involves all organizational layers, including contractors. Metrolink Operations • Updated the Metrolink operational testing program. • Hired an operating rules manager responsible for implementing the updated efficiency testing program. • Increased observations of engineers, conductors, and other safety -critical employees as well as increased joint testing with other operators on the territory. Installed inward- and forward -facing cameras on its locomotives to monitor engineers for compliance with rules regarding electronic devices, unauthorized personnel in the operating compartment, and sleeping, and has established a program for the routine reviewing of the recorded images.49 Metrolink Safety Projects Accelerating the development and deployment of positive train control on the Metrolink locomotive fleet by December 2012 and the installation of positive train control on SCRRA territory by 2015. • Has reassigned staff and hired 40 additional contract employees to oversee the installation of positive train control, which includes a new dispatch system, installation of the back office servers (BOS), retrofitting of the locomotive and cab car fleet for the new micro -processors and new video screens, training and hiring of additional staff to support positive train control, re -spacing of signals, and the development of algorithms for stopping distances of commuter equipment. • Is working with the FRA and the railroad industry on communication, equipment and operating rules in advance of the December 2012 commitment. 49 The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen has filed suit in U.S. District Court to prohibit SCRRA from using its in -cab audio and video system for this purpose. National Transportation Safety Board 42 Packet Pg. 109 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report • Has installed 43 additional Inert Inductor Automatic Train Stop systems to alert engineers to the need to reduce speed. The inert inductors require that the engineer acknowledge a reduced speed requirement of 20 mph or more within 8 seconds or receive a penalty brake application. • Is purchasing Crash Energy Management cab control cars and trailer cars that will be placed in operation starting in 2010. These cars will have crash -energy seats, frangible tables, and push -back couplers. The existing fleet will be retrofitted with crash energy seats, push -back couplers, and frangible tables. • Is installing new LED lights at all control point signals, to be completed in 2010. Federal Rules Regarding Wireless Devices In its investigation of a May 28, 2002, collision of two Burlington Northern Santa Fe freight trains near Clarendon, Texas, 50 the NTSB determined the probable cause of the accident to be, in part, "the coal train engineer's use of a cell phone during the time he should have been attending to the requirements of the track warrant for his train." As a result of that investigation, the NTSB made the following safety recommendation to the FRA: R-03-1 Promulgate new or amended regulations that will control the use of cellular telephones and similar wireless communication devices by railroad operating employees while on duty so that such use does not affect operational safety. In its October 2003 response to this recommendation, the FRA stated its belief that the railroad industry's establishment and enforcement of its own operating rules governing cell phone use were sufficient to address the issue without the need for Federal action. The FRA also noted that it would continue to "closely monitor railroad compliance with their operating rules restricting cell phone use and will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action if it becomes necessary." During a March 2004 meeting with NTSB staff, FRA representatives indicated that the agency had issued instructions to FRA staff to be mindful of their own use of cell phones, but they suggested that enforcing a Federal rule would be almost impossible. The FRA did, however, refer the issue to its Railroad Safety Advisory Committee for discussion as to whether the issue should be addressed by a new safety advisory committee working group. Based on this response, Safety Recommendation R-03-1 was initially classified "Open —Acceptable Response." When the issue of a new or amended Federal regulation was subsequently brought before the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee, the members agreed that the complexity of the issue was such that the committee was not prepared at that time to consider a Federal rule. On March 7, 2007, the NTSB, noting that little progress had been made in almost 3 1/2 years from the date 50 Collision of Two Burlington Northern Santa Fe Freight Trains Near Clarendon, Texas May 28, 2002, Railroad Accident Report NTSB/RAR-03/01 (Washington DC: National Transportation Safety Board, 2003). National Transportation Safety Board 43 Packet Pg. 110 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report the recommendation was issued, reclassified Safety Recommendation R-03-1 "Open Unacceptable Response." Thus, at the time of the accident, no Federal rail regulations prohibited the use of cell phones or similar devices by train crewmembers. On October 7, 2008, after and in response to the Chatsworth accident, the FRA issued Emergency Order 26, Emergency Order To Restrict On -Duty Railroad Operating Employees' Use of Cellular Telephones and Other Distracting Electronic and Electrical Devices ,51 which details the circumstances under which train crewmembers could use both company -supplied and personal electronic devices. With regard to personal electronic devices, Emergency Order 26 states: (c) Personal electronic and electrical devices. (1) Each personal electronic or electrical device must be turned off with any earpieces removed from the ear while on a moving train, except that, when radio failure occurs, a wireless communication device may be used in accordance with railroad rules and instructions. (2) Each personal electronic or electrical device must be turned off with any earpieces removed from the ear when a duty requires any railroad operating employee to be on the ground or to ride rolling equipment during a switching operation and during any period when another employee of the railroad is assisting in preparation of the train (e.g., during an air brake test). (3) Use of a personal electronic or electrical device to perform any function other than voice communication while on duty is prohibited. In no instance may a personal electronic or electrical device interfere with the railroad operating employee's performance of safety -related duties. Because Emergency Order 26 met the intent of Safety Recommendation R-03-1, the NTSB, on September 17, 2009, reclassified recommendation R-03-1 "Closed —Acceptable Alternate Action" At the same time, the NTSB expressed its disappointment that the FRA had not taken previous action on this important safety recommendation. FRA Emergency Order 20 (1996) On February 20, 1996, in the wake of fatal collisions involving commuter trains near Secaucus, New Jersey, 52 and Silver Spring, Maryland, 53 the FRA issued Emergency Order 20, Notice No. 1, Emergency Order Requiring Enhanced Operating Rules and Plans for Ensuring 51 Federal Register, vol. 73, no. 195 (October 7, 2008), p. 58702. 52 Near Head -On Collision and Derailment of Two New Jersey Transit Trains Near Secaucus, New Jersey, February 9, 1996, Railroad Accident Report NTSB/RAR-97/01 (Washington, DC: National Transportation Safety Board, 1997). 53 Collision and Derailment of Maryland Rail Commuter MARC Train 286 and National Railroad Passenger Corporation Amtrak Train 29 Near Silver Spring, Maryland, on February 16, 1996, Railroad Accident Report NTSB/RAR-97/02 (Washington, DC: National Transportation Safety Board, 1997). National Transportation Safety Board 44 Packet Pg. 111 NTSB 1.c Railroad Accident Report the Safety of Passengers Occupying the Leading Car of a Train. The emergency order imposed rule enhancements involving compliance with signal indications and addressed issues related to passenger safety and emergency egress. As refined by Emergency Order 20, Notice No. 2, issued on March 5, 1996, the order required that commuter and intercity passenger railroads issue an operating rule as follows: (A) If a passenger train operating in the block immediately preceding an interlocking or controlled point stops for any reason, [including a station stop] or its speed is reduced below 10 m.p.h., the train shall proceed under the reduced speed set forth in applicable operating rules governing such circumstances and be prepared to stop before passing the next signal. In no event shall this reduced speed exceed 40 m.p.h., although lower speeds are permissible. The train must maintain the prescribed reduced speed until the next wayside signal is clearly visible and that signal displays a proceed indication. The order further required that: (E) Within 30 days of issuance of the railroad's rule, an appropriate qualifying appurtenance shall be affixed to each signal governing the approach to an interlocking or controlled point signal to serve as a visual reminder to the engineer. Appropriate signage shall be displayed at the departure end of passenger stations located in the block immediately preceding interlockings or controlled points. At the time the FRA issued Emergency Order 20, Metrolink operating rules included the following: 9.9: Train Delayed Within a Block If a train has entered a block on a proceed indication that does not require restricted speed, and the train stops or its speed is reduced below 10 MPH, the train must: ...B. CTC or Manual Interlocking Limits Proceed prepared to stop at the next signal until the next signal is visible and that signal displays a proceed indication. Passenger trains operating in push/pull service must not exceed 40 MPH until the next signal is visible and that signal displays a proceed indication. Based on Operating Rule 9.9, Metrolink petitioned the FRA for relief from the signage requirement of the emergency order. On April 30, 1996, the FRA granted Metrolink the waiver: conditioned on the fact that the current operating rules require compliance with the delayed -in -block rule by all trains, in all blocks, at all times. Under these circumstances, FRA agrees that the placement of signage required by EO 20 could send a mixed and confusing message to operating crews concerning the application of the rule. National Transportation Safety Board 45 Packet Pg. 112 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report Analysis Exclusions Based on UP and Connex records, the crewmembers of both the Metrolink and UP trains were experienced railroaders fully qualified to perform their duties. Examination of the work/rest histories of all crewmembers did not indicate that any crewmember was experiencing fatigue that would have affected performance before or at the time of the accident. The engineer and brakeman on the Leesdale Local were on their regular assignment and, for several days before the accident, had gone on duty at 11:30 a.m. and off duty at 6:30 or 7:00 p.m., thus experiencing consistent work/rest patterns to which they were accustomed. The train's conductor was an extra employee filling in for the regularly assigned conductor. He had worked the Leesdale Local on Monday before the accident and had been off Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday before being called to work the Leesdale Local again on Friday. He had maintained a fairly consistent wake/rest cycle during his days off. The Metrolink train 111 engineer had also maintained the same work schedule for the 4 days leading up to the accident, going on duty at 5:54 a.m. and working until 9:26 a.m., then returning for the second part of his shift at 2:00 p.m. and working until 9:05 p.m. On the day of the accident, according to the conductor on the Metrolink train, the engineer said he had taken a nap during his mid -day break and was well rested when he reported for work for his afternoon tour of duty. Based on the operator's height and weight at the time of his last physical examination, he had a calculated body mass index (BMI) of 34.4. By this calculation, the operator would have been considered obese (a BMI greater than 30 constitutes obesity). Obesity is significantly associated with an increased risk for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), which can result in fatigue and significant cognitive and psychomotor deficits. In addition, the engineer had previously noted possible snoring and was noted on autopsy to have enlargement of the chambers of his heart. Right -sided heart chamber enlargement, in particular, has been associated with severe sleep -disordered breathing (including OSA).54 However, the engineer had not been evaluated for or diagnosed with sleep apnea, and he remained actively engaged in operating his train during his afternoon shift, including making regular station stops and calling out some, though not all, of the signals the train encountered along its route. During the approximately 2 minutes that elapsed between the time train 111 departed Chatsworth station until the accident, the engineer was engaged in text messaging, manipulating the throttle, sounding the train horn and bell, and making brake adjustments, with no period of inactivity that might have suggested a lack of alertness due to fatigue or lack of sleep. 54 U. C. Guidry, L. A. Mendes, J. C. Evans, D. Levy, G. T. O'Connor, M. G. Larson, D. J. Gottlieb, E. J. Benjamin. "Echocardiographic Features of the Right Heart in Sleep -Disordered Breathing: The Framingham Heart Study," American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 164(6) September 15(2001):933-8. National Transportation Safety Board 46 Packet Pg. 113 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report The engineer had a history of diabetes and high blood pressure and had been taking prescription medications for these conditions. He had also tested HIV positive and was being treated with anti-retroviral medications. According to his medical records, his conditions were under good control, and no adverse side effects were reported from his medication use. Information downloaded from event recorders aboard the locomotives of the Leesdale Local indicated that the train had been operated in accordance with signal indications from the time it entered the main track at CP Davis until the accident. Correlation between event recorder and sight -distance data indicate that emergency braking was applied 1 to 2 seconds after Metrolink train 111 came into view, but the time and distance were insufficient for the braking to have prevented or reduced the severity of the accident. Postaccident toxicological tests were conducted on each crewmember of the Leesdale Local, as well as the conductor of the Metrolink train 111. Specimens were also obtained from the engineer of train 111. Except for those of the UP conductor, all specimens were negative for the presence of alcohol as well as for FRA-specified illicit drugs. The UP conductor tested negative for alcohol but was positive for marijuana in both his blood and urine. The relative amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol (the active substance in marijuana) and its metabolite suggest use within about 12 to 20 hours of the blood being drawn.55 Based on the reported times the blood and urine specimens were taken, the conductor likely used marijuana within 3 to 11 hours of the accident. If so, it is possible that he was impaired at the time of the accident.56 However, the Leesdale Local was being operated in compliance with signal indications on its approach to the siding at Chatsworth; thus the conductor's marijuana use was not a factor in the accident. After the accident, the cars of both trains that had not been destroyed in the accident were inspected and tested. Air brake and mechanical tests confirmed that the equipment was in good working order, with no anomalies noted that would have contributed to the accident. Similarly, the track segment train 111 traversed in the moments before the accident was found to be in good condition, with all track geometry measurements falling within Federal tolerances for that class of track. It was daylight at the time of the accident. The weather was warm with clear skies and calm winds. Although some haze was present, visibility was reported as 4 miles. Thus, no meteorological conditions existed that would have impaired the train crews' vision with regard to signal aspects or that would have otherwise affected train operations. 55 Based on data in M. A. Huestis, J. E. Henningfield, E. J. Cone. "Blood Cannabinoids. IL Models for the Prediction of Time of Marijuana Exposure from Plasma Concentrations of Delta 9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and 11-Nor-9-Carboxy-Delta 9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THCCOOH)," Journal of Analytical Toxicology. 16(5) Sep -Oct (1992):283-90. 56 See (a) R. C. Baselt. Drug Effects on Psychomotor Performance (Foster City, California: Biomedical Publications, 2001). (b) V. O. Leirer, J. A. Yesavage, D. G. Morrow. "Marijuana Carry -Over Effects on Aircraft Pilot Performance," Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 62(3) March (1991):221-7. (c) J. A. Yesavage, V. O. Leirer, M. Denari, L. E. Hollister. "Carty -Over Effects of Marijuana Intoxication on Aircraft Pilot Performance: A Preliminary Report," American Journal of Psychiatry. 142(11) Nov (1985): 1325-9. National Transportation Safety Board 47 Packet Pg. 114 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report The NTSB therefore concludes that the following were neither causal nor contributory to this accident: weather, fatigue, the engineer's medical conditions or treatments, training and experience of crewmembers, operation of UP Leesdale Local, alcohol or illegal drug use by operating crewmembers, and condition of the track or rolling stock. The NTSB further concludes that although the conductor of the UP Leesdale Local had likely used marijuana within 3 to 11 hours of the accident, this was neither causal nor contributory to the accident. The Accident On the afternoon of September 12, 2008, the Leesdale Local had completed its work and was headed eastbound to its home terminal at Gemco. At the same time, Metrolink train 111 was on its scheduled westbound run from Los Angeles Union Station to Montalvo. The two trains would be using the same track, meaning that at some point one of the trains would have to divert into a siding track and wait for the other to pass before it could continue its trip. Deciding when, where, and how opposing trains will meet is the job of the dispatcher. In this case, the dispatcher decided to allow the eastbound Leesdale Local to enter the main track at CP Davis while westbound train 111 was still east of CP Topanga on the same track. The dispatcher planned to have the freight train proceed to CP Topanga where it would divert from the main track through the siding at Chatsworth. As soon as this move was complete, train 111 would be able to continue westbound. At 4:07:37 p.m., according to signal data logs, the switch at CP Topanga responded to the dispatcher's request and "reversed," that is, aligned to force any eastbound train to move onto the siding track rather than continue on the main track. The switch was now aligned against a westbound train movement on the main track. The switch and signal circuitry for the controlling westbound CP Topanga signal was designed such that, with the switch reversed, the westbound signal could display no aspect other than red, or stop, for westbound trains. With this first route programmed in, the dispatcher "stacked" the next route commands in the sequence, requesting that the CP Topanga switch realign for the main track and that the westbound signal clear for a westbound train movement after the freight train was fully in the siding. The signal system is designed such that a red aspect at westbound CP Topanga causes the westbound signal at CP Bernson to display a flashing yellow aspect (advance approach indication) and intermediate signal 4451 just east of Chatsworth station to display solid yellow (approach indication) to approaching trains. Train 111's engineer was recorded calling out the flashing yellow signal at CP Bernson. He was not recorded calling out intermediate signal 4451 or the next signal, CP Topanga. As train 111 departed Chatsworth station, the engineer proceeded as though the signal at CP Topanga were green (clear) even though the flashing yellow at CP Bernson (which he definitely saw and called) and the solid yellow at intermediate signal 4451 indicated that, at the time train 111 passed them, the CP Topanga signal was displaying a red aspect. Even if intermediate signal 4451 had been green, indicating that the signal at CP Topanga was, at that time, also green, Metrolink's delay -in -block rule would have required that the engineer leave National Transportation Safety Board 48 Packet Pg. 115 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report Chatsworth station and proceed at no more than 40 mph until he could confirm the indication at CP Topanga. Instead, the engineer accelerated his train to 54 mph. About 2 minutes after leaving Chatsworth station, train 111 ran through and damaged the CP Topanga switch, which had been aligned against westbound travel. At the time his train ran through the switch, the engineer was not able to see the Leesdale Local advancing toward him. His first possible view of the freight train would have occurred as his train entered the left-hand curve just west of the switch. According to the locomotive data recorder, the engineer did not apply the train brakes before impact. The Leesdale Local crew did promptly apply brakes on their train when train 111 came into their view, but it was not possible to significantly slow the train in the seconds that elapsed before the collision. Emergency Response Emergency responders arrived at the scene of the accident shortly after the initial notification, and a unified command system was established with the responding agencies and the railroads. Mutual aid resources were also requested from surrounding areas. During the course of the response, the incident commander established a fire suppression group, an extrication group, a medical group, a hazardous materials group, and an urban search and rescue group. Firefighters, police officers, sheriffs deputies, and highway patrol officers worked to rescue, triage, and transport injured passengers and train crew. About 1,000 emergency personnel responded. As a result of the collision, the rear end of the locomotive telescoped into about two- thirds of the first passenger coach, causing a complete loss of survivable occupant space. Because of this damage, the extrication of passengers from the first coach was a difficult and dangerous operation that required extensive manpower, resources, and time. Despite the difficulties, responders carried out their duties as quickly and as efficiently as could be expected. The NTSB therefore concludes that, considering the challenges of the recovery operations, the emergency response to the accident was timely, well coordinated, and effectively managed. As a result of the collision, fuel spilled from the Metrolink locomotive, and a fire burned near the locomotives. During the firefighters' fire suppression operations, they discovered that two crewmembers were trapped inside the cab of the lead locomotive on the Leesdale Local. The cab was filled with smoke. Firefighters eventually forced entry into the cab through a window and rescued the crew, both of whom had suffered serious injuries. The NTSB concludes that because locomotive cab exits are not designed to be quickly opened in an emergency, firefighters could not rapidly enter the cab of the Leesdale Local to rescue the injured crew. The NTSB addressed this issue during its investigation of a November 30, 2007, collision of an Amtrak passenger train and a Norfolk Southern Railway Company freight train near Chicago, IllinoiS.57 In that collision, the forward portion of the Amtrak locomotive came to rest 57 Collision of Amtrak Passenger Train 371 and Norfolk Southern Railway Company Freight Train 23M Chicago, Illinois, November 30, 2007, Railroad Accident Report NTSB/RAR-09/01 (Washington DC: National Transportation Safety Board, 2009). National Transportation Safety Board 49 Packet Pg. 116 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report on top of a container on the rear car of the freight train. Because of structural damage to the locomotive cab, the two engineers could not exit without assistance. As a result of the accident, the NTSB made the following recommendation to the FRA: R-09-3 Require that emergency exits on new and remanufactured locomotive cabs provide for rapid egress by cab occupants and rapid entry by emergency responders. The FRA responded in May 2009 that it shares the NTSB's concern about rapid egress and rescue access for locomotive cabs, a concern that had been addressed, in part, through previously issued regulatory design requirements for new locomotives. The FRA has also funded new research into locomotive egress and rescue, to include concepts for a roof -mounted escape hatch and an easily removable windshield system. The FRA further responded that it had developed and provided to local emergency responders a training video titled "Locomotive Emergency Response Operations." Finally, the FRA stated that it would present this recommendation and its actions to date to the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee's Locomotive Standards Working Group for further consideration. Based on this response, the NTSB has classified Safety Recommendation R-09-3 "Open —Acceptable Response." Signals and Train Control Signal Aspect at CP Topanga In postaccident interviews, the train 111 conductor and three other individuals (two rail fans and a security guard) who were on the Chatsworth station platform while the train served the station stated that they had seen the CP Topanga signal as train 111 pulled out of the station and that the signal was displaying a green aspect. Had this signal been displaying green, the engineer's actions after the train departed the station would have been appropriate, at least until he was close enough to the CP Topanga switch to see that the switch was aligned against his train. Had he realized that he was about to run through the switch, he would doubtless have taken action to stop his train even if the signal had been green. But he took no action in his approach to the switch, while running through it, or immediately afterward. The evidence is incontrovertible that the CP Topanga switch was aligned for an eastbound movement into the siding as westbound train 111 approached and went through it. The damage to the switch points that was found after the accident could only have occurred as a result of a run-through from the westbound direction. If this damage had occurred before the arrival of train 111, the malfunctioning switch would have been detected by the computerized dispatching system and would have shown on the dispatcher's display as being "out of correspondence," a condition that would have caused all the CP Topanga signals to display red. Once the switch is reversed and the switch points move away by a fraction of an inch from the main track stock rail, the electrical path that would permit the westbound signal to display a green aspect is interrupted, and the system does not allow the westbound signal at CP Topanga to show any aspect other than red. In postaccident signal tests, investigators used an National Transportation Safety Board 50 Packet Pg. 117 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report independent power source to illuminate the green lamp in the westbound CP Topanga signal while the eastbound signal was showing clear (a green aspect), an action that would have placed the two signals in conflict. Within 1 second, the logic circuits in the signal controller detected the contradiction and responded by changing the eastbound signal from clear to stop and temporarily locking the signals so that no commands could be acted upon. Even had some unknown anomaly existed that would have permitted the westbound signal to display a green aspect while the switch was reversed, that display would have been recorded on the signal data logs. Instead, the data logs showed that the only signal repeater relay that was energized from the time the switch was reversed until the time of the accident was the relay for the red lamp. The fact that this relay was energized also shows conclusively that the red lamp was actually illuminated, because the current needed to energize this relay must pass through the lamp. If the lamp bulb were missing or burned out, this relay could not have been energized. Inspection and testing of the lights themselves determined that the signal lamps and lenses were undamaged and operating properly. Signal inspection records indicated no deficiencies that would have prevented proper operation of the signal system. Finally, tests and analysis of the signal event recorders, along with the Metrolink Control Center's Digicon signal event log, determined that the signal aspects were properly displayed and were not in conflict at the time of the accident. The NTSB therefore concludes that physical evidence, documentary and recorded data, and postaccident signal examination and testing confirm that the westbound signal at CP Topanga was displaying a red aspect at the time Metrolink train 111 departed Chatsworth station and as it approached and passed CP Topanga, and had the engineer complied with this signal indication, the accident would not have occurred. Stacking of Routes At the time of the accident, the dispatcher had "stacked" the routes for the Leesdale Local and train 111. Even before the Leesdale Local had completed its planned move, the dispatcher had entered commands to realign the CP Topanga switch and to change the westbound signal to green. But these commands could only be carried out after the previous route had been completed, that is, after the Leesdale Local was in the siding. The investigation determined that the commands to realign the switch and clear the signal were still in the dispatching queue and were never sent to the logic controllers in the field. Had these stacked commands been sent prematurely, the logic controllers would have responded as they did during postaccident testing; that is, they would have sensed a potential routing conflict and changed all the control point signals to red until the conflict could be resolved. The NTSB therefore concludes that the signal and traffic control systems worked as designed on the day of the collision, and the dispatcher's "stacking" of train routes played no role in the accident. Perceptions of Signal Aspects Four witnesses at the Chatsworth station stated that they had seen the westbound CP Topanga signal as train 111 left the station and that the signal was displaying a green aspect. But, National Transportation Safety Board 51 Packet Pg. 118 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report as previously noted, all the physical and documentary evidence shows conclusively that the signal aspect was red. The results of postaccident sight -distance tests demonstrated the difficulty in identifying a red signal aspect at CP Topanga when viewed from the Chatsworth station. During that testing, test participants on the station platform were able to identify green and flashing yellow signals but were unable to reliably identify a red signal. The engineer who participated in the sight - distance tests and who, by his own account, "knew where to look," had to move his locomotive almost 1,000 feet from the station before he had what he considered to be a view of the signal adequate to positively identify the signal aspect when it was displaying red, or stop. At this distance, some members of the observation group reported that they were still unable to reliably identify the red aspect. These findings were not surprising given that the signal aspect is an 8 3/8-inch-diameter lighted disk almost a mile away being viewed in daylight. Eyewitness reports of the signal indication at the time of the accident must be evaluated in the context of the physical relationship between the signal and the station, the environmental conditions, and the capabilities and known limitations of the human visual system. The visual angle of the westbound signal light at CP Topanga when viewed from Chatsworth station is essentially equal to the aperture of a single photoreceptor, which puts it near the limit of normal visual function, 58 making it particularly difficult to identify signal color from that distance. An observer with excellent vision who is familiar with the signal and the surrounding environment may be able to see, and perhaps identify the color of, the signal light, but it is more likely that an observer either will not be able to see a signal light at this distance or will misidentify its color. As illustrated by the sight -distance testing results in this investigation, this is particularly true of a red signal aspect because the human visual system is less sensitive to red light than green light. Research on railroad signal detection has reported misperceptions of signal color at long distances under certain conditions or by certain viewers. 59 However, that research was associated with viewing distances of about 2,950 feet, which is a little more than half the distance from Chatsworth station to CP Topanga. At longer distances, research showed that viewers were often unable to accurately perceive signal color. The human visual system has been found to be more sensitive to brightness than to color when viewing very small stimuli.60 That is, the stimulus may be above a person's threshold for perception of brightness but below the threshold for the perception of color, allowing a viewer to 58 Studies of the human retina estimate that at the center of the foveal region —which corresponds roughly to the center of a person's field of view —a single cone photoreceptor in a typical human eye integrates light through an aperture approximately 2.5µm in diameter, equating to a visual angle of approximately 0.5 arcminutes or .008 degrees. (An arcminute is a unit of angular measurement equal to 1/60 of 1 degree.) The common visual acuity reference of 20/20 is the ability to resolve a high contrast spatial pattern separated by 1 arcminute. For addition information see (a) D. R. Williams. "Topography of the Foveal Cone Mosaic in the Living Human Eye," Vision Research 28 (1988): 433-454. (b) C. A. Curcio, K. R. Sloan, R. E. Kalina, and A. E. Hendrickson. "Human Photoreceptor Topography," Journal of Comparative Neurology 292 (1990): 497-523. (c) L. N. Thibos. "Formation and Sampling of the Retinal Image," in K. K. De Valois (Ed.) Seeing (San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 2000) pp. l- 49. 59 J. M. Wood, D. A. Atchison, and A. Chaparro. "When Red Lights Look Yellow," Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 46(11) (2005): 4348-4352. 60 P. E. King -Smith and D. Carden. "Luminance and Opponent -Color Contributions to Visual Detection and Adaptation and to Temporal and Spatial Integration." Journal of the Optical Society ofAmerica. 1976;66:709-717. National Transportation Safety Board 52 Packet Pg. 119 NTSB Railroad Accident Report 1.c perceive a lighted object without being able to identify its color. Consistent with this phenomenon, Wood et al. found that observers could report red railroad signals as still appearing bright at distances from which they could not perceive them as red.61 In this accident, witnesses viewing the signal from the station under the lighting conditions at the time may have seen the signal, if they saw it at all, as "not red" rather than positively green and may simply have perceived the color they expected. One of the rail fan witnesses who had reported seeing the green signal at CP Topanga acknowledged in his interview that red signals at CP Topanga were not visible during the day, they were visible only at night. Therefore, the NTSB concludes that eyewitness reports of seeing a green aspect from the Chatsworth station are contrary to the other evidence; postaccident testing and research show that witnesses could not have reliably seen the red aspect that the CP Topanga signal was displaying as train 111 departed the station because of a combination of extreme distance to the signal (more than 1 mile), lighting conditions at the time, and limitations of the human visual system. Performance of Train I I I Engineer While at the Chatsworth station, the train 111 engineer had a view of the CP Topanga signal that was subject to the same limitations as that of the witnesses on the platform. But unlike the witnesses, this was not the engineer's first clue that the signal might be red, nor was it his last opportunity to observe, identify, and respond to it. Both the flashing yellow aspect at CP Bernson and the solid yellow aspect at signal 4451 would have indicated to the engineer that the CP Topanga signal was red and that he would have to stop there if the signal did not clear before he reached it. The engineer saw the flashing yellow signal and was recorded calling it out over the radio. He was not recorded calling out the solid yellow signal, so it cannot be confirmed whether he observed it, although he clearly had the opportunity to do so. Similarly, when train 111 departed Chatsworth station, the engineer had additional opportunities to observe and respond to the signal at CP Topanga. His train was moving during this time, so the signal would have been coming more clearly into his view as he approached it. But he was not recorded calling out this signal over the radio, and he clearly did not respond appropriately to the stop indication it was displaying. The engineer's action, or lack of action, with regard to the red stop signal at CP Topanga suggests that he was not fully attentive to his primary task of operating his train safely. He did manipulate the train controls during this time, but these manipulations involved long -practiced and ingrained tasks that he could carry out with little conscious effort and without being particularly focused on his work. Records from the engineer's cell phone provider show activity on the engineer's wireless device between the time the train left the station and the time of the collision, indicating that the device was on and being used during that period. The records show that at 4:21:03 p.m., or 47 seconds after departing the station, the engineer received a 71-character text message on his wireless device. Sometime within the next minute he responded with a 32-character text message. This was the last text message the engineer sent or received before the collision. 61 Wood, et. al., "When Red Lights Look Yellow," National Transportation Safety Board 53 Packet Pg. 120 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report Because wireless network records regarding "sent" times are less precise than those regarding "received" times, it cannot be known with certainty at what time the engineer pressed the "send" button on his wireless device to transmit his last message. But the content of the message clearly shows that it was in response to the previous message, which he had received just as the train was pulling out of the station. Thus, during at least part of the time that he could have been, and should have been, observing the signal at CP Topanga, the engineer was likely reading an incoming text message, formulating a response, and entering that response into his wireless device. Among highway users, text messaging has been shown to have the potential to impose visual, manual, and cognitive demands that greatly exceed those required for voice callS.62 Furthermore, research has demonstrated that people adjust their reading rate to accommodate the rate at which messages scroll. As the rate of scroll increases, more time is devoted to reading and comprehending the message, making less time available for viewing the roadway.63 The train 111 engineer's participation in text messaging after departing Chatsworth station distracted him from adequately attending to a critical task —observing and properly responding to the signal indication at Topanga. He should have known to expect a red signal there because of the flashing yellow signal at CP Bernson that he reported and the solid yellow signal at 4451 he had passed only moments before. He may have thought, or hoped, that the signal would clear before his train reached it, but even this expectation would have required that he proceed while being prepared to stop and that he continue to observe the signal until his train reached it. He did neither. The engineer's operation of the train throttle, bell, and horn after he left the station, as well as his text messaging, indicated that he was alert and should have been able to operate his train in accordance with operating rules. But evidence gathered during the investigation suggests that, temporarily at least, the engineer was more attentive to his text messaging and to his anticipated meeting later that evening with young rail fans than he was to the safe operation of his train. The engineer's deficient performance reinforces the research findings that, in operational settings such as this, text messaging can lead to performance decrements related to distraction and inattention.64 The NTSB concludes that the engineer of train 111 was actively, if intermittently, using his wireless device shortly after his train departed Chatsworth station, and his text messaging activity during this time compromised his ability to observe and appropriately respond to the stop signal at CP Topanga. 62 J. D. Lee. (2007). "Driver Distraction: Breakdowns of a Multi -Level Control Process," In: I. J. Faulks, M. Regan, M. Stevenson, J. Brown, A. Porter & J.D. Irwin (Eds.). Distracted Driving (Sydney, NSW: Australasian College of Road Safety, 2007). Pp. 75-98. 63 J. D. Hoffman, J. D. Lee, D. V. McGehee, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Public Policy Center, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50thAnnual Meeting, 2006. 64 Studies of the perceptual phenomenon known as "inattentional blindness" have demonstrated that distracted viewers can fail to detect critical visual stimuli even when they are fixating on those stimuli. See A. Mack and I. Rock. Inattentional Blindness (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998) for a complete discussion of the topic. National Transportation Safety Board 54 Packet Pg. 121 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report Train 111 Engineer's Use of Wireless Device The investigation revealed that, between about 6:05 a.m. and 4:22 p.m. on the day of the accident, the engineer sent or received a total of 95 text messages. During the time periods (morning and evening shifts) that he was responsible for operating a train, he sent 21 text messages, received 20 text messages, and made four outgoing telephone calls. The investigation further revealed that this amount of activity was not unusual for this engineer. Wireless records for the 7 days preceding the accident showed that on each workday, the engineer had sent or received text messages or made voice calls during the time he was responsible for operating a train. On the day with the least wireless activity, he sent or received (during his work period) about 30 text messages. On Wednesday, 2 days before the accident, he sent or received about 125 messages during the time he was responsible for operating a train. He had also made phone calls during these periods. The General Code of Operating Rules and Connex operating rules forbid non -work - related and non -emergency use of personal wireless devices by operating crewmembers. In fact, the train 111 engineer was in violation of Connex operating rules simply by having his wireless device in the locomotive cab and turned on while he was at the controls of the locomotive or cab control car. But the engineer went further, from simply having the device to actually using it to read and compose messages during the time his primary task was to operate the train safely and to be attentive and properly responsive to all signal indications. The engineer was well aware that he was violating company rules with regard to his use of a wireless device. In 2006, as part of an efficiency test, he was found to have his cell phone turned on in his briefcase. He said that he had forgotten to turn it off when he went on duty, but he was documented at that time as having failed to comply with company safety rules. Only about a month before the accident, the conductor on the engineer's train saw the engineer using his cell phone, and he reminded him of the prohibition. The conductor said the engineer acknowledged that such use was a violation of company rules. The conductor reported the incident to a supervisor who, according to testimony during the public hearing on this accident, once again counseled the engineer with regard to the rule regarding use of wireless devices. The NTSB concludes that the Metrolink engineer was aware that he was violating company safety rules when he used his cell phone to make calls or to send and receive text messages while on duty, but he continued the practice nonetheless. Leesdale Local Conductor's Use of Wireless Device The engineer of train 111 was not the only crewmember involved in this accident to have made prohibited use of a wireless device. The records indicate that the conductor of the Leesdale Local sent or received a total of 41 text messages while on duty, with 35 of these being sent or received during the time the conductor's report shows that the train was moving. His last outgoing text message was received and logged by the Verizon network at 4:20 p.m., about the time his train exited tunnel 27 and about 2 minutes before the collision. Although the conductor was in the cab of the locomotive at the time he sent his last text message before the accident, he was not at the controls. And although he, along with the engineer, was responsible for observing signal indications and helping ensure compliance with National Transportation Safety Board 55 Packet Pg. 122 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report those indications, no evidence was found to indicate that the train handling of the Leesdale Local was unusual or inconsistent with the signal indications the train was operating under. The NTSB therefore concludes that, although the conductor of the Leesdale Local violated operating rules by sending and receiving text messages during times when he shared responsibility for the safe operations of his train, any distraction caused by such use did not cause or contribute to this accident. Unauthorized Persons in Locomotive Cab The prohibition against cell phone use was not the only company safety rule the engineer of train 111 knowingly violated. As was clear from the content of the text messages the engineer exchanged with the young rail fan identified in this report as "Person A," the engineer had, earlier in the week, allowed Person A and one or more friends to board his train and join him in the locomotive cab. The engineer apparently had allowed at least one of these individuals to operate the train for a portion of the trip. On the day of the accident, the engineer planned to have Person A and one or more other individuals board the locomotive at Moorpark. He further planned to allow Person A and perhaps one or more other individuals to actually operate the train from Moorpark to the end of the line at Montalvo. This plan was only about 3 1/2 hours from fruition when the accident occurred. As with wireless devices, Connex had specific rules prohibiting unauthorized persons from occupying the locomotive cab or operating compartment of a train while the train was in service. The engineer was obviously aware of the rules because he conspired with the rail fans to have them board his train surreptitiously. Many of the text messages the engineer exchanged with Person A on the afternoon of the accident had to do with the planned boarding at Moorpark, with several comments reflecting full awareness, by both parties, that allowing unauthorized persons to board the train, not to mention actually operating it, constituted a violation of railroad rules. Efficiency Testing and Management Oversight The engineer of train 111 had been subject to efficiency and rules testing throughout his railroad career. Nothing exceptional was found in the records of this testing. As already noted, on two occasions in the previous 2 years he had been counseled about his use of a cell phone while on duty, but neither instance suggested a pattern of violations or an ongoing, willful disregard for the rules. And yet, as shown by his wireless account records (which would not have been available to Connex managers), the engineer habitually used his cell phone at times when he knew that any distraction from the task at hand could have serious safety consequences. Further, by actively encouraging and facilitating access by unauthorized persons to the locomotive cab, he created a situation that could pose another serious safety risk. As acknowledged during the public hearing on this accident, the nature of rail operations makes enforcement of certain operating rules extremely difficult, if not impossible. Metrolink trains, as is common with other passenger trains, have only the engineer in the operating compartment. No reasonable method exists for management, by personal observation, to National Transportation Safety Board 56 Packet Pg. 123 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report determine whether the engineer (or other crewmember) boards the train with a personal wireless device in his or her possession, and once the train leaves a station, no mechanism is currently in place to determine whether the device is in use. The conductor on train 111, who 1 month before the accident had cautioned the engineer about his use of his cell phone while on duty and had taken the extra step of reporting the incident to a manager, stated that he believed this to be an isolated event and that he was not aware of the engineer's pattern of cell phone use while on duty. The engineer clearly took advantage of the privacy afforded by the locked locomotive cab to freely and repeatedly use his cell phone in violation of railroad operating rules. Even though this engineer and conductor had worked together 5 days a week, two shifts per day, for the previous 5 months, the conductor was not aware of the extent to which the engineer was using his wireless device while aboard the train. It is therefore unlikely that routine efficiency testing would ever have identified the scope of the engineer's violations with regard to wireless devices. Similarly, the engineer's permitting of unauthorized persons to occupy the operating compartment of his locomotive stood a very low likelihood of being discovered through ordinary management supervision or efficiency testing. The engineer was familiar enough with his route and with the scope of management's oversight to be able to violate the rules without discovery. He had already allowed his rail fan friends one "ride -along" earlier in the week, and he knew where, when, and how they could again board his train undetected on the evening of the accident. After the accident, Metrolink stiffened the penalty for unauthorized use of wireless devices by crewmembers on moving trains. Such violations will now result in immediate termination of employment. Similarly, with the issuance of Emergency Order 26, the FRA has raised violations involving the use of wireless devices to the Federal level. But making the violation more serious or the penalty more severe does not address the difficulty in identifying violators. With regard to both cell phone use and allowing unauthorized persons into his train's operating compartment, the train 111 engineer obviously had a high degree of confidence that his actions would not be detected. He already faced the prospect of severe penalties if he was caught, especially with regard to having unauthorized persons aboard, but that threat was not sufficient to deter him, given the low likelihood of detection. As shown in the case of the conductor of the Leesdale Local, who also made inappropriate use of a wireless device to send a text message only minutes before the collision, even having other crewmembers present is an insufficient deterrent against such use. The NTSB therefore concludes that, because of the privacy afforded by a locomotive cab or train operating compartment, routine efficiency testing and performance monitoring practices are inadequate to determine whether or to what extent engineers or other crewmembers may not be complying with safety rules such as those regarding use of wireless devices or allowing access by unauthorized persons. National Transportation Safety Board 57 Packet Pg. 124 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report In -Cab Audio and Image Recording Devices The engineer in this accident was able to conceal his inappropriate behavior because he was aware each time he was, or could have been, observed by management. He would likely have been deterred in his cell phone use and in his allowing access to unauthorized persons only if he had known that his performance at the train controls was subject to review at any time, not just when a manager was in the operating compartment or nearby. The NTSB believes that the only reasonable and reliable mechanism for making such observations is an in -cab audio and image recorder that will capture a crewmember's activities while in the train operating compartment. The NTSB has long supported the installation of audio recording devices in locomotive cabs or train operating compartments. In all too many accidents, the individuals directly involved are either limited in their recollection of events or, as in the case of the Chatsworth accident, are not available to be interviewed because of fatal injuries. In a number of accidents the NTSB has investigated, a better knowledge of crewmembers' actions before an accident would have helped reveal the key causal factors and would perhaps have facilitated the development of more effective safety recommendations. As a result of its investigation of the collision between a Maryland Rail Commuter train and an Amtrak train near Silver Spring, Maryland, on February 16, 1996, 65 in which no operating crewmembers survived, the NTSB was unable to determine whether certain crewmember activities leading up to the accident may have contributed to the accident. Consequently, the NTSB recommended that the FRA: R-97-9 Amend 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 229 to require the recording of train crewmembers' voice communications for exclusive use in accident investigations and with appropriate limitations on the public release of such recordings. After its investigation of another railroad accident with no surviving crewmembers that occurred in 1999 in Bryan, Ohio,66 the NTSB reiterated Safety Recommendation R-97-9 to the FRA. The FRA responded that it has reluctantly come to the conclusion that this recommendation should not be implemented at the present time.... FRA appreciates that, as time passes and other uses are found for recording media that may create synergies with other public and private purposes, the Board's recommendation may warrant re-examination. Based on this response and further meetings, the NTSB classified Safety Recommendation R-97-9 "Closed —Unacceptable Action." 65 Collision and Derailment of Maryland Rail Commuter MARC Train 286 and National Railroad Passenger Corporation Amtrak Train 29 Near Silver Spring, Maryland, on February 16, 1996, Railroad Accident Report NTSB/RAR-97/02 (Washington, DC: National Transportation Safety Board, 1997). 66 Collision Involving Three Consolidated Rail Corporation Freight Trains Operating in Fog on a Double Main Track Near Bryan, Ohio, January 17, 1999, Railroad Accident Report NTSB/RAR-01/01 (Washington, DC: National Transportation Safety Board, 2001). National Transportation Safety Board 58 Packet Pg. 125 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report Since the refusal by the FRA to act on the recommendation regarding in -cab recorders, the NTSB has continued to investigate accidents in which such recorders would have provided valuable information to help determine probable cause and develop safety recommendations. Most recently, as a result of its investigation of a July 10, 2005, collision of two CN freight trains in Anding, Mississippi,67 the NTSB made the following safety recommendation to the FRA: R-07-3 Require the installation of a crash- and fire -protected locomotive cab voice recorder, or a combined voice and video recorder, (for the exclusive use in accident investigations and with appropriate limitations on the public release of such recordings) in all controlling locomotive cabs and cab car operating compartments. The recorder should have a minimum 2-hour continuous recording capability, microphones capable of capturing crewmembers' voices and sounds generated within the cab, and a channel to record all radio conversations to and from crewmembers. Investigators in those transportation modes where such recordings are available have not only been able to analyze voice communication between operating crewmembers in the moments leading up to an accident, but they have also been able to review and analyze other sounds originating from the vehicle. From such sounds, parameters such as engine rpm, system failures, speed, and the time at which certain events occur can often be determined, leading to more precise findings and determination of probable cause. The FRA indicated in its response to the NTSB's recommendation that the subject of in -cab video and audio recordings had been discussed at a meeting of the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee Locomotive Working Group. Pending more information about those discussions, Safety Recommendation R-07-3 was classified "Open —Acceptable Response" on July 31, 2009. As is clear from the wording of Safety Recommendations R-97-9 and R-07-3, the NTSB's emphasis up to this point has been on the use of audio and/or image recordings as a tool of accident investigation. But this accident demonstrates that audio -only in -cab recordings that may be reviewed only after an accident do not represent the most effective use of recorder technology for accident prevention. Even had the Metrolink locomotive in this accident been equipped with audio recording devices, the Metrolink engineer, with the appropriate settings on his wireless device, would most likely have been able to continue with his text messaging activities without the equipment having captured it. The presence, in addition to audio recording capability, of in -cab image recording capability would have been the only means available to have determined exactly what actions the engineer was taking during the accident trip. These images would have revealed the engineer's text messaging activities even absent any sounds that could have been captured by an audio recorder. Similarly, any entry into the locomotive or train operating compartment by unauthorized persons would be evident on image recorders. In accidents or incidents in which employee misbehavior is not a factor, in -cab audio and video recordings could be used to validate train crew performance as well as identify potential 67 Collision of Two CN Freight Trains, Anding, Mississippi, July 10, 2005, Railroad Accident Report NTSB/RAR-07/01 (Washington, DC: National Transportation Safety Board, 2007). National Transportation Safety Board 59 Packet Pg. 126 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report causal or contributory system design deficiencies or equipment malfunctions that may not evident from other available parametric data. Some railroads have already installed one type of image recordera forward facing video recorder —on their locomotives, primarily for use after grade crossing accidents. The two locomotives of the Leesdale Local were equipped with forward -facing video recorders. The output of those recorders was used in this accident investigation to validate the information drawn from signal data records. Although other evidence in this accident was sufficient to show conclusively that the engineer failed to comply with a red signal, forward -facing image and audio recorders can often be helpful in determining not only signal aspect, but also signal visibility, as well as identifying other external factors that may influence a train crew's performance in the period leading up to an accident. But even if audio and video recording devices had been installed in the Metrolink train 111 locomotive before this accident, they would not have contributed to preventing it so long as their output could be used only after the accident occurred. The NTSB believes that the recorded audio and images should be easily recoverable and available for review not only after an accident has occurred but routinely, as part of the railroad's efficiency testing and performance monitoring program.68 In the same way that operating employees are continually tested on signal compliance or speed control, audio and image recordings of engineers and other crewmembers could be reviewed at random to verify compliance with safety rules and procedures. In particular, this information could allow railroads to identify unsafe behaviors and pursue corrective action before an accident occurs. Further, an employee who is aware that his or her activities in the train control compartment are subject to review by management will be much less likely to engage in conduct —such as using a wireless device or allowing unauthorized persons in the locomotive cab —that could lead to an accident. Even if an employee is not discouraged from performing these or other unsafe acts, detection of those behaviors would prompt corrective actions that would improve safety. Additionally, not all actions or conditions that have safety implications involve employee misconduct or rules violations. Regular review of in -cab audio and image recordings would give managers insight into other potential safety issues or unsafe operating practices that may not be revealed by any other means and of which the crews themselves may be unaware. Action could then be taken to address these issues through changes in rules, operating practices, or employee training programs. The NTSB therefore concludes that a train crew performance monitoring program that includes the use of in -cab audio and image recordings would serve as a significant deterrent to the types of noncompliance practices with safety rules engaged in by the Metrolink engineer and the UP Leesdale Local conductor in this accident and would provide railroads with a more comprehensive means to evaluate the adequacy of their safety programs. To be effective, any such recording devices must be capable of capturing crewmember activities during a wide range of operating conditions and over a considerable period of time. The image recorders should have a resolution and frame rate sufficient to capture crew movements under typical operating conditions, which includes daylight, night, and conditions of 68 As detailed in appendix B, the NTSB has, in all transportation modes, long advocated the use of recorded data not only for accident investigation, but also for safety management and employee oversight. National Transportation Safety Board 60 Packet Pg. 127 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report varying sun angles.69 The duration of the recording should be at least 12 hours. Railroad crewmembers may be on duty for up to 12 hours, and their actions or inactions at any time during that period could set the stage for an accident. Also, from the standpoint of efficiency testing or performance monitoring, the more information that is available to management, the more likely it is that the company can assess the performance of its people or the effectiveness of its training. The NTSB therefore recommends that the FRA require the installation, in all controlling locomotive cabs and cab car operating compartments, of crash- and fire -protected inward- and outward -facing audio and image recorders capable of providing recordings to verify that train crew actions are in accordance with rules and procedures that are essential to safety as well as train operating conditions. The devices should have a minimum 12-hour continuous recording capability with recordings that are easily accessible for review, with appropriate limitations on public release, for the investigation of accidents or for use by management in carrying out efficiency testing and systemwide performance monitoring programs. Because this recommendation expands upon and reinforces the intent of Safety Recommendation R-07-3, that recommendation is reclassified "Closed —Unacceptable Action/Superseded." If image and audio recordings are to be used to prevent, and not simply to reconstruct, accidents, railroad managers must be authorized to review the recordings regularly as part of their programs of efficiency testing and performance monitoring of train crews. The NTSB therefore recommends that the FRA require that railroads regularly review and use in -cab audio and image recordings (with appropriate limitations on public release), in conjunction with other performance data, to verify that train crew actions are in accordance with rules and procedures that are essential to safety. Concerns about individual privacy have typically influenced decisions about the installation and use of audio or image recorders to record crewmembers at work. However, the NTSB does not believe that employee privacy should take precedence over public safety given the many accidents and incidents, in all transportation modes, that the NTSB has investigated that involved vehicle operator distraction. Workers in safety -critical positions in all industries should expect to be observed in the workplace, just as most employees should expect their employers to be able to monitor such activities as e-mail and Web browsing during work hours. The argument for complete privacy in settings such as a locomotive cab, where lives of many are entrusted to the care of one, is not persuasive. The NTSB notes that, since the accident, SCRRA has installed inward- and forward - facing cameras in its Metrolink locomotives to monitor engineer compliance with rules regarding electronic devices, unauthorized personnel, and sleeping on duty. 69 International specifications for aircraft accident investigation recorders state a minimum frame rate of 4 images per second and overall resolution sufficient to distinguish between parallel 5mm resolution bars on a standard image resolution chart. Source: Minimum Operational Performance Specification for Crash Protected Airborne Recorder Systems, ED-112 (Paris: The European Organisation for Civil Aviation Equipment, 2003). National Transportation Safety Board 61 Packet Pg. 128 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report Metrolink Passenger Survivability For those passengers in the first coach who were in the section of the railcar that was subject to the telescoping action, the accident was generally not survivable. For those passengers who were occupying the area just behind the telescoped section but in front of the rear vestibule/stairwell area, the accident was borderline survivable, although most of those individuals who survived sustained injuries either because of the deceleration forces or from interaction with elements of the car that were crushed. For those passengers occupying the section of the first railcar that was not subject to the telescoping action (that is, the part aft of the rear vestibule/stairwell), the risk of injury came from the substantial deceleration forces that their bodies absorbed. The occupants of the second and third passenger coaches experienced essentially no loss of occupant survival space, but they, too, were at risk of injury from deceleration forces. The magnitude of these forces decreased with distance from the point of impact. The NTSB concludes that passenger survivability in this accident was determined almost exclusively by where an individual was located, and the extremely high collision forces resulted in a loss of occupant survival space in the forward two-thirds of the first passenger coach. For the type of passenger coach involved in this accident, the FRA has issued minimum static end -loading strength and crashworthiness requirements. Based on documentation reviewed as part of this accident investigation, the design of the BiLevel railcars involved in this accident was in compliance with FRA regulatory requirements. Also, during the physical inspection of the damaged equipment and subsequent review of FRA compliance certification documentation, nothing was found to suggest that the coaches were not built to FRA standards. The NTSB does have a concern, however, about the workstation tables that are situated throughout the BiLevel coaches. These tables (four tables on the upper level and two at each intermediate level) are fitted between paired sets of passenger seats. As configured, these one- piece tabletops are at abdomen height for a passenger seated at the table, thus placing that person at risk of sustaining serious abdominal injury in the event of a high-g deceleration (such as a collision impact). As a result of its investigation of the 2002 collision of a Metrolink commuter train with a Burlington Northern Santa Fe freight train in Placentia, California ,70 the NTSB determined that two Metrolink passengers had been fatally injured as a result of abdominal injuries resulting from impact with a workstation table. The investigation also identified research undertaken by the FRA, using resources of the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center and other organizations, to address collision -induced injury resulting from these workstation tables. This research has resulted in some prototype designs for further evaluation. In the meantime, SCRRA has indicated to the NTSB that it is purchasing Crash Energy Management cab control cars and trailer cars that will be placed in operation starting in 2010. These cars will have crash -energy seats, frangible tables, and push -back couplers. Existing Metrolink coaches will also be retrofitted with these same features. The NTSB is encouraged by the progress being made in this 70 Collision of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Freight Train With Metrolink Passenger Train, Placentia, California, April 23, 2002, Railroad Accident Report NTSB/RAR-03/04 (Washington, DC: National Transportation Safety Board, 2003). National Transportation Safety Board 62 Packet Pg. 129 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report area by the FRA, SCRAA, and others and will continue to monitor developments that reduce the risk of injury and death to rail passengers during an accident. Positive Train Control The accident at Chatsworth was the second accident involving a collision between a freight train and a Metrolink passenger train that the NTSB has investigated. In the previously referenced investigation into the 2002 collision in Placentia, California, the NTSB determined that the eastbound Burlington Northern Santa Fe freight train failed to comply with an approach signal indication and was therefore unable to stop short of the next signal, which was displaying a stop indication. The train continued past the stop signal and collided head-on with a Metrolink passenger train. The accident resulted in 2 fatalities and more than 100 injuries. The NTSB has long advocated the implementation of positive train control systems that would prevent train -to -train collisions such as those that occurred at Placentia and Chatsworth. Over the past 4 decades, the NTSB has investigated a multitude of railroad accidents that could have been avoided through use of a positive train control system that will automatically assume some control of a train if the crew does not comply with a signal indication. The NTSB concludes that had a fully implemented positive train control system been in place on the Ventura Subdivision at the time of this accident, it would have intervened to stop Metrolink train 111 before the engineer could pass the red signal at CP Topanga, and the collision would not have occurred. Positive train control was on the NTSB's Most Wanted List of Transportation Safety Improvements since the list's inception in 1990. The NTSB's many investigations of train collisions have resulted in the issuance of a number of safety recommendations, the most recent of which was issued as a result of the investigation of a collision involving three freight trains in Bryan, Ohio.'i That recommendation, issued to the FRA, was as follows: R-01-6 Facilitate actions necessary for development and implementation of positive train control systems that include collision avoidance, and require implementation of positive train control systems on main line tracks, establishing priority requirements for high -risk corridors such as those where commuter and intercity passenger railroads operate. In its report on the 2002 accident in Placentia, California, the NTSB reiterated Safety Recommendation R-01-6 to the FRA. While disappointed in the time that has elapsed since the issuance of the recommendation, with little effective action by the FRA, the NTSB notes that the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 mandates that not later than 18 months from the date of enactment, Class I railroads shall develop and submit to the Secretary of Transportation a plan for implementing a positive train control system by December 31, 2015. The date of enactment 71 Collision Involving Three Consolidated Rail Corporation Freight Trains Operating in Fog at Bryan, Ohio, January 17, 1999, Railroad Accident Report NTSB/RAR-0 1/0 1 (Washington, D.C.: National Transportation Safety Board, 2001). National Transportation Safety Board 63 Packet Pg. 130 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report was October 16, 2008, making the required date for submission of plans April 16, 2010. This mandate will apply to Metrolink trackage in the accident area. The NTSB is further encouraged that SCRRA is already engaged in the development and deployment of positive train control on the Metrolink locomotive fleet by December 2012, with the installation of positive train control on the entire SCRRA territory projected for completion by 2015. National Transportation Safety Board 64 Packet Pg. 131 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report Conclusions Findings 1. The following were neither causal nor contributory to this accident: weather, fatigue, the engineer's medical conditions or treatments, training and experience of crewmembers, operation of Union Pacific Leesdale Local, alcohol or illegal drug use by operating crewmembers, and condition of the track or rolling stock. 2. Although the conductor of the Union Pacific Leesdale Local had likely used marijuana within 3 to 11 hours of the accident, this was neither causal nor contributory to the accident. 3. Considering the challenges of the recovery operations, the emergency response to the accident was timely, well coordinated, and effectively managed. 4. Because locomotive cab exits are not designed to be quickly opened in an emergency, firefighters could not rapidly enter the cab of the Union Pacific Leesdale Local to rescue the injured crew. 5. Physical evidence, documentary and recorded data, and postaccident signal examination and testing confirm that the westbound signal at Control Point Topanga was displaying a red aspect at the time Metrolink train 111 departed Chatsworth station and as it approached and passed Control Point Topanga, and had the engineer complied with this signal indication, the accident would not have occurred. 6. Eyewitness reports of seeing a green aspect from the Chatsworth station are contrary to the other evidence; postaccident testing and research show that witnesses could not have reliably seen the red aspect that the Control Point Topanga signal was displaying as train 111 departed the station because of a combination of extreme distance to the signal (more than 1 mile), lighting conditions at the time, and limitations of the human visual system. 7. The signal and traffic control systems worked as designed on the day of the collision, and the dispatcher's "stacking" of train routes played no role in the accident. 8. The engineer of train 111 was actively, if intermittently, using his wireless device shortly after his train departed Chatsworth station, and his text messaging activity during this time compromised his ability to observe and appropriately respond to the stop signal at Control Point Topanga. 9. The Metrolink engineer was aware that he was violating company safety rules when he used his cell phone to make calls or to send and receive text messages while on duty, but he continued the practice nonetheless. National Transportation Safety Board 65 Packet Pg. 132 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report 10. Although the conductor of the Union Pacific Leesdale Local violated operating rules by sending and receiving text messages during times when he shared responsibility for the safe operations of his train, any distraction caused by such use did not cause or contribute to this accident. 11. Because of the privacy afforded by a locomotive cab or train operating compartment, routine efficiency testing and performance monitoring practices are inadequate to determine whether or to what extent engineers or other crewmembers may not be complying with safety rules such as those regarding use of wireless devices or allowing access by unauthorized persons. 12. A train crew performance monitoring program that includes the use of in -cab audio and image recordings would serve as a significant deterrent to the types of noncompliance practices with safety rules engaged in by the Metrolink engineer and the Union Pacific Leesdale Local conductor in this accident and would provide railroads with a more comprehensive means to evaluate the adequacy of their safety programs. 13. Passenger survivability in this accident was determined almost exclusively by where an individual was located, and the extremely high collision forces resulted in a loss of occupant survival space in the forward two-thirds of the first passenger coach. 14. Had a fully implemented positive train control system been in place on the Ventura Subdivision at the time of this accident, it would have intervened to stop Metrolink train 111 before the engineer could pass the red signal at Control Point Topanga, and the collision would not have occurred. Probable Cause The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the September 12, 2008, collision of a Metrolink commuter train and a Union Pacific freight train was the failure of the Metrolink engineer to observe and appropriately respond to the red signal aspect at Control Point Topanga because he was engaged in prohibited use of a wireless device, specifically text messaging, that distracted him from his duties. Contributing to the accident was the lack of a positive train control system that would have stopped the Metrolink train short of the red signal and thus prevented the collision. National Transportation Safety Board 66 Packet Pg. 133 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report Recommendations As a result of its investigation of the September 12, 2008, collision of Metrolink train 111 with Union Pacific LOF65-12 at Chatsworth, California, the National Transportation Safety Board makes the following safety recommendations: New Recommendations To the Federal Railroad Administration: Require the installation, in all controlling locomotive cabs and cab car operating compartments, of crash- and fire -protected inward- and outward -facing audio and image recorders capable of providing recordings to verify that train crew actions are in accordance with rules and procedures that are essential to safety as well as train operating conditions. The devices should have a minimum 12-hour continuous recording capability with recordings that are easily accessible for review, with appropriate limitations on public release, for the investigation of accidents or for use by management in carrying out efficiency testing and systemwide performance monitoring programs. (R-10-1) Require that railroads regularly review and use in -cab audio and image recordings (with appropriate limitations on public release), in conjunction with other performance data, to verify that train crew actions are in accordance with rules and procedures that are essential to safety. (R-10-2) Previously Issued Recommendation Reclassified in This Report To the Federal Railroad Administration: R-07-3 Require the installation of a crash- and fire -protected locomotive cab voice recorder, or a combined voice and video recorder, (for the exclusive use in accident investigations and with appropriate limitations on the public release of such recordings) in all controlling locomotive cabs and cab car operating compartments. The recorder should have a minimum 2-hour continuous recording capability, microphones capable of capturing crewmembers' voices and sounds generated within the cab, and a channel to record all radio conversations to and from crewmembers. Safety Recommendation R-07-3, previously classified "Open —Acceptable Response," is reclassified "Closed —Unacceptable Action/Superseded." Safety Recommendation R-07-3 is superseded by Safety Recommendation R-10-1. National Transportation Safety Board 67 Packet Pg. 134 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report BY THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD DEBORAH A.P. HERSMAN Chairman ROBERT L. SUMWALT Member Adopted: January 21, 2010 CHRISTOPHER A. HART Vice Chairman Chairman Hersman filed the following concurring statement and was joined by Vice Chairman Hart and Member Sumwalt. National Transportation Safety Board 68 Packet Pg. 135 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman, Concurring Statement, Vice Chairman Christopher A. Hart and Board Member Robert L. Sumwalt, joining in: On January 21, 2010, by a 3-0 vote, we adopted the report on the collision of a Metrolink passenger train with a Union Pacific freight train in Chatsworth, CA. This action concluded our sixteen -month investigation into the September 12, 2008, collision that took 25 lives and injured 135. As our report concludes, the probable cause of the collision was the failure of the Metrolink engineer to comply with the red signal at Control Point Topanga because he was texting on his personal wireless device, in violation of company policy. Distracted from his duties, he did not stop the train and collided head-on with the approaching freight train. He did so, despite earlier track signals and radio calls indicating he would need to stop. Contributing to the accident was the lack of a positive train control (PTC) system that would have stopped the train short of the red signal and thus prevented the collision. In order to protect the safety of the traveling public, we reluctantly move further in this report, in terms of reducing privacy in the train cab, than we ever have before. We recommend that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) require the installation of audio and video recorders in train cabs for use in accident investigations and by management in carrying out efficiency testing and performance monitoring programs, and require railroads to regularly monitor these recorders to ensure employees are following the safety rules. Sensitive to privacy concerns, we have endeavored to respond to the inappropriate use of cell phones and other wireless devices in ways that minimize intrusions of privacy. The Safety Board's efforts in this area date back to May 2002, with an accident in Clarendon, TX, in which an engineer was using his cell phone during the time he should have been reading a track warrant notifying him to stop the train. This led to a head-on collision with an oncoming train. As a result, the Safety Board recommended that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issue regulations to control the use of cell phones and similar wireless communication devices by railroad operating employees while on duty. For more than 5 years, the FRA failed to address this issue -- until one month after the Chatsworth accident when it issued an emergency order restricting the use of cell phones and other distracting electronic devices by on -duty railroad operating employees. More recently, in May of 2009, the Safety Board investigated a collision involving two trolleys in Boston, MA. The operator of the striking train admitted to local authorities that he was texting his girlfriend in the moments immediately prior to the collision. In our Chatsworth investigation, records showed that the Metrolink engineer habitually violated company policy, such as the ban on the use of cell phones while on duty. On the day of this accident, he made four outgoing phone calls while he was on duty, and he sent or received 95 text messages, 41 of which were while he was on duty, including one 22 seconds before the collision. Also contrary to company policy, the engineer actively facilitated unauthorized persons to access the locomotive cab, and on at least one occasion, even allowed a minor to take the controls. Although he had been subject to efficiency and rules testing throughout his career and been counseled by management twice on his improper cell phone use, this inappropriate behavior continued. National Transportation Safety Board 69 Packet Pg. 136 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report Meanwhile, although not contributing to the accident, the conductor of the UP train was also texting moments before the collision. These were two different employees, working for two different companies, on two different trains. Our report concluded that, among other things, because of the privacy afford by a locomotive cab, Metrolink's routine efficiency testing and performance monitoring practices were inadequate to prevent the accident engineer from engaging in inappropriate behaviors. This is a watershed investigation for the Safety Board. Some may have concerns that the recommendations in this report are over -reaching, that they impinge upon individual privacy, and that the oversight footprint is too broad. We uniformly disagree. The Safety Board has long supported the installation of audio recording devices in locomotive cabs for investigative purposes. Recommendations regarding audio recorders in locomotive cabs have been on our Most Wanted Listed and have been closed and reissued over the years, but the FRA has not acted on these recommendations. Furthermore, what this and other accidents have shown is that traditional forms of oversight are not working. The Safety Board's history is filled with examples where significant accidents have resulted in significant change. In the early 1980's, the Safety Board began recommending the use of drug and alcohol testing for rail personnel. However, it wasn't until two major rail accidents in the late 1980's that Congress stepped in and decided that the societal benefits of mandatory testing outweighed any privacy concerns. Similarly, the Board has been pushing for PTC, or some version of it, for over 30 years. Finally, after this accident, Congress again stepped it to pass a bill requiring railroads to install PTC systems on passenger and certain hazmat routes by the end of 2015. Sadly, it took 25 more lives and an act of Congress to finally move PTC, on passenger rail lines, from testing to reality. Technology is a game changer - and our Chatsworth recommendations recognize this. Today, video recorders are everywhere, and we accept them. Video cameras record us at the ATM and record bank tellers at work. Whether we are in a casino in Las Vegas or at Walmart, there are cameras recording our every move. Even our Board meetings are webcast so that others may observe our work and monitor how well we are doing our job. In transportation, we have long accepted cameras for safety, surveillance and security. In many cities, our children and their bus drivers are recorded on school buses for behavioral reasons. Airports have cameras recording activities inside and outside of the terminals. At the Safety Board, we often use video provided by airports to identify crash sequences. Trains such as the freight train involved in this accident have been equipped with outward facing cameras mounted on the locomotives to record, among other things, grade crossing accidents. Motor coaches have inward facing cameras, which we have used in our investigations to correlate driver actions, vehicle performance and evidence from the roadway. There are even cameras photographing traffic light violators. On a daily basis, we use technology to monitor the machines - the health of the equipment, any needed maintenance, time between overhauls, and total cycles. We now have a corresponding obligation to use that technology to monitor the people operating the machines. The rail industry still relies on an extra person in the cab to monitor whether engineers are following safety rules. Because accidents such as Chatsworth are demonstrating not only that prohibitions have not been effective, but that monitoring the prohibitions has also not been National Transportation Safety Board 70 Packet Pg. 137 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report effective, we can, and must, exploit technological advances in equipment and communications to remedy this. The Safety Board is an independent agency. Our mandate is to investigate accidents, determine their probable causes, and issue recommendations to prevent them from happening in the future. We are a safety organization, and our mission is to make transportation safer for the travelling public. We cannot, however, do this work alone. While the Safety Board can constantly raise the bar, it is incumbent upon our partners, -- industry, labor and the regulators - to take the next step and implement our recommendations. The Safety Board's work on this accident investigation has opened a lot of eyes. What we are recommending recognizes that technology brings problems but technology also provides solutions. We did not make these recommendations lightly. In reconciling our concerns regarding privacy, we note that Congress has charged the Safety Board to identify safety deficiencies and make recommendations to improve safety. It is a responsibility that we take seriously. Yes, it's an intrusion. Yes, it affects privacy. But when individual behaviors endanger the lives of the travelling public, we are obligated to do everything possible to ensure their safety. Just as we cannot turn a blind eye to that responsibility, however, neither can management turn a blind eye to the behavior of bad actors who are not doing their job. Management is, and must be held, accountable for the performance of their employees. Professionalism is doing the right thing when nobody is watching. But as the Chatsworth investigation uncovered, this particular engineer was not likely to do the right thing unless he thought somebody was watching. This is a new paradigm, this area of distractions. It is changing how humans behave, how they interact with one another, and how they react in normal and emergency situations. Our recommendations from this accident will make some people uncomfortable. They may even make some people angry. But it is not the Safety Board's job to recommend the easy things. It is the Safety Board's job to be a catalyst for change and to raise the bar. If we are serious about addressing distractions in the operating environment and serious about putting safety first, then we must put the collective ahead of the individual. We believe our recommendations are a step in that direction. National Transportation Safety Board 71 Packet Pg. 138 1.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report Appendix A: Investigation Notification The National Response Center notified the NTSB of the accident about 7:45 p.m. on September 12, 2008. The investigator -in -charge and other members of the NTSB investigative team were launched from the Washington, D.C., headquarters office and from the Chicago, Illinois; Gardena, California; and Jacksonville, Florida; field offices. The NTSB's investigation focused on all aspects of the accident, including operations, track, signals, mechanical, human performance, survival factors, crashworthiness, event recorder, and cellular telephone issues. The on -scene investigation was completed on September 20, 2008. Member Kathryn O'Leary Higgins was the Board Member on scene. Safety Board investigators returned to the Chatsworth, California, area for follow-on investigative activities during October and November 2008 and January 2009. Parties to the Investigation Participating in the investigation were the FRA, Metrolink, Connex Railroad, LLC, Union Pacific Railroad, California Public Utilities Commission, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, United Transportation Union, Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles Fire and Rescue, Bombardier Transportation Corporation, and Mass Electric Construction Company. Public hearing A public hearing on this accident was held at the NTSB Conference Center on March 3- 4, 2009. Representatives of all parties to the investigation participated in the hearing. National Transportation Safety Board 72 Packet Pg. 139 '.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report Appendix B: Recommendation History on Employee Performance Monitoring The NTSB has, in rai172 as well as in other modes of transportation, long advocated the use of recorded data not only for accident investigation, but also for safety management and employee oversight. For example, in its investigation of the November 6, 1993, collision of the passenger ship Noordam with the Maltese bulk carrier Mount Ymitos near the entrance to the Mississippi River ,73 the NTSB found deficiencies in bridge watchstanding. As a result, the NTSB recommended that the U.S. Coast Guard require the installation of voyage event recorders (VERB) on all vessels over 1,600 gross tons operating in U.S. waters (Safety Recommendations M-95-5 and -6). The NTSB noted that, when used for management oversight, VERB (also known as voyage data recorders, or VDRs) would help prevent accidents, and that when used for accident reconstruction, VERB would help investigators determine what measures will promote greater safety in the future. In its investigation of the July 16, 2004, multi -vehicle accident near Chelsea, Michigan, 74 the NTSB found that the accident was initiated when the driver of a tractor -semitrailer combination failed to stop upon encountering traffic congestion in a temporary traffic control zone, likely due to reduced alertness because of a failure to obtain adequate rest. The driver's hours of service at the time of the accident exceeded Federal limits by 5.75 hours. Contributing to the accident were motor carrier's insufficient regard for, and oversight of, driver compliance with Federal hours -of -service regulations, and the failure of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's (FMCSA) to require motor carriers to use tamperproof driver's logs. In its investigation of the accident, the Safety Board determined that data from the electronic on -board recorder (EOBR) in the accident tractor were instrumental in the reconstruction of events leading to the accident and in the assessment of the accident driver's hours -of -service status. Because of the value of these data and the deficiencies identified in the FMCSA's hours -of -service compliance review program, the NTSB concluded that carriers should use EOBRs to verify compliance for all operators subject to hours -of -service regulations. Therefore, in 2007, the NTSB recommended that the FMCSA require all interstate commercial vehicle carriers to use EOBRs so that the carriers and their regulators could monitor and assess hours -of -service compliance (Safety Recommendation H-07-41). The NTSB's investigation into a number of aviation accidents also prompted recommendations related to the use of accident recorders for operational oversight by safety managers. For example, in its investigation of the October 14, 2004, crash of Pinnacle Airlines 72 For example, see NTSB Safety Recommendations R-81-65, R-81-67, R-84-38, R-87-21, and R-90-17. 73 Collision of the Netherlands Antilles Passenger Ship Noordam and the Maltese Bulk Carrier Mount Ymitos in the Gulf of Mexico November 6, 1993, Marine Accident Report NTSB/Mar-95/01 (Washington, DC: National Transportation Safety Board, 1995). 74 Rear -End Chain Reaction Collision, Interstate 94 East, Near Chelsea, Michigan, July 16, 2004, Highway Accident Brief NTSB/HAB-07/01 (Washington, DC: National Transportation Safety Board, 2007). National Transportation Safety Board 73 Packet Pg. 140 '.c NTSB Railroad Accident Report flight 3407 near Jefferson City, Missouri ,75 the NTSB found repeated instances of unprofessional conduct by flight crews during repositioning flights when no passengers or cabin attendants were on board. This behavior occurred for a number of reasons, including the crews' perception of a low risk of detection. As a result, the NTSB recommended that the Federal Aviation Administration require those regional air carriers having the capability to review flight data recorder data from nonrevenue flights to use that data to verify that flights are being conducted in accordance with standard operating procedures (Safety Recommendation A-07-7). Most recently, the NTSB noted that a flight operations monitoring program, had it been in place, may have helped prevent the collision of two helicopters carrying out helicopter emergency medical services flights in Flagstaff, Arizona, on June 29, 2008. The two Bell 407 helicopters collided in midair while approaching the Flagstaff Medical Center helipad. The NTSB determined that the probable cause of this accident was that the two pilots failed to see and avoid each other as their aircraft approached the helipad. Contributing to the accident were the failure of one of the pilots to follow arrival and noise abatement guidelines and the failure of the other pilot to follow communication guidelines. The NTSB concluded that the systematic monitoring of data from helicopter emergency medical services flights could provide operators with objective information regarding the manner in which their pilots are conducting these flights. The NTSB further concluded that a periodic review of such information, along with other available information such as pilot reports and medical crew feedback, could assist operators in detecting and correcting unsafe deviations from company operating procedures. As a result, the NTSB recommended that the FAA require helicopter emergency medical services flight operators to install flight data recording devices and establish a structured flight data management program that reviews all available data sources to identify deviations from established norms and procedures and other potential safety issues (Safety Recommendation A- 09-90). 75 Crash of Pinnacle Airlines Flight 3701, Bombardier CL-600-2819, N8396A, Jefferson City, Missouri, October 14, 2004, Aircraft Accident Report NTSB/AAR-07/01 (Washington DC: National Transportation Safety Board, 1995). National Transportation Safety Board 74 Packet Pg. 141 1.c May 25, 2023 TO: Plannimg Commission Chairman Renee Berlin, Vice Chairman Tim Burkhart, Planning Commissioners Dennis Ostrom PhD, Patsy Ayala and Lisa Eichman Mayor Jason Gibbs, Mayor Pro Tem Cameron Smyth, City Council Members Laurene Weste, Marsha McLean and Bill Miranda Mike Hennaway, Director of Public Works Jason Crawford, Director of Community Development Joseph Montes, J.D. City Attorney Santa Clarita City Hall 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: 13th Street Train Track At -Grade Crossing & Risks Created by Your Proposed Issuance of Land Use Entltlements for Shadowbox Studios Northeast of Intersection of 13th Street and Train Tracks Intersection in "Newhall" Ladies & Gentlemen: I am writing concerning the proposed land use entitlements for the land development and building of structures associated with the proposed Shadowbox Studios with public road access only on 13th Street in Newhall/Santa Clarita, northeast of 13th Street's intersection with the freight and passenger train tracks parallel to Railroad Avenue west of the Shadowbox land (the "Project"). For your information, this is the best available of who the purported property owner LA Railroad 98 LLC, a subsidiary of Shadowbox Studios,is: https://variety.com/2022/film/news/blackhall-studios-shadowbox- silver-lake-1235294113/#! As usual they are complete outsiders to Santa Clarita, just like our old adversary Santa Clarita LLC was, and yes a list has been compiled as to who among Santa Clarita Valley elected officials the property owner, its parent company, Shadowbox Studios, their majority owner Commonwealth Asset Management, and the other large investor Silver Lake investment fund have made political contributions to. 1 Packet Pg. 142 As those of you who were my personal friends when I lived in Santa Clarita, CA in 1998-2003 will remember, I am a member of the State Bar of California now retired, and I was a member of the Whittaker Bermite Community Advisory Group ("CAG") for that entire period of early 1999-April 2003. As you will remember due to my participation in the CAG, I had dear friends in both the local pro -business development and environmental/ neighborhood protection oriented communities because we were working together to protect Santa Clarita from pervasive toxic substances in our ground water and in soil which sometimes blew through the air in the center of our community. I am writing to remind you that you "Old Timers" like Cameron, Lauren, Marsha and Dennis DO that the internal fortitude to be "tough" on multi -million dollar corporations while at the same time not totally stymie-ing new development in the City. Think of how long, and how many times, the Arizonans who were the "developers" of the Whittaker Bermite property sued the City. You stood up to them and protected the public. You've got to do it again on the "risk of train crash" issue with respect to the at - grade crossing of 13th Street and the Metrolink/freight train tracks at the southwest corner of the Shadowbox Studio project. When I was forced to move out of Santa Clarita in mid-2003, due to being gravely injured in the 2003 Burbank Metrolink crash, there was a thermal oxidizer just west of what is now Golden Valley High School and just north of the eastend of Circle J Ranch spraying the most deadly substances on earth, dioxin, into Santa Clarita's air as part of the sometimesr eckless "clean-up" of the toxic contaminated groundwater and wet soil (aka vadose soil) on the Whittaker Bermite property. The installation and use of the dioxin -producing thermal oxidizer was foisted onto Santa Claritans and you as a City sometime prior to 1998, without notice to or the consent of the public or the City. What you as a City, the 4 local water agencies, and the members of the public who cared about the toxic contamination accomplished was that because we were aggressive and talked tough to the multi -million dollar corporation (Meggitt and its subsidiary Whittaker Corp.) and to the regulators DISC and AQMD, they all knew that we Santa Claritans were not going to just roll over and acquiesce in their "money saving" maneuvers for Whittaker's benefit and the benefit of the then property owner Santa Clarita LLC out of Phoenix. We as a community demanded the most ultra -cautious rules -of -the - road for the toxics clean-up. We as a community succeeded, though it took about about 20 years and litigation (plaintiff and N Packet Pg. 143 '.c defense side) by the City, CLWA et al and our forgotten little group of CAG members called PERC. Most of the toxic substances on the surface of the 998 acres are cleaned up, except for the dioxin offsite which is still sitting on the soil/ground where it blew out in the wind after coming out of the exhaust stack of the thermal oxidizer onto open spaces northeast of that ghastly machine (or to the southwest of the thermal oxidizer when the Santa Ana Winds were blowing. THE EXPERIENCE OF DEALING WITH WHITTAKER CORPORATION (and the clowns at Santa Clarita LLC and Bermite Recovery LLC) showed that YOU the City decision -makers DO NOT have to pander to 'business interests' or 'job creators' in order to protect the health and safety of Santa Claritans as a whole, or the health and safety of an individual neighborhood, like Placerita Canyon and Newhall residents in the case of Shadowbox Studios. You DO NOT have to sell out your voters and local taxpayers (sales tax and vehicle registration tax) to create jobs or 'dreams'of Council members in Santa Clarita for expansion of the movie/TV production business in the City. So now, due to the fact that I became a defacto "expert" on train crashes through my own bad, life changing experience as a passenter on a Metrolink train that crashed, I am writing to you at the request of my still -friends who live in Placerita Canyon, and my former client SCOPE, to give educate you about WHAT I LEARNED ABOUT THE DIRE EFFECTS OF TRAIN CRASHES ON THE LIVES OF ORDINARY PEOPLE CURRENTLY LIVING, WORKING OR GOING TO COLLEGE IN PLACERITA CANYON. The potential for a disastrous DEADLY train crash at the at -grade crossing of 13th Street and the existing train tracks, exacerbated by theo building of Shadowbox Studios improvements (the Project -user impact of which is the Project's parking for 2,500 cars used by Project site employees, guests/actors/film crew visitors who DO NOT PRESENTLY USE that city street/train track intersection, plus the existing residents/teachers/students of Placerita Canyon, plus people who will live in more houses in Placerita Canyon in the future when its still vacant land is developed, or even more likely its population more than doubled due to the State law entitling property owners to build ADUs in a massive number. All of those thousands of people will be waiting at the ONE train track/13th Street intersection, to enter or leave Placerita Canyon, creating a traffic jam far, far worse than anything Burbank was encountering in the early 2000's in the lead up to "my" Metrolink train crash at the Buena Vista/Metrolink and freight trash crossing where our train was recorded as traveling at 69 MPH when the crash occurred. W Packet Pg. 144 1.c Common sense would tell YOU that as a pre -condition of approval of Shadowbox Studio the City should be requiring a second roadway/train track at grade crossing, to be built at Shadowbox Studios expense, at the northern end of the Shadowbox property, to "encourage" Shadowbox employees to enter and exit "up there" rather than on 13th Street. But "No" that would require too much chutzpah and common sense on the part of City officials who wish to pander -to and kiss the wealthy behinds of Shadowbox Studios owners, who you do not even know. Shame on you if you vote to approve the Project design as is, with the current Conditions of Approval. You will be intentionally harming the future safety of Santa Clarita residents to line the pockets of mega -millionaires. You didn't do it with Meggitt or with Mr. Kim. The factual/legal basis of my comments BELOW, about the train crash(es) which ARE going to happen to Santa Claritans including those who reside in Placerita Canyon, AT THE 13th STREET/TRAIN TRACK AT GRADE CROSSING once YOU and Shadowbox Studio and its mega-million-dollar-compan entity owners-LLC members WILL massively increase the negative consequences of a train crash at 13th Street does not rely on the California Environmental Quality Act or its associated regulations ("CEQA"). HOWEVER it occurs to me that because the Los Angeles Superior Court ruled that CEQA required Tejon Ranch and L.A. County to evaluate the effects of a massive brushfire on a residential development 'at the top of the Grapevine' there is no functional difference between that brushfire risk and the City Council approving the Shadowbox Studio Project's land use entitlements where those land use entitlements CREATE a heightened risk of a disastrous -to -human -lives train crash because of the intensity of a traffic jam caused by the Project generating enough car and truck traffic to significantly block 13th Street at those railroad tracks, trapping people in their cars and killing or maiming them WHEN a train crashes, let alone endangering Santa Claritans who might be riding on a Metrolink train through the intersection. The CEQA documents in front of your City decision - makers NOW say absolutely nothing (in terms of analysis) about the Project creating a large traffic jam at that train track/street intersection where far more people would be injured or killed after the Project was built than if a train occurred there today. Remember CEQA mandates that the CEQA documents evaluate the Project's effects on the environment, including the human environment. The Shadowbox Studios Project's CEQA documents do not do that as to the wildly increased risk the Shadowbox Project's increased traffic and traffic jam at the train/13th Street at grade crossing will cause many, many more deaths and injuries than without the project when a train crash happens in a traffic jam there. EA Packet Pg. 145 1.c And as described in the NTSB Report for "my" 2003 Burbank Metrolink train crash, the crash was caused by a Universal Studios truck driver being impatient about waiting until "the gates went up" at the intersection, trying to drive through the downed gates, and "getting his truck stuck" in too short a time frame for the Metrolink train engineer to see the stuck -truck and stop the train in time to avoid the massive train crash caused by the train hitting that Universal Studios truck that day. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WHEN YOU THE CITY DELAY SHADOWBOX STUDIO TRUCK TRAFFIC, PROJECT USER CAR TRAFFIC, LET ALONE OTHER PLACERITA CANYON TRAFFIC, THROUGH A JAMMED UP 13th Street/Train Track intersection. Outside of CEQA, here's how a train crash at the 13th Street/train track intersection will affect the lives of residents of Santa Clarita AFTER you have issued the land use entitlements for Shadowbox Studio, based on what happened in the 2003 Burbank Metrolink crash at the train track and Buena Vista Street's at -grade crossing (the "Burbank BV Crossing": (1) The Burbank BV Crossing had terrible traffic jams prior to 2000 or so, causing car and truck drivers to take ridiculous risks as the freight and passenger trains approached. As a result, the City of Burbank at its own expense decided to "widen" the Burbank BV Crossing. They hired a civil engineering firm named Tetra Tech to do the design work. The City Engineer https://variety.com/2022/film/news/blackhall-studios-shadowbox- silver-lake-1235294113/#!apparently was clueless about Federal design standards for train track/urban street intersections. (2) The City of Burbank stupidly signed a contract -for - engineering -services with a SUBSIDIARY of Tetra Tech, not the mother ship. The City of Burbank also didn't bother to required that its contract -party carry an amount of design liability insurance commensurate with the amount of money damages to innocent people the civil engineer's design error would case. The Tetra Tech subsidiary only carried $1 Million in liabililty insurance, whereas the amount of measurable, special damages (medical bills and lost wages) suffered by the injured passengers in the 2003 Burbank Metrolink crash (plus the family of the 1 dead passenger) amounted to $63 Million at the time of trial without adding "general damages" for physical disability, pain and suffering, and wrongful death/loss of consortium. The City of Burbank's City Engineering employees, in-house City Attorney, City Manager and Council didn't "give a rat's patootie" about the potential damages Tetra Tech's malpractice could cause the public, let alone residents of Burbank, if the civil engineermade a "mistake" during the design of the new Burbank BV Crossing. (3) The Burbank City Engineer did not know anything about Federal 61 Packet Pg. 146 design standards for street/train track crossings. The civil engineer/employee of Tetra Tech also didn't not know anything about those Federal design standards. It is worth noting that the Tetra Tech employee INSISTED on taking the 5th Amendment when his deposition was taken after the 2003 Burbank Metrolink Train Crash ... even though the trial judge instructed the Tetra Tech subsidiary's employee that he couldn't "take the Fifth" in a civil lawsuit. (4) The civil engineering plans created for the Burbank BV Crossing did not meet the NTSB's design standards as of the drawing of the plans and specifications for street/train track crossings in an urban area. (5) The City Engineer of Burbank did not know/realize that the plans and specifications for the Burbank BV Crossing didn't meet the NTSB design standards, but the Burbank City Attorney took the position that it didn't matter what the City Engineer understood ...because the City and its employees had "sovereign immunity". Ultimately that City paid $0 for the damages its employee caused to victims of the 2003 Burbank Metrolink Train Crash. (6) Once the City of Burbank's employees had approved the Plans and Specifications for the design of the new, widened, improved Burbank BV Crossing, they were sent up to the California Public Utilities Commission for its civil engineering employees approval. (See the link at the bottom of this letter which shows you, generally, the same process is in effect today 20+ years later.) (7) The PUC's in-house lawyers refused to allow its PUC employee who had approved the plans and specifications for the Burbank BV Crossing to be deposed in the 2003 Burbank Metrolink Train Crash case being litigated in the Superior Court in L.A. County. However, he was interviewed by an NTSB investigator and that man admitted that he, too, didn't have a clue about the NTSB design standards which applied to the Burbank BV Crossing. The PUC's in-house attorney's office sent a letter to Metrolink, Universal Studios and Tetra Tech (the main defendants) asserting that the State had no liability for its employee's error in approving the design of the Burbank BV Crossing because of "sovereign immunity" and "judicial immunity" because the Commission is considered to be a "court" of the state. (8) The 2003 Burbank Metrolink Train Crash had happened at approximately 9:30 AM on January 6, 2003, when the Universal Studios employee truck driver Jack Wysocki got impatient, tried to run his truck through the downed at -grade train track crossing gates in violation of California's Vehicle Code) and the Metrolink train which had left Via Princessa Station slammed into the truck at aat 69+ miles per hour after the engineer say the [i Packet Pg. 147 truck on the tracks, applied the brakes, but didn't have enough room to stop the train (which had been traveling at 80 MPH.) The first car of the train (not an engine) which I was a passenger in had all of its wheels (aka trucks) ripped off as we bumped over the Universal Studios truck, squashing the truck driver and the cab of the truck, but not the bed of the truck where the gas tank was located. Our passenger train car was called the "Cab Car", with the engineer in a cubby hole at the front, like the driver's seat at the front of a subway car. The locomotive engine was "in the back" of the train, with it operating in "push more" as do all southbound Metrolink trains passing through Santa Clarita and Burbank. That cab car/first passenger car broke free from the rest of the train and spun down the tracks, for a quarter -mile, like a boomerange, and then fell over on its side (180 degrees opposite from its intended direction, i.e. the front of that train car facing backwards) with only a few feet between the dirt where the train car lay on its side and the "curb lane" of the southbound 5 Freeway. Because that first train car had no power, the doors were jammed shut. The passengers in my train car, the first car, were buried in debris as all of the "innards" of the train car, ceiling, wall panels, glass and parts of seats fell apart and on top of us. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN A TRAIN CRASH AT THE 13th STREET/TRAIN TRACK AT -GRADE CROSSING RIGHT NEXT TO THE SHADOWBOX STUDIO PROJECT IF IT IS BUILT, BECAUSE SOME IMPATIENT DRIVER THERE, STUCK IN A BIG TRAFFIC JAM CAUSED BY THE PROJECT, WILL TRY TO "BEAT THE TRAIN" OR GET STUCK IN THE DOWNED GATES LIKE THE UNIVERSAL STUDIOS TRUCK DID. After I was unburied, I was put on a stretcher and then hoisted at a 90 Degree angle out a train -car window, further injuring my spinal cord. That sort of injury is common when a Metrolink train car derails and ultimately falls on its side in a violent train crash. While I was laying on a stretcher adjacent to the bottom of that first derailed train car, waiting for an ambulance to take me to the hospital, all the firemen, paramedics and cops walking around were saying "It was a miracle" that the first train car didn't squash any of the autos waiting at the Buena Vista intersection (like happened in the 2005 Glendale Metrolink crash, with the derailing train cars hitting a freight train on the right, then an oncoming passenger train on the left) The "derailing train car flying sideways" and hitting stopped -in -the -traffic -jam passengerscars at the 13th Street/Train Track intersection. I expect passenger -car deaths and injuries to happen when a train crashes at the 13th Street/train track intersection just west of the driveways for Shadowbox Studios. VA Packet Pg. 148 During the immediate aftermath of the 2003 Burbank Metrolink Crash, the firemen, paramedics and cops also were saying it was a miracle the derailing passenger train car didn't squash cars on the paved curb land of the southbound 5 Freeway parallel to the train track, which was less than 20' away from the train track (just like you're going to see with Shadowbox Studio Project's and buildings and parking area being parallel to the existing train track. The second passenger car of the train in the 2003 Burbank Metrolink Crash caught on fire when the gas tank of the Universal Studios truck blew up while being squashed by that train car. The doors in both the first and second train cars in that 2003 Burbank Metrolink crash jammed shut through lack of power, and it was a miracle the passengers in the second on -fire train car survived. (The passengers in the first car of the 2008 Chatsworth Metrolink train crash were not that lucky. After being butchered and squashed as a freight train engine "telescoped" into their first passenger aka cab car, those passengers who were left breathing were burned alive) because the cab car's doors were jammed shut. The key point to be made is that when there is a train crash, the train cars do not automatically neatly fall over on their sides. Very, very often they fly "sideways" while derailing, ending up at a 90 degree angle or so to the track they were traveling on. That's what kills other people innocently waiting in traffic jams at street/train track at -grade crossings. And as shown in the recent freight train crash in Ohio, the crashing cars cargo often immediately catches fire, burning grass, cars and buildings near the track. I once read an NTSB crash report on a train crash where empty freight cars were thrown 70' away from the tracks in a train crash. That can also happen to Metrolink passenger train cars, because they are, in essense, tin cans on wheels. I should also point out, for the record, that Metrolink passenger trains do NOT have seatbelts and many passenger deaths and serious injuries (including 60a of MY spinal cord at belly -button level) are caused by the lack of seatbelts. I know these gory details of the 2003, 2005 and 2008 Metrolink train crash because the law firm where I worked at the time of "my" train crash became my lawyers, became the "Lead Counsel" in the 2003 Burbank Metrolink Crash, merged with the Lead Counsel in the 2002 Placentia Metrolin Crash, where 2 passengers were decapitated at the waist. By the time of the 2005 Glendale Metrolink Crash, and then the 2008 Chatsworth Metrolink Crash, I was emotionally stable enough to be a "hand patter" for their injured clients and the families of the dead passengers since the E:3 Packet Pg. 149 law firm became the Lead Counsel in both of those 2 train crashes. My woman lawyer's intuition, as a train crash victim, tells me you the City of Santa Clarita are going to have mayhem in a train crash at the 13th Street/train track intersection in Newhall after Shadowbox Studios Project is built as planned. I guarantee you that if and when such a Metrolink train crash happens at the 13th Street at -grade crossing with the existing train tracks, in this Project is built I will either show up (like Erin Brockovich recently did in Ohio for their train crash) or after I am dead my son Derek Shaw and daughter Vani Shaw will show up in Santa Clarita to tell YOUR voters and political supporters the deaths and injuries in the train crash at the 13th Street/train track at -grade crossing immediately adjacent to Shadowbox Studios is YOUR fault, because it will be. You can't approve this massive, car and truck intese Project there, with the uncontrollable ADU development expected in Placerita Canyon over the years and NOT expect a major, deadly train crash to happen when drivers both east and west of the 13th Street at - grade crossing get frustrated and take rash actions just like the Universal Studios truck driver did in "my" Metrolink crash on January 6, 2003. And the train crash victim's pain doesn't end in the hospital. Here's what happens next: (9) At the time of the 2003 Burbank Metrolink Train Crash both Universal Studios and Tetra Tech ended up being insured by the same insurance company, AIG (the one which failed in 2009 and was bailed out by the Feds.) At a meeting in early 2006 with all of the injured plaintiffs' lawyers, and with Universal Studios lawyer, the lawyer for Tetra Tech announced that Tetra Tech was about to file a Chapter 11 for its subsidiary whose employee had designed the Burbank BV Crossing. None of the lawyers for the other defendant or the plaintiffs in the room were happy, but they understood what Tetra Tech was planning: Forcing a stalling of the coordinated lawsuit trials by the injured train crash victims and Metrolink (which lost several Million with a wrecked train car ... the one I had been riding in) would be denied a trial for which we had been waiting for 3 years with not a dime paid by any of the defendants,(unlike the tradition of the airline industry when tere is a plane crash and they often immediately start paying replacement wages to the passengers who survive the crash.) So each of the injured plaintiffs was called on the phone, and asked to OK settling their claim against the civil engineering firm/Burbank BV Crossing designer for Tetra Tech for literally �*J Packet Pg. 150 pennies on the dollar, i.e. Tetra Tech subsidiary's insurance policy limits prorated about the victims. Ali of that $1 Million went, by way of California law, to refund the money spent on our medical bills by our health insurers and we injured parties never saw a dime from the under -insured civil engineering firm Tetra Tech. I fully expect the private civil engineering firm hired by the Project developer or the City to "redesign" the 13th Street/train track at grade crossing to pull the same bankruptcy stunt when a train crash happens just to the west of Shadowbox Studios on 13th Street. That situation, with the civil engineers who "set up" the crash to happen being let off the hook through the bankruptcy ploy, led Universal Studios to be liable for ALL of the injured passengers damages, and for Metrolink's damage claim for the wrecked train car, all caused by the impatience of Universal Studio's truck driver because he was stuck at the Burbank BV Crossing in a traffic jam. (10) At the 2003 Burbank Metrolink Crash trial, where I was the lead -plaintiff, Universal Studios was found 100° liable by the jury in a verdict rendered in a "liablity trial" in May 2006, with the jurors saying, by their verdict "Universal Studios and its employee caused this train crash" including the death of the one passenger and the serious injuries of 30+ innocent passengers. Then AIG filed a meritless appeal and jerked all of the victims around for another 16 months after the trial, not paying the money judgment against Universal Studios. THE FOREGOING SCENARIO IS EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO INNOCENT SANTA CLARITANS WHEN THE GIANT, CONSTANT TRAFFIC JAM AT THE 13TH STREET/ TRAIN TRACKS AT GRADE CROSSING HAPPENS EVERY TIME A METROLINK OR FREIGHT TRAIN SHUTS THE INTERSECTION ... AFTER THIS SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PROJECT IS BUILT. THERE WILL BE A TRAIN CRASH BECAUSE OF THE FRUSTRATION OF TRUCK AND CAR DRIVERS BECAUSE OF THE HUGE TRAFFIC JAM, GIVEN THE NUMBER OF DRIVERS WHO WILL BE USING 13th STREET, AND BOTH THE SANTA CLARITANS ON THE TRAIN, AND SOME OF THE SANTA CLARITANS STUCK IN THE TRAFFIC JAM ON 13th STREET WILL BE GRAVELY INJURED OR DEAD. Your political careers will be over when such a train crash caused by your approval of this Project occurs, and a substantial 10 Packet Pg. 151 portion of Santa Claritans, including the families of the injured and dead victims will blame you forever. You City officials will deserve the blame, because train crashes are guaranteed to happen with the massive at -grade crossing traffice jam you will creat by approving this Project at what will become a wildly over -loaded street/train track intersection and at -grade crossing which is at the only entrances/exits to/from the Project which will have 19 TV/movie sound stages and at least 2,500 people on it during busines hours, trying to come and go during business hours, while trains whose schedultes or speeds YOU cannot regulate (10 Eventually, to TRY to ameliorate the traffic jam at the train track at -grade crossing on 13th Street, you the City will forced to use the City's eminent domain power to 'condemn' a public right of way through the HOA gate at the east end of Placerita Canyon Road, taking the gate down completely, and then all your friends, supporters and voters in Placerita Canyon will blame your approval of this Project for that reason as well. Conclusions and Recommendations to City decision makers: I know that there is a lot of rhetoric in the business community that letting Shadowbox Studio build its project is "better than" allowing houses or condos to be built on what used to be called the "Mayer Group property" the Shadowbox property. I won't express an opinion on that. However if you do approve the TV/movie studio Project on that property, to protect the public safety you MUST: (A) Require Shadowbox Studio to get railroad, PUC and any other approval of a second road/track crossing at the north end of the Shadowbox land to be a major exit from the project, and reduce the traffic/drivers put at risk at the lath Street/track at grad crossing; (B) Require the installation of a traffic signal about 100' east of the actual train tracks on 13th Street to safely "hold back" people in a traffic jam when a train shuts the at -grade crossing down, so that the drivers will be a safe distance back; (C) Install a streettraffic signal on the west side of the train tracks facing where 13th Street meets Railroad Ave. because the 2003 Burbank Metrolink Crashillustrates that "vehicle drivers" do not always respect downed railroad crossing gates; (D) Do not allow any driveays for Shadowbox Studio in the space between the traffic light 11 Packet Pg. 152 1.c described in (B) and the train track, and required sychronized red signals facing north where the Shadowbox Project driveways will enter the entire 13th Street east -west path, so you do allow the cars nd trucks from inside the Project to come out onto lh Street when there is a "train coming or passing". Keep the traffic jam inside the safety of the Shadowbox Studio Project's internal roadway as much as you can; (E) Enact a City ordinance provinging that no City employee, like a City Engineer, can shorten the red lights/gates down time period until the train actually arrives and passes, so that the City employee doesn't "cut it too close" for a safe stoppage of car and truck traffic to pander to a griping public/electorate who use 12th Street/Placerita Canyon corridor... That's exactly what the Burbank City Engineer did shortly before the 2003 Burbank Metrolink train crash; (F) Require a set -back of all structures on the Project site at least 50' east of the actual train track, so that when a train derails on the track north of 13th Street, people are not "squashed" and buildings are not knocked down by the derailing train cars; (G) Ideally, for the safety of users of the Shadowbox Studio do not even allow surface parking spaces in the 50' setback described in (E) so that people on foot or parking their cars on the Project do not get squashed either; (H) Require a non -climbable fence along the entire railroad right of way adjacent part of the Shadowbox land, so that it is hard for suicidal or crazy people on the Project site to run out onto the tracks; (I) Understand that based upon what happens in most train crash/derailments the "real" safe distance in (F) and (G) is 100'; (J) Require installation of fire hydrants every 100' or so along the entire north - south property line of the Project, so 12 Packet Pg. 153 1.c that if a train catches on fire adjacent to Shadowbox Studio that the L.A. County Fire Department has access to a water source to fight a train -fire; (K) Require Shadowbox Studios and its property -owner subsidiary and each successor in title to the Project to always carry a $200+ Million liability insurance property to specifically insure the human victims of any train crashes at the new at -grade crossing described in (A), at the old 13th Street/ railroad track crossing, or (B) on the Shadowbox Studio property, and require that the liability insurance policy specifically provide that it is insurance coverage over and above the Federal train crash damages limit in effect at the time of any train crash. (Remember that the injured victims and families of the dead in the 2008 Chatsworth Metrolink crash did not even recover the amount of their medical bills because of the wildly unfair Federal damage liability limit designed to protect freight train lines like the one which uses/owns the track along Railroad Avenue and like grossly negligent train operators like the French train company Veolia whose pedophile train engineer employee was texting with young boys he described as "train enthusiasts" by the press, while that engineer should have been watching for red signals along the track. That Veolia engineer grossly negligently killed 35 innocent rain passengers, and Veolia the employer didn't pay a penny in damages because Metrolink's profoundly stupid elected officials forming its Board of Directors had previously voted to indemnify Veolia for all future train crash liability, even if a Veolia employee committed a crime or was grossly negligent. (L) Require the civil engineering firm hired by Shadowbox Studios and the fee title owner to require (and give you proof) that the civil engineering firm has obtained $200 Million in professional liability insurance 13 Packet Pg. 154 1.c which will permanently be in force and effect in the even a train crash occurs at the 13th Street/Train Track at -grade crossing they design, so that train crash victims do not get stiffed like Tetra Tech did to the victims of the 2003 Burbank Metrolink Crash, where Universal Studios and Metrolink both blamed Tetra Tech's negligent employee for being joint and severally liable with Universal Studios for causing the that train crash. The bottom line is that IF you the City Council and Planning Commission approve the Shadowbox Studios Project, you are creating a major risk of death and injury to Santa Clarita residents and you darn well should do everything possible to mitigate that risk to the public both physically and economically. Sorry to be tough on you, but sor far "you people" are really, really downright reckless and foolish if you approve the current text of draft of the "Conditions of Approval" of the land use entitlements for the Shadowbox Studios "Project" that you and your pals in the Santa Clarita business and movie/TV production community are pushing to the detriment of the general public in Santa Clarita and specifically to the detriment of the safety of the residents of Placerita Canyon. If you approve the Conditions of Approval for the Project, as written, all 5 of you Council members deserve to be defeated next time you run for re-election because your approval vote will show that you do not have the common sense or intellect to safely run a sophisticated physically complex city, which is what Santa Clarita is today. Its no longer the friendly little 'burb of 1999-2003 which my kids and I loved. Please learn from what I learned from the 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2008 Metrolink train crashes, and apply it to make this Project safer, or don't approve it at all. Sincerely, Jennifer Kilpatrick, J.D. 10955 Fintry Hills Street Las Vegas, NV 89141 (361) 236-0095 California PUC Railway References: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/rail-safety/rail- crossings-and-engineering/rail-crossing-formal-applications 14 Packet Pg. 155 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/rail- safety/railroad-operations-and-safety/rail-operations-federal- laws https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/about-cpuc/divisions/rail-safety-division 15 0 T" IL U c� d 0 L a. 0 0 r U) x 0 3 0 ca z U) 0 c m E E 0 U t� a a� E s ca r a Packet Pg. 156 1.c Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 10:28 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Concerns about Studio Project 21-109 -----Original Message ----- From: High Priestess <misshighpriestess@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 10:18 AM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Concerns about Studio Project 21-109 CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. To whom it may concern I am writing to express my alarm and concern that project 21-109 is being planned in a way which will devastate our precious old oaks trees. As you may know we just lost something like 1800 old growth trees with the fulfillment center behind the cemetery Local law requires that these oaks are replaced with other trees, but this hasn't even come close to happening. As a concerned citizen I'm outraged that other trees are being put a risk. Trees are a frontline defense for climate change, keeping temps down and providing shade. Please protect the prominent ridgeline and the flood plain of Placerita Creek. Please allow more time for review by extending the comment period. copy to all planning commissioners. Please reconsider your plans or face the wrath of the community. Regan, concerned citizen. Packet Pg. 157 S o % � 9 k � 2 ~ Packet Pg. 158 1.c FROM: SCOPE P. 0. Box 1182 Canyon Country, CA 91386 TO: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita Ca 91355 RE: Master Case No. 21-109 aka Shadowbox Studios Enclosure For Administrative Record on Final Planning Cornrnissicn decision in 2023 To the City Of Santa Clarita City Clerk & Planning Agenty (as Defined in Cal. Gov't Cade}: Endes€d Please find, for you io include in the Administrative Record on the above described Master Case to be heard AND DECIDED by the City's Planning Commission in or after June 2023, the enclosed Washington mast news story print out dated 5/27/23 entitled "Miles -long trains are blacking first responders when every minutounts"...in particular ambulances to rescue profoundly ill and injured people such as those who five or attenc/work at Masters College "behind" the 13th Street/train track at -grade crossing. In particular please make sure this information is distributed to the 5 PiannTng Commissioners prior to their Vole on the rezoning and tentative tract map for Shadowbox Studios i.e. the Master Case, Also please make sure this information is made a part of the Administrative Record which 'rs considered by the Santa Clarita City Council in any appeal to them of the Planning Commission's Packet Pg. 159 1.c decision(s) on that Master Case. Sincerely, t � i )nnifer ilpatrick, !). Expert Witness on Train Crashes for Santa Ciarita Organization for Planning the Environment (SCOPE) je ki I pat ri c k@ ya hoo. cc m (361) 236-0095 cc: Lynne Piambeck, SCOPE President Packet Pg. 160 5.f27f23, LQ:49 PM Long trains are Wocking flat respondefs when every minute Coots - Washington Pn�51 1.0 Miles -long trains are blocking first responders when every minute counts Nationwide, longer and longer trains are obstructing ri.�rar intersectjons, preventing paramedics from getting to ern rgencies, including a baby who died after his mom waited and waited. Packet Pg. 161 5127123. 10 49 FN ti':' 1k Y k C T- N U c.� d 0 L a fA _O r U) K O O cC t c!1 C d E E O U c� m z a a� s ca r a Packet Pg. 162 1 wms, 141:39 PM Lang trams are hlucking first responders when every rn fnule counts - Washington P= 1.0 LEGGETT, Tex. — A rnan suffered a stroke but a stopped train blocked paramedics from reaching him for over an hour. A senior in a nearby retirement community missed his oncologist appointment because another train obstructed that same intersection. A fire crew could not get to a Douse engulfed in flames until another train eventually cleared the crossing. For decades, those living along Glover Road in Leggett, Tex. — a rural community with fewer than i5o residents about So miles from Houston — wrote letters, sent emails and called authorities pleading that trains stop blocking the neighborhood's sale point of entry and exit for hours. Some residents and a county judge sent letters addressed to the railroad company, warning of a `°greater catastrophe," including a toxic train disaster. "Should there be a derailment ... we would be dead ducks, having no evacuating route," fete Glover, the Haan whom the street is named after, wrote in a 1992 letter to the railway company. "If some home caught afire," he added. there'd be "no way for firetrucks to sen a them.." To many in the community, their worst Bars were realized in 2021, when baby I('Twon Franklin died. His mother, Monica Franklin, had found the 3-111011th- old unresponsive in her bed the morning of Sept. Sa, and called c)1a. Paramedics responded, but a Union Pacific train blocked their loath on Glover Road, according to Franklin and a local police report. It took more than 30 minutes for them to carry W on into an ambulance. Two days later, the baby died at a hospital in Houston. "Unfortunately, the delay has cast my child's life," Franklin, 34, told The Washington Post. Packet Pg. 163 ' e � Y �y l '' •• `c �' mot. �',i�, -�a 5127123 14 A9 PM Long trains are bfockiog first responders when every rwute counts UVashlrigton Post � fir,% `F . i`f 'i s:i ? c.t., # :r i ti:J}PZAn� .,°� i for 3U g pc-.-Vx',Vss, f�?�.,;� $... .�. .. 4: ej � �,C- ir t1 c:t a i? c ;w.'. € z.avts, 1r..,Zva ' 'r?zt0C,4':: yb'E j'• �" ` ti µ . ? f t Over the past decade, rail corporations have been running more lengthy freight trains — some as lung as three miles -- partly to save fuel and labor casts. As they do, they are blocking rural and urban intersections, staring anger and contributing to tragedies and calamities. Much of the nation's focus has peen on a long N-,(1 0,11 So ltIIe l t ry 1 �l ai 4_ e, Ohio, in February, sparking a toxic fireball and prompting state and federal investigations. But while Congress has shown some renewed concern about rail safety, there has been little focus on an everyday safety threat — long trains blocidng first responders from getting to emergencies. It 1s happening across the country. In Tennessee, a � a� n 0 e,I n4fa ilne livlax after an ambulance crew was held up,"" a train crossing. In 01dahorria, a . r s 4;3 from, a hcarz: after first responders were stuck behind a train at the only entrance to their street. Since 2019, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA.) has operated a digital portal where citizens can }e t,aL! liw trah):'>. So far this year, there have been more than 1,400 reports of first responders blocked by trains. There have also been documented cases of fr-Listrated pii5 e5i: sans c s" lffnu ch-. I. c�Z,,Medk trains, only to be injured or killed when the main starts marring. Packet Pg. 165 SIZ7123, IfP49 Phi Long trains are Mocking frsi resp©nders when every minLite counts - washing ton Post I 1.0 F { ------ 'At gMdaawficm. ammis, the 1 In Texas, Ik on#s mother has filed a lawsuit against Union Pacific,claiming its routine blockage of the Glover Road intersection prevented paramedics from reaching her child, thereby causing his death. In response, the railway company has offered its sympathy and said it is working to resolve problems at intersections in Leggett and other communities. "Our hearts go out to K'Twon's family on this tragic situation," the company said in a statement. "Union Pacific is in the early phases of litigation discovery, investigating the overall factual timeline, including whether the presence of a, train had any impact on first responders' ability to revive I'Twon. We understand the impact 'blacked crossings have for community residents and work diligently to reduce the amount of time -trains occupy the crossing." Many residents of Leggett put little stock in such pledges. Schools superintendent Jana Lowe is one of several local leaders and residents who have been writing, and calling Union Pacific for yearn warning that obstructions at the Glover Road crossing — such as school buses delayed for hours — could lead to something more horrific. Packet Pg. 166 "I fairly believe that thiq rwd a vhilri'q lifp that -OiF-v pi-m-i't nh]P to ari-+ tbi3rck d,F I 5127M. 1649 PM Lang trains are blocking first responders when every minute counts - Washington Forst 1.0 time," she said. "It's heartbrealdng. It could have been avoided." Packet Pg. 167 W27M. 10:49 PM Long (rains are tOcking NEST resPOMers where evvy rrAnute counts • Washirg= Pori 1.0 In his 25 years as a locomotive engineer, Eddie Hall saw his trains grow longer and longer. He can recall when they were just over a mile in length. Before going on leave last venter, he was driving a three -mile -long Union Pacific train with as much as 18,000 tons of mixed freight on his regular Tucson-to-Fl Paso route. He has seen his line of freight cars disrupt traffic for hours in small and rural towns, lie said adding that in Tucson, trains can block the dov►wntown's four railroad crossings for as long as an hour. "Whatever they block, they block," said Hall, who now leads the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers .and Trainmen. "The carriers really don't take into consideration hove lung we sit on rail crossings." Packet Pg. 168 M3, 3a:49 PM Long trains are blocking first responders vithen every minute ccunts - Washinglon Post 1.c Trains have mushroomed in length for a simple reason. — to save money and generate profits for railway companies and their sharehoiders. Roughly two decades ago .° • . . -�ti :; J � .. , k ,.., r ., 11:1 I = ,to } i. a L .1 ,-, a 3 as t �C t `L$;,; c t _ become more efficient by reducing labor and fuel costs. So railroads adapted an operating model that cut crews and consolidated trains, known as "precision scheduled railroading," By using longer trains, nail companies are operating fewer shorter trains, increasing fuel efficiencies and decreasing casts and their carbon footprints, industry officials say. U.S. trains are gaming longer- and longer Average freight cars per train 77.1 .f 74 212 70 M LN1) 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2C)OO 2005 2LACI 2015 2G20 Galculatpd by dividing car -miles (woltioling,, emptieg) bytraftmli; inrev a;�dsl trF3itis cj3rl be hurt in car rldrnlaer, but the cars can be long. intermadal Makes up the lariest segment of railroad traffic. Squrce:Azscciation 01 nmedcarl Railroads ISF FAJVF,-.iA. j RF M8*dN[-:T(AJ POST It has paid off. BNSF Railway and Union Pacific, the two largest railroad corporations in the nation, hive reported record earnings in recent years. U.S. railroads have paid out },Iftri€ ltiul.= and dividends to shareholders since 2010. Rail industry officials say the use of longer trains has also helped inipro,.Te safety, and they point to an overall decline in derailments. But in the aftermath of the East Palestine spill, federal regulators have warned that long trains (:I,, - and can contribute to derailments. Packet Pg. 169 5127123, 1649 PM Long trains are blocking firsl responders w*n every minute camt,� -+.NaShington Bost 1.0 About 1,000 trains derail annually nationwide, according to the FRA, including a spate this year. After the Ohio incident, : .. E '.re } €'t €ay. ; � �, ::n ? 'r"ti : ? _: >? In Anacortes, dash, in raid -March, spilling diesel fuel. Also in March, a train passing through Springfield, Ohio, went o_f # s __dk — prompting a shelter -in - place order and l'��`._- ;.._ t�5 �f��� � �d after a train L •- S.i. carrying ethanol derailed and caught fire. An FRA advisory last month urged railroads to make sire that engineers are adequately trained to handle long sets of freight cars and that locomotives don't lose communication with devices at the end of trails that can Delp trigger the brakes in an emergency. Federal regulators also highlighted safety risks associated with blacked crossings, particularly how stopped trains can impede access to emergency services. 0,t d;r i' ... ._.s;f,e'a3ifia e• ®,,ii. i.t#.`,t ..:t - ,'i `� ��':�" r.Sr'=� .. _ . �:� ti' "t: Crf Et i�.�.•.�,.i;?; r,n < `; r*? ,A +ta ;yy rta r�. �+ (s� � Packet Pg. r 3L' 70 rs yd- yfiVI!Or i?1 }oti"_p,.€C Lang Irains are blocking first responders when every minute counts -Washington Plus r{•�€.'�?'t•ii3;5'S6 �r fly, 3 rfdv4,,q, n-111 I CAS: Mar:' , Ca, In S-4,. e.. nr� %'°` "� wefr,a The FRA's recommendations stopped short of mandating, limits can train sizes, which some labor unions and localcommunities have demanded. Members of Congress and state lawmakers in at least five states have proposed establishing length restrictions in the wake of the Feb. 3 Norfolk Southern derailment in Ohio. In that incident, federal im,,estigators have said that an overheating wheel hearing led the 149-car train to derail. The train's length, approximately 1.8 miles long, bas not been identified as a potential factor. Union pacific CEO Lance Fritz said in an earnings call last mot tb that accident data doesn't show that long trains are riskier. He said that since 2oig, train length is up by about 20 percent in his railroad's network, while mainline and siding derailments are dawn by 26 percent. "There's zero coroll,ary between train length and derailments," Fritz said. Packet Pg. 171 Labor unions. however. sav longer trains tend to rec idrf� more-maintpnnnPf" 5127123, 10:49 PM Long trains are blocking first responders when every rninute rounts - Was hinglon Rost 1.0 conflicts In communities, "When you have fiat responders trying to get from one side of the track to another, in a small town like that, yatt're putting the public safety at risk,' Hall said. Packet Pg. 172 6127123,10:49 PM Long trains are bimking first responders when every minute counts • 'Washington Post 1.0 Leggett, an hour north of Houston, is an unincorporated community surrounded by farms and cattle ranches, a part of the Gulf Coastal Plain once carpeted by vast timberlands. At one point, there were as many as 20 sawmills in the area, and the railroad was at the center of the region's early economy, delivering pulpwood to a paper mill near Houston. These days, the residents of Glover Road, a mile -long dirt road bordering the train tracks, receive little benefit from the railroad, and must cope with some hazards. Long trains carrying ethanol, fertilizers .and other chemicals stop I Packet Pg. 173 5f2M3, 10:49 PM Lang Mains are himking frt51 resp rderswhen every minute counts - Washington Past 1.0 nearby switching station multiple times a duty, often blocking the single crossing that connects Glover Road and its two dozen bonzes to the rest of Polk. County. "One time they sat there for three hours," recalls Kathy Crowhurst, a resident of 18 years who awns the Good Gl' Daze retirement community. She said her tenants — ages 55 to 98 -- have had to cancel doctor's appointments or wait can the other side of the tracks to get home. Schoolchildren are often late to class when the train blacks school buses. ct:,r ix�ntlr� <3,i rJ-E:FtZP' °l.r L7M. - � # 'c; �' 9 ;, vi t - � re;"-W!,ICi:ouirnv fs?' tJmodit. 1°',;4 ..9r1d ,hc1 `9 t ii o ,:.E' ,4p 41 1.. r;' n t i In 2o2i, a train blocked a fiiretruck on its way to a Douse fire on Glover load, said Corky Cochran, chief of the Livingston Volunteer Fire Department, which includes Leggett in its territory. Fortunately, another truck had already made it to the scene: and they didn't need more water. Good luck, Cochran said, "or the fact that God has been on our side." Another scare came on Jan. 1g. That night, Crowhurst's fiance' Pete sufferer =acketPg. 174 &27125. 10:49 PM Lang Irains are blocking Vrst responders when every minule counts - Wash Ington Pohl 1.0 stroke and her 911 call coincided with a train pulling into town. "'4+ITe waited and waited," said Crowh`trst, with no help showing up just after 8 p.m. Finally, she saw flashlights and two paramedics hurrying across the tracks and the half -mile stretch to her house. It took about 30 minutes for the emergency Crew to get h1in to the hospital. Her fianc6, who was battling grain cancer, survived the stroke, but Crowhurst said it was a dangerously close call. Trains black the Glover Road crossing several times a day, and are unpredictable in their tithing and duration, residents say. Trains on the main single track pull to a siding track so one corning in the apposite direction can go through. That was the cause of the obstruction that prevented paramedics from quiddy reaebing baby 'Twon, Union Pacific said in a statement. Every time there's an incident, Crowhurst, 65, notifies Poly. County Judge Sydney Murphy, who sends an inquiry to the milroad. Murphy said residents have been pleading for relief for decades, while she has been asking Union Pacific to helps with at least one road option that would improve access for Packet Pg. 175 71 rr�ieiPnfc nn chap 'tarona cT'Ap nfthp 5127123, 19:49 PM Lang trains are blocking frsi respanders when every minute Counts - Washington Past 1.c The solution ivould be to build a short connector road to another crossing, giving Glover Road residents a way out. They could then cross the tracks and drive 1.5 minutes to Livingston, the nearest town. Or if all crossings were blocked in Leggett, they could tape the long wayto Livingston, about a 45-minute drive. Railroad can out access for those en the wrong side of the tracks If a train is stopped in the town of Leggett, residents on the wesi; side of the railroad cannot cross at Glover Read. Building a short connector to Farm to Market Road 94-2 wat:ild provide a way out to the next -closest town, Livingston. (en train is, en Trajil Is IRRA i Leggett EX AS t � 1 b� s9x 3IIfto, r"tar road ti. . C.al iM8 Crossing When no rt'aw is . . hL*Mi WWO. p'll'P1zl a �r�v rrri a arty 15-rni-i We dr i ve aion LUS. Route 59- rA Openstlee-twispimwFibilars LARLS KARKUS AND LEE F'CYl'4'„LL J?"r;F VM+LSPACTi ON POST 0 N U ci 0 a fA _O U) X O M O to t U) N Y C am E O U U a a� E s c.� to a In its statement, Union Pacific Said It is committed to working with commlil Packet Pg. 6 5/27/23, 10:49 PM Long trains are hlcmWng hrSI respnrders Wien evuy minute wunis - Washington Post 1.c officials and residents say that, despite the county and state facilitating land acquisition, the railroad has not trade it a priority_ "They're so slow -moving and now we have a deceased baby," Murphy said. Along with naggingconcerns about safety, many in Leggett say they've last the most basic of liberties — the freedom to move around. Simple everyday errands — such as a trip to the dog groomer or a visit to the doctor — generate uncertainty. Joyce Davis, 76, who has lived in the corn munity her whole life, said she has friends who are hesitant to visit, fearing they will get stuck by a blocked train. She hears it so often, she said, it has become a running joke. "Don't come over here on your lunch Dour, just in case," she said she tell,, her friends. Packet Pg. 177 tt27123, 10:49 PM Long trains are blocking first responders when every minute counts - WashIngton Post N 0 Lm a. in 0 U) x 0 0 . C a) E E 0 U ca c I Packet Pg. 178 sjznf 3, 10;49 PM Long IraIns are blacking first responders when every minute counts - VOshingtori Post 1.0 Like many of her neighbors, Franklin had repeatedly called Union Pacific to report trains blocking Glover Road, the only, way in and out of the trailer where she lived at the time with her two daughters, her then -partner and ICT won. She said she had prayed for a baby after years of being told she could not have more children. Sometimes, Franklin said, a stepped train would prevent the school bus from picking up or dropping off one of her daughters. Her complaints to Union Pacific, Franklin said, went unanswered. She remembers having a conversation about train delays with Lowe, the schools superintendent, just before the worst day of her life, Sept. So, 2021. Packet Pg. 179 5127123. 10.49 PM Long "Ifls are NackIng WS1 r-&SpDndL3F!3 when Fwy mklute ccurlL5 - Washing1©n Pc),st a Packet Pg .180 27M,.10 49 PM Long trains are blcirricirg first respendets when every minute counts - WashOgron Post 1.c That morning, after leaving her bedroom, Franklin returned to check on IcTwon, she said. But the curly haired baby didn't move when she touched him. Alarmed, Franlin, a registered nurse, checked for his pulse_ He still had some color on his face, Franklin recounted. She called 911 and started to perform CPR while talking to the operator. The operator instructed her to continue until help could arrive. But when paramedics found their path blocked by a train, theywere forced to crawl under the train cars, according to a Polk County Sheriff police report, and Franklin grew increasingly desperate. Whip in route was detained bytraIn crossing blocking bath rofrtes to the residence. Did proceed by traveling down dirt path to get as close to residence as possible. Crawled under train car and was met by a sheriff deputy and the mother carrying the baby to rneet me. I took the baby in my arms and proceeded to return to the ambulance when the train started moving and I was unable to get across the tracks ... ..._ 11p .i a'r;e{. c �_respmr iI aril,€If#.' -,, -r..1 SE:'s;�:. i k ""'i, Cat, lty ;het —'! fIF, i` vyr a: Eri jacivS r,F She ran toward them with the baby in her arms. 'There, on a cross tie, Franklin and a paramedic continued CPR for several minutes, she said. Finally, the train moved on and paramedics were able, to hustle KTwon into their ambulance, more than half an hoar after Franklin had called gi1, she said. When he died two days later, Franklin was grief-stricken and angry. Crater, she made plans to move her family far away from Leggett. ni can't live close to a train track," she said, adding that even the sound of a train hoar haunts her. Packet Pg. 181 5JZ7/23,,Ib:49 PM Long iraIns are Mucking Nrsl responders when every minule ccunts - Washinglen Past 1.c 0 N U c.� d 0 L a fA _O r U) K O m O cC t U) c!1 C d E E O U c� m z a a� s ca r a Packet Pg. 182 W.M3, 10A9 PM Long trains are block4lg first respxnOer5 w4eri Mry minute Wur+ls-WAshington Post 1.c As public concern mounts over derailments and blocked crossings, state and federal leaders in both parties are calling for tougher regulation of railway companies. After the tonic disaster in Ohio, two Republican U.S. senators, Marco Rubio of Florida and J.D. Vance of Ohio, sent 'Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg a pointed letter. In it, they questioned why the federal government wasn't doing more to police railroads that are "naming more freight -with fewer workers." "It is not unreasonable to ask whether a crew of two rail workers, plus one trainee, is able to effectively monitor 150 cars," the senators wruie_ T The Railway Safety .Act, which would require railroads to maintain a tall -free. Packet Pg.1s3 number where people can report blocked crossings, .�.� � � s� r;� . 5/27/23, 1b:49 PM Long trains are blocking first responders when every minute counts - Washington Post 1.0 would set standards for trackside safety detectors, apply new rules to trains transporting hazardous materials and curb efforts by railroads to reduce their workforces. On the state level, at least five legislatures — in Arizona, Iowa, Missouri, Virginia and Kansas — were reviewing bills this year to restrict train lengths. Most are looking at restricting the length of trains to.1.6,miles.. , It is still an open question, however, if states hold the legal authority to regulate railroads, which have long enjoyed protection under the 1887 Interstate Commerce Act. Last year, for instance, the Ohio Supreme Court struck down that state's law that set a five-minute limit on how long stopped trains can block crossings. The court ruled that federal law preempts such state restrictions. In response, the attorneys general of 18 states and the District :?. ....................... to affirm authority to regulate state authori blocked railroad crossings "in the interest of public safety." It is not known whether the high court will take the case. Packet Pg. 1 4 VZ7183, 10:49 PM Long trains are ufacking 'first responders when every minute wants - Washington P'cst 1.0 In March, the U.S. Supreme Court im ited the federal govern-ment to offer its position on whether state and local governments can regulate how long trains can block railroad crossings. It could be at least the fall before the nation's highest court decides whether to take the ease.. In the meantime, the FRA saes it is working with the National Academy of Sciences on a study of trains that are longer than 7,500 feet. The study — Packet Pg. 185 5127123, 10:49 PM Long tl aifts are bloding first resMfid rs when every nunute counts - Wuhjn.�Ion Post 1.0 to be complete later this year, as is a report the FRA is preparing for Congress can blocked intersections. The agency's database of rail crossing complaints provide a snapshot of what communities are facing; Late forwork, last wages," reads one complaint from Villa Grove, Ill. "Students can't get to school," someone reporting up to 2 hours of delays -in Keyser, .Va.,, -said.-"Local-businesses are unable to work,' said another in Los Angeles. There have been several ernsrgencies that have happened, including cne house burning down because the fire truck could not. get across the ONLY CROSSING. : c ::�, , .. . , :i P� •#a Yr ,� Lriv`s"�r ��ti. ?;ifs i,� .e =�;::s'...,. � ,. i. ft. � ��;i�i�', i'.'. 4, :. ;aF?'€;�''� ra.sr ¢ , :. �': k rt gtt t���';."•: t' Efi ;�� � i'. �'ti".u�! L��1rtl ���4. The FRA said it has not investigated specific instances in which blocked crossings delayed emergency response, saying those cases would be a matter for local officials and law enforcement. It says that it 'continues to encourage railroads to prevent and minimize adverse impacts caused by blocked crossings." The Association of American Railroads, which represents the industry, says limiting train length to 7,500 feet, as some state lawmakers have proposed, could increase U.S. freight train fuel consumption by about 13 percent_ The solution, the industry says, is to work with communities to minimize the frequency of blocked crossings. The association says crews are trained to reduce the occurrence of blocked crossings, and dispatchers are alerted when crossings are blocked and have ,authority to address obstructions_ But with more than 200,000 grade crossings: across the United States, some impacts are inevitable, the industry says, citing those as the trade -riff of transporting ,goads. `Railroads are aware of their impact oncommunities, particularly grade crossings, and sympathize With those who may be affected by train. movement,' the AAR said in a statement_ While the association declined to comment [] Packet Pg. 186 5127I23, 113:49 PM Long trains are bloackrg rirst reWnders when every minutle mounts - Vltashingfon Post 1.0 shipping goods by rail reduces freight truck shipments, thereby reducing congestion can roads and highways, ► 're, km 1-.�n the In Leggett, Walter Peden recently surveyed his fainily's old homestead, which burned down years ago, along with many other hones nearby, including his wife's grandmother's house, which he said caught fire last year. Train blockages did not contribute to firefighter response to ;any of these blazes. Mill, Peden is somewhat resigned to the fact that trains will block fire crews and paramedics from reaching his property and others on Glover Road. "Trapped," he said, describing how he feels. Not everyone is giving up. Murphy said she'll beep lobbying for a fix to the Glover Road crossing. She concedes, though, that small communities lacy the funding and clout to get infrastructure built quickly, even when the public is at risk. "It's extremely concerning,, not just for me, not just for Poly County, but across the entire United States," Murphy said. "In rural communities you can1ju Packet Pg. 187 'We'll Ro to the next crossinjz' because there is no next crossing. V27I23, 1049 PN Long trains are Utocking tirsi responders when query r►rinure counts - Wishirrgton Pusi 1.0 A U 3i0; i :�:] �!F 1: 'N `st-- � ,47.3.i- z-w e 4 ' „e `°3 p a ,.:' a e e g �� ,.r3 ti.�i s �,1?F�r e�"x s`.€?a iri��> �'�� ..P��.�3:C .:3�.E�tr.e3#J� ..�.'�� tJ3?, ,%?,:� E�; 5y�}. J � �r- + {i Kti ��.• F? �i: ti i,,`s' �'.�1 i! T�iy*� f P^t°x5��i 1 Lazo repo tedftorni Washington, Abo"t this story Reporting by Andrea 5aloedo, Luz Laze and Lee Powell. Phonography and videi* by Lee Powell. Design and development by Aldson Mann. Editing by Stuart Leavenworth, Amanda Veiserd and Joe Moore. Copy editing by Colleen Neely_ By �f}dj= ea Sat(-.P- JIo AnOrea Saicedo is a general sssignmeM reporter for -lhe Washington Post. Sloe joined The Post In 2020 as an [nvvmr t reporter on the Morning Mix team. Previxsiy, she covered betaking nows and features for the New York Times metro desk. ' :.ter Packet Pg. 188 B5+ Luz l�zo 3rL7/Z3, fOAR PM Lang trains are Noci ing first responders when every Anute counts - w AgNrgtom Past and airtravel in the Washington region and beyond. She joined The Post in 2011. Twitter 1.c By Lee FIQy -Ik Lee Powell is a senior video i-epoi-ter at The Washington Post. He shoots, produces, writes and edits his gown stories that appear on washingtenpost,cm. Previously, he was based in the Washlrigton bureau of the Associated Press and before that, he, reported forthe Dallas Morning Nms. V IydtteC 0 N U c.� d 0 L a 0 _O r K O O cC t c!1 C d E E O U c� a a� E s ca r a Packet Pg. 189 Dear Santa Clarita planning Commission, I am reaching out to seek information and clarification regarding the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and the potential requirement for an additional ingress and egress to the studio campus as a condition of approval. I have several questions that I would greatly appreciate your assistance in addressing_ 1. Could you please provide further details on the reasons behind the absence of discussions to date regarding the need for an additional ingress and egress to the Shadowbox Studios campus? What factors were taken into consideration when determining that no such access point was necessary? 2. Has a comprehensive traffic impact analysis been conducted to evaluate the potential effects of the proposed ingress and egress on the surrounding roadways? If so, what were the findings of this analysis, and how were they taken into account during the planning process? Specifically, I would like to inquire about the simulation presented during the May 16th Planning Commission meeting, which demonstrated congestion on Railroad Avenue. How will this issue be addressed? Additionally, what does the simulation depict when a freight train passes (averaging 8 times per day in 2017)? 3. How would the addition of an extra ingress and egress align with the overall transportation infrastructure plan for the Santa Clarita area? Does it seamlessly integrate with existing traffic patterns and roadways, or would it necessitate significant modifications to the surrounding transportation network? 4. What measures are being considered to ensure that any newly established ingress and egress points are designed in a manner that minimizes potential traffic congestion and prioritizes safety for both studio personnel and the general public? 5. Are there any provisions or plans in place to enhance public transportation options to and from the Shadowbox Studios campus, taking into account the potential increase in traffic associated with the project? 6. Has the local community been consulted or involved in the decision -making process regarding the necessity of an additional ingress and egress? If so, what feedback has been received from residents and local businesses, and how has it influenced the considerations of the planning commission? 7. Have alternative solutions or approaches been explored to address the traffic concerns without requiring a new ingress and egress? If so, I would appreciate learning more about these alternatives and the reasons why they were not deemed suitable for the project. S. Will there be any specific conditions or restrictions imposed on the use of the new ingress and egress points to mitigate potential negative impacts, such as limiting their usage during peak traffic hours or implementing traffic control measures? 9. How will the effectiveness of the new ingress and egress points be monitored and evaluated once they are operational? Are there plans in place to address any unforeseen issues or make necessary adjustments as needed? Thank you for taking the time to consider and respond to these questions. I am eagerly anticipating your insights and clarification on the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and the potential need for additional ingress and egress requirements. Sincerely, "! ^_ % ,r , Name: Address: % y Z �A 0,6j Packet Pg. 190771 Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, MASTER CASE NO: 21-109 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to inquire about the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and the possibility of a requirement for an additional ingress and egress to the studio campus as a condition of approval. I have several questions regarding this matter and would appreciate answers to be provided: Could you please elaborate on why there has been no discussion to date requiring an additional ingress and egress to the Shadowbox Studios campus? What factors were considered in determining there was no need for an additional access point? Has a thorough traffic impact analysis been conducted to assess the potential effects of the proposed ingress and egress on the surrounding roadways? If so, what were the findings of this analysis, and how were they taken into account during the planning process? Specifically, in the simulation shown at the May loth Planning Commission meeting, backup on Railroad Avenue was evident. How will this be addressed? What does the simulation and backup look like when a freight train (average 8/day in 2017) goes by? How would an additional ingress and egress align with the overall transportation infrastructure plan for the Santa Clarita area? Does it complernent existing traffic patterns and roadways, or does it necessitate significant modifications to the surrounding transportation network? What measures will be taken to ensure that any new ingress and egress points are designed in a way that minimizes potential traffic congestion and maximizes safety for both studio personnel and the general public? Will there be any provisions or plans to enhance public transportation options to and from the Shadowbox Studios campus, considering the potential increase in traffic associated with the project? Has the community been consulted or involved in the decision -making process regarding the need for an additional ingress and egress? If so, what feedback has been received from residents and local businesses, and how has it influenced the planning commission's considerations? Are there any alternative solutions or approaches that have been explored to address the traffic concerns without a new ingress and egress? If so, what were these alternatives, and why were they not deemed suitable for the project? Will there be any specific conditions or restrictions imposed on the use of a new ingress and egress points to mitigate potential negative impacts, such as limiting their use during peak traffic hours or implementing traffic control measures? How will the effectiveness of the new ingress and egress points be monitored and evaluated once they are operational? Will there be any mechanisms in place to address any unforeseen issues or make adjustments if needed? Thank you for taking the time to consider and respond to these questions. I look forward to your insights and clarification regarding the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and the need for additional ingress and egress requirements. Sincerely, z n Name: t � C Address: } k A_ Packet Pg. 191 Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, MASTER CASE NO: 2 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to inquire about the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and the potential requirement for at least one additional ingress and egress to the studio campus. I have several questions regarding this matter, particularly regarding the impact on emergency response vehicles, and would appreciate your response: Has there been any consideration given to the potential impact of traffic delays and increased travel times on emergency response vehicles in the surrounding area? How will the proposed project affect the response times of emergency services? Will there be any measures in place to ensure that emergency services are not significantly affected by the lack of additional ingress and egress points? Are there plans to provide emergency vehicles with priority access or alternative routes to mitigate potential delays? Has the planning commission consulted with local fire departments, police departments, and emergency medical services to assess the impact of the proposed ingress and egress on their operations? What feedback or recommendations have been provided by these emergency services regarding the project? Will the proposed project include any infrastructure improvements or modifications, such as dedicated emergency vehicle lanes or traffic signal preemption systems, to facilitate the smooth flow of emergency vehicles in and out of the studio campus? Have there been any simulations or studies conducted to evaluate the impact of the proposed ingress and egress on emergency response times? If so, what were the findings of these studies, and how have they been taken into account during the planning process? Will there be ongoing coordination and communication between the studio campus management and the local emergency services to address any potential issues or concerns that may arise during the operation of the new ingress and egress points? Are there any plans for emergency preparedness and response training programs to ensure that studio staff and personnel are adequately trained to facilitate emergency vehicle access and support emergency responders in case of an incident? How will the effectiveness of the measures taken to mitigate the impact on emergency response vehicles be monitored and evaluated? Will there be regular assessments or reviews to address any issues that may arise and make necessary adjustments? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I look forward to your insights and clarification regarding the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and the potential impact on emergency services. Sincerely, r f: A" Address:+ Packet Pg. 192 MASTER CASE NO: 21- 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR Dear Santa Clarita planning Commission, I am writing to inquire about the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and the potential requirement for an additional ingress and egress to the studio campus. In relation to this matter, I have several questions, including concerns about labor union strikes and general picketing by unions. I would appreciate your response: Has there been any consideration given to the potential impact of labor union strikes on the ingress and egress points of the Shadowbox Studios campus? Are there contingency plans in place to address potential disruptions caused by strikes and to ensure the safety and security of all involved parties? Will there be a designated gate or entrance specifically designated for labor union activities during strikes or other labor -related events? If so, how will this gate be identified and communicated to the labor unions and relevant parties? Have discussions been held with labor unions or representatives to understand their needs and requirements during strikes? What measures will be in place to facilitate peaceful demonstrations and ensure that ingress and egress for non -striking personnel are not hindered and safe passage for residents? Will there be security personnel or law enforcement presence to manage and monitor labor union strikes, ensuring that access to the studio campus is maintained for non -striking personnel? How will communication and coordination be handled between studio management, labor unions, and law enforcement agencies to ensure the safety and smooth operation of the ingress and egress points during labor union activities? Are there any limitations or conditions that will be imposed on the use of the ingress and egress points during labor union strikes, such as specific hours of operation or alternative access routes for non -striking personnel? Has there been any analysis or assessment of the potential impact of labor union strikes on traffic flow in the surrounding area? Are there plans in place to minimize disruptions to traffic and mitigate any adverse effects on the local community? Will there be any monitoring or evaluation mechanisms in place to assess the effectiveness of the designated gate and overall management during labor union strikes? How will feedback and lessons learned from such events be incorporated into future planning and decision -making processes? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I look forward to your insights and clarification regarding the proposed Shadowbox Studios project, including any considerations related to labor union strikes and the designated ingress and egress points. Sincerely, Name: Address: Packet Pg. 193 1.c MASTER CASE NO: 2 Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR Dear Santa Clarita planning Commission, I am writing to inquire about the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and the potential requirement for an additional ingress and egress to the studio campus. In light of recent labor union strikes in various industries, I have some questions regarding the project's preparedness and planning in such scenarios, I would appreciate your response: Has there been any consideration given to the potential impact of labor union strikes on the ingress and egress points of the Shadowbox Studios campus? Are there contingency plans in place to address potential disruptions to traffic flow during strikes? Where will be the designated gate or access point specifically designated for use during labor union strikes or picketing of non union shows? How will this gate be determined, and what measures will be implemented to ensure the safety and security of both striking workers and other individuals accessing the studio campus? How will the choice of the designated gate during labor union strikes and non union show picketing align with the overall traffic management plan for the Shadowbox Studios project? Will this gate choice aim to minimize disruptions to traffic flow in the surrounding area? Has the project engaged in discussions or negotiations with labor unions or other relevant stakeholders regarding strike -related access and traffic management? If so, what feedback or agreements have been reached to address these concerns? Will there be any communication protocols established between the studio management, local authorities, and labor union representatives to facilitate smooth traffic operations and ensure the safety of all individuals in the canyon during labor union strikes? How will the public be informed about the designated gate and any alternative traffic routes during labor union strikes? Will there be clear signage and communication channels in place to guide drivers and minimize confusion? Will there be any temporary traffic control measures implemented, such as additional signage, traffic officers, or road closures, during labor union strikes or non union show picketing to ensure the safety and efficiency of traffic flow in the vicinity of the Shadowbox Studios campus? How will the effectiveness of the traffic management measures during labor union strikes be monitored and evaluated? Will there be mechanisms in place to address any issues that may arise and make necessary adjustments to minimize disruptions? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I look forward to your insights and clarification regarding the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and the potential need for specific ingress and egress considerations during labor union strikes. Sincerely, Naive: I Address: Z �i � J_ (.- 5 Qf (1_ Packet Pg. 194 Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, MASTER CASE NO: 21 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to inquire about the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and the potential requirement for an additional ingress and egress to the studio campus. I have several questions regarding this matter, particularly concerning the impact on emergency response vehicles, and would appreciate your response: 1. Has there been any consideration given to the potential impact of traffic delays and increased travel times on emergency response vehicles in the surrounding area? 2. Are there any studies or assessments conducted to evaluate the potential effects on emergency services? If so, what are the findings? 3. Will there be any measures or provisions in place to ensure that emergency services are not significantly affected by a single point of entry? How will emergency vehicles navigate the area efficiently during times of increased traffic congestion? 4. Have emergency service providers, such as fire departments, paramedics, and law enforcement agencies, been consulted or involved in the planning process to address their concerns and needs related to the proposed ingress and egress requirements? If so, please summarize their input and recommendations. 5. Are there any plans to enhance the infrastructure or implement specialized traffic control measures to facilitate the smooth movement of emergency response vehicles in the vicinity of the Shadowbox Studios campus both in and outside Placerita Canyon? 6. Will emergency service providers have direct communication or coordination with the studio management to address any potential conflicts or issues arising from the increased traffic associated with the project? 7. Has the potential impact on emergency response times been assessed considering the projecfs additional ingress and egress, if the planning commission requires it as a condition of approval? Are there any benchmarks or standards in place to ensure that emergency services can reach their destinations within a reasonable timeframe? 8. Will there be any training or education programs for studio employees and workers to promote awareness and cooperation in facilitating the passage of emergency vehicles during times of high traffic volume? 9. How will the effectiveness of the measures implemented to mitigate the impact on emergency response vehicles be monitored and evaluated? Will there be regular assessments and feedback from emergency service providers to address any shortcomings or make necessary adjustments? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I look forward to your insights and clarification regarding the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and the potential need for additional ingress and egress requirements, specifically concerning emergency services. Sincerely, Name: v JF>Y--OtA—I� Address: zmt6e t 6am n 7li Packet Pg. 195 MASTER CASE NO: 21 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, Re. Comments to the DEIR I am writing to inquire about the established speed limits on Dockweiler Drive, Placerita Canyon Road, 13th Street, Arch Street, and 12th Street, as well as the considerations given to equestrian, pedestrian, and golf cart vehicles that share these roadways. I would appreciate your response to the following questions: What are the established speed limits on Dockweiler Drive, Placerita Canyon Road, 13th Street, Arch Street, and 12th Street? Have there been any recent changes or updates to these speed limits, or are they consistent with the current regulations? What factors were considered in determining the speed limits on these roadways? Were considerations given to the surrounding land use, nearby residential areas, safety concerns, and the presence of equestrian, pedestrian, and golf cart vehicles? How will the established speed limits be enforced on Dockweiler Drive, Placerita Canyon Road, 13th Street, Arch Street, and 12th Street? Are there any plans or initiatives in place to enhance enforcement measures to ensure compliance and maintain safety for all road users? What specific considerations were given to horses and riders that utilize these roadways? Are there designated equestrian lanes or dedicated areas to accommodate equestrian activities, such as riding trails or designated crossing points? How will pedestrian safety be ensured on these roadways? Are there designated sidewalks, crosswalks, or pedestrian -friendly features in place to facilitate safe pedestrian movement? Are there any specific regulations or guidelines pertaining to golf cart vehicles that share these roadways? Are there designated lanes or areas for golf carts, and will there be any restrictions on their usage? Has there been community input or consultation with local equestrian groups, pedestrian advocacy organizations, and golf cart owners regarding the design and usage of these roadways? What feedback has been received, and how has it influenced the planning commission's considerations? Will there be ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the roadways' safety and effectiveness, considering the shared use by various types of vehicles? Are there plans for periodic reviews or updates to ensure the continued safety and efficiency of these roadways for all users? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I look forward to your insights and clarification regarding the established speed limits and considerations for equestrian, pedestrian, and golf cart vehicles on Dockweiler Drive, Placerita Canyon Road, 13th Street, Arch Street, and 12th Street. Sincerely, Name. Address: Packet Pg. 1 6 MASTER CASE NO: 21- 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, I am writing to inquire about the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and the potential requirement for an additional ingress and egress to the studio campus. I have a few additional questions regarding labor union strikes and would appreciate your response: In the event of a labor union strike involving the Shadowbox Studios project, has there been any consideration given to the designation of a specific gate or entrance that would be accessible during the strike period? Will there be a contingency plan in place to ensure that essential services and activities can continue without disruption? How will the designation of a specific gate or entrance during a labor union strike be determined? Will it be a collaborative decision between the studio management and the labor union involved, or will the planning commission have a role in making this determination? Will there be any provisions or protocols established to facilitate safe and orderly access to the studio campus during a labor union strike? How will security and crowd management be handled to ensure the well-being of all parties involved? Has the potential impact of labor union strikes on traffic congestion and public safety in the surrounding area been assessed? Are there any plans or strategies in place to mitigate these potential effects? Will there be any communication channels established between the studio management, labor unions, and local authorities to ensure the timely and effective dissemination of information during a labor union strike? How will the public be informed of any changes or developments that may affect their travel plans or safety? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I look forward to your insights and clarification regarding the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and the potential considerations related to labor union strikes. Sincerely, Name; Address: $ { Dug- _5pr ►+n � ©,v A 5 a L,.> r C ,& '10TO Packet Pg. 197 MASTER CASE NO: 21-10 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEI Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, Has there been any consideration given to the potential impact of traffic delays and increased travel times on emergency response vehicles in the surrounding areas of Newhall and Placerita Canyon specifically? Will there be any measures in place to ensure that emergency services are not significantly affected by the lack of additional ingress and egress points if not required as a condition of approval? How will emergency response vehicles, such as ambulances and fire trucks, navigate through the area considering the potential increase in traffic congestion caused by the additional ingress and egress points? Will there be dedicated lanes or alternative routes designated to prioritize their passage and minimize response times? Has there been coordination with local emergency service providers to assess the potential impact of the proposed project on emergency response times? What are their recommendations or requirements to ensure that emergency services can operate efficiently despite any traffic delays resulting from the new ingress and egress points? Will there be any preemption or signal prioritization systems implemented at nearby traffic signals to expedite the passage of emergency vehicles? How will the coordination between emergency services and traffic management systems be facilitated to minimize response time delays? Are there any plans to provide training or awareness programs to emergency service personnel regarding the changes in traffic patterns resulting from the new ingress and egress points? Will there be ongoing communication channels established between the studio and emergency services to address any operational challenges or adapt to evolving traffic conditions? How will the potential impact on emergency response times be continuously monitored and evaluated once the additional ingress and egress points are operational? Will there be mechanisms in place to address any unforeseen delays or issues that may arise? If so, what arethey? Ensuring the efficient and timely response of emergency services is crucial for public safety, and I appreciate your attention to this matter. I look forward to your insights and clarification regarding the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and the measures in place to address the potential impact on emergency response vehicles. Sincerely Name; Address: a Packet Pg. 1 8771 MASTER CASE NO: 21-10 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, I am writing to inquire about the potential impact on traffic patterns if the Dockweiler Drive extension is never completed. I have concerns regarding the long-term implications and would appreciate your response to the following questions: If the Dockweiler Drive extension is not completed, what alternative plans or measures are in place to address the traffic flow and transportation needs in the area, especially considering the anticipated increase in traffic associated with the studio campus and any future developments? Has there been an assessment of the potential traffic impact on nearby roadways and intersections if the Dockweiler Drive extension remains incomplete? What are the projected implications for traffic congestion and travel times? Are there any plans to divert traffic to alternative routes or implement traffic control measures to alleviate potential congestion if the Dockweiler Drive extension is not available? How will the absence of the Dockweiler Drive extension affect the surrounding communities, including residents, businesses, and other stakeholders, in terms of traffic flow, accessibility, and quality of life? Has there been any consideration given to the potential environmental and social impacts of increased traffic and congestion in the absence of the Dockweiler Drive extension? Are there any plans or discussions in progress to revisit or reevaluate the feasibility and importance of completing the Dockweiler Drive extension if it is currently stalled or facing delays? Will there be ongoing monitoring and assessment of the traffic patterns and impacts if the Dockweiler Drive extension is not completed? How will any issues or concerns be addressed in the long term? Are there any initiatives or strategies in place to promote alternative transportation options, such as public transit or carpooling, to mitigate the potential traffic challenges if the Dockweiler Drive extension is not realized? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I look forward to your insights and clarification regarding the potential implications for traffic patterns if the Dockweiler Drive extension is never completed• Sincerely, Name: - Address: Packet Pg. 199 MASTER CASE NO: 2 1'c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, I am writing to inquire about the potential impact on traffic patterns if the Dockweiler Drive extension is never completed as part of the proposed Shadowbox Studios project. I would appreciate your response to the following questions: If the Dockweiler Drive extension is not completed, what alternative plans or measures are in place to address the anticipated increase in traffic associated with the studio campus and its operations? Has there been an assessment conducted to evaluate the potential consequences of not completing the Dockweiler Drive extension on the surrounding roadways and intersections? What are the projected impacts on traffic flow and congestion in the absence of this extension? How will the existing road network accommodate the additional traffic generated by the studio campus if the Dockweiler Drive extension is not available? Are there any plans to upgrade or modify existing roads to handle the increased traffic volume? Will there be any measures implemented to mitigate the potential traffic congestion and address any safety concerns that may arise due to the absence of the Dockweiler Drive extension? Has the impact on nearby residential areas and local businesses been assessed if the Dockweiler Drive extension is not completed? What steps will be taken to minimize disruptions and inconveniences to the community? Are there any plans to enhance public transportation options to and from the studio campus to reduce the reliance on personal vehicles and alleviate potential traffic congestion resulting from the incomplete Dockweiler Drive extension? Will there be ongoing monitoring and evaluation of traffic patterns and congestion levels to identify any areas of concern and implement appropriate mitigation strategies if the extension is not completed? Has the community been consulted or involved in the decision -making process regarding the completion of the Dockweiler Drive extension? What feedback has been received from residents and local businesses regarding the potential impacts on traffic patterns and how has it influenced the planning commission's considerations? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I look forward to your insights and clarification regarding the potential impact on traffic patterns if the Dockweiler Drive extension is not completed as part of the proposed Shadowbox Studios project. Sincerer, Name: �%11l f' Address: �Z� ` �I�J l 'f IMMINI � Packet Pg. 200 Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, MASTER CASE NO: 21- 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to inquire about the plan in place for addressing railroad emergencies, such as derailments, accidents, malfunctions, suicides, or ether incidents, particularly in the absence of the Dockweiler Drive extension, f would appreciate your response to the following questions: If a railroad emergency were to occur in the vicinity of the studio campus or the surrounding area, what alternative routes or measures are in place to ensure the safe and efficient movement of emergency response vehicles, personnel, and the general public, especially considering the lack of the Dockweiler Drive extension? Has there been a comprehensive emergency response plan developed that accounts for potential railroad incidents and their impact on traffic flow and accessibility without the availability of the Dockweiler Drive extension? Will there be designated alternative access points or routes identified for emergency response vehicles to reach the affected areas in a timely manner during a railroad emergency? Are there any contingency plans or traffic control measures established to redirect traffic and mitigate potential congestion on nearby roadways if the normal routes are affected by a railroad emergency? How will the coordination and communication between emergency response agencies, law enforcement, and the studio management be ensured during a railroad emergency, considering the potential challenges in accessing and managing traffic flow without the Dockweiler Drive extension? Has the potential impact on nearby residential areas and local businesses during a railroad emergency been assessed? What steps will be taken to minimize disruptions and ensure the safety of the affected community members? Are there any plans to enhance public awareness and preparedness regarding railroad emergencies, including the dissemination of information on alternate routes, safety precautions, and evacuation procedures, in the absence of the Dockweiler Drive extension? Will there be regular drills, exercises, or training sessions conducted involving emergency response agencies to test and evaluate the effectiveness of the emergency response plan without relying on the Dockweiler Drive extension? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I look forward to your insights and clarification regarding the plan in place for addressing railroad emergencies without the Dockweiler Drive extension. Sincerely, � 4 Name:� Address: -- Packet Pg. 201 MASTER CASE NO; 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to inquire about the potential impact of commencing the construction of the Shadowbox Studios project without first completing the Dockweiler Drive extension. I have some concerns regarding the transportation infrastructure and the overall feasibility of the project, and I would appreciate your response to the following questions: If the Dockweiler Drive extension is not completed prior to the commencement of the studio construction, what alternative routes or access points will be available for construction traffic and future studio operations? Will there be any temporary measures or contingency plans in place to ensure efficient traffic flow during this period? How will the absence of the Dockweiler Drive extension impact the overall transportation plan for the project? Ilas there been an assessment of the potential challenges and constraints that may arise due to the delayed completion of this extension? Will the studio construction and subsequent operations have any adverse effects on the surrounding roadways, considering the absence of the Dockweiler Drive extension? Are there any provisions or mitigations in place to minimize any potential traffic congestion or disruptions? Has there been any coordination or communication with local authorities and transportation agencies to address the potential traffic impact and find alternative solutions if the Dockweiler Drive extension is not completed as planned? What are the projected timelines for the completion of the Dockweiler Drive extension? Are there any indications or assurances that this extension will be finished within a reasonable timeframe to align with the construction and operation of the Shadowbox Studios project? Will there be any measures or requirements imposed on the studio construction to minimize the impact on the existing transportation network and ensure the safety of residents and commuters in the area, considering a delayed completion of the Dockweiler Drive extension? I low will the potential delays in completing the Dockweiler Drive extension be communicated to the public and stakeholders? Will there be regular updates and transparency regarding the progress of this extension and its impact on the studio project? Has there been any evaluation or contingency plans considered in case the completion of the Dockweiler Drive extension faces significant delays or unforeseen challenges? How will any potential setbacks be addressed to minimize disruptions to the studio construction and operation? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I look forward to your insights and clarification regarding the potential impact of not completing the Dockweiler Drive extension prior to the commencement of the Shadowbox Studios project. Sincerely, Name: Address: �q 6 0 b LctY Vzrt S000 C(GYttz;i C& qfi 1351 Packet Pg. 2 2 MASTER CASE NO: 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, I am writing to inquire about the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and the potential requirement for an additional ingress and egress to the studio campus. I have some concerns regarding the safety and well-being of the residents of Placerita Canyon, as well as their horses, livestock, and pets, specifically in the context of evacuation during emergency situations. I would appreciate your response to the following questions: 1. Has there been adequate consideration given to the evacuation needs of the residents of Placerita Canyon in the event of an emergency, such as wildfires or natural disasters? Are there established evacuation plans that address the safe and efficient movement of people and their animals out of the area? 2. How could additional ingress and egress points facilitate the evacuation process for the residents of Placerita Canyon? Will there be designated evacuation routes or plans in place to ensure their safe and timely exit from the area? 3. Will there be any specific measures or infrastructure enhancements to accommodate the evacuation of horses, livestock, and pets belonging to the residents of Placerita Canyon during emergency situations? 4. Has the capacity of the proposed evacuation routes been assessed to determine if they can handle the potential increase in traffic volume during an evacuation? Will there be any traffic control measures or coordination with law enforcement agencies to prioritize the safe and swift evacuation of residents? 5. Are there any plans for public awareness campaigns or educational programs to inform residents of Placerita Canyon about evacuation procedures, particularly in relation to the studio's only ingress and egress point? How will the community be kept informed and prepared for emergency situations? 6. Will there be any temporary sheltering or assistance provided for horses, livestock, and pets during the evacuation process? Are there designated facilities or resources in place to accommodate their needs and ensure their safety during an emergency? 7. Has there been any coordination with local animal welfare organizations or emergency response agencies to develop comprehensive plans for the evacuation and care of animals in Placerita Canyon during emergency situations? $. How will the effectiveness of the evacuation plans and provisions for residents, horses, livestock, and pets be monitored and evaluated? Will there be opportunities for community feedback and input to address any concerns or areas for improvement? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I look forward to your insights and clarification regarding the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and the considerations for the residents of Placerita Canyon, as well as the safety of their horses, livestock, and pets during evacuation emergencies. Sincerely, Name: r % fI U• / s Address: a E� i t,.,. i € t t !l 4'ij Packet Pg. 2 3 MASTER CASE NO: 21-10 1•c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEER Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, I am writing to inquire about the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and the Dockweiler Drive extension. I have a concern regarding the potential scenario where the construction for both the extension and the studio campus takes place concurrently. I would appreciate your response to the following questions regarding the traffic plan in such a situation: If the construction for the Dockweiler Drive extension and the studio campus occurs simultaneously, what is the traffic plan to manage the increased construction -related traffic in the area? Has there been an assessment of the potential impact of concurrent construction on the surrounding roadways and traffic flow? Are there any measures or adjustments planned to minimize congestion and ensure smooth traffic movement? Will there be designated construction vehicle routes and access points to the studio campus to separate construction traffic from regular commuter traffic? Are there any plans to implement temporary traffic control measures, such as signage, flaggers, or tragic signals, to regulate the flow of construction -related vehicles and ensure safety for both workers and the general public? Has there been coordination with local authorities, including law enforcement agencies and transportation departments, to develop and implement the traffic plan for concurrent construction activities? Will there be regular communication and updates provided to the community and stakeholders regarding the traffic plan during concurrent construction? How will residents and businesses in the surrounding area be informed about any potential disruptions or changes to traffic patterns? Are there any provisions in place to address any unforeseen issues or challenges that may arise during the concurrent construction, such as adjustments to the traffic plan or additional resources allocated to manage traffic flow? How will the effectiveness of the traffic plan during concurrent construction be monitored and evaluated? Will there be mechanisms in place to address any concerns or feedback from the community or construction stakeholders? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I look forward to your insights and clarification regarding the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and the traffic plan in the event of concurrent construction for the Dockweiler Drive extension and the studio campus. Sincerely, Name: ar Address: +i r j f Packet Pg. 204 MASTER CASE NO: 21-10 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, I am writing to inquire about the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and the status of the Dockweiler Drive extension. I have a concern regarding the potential scenario where the extension is not completed prior to the commencement of studio construction. I would appreciate your response to the following questions: What is the current status of the Dockweiler Drive extension project? Has construction started, or are there any delays or challenges that could potentially impede its completion before the studio construction begins? if the Dockweiler Drive extension is not completed prior to the start of studio construction, what alternative plans or measures are in place to address the potential increase in traffic and transportation needs during the construction phase? How will the absence of the Dockweiler Drive extension impact the overall traffic flow in the area, considering the anticipated influx of construction -related vehicles and personnel to the studio site? Are there any contingency plans or alternative routes that can be utilized if the Dockweiler Drive extension is not available during the studio construction? Specifically, what are the alternative access points or roads that will be designated for construction -related traffic? Will there be any temporary traffic control measures or adjustments to existing roadways to accommodate the construction traffic if the Dockweiler Drive extension is not yet accessible? Has the potential impact on nearby residential areas and local businesses been assessed if the Dockweiler Drive extension is not completed prior to the studio construction? What steps will be taken to minimize disruptions and inconveniences to the community? Will there be ongoing coordination and communication between the construction management team and local authorities to address any traffic -related concerns or issues that may arise during the construction phase? How will the completion of the Dockweiler Drive extension be prioritized to ensure its availability prior to the start of studio grading and construction? Are there any plans or actions in place to expedite its construction if delays occur? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I look forward to your insights and clarification regarding the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and the potential impact of an incomplete Dockweiler Drive extension prior to the commencement of studio construction. Sincerely, Name: C Packet Pg. 205 MASTER CASE NO: 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, Re: Comments to the DE1R I am writing to inquire about the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and the status of the Dockweiler Drive extension. Specifically, I would like to understand the implications if the extension is not completed prior to the commencement of the studio construction. Please provide information regarding the following: What is the current status of the Dockweiler Drive extension project? Has construction begun, or are there any delays or challenges that may prevent its completion before the start of the studio construction? If the Dockweiler Drive extension is not completed prior to the commencement of the studio construction, what alternative plans or measures are in place to mitigate the potential impact on traffic flow, congestion, and accessibility to the proposed studio site and to Placerita Canyon? How could the potential absence of the Dockweiler Drive extension affect the ingress and egress of construction vehicles, equipment, and personnel to the Shadowbox Studios site? Are there contingency plans to ensure their safe and efficient movement during the construction phase? Has a traffic management plan been developed in the event that the Dockweiler Drive extension is not available during the studio construction? How will traffic congestion and disruption be minimized in the surrounding area? What communication strategies will be employed to keep the community informed about any changes or adjustments related to the Dockweiler Drive extension and its impact on traffic patterns and access during the studio construction? Will there be any temporary measures, such as the provision of alternative access routes or the use of temporary traffic control devices, if the Dockweiler Drive extension is not completed? How will these measures be implemented and monitored to ensure their effectiveness? Has the potential delay in completing the Dockweiler Drive extension been considered in the overall project timeline for the Shadowbox Studios? Will there be any adjustments made to the construction schedule to account for this potential delay? What steps are being taken to expedite the completion of the Dockweiler Drive extension to ensure it is available before the studio construction begins? Are there any coordination efforts with relevant agencies or stakeholders to overcome any challenges and ensure timely completion? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I look forward to your insights and clarification regarding the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and the potential implications of the Dockweiler Drive extension not being completed prior to the commencement of the studio construction. Sincerely, Dame: Address:`" Packet Pg. 206 MASTER CASE NO: 21- 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, I am writing to inquire about the traffic plan in the event that the construction of the Dockweiler Drive extension and the studio campus are done concurrently. I would appreciate your response to the following questions: If the construction of the Dockweiler Drive extension and the studio campus were to occur concurrently, what specific measures or plans are in place to manage the resulting increase in construction -related traffic and potential traffic congestion in the surrounding area? Has there been a comprehensive traffic management plan developed to address the simultaneous construction activities? What strategies will be implemented to ensure the smooth flow of traffic and minimize disruptions to the surrounding roadways? Will there be designated construction entrances and exits separate from the regular access points for the studio campus to ensure the efficient movement of construction vehicles and personnel? How will the safety of both construction workers and the general public be ensured during this concurrent construction period? Are there any traffic control measures or signage planned to alert drivers to the construction activities and ensure their safety? Have traffic impact assessments been conducted to evaluate the potential effects of concurrent construction on nearby intersections, roadways, and surrounding communities? How will the findings of these assessments inform the development and implementation of the traffic management plan? Will there be regular communication and coordination between the construction management team, the studio operators, and local authorities to address any traffic -related issues or concerns that may arise during the concurrent construction period? Are there any specific provisions or plans to enhance public transportation options during this period to reduce the number of vehicles on the road and alleviate potential congestion associated with the construction activities? How will the effectiveness of the traffic management plan be monitored and evaluated during the concurrent construction period? Will there be mechanisms in place to address any unforeseen issues or make necessary adjustments to ensure the smooth flow of traffic? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I look forward to your insights and clarification regarding the traffic plan in the event that the construction of the Dockweiler Drive extension and the studio campus is done concurrently. Sincerely, Name: Address: `. & q 5' Packet Pg. 2 7 Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, MASTER CASE NO: 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to inquire about the potential impact of increased commuter train frequency once the double tracking is installed in the area. I am interested in understanding the implications of this change and would appreciate your response to the following questions: With the implementation of double tracking, what is the projected increase in commuter train frequency compared to the current schedule? Will there be a significant rise in the number of trains passing through the area on a daily basis? Has there been a comprehensive assessment conducted to evaluate the potential impact of increased commuter train frequency on the surrounding roadways, intersections, and traffic flow? What are the projected implications for traffic congestion, travel times, and overall transportation efficiency? Will the increased commuter train frequency require any modifications or enhancements to the existing transportation infrastructure, such as additional railway crossings, signal systems, or other safety measures, to accommodate the higher volume of train traffic? Have there been any studies conducted to assess the potential noise and vibration effects resulting from the increased commuter train frequency on nearby residential areas? How will any identified impacts be mitigated or addressed to minimize disturbances to the community? Will the increased frequency of commuter trains have any implications for the accessibility and safety of pedestrians, cyclists, and other non -motorized transportation users in the vicinity of railway crossings? Are there plans to enhance safety measures or implement any changes to accommodate these modes of transportation? How will the increased commuter train frequency be communicated to the public to ensure awareness and preparedness, especially for those who utilize nearby roadways and intersections? Will there be initiatives to educate the community on train schedules, potential delays, and any changes in transportation patterns? Has there been coordination and consultation with local transportation authorities, law enforcement agencies, and other relevant stakeholders to address any concerns or challenges related to the increased commuter train frequency? Will there be ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the impacts of the increased commuter train frequency once the double tracking is implemented? How will any identified issues be addressed or mitigated as needed? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I look forward to your insights and clarification regarding the potential impact of increased commuter train frequency once the double tracking is installed. Sincerely, Name: Address: CC'L_V\_ MASTER CASE NO: 21 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, I am writing to inquire about the impact of the increased frequency of commuter trains once the double tracking is installed in the area. I would appreciate your response to the following questions: With the implementation of double tracking, what is the anticipated increase in the frequency of commuter trains passing through the area? Has a comprehensive analysis been conducted to assess the potential impact of the increased frequency of commuter trains on local road traffic, specifically at railway crossings and intersections? What measures or plans are in place to address any potential disruptions or delays to road traffic caused by the increased frequency of trains? Will there be any modifications or enhancements made to railway crossings or intersections to accommodate the increased train frequency and ensure the safe and efficient movement of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic? Has the impact on nearby residential areas, businesses, and community facilities been evaluated in terms of noise, vibrations, and any other potential disturbances resulting from the increased frequency of commuter trains? Will there be ongoing monitoring of the train operations and their impact on traffic patterns to identify and address any unforeseen issues that may arise after the double tracking is completed? Are there any plans to improve public awareness and education regarding the increased train frequency, including information on safety precautions, railway crossing procedures, and potential changes to travel times? How will the double tracking and increased frequency of commuter trains align with the overall transportation infrastructure plan for the Santa Clarita area? Does it complement existing transit systems and contribute to the improvement of regional connectivity? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I look forward to your insights and clarification regarding the impact of the increased frequency of commuter trains once the double tracking is installed. Sincerely, Name:. Address:�? F' <bf�vi l r'ry'i i.1' Packet Pg. 209 Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, MASTER CASE NO: 21- 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to inquire about the potential impact on traffic patterns if the Dockweiler Drive extension is never completed. I have concerns regarding the long-term effects on the transportation infrastructure and the surrounding community. I would appreciate your response to the following questions: If the Dockweiler Drive extension is never completed (or not within a reasonable timeframe prior to studio operation), what alternative plans or measures are in place to address the anticipated increase in traffic volume resulting from the operation of the studio campus? Has there been an assessment of the potential traffic impact in the absence of the Dockweiler Drive extension? Are there any projections or studies that provide insights into the potential congestion, road capacity, and overall traffic flaw without the extension? How will the absence of the Dockweiler Drive extension impact the existing traffic patterns and roadways in the surrounding area, considering the projected influx of vehicles associated with the studio campus and related activities? Have there been any discussions or plans to implement alternative transportation solutions, such as additional public transportation options or enhancements, to mitigate the potential increase in traffic congestion? Will there be any road improvements or modifications to existing infrastructure if the Dockweiler Drive extension is not completed? Are there any plans to optimize the existing road network to accommodate the anticipated traffic demands? Has there been consideration given to potential residential areas and local businesses affected by increased traffic without the Dockweiler Drive extension? What steps will be taken to minimize disruptions and address the concerns of the community? Will there be ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the traffic conditions and patterns in the absence of the Dockweiler Drive extension? Are there mechanisms in place to address any unforeseen issues or make necessary adjustments to optimize traffic flow and ensure the safety of commuters? How will the absence of the Dockweiler Drive extension impact the overall accessibility and connectivity of the studio campus to the surrounding areas, including neighboring communities and transportation hubs? 'Thank you for your attention to these questions. I look forward to your insights and clarification regarding the potential impact on traffic patterns if the Dockweiler Drive extension is never completed. Sincerely, Name. Address: Packet Pg. 210 MASTER CASE NO: 21-109 Shadowbox Studios Project Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to inquire about the feasibility of establishing a secondary entrance from Circle J for the north parking lot of the proposed Shadowbox Studios. Such an entrance could potentially alleviate congestion at the Arch and 13th intersection by redirecting approximately 1,100 vehicles on a daily basis. I would like to know if this option is currently being considered, and if not, I kindly request the Planning Commission's attention to this matter. Please provide clarification on the following: Has there been any evaluation or consideration given to the feasibility of creating a secondary entrance from Circle J for the north parking lot of the Shadowbox Studios? This alternative entrance could help alleviate traffic congestion at the Arch and 13th intersection by redirecting a significant number of vehicles. What factors have been taken into account when determining whether to implement a secondary entrance from Circle J? Are there any specific challenges or limitations associated with this option that have been identified during the planning process? If the secondary entrance from Circle J has not been considered thus far, would the Planning Commission be willing to evaluate this option now? Given the potential benefits in terms of traffic mitigation, would the Commission be open to exploring the feasibility and impact of a secondary entrance as an alternative solution? How would the implementation of a secondary entrance from Circle J affect the overall transportation infrastructure plan for the Santa Clarita area? Are there any anticipated benefits or drawbacks in terms of traffic flow, road capacity, or impact on adjacent neighborhoods that need to be considered? If the secondary entrance from Circle J is deemed feasible and desirable, what steps would be taken to ensure its safe and efficient implementation? Are there any provisions or conditions that would need to be put in place to address any potential challenges or concerns related to the new entrance? I appreciate your attention to these questions. Clarifying the feasibility and potential consideration of a secondary entrance from Circle J for the north parking lot of the Shadowbox Studios project will provide valuable insights into the efforts being made to address traffic congestion and improve transportation infrastructure in the Santa Clarita area. Thank you for your tima And consideration. Sincerely,-- f Name: Address: 4�;, 1.c Packet Pg. 211 1.c MASTER CASE NO: 21- Shadowbox Studios Project Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to ask about the feasibility of establishing a secondary entrance from Circle J for the north parking lot of the proposed Shadowbox Studios project. This potential alternative access point could alleviate congestion and reduce the number of vehicles using the Arch and 13th intersection by diverting approximately 1,100 vehicles. I kindly request your insights and clarification regarding the consideration of this option: Has the feasibility of a secondary entrance from Circle J for the north parking lot been evaluated as a potential solution to alleviate congestion at the Arch and 13th intersection? If so, what were the main considerations and findings of this evaluation? If not, would the planning commission be open to considering this option now? Are there any specific challenges or constraints that would hinder the establishment of a secondary entrance from Circle J? Factors such as land availability, infrastructure requirements, zoning regulations, and the overall impact on the surrounding area need to be taken into account. Access to Circle J would not necessitate traversing an active rail crossing? Has the PUC been contacted that this would be an option to minimize vehicular accidents involving the tracks? What level of coordination and collaboration has taken place between the project developers, transportation experts, and the planning commission to explore alternative access options and evaluate their feasibility? Has the potential for a secondary entrance from Circle J been discussed in previous meetings or planning stages? If not, could it be added as a condition of approval? If a secondary entrance from Circle J is deemed feasible, what measures would be taken to ensure its safe and efficient operation? How would the traffic flow be managed, and what impact would it have on the surrounding road network and nearby residential areas? Has the community been consulted or involved in discussions regarding the potential for a secondary entrance from Circle J? Many residents from Circle J have spoken in favor of the studio project, so there is support already in place. Have there been any public forums or consultations to gather feedback and assess the level of support from residents and other stakeholders? Considering the potential benefits in terms of traffic reduction and improved intersection functionality, I believe it is crucial to explore all viable options for mitigating congestion. I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to your insights and clarification on the feasibility of a secondary entrance from Circle J for the north parking lot of the Shadowbox Studios project. Sincerely, Name: ` Address: 1 __ 1 ,=� r r / Packet Pg. 212 Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, MASTER CASE NO: 21 1`e Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to inquire about the possibility of the planning commission adopting Alternative #3 with modifications to address the inclusion of at least one additional ingress/egress gate that does not feed into Placerita Canyon. I would appreciate your insights and response to the following questions: What specific modifications are being considered for Alternative #3 to accommodate the inclusion of an additional ingress/egress gate that does not rely on Placerita Canyon? How would these modifications ensure efficient traffic flow, minimize impacts on Placerita Canyon, and enhance accessibility to the studio campus? How would the location of the additional ingress/egress gate be determined? What factors, such as proximity to major roadways, existing infrastructure, and potential impacts on surrounding neighborhoods, would be taken into account when selecting the suitable location? Has a thorough analysis been conducted to assess the potential traffic impacts and benefits of including an additional ingress/egress gate that does not rely on Placerita Canyon? What were the findings of this analysis, particularly in terms of traffic distribution, congestion mitigation, and overall transportation efficiency? How would the inclusion of an additional ingress/egress gate align with the existing transportation infrastructure plan for the Santa Clarita area? Would it complement the current traffic patterns and roadways, or would it necessitate significant modifications or enhancements to the surrounding transportation network? In considering the modification to Alternative #3, what measures will be taken to ensure that the design and operation of the additional ingress/egress gate prioritize the safety of both studio personnel and the general public? Will traffic control measures, signage, and appropriate infrastructure be implemented to minimize potential traffic congestion and maximize safety? Has the community been consulted or involved in the decision -making process regarding the inclusion of an additional ingress/egress gate? If so, what feedback has been received from residents and local businesses, and how has it influenced the planning commission's considerations? Are there any alternative solutions or approaches that have been explored to address the need for an additional ingress/egress gate? If so, what were these alternatives, and why were they not deemed suitable for the project? How would the effectiveness and impact of the modifications, including the additional ingress/egress gate, be monitored and evaluated once implemented? Will there be mechanisms in place to address any unforeseen issues or make adjustments if needed? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I greatly appreciate your insights and clarification regarding the possibility of adopting Alternative #3 with modifications to address at least one additional ingress/egress gate that does not feed into Placerita Canyon. Sincerely, � 1 ) f 1� } Name: Address: t Packet Pg. 3 Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, MASTER CASE NO: 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to inquire about the possibility of the planning commission adopting Alternative #3 with modifications that address the inclusion of at least one additional ingress/egress gate that does not feed into Placerita Canyon. I would appreciate your insights and response to the following questions: What specific modifications are being considered to Alternative #3 to accommodate the inclusion of an additional ingress/egress gate that does not rely on Placerita Canyon? How would these modifications address concerns related to traffic flow, community access, and potential impacts on Placerita Canyon residential area? How would the planning commission ensure that the proposed additional ingress/egress gate is strategically located and designed to minimize potential traffic congestion and maximize safety for both studio personnel and the surrounding community? What factors, such as proximity to major roadways or existing transportation infrastructure, would be taken into account during the selection process? Has there been any consideration given to the potential impacts of the additional ingress/egress gate on the surrounding road network, including the capacity and efficiency of adjacent intersections or road segments? Will there be an additional comprehensive traffic impact analysis conducted to assess the effects and determine any necessary mitigation measures? How would the inclusion of an additional ingress/egress gate that does not feed into Placerita Canyon align with the overall transportation infrastructure plan for the Santa Clarita area? Would it complement existing traffic patterns and roadways, or would it necessitate significant modifications to the surrounding transportation network? What measures would be implemented to ensure that the additional ingress/egress gate is adequately integrated into the studio's transportation management plan, including provisions for traffic control, emergency access, and the efficient movement of vehicles during peak periods? Has the community been consulted or involved in the decision -making process regarding the inclusion of an additional ingress/egress gate? If so, what feedback has been received from residents and local businesses, and how has it influenced the planning commission's considerations? How would the effectiveness and impact of the modified Alternative #3, including the additional ingress/ egress gate, be monitored and evaluated once implemented? Will there be mechanisms in place to address any unforeseen issues or make adjustments if needed? I appreciate your attention to these questions and your efforts to consider modifications to Alternative #3 that would address the inclusion of at least one additional ingress/egress gate outside of Placerita Canyon. Thank you for your commitment to addressing traffic concerns and ensuring the safety and well-being of the surrounding community. Sincerely, Name: ' f( i �~ P Address: Packet Pg. 214 MASTER CASE NO: 21-10 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, Re: Comments to the DE R I am writing to further inquire about the potential requirement for the studio project to make a cash donation to the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association (PCPOA) as a condition of approval, with the intention of furthering preservation efforts within the canyon. I appreciate your response to the following question: Has there been any consideration given to requiring the studio project to mare a cash donation to the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association (PCPOA) as a condition of approval? If so, I would like to understand the specific factors and considerations that would be taken into account when determining the amount of the donation and how it would be utilized to benefit the preservation efforts within the canyon. a) How would the amount of the cash donation be determined? Would it be based on a percentage of the project's budget, a fixed amount, or other criteria? What mechanisms or methodologies would be employed to ensure a fair and appropriate contribution from the studio project? b) What specific preservation initiatives or projects would be supported by the cash donation? Would the funds be directed towards protecting and enhancing the natural, environmental, and cultural resources within Placerita Canyon? c) How would the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association (PCPOA) be involved in the decision - making process regarding the allocation and utilization of the cash donation? Would there be transparency and accountability measures in place to ensure that the funds are used effectively and in alignment with the goals of the PCPOA and the broader community? d) Would there be any provisions or agreements in place to monitor and evaluate the impact of the cash donation on the preservation efforts within Placerita Canyon? How would the success and effectiveness of the initiatives funded by the donation be assessed and reported? e) In the event that the studio project expands or undergoes modifications in the future, would there be a possibility for the cash donation requirement to be reevaluated or adjusted to reflect the increased scope and impact of the project on the canyon and its preservation needs? I appreciate your attention to these questions and the opportunity to gain further insights into the potential requirement for a cash donation to the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association as a condition of approval for the studio project. Thank you for your efforts to balance development with the preservation of this cherished natural and historic resource. �r Sincerely, Name; r Address:'. Packet Pg. 215 MASTER CASE NO: 21-109 1.c Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the QEIR I am writing to further discuss the possibility of considering a double lane roundabout as a potential compromise solution for the intersection of Dockweiler Drive, Arch Street, and 12th Street, taking into account the fact that the city of Santa Clarita has not yet adopted a standard for roundabouts. I would appreciate your insights and response to the following questions: 1. Considering the unique circumstances and absence of a roundabout standard, what specific considerations would need to be taken into account when evaluating the feasibility and potential benefits of a double lane roundabout at the intersection of Dockweiler Drive, Arch Street, and 12th Street? How would factors such as traffic flow, safety, road capacity, and community preferences be balanced in the decision -making process? 2. Are there any existing examples or precedents of double lane roundabouts in neighboring jurisdictions that could serve as a reference for evaluating their suitability and effectiveness? What insights could be gained from studying the experiences and outcomes of similar double lane roundabouts in terms of traffic management, safety improvements, and overall satisfaction? 3. In light of the specific characteristics and needs of the intersection at Dockweiler Drive, Arch Street, and 12th Street, what advantages might a double lane roundabout offer over alternative solutions, such as signalized intersections or other intersection designs? How would the inclusion of an additional lane address concerns related to traffic congestion, efficient movement of vehicles, and potential future growth in the area? 4. What potential challenges or limitations might arise in implementing a double lane roundabout at this particular location? Are there any constraints, such as land availability, right-of-way considerations, or existing infrastructure, that would need to be carefully evaluated and addressed to ensure a successful implementation? 5. Given the potential introduction of a new intersection design concept, how would the public and road users be educated and informed about the safe usage and proper navigation of a double lane roundabout? What strategies or initiatives could be employed to ensure widespread awareness and understanding of double lane roundabout rules, yielding protocols, and pedestrian/cyclist considerations? 6. To thoroughly assess the feasibility and impacts of a double lane roundabout, what additional studies, evaluations, or expert consultations might be necessary? How would community input and stakeholder feedback be incorporated into the decision -making process, considering the importance of balancing the interests of residents and the studio? Thank you for your attention to these additional questions. I greatly appreciate your insights and clarification regarding the feasibility and potential considerations of a double lane roundabout as a compromise solution for the intersection of Dockweiler Drive, Arch Street, and 12th Street, given the absence of a roundabout standard in the city of Santa Clarita. Sincerely, Name: Address:" tp Packet Pg. 216 1.c MASTER CASE NO: 21 Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to further inquire about the feasibility of establishing a secondary entrance from Circle J for the north parking lot of the proposed Shadowbox Studios project. Additionally, I would like to explore the potential for incorporating the flyover Via Princessa bridge into the transportation infrastructure plan. This combination of solutions could help alleviate traffic congestion at the Arch and 13th intersection and provide improved access to the studio campus. I kindly request your insights and clarification on the following matters: Has there been any comprehensive assessment or consideration given to the feasibility of a secondary entrance from Circle J for the north parking lot of the Shadowbox Studios project, in conjunction with a flyover Via Princessa bridge? This combination could effectively divert approximately 1,100 vehicles from the Arch and 13th intersection and improve traffic flow in the Placerita Canyon area. What are the potential benefits and challenges associated with establishing a secondary entrance from Circle J and incorporating a flyover Via Princessa bridge? Are there any specific technical, engineering, or regulatory factors that need to be taken into account during the planning and implementation stages? Have traffic impact studies or assessments been conducted to evaluate the potential effects of diverting traffic through a secondary entrance from Circle J and the integration of a flyover Via Princessa bridge? If so, what were the findings of these studies, and how were they considered in the planning process? If not, will it be done prior to approval? How would the establishment of a secondary entrance from Circle J and the inclusion of a flyover Via Princessa bridge align with the broader transportation infrastructure plan for the Santa Clarita area? Would these solutions complement existing traffic patterns and roadways, or would they necessitate significant modifications to the surrounding transportation network? Are there any alternative proposals or potential solutions that have been evaluated to address the traffic concerns at the Arch and 13th intersection, considering the establishment of a secondary entrance from Circle J and the integration of a flyover Via Princessa bridge? What were the main considerations and reasons for either pursuing or not pursuing those alternatives? What level of coordination and collaboration is taking place between the relevant stakeholders, such as the City of Santa Clarita, transportation authorities, and the planning commission, to explore and evaluate the feasibility of a secondary entrance from Circle J and a flyover Via Princessa bridge? If these solutions are not currently being considered, would the planning commission be open to reevaluating the options in light of their potential to alleviate traffic congestion, enhance traffic flow, and provide improved access to the Shadowbox Studios project? Thank you for your attention to these expanded questions. Your insights and clarification regarding the feasibility of a secondary entrance from Circle J, in conjunction with a flyover Via Princessa bridge, will provide valuable information for addressing traffic concerns and enhancing transportation infrastructure in the Santa Clarita area. Sincerely, Name: i ; ` `_' -. Address: ' t, Packet Pg. 217 MASTER CASE NO: 21-1 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, I am writing to express my concern regarding the limited discussion surrounding the adoption of Alternative #3, which offers a 24% reduction in size and is considered the environmentally superior alternative. I would appreciate your insights and response to the following question: Why has there been minimal discussion regarding the adoption of Alternative #3, despite its significant environmental benefits and reduction in size compared to other alternatives? What factors have influenced the limited attention given to this alternative during the planning process? Has there been a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impacts associated with each alternative, including Alternative #3, to inform the decision -making process? If so, what were the findings of this assessment, and how have they been taken into account when considering the adoption of Alternative #3? What opportunities have been provided for public input and engagement to ensure that the community's concerns and perspectives are taken into consideration regarding the possible adoption of Alternative #3? Have there been any specific reasons why the community's input on this alternative has not been extensively discussed? Are there any perceived challenges or obstacles in implementing Alternative #3 that have hindered its thorough discussion and consideration? If so, what are these challenges, and are there any plans in place to address them? How can the planning commission ensure that the adoption of Alternative #3, as the environmentally superior alternative, receives the necessary attention and consideration during the decision -making process? What steps can be taken to ensure that the community's interests, environmental concerns, and overall sustainability objectives are given due weight in the decision? I appreciate your attention to these questions and look forward to your insights and clarification regarding the limited discussion surrounding the adoption of Alternative #3, despite its recognized environmental superiority. Thank you for your efforts to prioritize sustainable and environmentally conscious development. Sincerely, n Address: L '3r r r x Packet Pg. 8 MASTER CASE NO: 21- 1.c Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I have some inquiries regarding the removal and relocation of oak trees from the proposed Shadowbox Studios project site. I kindly request your insights and responses to the following questions: How many oak trees are currently located on the project site, and what is the proposed plan for their removal or relocation? Will any efforts be made to minimize the impact on these oak trees during the construction process? Has an arborist or environmental expert assessed the health and viability of the oak trees on the project site? Will any measures be taken to preserve or protect healthy and significant oak trees that contribute to the ecological value and aesthetic appeal of the area? Are there plans for the relocation of any oak trees that need to be removed from the project site? If so, what criteria will be used to determine which trees are suitable for relocation, and where will they be relocated to? Will adequate measures be taken to ensure their successful transplanting and survival? Will there be a tree mitigation plan in place to compensate for the removal of oak trees? If so, what measures will be taken to ensure that the replacement trees are of a similar size, species, and ecological value as those being removed? How will the removal or relocation of oak trees be coordinated with other aspects of the project, such as grading, infrastructure development, and construction timelines? Will there be efforts to minimize disturbance to the root systems and surrounding ecosystem during the process? Has there been consultation or involvement of relevant agencies, such as the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) or local environmental organizations, to ensure compliance with regulations and best practices for the preservation and management of oak trees? Are there any long-term plans or commitments to plant new oak trees or undertake restoration efforts to enhance the presence of oak woodlands in the vicinity of the Shadowbox Studios project? How will the project contribute to the overall conservation and enhancement of oak tree populations in the region? I appreciate your attention to these questions and your dedication to the preservation and responsible management of oak trees within the project site. Your insights will contribute to a well-informed decision - making process and ensure the protection of our valuable natural resources. Sincerely, 0 Address: i -- Packet Pg. 219 MASTER CASE N 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DE Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, I am writing to express my concern regarding the limited discussion surrounding the adoption of Alternative #3, despite its significant environmental advantages, including a 24% reduction in size. I would appreciate your insights and response to the following question: Why has there been relatively little discussion or consideration given to the adoption of Alternative #3, which is deemed the environmentally superior alternative? What factors or reasons have contributed to the limited attention and exploration of this option during the planning process? a) Has there been any particular challenge or obstacle that has hindered the broader discussion and evaluation of Alternative #3's environmental benefits and its potential positive impact on the surrounding area? b) What steps will the planning commission take to ensure that there is a comprehensive and inclusive discussion regarding Alternative #3, allowing for the exploration of its environmental advantages and potential solutions to any identified challenges or concerns? c) Has the planning commission sought input from environmental experts or conducted an independent assessment of the environmental benefits of Alternative #3? If so, what were the findings of these assessments, and how have they been taken into account during the decision -making process? d) Are there any plans or strategies in place to actively promote the understanding and awareness of Alternative #3 among the public, stakeholders, and interested parties? How will the planning commission ensure that the broader community has access to information and opportunities to provide feedback on this environmentally superior alternative? e) What measures will be taken to ensure that the decision -making process regarding the possible adoption of Alternative #3 is transparent, fair, and well-informed? How will the planning commission address any concerns or skepticism regarding the limited discussion surrounding this environmentally advantageous option? I appreciate your attention to these concerns and the opportunity to gain further insights into the limited discussion surrounding the adoption of Alternative #3 despite its environmentally superior status, Thank you for your efforts in considering the environmental impact of the proposed project and ensuring a comprehensive and inclusive planning process. Sincerely, Name: �- Address: f Packet Pg. 220 MASTER CASE NO: 2 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re_ Comments to the DEIR Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, I am writing to further inquire about the potential feasibility and considerations of implementing a double lane roundabout as a compromise solution for the intersection of Dockweder Drive, Arch Street, and 12th Street, especially considering that the city of Santa Clarita has not yet adopted a standard for roundabouts. I would appreciate your response to the following questions: What potential advantages would a double lane roundabout offer at the intersection in terms of addressing the concerns of both residents and the studio? How could it potentially improve traffic flow, enhance safety, and accommodate the anticipated traffic volumes associated with the Shadowbox Studios project? Considering that a double lane roundabout may be a less common design in the area due to the absence of a standard, are there any specific challenges or considerations that would need to be addressed to ensure its successful implementation? What potential modifications or adjustments would need to be made to accommodate the double lane configuration in terms of road layout, signage, and markings? Has there been any analysis or comparison conducted between single lane and double lane roundabouts in terms of their suitability and performance at intersections with similar characteristics to the Dockweiler Drive, Arch Street, and 12th Street intersection? Are there any lessons learned or best practices from other jurisdictions or studies that could inform the decision -making process regarding the potential use of a double lane roundabout in this context? How would the introduction of a double lane roundabout at this intersection align with the city's broader transportation and infrastructure plans? Would it complement existing roadways and traffic patterns, or would it necessitate significant modifications or adjustments to the surrounding transportation network? What potential considerations should be taken into account regarding pedestrian, equestrian, and cyclist safety when considering a double lane roundabout? How could the design and layout of the roundabout be optimized to ensure safe and convenient passage for all users, including provisions for crosswalks, bike lanes, horse trail, and appropriate signage? Are there any potential impacts, either positive or negative, on nearby properties or businesses that would need to be considered when evaluating the feasibility of a double lane roundabout? How would these impacts be mitigated or addressed to ensure a harmonious coexistence between the roundabout and the surrounding community? Thank you for your attention to these additional questions. I greatly appreciate your insights and clarification regarding the feasibility and potential considerations of implementing a double lane roundabout as a compromise solution for the intersection of Dockweiler Drive, Arch Street, and 12th Street in the absence of an adopted roundabout standard in the city of Santa Clarita. Sincerely, Name: Address: L ` t:a.ti :Y�.:.: ,:., .i°, . i� ' t Packet Pg. 221 MASTER CASE NO: 21-1 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR Dear Santa Clarita planning Commission, I am writing to express my support for the adoption of Alternative #3. Its designation as the environmentally superior alternative with a significant reduction in size is worthy of your consideration. I would appreciate your insights and response to the following question: Could you please elaborate on why there has been so little discussion regarding the adoption of Alternative #3, considering its designation as the environmentally superior alternative and its substantial reduction in size compared to other alternatives? What factors have contributed to the limited exploration and consideration of this option? Additionally, I would like to understand the following; What steps have been taken to ensure that the environmental benefits and reduced footprint of Alternative #3 are adequately recognized and given appropriate weight in the decision -making process? How has the planning commission balanced the environmental considerations with other relevant factors in evaluating the proposed studio project? Has there been an assessment of the potential environmental impacts associated with the full size project under consideration? How does this compare to Alternative #3 in terms of their environmental effects, such as habitat disturbance, water usage, energy consumption, and overall ecological footprint? What efforts have been made to gather public input and community feedback specifically on Alternative #3 and its environmental advantages? Have there been opportunities for residents, environmental experts, and other stakeholders to voice their opinions and concerns regarding the adoption of this alternative? Are there any specific plans or strategies in place to ensure that the environmental benefits of Alternative #3 are maximized during the implementation and operation of the studio project should you require that alternative in your approval? How will adherence to environmentally friendly practices and mitigation measures be monitored and enforced? Given the environmentally superior status of Alternative #3, what steps will be taken to educate the public and stakeholders about its merits and the rationale behind its adoption? How will the planning commission communicate and justify the decision to prioritize environmental considerations in the approval process? I appreciate your attention to these questions and the opportunity to gain further insights into the limited discussion surrounding the adoption of Alternative #3, despite its designation as the environmentally superior alternative. Thank you for your commitment to considering the environmental impact of the proposed studio project.ank you for your efforts to prioritize sustainable and environmentally conscious development. Sincerely, Y { Name: Address: Packet Pg. 222 Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, MASTER CASE NO: 21- 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEiR I am writing this letter to express my conditional support for the adoption of Alternative #3 for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a concerned resident of the Santa Clarita community, I believe that Alternative #3 presents a balanced and environmentally superior approach that aligns with the vision and values of our community. I would like to highlight several key reasons for endorsing this alternative: Environmental Conservation: Alternative #3, with its 24% reduction in size, represents a significant step towards minimizing the ecological footprint of the studio project. By reducing the development's impact on sensitive habitats and natural resources, this alternative demonstrates a commitment to environmental conservation, which is crucial for preserving the beauty and integrity of our region. Traffic Management: The adoption of Alternative #3 can alleviate concerns about increased traffic congestion and its associated impacts. With its smaller size and thoughtful design, this alternative allows for better traffic flow management, reducing the potential burden on local roadways and mitigating disruptions to nearby residential areas. Community Compatibility: Alternative #3 strikes a balance between the needs of the studio project and the surrounding community. By reducing the scale of the development, this alternative helps to preserve the character of our neighborhoods and maintain the quality of life enjoyed by Santa Clarita residents. It ensures that the project integrates seamlessly with the existing urban fabric and minimizes potential disruptions. Environmental Stewardship: The adoption of Alternative #3 reflects a commitment to being good stewards of our environment. By embracing a smaller footprint, this alternative demonstrates an understanding of the importance of sustainability and responsible development practices. It sets a positive precedent for future projects in our community, promoting a culture of environmental consciousness. Public Support: As an engaged member of the community, I have witnessed widespread support for Alternative #3 among fellow residents, community organizations, and environmental advocates. Thi6 alternative resonates with the shared values of our community and enjoys significant public backing, reflecting a desire for sustainable and harmonious development. In conclusion, I strongly urge the Santa Clarita Planning Commission to adopt Alternative 43 for the Shadowbox Studios project. Its reduced size, environmental benefits, and closer compatibility with the community make it a clear choice that aligns with the long-term vision and well-being of our city. I believe that by selecting Alternative #3, we can strike a balance between economic growth and environmental responsibility, ensuring a sustainable future for Santa Clarita. Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter. I trust that you will take into account the voices of concerned residents and the overall benefits that Alternative #3 offers to our community and environment. Should you require any further information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, 1€ Name: VA(_ Address: a Packet Pg. 223 Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, MASTER CASE NO, 21- 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to express my support for Alternative #3 as the preferred option for the proposed Shadowbox Studios Project. I believe that Alterative #3 offers numerous benefits and aligns well with the goals of environmental sustainability, community welfare, and responsible development. I urge the planning commission to carefully consider and ultimately select Alternative #3 as the approved option for this project. Alternative #3, with its 24% reduction in size compared to other alternatives, demonstrates a commendable commitment to minimizing the environmental footprint of the studio project. This reduction in size would help preserve and protect the natural resources, wildlife habitats, and scenic beauty of the surrounding area, including the cherished Placerita Canyon. By adopting Alternative #3, the planning commission would showcase the city's dedication to responsible land use and the preservation of its unique natural assets. Furthermore, Alternative #3 holds the potential to minimize traffic congestion and reduce the impact on the existing roadways and transportation infrastructure. With thoughtful planning and implementation, the addition of at least one additional ingress/egress gate that does not feed into Placerita Canyon, as part of Alternative #3, can improve traffic flow and enhance safety for both studio personnel and the community. I also appreciate that Alternative #3 has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative. This designation signifies that the selected option aligns with the citys environmental goals, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions, conserving water resources, and mitigating ecological impacts. By adopting Alternative #3, the planning commission would send a strong message of commitment to sustainability and set a positive example for future development projects in the area. In conclusion, I firmly believe that Alternative #3 is the most responsible, environmentally conscious, and community -oriented option for the Shadowbox Studios Project. Its reduced size, improved traffic flow, and alignment with environmental goals make it the clear choice. I trust that the planning commission will carefully consider these factors and make a decision that benefits both the current and future residents of Santa Clarita. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I appreciate your efforts in evaluating the alternatives for the Shadowbox Studios Project. I have full confidence that the planning commission will make a well-informed decision that upholds the values of sustainability, community welfare, and responsible development. Sincerely, Name: Address: I' UU U Packet Pg. 224 1.c MASTER CASE NO: 21- Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to express my support for the adoption of Alternative #3 for the Shadowbox Studios project. As a resident of Santa Clarita, I believe that Alternative #3 offers a balanced and environmentally conscious approach that aligns with the values and aspirations of our community. Alternative #3, with its 24% reduction in size, demonstrates a commitment to environmental preservation, sustainable development and community preservation. By minimizing the project's footprint, this alternative reduces the potential impact on sensitive habitats, natural resources, and wildlife. It reflects a responsible approach to development that prioritizes the long-term health of our ecosystem. Moreover, adopting Alternative #3 will help alleviate concerns regarding increased traffic congestion. With a smaller scale, this alternative allows for better traffic flow management and minimizes potential disruptions to surrounding neighborhoods. By considering the impact on local roadways and implementing thoughtful design, we can ensure that the project integrates harmoniously with the existing transportation infrastructure. I appreciate the careful deliberation and analysis that the Planning Commission has undertaken in evaluating the various alternatives. It is my belief that Alternative #3 strikes the right balance between economic growth and community well-being. By adopting this alternative, we can demonstrate our commitment to sustainable development practices and showcase Santa Clarita as a responsible and forward -thinking city. I kindly request that the Planning Commission carefully consider the merits of Alternative #3 and the widespread community support it has garnered. This alternative has resonated with residents, community organizations, and environmental advocates, who see it as a crucial step towards a sustainable future for our city. Thank you for your dedication to the well-being of Santa Clarita and your consideration of Alternative #3 for the Shadowbox Studios project. I trust that you will make a decision that reflects the values and aspirations of our community. Sincerely, Name: 3 Address: Packet Pg. 225 MASTER CASE NO: 21-10� Shadowbox Studies Project Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, Re: Comments to the QEIR I am writing to express my support for the adoption of Alternative #3 for the Shadowbox Studios project. As an active member of the Santa Clarita community, I believe that Alternative #3 represents the best choice for our city and its future development. I would like to share my reasons for endorsing this alternative: Environmental Considerations: Alternative #3 offers a significant reduction in the size of the studio project. This reduction is crucial for preserving our natural resources, protecting sensitive habitats, and maintaining the ecological balance of our region. By prioritizing environmental conservation, we can ensure a sustainable and thriving community for future generations. Traffic Management: The smaller scale of Alternative #3 presents an opportunity to better manage traffic flow and mitigate congestion issues. With thoughtful design and consideration, this alternative can minimize disruptions to local roadways and alleviate concerns about increased traffic in surrounding residential areas. It is crucial to prioritize the smooth and efficient movement of vehicles while maintaining the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. Community Compatibility: Alternative #3 strikes a balance between the needs of the studio project and the interests of our community. By reducing the size of the development, this alternative preserves the character and integrity of our neighborhoods. It respects the concerns of local residents, ensures the project's compatibility with the existing urban fabric, and minimizes potential disruptions during the construction and operation phases. Sustainable Growth: The adoption of Alternative #3 demonstrates a commitment to responsible and sustainable development practices. By embracing a smaller footprint, we prioritize the long-term health and vitality of our city. This alternative sets a positive example for future projects and reinforces our commitment to being good stewards of our environment. Public Support: Alternative #3 has garnered strong support from community members, local organizations, and environmental advocates. It reflects the shared values and aspirations of Santa Clarita residents who seek a sustainable and harmonious balance between economic growth and environmental responsibility. By choosing Alternative #3, we honor the voices of our community and demonstrate our commitment to listening and responding to the concerns of our residents. I kindly request the Santa Clarita Planning Commission to carefully consider the merits of Alternative #3 in the decision -making process for the Shadowbox Studios project. Its environmental benefits, traffic management potential, compatibility with our community, and support from residents make it a clear choice for a sustainable future for Santa Clarita. Thank you for your time and consideration. I trust that you will take into account the opinions and desires of the community, and make a decision that will benefit our city in the long run. If you require any further information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to me. Sincerely, Name: Address: 't `�' . TV U' Packet Pg. 226 MASTER CASE NO: 21- 1.c Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, Shadowbox audios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I have several questions regarding the aesthetics of the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and its compatibility with the rural and equestrian character of the Placerita Canyon community. I kindly request your insights and responses to the following: Has there been a thorough analysis conducted to assess the visual impact of the Shadowbox Studios project on the surrounding area? How will the proposed design, architecture, and landscaping of the studios contribute to or detract from the existing aesthetics of Placerita Canyon? What measures will be taken to ensure that the design of the studios complements the rural and equestrian character of Placerita Canyon? Will the materials, colors, and architectural styles be chosen to blend harmoniously with the existing structures and natural surroundings? Are there any specific design guidelines or requirements in place to maintain the visual integrity of the Placerita Canyon community? How will the studios be designed to respect and enhance the scenic qualities and heritage of the area? Will there be provisions for landscape buffering or visual screening to minimize the visual impact of the studios on neighboring properties and public view corridors? How will these measures be implemented and maintained throughout the project's lifespan? Has there been consultation or involvement of local residents, community organizations, or design professionals to gather input on the aesthetics of the studios and their compatibility with the Placerita Canyon community? How have these perspectives influenced the planning commissions considerations and decision -making process? Are there any plans or commitments to incorporate public art installations or other creative elements within the studios or their immediate surroundings? How will these elements enhance the visual appeal and cultural significance of the project while respecting the unique character of Placerita Canyon? Will there be any efforts to minimize light pollution and glare from the studios to preserve the dark sky conditions in Placerita Canyon? How will outdoor lighting be designed and managed to ensure it does not negatively impact the nocturnal environment or the rural ambiance of the community? I appreciate your attention to these questions and your dedication to maintaining the aesthetics and character of the Placerita Canyon community. Your insights will contribute to a well -planned and visually appealing development that respects and enhances the unique qualities of our beloved community. Sincerely, Name: Address: 4 k (A ; 4 � 1 � 9 FFri•` 4�, i i1 �y� ( ��.� Packet Pg. 2 7 MASTER CASE NO: 21- 1.c Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I have some inquiries regarding the aesthetics of the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and its compatibility with the rural and equestrian character of the Placerita Canyon community. I kindly request your insights and responses to the following questions: How will the design of Shadowbox Studios incorporate elements that complement the existing rural and equestrian character of Placerita Canyon? Are there plans to incorporate architectural features, landscaping, or other design elements that work with the natural surroundings and the aesthetics of the community? Has there been consideration given to the visual impact of Shadowbox Studios on the scenic beauty of Placerita Canyon? What measures will be taken to minimize any adverse visual effects and ensure that the project blends seamlessly into the surrounding environment? Will there be specific design guidelines or requirements in place to ensure that the materials, colors, and architectural styles used in the construction of the studio facilities are in harmony with the existing buildings and structures in Placerita Canyon? How will the planning commission ensure that the project maintains a cohesive and aesthetically pleasing appearance? What provisions will be made to preserve and enhance the existing landscaping and vegetation within and around the Shadowbox Studios project site? Are there plans for native plantings, open green spaces, or other landscaping elements that contribute to the rural and natural ambiance of the area? Has the community been involved in discussions or provided input regarding the aesthetic aspects of the Shadowbox Studios project? If so, what feedback has been received from residents and local stakeholders, and how has it influenced the planning commission's considerations and decision -making process? Will there be any restrictions or guidelines regarding outdoor signage, lighting, or other visual elements associated with the studio facilities? How will these aspects be regulated to minimize visual clutter and maintain the character of Placerita Canyon? Are there any plans for public art installations or other creative features within the Shadowbox Studios project that can enhance the visual appeal and contribute to the cultural vitality of the Placerita Canyon community? I appreciate your attention to these questions and your efforts to ensure that the aesthetics of the Shadowbox Studios project align with the rural and equestrian character of Placerita Canyon. Your insights will contribute to a visually pleasing and harmonious integration of the development within our community. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Name: Address: _i 4 i � " g C Packet Pg. 228 Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, MASTER CASE NO: 21 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I have some questions regarding the potential impact of flooding in Placerita Canyon during heavy rain events. I would appreciate your insights and information on the following matters: What measures have been taken or are planned to address the risk of flooding in Placerita Canyon during heavy rain events? Has a comprehensive flood risk assessment been conducted to evaluate the potential extent and severity of flooding in the area? Does the DEIR address this potential sufficiently? How will the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and associated development in the vicinity of Placerita Canyon mitigate the risk of flooding? Have flood control and drainage systems been designed or implemented to prevent or minimize flooding impacts on the studio campus and surrounding areas? Are there any specific regulations or guidelines in place to ensure that the studio project adheres to best practices for flood management? How will the project's design and construction address the potential for increased runoff and its effect on downstream areas? Has there been consultation or coordination with relevant agencies, such as the County Department of Public Works or the Flood Control District, to assess and address the potential flooding risks in Placerita Canyon? What insights or recommendations have been provided by these agencies in relation to flood mitigation measures? How will the proposed development impact the natural drainage patterns and existing floodplains within Placerita Canyon? Has there been an evaluation of the project's potential to alter the flow of water and exacerbate flooding risks in the area? Will the studio project incorporate any additional measures, such as the construction of retention basins or the implementation of stormwater management practices, to help alleviate flooding concerns in Placerita Canyon? If so, what are the details of these measures and how will their effectiveness be ensured? Are there any emergency response plans in place to address potential flooding events in Placerita Canyon, particularly in relation to the studio project? How will emergency services and evacuation procedures be coordinated to ensure the safety of residents, employees, and visitors in the area? I appreciate your attention to these questions and the opportunity to gain a better understanding of the planning and mitigation efforts related to flooding in Placerita Canyon. Thank you for your commitment to ensuring the safety and well-being of our community. Sincerely, Name: Address: AIJ Packet Pg. 229 Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, MASTER CASE NO: 21 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I would like to inquire about the potential impact of heavy rain events on flooding in Placerita Canyon_ Given the significance of this concern, I kindly request your insights and responses to the following questions: How has the proposed Shadowbox Studios project accounted for the risk of flooding in Placerita Canyon during heavy rain events? Has a thorough analysis of the areas drainage system and flood patterns been conducted to assess the project's potential impact on flooding? What measures will be implemented to mitigate the risk of flooding associated with the studio project? Are there plans for adequate stormwater management infrastructure, such as retention basins or drainage channels, to handle the increased runoff during heavy rain events? Has a hydrological study been performed to determine the project 's potential effects on the capacity of existing waterways and drainage systems in Placerita Canyon? How will the project ensure that the additional runoff from the development does not exacerbate flooding conditions in the area? Will there be provisions to maintain and monitor the stormwater management systems on an ongoing basis to ensure their effectiveness and prevent potential flooding incidents? How will the responsible party be held accountable for regular maintenance and addressing any necessary repairs or modifications? Has the community's input been sought regarding the potential flood risks associated with the studio project? What concerns or suggestions have been raised by local residents, businesses, and relevant stakeholders, and how have these considerations influenced the planning commission's approach to flood mitigation? Will the project adhere to established best practices and regulations concerning stormwater management and flood prevention, such as the requirements set forth by local, state, and federal agencies? How will compliance with these regulations be ensured throughout the construction and operation phases of the project? What plans are in place to communicate and educate the public about the flood risks in Placerita Canyon, particularly in relation to the studio project? How will the community be informed of the measures taken to mitigate flooding and the steps they can take to stay safe during heavy rain events? In the event of a significant flood event, what emergency response protocols are in place to protect the safety and well-being of residents, studio personnel, and other individuals in the area? How will communication and coordination among relevant agencies be facilitated during such events? I appreciate your attention to these important questions and the opportunity to gain further insights into the flood risk considerations for the proposed Shadowbox Studios project. Thank you for your commitment to addressing community concerns and ensuring the safety and sustainability of our region. Sincerely, Name: 2A I , i ! 1 4 L. Al—1 Address: %� Z' tt 9 ' # ,.! > I- /_ Vf AL pis: i i�- Packet Pg. 230 Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, MASTER CASE NO: 21-1 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re; Comments to the DEIR I am writing to express my strong support for the adoption of Alternative #3 for the Shadowbox Studios project. I believe that Alternative #3 offers numerous benefits and represents the most environmentally responsible choice for the development. Alternative #3, with its 24% reduction in size compared to other alternatives, is the environmentally superior option that aligns with the goals of sustainability and responsible land use. By minimizing the footprint of the studio project, Alternative #3 helps preserve the natural beauty of the surrounding area, protects sensitive ecosystems, and minimizes habitat disruption. This reduction in size demonstrates a commitment to environmental stewardship and a consideration for the long-term sustainability of our community. Furthermore, Alternative #3 promotes efficient land use and respects the unique character of Placerita Canyon. It preserves the visual aesthetics of the area by minimizing the visual impact of the studio project. This approach not only maintains the scenic beauty that attracts residents and visitors to the region but also ensures compatibility with the existing natural and cultural features of Placerita Canyon. Additionally, Alternative #3 emphasizes the need for responsible traffic management. With its consideration for at least one additional ingress/egress gate that does not feed into Placerita Canyon, this alternative addresses concerns regarding traffic congestion, emergency response access, and the overall transportation infrastructure plan for the Santa Clarita area. By distributing traffic flow and providing alternative routes, it helps alleviate potential burdens on local roadways and ensures a more efficient and safer transportation network for both the studio project and the surrounding community. I appreciate the efforts and considerations of the Santa Clarita Planning Commission in evaluating the various alternatives for the Shadowbox Studios project. Alternative #3, with its reduced size, environmental benefits, and emphasis on responsible traffic management, represents a balanced approach that upholds both the needs of development and the preservation of our natural resources. In conclusion, I strongly urge the planning commission to adopt Alternative #3 for the Shadowbox Studios project. This alternative reflects a commitment to environmental sustainabiliq, responsible land use, and the long-term well-being of our community. By supporting Alternative #3, we can ensure a harmonious balance between economic growth and environmental conservation, `thank you for your attention to this matter. I trust that you will give careful consideration to the significant environmental advantages of Alternative#3 in your decision -making process. Sincerely, Name: Address: Packet Pg. 231 MASTER CASE NO: 21-1 1.c Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the HEIR I am writing to inquire about the potential risks of flooding in Placerita Canyon during heavy rain events and to seek clarification on the measures being taken to address this concern. I have several questions regarding this matter and would appreciate your insights and response: What are the historical flood patterns in Placerita Canyon during heavy rain events? Has there been any assessment of the flood risk in the area, particularly in relation to the proposed Shadowbox Studios project? If so, what were the findings of these assessments, and how have they influenced the planning process? What measures will be implemented to mitigate the risk of flooding in Placerita Canyon, both during the construction phase and once the studio project is operational? Are there any specific design elements or infrastructure improvements planned to address potential flood hazards in the area? Has the proposed project undergone a comprehensive hydrological analysis to evaluate its impact on local water flow patterns and the potential for increased flooding in Placerita Canyon? If so, what were the findings of this analysis, and how have they been incorporated into the projects design and mitigation plans? Will there be any requirements or conditions of approval related to stormwater management and drainage systems to ensure that the project does not exacerbate existing flooding issues in Placerita Canyon? How will the effectiveness of these systems be monitored and evaluated over time? Has the community been consulted or involved in the assessment of flood risks and the development of flood mitigation strategies for Placerita Canyon? What feedback has been received from residents, local businesses, and other stakeholders regarding this issue, and how has it been taken into account during the planning process? Are there any provisions in place to ensure that the projeces construction activities do not contribute to soil erosion or other factors that could increase the likelihood of flooding in Placerita Canyon? How will compliance with these provisions be monitored and enforced? Has there been coordination with relevant local agencies, such as flood control districts or water resource management authorities, to address potential flooding concerns in Placerita Canyon? Are there any joint efforts or partnerships in place to manage flood risks and ensure the safety of residents and the proposed studio project? What emergency response plans are being developed to address potential flooding events in Placerita Canyon? How will the safety of residents, studio personnel, and surrounding areas be ensured during such incidents? Are there any evacuation protocols or procedures in place to mitigate risks and protect lives and property? I appreciate your attention to these questions and your commitment to addressing the potential flooding concerns in Placerita Canyon. It is important to prioritize the safety and well-being of our community and to ensure that appropriate measures are in place to mitigate the risks associated with heavy rain events. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your insights and clarification on this matter. Sincerely, Name: N, k' � H C, i C, iFt {, i r.- �rJ v i. (m1 R L .? f\- €. r , . z "r" :1 f t . t ... Address: C T 1 Packet Pg. 232 MASTER CASE NO: 21-109 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR Dear Santa Clarita planning Commission, have several questions regarding the removal and relocation of oak trees from the proposed Shadowbox Studios project site. I would greatly appreciate your insights and responses to the following: How marry oak trees are currently present on the project site, and what is the proposed plan for their removal or relocation? Will any efforts be made to minimize the impact on these trees, considering their ecological significance and the visual appeal they add to the landscape? What criteria have been established to determine which oak trees will be relocated and which ones will be removed? Will the relocation process be conducted by professionals with expertise in tree transplantation to ensure the highest chances of survival and successful establishment in their new locations? Has an arborist or a tree specialist been consulted to assess the health and viability of the oak trees on the project site? Will their recommendations be taken into consideration when determining the fate of these trees? Are there any specific plans to replace or mitigate the loss of oak trees on the project site? Will new oak trees be planted elsewhere on the property or in the vicinity to compensate for the removal of existing trees? Will there be measures in place to protect any remaining oak trees on the project site during the construction phase? How will the construction activities be managed to prevent damage or stress to these trees, including their root systems? Has public input been sought to gather opinions and concerns regarding the removal or relocation of oak trees? How have these perspectives influenced the planning commission's considerations and decision - making process in relation to the project's impact on the local tree canopy? What monitoring and follow-up measures will be implemented to ensure the success and survival of relocated oak trees? Will there be a timeframe for evaluating their health and establishment in their new locations? I appreciate your attention to these questions and your commitment to preserving and mitigating the impact on oak trees during the development of the Shadowbox Studios project. Your insights will contribute to an environmentally responsible and sensitive approach to tree management on the site. Sincerely, Name: Address: — - "i ` a: Packet Pg. 2 3 Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, MASTER CASE NO: 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to further inquire about the considerations that planning commissioners would take into account when determining a condition of approval regarding the design of Dockweiler Drive, specifically focusing on the safety factors associated with roundabouts as opposed to the signalized light sequence proposed by Shadowbox Studios. I would appreciate your response to the following questions: In considering the safety factors, what specific aspects of roundabouts will be taken into account when determining the condition of approval for the design of Dockweiler Drive? How would factors such as reduced speeds, improved traffic flow, and potential reductions in severe accidents and collisions be considered? Has there been any analysis or comparison conducted between roundabouts and signalized intersections in terms of safety performance? Are there any studies or data available that demonstrate the potential safety benefits of roundabouts, such as lower crash rates, reduced severity of accidents, and improved pedestrian and cyclist safety? Has there been any engagement or consultation with traffic engineering experts, transportation authorities, or other professionals experienced in roundabout design and implementation to gather insights and expertise on the safety considerations associated with roundabouts? Will their recommendations or findings taken into account during the decision -making process? How would the specific characteristics of the Dockweiler Drive area, such as anticipated traffic volumes, road geometry/incline/descent, existing infrastructure, and pedestrian and cyclist usage, influence the safety considerations when comparing a roundabout to a signalized light sequence? Would there be any modifications or enhancements required to ensure optimal safety performance of the chosen design? What opportunities would be available to educate the public and road users about the safe usage and proper navigation of roundabouts if Placerita Canyon's preferred roundabout were to be included in the condition of approval for the Dockweiler Drive design? How would awareness and understanding of roundabout rules and best practices be promoted to ensure a smooth transition and safe operation for all users? Are there any specific safety guidelines or standards that would need to be met in the design and implementation of a roundabout at Dockweiler Drive? What measures would be taken to address potential concerns or conflicts, such as pedestrian and cyclist access, horse crossings, signage and markings, and visibility for drivers approaching the roundabout? Thank you for your attention to these additional questions. I greatly appreciate your insights and clarification regarding the safety considerations associated with roundabouts and the potential impact on the condition of approval for the design of Dockweiler Drive. Sincerely, Name: Address:` Packet Pg. 2 4 MASTER CASE NO: 21-1 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIP Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, am writing to inquire about the considerations that planning commissioners would take into account when determining a condition of approval regarding the design of Dockweiler Drive in relation to Placerita Canyon's preferred roundabout versus the signalized light sequence proposed by Shadowbox Studios. I would appreciate your response to the following question: What specific considerations would planning commissioners take into account when determining a condition of approval that requires the City's design of Dockweiler Drive that incorporates Placerita Canyon's preferred roundabout instead of the signalized light sequence proposed by Shadowbox Studios? How will the factors of safety and community preferences be weighed in the decision -making process? Thank you for your attention to this question. I look forward to your insights and clarification regarding the considerations for a condition of approval that would require the incorporation of Placerita Canyons preferred roundabout in the design of Dockweiler Drive. Sincerely, A �as Name:° Address Packet Pg. 235 MASTER CASE NO: 21-10 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to further inquire about the considerations that planning commissioners would take into account when determining a condition of approval regarding the design of Dockweiler Drive in relation to Placerita Canyon's preferred roundabout versus the signalized light sequence proposed by Shadowbox Studios. In particular, I am interested in understanding the safety factors associated with roundabouts and how they would be weighed in the decision -making process. I kindly request your insights and response to the following questions: How would safety considerations be evaluated when determining a condition of approval that requires the City's design of Dockweiler Drive to incorporate Placerita Canyon's preferred roundabout? What specific safety factors associated with roundabouts would be taken into account, such as reduced speeds, improved visibility, and decreased conflict points? Has there been any analysis or comparison conducted between roundabouts and signalized light sequences in terms of safety performance? Are there any studies or data available that demonstrate the potential safety benefits of roundabouts over traditional signalized intersections? What is the historical safety record of roundabouts within the Santa Clarita area or other similar locations versus collision frequency at signalized intersections? Have there been any reported incidents or accidents at existing roundabouts that could inform the decision -making process regarding the design of Dockweiler Drive? Will there be a comprehensive safety assessment conducted specifically for the proposed signalized lights at Dockweiler Drive to ensure that it meets the required standards and guidelines? How will the safety of various road users, including vehicles, pedestrians, horses, and cyclists, be taken into consideration during the design and implementation if the roundabout is taken away? Has there been any consultation or engagement with local transportation authorities, law enforcement agencies, and other safety experts to gather input and feedback on the safety considerations associated with roundabouts? How have their perspectives been incorporated into the decision -making process? How will the potential safety benefits of roundabouts be communicated to the public, particularly to address any concerns or misconceptions that may exist? Will there be efforts to provide education and awareness about roundabout usage and safe practices for all road users? Will there be ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the safety performance of the roundabout or signalized lights at Dockweiler Drive once it is operational? How will any identified safety issues or concerns be addressed, and will there be mechanisms in place for making adjustments or improvements as necessary? Thank you for your attention to these additional questions. I greatly appreciate your insights and clarification regarding the considerations for a condition of approval that would require the incorporation of Placerita Canyon's preferred roundabout in the design of Dockweiler Drive, particularly in relation to the safety factors associated with roundabouts. Understanding the thoroughness of the safety evaluation process will help ensure a well-informed decision that prioritizes the well-being and safety of all road users. Sincerely, Name: i 3 Address: t t a �' ttt Y'—li �;,;,r Packet Pg. 236 MASTER CASE NO: 21- 1.c Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the QEIR I would like to inquire about the potential impact of heavy rain events on flooding in Placerita Canyon. I have several questions regarding this matter and would appreciate your insights: 1, What measures have been taken to assess the risk of flooding in Placerita Canyon during heavy rain events? Has a comprehensive flood risk analysis been conducted to evaluate the vulnerability of the area? 2. Are there any existing flood control infrastructure or systems in place to mitigate the risk of flooding in Placerita Canyon? If so, how effective are these measures in handling heavy rain events? Are there any plans to enhance or upgrade the flood control infrastructure in the area? 3. How will the proposed Shadowbox Studios project take into account the potential risk of flooding in Placerita Canyon? Have flood mitigation strategies been incorporated into the project's design and planning process to ensure the safety and protection of the studio facilities, surrounding properties, and residents? 4. In the event of heavy rain and subsequent flooding in Placerita Canyon, what emergency response plans are in place to ensure the safety and well-being of residents, including those in the vicinity of the Shadowbox Studios project? How will evacuation procedures be coordinated, and what communication channels will be utilized to alert and inform residents in a timely manner? 5. Has the potential for increased stormwater runoff from the studio project itself been evaluated? What measures will be implemented to manage and control stormwater runoff, particularly during heavy rain events, to prevent additional strain on the existing drainage systems and mitigate the risk of flooding downstream? 6. How will the impact of climate change, including potential increases in the frequency and intensity of heavy rain events, be considered in the assessment of flood risk and mitigation strategies for Placerita Canyon? Are there any plans to incorporate climate resilience measures into the planning and design of the Shadowbox Studios project? 7. Will there be ongoing monitoring and evaluation of flood risks and the effectiveness of flood control measures in Placerita Canyon? How will any necessary adjustments or improvements be identified and implemented to ensure the continued safety and resilience of the area? I appreciate your attention to these questions and your commitment to addressing the potential impact of flooding in Placerita Canyon during heavy rain events, Understanding the measures in place to mitigate flood risks and protect the well-being of the community is essential for responsible planning and decision -making. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your insights and updates regarding the management of flooding in Placerita Canyon. Sincerely, Name: is Address: Packet Pg. 237 Dear Santa Clarita planning Commission, MASTER EASE NO: 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR am writing to express my support for the adoption of Alternative #3 for the Shadowbox Studios project. I believe that this alternative offers significant benefits for our community and the environment, and I would like to outline my reasons for endorsing it. First and foremost, Alternative #3 demonstrates a commitment to environmental conservation. With its 24% reduction in size, this alternative helps minimize the project's impact on sensitive habitats, natural resources, and the overall ecological integrity of our region. By choosing Alternative #3, we can ensure that the development is conducted in a responsible and sustainable manner, preserving the natural beauty of our surroundings for future generations. Furthermore, Alternative #3 addresses concerns regarding traffic management. Its smaller size allows for better traffic flow and congestion mitigation, minimizing the potential disruptions to local roadways and neighboring residential areas. By prioritizing efficient transportation planning, this alternative takes into account the needs of both the studio project and the surrounding community, ensuring a harmonious coexistence. I also appreciate how Alternative #3 aligns with the existing character of our community. By reducing the scale of the development, this alternative preserves the unique charm and quality of life enjoyed by Santa Clarita residents. It demonstrates a thoughtful approach to growth that respects the values and interests of our community, fostering a positive and sustainable future for all. Lastly, I want to emphasize the public support for Alternative #3. Through conversations with fellow residents, community organizations, and environmental advocates, it is clear that this alternative resonates strongly with our shared values. Its adoption would not only reflect the desires of the community but also set a positive example for future development projects in Santa Clarita. In conclusion, I urge the Santa Clarita planning Commission to carefully consider and ultimately select Alternative #3 for the Shadowbox Studios project. This alternative offers a balanced and environmentally superior approach that prioritizes conservation, traffic management, community compatibility, and public support. By choosing Alternative #3, we can ensure a sustainable and prosperous future for our community. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I trust that you will give due consideration to the voices of concerned residents and the long-term benefits that Alternative #3 brings to Santa Clarita. Should you require any further information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out. Sincerely, fat r,, Name: f " ` eJ C Address: ,.. Packet Pg. 238 MASTER CASE NO: 21-10 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, I am writing to inquire about the feasibility and potential compromise of implementing a double lane roundabout at the intersection of Dockweiler Drive, Arch Street, and 12th Street as an alternative to address the concerns of both residents and the studio. Given there has never been an adoption of a standard for roundabouts in the city of Santa Clarita, I would appreciate your insights and response to the following question: Considering the absence of a standard for roundabouts in Santa Clarita, could a double lane roundabout be considered as a potential compromise between the preferences of residents and the needs of the studio at the intersection of Dockweiler Drive, Arch Street, and 12th Street? What factors would be taken into account when evaluating the feasibility and appropriateness of such a design? Thank you for your attention to this question. I look forward to your insights and clarification regarding the potential consideration of a double lane roundabout as a compromise solution at the mentioned intersection. Sincerely, Name: Address: Packet Pg. 2 9771 Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, MASTER CASE NO: 21 1•c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I would like to inquire about the aesthetics of the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and its compatibility with the rural and equestrian character of the Placerita Canyon community. What efforts have been made to ensure that the design and aesthetics of the Shadowbox Studios project are in harmony with the surrounding rural and equestrian environment of Placerita Canyon? Have there been considerations given to architectural styles, materials, and landscaping that will complement the existing character of the community? Will the proposed development incorporate design elements that preserve the scenic beauty and natural landscape of Placerita Canyon? Are there plans to protect and enhance views, vistas, and open spaces that are cherished by the community and contribute to its unique identity? Has there been any collaboration with local community organizations, such as the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association or equestrian groups, to gather input and ensure that the project's aesthetics align with their expectations? How has this feedback influenced the planning commission's considerations and decision -making process? Will there be guidelines or restrictions in place to control the visual impact of the studio facilities, such as building heights, signage, lighting, or other visual elements? How will the planning commission ensure that the project's visual components are respectful of the rural and equestrian character of Placerita Canyon? Are there plans for integrating sustainable and environmentally friendly design practices into the project's aesthetics? Will features such as green spaces, native plantings, or renewable energy systems be incorporated to enhance the overall visual appeal and environmental compatibility of the development? How will the visual impact of the Shadowbox Studios project be evaluated and monitored once it is operational? Are there mechanisms in place to address any unforeseen issues related to aesthetics and ensure ongoing compliance with the approved design guidelines and aesthetic considerations? Will there be opportunities for public input and review of the project's aesthetics during the construction phase? How will community members and stakeholders be engaged to provide feedback and suggestions regarding the visual aspects of the development? I appreciate your attention to these questions and your commitment to maintaining the aesthetic integrity of Placerita Canyon while considering the Shadowbox Studios project. Your insights and efforts to ensure a visually compatible and respectful development will contribute to the overall well-being and satisfaction of the community. Sincerely, Name: Address: Packet Pg. 240 Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, MASTER CASE NO: 21 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to further inquire about the possibility of considering a double lane roundabout as a potential compromise between residents and the studio at the intersection of Dockweiler Drive, Arch Street, and 12th Street, particularly in light of the city of Santa Clarita not having adopted a standard for roundabouts at this time. I would appreciate your response to the following questions: In the absence of a roundabout standard in Santa Clarita, what specific considerations would need to be taken into account when evaluating the feasibility and potential benefits of a double lane roundabout at the intersection of Dockweiler Drive, Arch Street, and 12th Street? How would factors such as traffic volume, road geometry, pedestrian and cyclist usage, and future growth and development be considered in the decision -making process? Has there been any analysis or comparison conducted between single lane and double lane roundabouts in terms of their suitability and effectiveness at similar intersections? Are there any studies or data available that demonstrate the potential benefits and challenges associated with double lane roundabouts, particularly in relation to traffic flow, safety, and capacity? Considering the unique characteristics and needs of the intersection at Dockweiler Drive, Arch Street, and 12th Street, what advantages might a double lane roundabout offer over alternative solutions, such as signalized intersections or other intersection designs? How would the inclusion of an additional lane address concerns related to traffic congestion, efficient movement of vehicles, and potential future growth in the area? What potential challenges or limitations might arise in implementing a double lane roundabout at the specific location? Are there any constraints, such as land availability, right-of-way considerations, or existing infrastructure, that would need to be carefully evaluated and addressed? Given that a double lane roundabout may be a novel concept for the city of Santa Clarita, what opportunities would exist to educate the public and road users about the safe usage and proper navigation of a double lane roundabout at this intersection? How would awareness and understanding of double lane roundabout rules and best practices be promoted to ensure a smooth transition and safe operation for all users? What additional studies, evaluations, or expert consultations might be necessary to assess the suitability and potential impacts of a double lane roundabout at the intersection of Dockweiler Drive, Arch Street, and 12th Street? How would community input and stakeholder feedback be incorporated into the decision -making process regarding the choice of intersection design? Thank you for your attention to these additional questions. I greatly appreciate your insights and clarification regarding the feasibility and potential considerations of a double lane roundabout as a compromise solution for the intersection of Dockweiler Drive, Arch Street, and 12th Street, given the absence of a roundabout standard in the city of Santa Clarita. Sincerely, Name: t U i Address: Packet Pg. 241 MASTER CASE NO: 21- 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, I am writing to inquire about the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and the potential requirement for an additional ingress and egress to the studio campus. In light of this, I have some questions regarding the consideration for the residents of Placerita Canyon, as well as the safety and well-being of horses, livestock, and pets during evacuation emergencies. I would appreciate your response: Has there been any assessment or planning regarding the evacuation procedures and protocols for the residents of Placerita Canyon in the event of an emergency, considering the potential increase in traffic due to the proposed lack of additional ingress and egress points? Will there be clear and well -communicated evacuation routes and instructions for the residents of Placerita Canyon, particularly those with horses, livestock, and pets? How will these instructions be disseminated to ensure that everyone can evacuate safely and efficiently? Has the impact of increased traffic during evacuation emergencies been considered in relation to the safety and welfare of horses, livestock, and pets in the Placerita Canyon area? Will there be specific measures or accommodations in place to address the needs of these animals during evacuations? Were they taken into the calculations presented by Pat Gibson? If so, how many horses and livestock trailers were calculated in the evacuation time? Are there designated areas or facilities on the studio campus that can provide temporary shelter for horses, livestock, and pets in the event of an evacuation? If so, how will these facilities be communicated to the residents, and what capacity will they have to accommodate the animals? How large is the phantom dog p ark? Will there be provisions or protocols for assisting residents in evacuating their horses, livestock, and pets, such as providing trailers or transportation support during emergencies? How will emergency response personnel be trained and equipped to handle situations involving the evacuation of animals, including horses, livestock, and pets? Will there be coordination with animal control agencies and animal welfare organizations to ensure their involvement in emergency planning and response? Will there be public education and awareness campaigns to inform residents of Placerita Canyon about the importance of emergency preparedness for their animals and the steps they can take to ensure their safety during evacuations? How will the effectiveness of the evacuation procedures and the safety of animals during emergencies be monitored and evaluated? Will there be mechanisms in place to gather feedback from residents and address any concerns or areas for improvement? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I look forward to your insights and clarification regarding the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and the considerations for the residents of Placerita Canyon, horses, livestock, and pets during evacuation emergencies. Sincerely, r Name: r. r3 1 l c Address: ;- I = Packet Pg. 242 MASTER CASE NO: 21-10 1'c Shadowbox Studios Project Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, Re: Comments to the DEIR I have several questions regarding the potential for flooding in Placerita Canyon during heavy rain events. I would greatly appreciate your insights and responses to the following: What measures have been taken to assess the risk of flooding in Placerita Canyon during heavy rain events? Has a comprehensive flood risk analysis been conducted to understand the potential impact on both the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and the surrounding areas? What strategies and design considerations are being implemented to mitigate the risk of flooding in Placerita Canyon? Are there plans for proper drainage systems, retention basins, or other flood control measures to ensure the safety of residents, properties, and infrastructure during heavy rain events? Has there been collaboration with relevant agencies, such as the Santa Clarita Valley Watershed Advisory Committee or the County Department of Public Works, to ensure that the flood risk in Placerita Canyon is adequately addressed? How will coordination and communication be maintained to address any potential flood -related issues that may arise? Will the proposed development of Shadowbox Studios incorporate flood -resilient design features to minimize the impact of flooding? If so, what specific measures or design considerations will be implemented to protect the studio facilities, surrounding properties, and infrastructure from potential flood damage? How will emergency response and evacuation plans be developed and implemented in the event of a flooding incident in Placerita Canyon? Are there established protocols in place to ensure the safety and well-being of residents, studio personnel, and the general public during such emergencies? Has public input been sought to gather information about previous flooding incidents, concerns, and suggestions from residents of Placerita Canyon? How has this input influenced the planning commission's considerations and decision -making process regarding flood mitigation measures? Are there any ongoing studies or future plans to address the long-term flood risk in Placerita Canyon, considering potential changes in weather patterns or climate conditions? How will the planning commission adapt and respond to evolving flood risk factors in the area? I appreciate your attention to these questions and your efforts to address the potential flooding concerns in Placerita Canyon exasperated by Shadowbox. Your insights will help ensure the safety, well-being, and resilience of our community during heavy rain events. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, F Name: ------------ Address:,' Packet Pg. 2 3 MASTER CASE NO: 21- 1.c Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEiR 1 have some questions regarding the aesthetics of the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and its compatibility with the rural and equestrian character of the Placerita Canyon community. I kindly request your insights and responses to the following: What efforts have been made to ensure that the design and architectural elements of Shadowbox Studios align with the rural and equestrian aesthetics of Placerita Canyon? Has the project undergone a design review process to evaluate its visual impact and compatibility with the surrounding environment? Are there specific design guidelines or requirements in place to ensure that the project's buildings, structures, and landscaping elements harmonize with the natural beauty of Placerita Canyon? How will the project's aesthetics enhance and complement the existing rural and equestrian character of the area? Will there be any restrictions or regulations on the types of materials, colors, or architectural styles that can be used for the buildings within the Shadowbox Studios project? How will these guidelines contribute to creating a visually cohesive and appealing environment that blends with the surrounding community? Has there been any consideration given to the visual impact of the project on the scenic vistas and viewpoints in Placerita Canyon and Circle J? Will there be efforts to preserve and enhance the existing views and natural landscapes during the construction and operation of the studio facilities? How will the landscaping and open space design within the Shadowbox Studios project be implemented to ensure it complements the rural and equestrian character of Placerita Canyon? Are there plans for incorporating native vegetation, maintaining wildlife corridors, or preserving the existing vegetation to promote a visually pleasing and ecologically sustainable environment? Has the community been involved in the discussion and decision -making process regarding the aesthetics of the project? How has their feedback and input influenced the planning commission's considerations and any design modifications made to ensure compatibility with the Placerita Canyon community? Will there be ongoing monitoring and compliance measures in place to ensure that the aesthetics of Shadowbox Studios are maintained over time? How will any deviations or non-compliance with the approved design guidelines be addressed and rectified? I appreciate your attention to these questions and your efforts to ensure that the aesthetics of the Shadowbox Studios project align with and enhance the rural and equestrian character of Placerita Canyon. Your insights will help maintain the visual appeal and integrity of our community. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, ',,., r i Name: Pf Address: — `f Packet Pg. 2 4 Dear Santa CIarita Planning Commission, MASTER CASE NO: 21- 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to further inquire about if consideration was given to donating a portion of the Shadowbox Studios property to the City of Santa Clarita for the purpose of building a cultural center. 'Ihe establishment of a cultural center can bring numerous benefits to the community, such as fostering arts and cultural activities, providing educational opportunities, and serving as a hub for community engagement. Has there been any formal proposal or discussion regarding the allocation of a portion of the Shadowbox Studios property for the development of a cultural center? If so, what were the main considerations and motivations behind this proposal, and what progress has been made in the discussions with the studio project stakeholders? If not, would you consider as a condition of approval? What potential benefits do you envision a cultural center would bring to the community and the city as a whole? Are there specific goals or objectives that the City of Santa Clarita aims to achieve through the establishment of a cultural center if Shadowbox Studios were to donate a portion of its property? Have there been any assessments or studies conducted to evaluate the feasibility and suitability of incorporating a cultural center with the construction of the studio campus? Could factors such as land availability, infrastructure requirements, zoning considerations, and compatibility with the overall vision of the Shadowbox Studios project be taken into account? If the allocation of a portion of the Shadowbox Studios property for a cultural center is being considered, how would the ownership, management, and funding of the cultural center be addressed? Are there any potential partnerships or collaborations with community organizations, non-profit entities, or private investors that have been explored? Has there been any community input or engagement regarding the idea of a cultural center as a condition of approval for the Shadowbox Studios property? Were there any public forums, surveys, or consultations conducted to gather feedback and gauge the level of support from residents and stakeholders? Are there any alternative proposals or potential locations within the city that have been evaluated for the establishment of a cultural center, apart from the Shadowbox Studios property? What were the main considerations and reasons for either pursuing or not pursuing those alternative options? What steps, if any, are being taken to ensure that the cultural center, if established as a condition of approval, aligns with the broader cultural and artistic vision of the City of Santa Clarita? Could there be plans to incorporate various arts disciplines, community programs, and cultural initiatives within the proposed cultural center? "thank you for your attention to these additional questions. I greatly appreciate your insights and clarification regarding the consideration for a cultural center within the Shadowbox Studios property. Understanding the progress, motivations, and potential benefits associated with this proposal will provide valuable information regarding the future development plans for the studio project and the cultural landscape of Santa Clarita. Sincerely, ,f Name: 4 Address:, Packet Pg. 245 MASTER CASE NO: 21- 1.c Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the bEIR I have several questions regarding wildfire safety in relation to the proposed Shadowbox Studios project, considering the historical wildfire incident in 1962 that destroyed Melody Ranch Studios in Placerita Canyon, the devastating Sand Fire in Sand Canyon, the horrific fire that destroyed Paradise, California in recent years, and so many more. Has a comprehensive wildfire risk assessment been conducted for the proposed Shadowbox Studios project site? What are the specific findings and recommendations from this assessment in terms of mitigating the risk of wildfire in the area? What measures will be implemented to ensure that the studios and surrounding facilities are designed and constructed with wildfire safety in mind? Will fire-resistant materials, landscaping practices, and building design guidelines be adopted to minimize the vulnerability of the structures to wildfire? Are there plans for creating defensible space around the studios and other buildings on the site? How will vegetation management and fuel modification practices be implemented to reduce the risk of fire spread and improve the overall safety of the area? Has there been collaboration and coordination with local fire departments and emergency response agencies to establish protocols for wildfire prevention, preparedness, and response in the vicinity of the Shadowbox Studios project? How will communication and coordination be maintained during wildfire events? Will the project incorporate appropriate fire access roads and fire hydrants to ensure efficient emergency response in the event of a wildfire? What provisions are being made to facilitate safe evacuation for studio personnel, residents, and visitors during wildfire incidents? Has the historical wildfire incident in 1962 that destroyed Melody Ranch Studios influenced the planning commission's considerations and decision -making process regarding wildfire safety for the Shadowbox Studios project? How will the lessons learned from that incident be applied to prevent a similar occurrence? Will there be provisions for ongoing monitoring, maintenance, and updates of the wildfire safety measures implemented for the studios and the surrounding area? How will these measures be evaluated and adjusted over time to ensure continued effectiveness and adaptability to changing wildfire risk factors? I appreciate your attention to these questions and your commitment to ensuring wildfire safety in the development of the Shadowbox Studios project. Your insights and efforts will contribute to the protection of life, property, and the natural environment in Placerita Canyon. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, f Name: Address: Packet Pg. 246 1.c MASTER CASE NO: 21-1 Shadowbox Studios Project Re. Comments to the DEIR Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, I have several questions regarding wildfire safety considerations in light of the presence of the proposed Shadowbox Studios in Placerita Canyon, particularly in reference to the 1962 firestorm that destroyed Melody Ranch Studios. • Has a comprehensive wildfire risk assessment been conducted for the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and its surrounding area? What measures have been taken to evaluate the vulnerability of the site to wildfire incidents, considering the historical context of the 1962 firestorm? • What specific fire prevention and mitigation strategies will be implemented to ensure the safety of the Shadowbox Studios facilities, neighboring properties, and the surrounding community? Will there be dedicated firebreaks, fuel management practices, or other measures to minimize the risk of fire spreading? • Has there been coordination with local fire departments, such as the Los Angeles County Fire Department, to incorporate their recommendations and guidelines into the design and construction of the studios? How will emergency response and firefighting efforts be facilitated in the event of a wildfire incident in the area? • Are there plans for the installation of fire detection and monitoring systems within the studios and the surrounding vicinity? How will early warning systems be implemented to ensure timely evacuation and response in the event of a wildfire threat? • Will there be designated evacuation routes and plans in place to ensure the safe evacuation of studio personnel, residents, and visitors in the event of a wildfire emergency? How will these plans be communicated and practiced to ensure a swift and organized response? • Are there any specific requirements or guidelines in place for landscaping and vegetation management on the Shadowbox Studios property to reduce fire risks? Will fire-resistant plant species and appropriate spacing be considered to minimize the potential fuel load? • Has public input been sought to gather concerns and suggestions from residents and community members regarding wildfire safety measures associated with the proposed studio project? How have these perspectives influenced the planning commission's considerations and decision -making process in relation to fire prevention and response? I appreciate your attention to these questions and your commitment to ensuring the safety and resilience of the Placerita Canyon community in the face of potential wildfire threats. Your insights will contribute to a well -prepared and fire -safe environment for the proposed Shadowbox Studios. Sincerely, Name: Address: Packet Pg. 247 MASTER CASE NO: 21-10 1.c Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the ©EIR I am writing to seek clarification regarding the potential consequences if the proposed Shadowbox Studios project does not receive approval from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) for various aspects, including the use of their land for the north parking, emergency access route, secondary access to the north parking lot, and the use of their property for a greens nursery. I kindly request your insights on the following matters: What specific roles or approvals are required from the Metropolitan Water District for the aforementioned aspects of the Shadowbox Studios project? Are these approvals critical for the project's overall feasibility and successful implementation? Has the planning commission already engaged in discussions or negotiations with the Metropolitan Water District regarding the proposed land uses and access routes associated with the project? If so, what progress has been made in these discussions, and what are the main considerations and concerns raised by the Metropolitan Water District? If the project fails to secure approval from the Metropolitan Water District for any of the mentioned aspects, how will this impact the overall feasibility and functionality of the Shadowbox Studios project? Are there alternative solutions or workarounds being explored to address the potential absence of these approvals? Will the planning commission consider the approval of the Metropolitan Water District as a condition for granting approval to the Shadowbox Studios project? Are there any mechanisms in place to ensure that the necessary approvals are obtained before proceeding with the project to avoid any legal or Iogistical challenges? If the approvals from the Metropolitan Water District are not obtained, what implications does this have for the projecfs compliance with relevant regulations and requirements? How will the project address any non-compliance issues or potential conflicts with local regulations? Has the community and relevant stakeholders been informed about the potential impact of the Metropolitan Water District's approvals on the Shadowbox Studios project? Have there been any opportunities for public input or feedback regarding this matter? Are there any alternative options or contingency plans being considered in case the approvals from the Metropolitan Water District cannot be obtained? How will these options be evaluated, and what criteria will be used to determine their feasibility and suitability for the project? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I greatly appreciate your insights and clarification regarding the potential consequences if the Shadowbox Studios project does not receive approval from the Metropolitan Water District for various aspects. Understanding the implications and any alternative plans will provide valuable information for assessing the project's viability and its adherence to regulatory requirements. Sincerely, R Name: J ij '`, L Address: ,t F d Packet Pg. 248 1.c MASTER CASE NO: 21-1 Shadowbox Studios Project Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to seek clarification regarding the potential impact of a zone change requirement for the proposed Shadowbox Studios project on the approved Dockweiler Drive Extension in the North Newhall Area. Considering that the current zoning allows for the extension, but the studio project requires a change due to differing land usage from the General Plan, I kindly request your response to the following questions: If the Shadowbox Studios project necessitates a zone change due to its significant variance from the current General Plan, will this requirement have any implications for the approved Dockweiler Drive Extension? Will the extension need to be revisited or modified as a result of the zone change? What other considerations or factors come into play when evaluating the relationship between the zone change requirement for the Shadowbox Studios project and the approved Dockweiler Drive Extension? How will the planning commission ensure that both developments can coexist harmoniously and fulfill their respective objectives? Has the potential impact of the zone change requirement on the approved Dockweiler Drive Extension been thoroughly assessed and evaluated? Are there any specific studies, analyses, or consultations conducted to determine the viability and compatibility of the two projects? If modifications or adjustments to the Dockweiler Drive Extension are necessary due to the zone change requirement, what would be the process for addressing these changes? Will there be opportunities for public input and consultation to ensure that the community's perspectives and concerns are taken into account? Are there any alternative solutions or approaches that have been explored to address the zone change requirement while minimizing any potential impact on the approved Dockweiler Drive Extension? If so, what were these alternatives, and why were they not deemed suitable for the project? What measures will be taken to ensure that any modifications or adjustments to the Dockweiler Drive Extension, if required, are carried out in a manner that considers the safety, efficiency, and functionality of the roadway for both the studio project and the surrounding community of Placerita Canyon? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I greatly appreciate your insights and clarification regarding the potential implications of a zone change requirement for the Shadowbox Studios project on the approved Dockweiler Drive Extension. Understanding the considerations and steps taken to address this relationship will provide valuable information regarding the future development plans and the overall planning process. Sincerely, Name: fr, Address: Packet Pg. 249 1.c MASTER CASE NO: 21-10 Shadowbox Studios Project Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to seek clarification on the potential implications and considerations regarding I am writing to seek clarification regarding the potential interplay between the approved Dockweiler Drive Extension and the proposed Shadowbox Studios project, Specifically, I am interested in understanding the implications of the required zone change for the studio project and its potential impact on the Dockweiler Extension. I kindly request your response to the following questions: Considering that the Dockweiler Drive Extension was approved based on the current zoning in the North Newhall Area, will the proposed zone change for the Shadowbox Studios project necessitate the reopening of discussions regarding the Dockweiler Extension? How will the zone change affect the implementation and functionality of the extension? How will residents of Placerita Canyon be affected? What other considerations come into play when a zone change is required for the proposed Shadowbox Studios project? Are there specific criteria or conditions that need to be met before the zone change can be granted, and how does this impact the overall planning process? Will the zone change and its potential impact on the Dockweiler Extension be evaluated as part of the environmental review process for the Shadowbox Studios project? If not, can they be as a condition of approval? Are there any studies or assessments planned to assess the compatibility and feasibility of the proposed zone change and its relation to the approved extension along with impacts to the surrounding community? Are there any alternative solutions or approaches being considered to ensure the compatibility and functionality of both the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and the Dockweiler Extension, considering the required zone change? How will any potential conflicts or challenges be addressed during the planning and implementation stages? What level of coordination and collaboration is taking place between the relevant stakeholders, such as the City of Santa Clarita, the planning commission, and the project developers, and PCPQA to ensure a cohesive and integrated approach that considers the implications of the required zone change on the Dockweiler Extension? Thank you for taking the time to address these questions. Your insights and clarification regarding the interplay between the approved Dockweiler Drive Extension and the proposed zone change for the Shadowbox Studios project will provide valuable information about the planning process and potential considerations in ensuring the successful integration of both developments. Sincerely, Name: ''i'll& IkZ _. Address: Packet Pg. 250 1.c MASTER CASE NO: 21-10 Shadowbox Studios Project Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to seek clarification on the potential implications and considerations regarding the Dockweiler Drive Extension in relation to the approval of the proposed Shadowbox Studios project. It has come to my attention that the Dockweiler Drive Extension was approved based on the current zoning in the North Newhall Area, while Shadowbox Studios, if approved, would require a zone change due to the significant difference in land usage from what is currently allowed in the General Plan. In light of this, I kindly request your response to the following questions: If the proposed Shadowbox Studios project receives approval and necessitates a zone change, will this require the Dockweiler Drive Extension to be reopened? Are there any specific conditions or requirements associated with the extensions approval that may be affected by the zone change? What other considerations come into play when evaluating the impact of the zone change for the Shadowbox Studios project? Are there any potential effects on the surrounding infrastructure, transportation network, or community development plans that need to be taken into account? How does the requirement for a zone change align with the broader vision and goals of the North Newhall Area? Are there any potential challenges or conflicts that may arise from the proposed change in land usage, and how will they be addressed during the planning and approval process? Will there be any additional studies, assessments, or evaluations conducted to analyze the potential impacts of the zone change and the proposed Shadowbox Studios project on the surrounding area? If so, what specific factors will be assessed, and how will the findings be integrated into the decision -making process? Has there been any community input or engagement regarding the proposed zone change and its relationship to the Dockweiler Drive Extension? Were any public meetings, workshops, or consultations held to gather feedback and address concerns from residents and stakeholders? Are there any alternative solutions or approaches being considered that would allow for the approval of the Shadowbox Studios project without requiring a zone change? If so, what are these alternatives, and what factors are being taken into account when evaluating their feasibility and suitability? Thank you for taking the time to address these questions. I appreciate your insights and clarification regarding the potential implications of the zone change for the Shadowbox Studios project and the Dockweiler Drive Extension. Understanding the relationship between these two aspects will provide valuable information for the decision -making process and the overall development plans in the North Newhall Area. Sincerely, Name: Address: Packet Pg. 2 1771 MASTER CASE NO: 21-109 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, Re: Comments to the DEIR I have several questions regarding wildfire safety in light of the presence of the proposed Shadowbox Studios in Placerita Canyon. Given the historical context of the 1962 firestorm that destroyed Melody Ranch Studios, I kindly request your insights and responses to the following: What measures will be implemented to ensure the wildfire safety of the Shadowbox Studios and the surrounding areas? Has a comprehensive fire risk assessment been conducted to identify potential vulnerabilities and develop appropriate mitigation strategies? Will the design and construction of the studios incorporate fire-resistant materials and construction techniques to minimize the risk of ignition and spread during a wildfire event? How will the studios be equipped with fire suppression systems to enhance their resilience in the face of wildfire threats? Has there been collaboration with local fire departments and emergency services to develop an effective emergency response plan specific to the Shadowbox Studios project? How will coordination and communication be maintained during a wildfire incident to ensure the safety of studio personnel and the surrounding community? Are there plans for the establishment of defensible space around the studios, including appropriate clearance of vegetation and the implementation of fuel modification strategies? How will the maintenance of defensible space be ensured to prevent the accumulation of flammable materials? Will there be mandatory fire safety training and education programs for studio staff, contractors, and tenants to promote fire awareness and preparedness? How will fire drills and evacuation procedures be regularly practiced and updated? Has the impact of the Shadowbox Studios on evacuation routes and emergency access to Placerita Canyon been considered? Are there plans for improving evacuation routes or establishing alternative emergency access points to ensure the safe evacuation of studio personnel and residents during a wildfire event? Has public input been sought to gather concerns, suggestions, and experiences related to wildfire safety in Placerita Canyon? How have these perspectives influenced the planning commission's considerations and decision -making process regarding fire risk mitigation strategies for the Shadowbox Studios project? I appreciate your attention to these questions and your commitment to wildfire safety in the planning and development of the Shadowbox Studios project. Your insights will contribute to a safer and more resilient community in the face of wildfire threats. Sincerely,.. Name: 1 f' Address: `I,- L V Packet Pg. 252 Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, 1.c MASTER CASE NO: 21-10 Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to address the potential utilization of the flyover Via Princessa bridge and to further inquire about the feasibility of establishing a secondary entrance from Circle J for the north parking lot of the proposed Shadowbox Studios project. It has been suggested that these solutions could collectively help alleviate traffic congestion at the Arch and 13th intersection, as well as enhance the overall traffic flow in the area. As it currently stands, ALL traffic must enter at the Arch and 13th Street intersection. I kindly request your insights and clarification on the following points: Has the planning commission considered the feasibility of establishing a secondary entrance from Circle J for the north parking lot of the Shadowbox Studios project in conjunction with the utilization of the flyover Via Princessa bridge? Could this combined approach significantly alleviate traffic congestion and improve traffic flow at the Arch and 13th intersection? What are the main benefits and challenges associated with implementing both a secondary entrance from Circle J and utilizing the flyover Via Princessa bridge? Are there any specific technical, engineering, or regulatory considerations that need to be evaluated to ensure the successful integration of these solutions? Have any comprehensive traffic impact studies or assessments been conducted to analyze the potential effects of diverting vehicles through a secondary entrance from Circle J and utilizing the flyover Via Princessa bridge? How were these findings considered in the planning process, particularly in relation to traffic congestion at the Arch and 13th intersection? Are there any ongoing discussions or plans to explore the feasibility of integrating a secondary entrance from Circle J and utilizing the flyover Via Princessa bridge into the overall transportation infrastructure plan for the Santa Clarita area? If not, would the planning commission be open to considering such options to address the current and future traffic concerns in the vicinity? How would the establishment of a secondary entrance from Circle J and the utilization of the flyover Via Princessa bridge impact the overall transportation network in the area? Have there been any assessments conducted to determine the compatibility of these solutions with existing traffic patterns, roadways, and future developments in the vicinity? Are there any specific conditions or restrictions that would need to be imposed if a secondary entrance from Circle J and the utilization of the flyover Via Princessa bridge were implemented to mitigate potential negative impacts or safety concerns? Thank you for your attention to these expanded questions. Your insights and clarification regarding the feasibility of a secondary entrance from Circle J, in combination with the utilization of the flyover Via Princessa bridge, will provide valuable information to evaluate potential solutions for traffic congestion and improve transportation in the Santa Clarita area. Sincerely, Name: n Address: Packet Pg. 253 Dear Santa Clarita planning Commission, MASTER CASE NO: 2 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DE1R I am writing to seek clarification on the potential ramifications if the proposed Shadowbox Studios project does not receive approval from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) for various aspects, namely (a) the use of MWD land for the north parking, (b) the emergency access route, (c) a possible secondary access to the north parking lot, and (d) the use of MWD property for a nursery to mitigate the impact on Alderbrook neighbors. I kindly request answers on the following matters: What implications would arise if Shadowbox Studios does not receive approval from the Metropolitan Water District for the aforementioned land uses? Would the denial of such approvals significantly impact the feasibility and implementation of the project? Has the planning commission considered the approval from the Metropolitan Water District as a condition for granting approval to the Shadowbox Studios project? Are there provisions or considerations in place to ensure that the necessary approvals from the MWD are obtained before proceeding with the proposed development? If the approvals from the Metropolitan Water District are indeed considered as a condition for project approval, what mechanisms or processes are in place to monitor and verify the attainment of these approvals? Will there be a requirement for the applicant to provide evidence of approval from the MWD before the project can move forward? Have there been any discussions or negotiations between the Shadowbox Studios project stakeholders, the City, and the Metropolitan Water District regarding the land uses in question? If so, what progress has been made in obtaining the necessary approvals, and what are the main points of contention or considerations that need to be addressed? If the approvals from the Metropolitan Water District are not secured, what alternative solutions or mitigation measures are being explored to address the absence of north parking, emergency access routes, secondary access to the north parking lot, and the nursery for buffering impact on Alderbrook neighbors? Are there contingency plans or alternative arrangements being considered to ensure the project can proceed without reliance on MWD land? Has there been any community input or engagement regarding the potential impact of not receiving the necessary approvals from the Metropolitan Water District? Were there any public forums, surveys, or consultations conducted to gather feedback and gauge the level of concern or support from residents and stakeholders in relation to this matter? What steps, if any, are being taken to actively pursue the approvals from the Metropolitan Water District to secure the land uses required for the Shadowbox Studios project? Are there ongoing efforts to collaborate and work towards a resolution that satisfies the requirements and concerns of both the project stakeholders and the MWD? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I greatly appreciate your insights and clarification regarding the potential implications of not receiving the necessary approvals from the Metropolitan Water District for the various land uses associated with the Shadowbox Studios project, Understanding the progress, considerations, and alternative measures being explored will provide valuable information regarding the future development plans and the overall feasibility of the project. Sincerely, Name: y % Ael` Address: � � 4. � �` � /��• �; �`% Packet Pg. 254 Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, MASTER CASE NO: 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to inquire about the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and the potential requirement for an additional ingress and egress to the studio campus. I have several questions regarding this matter and would appreciate your response: Could you please explain the reasoning behind the absence of discussion regarding the need for an additional ingress and egress to the Shadowbox Studios campus? What factors were considered to conclude that no additional access point is necessary? Has a comprehensive traffic impact analysis been conducted to evaluate the potential effects of the proposed ingress and egress on the surrounding roadways? If so, what were the findings of this analysis and how were they considered during the planning process? Specifically, I noticed congestion on Railroad Avenue in the simulation presented during the May 16th Planning Commission meeting. Haw will this be addressed? What is the simulation's impact during the passing of a freight train (average 8 per day in 2Q 17)? How does the inclusion of an additional ingress and egress align with the broader transportation infrastructure plan for the Santa Clarita area? Does it harmonize with existing traffic patterns and roadways, or would it necessitate substantial modifications to the surrounding transportation network? What measures will be taken to ensure that any new ingress and egress points are designed to minimize traffic congestion and prioritize safety for both studio personnel and the general public? Are there any provisions or plans to enhance public transportation options to and from the Shadowbox Studios campus, considering the potential increase in traffic associated with the project? Has the community been consulted or engaged in the decision -making process regarding the necessity of an additional ingress and egress? If so, what feedback has been received from residents and local businesses, and how has it influenced the planning commission's considerations? Have alternative solutions or approaches been explored to address traffic concerns without requiring a new ingress and egress? If so, what were these alternatives, and why were they not deemed suitable for the project? Will specific conditions or restrictions be imposed on the use of any new ingress and egress points to mitigate potential negative impacts? For instance, will there be limitations during peak traffic hours or the implementation of traffic control measures? How will the effectiveness of the new ingress and egress points be monitored and evaluated once they are operational? Will mechanisms be in place to address unforeseen issues or make necessary adjustments? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I look forward to your insights and clarification regarding the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and the potential need for additional ingress and egress requirements. Sincerely, Name:ri 4, Address; i.,s e Packet Pg. 255771 Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, MASTER CASE NO: 21 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I would like to inquire about the removal and relocation of oak trees from the proposed Shadowbox Studios project site. I would appreciate your insights and responses to the following: How many oak trees are currently present on the project site, and what is the proposed plan for their removal or relocation? Has an inventory of the oak trees been conducted to assess their health, age, and ecological significance? What criteria will be used to determine which oak trees will be removed and which will be relocated? Will efforts be made to prioritize the preservation of older, healthier, or more significant oak trees? If relocation is proposed for some oak trees, what is the plan for their successful transplantation? Will a certified arborist or tree relocation expert be involved to ensure the proper techniques are used to minimize stress and maximize the survival rate of the transplanted trees? Has there been consideration given to the impact of oak tree removal on the overall ecosystem and biodiversity of the project site? What mitigation measures are planned to compensate for any loss of habitat or potential impact on wildlife that rely on these oak trees? Will there be any provisions or conditions of approval to ensure that replacement trees are planted as part of the project? If so, what species of trees will be selected, and what guidelines will be followed to ensure their successful establishment and long-term growth? How will the removal or relocation of oak trees be coordinated with relevant environmental agencies and organizations to ensure compliance with applicable regulations and best practices for tree conservation? Has public input been sought to gather concerns and suggestions regarding the removal or relocation of oak trees? How has this input influenced the planning commission's considerations and decision -making process regarding the protection and preservation of these valuable natural resources? I appreciate your attention to these questions and your commitment to the responsible management of oak trees within the proposed Shadowbox Studios project. Your insights will help ensure the conservation of our local ecosystems and the preservation of our natural heritage. Sincerely, Name: Address: 1� i ( f Packet Pg. 256 MASTER CASE NO: 2 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DE]R Bear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, I am writing to inquire about whether consideration has been given to allocating a portion of the Shadowbox Studios property to the City of Santa Clarita for the purpose of building a cultural center. This could serve as a valuable asset to the community and enhance the cultural offerings in the area. I Has there been any discussion or consideration given to allocating a portion of the Shadowbox Studios property to the City of Santa Clarita for the development of a cultural center? If so, what factors were taken into account during the planning process, and what is the current status of these discussions? Thank you for your attention to this question. I look forward to your insights and clarification regarding the consideration for a cultural center outside the Shadowbox Studios perimeter. Sincerely, r Name: Address: Packet Pg. 257 MASTER CASE NO: 21- 1.c Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DE;IR I am writing to further inquire about the potential requirement for the studio project to make a cash donation to the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association (PCPOA) as a condition of approval, with the intention of furthering preservation efforts within the canyon. I would appreciate your insights and response to the following questions: In considering the potential requirement for a cash donation to the PCPOA, what specific factors would be taken into account to determine the appropriate amount? Would there be a methodology or criteria established to ensure that the donation adequately supports preservation efforts and the nonprofit's mission and aligns with the scale and impact of the proposed studio project? Has the potential requirement for a cash donation to the PCPOA been discussed with the studio project applicant? What has been their response or position regarding this condition of approval? Are there any alternative proposals or mitigation measures that have been put forth by the applicant to address preservation concerns within the canyon? What role does the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association play in the decision -making process regarding the potential cash donation requirement? How would the association's expertise, input, and guidance be incorporated into determining the amount and utilization of the donation? Has there been any analysis or assessment conducted to evaluate the potential impact and effectiveness of a cash donation in supporting preservation within the canyon? Are there any examples or precedents where similar donations have been implemented successfully in other projects to enhance conservation efforts and maintain the integrity of natural areas? How would the potential cash donation requirement be communicated to the public and other stakeholders? What mechanisms would be in place to ensure transparency and accountability in the decision -making process? Thank you for your attention to these additional questions. I greatly appreciate your insights and clarification regarding the potential requirement for the studio project to make a cash donation to the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association as a condition of approval, aimed at supporting preservation within the canyon. Sincerely, Name: � E _ Address: Packet Pg. 258 MASTER CASE NO: 21-10 1.c Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEER I am writing to inquire about the established speed limits on Dockweiler Drive, Placerita Canyon Road, 13th Street, Arch Street, and 12th Street in relation to the proposed Shadowbox Studios project. Additionally, I am interested in understanding the considerations given to equestrian, pedestrian, and golf cart vehicles that share these roadways. I would appreciate your response to the following questions: What are the established speed limits for Dockweiler Drive, Placerita Canyon Road, 13th Street, Arch Street, and 12th Street? Have there been any recent changes or updates to the speed limits in these areas? Were there specific considerations taken into account when establishing the speed limits for these roadways to ensure the safety of equestrian riders, pedestrians, and golf cart users who share the same space? Has there been an assessment conducted to evaluate the suitability of the established speed limits for accommodating equestrian, pedestrian, and golf cart traffic on these roadways? What factors were considered in determining the appropriate speed limits to balance the needs of different road Users? Are there any designated equestrian lanes, pedestrian pathways, or separate golf cart lanes planned or implemented along these roadways to enhance safety and promote the coexistence of various modes of transportation? What safety measures or infrastructure improvements, if any, are planned or in place to protect equestrian riders, pedestrians, and golf cart users along Dockweiler Drive, Placerita Canyon Road, 13th Street, Arch Street, and 12th Street? Have there been any community consultations or input from equestrian organizations, pedestrian advocates, or golf cart users regarding the speed limits and safety considerations on these roadways? If so, how have these perspectives influenced the decision -making process? Will there be ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the road safety conditions and the effectiveness of the established speed limits in accommodating equestrian, pedestrian, and golf cart traffic? How will any identified issues or concerns be addressed and mitigated? Are there plans for public education and awareness campaigns to inform residents, visitors, and drivers about the presence of equestrian riders, pedestrians, and golf cart users on these roadways and to promote safe and respectful interactions between different road users? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I look forward to your insights and clarification regarding the established speed limits and considerations for equestrian, pedestrian, and golf cart vehicles on Dockweiler Drive, Placerita Canyon Road, 13th Street, Arch Street, and 12th Street, Sincerely, Name: Address: Packet Pg. 259 MASTER CASE NO: 21-1 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to inquire about the established speed limits on Dockweiler Drive, Placerita Canyon Road, 13th Street, Arch Street, and 12th Street, as well as the considerations given for equestrian, pedestrian, and golf cart vehicles that share those roadways. I would appreciate your response to the following questions; What are the established speed limits on Dockweiler Drive, Placerita Canyon Road, 13th Street, Arch Street, and 12th Street? Have these speed limits been determined based on standard traffic engineering practices and considerations for road safety? Have there been any specific considerations given to equestrian traffic on these roadways, such as horseback riders or horse-drawn carriages? How will the speed limits and road design accommodate the safety and needs of equestrian users? Are there designated equestrian lanes or paths along Dockweiler Drive, Placerita Canyon Road, 13th Street, Arch Street, and 12th Street to separate equestrian traffic from motor vehicle traffic? If not, what measures will be in place to ensure the safety of equestrian users? What measures have been taken to ensure the safety of pedestrians and provide appropriate infrastructure, such as sidewalks or pedestrian crossings, along these roadways? Are there any designated golf cart lanes or paths planned for Dockweiler Drive, Placerita Canyon Road, 13th Street, Arch Street, and 12th Street to accommodate golf cart traffic? If so, how will the speed limits and road design consider the presence of golf carts? Have traffic calming treasures, such as speed humps or roundabouts, been considered or implemented on these roadways to enhance safety for all users, including equestrian, pedestrian, and golf cart traffic? Will there be educational initiatives or awareness campaigns to inform drivers about the presence of equestrian, pedestrian, and golf cart traffic on these roadways and promote safe interactions and responsible driving practices? How will the effectiveness of the established speed limits and safety measures be monitored and evaluated? Will there be mechanisms in place to address any identified safety concerns or make adjustments as needed? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I look forward to your insights and clarification regarding the established speed limits and considerations for equestrian, pedestrian, and golf cart vehicles on Dockweiler Drive, Placerita Canyon Road, 13th Street, Arch Street, and 12th Street. Sincerely, Name: c (�1 f6 r 2411 01 f a 4. Address:Ll Packet Pg. 260 Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, MASTER CASE NO: 21-1 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to inquire about the presence of a morality clause as a condition of approval for the Shadowbox Studios project, specifically addressing the prohibition of pornography production within the studio facilities. I understand the importance of upholding community standards and values, and I would appreciate your response to the following questions, which aim to gain a better understanding of the considerations and provisions in place: Has there been any discussion or consideration regarding the inclusion of a morality clause in the conditions of approval for the Shadowbox Studios project to explicitly prohibit the production of pornography within the studio facilities? If so, what factors were taken into account in determining whether such a clause should be included or excluded? If a morality clause is indeed being considered, how would it be defined and implemented? What criteria or guidelines would be used to determine what constitutes pornography production and ensure clarity in enforcing the clause? Has the potential presence of a morality clause been discussed with the studio developers or any relevant parties involved in the Shadowbox Studios project? If so, what have been their reactions or responses to the idea? Are there any legal or constitutional considerations that need to be taken into account when considering the inclusion of a morality clause? Has legal counsel been consulted to ensure that any proposed clause aligns with applicable laws and regulations? If a morality clause is included as a condition of approval, how will compliance be monitored and enforced? What mechanisms will be in place to address any violations or disputes that may arise? Has the community been consulted or involved in discussions regarding the potential inclusion of a morality clause? What feedback, if any, has been received from residents and local businesses regarding this matter? Are there any precedents or examples from other similar projects or jurisdictions where a morality clause has been included to regulate the types of content produced within studio facilities? If so, what have been the outcomes and effectiveness of such clauses? In the absence of a morality clause, what existing regulations or laws would govern the types of content that can be produced within the Shadowbox Studios facilities? Are there any limitations or restrictions already in place to ensure the responsible and lawful use of the studio space? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I believe that addressing these concerns regarding a potential morality clause will contribute to a clearer understanding of the conditions and provisions associated with the Shadowbox Studios project. Sincerely, Name; Address: a� Packet Pg. 261 Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, MASTER CASE NO, 21 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEiR I am writing to express my concerns regarding the lack of evacuation routes for residents of Placerita Canyon and the potential risks this poses in the event of a disaster, similar to the tragic events experienced by the residents of Paradise, California during the 2018 Camp Fire. I kindly request your insights and clarification on the following matters: What evacuation routes are currently in place for residents of Placerita Canyon in the event of a disaster, such as a wildfire or other emergencies? Are there multiple routes available, and do they provide sufficient capacity to safely evacuate all residents in a timely manner? Same question for personnel on the Shadowbox site. Has there been a comprehensive assessment of the potential risks and challenges associated with evacuating Placerita Canyon in the event of a large-scale emergency? If so, what were the findings of this assessment, and how have they influenced the planning and preparedness efforts for the area? Are there any plans or initiatives in progress to establish additional evacuation routes or improve existing ones to enhance the safety and resilience of Placerita Canyon residents? If not, what considerations are being given to address this significant concern? Has the planning commission taken into account the experience of the Paradise, California wildfire and its impact on the community's evacuation capabilities? Are there any lessons learned from that tragedy that are being applied to the planning and preparedness efforts in Santa Clarita, particularly in areas like Placerita Canyon? What coordination and collaboration efforts are being undertaken between the City of Santa Clarita, emergency response agencies, and other relevant stakeholders to address the potential evacuation challenges faced by Placerita Canyon residents? Are there ongoing discussions or initiatives to ensure that residents have access to safe and efficient evacuation routes during emergencies? Are there any plans to increase awareness among Placerita Canyon residents about emergency preparedness and evacuation procedures? How is the planning commission and the city working to educate and inform residents about the importance of being prepared for potential disasters and understanding evacuation protocols? Is there an emergency management plan in place that specifically addresses the evacuation needs and considerations for Placerita Canyon residents? If so, could you provide an overview of the key elements of this plan and the steps taken to ensure its effective implementation? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I greatly appreciate your insights and clarification regarding the lack of evacuation routes for Placerita Canyon residents and the potential risks associated with this situation. Understanding the measures being taken to address these concerns will contribute to the safety and well-being of the community. Sincerely, Name: /"vAddress:` Packet Pg. 262 Lear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, MASTER CASE NO: Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to express further concerns regarding the negative impact that the proposed Shadowbox Studios project could have on the evacuation routes for residents of Placerita Canyon. Specifically, the addition of approximately 3,000 vehicles and trucks associated with the studio could potentially exacerbate the challenges faced by residents during emergency evacuations_ Improper planning doomed residents of Paradise, California in the 2018 Camp Fire. I kindly request your insights and clarification on the following matters: Has there been a comprehensive analysis of the potential impact of the proposed Shadowbox Studios project on the existing evacuation routes for Placerita Canyon residents? Specifically, has the increased traffic volume and the presence of additional vehicles and trucks associated with the studio been taken into consideration? Are there any specific measures or plans in place to mitigate the potential negative impact of the additional vehicles and trucks from the Shadowbox Studios project on the evacuation routes? If so, could you provide details on these measures and how they would ensure the safety and timely evacuation of residents during emergencies? Has there been any assessment of the capacity and suitability of the existing evacuation routes to accommodate the increased traffic resulting from the Shadowbox Studios project? Are there any plans to expand or enhance the evacuation routes to ensure they can effectively handle the additional vehicles and trucks? What coordination and collaboration efforts are being undertaken between the City of Santa Clarita, emergency response agencies, and Shadowbox Studios to address the potential impact on evacuation routes and ensure the safety of both residents and studio personnel during emergency situations? Are there any plans or discussions to explore alternative evacuation routes or create dedicated emergency access roads that would separate the evacuation traffic from the traffic generated by the studio? If so, what progress has been made in these discussions, and how would these alternative routes be integrated into the overall evacuation plans? How are the concerns and feedback of Placerita Canyon residents being taken into account in the planning and decision -making process? Have their concerns regarding the potential negative impact of the Shadowbox Studios project on evacuation routes been acknowledged and addressed? Is there an ongoing monitoring and evaluation process in place to assess the effectiveness of the evacuation routes and the ability to handle the increased traffic volume resulting from the Shadowbox Studios project? How would any issues or deficiencies in the evacuation routes be identified and addressed in a timely manner? Thank you for your attention to these additional concerns. I greatly appreciate your insights and clarification regarding the potential negative impact of the Shadowbox Studios project on evacuation routes and the measures being taken to ensure the safety and well-being of Placerita Canyon residents during emergencies. Sincerely, Name: --- 1 i i i f Address: ; ` `� r :} r : =`" C Packet Pg. 263 MASTER CASE NO: 21-1 9.c Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to express my concerns regarding the deficiencies in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Shadowbox Studios project, specifically related to the lack of consideration for land use and planning in Placerita Canyon. I believe it is crucial for the planning commission to acknowledge these deficiencies and provide city staff and consultants with the necessary resources to conduct a comprehensive Land Use and Planning study. I kindly request your attention to the following points: The proposed voting district map designates Placerita Canyon residents in a minority district. Given its proposed minority status, it is essential to conduct a thorough study to assess the potential impacts of the Shadowbox Studios project on these residents. Has the planning commission recognized the need for a Land Use and Planning study to evaluate the projects effects on the land use patterns and planning considerations specific to Placerita Canyon? The Draft EIR lists farm equipment as an example of an incompatible land use. As the roads surrounding Placerita Canyon are shared by tractors, horses, golf carts, pedestrians, and other types of livestock, it becomes evident that a comprehensive assessment of land use compatibility is necessary. Has the planning commission recognized the importance of conducting a Land Use and Planning study to address these potential conflicts and ensure the safety and coexistence of different modes of transportation and land uses? How does the planning commission plan to address the deficiencies in the Draft EIR regarding; the lack of consideration for land use and planning? Will there be an opportunity to conduct a supplemental analysis or update the EIR to include the necessary studies and evaluations? What steps will be taken to ensure that the project is thoroughly assessed in terms of its impact on land use patterns, planning considerations, and the safety of all road users in the Placerita Canyon area? Has there been any community input or feedback regarding the deficiencies in the Drat EIR and the need for a comprehensive Land Use and Planning study? If so, how has this input been taken into account by the planning commission, and what actions are being considered to address these concerns? Will the planning commission provide city staff and consultants with the necessary resources, time, and support to conduct a thorough Land Use and Planning study for the Shadowbox Studios project? How will the planning commission ensure that the study is comprehensive, objective, and considers all relevant factors, including land use compatibility, planning considerations, and the unique characteristics of Placerita Canyon? I appreciate your attention to these matters and urge the planning; commission to acknowledge the deficiencies in the Draft EIR and prioritize the conduct of a band Use and Planning study. Addressing these concerns will help ensure a thorough evaluation of the projeces impacts and promote the well- being and safety of the Placerita Canyon community. 'Thank you for your commitment to transparent and comprehensive decision -making processes. Sincerely, Name:` Address:. Packet Pg. 2 4 Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, MASTER CASE NO: 21-1 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to inquire about the omission of the study on land use in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Shadowbox Studios project. It has come to my attention that the EIR mentions farm equipment as an example of incompatible land use, and I would like to understand the reasoning behind the exclusion of this study. Why was the study on land use not included in the Draft EIR for the Shadowbox Studios project? Given that the EIR acknowledges farm equipment as an example of incompatible land use, it seems necessary to assess the potential impacts on the roads in and around Placerita Canyon that are shared by tractors, horses, golf carts, pedestrians, and other types of livestock. What considerations were made in determining that the study on land use was not required for the project? Were there specific criteria or guidelines that influenced this decision, and were they consistent with the requirements outlined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or other relevant regulations? Have there been any assessments or analyses conducted to evaluate the potential conflicts or safety concerns arising from the shared use of roads by various modes of transportation, including farm equipment, equestrian activities, pedestrians, and other forms of livestock? If so, what were the findings of these assessments, and how have they been taken into consideration during the planning process? Is there a plan in place to address any potential conflicts or safety issues related to incompatible land use and the shared use of roads surrounding Placerita Canyon? Are there measures being considered to ensure the safe coexistence of different modes of transportation, including the implementation of appropriate signage, road markings, designated lanes, or speed restrictions? Have community members, residents, or relevant stakeholders expressed concerns regarding the potential conflicts arising from incompatible land use and the shared use of roads? If so, what feedback has been received, and how has it influenced the planning commission's considerations and decision -making process? Will there be any provisions or conditions imposed on the Shadowbox Studios project to mitigate the potential conflicts or safety risks associated with incompatible land use? Are there plans to incorporate infrastructure improvements or design considerations that promote safe and efficient transportation for all users, taking into account the diverse modes of transportation in the area? Is there an opportunity to conduct a supplemental analysis or update the Draft EIR to address the omission of the study on incompatible land use? If so, how will the planning commission ensure that all necessary studies and analyses are conducted to adequately assess the potential impacts of the project and comply with relevant environmental regulations? Thank you for your attention to these inquiries. I greatly appreciate your insights and clarification regarding the exclusion of the study on incompatible land use in the Draft EIR for the Shadowbox Studios project. Understanding the rationale and any potential actions to address this omission will provide valuable information for assessing the project's compatibility with the existing land use patterns and ensuring the safety of all who use the roads, I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Name: Address: / _ , Packet Pg. 265 MASTER CASE NO: 21-1 1.c Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DElR I am writing to seek clarification regarding the absence of a study on land use in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Shadowbox Studios project Specifically, I am interested in understanding why the potential impact of incompatible land uses, such as farm equipment, was not thoroughly examined in the environmental documents, as per CEQA. Could you please provide an explanation as to why the issue of incompatible land use was not specifically studied in the Draft EIR for the Shadowbox Studios project? What were the factors or considerations that led to the omission of this topic from the environmental analysis? Considering that the surrounding roads in the Placerita Canyon area are shared by various modes of transportation, including tractors, horses, golf carts, pedestrians, and other types of livestock, what measures were taken to assess the potential conflicts and impacts arising from incompatible land uses? Was there any consideration given to the potential safety hazards or conflicts that may arise from the coexistence of different modes of transportation, including the operation of farm equipment, within the project area? If so, what were the findings and conclusions drawn from these considerations? Has the issue of incompatible land use been raised by the community or relevant stakeholders during the public review process for the Shadowbox Studios project? If so, what concerns or feedback have been expressed, and how have these concerns been addressed or incorporated into the planning commissions considerations? In light of the shared use of roads by various transportation modes, what steps will be taken to ensure the safety and well-being of all road users, including tractors, horses, golf carts, pedestrians, and other types of livestock, particularly in relation to the potential increase in traffic associated with the studio project? Are there any plans or provisions to designate specific road sections or infrastructure improvements to accommodate the diverse range of transportation modes and ensure compatibility between different users? Moving forward, what strategies or mitigation measures will be implemented to address any potential conflicts arising from incompatible land uses and ensure the safe coexistence of different modes of transportation within the project area? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I greatly appreciate your insights and clarification regarding the absence of a study on incompatible land use in the Draft EIR for the Shadowbox Studios project. Understanding the considerations and any measures to address potential conflicts will provide valuable information for assessing the project's impact on the surrounding transportation network and the safety of all road users. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Name: ck.C` ' . Address Packet Pg. 2 6 To the Santa Clarita Planning Commission, 1.c MASTER CASE NO: 21-109 Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I previously submitted a comment at the May 16, 2023 public hearing. This is a follow-up to those remarks. I referenced an article that published in the Los Angeles Business Journal on May 1, 2023, titled "Lights! Cameral Soundstagesl" The front page, above -the -fold article (attached to this letter) took an in-depth look into what seems to be explosive growth throughout the LA Metro area and San Fernando Valley for the construction of new state-of- the-art studios. There was no mention of Shadowbox Studios nor any Santa Clarita-based studio for that matter. There may be a reason for that. While technically in the 30-mile zone, producers still consider Santa Clarita too far to travel for most cast and crew. As a retired studio executive, I know this first-hand. There are exceptions, such as NCIS, which was one of my shows when I was at CBS Studios. Twenty years ago, space was not available in the Los Angeles region, so we came to Valencia converting multiple warehouses to soundstages and creating our own studio campus. To this day many of their workers — above and below the line — live and commute from the westside, Santa Monica, and Long Beach to name a few areas. Understand when you hear there will be "local" employment, that is actually "Local" with a capital L, as in unions. Major studios are signatories to the collective bargaining agreements of the Association of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP). I was on the negotiating team of AMPTP for years in my capacity as a labor negotiator representing Paramount Pictures then later CBS Studios. I also spent 18 years with the Screen Actors Guild, so I understand both sides. If Shadowbox is unable to attract major studios to their rental facilities, then they will be required to attract smaller independents who may or may not be signatories to the collective bargaining agreements. If productions are not signatories, the city should be prepared for picketers outside the studio gate as they attempt to 'flip' a production and convert them to a union show. This is not to say there won't be some economic benefit or local employment in Santa Clarita, but don't fool yourself in thinking all those jobs and money will stay here locally. Bottom line, Shadowbox touts its proposed facility as LA Metro. It is not. Some Santa Clarita influencers call us "Hollywood North" but that doesn't mean studios and production teams buy into the hype. It may have worked for Awesometown but it remains to be seen if it will work for Santa Clarita. Sincerely, Name: Address:'c'a7 (t �^' Packet Pg. 267 1.c LAtl US1rle SSlUUKNAL.LUM Los ANGEL -Es BusiNEss V � Vol .45, No.1B URNAL THE COMMUNITY OF BUSINESS'" — May I - 7, 2023 • $S.Di GoodRx Demotes Its co -Founders 1 Redear Digs HEALTH CARE: Firm chiefexecuave. as j CreatlVe Space a tap executive Tempe. At! zona-based brings In interim CEO. �''� GinaodRx announced intcmet domain registration service GpDad- y alter ma ket close on April dy Inc„ was named interim chief executive 25 that Trevor Bezdek white a search for a permanent replacement BY HOWAAO PINE SraJfReparter and Doug Hirsch, w•ho gets underway, on drug corn —Co-founded the company The chief executive transition came with - Banta Monica -based prescrip parison price and discount platform GoodRx Wagner in Z011, had been stripped out warning, though it follows a challeng- ed idings Inc. lase fast month xutlabruptly oust- tive titles; Bezdek wasof heir co-ch[ef named chairmanccu. ing year for GoodRx, as a major and chain pharmacy operator ator temporarily groc d cd its co-founders as co -chic{ executives and Hirsch "chief mission officer." cry brought in an intcmet tech veteran as interim ScotC Wagner, who for eight years served Please see HEALTH CARE page 43 LIGHTS! CAMERA! SOUNDSTAGESI' Production complexes are all the rage, layoffs be damned. ey MICHAEL AUSHENKEA StaffRnporrer espite job cuts across the entertainment industry, the development of production facilities is booming In Los Angeles as studios expand existing lots and independent capital firms create more soundstages. In February, Watt Disney Co. said It would slash 7.000 jobs this year as the studio's streaming efforts continue to lose money. Last year, Nettifx out 450 jobs and Warner Bros. Discovery, NBCUnlversal and Paramount Global have announced layoffs in recent months. Pieria see MEDIA page 43 MAfL TO: Actlen: SheP Wainwright, mananging Partner of East End Capital. REAL ESTATE: Firms 2nd fund commits $418 million. By HANNAH ANAOANS WELK Managing Editor Despitc high vacancy rates in the office mar. ket — the countywide vacancy rose from 14.4% the first quarter o£2019 to 24.1 % the first quarter of this year, according to data from Jones Lang M LaSalle Inc. — sonic developers are still betting CD big on creative office space. , T" Please see REdt. ESTATE page 41 N U Some Firms 2. Posit GrowthL. LEGAL. Eyeing 2024, hiring c and expansion on the docket. r By ZANE HILL Staff Reporter to x While the law firm hiring sprees that €ook M place during the Covid-19 pandemic may have cooled off, some are looking to grow with 2024 O in mind. That means more hiring, and expansion into t new markets. Please see LEGAL page 6 N d E O t) a In a year that was supposed to be a return ^to E stability, many hospitals are in pow financial S health, which can be in part attributer! to v Inadequate reimbursements for r services, labor costs and a large number of patients Lrovwad by Q government health programs. BEGINNING on PAGE 13 Media: Soundstages C°ririrrried from 1n8e 1 Yet even as entertainment companies reduce their ranks, massive s.undstage projects are under development and construction all over fsound- the city. With 6 2 mils the world leader in lion terms stages, Las Ang of overail stage space. wining Meanwhile, oth to FIImLA�thc United ground. According rtiiilion squat' Kingdom , which had onlyacc5 ust three years feet of 3. dedicated stage sp 7 ago, now camas in second to Las Angcics with 5.4 million square .0 nrariv, Canada, ranks third win' 3.6 million square feet followed by Georgia with 3 million, New York with 2it,.h million and Hritisti CoirtmUia vn di ©is havc F4 "All of th cse compct}live I plans to expand existing infrastructuresaid a ," t I:ihnLA report I The report noted that year -aver -year shoot activity was do'K, almost 241 in the tcurdi d TV quarter of last year and that the fil corporate coop. a e industry is "being impacted ion by otie- restructuring and impending unroductions to tiors which have caused many R pause-" The \Vriters Guild of America is now in contract negatiations'•itit the Alliance of Marian Picture and Television Producers, and the ➢ircctors Guild of America and Screen Actors Guild will snort follow. production not - "The present slowdown in p withstanding elttive edgeos swt afford to hentt cams to lose its comp roduction infrastruc- soundsiagcs and other p tire;' said Fi1mLA president Paul Audll� ruing Rlany existing studio lots are p hs' Fox expansions. In yjarch, the 14furdrade o be Corp, announced a $I-5 billion upgrade City, where iconic Fox studio Lot in Century b`. Akan, call far vine news°��iaddstaitones tto hihat gh- the bring the total to 24 p rise office buildings. Burbank', historic Warner Bros, Ranch will be redeveloped by Worth A�rl 60 L; C A 1 EAST END CAPITAL BEAllDUARTERS: Rlendaie YEAR r_CUmDED: 20111 BUS1NE55: G�tpaidal teal estate developnient POTREAS: Shell Wainwright, danathan Yar nak, David PeratZ KCITABLE: East End Purchase58t and Alameda d the warehouse properties fur their East stastdunafor$2 om street Prodi coon campus anderingt East End capnn' e - heal Estate Group in a 5500 million overhaul ,at will inoludc I6 new souartsfaS litiesnandt3 coal parking s n cfine, snpp NBCUtii- 320,000-square-foat oe it y t �vundstages as par, vernal will be adding g old Univer- of ail overall update of its century sal Studios lot. redcvdoping the building t<1atCert o a movie Las Arigcies Times printing p and television production lot wiress I th 17 saund- stages near the Arts District. Atlas bought he 26-acre printing facility for more tha plans$240 to tend lion in 201% and die ft h s°ovstudio. The $650 million creating 000 square feet site will include more t a,nand d'212,300 square of production wotksPwith screening theaters, Independent challengers feet of offices along parking garage. Ilaeitman Capital Partners, which in fitness center and a nine -story urchased CBS Tcicvision City for $750 plant itself will be redeye}oiled into 201s p fin The.undstag ort, executive 1.9 million 11 soundstagcs, production snpp million, plans to invest 3I e3 billion, trip g an outdoor the lot's soundstagcs and adding offfrces, a full-servrcecaf and fitneratimot ss center The square feet of studio, office and retail faCili- olio, a commissa y, wide- the first tics. Hackman Capital also has designs for a pwill be built in two phases, based project letenextYear. Year - which encompassed ,8 phase due to be comp $1 billion expansion of the Studio City - rimed for StarrI119 Wam Tvlusie and a number of smaller studitu and same outer Studios othreaso s a, are °it div destthe We th nk for a number at eatdecess for east and w,st side of L- 1), $ industrial ne}gh- tntcking. It was historically an borhoOd so it works really well or his st' erois a East End's B.Yro act that will start can - 2,.000-square-foo, p j suraction in the next 30 to 45 daNcto� s' two sites in East End is also duare--foot project that is Glendale: a g7,000-sq untie€ constntctivn on S. Glendale Avenue an a 2 5 acre site which wilt accommodate either rwn or three so utdsrages. There is alao the 9-acre facility called Grif- 1 break fith an San Fem end and will sea 10wi 1sound- ground by Y stages rise. Ean,ast End is With all of the sounds[ages develaping, Wainwright does nroduct ornate any problem filling them oP with P thin ,.The demand in Las Angeles, everything has beau conning at about 95% occupancy;' wainwright said. "Anytime a new facility gets delivered, it gels gobbled up either by ytar- over.year tenants or long term tenancy. we foci t s the epicenter of episodic television and we doi} t think that's going anywhere. There's still a ton Of demand for it."d at Jones Peter Aajimillid S, who is base Angeles uffice, Lang LaSalle's downtown Las mit es such as leases soundstage space for e Hackman Capital Partners and Fast br d Capital. "ht terms of the existing studios that are ,..king at reinvesting and modernizing, you have years that these studios haven't as ibiig capital investments made into the lot" .i halls said. He added that e5si hefront studiosaWill Radford Studio Center, w process of devel- ft soundstages and 210,00t1 square feet of Prop' A►te District activity the prop- End Studios is in us lin Dis- g when the Culver City firm purchased arty from ViacomCBS in 2021. Quixote. Stu- Q East the Arts o ing a production camp P Alameda streets. The complex t Founded by Miltel Elilott, in Pacoima arrd Sylmar, oi%red rio at 61and will feature 16 sniands gesas 292:3z0 dins, whit sites to produetians bsonchPaclients ramount wellcoverinas square feet of studio sp ace and 106,570 t office s saundstages Disney. Warner Bros., i1Be , Y' At the time of its sale to square feet of creative support on an approx- fact of prodtution snpp will total NBCUniversal. and . Hodson Pacific Properties last year for $360 aver 500 cast square parking sq round site. Interna- iir3271 laeesratlan underground a cask million, it had 325 employ specialized vehicles', vile s rimshaw has been tional architecture firm G trailers, trucks and s largest inventories of grip Of the industan� diction cquipmcnt; and hired to design the project, going East End', Project is Currently g g aim- pr and lighting n Los term lease rights to 23 soundstageS through slight redesigns and entitlements, cite third quarter I.ng Angeles and three in New Orleans. Outside of the Quixote Studios acq uis`ition, with Black- ing to be under construction n year and completed in 2026. vfnexty mans ing partner of $ artncrsliip Hudson Pacific, in P Sunset Sunset Gower, Shep ♦Vainwright, ind East East End Capital developer h. Los Angc- stone, has acquired Bronson and Sunset Las Palmas studios. It is hit Sun Valle10 y, End Studios. said the downtown 6's an ieAlameda was natural also building Sunset Glenoaks sunset part- les location at choice for a studio. Arts Dis- whieh will see 240,000 Square feet been bullish on the "� `e've alwaysacre in with seven sound stagsite Ile 60 singes across floe folio hneludes more than dam. trio," Wainwright said. "We have a o with verti- King we're about to g lots in Los Angeles and the United le Hei Its thal realbascd Calonsnuction just .crass the DistricRiver.,Spotify, Bowirwwit Las Angeles will also see some Boyle $ in the Arcs already Apple �'0tt major studio build -out. New Finn Atlas Cap' 1 Group have -- estate investment NeuVal 7 t1r3rt�timnw Roles i 1-c has and television sett es of product, enerate revenue from other typ neluding commercials and gaming You'll always have demand in L.A. because of the talent living here and the Iclow- hc-linc employees•" Ie sold. The building of studio Lots w d saundstages is a relatively new Phenomenoics, -If you look historically in Los Angc purpose-built smindstages haven't been built over the last 15 ar 20 years other than Somerecent expansions that are just finishing UP now ' Hajimihalis said. ctions had to film in Previously, produ makeshift soundstages, as lvleanwhile, developers su Elocess of P Qvad Wainwright are enjoying the P ing the industry with soundstages. "I rove development" Wainwright said. „I love taking something from nothing and } into something, regardless of what fuming It asset class it is. But (producuon studios arc) an especially exciting one because there's a Whole operational component to it that's very hands-on." CD T_ IL U V d O a N _O fin K O M O t fin N C d E O U U 3 a d t V a+ a Packet Pg. 2 9771 MASTER CASE NO; 2 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR To the Santa Clarita Planning Commission, I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and its suitability for the chosen location. As a resident of this community, I believe it is important to consider the potential negative impact such a development could have on the surrounding area. To illustrate my point, I want to draw your attention to the unfortunate situation experienced by the Santa Clarita Soccer Center. For decades, the center provided indoor soccer entertainment on Soledad Canyon Road, bringing joy and recreational opportunities to our community. However, as time passed, housing was constructed around the center, and soon enough, residents began to complain about the noise generated by the activities at the soccer center. Despite operating well within its rights and having been an established part of the community for years, the soccer center was eventually forced to relocate. It was a classic case of "first in, first out" where the developer, knowing full well the nature of the surrounding community, gained approvals to build and sell homes. Then, when the new residents started to complain, the original land user, the soccer center, was unfairly pushed out. This example serves as a cautionary tale of the consequences that can arise when incompatible land uses are not properly assessed and considered during the planning and approval process, It highlights the importance of preserving the integrity and character of existing businesses and activities that contribute to the unique fabric of our community. I believe it would be deeply regrettable to repeat the same pattern with the proposed Shadowbox Studios project. We must take into account the potential impact it could have on the surrounding area and its existing residents. It is essential that we protect the rights and livelihoods of those who have long been part of our community, rather than allowing a new development to displace and gentrify them. I implore you to carefully consider the appropriateness of the location for the Shadowbox Studios project. Let us learn from past mistakes and ensure that any future developments are compatible with the existing community and its needs. It is our shared responsibility to promote harmonious coexistence and protect the interests of all involved. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I trust that you will take my concerns and the experiences of the Santa Clarita Soccer Center into consideration before blindly approving the proposed project. Sincerely, € z_ Name: / �( .. Address V - Packet Pg. 270 To the Santa Clarita Planning Commission, MASTER CASE N 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the D My name is Roy, and I am writing to you as a concerned resident of Placerita Canyon. I'm the son of Lola, or as many of you know her, "the Egg Lady." I have my own business and help my mom on the property. I've grown up in this peaceful neighborhood, and I can't help but express my frustration and disbelief regarding the proposed Shadowbox project and its potential impact on our community. So here's my question: Would any planning commissioner or the people in charge of this city want this enormous studio and essentially a freeway going through their own peaceful neighborhoods? It's easy to shove some fancy idea down someone's throat as long as it doesn't disrupt their own way of life. But what about us? What about the residents who have built their lives and homes here in Placerita Canyon? Believe me, I've contemplated going to City Hall and raising holy hell, but I know it won't get us very far. I have a short temper, and I don't do well with stupid people who lack basic common sense, And let me tell you, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that this massive mess of a project just won't work. It's a giant catastrophe waiting to happen, and it will irreversibly change our neighborhood. What baffles me the most is that decisions are being made by people who don't even live here. How can they possibly understand our community when no one is given more than 3-minutes to speak at a meeting? They should experience the consequences of their decisions firsthand. Let them have this mess in their own neighborhood and see how they like it. All I can say is that if we, the residents, don't get involved and stand together, they're going to ruin our neighborhood. We need to fight for what we believe in and protect the place we call home. Our voices matter, and it's time we make them heard. I urge you, as planning commissioners and city officials, to consider the impact of this project on the lives of the people who have invested their time, effort, and love into Placerita Canyon. Think about the disruption it will cause, the loss of peace and livelihood, and the irreversible damage it will inflict on our community. Please, listen to us, the ones who will have to live with the consequences of your decisions. We ask you to prioritize the well-being and safety of the residents over any short-sighted, profit -driven agenda. Let us preserve Placerita Canyon for future generations. Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns. I hope you will seriously reconsider the impact of the Shadowbox project and stand with the residents of Placerita Canyon. Sincerely, Name: Address:. Packet Pg. 271 1 MASTER CASE NU LW Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEII Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, I am writing to inquire about the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and the Dockweiler Drive extension. I have a question regarding the traffic plan if the construction for both the D4ekweiler Drive extension and the studio campus were to be done concurrently. I would appreciate your response to the following question: MASTER CASE NO: 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the QEIR Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, I am writing to inquire about the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and the potential scenario where construction for the Dockweiler Drive extension and the studio campus are done concurrently. I have concerns regarding the traffic plan in such a situation, and I would appreciate your response to the following; questions: If the construction for the Dockweiler Drive extension and the studio campus is done concurrently, what is the planned traffic management strategy to mitigate congestion and ensure the safe movement of vehicles in the area? Has a comprehensive traffic plan been developed to address the potential challenges and impacts of simultaneous construction activities? What measures will be implemented to minimize disruptions to local traffic flow and surrounding neighborhoods? Will there be specific construction -related traffic control measures, such as temporary traffic signals, detour signs, or flaggers, to ensure the smooth and orderly flow of vehicles during the construction phase? How will the traffic plan account for the increased volume of construction vehicles, as well as the regular commuter and resident traffic, to minimize delays and potential safety hazards? Are there designated construction vehicle routes or staging areas to prevent congestion on nearby roads and minimize conflicts with regular traffic patterns? Will there be ongoing coordination and communication between the construction management team, local authorities, and traffic control agencies to address any unforeseen traffic issues and implement timely adjustments to the traffic plan? Has there been consideration given to the potential impact on public transportation routes and services during concurrent construction activities? Will there be any alternative transportation options provided or adjustments made to accommodate public transit users? How will the effectiveness of the traffic plan during concurrent construction be monitored and evaluated? Will there be mechanisms in place to address any issues that may arise and ensure continuous improvement throughout the construction process? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I look forward to your insights and clarification regarding the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and the traffic plan if construction for the Dockweiler Drive extension and the studio campus is done concurrently. Sincerely, 60 Name: ; Address: f j 2_..__ I, -Packet Pg. 273 MASTER CASE NO: 2 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DE1R Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, I am writing to inquire about the current status of the applicant's request to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regarding the designation of the 13th Street rail crossing as a quiet zone. I am interested in understanding the progress and outcome of this request, and would appreciate your response to the following questions: Has the applicant submitted a formal request to the CPUC for the designation of the 13th Street rail crossing as a quiet zone? If so, when was the request submitted, and has it been acknowledged or reviewed by the CPUC? What is the process and timeline for the CPUC's evaluation and decision -making regarding the quiet zone designation? Are there any specific criteria or requirements that need to be met in order to qualify for a quiet zone designation? Has the CPUC conducted any inspections, studies, or assessments of the 13th Street rail crossing to evaluate its suitability for a quiet zone designation? If so, what were the findings of these evaluations, and how were they taken into consideration during the decision -making process? .Have there been any consultations or coordination between the applicant, the Santa Clarita Planning Commission, and the CPUC regarding the quiet zone request? If so, what has been the nature of these interactions, and what feedback or guidance has been provided by the CPUC? What is the anticipated timeline for a decision by the CPUC regarding the quiet zone designation for the 13th Street rail crossing? Will there be a public announcement or notification once a decision is reached? If the quiet zone designation is approved by the CPUC, what specific measures or modifications will be implemented at the 13th Street rail crossing to comply with the requirements and ensure a quieter and safer environment? If the quiet zone designation is not approved, what alternative solutions or strategies are being considered to address any concerns related to noise and safety at the 13th Street rail crossing? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I look forward to your insights and clarification regarding the status of the applicant's request to the CPUC for the designation of the 13th Street rail crossing as a quiet zone. Sincerely, Name: Address:, Packet Pg. 4 MASTER CASE NO: 2 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEER Lear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, I am writing to inquire about the current status of the applicant's request to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regarding the designation of the 13th Street rail crossing as a quiet zone. I would appreciate your response to the following question: What is the current status of the applicant's request to the CPUC for the designation of the 13th Street rail crossing as a quiet zone? Has the request been submitted, and if so, what is the timeline for the CPUC's decision -making process? If granted, who assumes liability for accidents involving the crossing? What analysis will the City take to determine the risks involved with no train horn warnings? Thank you for your attention to this question. I look forward to your clarification regarding the status of the applicant's request for the designation of the 13th Street rail crossing as a quiet zone. Sincerely, ill I Name: �� 1; if 'v I ; Address: Packet Pg. 275 MASTER CASE NO: 21-1 1.c Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the D1R I am writing to express concerns about the lack of evacuation routes for residents of Placerita Canyon and the potential for a disaster similar to what occurred in Paradise, California during the devastating Camp Fire in 2018, Given the geographical characteristics of Placerita Canyon and the potential risks associated with wildfire or other emergencies, I kindly request your insights and clarification on the following matters. Has there been a comprehensive assessment of the evacuation routes available to residents of Placerita Canyon in the event of a wildfire or other emergency? If so, what were the findings of this assessment, and what measures have been taken to address any identified limitations or challenges? The back gate of the private road leading to Sierra Highway can only be accessed by residents who are privledged to pay for and receive a gate card. 'Ihere is NO outbound egress without a gate card. Many canyon residents are on limited fixed incomes and cannot afford a gate pass. What considerations have the city, consultants, and commissioners made for this obvious limitation as a viable emergency evaculation route? Considering the potential risks and vulnerabilities of Placerita Canyon, what specific emergency preparedness plans and strategies have been put in place to ensure the safety and evacuation of residents in the event of a disaster? Are there designated evacuation zones, emergency shelters, or communication systems established to facilitate an efficient and effective response? Given the experiences and lessons learned from the Camp fire in Paradise, California, has there been any proactive evaluation of the risks and potential hazards in Placerita Canyon to prevent a similar disaster? Have any measures, such as improved infrastructure, enhanced warning systems, or community education initiatives, been implemented to mitigate these risks and enhance the safety of residents? Have the residents of Placerita Canyon been actively involved in the discussions and planning processes related to emergency preparedness and evacuation routes? Has their input and feedback been considered in the development of strategies and solutions to address these concerns? What coordination and collaboration have taken place between the City of Santa Clarita, emergency response agencies, and other relevant stakeholders to ensure effective emergency management and evacuation plans for Placerita Canyon? Are there ongoing partnerships or initiatives in place to continually assess and improve the preparedness and response capabilities in the area? Are there any plans or proposals to establish additional evacuation routes or alternative means of egress for residents of Placerita Canyon? if not, what are the main factors or challenges that prevent the implementation of such routes, and what steps are being taken to address these concerns? In the event that immediate evacuation is not possible, what measures are in place to ensure the safety and well- being of residents, including the protection of livestock, pets, and other valuable assets? Are there established protocols for sheltering in place or providing temporary accommodations until evacuation can be safely conducted? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I greatly appreciate your insights and clarification regarding the evacuation routes for residents of Placerita Canyon and the measures in place to ensure their safety during emergencies. Understanding the efforts and considerations related to emergency preparedness will help address the concerns of the community and ensure the overall well-being of the residents. Sincerely, Name: _; Address: Packet Pg. 6 Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, MASTER CASE NO: 21 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to express my concerns regarding the deficiencies in the Draft Environmental Impact Report {EIR} for the Shadowbox Studios project and the need for a comprehensive Land Use and Planning study Specifically, I would like to address the following issues: Voting District Map: It has come to my attention that Placerita Canyon residents have been designated in a minority district in the proposed voting district map currently before the City Council. Given their minority status, it is crucial to conduct a study to evaluate the potential impacts of the Shadowbox Studios project on these residents in terms of land use and planning. Will the planning commission acknowledge the need for such a study and ensure that it is conducted to address the concerns of the affected residents? Disregard for Land Use and Planning in the Draft EIR: The Draft EIR for the Shadowbox Studios project failed to adequately consider land use and planning aspects, despite listing farm equipment as an example of an incompatible land use. It is evident that the roads surrounding Placerita Canyon are shared by various modes of transportation, including tractors, horses, golf carts, pedestrians, and other types of livestock. In light of this, I urge the planning commission to recognize the deficiencies in the Draft EIR and allow city staff and consultants the necessary time and resources to conduct a thorough Land Use and Planning study. Evaluating Compatibility and Impacts: A comprehensive Land Use and Planning study would be instrumental in assessing the compatibility of the Shadowbox Studios project with the existing land use patterns and the potential impacts on the surrounding areas. This study should take into account the shared use of roads, potential conflicts, safety concerns, and the well-being of the community members, residents, and stakeholders. Will the planning commission prioritize the completion of a thorough study to address these critical aspects of the project? Ensuring Compliance with Environmental Regulations: Conducting a Land Use and Planning study would not only fulfill the requirements of environmental regulations but also ensure that all necessary analyses and assessments are conducted to adequately evaluate the projecfs impacts. By addressing the deficiencies in the Draft EIR and allowing for a comprehensive study, the planning commission can demonstrate its commitment to upholding environmental regulations and making informed decisions. I kindly request that the planning commission carefully consider these concerns and take appropriate action to rectify the deficiencies in the Draft EIR, By conducting a comprehensive Land Use and Planning study, you would ensure that the impacts of the Shadowbox Studios project are thoroughly evaluated and that the concerns of the affected residents and stakeholders are properly addressed. Thank you for your attention to these matters. I trust that you will give due consideration to the need for a Land Use and Planning study and take the necessary steps to ensure a thorough evaluation of the Shadowbox Studios project. Sincerely, Name: Address: Packet Pg. 277 MASTER CASE NO: 2 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, I am writing to inquire about the current status of the applicants request to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regarding the designation of the 13th Street rail crossing as a quiet zone, as well as the safety risks associated with vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, and other road users. I would appreciate your response to the following questions: What is the current status of the applicant's request to the CPUC for the designation of the 13th Street rail crossing as a quiet zone? Has the request been submitted, and if so, what is the timeline for the CPUC's decision -making process? Have safety concerns related to vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, and other road users been addressed in the applicant's request for the quiet zone designation? How were these safety risks identified and what measures have been proposed to mitigate them? What potential safety benefits are anticipated with the designation of the 13th Street rail crossing as a quiet zone? How will the designated quiet zone enhance safety for vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, and other road users in the vicinity of the rail crossing? Were there any safety studies or assessments conducted to evaluate the current risks associated with the 13th Street rail crossing? If so, what were the findings and how do they inform the request for a quiet zone designation? In the absence of a designated quiet zone, what safety measures are currently in place to mitigate the risks to vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, and other road users at the 13th Street rail crossing? Will there be ongoing monitoring and evaluation of safety conditions and risks at the 13th Street rail crossing, regardless of the outcome of the quiet zone designation request? How will any identified safety concerns be addressed and mitigated? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I look forward to your insights and clarification regarding the status of the applicant's request for the designation of the 13th Street rail crossing as a quiet zone, and the safety considerations associated with vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, and other road users. Sincerely, Name: Address: Packet Pg. 8 Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, MASTER CASE NO: 21-109 Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to inquire further about the considerations and conditions of approval regarding the limitation of hours and days of operation for the proposed Shadowbox Studios project. understanding the importance of balancing the needs of the studio with the well-being of the surrounding community, I would appreciate your insights and response to the following questions: What specific factors were taken into consideration when determining the limitations on the hours and days of operation for the Shadowbox Studios project? Were there any studies or assessments conducted to evaluate the potential impacts on noise levels, traffic, or other aspects that could affect the quality of life for nearby residents? How were the concerns and feedback of the local community and neighboring businesses taken into account during the decision -making process regarding the limitations on operating hours and days? Were there any public hearings or opportunities for public input where residents could voice their concerns and preferences? Will the limitations on operating hours and days be consistent throughout the year, or are there provisions for potential variations during certain periods or specific circumstances? For example, will there be different restrictions during weekends, holidays, or times when there are special events or productions taking place? Are there mechanisms in place to monitor and enforce compliance with the limitations on operating hours and days? What measures will be taken to address any instances of non-compliance or violations? Has there been any consideration given to potential adjustments or amendments to the limitations on operating hours and days in the future, based on feedback from the community, changes in circumstances, or other relevant factors? Will there be an opportunity for periodic review and assessment to ensure that the limitations remain appropriate and effective? What measures will be implemented to communicate and ensure awareness of the operating hour limitations to the studio personnel, visitors, and the general public? Will there be clear signage, notifications, or other means of providing information about the designated operating hours and days? How will the impacts of the limitations on operating hours and days be evaluated and assessed over time? Will there be a process in place to gather feedback from the community and evaluate the effectiveness of the imposed restrictions in mitigating any potential adverse effects? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I understand the importance of establishing appropriate limitations on operating hours and days for the Shadowbox Studios project, and I appreciate your thorough insights and clarification regarding the considerations and conditions of approval in this regard. Sincerely, Name: Address: �� _C 1.c Packet Pg. 279 MASTER CASE NO: 21 1.c Shadowbox Studios project Re: Comments to the DEIR Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, I am writing to inquire about the considerations and conditions of approval regarding the limitation of hours and days of operation for the proposed Shadowbox Studios project. Given the potential impact on the surrounding community, I would appreciate your insights and response to the following questions, which seek to explore the reasoning and implications of such limitations. What specific factors were taken into consideration when determining the limitations on the hours and days of operation for the Shadowbox Studios project? Were considerations such as noise levels, traffic impact, and compatibility with the surrounding residential areas taken into account? Has there been any consultation or engagement with the community, residents, and local businesses to gather feedback and input regarding the desired limitations on the operating hours and days of the studio facilities? If so, what were the main concerns or preferences expressed by the community, and how were they incorporated into the conditions of approval? Will there be a clear and enforceable schedule or set of guidelines outlining the permitted hours and days of operation for the Shadowbox Studios project? How will compliance with these limitations be monitored and enforced to ensure that the agreed -upon conditions are met? Has there been any consideration given to the potential need for flexibility in the limitations on operating hours and days? For instance, are there provisions in place to accommodate special events, time -sensitive productions, or other circumstances that may warrant deviation from the standard operating schedule? How will the limitations on hours and days of operation be communicated to the public, particularly to the surrounding community? Will there be efforts to provide clear and easily accessible information to ensure that residents and stakeholders are aware of the agreed -upon schedule and any changes or updates that may occur? What mechanisms or procedures will be in place to address any concerns or complaints from the community regarding non-compliance with the limitations on operating hours and days? How will these issues be resolved and any necessary adjustments made to ensure that the operations of the studio facilities are in line with the approved conditions? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I understand the importance of striking a balance between the needs of the Shadowbox Studios project and the well-being of the surrounding community, and I appreciate your insights and clarification regarding the considerations and conditions of approval for limiting the hours and days of operation. Sincerely, Name: f Address: Packet Pg. 2 0771 MASTER CASE NO: 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the HEIR Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, I am writing to inquire further about the considerations and conditions of approval regarding the limitation of hours and days of operation for the proposed Shadowbox Studios project. Recognizing the significance of this aspect in fostering harmonious coexistence between the studio and the surrounding community of Placerita Canyon, I would appreciate your comprehensive response to the following questions: In determining the limitations on the hours and days of operation, what specific methodologies or studies were utilized to assess the potential impact on noise levels and traffic patterns in the vicinity of the Shadowbox Studios project? Were there any noise and traffic impact assessments conducted to inform the decision - making process? How were the concerns of the community regarding potential disruptions and inconveniences taken into account when establishing the limitations? Were there any public hearings, consultations, or surveys held to gather input from residents, local businesses, and other stakeholders regarding their preferences and expectations for the operating schedule? Will the limitations on operating hours and days be subject to periodic review and potential revision based on the actual impact observed during the initial phases of the Shadowbox Studios project? How will the planning commission assess the effectiveness of the established limitations and consider adjustments if necessary? Are there any specific criteria or guidelines that were considered when determining the appropriate hours and days of operation? For instance, were peak traffic hours, school schedules, or other relevant factors taken into consideration to minimize potential conflicts and ensure the least possible disruption to the surrounding community? How will the enforcement of the limitations on operating hours and days be managed? Will there be designated personnel responsible for monitoring compliance, and what measures will be in place to address any violations or non-compliance by the studio operators? Has there been consideration given to any potential exceptions or allowances for special circumstances, such as major film productions, events of significant public interest, or collaborative initiatives with local organizations? How will such exceptions be evaluated and approved to strike a balance between accommodating unique opportunities and maintaining the integrity of the agreed -upon limitations? What communication strategies will be implemented to ensure effective dissemination of information regarding the limitations on operating hours and days? Will the studio operators be required to inform their staff, clients, and visitors about these restrictions to foster awareness and adherence? Thank you for your attention to these additional questions. I believe that a thorough understanding of the considerations and conditions surrounding the limitation of hours and days of operation is crucial in promoting a mutually beneficial relationship between the Shadowbox Studios project and the surrounding community. Sincerely, Name: - Address:V Ln � _. 17) Packet Pg. 281 Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, MASTER. CASE NO: 2 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DE(R I am writing to inquire further about the considerations and conditions of approval regarding the limitation of hours and days of operation for the proposed Shadowbox Studios project. It is essential to thoroughly understand the implications and potential impacts of these limitations on both the studio operations and the surrounding community. I kindly request your insights and response to the following questions: How were the specific limitations on the hours and days of operation determined? Were there any studies or assessments conducted to evaluate the potential noise, traffic, or other impacts associated with the studios activities during different times of the day or week? Has there been any analysis or evaluation of similar studio projects or establishments in the area to assess the effectiveness and feasibility of the proposed limitations? Were there any lessons learned or best practices identified during this process? Are the limitations on operating hours and days intended to be permanent, or will they be subject to periodic review and potential adjustment based on monitoring and feedback from the community and relevant stakeholders? If there are provisions for review, what will be the criteria and process for evaluating the need for any changes to the limitations? Have the limitations on hours and days of operation been designed to strike a balance between the needs of the studio project and the quality of life for nearby residents? Were there any compromises or adjustments made during the planning process to address concerns and ensure a harmonious coexistence between the studio operations and the community? Will there be any measures or conditions in place to address potential exemptions or special circumstances that may arise, such as for productions with unique scheduling requirements or events of significant cultural or economic importance? How will the determination of such exemptions be made, and will there be mechanisms for community input or notification regarding these exceptions? Has there been consideration given to the potential economic impacts and benefits of the limitations on hours and days of operation? Specifically, how will the conditions strike a balance between fostering the growth and success of the studio project and ensuring the well-being and interests of the surrounding businesses and local economy? How will the enforcement of the limitations on operating hours and days be handled? Will there be a designated authority responsible for monitoring compliance and addressing any violations, and what will be the consequences for non-compliance? Has there been any analysis or discussion regarding the potential future adjustments to the limitations on hours and days of operation, considering the anticipated growth and development of the studio project over time? Will there be provisions for reevaluating and potentially revising the limitations to accommodate the evolving needs and circumstances of the studio and the community? Thank you for your attention to these additional questions. I greatly appreciate your insights and clarification regarding the considerations and conditions of approval for limiting the hours and days of operation for the Shadowbox Studios project. Understanding the thoroughness of the planning and decision -making process will help to ensure a well-balanced and mutually beneficial relationship between the studio and the surrounding community. Sincerely, Name:. Packet Pg. 282 MASTER CASE NO: 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR Dear Santa Glarita Planning Commission, I am writing to inquire about the possible inclusion of a morality clause as a condition of approval for the Shadowbox Studios project, specifically regarding the prohibition of the production of pornography within the studio facilities. I would appreciate your response to the following question: Will there be a morality clause included as a condition of approval for the Shadowbox Studios project that explicitly prohibits the production of pornography within the studio facilities? Thank you for your attention to this question. I look forward to your clarification regarding the presence or absence of a morality clause related to the production of pornography within the Shadowbox Studios facilities. Sincerely, Name: Address: Packet Pg. 2 3 MASTER CASE NO: 21 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, I am writing to inquire about the potential future of the Shadowbox Studios project in light of industry considerations regarding geographical desirability and the availability of new studio inventory in Los Angeles. Given the fickleness of the entertainment industry, I would appreciate your response to the following questions: How has the geographical desirability of Santa Clarita (or lack thereof), particularly in relation to the entertainment industry, been taken into account during the planning process for the Shadowbox Studios project? Were any market assessments or industry studies conducted to evaluate the demand for studio space in the area? In light of the construction of new studio inventory throughout Los Angeles, what measures or strategies are in place to attract tenants and ensure the utilization of the sound stages within the Shadowbox. Studios project? Has there been any analysis or contingency planning conducted regarding the potential scenario where some or most of the sound stages within the Shadowbox Studios project are not rented? What steps will be taken to mitigate any adverse effects or address the challenges associated with underutilization? Are there any alternative uses or strategies that have been considered for the studio facilities in the event of low occupancy or unrented sound stages? For example, are there plans to diversify the use of the space to accommodate other types of production or creative endeavors? What collaborations or partnerships, if any, are being pursued to attract and support the demand for studio space in Santa Clarita? Are there initiatives to foster connections with industry professionals, production companies, or content creators to promote the utilization of the Shadowbox Studios facilities? Will there be regular assessments or evaluations conducted to monitor the demand and occupancy of the sound stages within the Shadowbox Studios project? How will any identified challenges or opportunities be addressed to ensure the long-term viability and success of the studio facilities? Has there been any consideration given to potential incentives or support programs to attract tenants and encourage the utilization of the Shadowbox Studios facilities, especially in a competitive market environment? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I look forward to your insights and clarification regarding the future of the Shadowbox Studios project in relation to industry considerations and the potential demand for studio space in Santa Clarita. Sincerely, Name: Address:- Packet Pg. 284 MASTER CASE NO, 2 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR Dear Santa Clarita Manning Commission, I am writing to inquire about the potential future scenario of the Shadowbox Studios project in the event that some or most of the sound stages remain unrented, considering the perception among industry insiders that Santa Clarita is an area of last resort in terms of geographical desirability. I would appreciate your insights and response to the following questions: Has there been a market analysis conducted to assess the demand for studio space in the Santa Clarita area, taking into account the competition from new studio inventory being constructed throughout Los Angeles? What measures or strategies are in place to attract tenants and ensure the occupancy of the sound stages within the Shadowbox Studios project? Have any agreements or partnerships been established with production companies, studios, or industry stakeholders to promote the utilization of the studio facilities? If some or most of the sound stages within the Shadowbox Studios project remain unrented, what contingency plans or alternative uses are envisioned for the vacant spaces? Has there been consideration given to repurposing the unused areas to serve other creative or commercial purposes? How does the planning commission address the concerns raised by industry insiders regarding Santa Clarita being perceived as an area of last resort in terms of geographical desirability? Are there any initiatives or plans in place to enhance the appeal and competitiveness of the Santa Clarita area as a filming destination? Are there any incentives or support programs available to attract production companies and encourage them to choose the Shadowbox Studios facilities over other options in Los Angeles? Has the potential impact of unrented sound stages on the local economy and job market been assessed? What steps will be taken to minimize any negative consequences and maximize the economic benefits associated with the operation of the Shadowbox Studios project? Will there be regular monitoring and evaluation of the occupancy rates and overall success of the Shadowbox Studios project? How will any identified challenges or issues be addressed and mitigated to ensure the long-term viability of the studio facilities? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I look forward to your insights and clarification regarding the potential future scenario of the Shadowbox Studios project in light of industry perceptions and the competition from new studio inventory in Los Angeles. Sincerely, Name: Address Packet Pg. 2 5771 Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, MASTER CASE NO: 21.- 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to inquire about the presence of a morality clause as a condition of approval for the Shadowbox Studios project, specifically addressing the prohibition of pornography production within the studio facilities. Given the sensitive nature of the subject, I would appreciate your response to the following questions, which seek to explore the considerations and rationale behind the decision: Has the issue of prohibiting pornography production within the Shadowbox Studios facilities been discussed and considered during the planning process? If so, what were the factors and considerations taken into account when making a decision regarding the inclusion or exclusion of a morality clause? What legal and ethical considerations were evaluated in determining whether to include a morality clause as a condition of approval? Were any local, state, or federal laws taken into account in relation to the production and distribution of pornography? What are the potential social, cultural, and community impacts that were considered when discussing the inclusion or exclusion of a morality clause? Were there any concerns raised by community members, advocacy groups, or other stakeholders regarding the potential production of pornography within the studio facilities? If morality clause prohibiting pornography production is included as a condition of approval, what specific measures will be in place to enforce and monitor compliance with this clause? How will violations be addressed and resolved? Were there any discussions about the constitutionality or potential legal challenges associated with including a morality clause that restricts certain forms of content production within the studio facilities? In the absence of a morality clause, what other measures, if any, will be implemented to ensure responsible content production and compliance with relevant laws and regulations within the Shadowbox Studios facilities? Have there been any precedents or examples from other similar studio projects or jurisdictions that were considered when making a decision regarding the inclusion or exclusion of a morality clause? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I understand the sensitive nature of this topic and appreciate your thorough insights and clarification regarding the presence or absence of a morality clause addressing pornography production within the Shadowbox Studios project. Sincerely, Name: Address: Packet Pg. 286 Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, MASTER CASE NO: 21-10 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to seek clarification regarding the absence of a study on incompatible land use in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Shadowbox Studios project, I have noticed that in the CEQA documents, farm equipment is listed as an example of incompatible land use. Given the shared use of roads surrounding Placerita Canyon by various modes of transportation, including tractors, horses, golf carts, pedestrians, and other types of livestock, I would appreciate answers on the following matters; Why was there no specific study conducted to assess the potential compatibility issues between the proposed Shadowbox Studios project and the existing land uses in the surrounding area, particularly in relation to the shared roadways? Considering the presence of tractors, horses, golf carts, pedestrians, and other types of livestock in the vicinity of Placerita Canyon, what factors were taken into consideration in determining the compatibility of the proposed studio project with these existing land uses? Placerita Canyon has been carved into the proposed voting district maps as a minority district. Yet, did not receive consistent consideration as a minority population for land use study in the Draft EIR. Is seems a flaw in the study conducted. Is there a way commissioners can require land use planning to be studied prior to final approval? Has there been any analysis or assessment of the potential impacts on safety, traffic flow, and overall compatibility due to the interaction between studio -related vehicles and the diverse mix of transportation modes and livestock in the area? Are there any specific mitigation measures or design considerations being proposed to address the potential conflicts and ensure the safe coexistence of the proposed Shadowbox Studios project with the existing land uses and shared roadways? How will the proposed project address concerns related to the potential disruption of the current peaceful and rural character of the area, considering the presence of non -motorized transportation modes and livestock in the vicinity? Has there been any community input or feedback regarding the potential compatibility issues between the Shadowbox Studios project and the existing land uses in the area? Have the concerns raised by residents, businesses, or other stakeholders influenced the planning commission's considerations on this matter? Are there any plans for ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the compatibility between the proposed studio project and the existing land uses? Will there be mechanisms in place to address any unforeseen issues, adapt to changing circumstances, and ensure ongoing compatibility? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I greatly appreciate your insights and clarification regarding the absence of a study on incompatible land use in the Draft EIR for the Shadowbox Studios project. Understanding the considerations and measures taken to address potential compatibility issues will provide valuable information for assessing the projects impact on the surrounding area and its ability to coexist harmoniously with existing land uses. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, r Name: Address: Packet Pg. 287 MASTER CASE NO: 21-1 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, I am writing to inquire about the potential scenarios and considerations surrounding the Shadowbox Studios project in the event that some or most of the sound stages are not rented upon completion. Given the evolving dynamics of the entertainment industry and the construction of new studio inventory throughout Los Angeles, I would appreciate your response to the following questions: Has there been an assessment of the market demand for sound stages in the Santa Clarita area, taking into account the construction of new studio facilities in Los Angeles? What factors were considered in determining the feasibility and potential occupancy of the sound stages within the Shadowbox Studios project? Are there any contingency plans in place in the event that some or most of the sound stages remain unrented after the completion of the Shadowbox Studios project? How will the project adapt to such a situation? Has there been an analysis of the potential economic impact on the studio and the surrounding area if the sound stages are not rented as expected? What measures will be taken to mitigate any negative effects on the local economy? Are there any plans or strategies in place to attract potential tenants and promote the utilization of the sound stages within the Shadowbox Studios project? How will the project actively market itself to the entertainment industry and showcase its unique features or advantages? Has there been consideration given to diversifying the potential use of the sound stages beyond traditional film and television production, such as accommodating virtual reality or augmented reality experiences, live performances, or other innovative content creation? What steps will be taken to actively engage with production companies, content creators, and industry professionals to understand their needs and tailor the offerings of the Shadowbox Studios project to align with their requirements and preferences? Will there be flexibility in terms of leasing agreements, rates, or other incentives to attract tenants and promote the utilization of the sound stages within the Shadowbox Studios project? Are there any plans to collaborate with local and regional film commissions, industry associations, or organizations to foster partnerships and enhance the visibility and attractiveness of the Shadowbox Studios project? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I look forward to your insights and clarification regarding the potential scenarios and considerations related to the occupancy of sound stages within the Shadowbox Studios project. Sincerely, Name:3--- Packet Pg. 288 1 Dear Santa. Clarita Planning Commission, MASTER CASE NO: 21- 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to inquire about how the planning commission plans to address deficiencies and the issue of incompatibility between the proposed studio project and the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District as well as the current zoning regulations. I would appreciate your insights and response to the following questions: What specific provisions or regulations within the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District and current zoning are considered compatible with the proposed studio project? How does the planning commission plan to address what is not compatible during the evaluation and approval process? Has there been any consideration given to potential amendments or modifications to the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District or zoning regulations to accommodate the studio project? If so, what would be the process and criteria for making such changes, and how would they be reconciled with the established planning guidelines and objectives? In cases where incompatibilities cannot be readily resolved, what alternatives or options might be explored to mitigate the conflicts between the proposed studio project and the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District or current zoning? Are there any provisions for variances, conditional use permits, or other mechanisms that could potentially allow for a balanced and mutually beneficial outcome? What role does public input and community engagement play in addressing the incompatibilities between the studio project and the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District or current zoning? How would the concerns and perspectives of residents and stakeholders be taken into account during the decision -making process? A three -minute speaking opportunity during a public meeting is insufficient. Are there any precedents or examples of similar cases where incompatibilities between development projects and established planning regulations were successfully resolved? What lessons or insights could be drawn from those experiences to guide the planning commissiods approach in addressing the current situation? Considering the importance of maintaining the integrity of the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District and existing zoning regulations, what measures will be taken to ensure that any modifications or exceptions granted for the studio project do not set a precedent that could undermine the established planning framework or create inconsistencies in future development decisions? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I greatly appreciate your insights and clarification regarding how the planning commission plans to address the incompatibility between the proposed studio project and the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District as well as the current zoning regulations. Sincerely, Name: r' �;; Address: Packet Pg. 289 Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, MASTER CASE NO: 21-1 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to inquire about how the planning commission intends to address the issue of incompatibility between the proposed studio project and the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District and current zoning regulations. I would appreciate your insights and response to the following questions: What specific provisions of the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District and current zoning regulations will need to be changed for the proposed studio project to be approved? How do the existing regulations and protections differ from the requirements and guidelines set forth by the studio project? Has there been any assessment or evaluation conducted to determine the extent of the incompatibility between the proposed studio project and the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District? What factors were considered in identifying the areas of non-compliance or incompatibility? Considering the incompatibility between the project and the Special Standards District and zoning regulations, what steps or measures will the planning commission take to address this issue? Are there any provisions or conditions of approval that will be imposed to ensure compliance with the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District and current zoning requirements? Will any modifications or variances be granted to accommodate the studio project within the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District and current zoning regulations? If so, what criteria or justifications will be used to determine the suitability and acceptability of such modifications or variances? How will the planning commission balance the need for economic development and job creation that the studio project may bring with the preservation of the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District and adherence to current zoning regulations? What considerations will be given to protect the integrity and character of the surrounding area while accommodating the proposed development? Will the studio be required to make a cash donation to the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association to further preservation of the canyon as a condition of approval? Has there been any engagement or consultation with residents, local businesses, or other stakeholders in the Placerita Canyon area to gather their feedback and concerns regarding the compatibility of the studio project with the Special Standards District and current zoning regulations? If so, how has this feedback influenced the planning commission's considerations and decision -making process? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I greatly appreciate your insights and clarification regarding how the planning commission intends to address the incompatibility of the studio project with the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District and current zoning regulations. Sincerely; Name: Address: Packet Pg. 2 0771 Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, MASTER CASE NO. 21-109 Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to express my concerns regarding the deficiencies in the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Shadowbox Studios project, particularly in relation to the land use and planning aspects. It has come to my attention that the proposed voting district map designates Placerita Canyon residents in a minority district, which should have triggered a study considering their minority status. Additionally, the FIR acknowledges farm equipment as an example of an incompatible land use, which also should have prompted further analysis. I respectfully request your attention and consideration to the following points: Acknowledging the minority status of Placerita Canyon residents in the proposed voting district map, why was a study on land use and planning not conducted in the Draft EIR? Given that minority status often raises unique concerns and considerations, it is important to properly evaluate the impacts of the project on these communities and their land use patterns. What criteria or guidelines were used to determine that a study on land use and planning was not necessary for the Shadowbox Studios project? Were these criteria consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CFQA) or other applicable regulations? Has there been any assessment or analysis conducted to evaluate the potential impacts and compatibility of the project with the existing land use and planning in Placerita Canyon? If not, what steps will be taken to ensure that a thorough evaluation is conducted, considering the shared use of roads by tractors, horses, golf carts, pedestrians, and other types of livestock? Will the planning commission acknowledge the deficiencies in the Draft EIR and provide city staff and consultants with the necessary resources and time to conduct a proper Land Use and Planning study? It is crucial to address any shortcomings in the environmental documents to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of the project's impacts and compatibility with the surrounding land use patterns. How will the planning commission ensure that all necessary studies and analyses, including a Land Use and Planning study, are conducted to adequately assess the impacts of the Shadowbox Studios project on Placerita Canyon and its residents? Will there be opportunities for community input and engagement during this process? Will there be provisions or conditions imposed on the project to mitigate any potential adverse impacts on the land use and planning of Placerita Canyon? Are there plans to incorporate measures that promote the safe coexistence of different modes of transportation and address the concerns raised by the shared use of roads by various types of vehicles, pedestrians, and livestock? What actions will be taken to address the deficiencies in the Draft EIR and ensure compliance with relevant environmental regulations? Will there be an opportunity to update and supplement the EIR to include the necessary studies and analyses related to land use and planning? I appreciate your attention to these matters and your commitment to a thorough evaluation of the Shadowbox Studios project. Considering the concerns raised by the minority status of Placerita Canyon residents and the potential impacts on land use and planning, it is essential to conduct comprehensive studies and engage in meaningful dialogue with the community. I trust that the planning commission will give due consideration to these concerns and take appropriate actions to address the deficiencies in the Draft EIR Sincerely, Nance: 1.c Address: 'L—'l/ j/. Packet Pg. 291 Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, MASTER CASE No: 21 Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to further inquire about the feasibility of establishing a secondary entrance from Circle J for the north parking lot of the proposed Shadowbox Studios project, and to also explore the potential of incorporating the flyover bridge at the Via Princessa intersection. These measures have been suggested as potential solutions to alleviate traffic congestion at the Arch and 13th intersection. Has there been any thorough evaluation of the feasibility and potential benefits of establishing a secondary entrance from Circle J for the north parking lot of the Shadowbox Studios project? If not, could the planning commission undertake a comprehensive analysis of this option, considering its potential to alleviate traffic congestion and improve accessibility to the studio campus? In addition to a secondary entrance from Circle J, has there been any consideration given to constructing a flyover bridge at the Via Princessa intersection? Such a bridge could provide an alternative route for vehicles, bypassing the Arch and 13th intersection altogether. Could the planning commission explore the feasibility and potential benefits of this infrastructure improvement as a means to further alleviate traffic congestion in the area? If a flyover bridge at the Via Princessa intersection were to be considered, what are the main technical, engineering, and environmental factors that need to be assessed? Are there any potential challenges or constraints that would need to be addressed, such as land availability, impact on surrounding properties, or compliance with regulatory requirements? Have any traffic impact studies or assessments been conducted to evaluate the potential effects of both a secondary entrance from Circle J and a flyover bridge at the Via Princessa intersection? If so, what were the findings of these studies, and how were they taken into account during the planning process? Considering the potential benefits of both a secondary entrance from Circle J and a flyover bridge at the Via Princessa intersection, what level of coordination and collaboration would be required between the City of Santa Clarita, the planning commission, and other relevant stakeholders to successfully implement these infrastructure improvements? How would the inclusion of a secondary entrance from Circle J and a flyover bridge at the Via Princessa intersection align with the broader transportation and infrastructure plans for the Santa Clarita area? Are there existing proposals or initiatives that these improvements could complement or support? Are there any alternative solutions or approaches that have been explored to address traffic congestion at the Arch and 13th intersection? If so, what were these alternatives, and why were they not deemed suitable for the project? Thank you for your attention to these questions. I greatly appreciate your insights and clarification regarding the feasibility of a secondary entrance from Circle J, the potential for a flyover bridge at the Via Princessa intersection, and any other potential solutions to alleviate traffic congestion. Understanding the considerations and potential improvements related to traffic flow and accessibility will contribute to a comprehensive and informed decision -making process. Sincerely, Name: r .'r' . , .� Address: Packet Pg. 292 MASTER CASE NO: 21-109 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, I am writing to further inquire about the potential requirements for the studio project regarding preservation within the Placerita Canyon area. Specifically, I would like to know if the studio will be required to make a cash donation to the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association (PCPOA) as a condition of approval, aimed at furthering preservation efforts within the canyon. I would appreciate your insights and response to the following question: Has there been any consideration given to requiring the studio project to make a cash donation to the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association (PCPOA) as a condition of approval, with the aim of supporting and enhancing preservation initiatives within the canyon? If so, what factors will be taken into account when determining the amount of the donation, and how will the funds be allocated? Thank you for your attention to this question. I greatly appreciate your insights and clarification regarding the potential requirements for the studio project and its contribution to the preservation efforts within the Placerita Canyon area. Sincerely, Name: Address: r1 .5 L Packet Pg. 293 Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, MASTER CASE NO: 21 1.c Shadowbox Studios Prolec Re: Comments to the DEIR I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding the potential negative impact of the proposed Shadowbox Studios project on the evacuation routes for residents of Placerita Canyon. With the addition of approximately 3,000 vehicles and trucks associated with the studio, there is a significant risk of congestion and increased difficulty for residents to evacuate during emergencies. Has there been a thorough assessment of the potential impact of the additional 3,000 vehicles and trucks from the Shadowbox Studios project on the existing evacuation routes for residents of Placerita Canyon? If so, what were the findings of this assessment, and how have they been taken into consideration during the planning process? What measures are being taken to ensure that the increased traffic from the studio project does not exacerbate congestion on the evacuation routes during emergencies? Are there plans to expand or improve the capacity of the evacuation routes to accommodate both residents and the additional vehicles associated with the studio project? Are there any alternative routes or contingency plans being considered to alleviate the potential strain on the existing evacuation routes due to the additional vehicles from the Shadowbox Studios project? If not, what considerations are being given to address this significant concern and ensure the safety of residents in the event of an emergency? Has there been any coordination or collaboration with emergency response agencies to address the potential challenges faced by residents during evacuations, considering the increased traffic from the studio project? Are there joint efforts to develop strategies and protocols that prioritize the safety and well-being of residents while ensuring efficient traffic :management during emergencies? Are there any requirements or conditions being imposed on the Shadowbox Studios project to mitigate the impact on the evacuation routes and ensure the safety of residents? For example, are there limitations on the timing of studio operations during peak evacuation hours or requirements for the studio to provide additional support or resources for emergency preparedness and response? How will the effectiveness of the measures taken to address the impact on evacuation routes be monitored and evaluated? Will there be mechanisms in place to make adjustments or modifications if unforeseen issues arise or if it is determined that additional measures are necessary to ensure the safe evacuation of residents? Have residents of Placerita Canyon been consulted or involved in the decision -making process regarding the potential impact on evacuation routes? If so, what feedback or concerns have been expressed by residents, and how have these influenced the planning commission's considerations? Thank you for your attention to these additional concerns. I greatly appreciate your insights and clarification regarding the potential negative impact of the Shadowbox Studios project on the evacuation routes for residents of Placerita Canyon. Understanding the measures being taken to address these concerns and prioritize the safety of residents is crucial for the overall well-being of the community. Sincerely, Name: ► _ 0 V f 1 ii j Address: 0 Packet Pg. 294 MASTER CASE NO: 1.c Shadowbox Studios Project Re: Comments to the DEIR To the Santa Clarita Planning Commission, I am writing to you today as a long-time resident of Placerita Canyon. My name is Lola, but most people around here know me as "the Egg Lady." I've spent my life first connected to the entertainment industry, then caring for horses, and now I tend my chickens. I don't own a computer or a cell phone so I'm relying upon the kindness of a neighbor to help type this letter. Having lived in this beautiful canyon since 1961, 1 have witnessed the changes and challenges that have come our way over the years. Today, I am deeply concerned about the proposed Shadowbox project and its potential impact on our community. First, I cannot help but wonder why the Shadowbox project needs to be so big. The size and scale of the project seem overwhelming, and I worry about the consequences it may bring. Placerita Canyon has always been a place of natural beauty, and I fear that such a massive development will irreversibly change the character of our community. Our canyon has always been a peaceful and close-knit community, and I am afraid that this massive development will disrupt the very essence of what makes Placerita Canyon who we are and what we represent. One particular concern that keeps me awake at night is the impact of the Dockweiler Drive extension. I firmly believe that it will "kill us" as the increased traffic will undoubtedly congest our already narrow roads. Even if Shadowbox builds 20 lanes, stop still means stop, and no one moves. Our canyon is prone to wildfires and flooding, and the thought of being trapped in an evacuation situation with the proposed traffic patterns sends shivers down my spine. The increased congestion will not only cause gridlock and inconvenience but more importantly put our safety at risk. It's a recipe for disaster. Living in Placerita Canyon, we are no strangers to the threats of wildfires and flooding. These natural disasters can strike without warning, and we rely on our existing evacuation routes to ensure our safety. The Shadowbox project, with its thousands of additional vehicles and trucks, utilizing the same evacuation routes as residents, is another recipe for disaster. I fear that in times of emergency, our already limited evacuation options will become completely overwhelmed, leaving us vulnerable, trapped and doomed. While I understand the need for development and progress, I do not believe that the Shadowbox project is the best solution for our community. in fact, I find it absolutely crazy for the city to even consider approving such a massive development in our canyon. It seems as though the decision -makers must be out of their minds, overlooking the concerns and well-being of the residents who have called this place home for decades. Packet Pg. 2 5771 1.c I ask you to carefully consider the long-term implications of the Shadowbox project on our community. Please listen to the voices of the residents who have dedicated their lives to preserving the rural and equestrian Placerita Canyon. Please prioritize the safety and well-being of our community over the glamour of a movie studio facility. Even now there's nothing going on in the studios around us. Melody Ranch doesn't look to have any active projects. Disney Ranch was put on indefinate hold. What happens if Shadowbox sits empty? Thank you for taking the time to read and answer my concerns. I trust that you will approach this decision with wisdom, empathy, and a deep understanding of the impact it will have on Placerita Canyon and its residents. Sincerely, Name. Address: 0 N U 2. ci O a fA _O U) X O 3 O ca z c m E E O U c� M Z a a� E s ca r a Packet Pg. 296 1.c Lisa Howe From: Erika Iverson Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 7:44 AM To: Lisa Howe Subject: FW: Approve Shadowbox Studios From: myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com <myvoice@oneclickpolitics.com> Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2023 5:42 PM To: Erika Iverson <EIVERSON@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Approve Shadowbox Studios c; 0 IL CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. U 5 d Re: Approve Shadowbox Studios ° IL Ms. Erika Iverson - City Planner, 0 0 r rn As a resident of Placerita Canyon, and a direct neighbor to the proposed Shadowbox Studios project, I am writing to c express my support for this project. Throughout the process, the developer has worked side -by -side with our community � 3 to ensure our thoughts, comments and questions are heard. Further, it has been great to see some of our ideas 0 implemented in the project throughout the past couple of years. As you have seen from the renderings, our Placerita z Canyon Community Characteristics have been incorporated in the project. The stages feature an equestrian aesthetic that honors our lifestyle. I want to see this lifestyle protected and to continue, and that is what Shadowbox Studios has promised to do. I recognize that development on this property will occur at some point. I don't think we want to see thousands of houses or apartments here. That would be a real traffic nightmare. This project is the next best option for E our community. Moreover, I applaud the efforts from the developer on working with the City towards a trail extension Lj and access from Placerita to downtown Newhall and Metrolink. The enhancement would be of great significance for our 2 community. Placerita Canyon has a long history of movie ranches and filming from Disney Ranch on the South to Melody 3 Ranch in the middle of Placerita Canyon. This city, and Placerita Canyon, have an abundance of talented people who a work in the film industry. How great it would be for these people to be able to regularly work close to their homes and maybe even walk or ride their bikes to the studio. On behalf of my neighbors in Placerita Canyon, I hope the Planning s Commission sees this as the best possible project for our community and the City. Please the project and allow it to r move on to the next step. Q Sincerely, Naomi Portillo naomidportillo@vahoo.com 8937 kester ave panorama, CA 91402 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact info( a �oneclickpolitics.com Packet Pg. 297 O Agenda Item: 1 1. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION %? AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING MANAGER APPROVAL: DATE: July 18, 2023 SUBJECT: Shadowbox Studios (Master Case 21-109) APPLICANT: LA Railroad 93, LLC LOCATION: Northeast Corner of Railroad Ave and 13th Street CASE PLANNER: Erika Iverson RECOMMENDED ACTION Planning Commission: 1. Receive staff presentation; and continue the public hearing on the item; 2. Close the public hearing; 3. Adopt Resolution P23-11, recommending the City Council certify the Draft Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2022030762) prepared for the project; 4. Adopt Resolution P23-12, recommending the City Council approve the Shadowbox Studios Project under Master Case 21-109, including, Architectural Design Review 21-016; Conditional Use Permit 21-010; Development Review 21-001; 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 Tract Map 83513, subject to the conditions of approval; and 5. Take other action as determined by the Planning Commission. REQUEST The applicant, LA Railroad 93, LLC, is requesting approval of an Architectural Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Development Review, General Plan Amendment, Hillside Development Review, Minor Use Permit, Oak Tree Permit, Ridgeline Alteration Permit, Tentative Tract Map, and Zone Change to allow for the development of a nearly 1.3 million square foot, full -service film and television studio campus on an approximately 93-acre site. Page 1 Packet Pg. 9 O PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The intent of this meeting is to respond to Planning Commission direction from the June 20, 2023 Planning Commission meeting, provide the Planning Commission a response to comments received during the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) public comment period, and make a recommendation to the City Council for the approval of Master Case 21-109 for the Shadowbox Studios Project. Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Project introduction, summary of Draft EIR, public comments - Completed Tuesday, May 16, 2023 Response to Planning Commission and public comments - Completed Tuesday, June 20, 2023 Response to Planning Commission and public comments - Completed Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Response to Planning Commission and public comments, Final EIR, and recommendation to City Council Date to be determined City Council Public Hearings JUNE 20. 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOLLOW-UP At the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on June 20, 2023, staff provided a staff report and presentation in response to comments and requests for additional information as directed by the Planning Commission at the May 16, 2023 meeting. The Planning Commission received the staff report, applicant's presentation, and testimony from the public. The Planning Commission requested additional clarification on the topic of emergency operations, and directed staff to address the remaining questions, and bring back a recommendation on the project at the July 18, 2023 meeting for consideration. Further discussion on the topic of street improvements associated with the project, emergency evacuation, and emergency operation plans is provided below. Street Improvement Plans As outlined in the previous agenda report for the June 20, 2023 Planning Commission meeting, the Transportation Assessment (TA) prepared for the project analyzed the project both with and without the completion of the City of Santa Clarita's (City) planned extension of Dockweiler Drive. The proposed street improvements for the project would be required with or without the completion of the connection to Dockweiler Drive. The specific street improvements that would be required for the project prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy include (see Condition of Approval EN51): Page 2 Packet Pg. 10 O • Widening of the rail crossing at 13th Street and Railroad Avenue from two traffic lanes to five traffic lanes. In addition to widening of the intersection, the railroad crossing would be upgraded to meet the current safety standards, as directed by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC); • Widening of 13th Street from two traffic lanes to six traffic lanes, Arch Street from two - traffic lanes to six traffic lanes, and 12th Street from two traffic lanes to three traffic lanes; • Installation of a four -leg, signalized intersection at 13th Street and Arch Street; • Installation of a four -leg, signalized intersection at Arch Street and 12th Street; and • Installation of a three -leg, half -signalized intersection at Placerita Canyon Road and Dockweiler Drive. In addition, if the Dockweiler Drive extension is not completed at the time of the project, the following intersection improvement would be required in place of the three -leg intersection at Placerita Canyon Road and Dockweiler Drive (see Condition of Approval EN52): Extend Arch Street to Placerita Canyon Road and complete the two -leg intersection of Placerita Canyon Road and Arch Street. Prior to the approval of any of the street improvement plans the project Conditions of Approval would require (see Condition of Approval TR8): • The applicant to prepare and obtain all necessary approvals for construction phasing and traffic detour plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The detour may require additional interim roadway and intersection improvements for the duration of the detour, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, and require that access to the Placerita Canyon neighborhood be maintained for the duration of the roadway construction. Emergency Evacuation It is important to note; the street improvements outlined above will be required to be installed prior to occupancy of the project (see Conditions of Approval EN51 and EN52). These improvements are necessary to accommodate the vehicle traffic associated with the project but also serve to reduce the existing emergency evacuation time out of the Placerita Canyon area. The Emergency Evacuation Analysis prepared for the project compared the existing evacuation time under the current roadway condition, to the proposed project including the roadway conditions described above. For purposes of determining the most conservative assessment, the analysis included a study scenario that assumed that all evacuation routes would be directed through the intersection of Railroad Avenue and 13th Street and assumed Dockweiler Drive would not be available. The assessment concludes that the evacuation time out of Placerita Canyon would be reduced almost by half under the project conditions. The current evacuation time is approximately 154 minutes. With the project, and with the street improvements described above, the evacuation time is reduced to 87 minutes. Therefore, the existing evacuation time that would be experienced today, would be improved with the installation of the roadway improvements identified in the TA for the project, even without the connection to Dockweiler Drive being available. As indicated above, the street improvements will be required to be in place before the first building occupancy for the project, and the applicant will be required to submit a construction phasing and traffic detour plan before street improvement plans are Page 3 Packet Pg. 11 O approved for the project that ensures access to Placerita Canyon remains open during the roadway construction. The potential for an additional point of access to the project site has been discussed in previous Planning Commission hearings on the project. In particular, the possibility of a new rail crossing at 15th Street and Railroad Avenue has been discussed and the Applicant has indicated that this is not feasible in light of policies of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), and the Federal Highway Administration. Since the time of the last Planning Commission meeting on June 20, 2023, the CPUC provided a response to a public inquiry about an additional crossing at 15th Street that indicates that a crossing at 15th Street is generally not supported and is contrary to the policy seeking to reduce the number of at -grade crossings. The correspondence is provided as an attachment to the staff report. As discussed above, the evacuation time from the Placerita Canyon area would be reduced with the installation of the street improvements outlined above. In addition to completing those street improvements, the applicant would be required to prepare a site -specific Emergency Operation Plan (EOP) prior to the building occupancy. The EOP must include an evacuation plan for the studio campus and must include a training program for all security personnel and tenants of the studio campus to ensure preparedness in the event of an emergency. The EOP must identify opportunities that would allow for the studio facility to shelter in place, and must identify opportunities that would allow for the studio facility to access the Metropolitan Water District right of way to the northeast as a means of evacuation in an emergency (see Condition PL11). In addition, the studio facility would be required to have security personnel onsite 24 hours per day and would be required to establish a contact phone number for site operations, to be posted at each entry gate, visible to the public (see Condition PL12). A full list of the Conditions of Approval is provided in Exhibit A of Resolution P23-12. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO DRAFT EIR COMMENTS During the public review period from April 6, 2023, to May 22, 2023, staff received comment letters from 21 public agencies, organizations, and the public on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In addition, staff received several comment letters and opinions on the project from the public during the public hearing process for consideration by the Planning Commission. These comments have been provided to the Planning Commission throughout the public hearing process and incorporated into the record for consideration. The Draft Final EIR was issued to the Planning Commission for review on July 6, 2023, was posted on the City's website, and an email notification was sent to the list of interested parties. As the Planning Commission is a recommending body to the City Council, if the project and EIR are recommended for approval to the City Council, the final responses to all comments will be sent out to all commenters a minimum of 10 days in advance of the City Council hearing to certify the Final EIR and act on the project. The following is a summary of the draft responses to the Draft EIR comments. The complete response to the Draft EIR comments is attached to Resolution P23-11 Exhibit B: Draft Final EIR. Page 4 Packet Pg. 12 O PUBLIC AGENCIES California Department of Fish and Wildlife, dated May 22, 2023 The letter provided by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) includes comments and recommendations related to the impacts to Crotch's Bumble Bee, mountain lion, Coastal California Gnatcatcher, as well as streams and associated natural communities, and nesting birds and includes recommendations on mitigation measures to address these impacts. Revisions were made to Section 4.3, Biological Resources of the Draft EIR (see Section 3.0, Errata and Clarifications of this Final EIR) to provide clarification on the potential for Crotch's Bumble Bee and the mountain lion to occur on the project site. In addition, revisions were made to include additional mitigation measures as recommended by CDFW. As indicated in response Al-5, Crotch's bumble bee was not listed as a potential candidate for special status at the time of the literature review for the Biological Resources Assessment report, which was conducted on January 18, 2022 and was not under consideration as a candidate for special status at the time of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Draft EIR, which was published on March 29, 2022, establishing the baseline conditions for biological resources at that time (per CEQA Guidelines Section 15125). The candidacy status of Crotch's bumble bee was reinstated by the California Fish and Game Commission, on September 30, 2022. Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-6 through MM-BIO-9 were incorporated into the Draft EIR and would reduce any potential impacts to the Crotch's Bumble Bee to a less -than -significant level. Focused site surveys are currently underway to confirm that the absence of Crotch's bumble bee on the Project Site. Nonetheless, the mitigation measures MM-BIO-6 through MM-BIO-9 that have been incorporated into the Draft EIR would mitigate any impact to a less than significant level. As indicated in response Al-6, revisions were made to the Draft EIR to clarify the low potential on the project site for the mountain lion to occur. Specifically, the project site is not within a natural landscape block; the nearest blocks are within the Santa Susana Mountains southwest of I-5 and the San Gabriel Mountains east of SR-14. The CDFW mountain lion habitat suitability dataset predicts relatively low probability of use within the project site, similar to the urban center of the City. All other impacts were addressed in the Draft EIR, the appendices, and applicable mitigation measures are anticipated to fully address these concerns. Detailed responses to these comments are included in Exhibit B of Resolution P23-11, addressed and referenced as Comment Letter Al. Metrolink - Southern California Regional Rail Authority, dated May 22, 2023 The letter provided by SCRRA provides general comments for purposes of project design adjacent to the railroad right of way. The comments in this letter are addressed and referenced as Comment Letter A2 in Exhibit B of Resolution P23-11. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), dated May 19, 2023 The letter provided by SCAQMD includes recommended revisions to the project -level air quality mitigation measures, operational emissions from stationary and portable sources, Localized Significant Thresholds (LSTs) for construction and operational emissions analysis, health risk impacts during operation, and information about SCAQMD air permits that the Lead Agency should include in the Final EIR. The Final EIR Errata and Clarifications Section (Section 3.0 in Exhibit B of Resolution P23-11) corrected Section 2.0 - Project Description of the Draft EIR to Page _5 Packet Pg. 13 O identify the required air permit from SCAQMD for any operation equipment emitting air pollutants. As indicated in response A3-7, Section 2.5.2 - Other Agencies, was revised to clarify instances of operational equipment that would require an air permit from the SCAQMD. This does not create any new or increased significant impact that was not already identified in the Draft EIR. The comments in this letter are addressed and referenced as Comment Letter A3 in Exhibit B of Resolution P23-11. Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD), dated May 12, 2023 The letter provided by the LACFD requests corrections on the requirements for fire hydrants and fire flow requirements. The Final EIR Errata and Clarifications Section (Section 3.0 in Exhibit B of Resolution P23-11) corrected the number of on- and off -site hydrant requirements as well as the required fire flow rates in Section 4.13 - Public Services, Section 4.16 - Utilities and Service Systems, and Section 4.17 - Wildfire of the Draft EIR in response to the comments from LACFD. The project would be required to comply with all applicable LACFD code, as adopted by the City, and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants at LACFD building plan check review and before the Building Official issues building permits and certificates of occupancy. The corrections do not result in the project creating any new or increased significant impact. The letter also lists routine design standards, standard requirements, and terms of approval to be incorporated during the plan check process in regards to the Final Map, Water System, Fuel Modification, and the Forestry Division. These comments do not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required. The comments in this letter are addressed and referenced as Comment Letter A4 in Exhibit B of Resolution P23-11. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, dated May 18, 2023 The letter provided by Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department includes recommendations for landscaping, security monitoring, and lighting. The comments in this letter are addressed and referenced as Comment Letter A5 in Exhibit B of Resolution P23-11. Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, dated May 22, 2023 The letter provided by Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts provided clarification of the anticipated wastewater to be generated by Alternative 2. The Final EIR Errata and Clarifications Section (Section 3.0 in Exhibit B of Resolution P23-11) corrected the wastewater assumption for Alternative 2 in Section 5 - Alternatives of the Draft EIR. The change does not result in the project creating any new or increased environmental impact. The comments in this letter are addressed and referenced as Comment Letter A6 in Exhibit B of Resolution P23-11. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority(Metro), dated May 22, 2023 The letter provided by Metro advises the project applicant regarding rail operations and applicable requirements for construction and operation adjacent to the rail right of way. The comments in this letter are addressed and referenced as Comment Letter A7 in Exhibit B of Resolution P23-11. Page 6 Packet Pg. 14 O Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency_(SCV Water), dated May 1, 2023 The letter provided by SCV Water provides comments on the potential for a reduction in groundwater recharge due to an increase in impervious surface area. The comments in this letter are addressed and referenced as Comment Letter A8 in Exhibit B of Resolution P23-11. ORGANIZATION COMMENTS Southwest Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters (SWRCC), dated April 17, 2023 The letter provided by SWRRC provides comments and opinions on the potential use of a local hire construction workforce to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) and air pollutant emissions. The comments in this letter are addressed and referenced as Comment Letter 01 in Exhibit B of Resolution P23-11. Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development Los Angeles (CREED), dated May 12, 2023 The letter provided by CREED requests an extension of the public review period and access to documents referenced in the Draft EIR. The comments in this letter are addressed and referenced as Comment Letter 02 in Exhibit B of Resolution P23-11. Sierra Club, dated May 15, 2023 The letter provided by Sierra Club provides comments on topics related to zoning, flooding and hydrology, traffic and air pollution, and public safety. The comments in this letter are addressed and referenced as Comment Letter 03 in Exhibit B of Resolution P23-11. Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibilily (SAFER), dated May 18, 2023 The letter provided by SAFER comments on a concern that the Draft EIR did not impose all feasible mitigation measures. The comments in this letter are addressed and referenced as Comment Letter 04 in Exhibit B of Resolution P23-11. Southwest Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters, dated May 18, 2023 The letter provided by SWRRC provides comments and opinions on the potential use of a local hire construction workforce, use of project design features, GHG impacts, noise impacts, hazardous materials impacts, transportation impacts, biological impacts, land use, and energy impacts. These impacts were addressed in the Draft EIR, the appendices, and applicable mitigation measures are anticipated to fully address these concerns. Detailed responses to these comments are addressed and referenced as Comment Letter 05 in Exhibit B of Resolution P23- 11. Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development Los Angeles, dated May 22, 2023 The letter provided by CREED restates comments from the May 12, 2023, CREED Letter, and Page 7 Packet Pg. 15 O provides several comments on the biological resources impacts, air quality impacts, health impacts from emissions, noise impacts, transportation impacts, GHG impacts, compliance with the City's General Plan, compliance with the 2022 Scoping Plan, and compliance with the SCAG RTP/SCS, and use of project design features. Section 4.7 - Greenhouse Gas Emission of the Draft EIR was revised in response to comments from CREED regarding the assumption for the mobile emissions for project operation. As indicated in response 06-63 to ensure the analysis accounted for the trip estimates utilized in the project TA. This slight increase in GHG emissions from the increase in trips, does not change the significance determination for the project which is based on consistency with the State and regional GHG reduction plans. This revision does not change the significance determination for the analysis. Additionally, the Final EIR Errata and Clarifications Section (Section 3.0 in Exhibit B of Resolution P23-11) corrected Section 4.5 - Energy of the Draft EIR to clarify the electric vehicle (EV) charging stations would be installed, as required under California Green Building Code, and are, therefore, not a project design feature. As indicated in response 06-23, whether the provision of EV charging stations and EV- ready parking spaces was presented as a project design feature or code requirement, their provision would contribute to the reduction in the project's energy consumption. These changes do not result in the project creating any new or increased significant environmental impact that is not already identified in the Draft EIR and do not otherwise change the Draft EIR's analysis of impacts related to energy. All other impacts from the CREED letter were addressed in the Draft EIR, the appendices, and applicable mitigation measures are anticipated to fully address these concerns. Detailed responses to these comments are addressed and referenced as Comment Letter 06 in Exhibit B of Resolution P23-11. Friends of the Santa Clara River (FSCR). dated Mav 22. 2023 The letter provided by FSCR provides comments on hydrology. These impacts were addressed in the Draft EIR, the appendices, and applicable mitigation measures are anticipated to fully address these concerns. Detailed responses to the comments are addressed and referenced as Comment Letter 07 in Exhibit B of Resolution P23-11. Placerita Canyonperty Owners Association (PCPOA), dated May 22, 2023 The letter provided by PCPOA provides several comments on the Draft EIR analysis related to aesthetics, land use planning, population and housing, transportation, and wildfire. The Final EIR Errata and Clarifications Section (Section 3.0 in Exhibit B of Resolution P23-11) corrected Section 2.0 - Project Description to clarify the roadway improvements analyzed as part of the project in response to comments received from the PCPOA claiming that the analysis relating to traffic assumed that the Dockweiler improvement and extension will be completed before the project is operational. As indicated in response 08-5, the Tentative Map included as Appendix B of the Draft EIR depicts the proposed roadway improvements; the clarifications in the Project Description do not add new information, but clarify the components of the proposed street widening, signalization, and widening of the rail crossing and also specify the improvement at Placerita Canyon Road and Arch Street if Dockweiler Drive is not extended. In addition, Final EIR Errata and Clarifications Section (Section 3.0 in Exhibit B of Resolution P23-11) added a column to Table 17 of the TA (Appendix L of the Draft EIR) to identify the level of service impacts in the table similar to Table 16. This does not result in any new or increased significant impact that was not already identified in the Draft EIR. All other comments were addressed in Page 8 Packet Pg. 16 O the Draft EIR, the appendices, and applicable mitigation measures are anticipated to fully address these concerns. Detailed responses to these comments are addressed and referenced as Comment Letter 08 in Exhibit B of Resolution P23-11. Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment (SCOPE), dated May 22, 2023 The letter provided by SCOPE provides comments on the Draft EIR analysis related to general plan consistency, GHG emissions, light and glare impacts, biological resources, and noise. These impacts were addressed in the Draft EIR, the appendices, and applicable mitigation measures are anticipated to fully address these concerns. Detailed responses to the comments are addressed and referenced as Comment Letter 09 in Exhibit B of Resolution P23-11. PUBLIC COMMENTS Several public comment letters were received during the public review period that express support for or opposition to the Project, or provide suggestions and opinions on the merits of the Project or components of the Project. As these letters do not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR, no responses were provided, but these letters have been included in the record for consideration by the decision makers and are included as Attachment lin the Draft Final EIR. A summary of the public comment letters received addressing adequacy of the Draft EIR is provided below. Greg Hargrove, dated April 24, 2023 The letter provided by Greg Hargrove provides comments on the Draft EIR analysis related to evacuation. The comments in this letter are addressed and referenced as Comment Letter P1 in Exhibit B of Resolution P23-11. John Fossa, dated May 22, 2023 The letter provided by John Fossa provides comments on the consistency with the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District, traffic, site access and emergency evacuation. The comments in this letter are addressed and referenced as Comment Letter P2 in Exhibit B of Resolution P23- 11. M. Teresa Todd, dated May 22, 2023 The letter provided by M. Teresa Todd provides comments onsite access, transportation infrastructure, emergency evacuation, and land use. The comments in this letter are addressed and referenced as Comment Letter P3 in Exhibit B of Resolution P23-11. Cynthia Harris, dated May 23, 2023 The letter provided by Cynthia Harris provides comments on oak tree removals and carbon sequestration. The comments in this letter are addressed and referenced as Comment Letter P4 in Exhibit B of Resolution P23-11. Page 9 Packet Pg. 17 O PUBLIC COMMENTS Following release of the Draft Final EIR, City staff received a letter requesting a continuance of the July 18, 2023, Planning Commission hearing from a representative of the PCPOA. The request, included as an attachment for consideration by the Planning Commission, calls for recirculation of the Draft EIR prior to certification due to information that has been incorporated into the Final EIR Errata and Clarifications Section (Section 3.0 in Exhibit B of Resolution P23- 11). Discussion of the comments received and clarifications incorporated into the Final EIR Errata and Clarification Section is provided above, and detailed responses are included in the Draft Final EIR (Exhibit B of Resolution P23-11). The revisions made in the Errata and Clarifications Section correct, clarify, or make insignificant modifications to information that is in the Draft EIR and does not change the basic findings of the Draft EIR. Recirculation is not required unless new "significant" information is added to a Draft EIR. According to Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines "New information added to an EIR is not "significant" unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to implement". In addition, since the June 20, 2023 Planning Commission hearing, staff has received one letter in opposition to the Project and thirteen letters of support as of the writing of this staff report. The letters are included as an attachment for consideration by the Planning Commission. CONCLUSION Based on the direction from the April 18, 2023, May 16, 2023, and June 20, 2023 Planning Commission meetings and the public record, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt Resolution P23-11, recommending the City Council certify the Draft Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2022030762) prepared for the project, and adopt Resolution P23-12, recommending the City Council approve the Shadowbox Studios Project under Master Case 21- 109, including, Architectural Design Review 21-016; Conditional Use Permit 21-010; Development Review 21-001; 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, subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A of Resolution P23-12). ATTACHMENTS Resolution P23-11 P23 -11 -EXHIBIT A-CEQA Findings P23-11-EXHIBIT B-Final EIR-MMRP Resolution P23-12 P23-12-EXHIBIT A -Draft Conditions P23-12-EXHIBIT B-Zone Change Exhibit P23-12-EXHIBIT C-GPA Text Change Page 10 Packet Pg. 18 O Architectural Site Plan Building Elevations Landscape Concept Parking Plan Lighting Photometric Plan Tentative Tract Map CPUC Letter Public Comment Letters Page 11 Packet Pg. 19 1.a RESOLUTION NO. P23-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF 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 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact, and recommends that the City Council make the following findings of fact: A. An application for Master Case 21-019, the Shadowbox Studios 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: Architectural Design Review 21-016 for the review of the project architecture 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. 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. 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 13 oak trees, including 7 heritage trees. Ridgeline Alteration Permit 21-001 to allow for the development within the Ridgeline Preservation zone. Packet Pg. 20 1.a Resolution P23-11 Master Case 21-109 July 18, 2023 Page 2 of 11 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 North Newhall Area (NNA), and located within the Placenta 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 Unified Development Code requirements that apply to all of Placenta 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 Jobs Creation Overlay Zone (JCOZ), which permits a 55-foot building height as well as a change to the General Plan text regarding building height in the North Newhall Area. 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 homeowner association - maintained hillside 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 Packet Pg. 21 1.a Resolution P23-11 Master Case 21-109 July 18, 2023 Page 3 of 11 beyond. Commercial uses are located immediately to the south of Project site, with single- family residential uses located beyond to the southeast. I. 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 of Santa Clarita 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, preservation of the PCSSD. Packet Pg. 22 1.a Resolution P23-11 Master Case 21-109 July 18, 2023 Page 4 of 11 O. A site tour of the Project site with the Planning Commission was held February 21, 2023, to provide the Planning Commission context for the site setting and surroundings. P. The City prepared a Draft EIR, for the Shadowbox Studios Project, that addressed all issues raised in comments received on the NOR The Draft EIR was circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, in compliance with CEQA. 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. Q. The Planning Commission public hearings for the Project were duly noticed in accordance with the noticing requirements for each of the Entitlements. The Project was advertised in The Signal, through on -site posting 14 days prior to the hearing, and by direct first-class mailing to property owners and occupants within 1,000 feet of the Project site. R. 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. S. 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. T. 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 Packet Pg. 23 1.a Resolution P23-11 Master Case 21-109 July 18, 2023 Page 5 of 11 consider. The Planning Commission continued the item to the July 18, 2023, Planning Commission meeting. U. On July 18, 2023, the Planning Commission received a presentation from staff on the follow-up items from the April 18, 2023, May 16, 2023, and June 20, 2023 meetings, along with the applicant's presentation, and public testimony. The Planning Commission considered the staff report, Draft Final EIR, Resolutions, and Conditions of Approval. V. The Draft EIR was presented to the Planning Commission on April 18, 2023. On July 18, 2023, the Planning Commission considered the Draft Final EIR prepared for the Project, as well as information provided in staff reports, presented to the Planning Commission from experts, and presented in public testimony, including letters submitted to the Planning Commission, prior to recommending approval of the Project. The Draft Final EIR for the Project has been prepared in compliance with CEQA. W. Based upon staff presentations, staff reports, applicant presentations, and public comments and testimony, the Planning Commission finds that the Project will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the area; nor will the Project be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property in the vicinity of the Project site; nor will the Project jeopardize, endanger, or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety, or general welfare since the Project conforms with the zoning ordinance and is compatible with surrounding land uses. The Project proposes the extension of all utilities and services to the Project site. Currently, all required utilities and services are available at locations adjacent to the Project site. X. 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, with the Community Development Department; the record specifically is in the custody of the Director of Community Development. SECTION 2. CEQA REQUIREMENTS. The Planning Commission of the City does recommend that the City Council make the following findings of fact: A. CEQA provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002). 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: Packet Pg. 24 1.a Resolution P23-11 Master Case 21-109 July 18, 2023 Page 6 of 11 (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; 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 approving a project not be predetermined. The Planning Commission has conducted its own review and analysis, and is exercising its independent judgment when acting as herein provided; E. 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 Packet Pg. 25 1.a Resolution P23-11 Master Case 21-109 July 18, 2023 Page 7 of 11 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 Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that the Draft Final EIR for Master Case 21-109 (Architectural Design Review 21- 016; Conditional Use Permit 21-010; Development Review 21-001; 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. 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 upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission further finds and recommends that the City Council find 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 Proj ect. B. Alternative 1 —No Project/No Development Alternative. This alternative is required by the CEQA Guidelines and compares the impacts that might occur if the site is left in its present Packet Pg. 26 1.a Resolution P23-11 Master Case 21-109 July 18, 2023 Page 8 of 11 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 the CEQA Facts and Findings (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 extend 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 State and Local 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 NU-5 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 the CEQA Facts and Findings (Exhibit A), and would have greater impacts on air quality, energy consumption, GHG emissions, public services, transportation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. Therefore, Alternative 2 is infeasible. 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. Packet Pg. 27 1.a Resolution P23-11 Master Case 21-109 July 18, 2023 Page 9 of 11 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 upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission further recommends the City Council find: 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 has 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 recommend certification of 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 15091, changes and alterations have been required and incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen its significant environmental effects because feasible mitigation measures, including those in the MMRP, are made conditions of approval for the Proj ect. G. That the Draft Final EIR reflects the decision -maker's independent judgment and analysis. H. That a 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 Planning Commission recommends that the City Council review and consider the Draft Final EIR (SCH No. 2022030762), and hereby determines that it is adequate Packet Pg. 28 1.a Resolution P23-11 Master Case 21-109 July 18, 2023 Page 10 of 11 and in compliance with CEQA. Accordingly, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council certify a Final EIR and associated documents, and adopt the MMRP. SECTION 7. By the adoption of this Resolution, the Planning Commission has not granted any approval or entitlement on this Project. 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 Planning Commission in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. SECTION 9. Limitations. The Planning Commission'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 Planning Commission'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. This Resolution is the Planning Commission's final decision and will become effective immediately upon adoption. SECTION 13. The Planning Commission Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and certify this record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken. Packet Pg. 29 1.a Resolution P23-11 Master Case 21-109 July 18, 2023 Page 11 of 11 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 18th day of July, 2023. RENEE BERLIN, CHAIRPERSON PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: RACHEL CLARK, SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Rachel Clark, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 18th of July 2023, by the following vote of the Planning Commission: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY Packet Pg. 30 1.b PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. P23-11 EXHIBIT "A" STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FOR THE SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PROJECT SCH NO. 2022030762 Lead Agency: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 July 18, 2023 Packet Pg. 31 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS......................................................................1 2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY....................................................................................................3 2.1 Description of Project Proposed for Approval.............................................................. 3 2.2 Statement of Objectives................................................................................................ 7 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.................................................9 4.0 INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND FINDING................................................................11 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS.............................................................13 5.1 Effects Determined to Have No Impact in the EIR.....................................................13 5.2 Effects Determined to Be Less Than Significant Without Mitigation in the ElR......... 15 5.3 Effects Determined to Be Mitigated to Less -Than -Significant Levels in the EIR....... 18 5.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project.......................................................................... 33 6.0 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR...........................................................................45 6.1 Findings.......................................................................................................................45 6.2 Conclusions................................................................................................................45 7.0 STATEMENT OF LOCATION AND CUSTODIAN OF DOCUMENTS ............................47 r Q July 2023 i Packet Pg. 32 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report 1.0 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a Lead Agency make specific findings prior to approving a project that would generate a significant impact on the environment. In this Statement of Facts and Findings, the Lead Agency identifies the significant impacts of the Project, presents facts supporting the conclusions reached in the analysis, makes one or more of three potential findings for each impact, and explains the reasoning behind the agency's findings. This Statement of Facts and Findings has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, specifically Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a) provides that: No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The three findings available for the Statement of Facts and Findings pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 are as follows: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. The City of Santa Clarita (City), the CEQA Lead Agency, finds and declares that the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City's Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find and certify that the EIR was reviewed, and information contained in the EIR was considered prior to approving the Shadowbox Studios Project, herein referred to as the "Project." Based upon its review of the EIR, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that the EIR is an adequate assessment of the potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project, represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City, and sets forth an adequate range of alternatives to this Project. The EIR for the Project is composed of the following elements: • Shadowbox (formerly Blackhall) Studios Project Initial Study (March 2022) • Shadowbox Studios Project Draft EIR and Technical Appendices (April 2023) • Shadowbox Studios Project Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (July 2023) July 2023 1 Packet Pg. 33 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. July 2023 2 Packet Pg. 34 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report 2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT The Project Site is located in the southwestern portion of Santa Clarita, in the Newhall community, approximately 2 miles east of Interstate 5 (1-5), 2 miles west of the Antelope Valley Freeway (State Route 14), and 2 miles south of the Santa Clara River. The Project Site is situated at the northeastern corner of Railroad Avenue and 13th Street and bounded by 12th Street, Arch Street, and 13th Street on the south; a railroad right-of-way (ROW) and Railroad Avenue on the west; Metropolitan Water District (MWD) ROW on the east; and slopes maintained by the adjacent residential uses to the north. The Project Site is a 93.5-acre area that is generally rectangular in shape and comprises an undeveloped piece of land that has been cleared of the majority of its natural vegetation. The Project Site also includes an additional 11.4-acre property owned by MWD. The central and southern portions of the Project Site that make up the majority of the Project Site have been disturbed by past uses, are relatively flat, and are characterized by low, ruderal plants and gravel driveways. The northern portion of the Project Site includes natural features, such as a prominent ridgeline, which transects the northeastern corner of the Project Site, and a natural creek and creek wash area (Placerita Creek). The Project Developer, L.A. Railroad 93, LLC, proposes to develop a full -service film and television studio campus on the Project Site that would consist of approximately 475,500 square feet of sound stages; approximately 565,400 square feet of workshops, warehouses, and support uses; approximately 209,300 square feet of production and administrative offices; and approximately 35,600 square feet of catering and other specialty services. Upon completion, the campus would have an overall building area of approximately 1,285,800 square feet. Eight buildings, which would contain 19 sound stages, would be constructed in the central portion of the Project Site, south of Placerita Creek. A three-story office building and a four-story (five - level), 1,072-space parking structure are proposed in the southwestern corner of the Project Site. In addition, a two-story support building would extend along the remaining portion of the western boundary (i.e., Railroad Avenue) of the Project Site, south of Placerita Creek. Other ancillary and specialty use buildings, including three catering buildings and mechanical building with a substation, would be located to the east and southeast of the main entrance at the intersection of Arch Street and 13th Street. Approximately 13 percent or 528,156 square feet of the Project Site would be landscaped. Thirteen of the 16 oak trees on the Project Site, including seven heritage trees, would be removed to accommodate Project development; three coast live oak trees on the ridge at the north end of the Project Site would be preserved with no anticipated encroachment. However, the Project would replace the removed trees with 211 oak trees, as well as 450 trees of different non -oak varieties. A plant nursery is also proposed along the entire length of the parking area proposed in the adjacent MWD ROW along the eastern boundary of the Project Site to the south of Placerita Creek and adjacent to the alley behind the residences along Alderbrook Drive (subject to agreement with MWD). The plant nursery, which would be composed of plants in containers, July 2023 3 Packet Pg. 35 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report would provide not only plants for use on the Project sound stages, when needed, thus reducing the need for importing materials from off -site, but also additional visual screening from the Placerita Canyon neighborhood. In addition, the Project would include a small private park (i.e., Shadow Oak Park) in the center of a courtyard formed by the three catering buildings. Patios are provided in front of each of the catering buildings. Furthermore, several outdoor seating and picnic areas are proposed for the Project Site — two along the western fagade of the proposed support building and outdoor break areas between the stage buildings, as well as a basketball half court along the western fagade of the proposed support building (between the two picnic areas) and a small dog park at the northern end of the proposed support building. In addition to the 1,072-space parking structure, approximately 455 surface parking spaces, including 221 vehicle parking spaces, 15 delivery van spaces, and 219 trailer parking spaces, would be provided throughout the main campus immediately adjacent to the buildings. An additional 1,157-space employee parking lot is proposed on the north side of Placerita Creek, for a total of 2,684 parking spaces on the Project Site. This employee parking lot would be connected to the main campus by an all-weather bridge and would be served by an internal shuttle system to provide easy access for employees. Subject to an agreement with MWD, the Project also proposes to utilize the adjacent MWD ROW along the eastern boundary of the Project Site, south of Placerita Creek, to provide approximately 257 trailer parking spaces for production personnel and base camp parking. The main entrance to the proposed campus would be provided north of the intersection of Arch Street and 13th Street and would be set back from the intersection to accommodate the queueing of vehicles entering the campus in the Project's entrance driveway rather than on 13th Street or Arch Street. The main entrance would have three lanes of ingress (all through lanes) and three lanes of egress (two through lanes and one exclusive right -turn lane) at the intersection of Arch Street and 13th Street. In addition to the main entrance, two other gates would be provided to access the Project Site. The entrance to Gate 2 would be located immediately east of the main entrance at the eastern leg of the intersection of Arch Street and 13th Street. This gate would be access -controlled (unmanned) and would have two lanes of ingress and two lanes of egress. Gate 2 would also be set back to accommodate the queueing of vehicles entering the campus. The entrance to Gate 3 would be located along 12th Street immediately east of the proposed catering buildings. This gate would also be access -controlled (unmanned) and would provide Project -related egress -only and be restricted to a right -turn movement onto 12th Street. Gate 3 would provide for emergency ingress and egress. A metal sliding gate would also be provided within the MWD ROW, east of Gate 3 at the southeasternmost corner of the Project Site along 12th Street adjacent to the alley behind Alderbrook Drive, to provide emergency access. The Project would also be conditioned to construct a Class I multi -purpose path along the Project frontage on 12th, Arch, and 13th Streets. In addition, the Project would be conditioned to either (1) pay an in -lieu fee to contribute toward improvements or (2) construct a connection to provide a link for pedestrians and bicyclists between the Project Site and the Jan Heidt Newhall Metrolink Station and Old Town Newhall dining and entertainment district. The Class I multi -purpose path would be a completely separate right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicyclists and pedestrians with the path visibly marked. A 12-foot tall security fence primarily made of woodcrete would be installed along the majority of the perimeter of the Project Site. Open rail wrought iron fencing would be installed along the July 2023 4 Packet Pg. 36 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report southwestern corner of the Project Site, adjacent to the proposed office building. In addition, closed-circuit television (CCTV) security cameras would be installed throughout the Project Site. These surveillance cameras would be monitored full-time at a manned security station on -site. Furthermore, licensed security personnel would be provided to patrol the Project Site at all times (i.e., 24 hours per day, seven days per week). Additional stage security would also be provided at key entry points to and within individual building areas. The Project would be required to comply with the California Building Standards Code, as well as the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code, which requires implementation of energy -efficient light fixtures and building materials into the design of new construction projects, as well as high -efficiency plumbing fixtures. Other sustainability features that would be incorporated into the Project include the implementation of an energy management system specific to lighting, provision of EV charging stations and conduit for future EV parking spaces, and rooftop photovoltaic systems and solar panels. In addition to the development of the campus on the Project Site, the Project includes several off - site improvements beyond the landscaping and Class I multi -purpose path described above. These additional off -site improvements include the following: • Proposed improvements at the frontage of the Project on 13th Street, Arch Street, and 12th Street, including a Class I multi -purpose path to afford walking and biking opportunities within the community and to the nearby Metrolink Station and Old Town Newhall dining and entertainment district; • Widening of 13th Street, Arch Street, and 12th Street and installation of traffic signals at the intersections of 13th Street and Arch Street and 12th Street and Arch Street; • Installation of public hydrants along the frontage of the Project on 13th, Arch, and 12th Streets and at the intersection of 13th Street and Railroad Avenue; • Required railroad crossing improvements at 13th Street that consist of the following: - Widening of the rail crossing at 13th Street and Railroad Avenue; - Install a bike path/trail on the north side of the crossing; - Accommodate a wider turning radius for larger vehicle at the crossing; - Increase efficiency on the 13th Street westbound dedicated right -turn lane at Railroad Avenue, including a pork chop island; - Install new railroad exit gates; - Implement vertical grading to install drainage on Railroad Avenue and 13th Street; - Modify the Railroad Avenue storage lengths for left turns to accommodate the revised geometry; - Implement Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements for pedestrians; - Modify/widen the railroad track (vertical changes only) to accommodate the revised geometry; and - Implement line -of -sight requirements at the grade crossing. July 2023 5 Packet Pg. 37 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report If the Dockweiler Drive Extension Project is not completed prior to the completion of Project construction, the Project would be conditioned to extend Arch Street to Placerita Canyon Road and complete the two -legged intersection of Placerita Canyon Road and Arch Street, as indicated in the Tentative Tract Map included in Appendix B of the Draft EIR. In conjunction with the Project, the following modifications to the Dockweiler Drive Extension Project are proposed: • Roadway improvements to 131h Street, Arch Street, 121h Street and Placerita Canyon Road that differ from previous approved plans, including accommodating the additional lane geometry at the Arch Street/131h Street intersection to widen the railroad crossing; • Pedestrian and bike bridge from the Jan Heidt Newhall Metrolink Station on Railroad Avenue to the future extension of Dockweiler Drive; • Modify the turning radius at the intersection of 131h Street and Railroad Avenue to accommodate WB-67 semi -truck dimensions; and • Implement temporary storm drain improvements to accommodate surface water runoff from Dockweiler Drive prior to completion of the Project. AGREEMENTS, PERMITS, AND APPROVALS This EIR is intended to inform and provide clearance under CEQA for all governmental approval actions necessary to authorize the project to proceed. These approvals include those listed below. City of Santa Clarita • Recommendation by the Planning Commission for approval by the City Council that the EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA and other applicable codes and guidelines. • Recommendation by the Planning Commission for approval by the City Council the Project or an alternative to the Project. • Certification of the EIR prepared for the Project. • Architectural Design Review for all new development projects. • Conditional Use Permit for all new development within the Planned Development Overlay and for studio use within the MXN zone. • Development Review for all new development projects. • Minor Use Permit for the provision of less than the minimum residential density required in the MXN zone. • Landscape Plan Review to make a determination that all proposed landscaping is consistent with the standards established within the Unified Development Code. • Hillside Review for the development on natural slopes in excess of 10 percent average slope. • Tentative Map to subdivide the Project Site into five lots. July 2023 6 Packet Pg. 38 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report • Oak Tree Permit for the encroachment into the protected zone and removal of oak trees. • Zone Change to modify the boundaries of the Jobs Creation Overlay Zone to incorporate the portion of the Project Site zoned MXN, south of Placerita Creek, and to change the zoning of the northern portion of the site from NU5 to MXN. • General Plan Amendment to modify the General Plan Land Use Designation from NU5 to MXN to remain consistent with the proposed Zone Change and to make text changes to the discussion regarding the North Newhall Area as discussed in the Land Use Element of the General Plan to address allowable development potential and building height in the area. • Ridgeline Alteration Permit for proposed development activity within 100 feet vertically and/or horizontally from a designated significant ridgeline as identified in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. • Other discretionary and ministerial permits and approvals that may be deemed necessary, including, but not limited to, grading permits and building permits. Other Agencies To allow for construction in or near Placerita Creek and for other off -site improvements, the following permits would be required: • Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit from the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board • California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife • California Public Utilities Commission authorization letter for the modifications to the railroad crossing • South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) air permits for operation of equipment emitting air pollutants, including, but not limited to, emergency generators and fire water pumps. In addition to the specific discretionary actions listed above, other discretionary and ministerial permits and approvals may be or will be required, including, but not limited to, grading permits, excavation permits, foundation permits, and building permits. 2.2 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES The underlying purpose of the Project is to provide a state-of-the-art, full -service film and television campus that would provide independent media production facilities in Santa Clarita. The Project's specific objectives are as follows: • Design and construct economically -viable and technologically -advanced sound stages, creative office, and production support spaces with the infrastructure, parking, and technology to attract high -profile film, television, and streaming projects that require July 2023 7 Packet Pg. 39 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report facilities designed to meet the specifications and demands of the movie, television, and entertainment industry and to allow flexibility to incorporate future technology advances. • Promote economic growth in Santa Clarita, particularly in the Newhall community, by encouraging the support for the entertainment industry by creating a secure campus environment, where media and entertainment -related uses are consolidated with pre- production, post -production, story development, and administrative offices in order to maximize creativity and productivity. • Maximize the use of the entire property to create a studio campus environment that creates a range of new media -related employment opportunities that cater to movie, television, and entertainment industries, as well as construction jobs, providing opportunities for local growth and improving the City's jobs to housing balance. • Develop a studio campus along a transit corridor that is easily accessible by public transportation, where media and entertainment -related uses are consolidated with pre- production, production, story development, and administrative offices within a single site to promote sustainability and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), resulting in corresponding reductions in air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. • Enhance the identity of the Newhall community as a movie, television, and entertainment industry area. • Enhance the visual appearance of the Project Site by providing architecturally distinct development, while maintaining consistency with the design standards of the immediately adjacent Old Town Newhall Specific Plan area. • Design a campus that would commemorate the filmmaking heritage of Santa Clarita. • Provide off -site improvements to enhance and/or provide pedestrian and bike connections to adjacent communities and the Jan Heidt Newhall Metrolink Station for the benefit of the existing residents of the adjacent communities and future employees of the Project. July 2023 8 Packet Pg. 40 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The City of Santa Clarita conducted an extensive review of this Project, which included a Draft EIR and a Final EIR, including technical reports, along with a public review and comment period. The following is a summary of the City's environmental review of this Project: Pursuant to the provision of CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, as amended, the City of Santa Clarita circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to public agencies, organizations, and members of the public who had requested such notice for a 30-day period. The NOP was submitted to the State Clearinghouse and filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk on March 29, 2022, with the 30-day review period ending on April 28, 2022. • The NOP public review period ran for 30 days. The City received comment letters from State, regional, and local public agencies, as well as comment letters and comment cards from local organizations and individuals; these comment letters were included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. A scoping meeting was held at the City of Santa Clarita City Hall, Century Conference Room 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 and was mailed to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the Project Site, in addition to approximately 50 agencies, interested parties, and individuals who requested to be notified of the Project. Approximately 27 persons from or members of the public attended the scoping meeting. The Draft EIR was distributed for public review, and a Notice of Availability (NOA) and Notice of Completion (NOC) were filed with the State Clearinghouse on April 6, 2023, to commence a 45-day review period, beginning on April 6, 2023, and ending on May 22, 2023. The NOA was filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk on April 6, 2023. The NOA was also mailed to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the Project Site, in addition to approximately 92 agencies, interested parties, and individuals who requested to be notified of the Project, and was published in The Signal on April 6, 2023. • The Project and the Draft EIR were presented at three Planning Commission meetings held on April 18, 2023, May 16, 2023, and June 20, 2023, to solicit comments from the public and the Planning Commission on the Draft EIR. Notice of the Planning Commission meeting in April was published in The Signal newspaper on March 28, 2023. • The City received a total of 21 comment letters on the Draft EIR from public agencies and the public, as well as numerous letters from organizations and members of the public regarding the merits of the Project or questions regarding the Project. The City prepared responses to all written comments. The comments and responses are contained in Section 2.0, Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses, of the Final EIR. • In accordance with CEQA, the City provided written responses to the public agencies that commented on the Draft EIR prior to the July 18, 2023, Planning Commission hearing. • Hearings before the City Council are expected following a recommendation from the Planning Commission. This page intentionally left blank. July 2023 9 Packet Pg. 41 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report r Q July 2023 10 Packet Pg. 42 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report 4.0 INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND FINDING The City solicited proposals from independent consultants to prepare the Shadowbox Studios Project EIR. Subsequently, the City selected and retained Michael Baker International, Inc. (Michael Baker) to prepare the Shadowbox Studios Project EIR. Michael Baker prepared the EIR under the supervision and direction of the City of Santa Clarita staff. All findings set forth herein are based on substantial evidence in the record as indicated with respect to each specific finding. FINDING: The EIR for the Project reflects the City's independent judgment. The City has exercised independent judgment in accordance with PRC Section 21082.1(c)(3) in retaining its own environmental consultant and directing the consultant in the preparation of the EIR. The City has independently reviewed and analyzed the EIR and accompanying studies and finds that the report reflects the independent judgment of the City. The Planning Commission has considered all the evidence presented in its consideration of the Project and the EIR, including, but not limited to, the Final EIR and its supporting studies, written and oral evidence presented at hearings on the Project, and written evidence submitted to the City by individuals, organizations, regulatory agencies, and other entities. On the basis of such evidence, the Planning Commission finds that, with respect to each environmental impact identified in the review process, the impact is either less than significant and would not require mitigation or potentially significant but would be avoided or reduced to a less -than -significant level by implementation of identified mitigation measures. July 2023 11 Packet Pg. 43 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. July 2023 12 Packet Pg. 44 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS 5.1 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO HAVE NO IMPACT IN THE EIR The Shadowbox Studios Project EIR found that the Project would have no impact on a number of environmental topic areas, as listed below. A detailed analysis of these topic areas is provided in the Initial Study, included as Appendix A of the Draft EIR. FINDING: The EIR for the Project reflects the City's independent judgment. The City has exercised independent judgment in accordance with PRC Section 21082.1(c)(3) in retaining its own environmental consultant and directing the consultant in the preparation of the EIR. The City has independently reviewed and analyzed the EIR and accompanying studies and finds that the report reflects the independent judgment of the City. Agriculture and Forestry Resources a) Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b) Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? d) Would the Project result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to non - forest use? e) Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forestland to non -forest use? Biological Resources f) Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? g) Would the Project affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the City of Santa Clarita SEA Delineation Map? Geology and Soils a) Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: July 2023 13 Packet Pg. 45 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? e) Would he Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Hazards and Hazardous Materials e) Would the Project be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, and would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? h) Is the Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Hydrology and Water Quality g) Would the Project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? i) Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Land Use and Planning a) Would the Project disrupt or physically divide an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? c) Would the Project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, and/or policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? Mineral and Energy Resources a) Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Noise c) Would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels, for a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport? July 2023 14 Packet Pg. 46 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing b) Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing)? 5.2 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITHOUT MITIGATION IN THE EIR The Shadowbox Studios Project EIR found that the Project would have a less -than -significant impact on a number of environmental topic areas, as listed below. A detailed analysis of these topic areas is provided in the Initial Study prepared for the Project, included as Appendix A of the Draft EIR, and in Sections 4.1 through 4.17 of the Draft EIR. FINDING: The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Initial Study, Draft EIR and Technical Appendices, Final EIR, and administrative record, finds that based on substantial evidence in the record, impacts related to the following topics, to the extent they result from the Project, would be less than significant. Aesthetics a) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, primary/secondary ridgelines, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) In non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Cumulative Aesthetics Impacts Air Quality a) Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard? c) Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or July 2023 15 Packet Pg. 47 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Would the Project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Cumulative Air Quality Impacts Biological Resources d) Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance ? Cumulative Biological Resources Impacts Cultural Resources a) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? c) Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Energy a) Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Cumulative Energy Impacts Geology and Soils a) Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iv) Landslides? b) Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? July 2023 16 Packet Pg. 48 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report d) Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? g) Would the Project result in a change in topography or ground surface relief features? h) Would the Project result in earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? i) Would the Project involve development and/or grading on a slope greater than 10% natural grade? i) Would the Project result in the destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? Cumulative Geology and Soils Impacts Greenhouse Gas Emissions a) Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emission, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Cumulative Greenhous Gas Emissions Impacts Hazards and Hazardous Materials a) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving explosion or the release of hazardous materials into the environment (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, fuels, or radiation)? c) Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g) Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? i) Would the Project expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards (e.g., electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)? Cumulative Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts July 2023 17 Packet Pg. 49 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality a) Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b) Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management in the basin? c) Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would : i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site; ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? iv. Impede or redirect flood flows d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the Project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? e) Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? f) Would the Project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? h) Would the Project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? j) Would the Project result in changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and direction of surface water and/or groundwater? k) Would the Project result in other modification of a wash, channel creek, or river? 1) Would the Project impact stormwater management in any of the following ways: i) Potential impact of project construction and project post -construction activity on stormwater runoff? ii) Potential discharges from areas for materials storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? iii) Significant environmentally harmful increase in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff? July 2023 18 Packet Pg. 50 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report iv) Significant and environmentally harmful increases in erosion of the Project Site or surrounding areas? v) Stormwater discharges that would significantly impair or contribute to the impairment of the beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefits (e.g., riparian corridors, wetlands, etc.)? vi) Cause harm to the biological integrity of drainage systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies? vii) Include provisions for the separation, recycling, and reuse of materials both during construction and after project occupancy? Cumulative Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts Land Use and Planning b) Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Cumulative Land Use and Planning Impacts Noise a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Would the Project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? d) Would the Project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) Would the Project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Cumulative Noise Impacts Population and Housing a) Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Cumulative Population and Housing Impacts Public Services a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause July 2023 19 Packet Pg. 51 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? Cumulative Public Services Impacts Recreation a) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Would the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Transportation a) Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b) Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c) Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? e) Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Cumulative Transportation Impacts Utilities and Service Systems a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? July 2023 20 Packet Pg. 52 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report b) Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? c) Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? d) Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction? e) Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? f) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? g) Would the Project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs? Cumulative Utilities and Service Systems Impacts Wildfire a) Would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Would the Project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Would the Project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Would the Project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Cumulative Wildfire Impacts 5.3 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO LESS -THAN - SIGNIFICANT LEVELS IN THE EIR The Shadowbox Studios Project EIR found that the Project would have a less -than -significant impact with mitigation incorporated on a number of environmental topic areas, as listed below. A detailed analysis of these topic areas is provided in Sections 4.3, 4.4, 4.6, and 4.15 of the Draft EIR. July 2023 21 Packet Pg. 53 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report FINDING: The City of Santa Clanta Planning Commission having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Draft EIR and Technical Appendices, Final EIR, and administrative record, finds, pursuant to PRC Section 21081 (a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), that changes or alterations ha ve been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which would avoid or substantially lessen to below a level of significance potentially significant environmental effects identified in the Draft EIR. The potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that can be mitigated are listed below. The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission finds that based on substantial evidence in the record, the impacts discussed below, to the extent they result from the Project, would be less than significant after implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. 3191010 [oy_1n:7 =Y0111:191*1 The Project's impacts related to biological resources that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential substantial adverse effects related to candidate, sensitive, or special -status species; riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities; and State- or federally -protected wetlands. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings As potentially suitable habitat for special -status wildlife species exists on the Project Site, implementation of the Project would potentially impact existing habitat. Mitigation Measures MM-131O-1 through MM-131O-3 and MM-131O-6 through MM-131O-9, which involve implementation of best management practices (BMPs) and monitoring during construction, preconstruction surveys, avoidance measures, and floral resource replacement on- or off -site, would reduce the potential to impact candidate, sensitive, or special -status species, including the southern California rufous -crowned sparrow, Cooper's hawk, and yellow warbler, as well as other native birds protected under the MBTA and CFGC, and Crotch's bumble bee to a less -than -significant level. Two sensitive plant communities, big sagebrush scrub and scale broom scrub, were identified on the northern half of the Project Site. To reduce potential significant impacts to these sensitive natural communities, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-131O4 involves compensatory mitigation, including, but not limited to, on -site restoration, off -site restoration, or purchase of credits through an approved Mitigation Bank. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM- 1310-4, impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities would be reduced to a less -than -significant level. The Project would result in a total of 3.89 acres of temporary impacts and 2.77 acres of permanent impacts to existing jurisdictional areas on the Project Site. Mitigation Measure MM-131O-1 requires heavy equipment to be operated in accordance with standard BMPs to prevent leaks of oil, fuel, or residues into wetlands. Permanent impacts to Placerita Creek and the two unnamed ephemeral drainages on -site would be reduced to less -than -significant levels through July 2023 22 Packet Pg. 54 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report compensatory mitigation as required in Mitigation Measure MM-131O-5. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-131O-1 and MM-131O-5 would reduce potential impacts to State- or federally -protected wetlands to less -than -significant levels. Mitigation Measures MM-131O-1: The Project shall implement the following best management practices (BMPs) during construction: • The contractor shall clearly delineate the construction limits and prohibit any construction -related traffic outside those boundaries; • Project -related vehicles shall observe a 10-mile-per-hour speed limit within the unpaved limits of construction; • All open trenches or excavations shall be fenced and/or sloped to prevent entrapment of wildlife species; • All food -related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps generated during Project construction shall be disposed of in closed containers only and removed daily from the Project Site; • No deliberate feeding of wildlife shall be allowed; • No pets shall be allowed on the Project Site; • No firearms shall be allowed on the Project Site; • If vehicle or equipment maintenance is necessary, it shall be performed in the designated staging areas; • If construction must occur at night (between dusk and dawn), all lighting shall be shielded and directed downward to minimize the potential for glare or spillover onto adjacent properties and to reduce impacts on local wildlife; and • During construction, heavy equipment shall be operated in accordance with standard BMPs. All equipment used on -site shall be properly maintained to avoid leaks of oil, fuel, or residues. Provisions shall be in place to remediate any accidental spills. • Access routes, staging, and construction areas shall be limited to the minimum area necessary to achieve the Project goal and minimize impacts to jurisdictional resources and sensitive natural communities, including locating access routes and ancillary construction areas outside of these areas; • To the satisfaction of the City, the Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to prepare a Wildlife Relocation and Avoidance Plan. The Wildlife Relocation and Avoidance Plan shall describe all species of special concern (SSC) that could occur within the Project Site and proper avoidance, handling, and relocation protocols. The Wildlife Relocation Plan should include species -specific avoidance buffers and suitable relocation areas at least 200 feet outside of the Project Site. The qualified biologist should submit a copy of a Wildlife July 2023 23 Packet Pg. 55 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report Relocation and Avoidance Plan to CDFW for approval prior to any clearing, grading, or excavation work on the Project Site; • To the satisfaction of the City, the Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct worker environmental awareness training. The qualified biologist shall communicate to workers that upon encounter with an SSC (e.g., during construction or equipment inspections), work must stop, a qualified biologist must be notified, and work may only resume once a qualified biologist has determined that it is safe to do so; and • To avoid direct injury and mortality of SSC, the Applicant shall have a qualified biologist on -site to relocate wildlife of low mobility that may be injured or killed because of development. Wildlife should be protected, allowed to move away on its own (non-invasive, passive relocation), or relocated to suitable habitat adjacent to the Project Site. In areas where a SSC is found, work may only occur in these areas after a qualified biologist has determined it is safe to do so. Even so, the qualified biologist shall advise workers to proceed with caution. A qualified biologist shall be on site daily during initial ground and habitat disturbing activities as well as vegetation removal. Then, the qualified biologist shall be on site weekly or bi-weekly (once every two weeks) for the remainder of the Project phase until the cessation of all ground and habitat disturbing activities, as well as vegetation removal, to ensure that no wildlife is harmed. The biological monitor(s) shall have appropriate handling permits or shall obtain appropriate handling permits to capture, temporarily possess, and relocate wildlife to avoid harm or mortality in connection with Project construction and activities. A Scientific Collecting Permit is required to monitor Project impacts on wildlife resources, as required by environmental documents, permits, or other legal authorizations; and, to capture, temporarily possess, and relocate wildlife to avoid harm or mortality in connection with otherwise lawful activities (14 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 650). The CDFW's Scientific Collection Permits webpage (https:Hwildlife.ca.gov/Licensing/Scientific-Collecting#53949678) provides additional information. If any SSC are harmed during relocation or a dead or injured animal is found, work in the immediate area shall stop immediately, the qualified biologist should be notified, and dead or injured wildlife be documented immediately. A formal report shall be sent to CDFW within three calendar days of the incident or finding. The report shall include the date, time of the finding or incident (if known), and location of the carcass or injured animal and circumstances of its death or injury (if known). Work in the immediate area may only resume once the proper notifications have been made and additional mitigation techniques have been identified to prevent additional injury or death. MM-BIO-2: A qualified biological monitor familiar with special -status species with potential to occur on the Project Site shall be present during initial ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities. The biological monitor shall have the authority to July 2023 24 Packet Pg. 56 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report temporarily stop work if one or more individuals of these special -status species are observed; the monitor shall then relocate these individuals to suitable undisturbed habitat, outside the areas directly and indirectly affected by ground disturbance activities. MM-131O-3: Construction activities should occur outside of the bird breeding season (generally February 1 to August 31) to the extent practicable. If construction must occur within the bird breeding season, then no more than three days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and/or vegetation removal, a nesting bird preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within the disturbance footprint plus a 100-foot buffer (500 feet for raptors), where feasible. If the Proposed Project is phased or construction activities stop for more than one week, a subsequent preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be required prior to each phase of construction. Preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be conducted during the time of day when birds are active (typically early morning or late afternoon) and shall factor in sufficient time to perform this survey adequately and completely. A report of the nesting bird survey results, if applicable, shall be submitted to the property owner/developer for review and approval prior to ground and/or vegetation disturbance activities. If nests are found, their locations shall be flagged. An appropriate avoidance buffer for passerines is generally 100 feet and up to 500 feet for raptors; however, the buffer distance may be modified by a qualified biologist depending upon the species and the proposed work activity. The avoidance buffer shall be determined and demarcated by a qualified biologist with bright orange construction fencing or other suitable material that is clearly visible to construction personnel and heavy equipment operators. Active nests shall be monitored periodically by a qualified biologist until it has been determined that the nest is no longer being used by either the young or adults. No ground disturbance shall occur within this buffer until the qualified biologist confirms that the breeding/nesting is completed, and all the young have fledged. If no nesting birds are observed during preconstruction surveys, no further actions would be necessary. MM-131O-4: Impacts to sensitive vegetation communities shall be avoided to the greatest extent feasible. Compensatory mitigation for impacts to big sagebrush scrub and scale broom scrub communities, such as on -site restoration, off -site restoration, or purchase of credits through an approved Mitigation Bank or through applicant sponsored mitigation (e.g., on -site restoration), to reduce impacts to sensitive vegetation communities shall be accomplished at a minimum ratio of 1:1; however, the final ratio shall be determined and approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to issuance of a grading permit. If on -site or off -site restoration is feasible, a Restoration Plan shall be prepared and submitted for approval by the CDFW prior to initiating construction or any site disturbance. At a minimum, the Restoration Plan shall include the following: • A description of the purpose and goals of the restoration • Identification of success criteria and performance standards • Methods of site preparation • Irrigation plan and schedule July 2023 25 Packet Pg. 57 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report • Best management practices • Maintenance and monitoring program • Adaptive management strategies • Key stakeholders and responsible parties • Funding • Contingencies MM-131O-5: Compensatory mitigation for temporary and permanent impacts to land subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and/or CDFW, such as purchase of credits through an approved Mitigation Bank or through applicant sponsored mitigation (e.g., on -site restoration), shall be accomplished at a minimum ratio of 1:1; however, the final ratio shall be determined and approved by the USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW prior to impacting state- or federally regulated waters. If on -site restoration would occur, a Restoration Plan, as identified in Mitigation Measure MM-131O-4, shall be prepared and submitted for approval by CDFW, USACE, and RWQCB prior to initiating construction or any site disturbance. MM-131O-6: The Permittee must retain a qualified biologist with the appropriate take authorization (if such authorizations are available to biologists at the time of survey) to conduct surveys to determine presence/absence. A survey must be conducted at least one year before the City issues a grading permit. The survey must review the entire Project Site by a qualified biologist familiar with the species' behavior and life history. A minimum of three surveys must also be conducted during peak flying season when the species is most likely to be detected above ground, between March 1 to September 1. The qualified biologist must utilize a non -lethal survey methodology and obtain appropriate photo vouchers for species confirmation. During the surveys, the biologist must identify inactive small mammal burrows and other potential nest sites with visible flags to reduce the risk of take. Survey results, including negative findings, must be submitted to CDFW applying for appropriate permits. At a minimum, a survey report provide the following: a) A description and map of the survey area, focusing on areas that could provide suitable habitat for Crotch's bumble bee. The map must show surveyor(s) track lines to document that the entire site was covered during field surveys. b) Field survey conditions that include name(s) of qualified biologist(s) and brief qualifications, date and time of survey, survey duration, general weather conditions, survey goals, and species searched. c) Map(s) showing the location of nests/colonies d) A description of physical (e.g., soil, moisture, slope) and biological (e.g., plant composition) conditions where each nest/colony, if any, is found. A sufficient description of biological conditions, primarily impacted habitat, must include native plant composition (e.g., density, cover, and abundance) within impacted habitat (e.g., species list separated by vegetation class, density, cover, and abundance of each species). July 2023 26 Packet Pg. 58 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report MM-1310-7: If Crotch's bumble bees are detected, the qualified biologist must identify the location of any nests within and adjacent to the Project Site. A 15-meter no disturbance buffer zone must be established around any identified active nest(s) to reduce the risk of disturbance or accidental take. A qualified biologist may expand the buffer zone as necessary to prevent disturbance or take. MM-1310-8: If Crotch's bumble bee is detected and impacts to Crotch's bumble bee cannot be feasibly avoided, the Permittee must consult with CDFW and obtain appropriate take authorization from CDFW (pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 2080, et seq). Appropriate authorization from CDFW under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) may include an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) or a Consistency Determination in certain circumstances, among other options (California Fish and Game Code Sections 2080.1, 2081). Early consultation is encouraged, as significant modification to the Project and mitigation techniques may be required to obtain an ITP. The California Fish and Game Code may require that CDFW issue a separate CEQA document before issuing an ITP for the Project unless the Project's CEQA document addresses all Project impacts on CESA endangered, threatened, and/or candidate species. MM-1310-9: Any floral resource associated with Crotch's bumble bee that will be removed or damaged by the Project must be replaced at not less than 1:1. Floral resources must be replaced as close to their original location as feasible. If active Crotch's bumble bee nests are identified and floral resources cannot be replaced within 200 meters of their original location, floral resources must be planted in the most centrally available location relative to identified nests. This location should be not more than 1.5 kilometers from any identified nest. Replaced floral resources may be split into multiple patches to meet distance requirements for multiple nests. These floral resources must be maintained in perpetuity and be replanted and managed as needed to ensure the habitat is preserved. The Project's impacts related to cultural resources that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential substantial adverse effects related to archaeological resources. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings Due to initial discoveries of artifacts during the field reconnaissance, the Project Site was determined to be highly sensitive for archaeological resources. Consequently, there is a potential for additional cultural resources to be uncovered from ground -disturbing activities during Project construction and implementation of off -site improvements. Mitigation Measures MM-CR-1 through MM-CR-5, which involve implementation of a worker's environmental awareness program (WEAP), monitoring, preparation and execution of an archaeological testing plan in the event that unidentified cultural resources are discovered, avoidance or preservation -in -place, as well as July 2023 27 Packet Pg. 59 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report collection, treatment, and curation of discovered sensitive archaeological resources, would reduce potential impacts to such resources during construction and cumulative cultural resources impacts to a less -than -significant level. Mitigation Measures MM-CR-1: Prior to the start of construction, the Project applicant shall retain a cultural resources principal investigator, who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology. This principal investigator shall create a Worker's Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) pamphlet that shall be provided as training to construction personnel to understand the requirements for the protection of cultural resources. This training shall include examples of archaeological cultural resources to look for and protocols to follow if discoveries are made. The principal investigator shall develop the training and supply any Project - specific supplemental materials necessary to execute the training. MM-CR-2: Archaeological resources monitoring shall be conducted by a cultural resources principal investigator, who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology, during Project -related earth -disturbing activities pursuant to the California Office of Historic Preservation standards. Monitoring shall entail visual inspection of Project -related earth -disturbing activities (i.e., grubbing and grading, trenching, shoring, mass excavation, footings, utility installation, etc.) on a full-time basis unless the cultural resources principal investigator deems that construction monitoring can be conducted on a part-time basis or is no longer required. MM-CR-3: If previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered, the cultural resources principal investigator, who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology, shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground -disturbing activities in the area of discovery to allow for evaluation. The principal investigator shall evaluate the find and contact the City of Santa Clarita as soon as possible with recommendations as to the significance and proper treatment of the find. Depending on the nature of the find, the determination of significance may require additional excavation, potentially including the preparation and execution of a Phase II Archaeological Testing Plan. The City of Santa Clarita, acting with the advice of the consulting principal investigator, shall determine the significance and treatment of the discovered resources. If the resources are Native American in origin, then the City of Santa Clarita shall notify consulting tribes and seek their input as to the significance and treatment of the find. MM-CR-4: Avoidance and preservation -in -place are the preferred treatment for both archaeological sites and tribal cultural resources, but avoidance is not always feasible. For significant cultural resources meeting the definition of a historical resource per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) or a unique archaeological resource per PRC Section 21083.2(g) as determined by the City of Santa Clarita, a Research Design and Data Recovery Program to mitigate impacts shall be prepared by the consulting archaeologist and approved by the City of Santa Clarita before being carried out using professional archaeological methods. Before construction activities are allowed to resume in the affected area, the Data Recovery Program July 2023 28 Packet Pg. 60 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City of Santa Clarita. Work may continue on other parts of the Project while consultation and treatment are concluded. If human remains are encountered, work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be suspended, and the City of Santa Clarita shall be contacted immediately. The City of Santa Clarita shall, in turn, contact the Los Angeles County coroner. If the remains are deemed Native American in origin, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission, which shall identify a most likely descendant in compliance with PRC Section 5097.98 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The most likely descendant shall have up to 48 hours to visit the site and make recommendations as to the treatment and final deposition of the remains. Work may be resumed at the landowner's discretion but shall only commence after consultation and treatment have been concluded to the satisfaction of the City of Santa Clarita. Work may continue on other parts of the Project Site while consultation and treatment are conducted. MM-CR-5: All archaeological resources collected during the course of Project construction (including those collected during the Phase I Investigation and other pre -Project identification efforts) shall be taken to a properly -equipped archaeological laboratory, where they shall be cleaned, analyzed, and prepared for curation. At a minimum, and unless otherwise specified in any treatment plans prepared for the Project, all resources shall be identified, analyzed, catalogued, photographed, and labeled. At the close of the Project, the collection shall be donated to a public institution with a research interest in the materials and the capacity to care for the materials in perpetuity. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the repository, as appropriate. The cost of curation is assessed by the repository and is the responsibility of the Project applicant. At the conclusion of monitoring and laboratory work, a final report shall be prepared describing the results of the cultural mitigation monitoring efforts. The report shall include a summary of the field and laboratory methods, an overview of the cultural background of the Project vicinity, a catalog of cultural resources recovered, an analysis of cultural resources recovered and their scientific significance, and recommendations. A copy of the report shall also be submitted to the designated museum repository (if applicable). GEOLOGY AND SOILS The Project's impacts related to geology and soils that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential impacts to paleontological resources. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The Project area is sensitive for paleontological resources. Grading or shallow excavations within the Saugus Formation have the potential to uncover significant vertebrate fossils, resulting in a potential to significantly impact previously undiscovered fossils during ground -disturbing activities. July 2023 29 Packet Pg. 61 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Measures MM-GEO-1 through MM-GEO-5, which involve implementation of a WEAP, monitoring, preparation and execution of a paleontological treatment plan in the event inadvertent discovery of fossils, as well as collection, treatment, and curation of discovered sensitive paleontological resources, would reduce the potential to damage such resources to a less -than - significant level. Mitiaation Measures MM-GEO-1: Prior to the start of construction, the Project applicant shall retain a qualified professional paleontologist as defined by Society for Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) (2010) standards. The paleontologist shall create a Worker's Environmental Awareness Program pamphlet that shall be provided as training to construction personnel to understand regulatory requirements for the protection of paleontological resources. The training class(es) shall include examples of paleontological resources to look for and protocols to follow if discoveries are made. The paleontologist shall develop Project -specific training and supply any supplemental materials necessary to execute the training. MM-GEO-2: Paleontological resources monitoring shall be conducted under the guidance of the qualified professional paleontologist and by a qualified paleontological resource monitor(s) as defined by SVP (2010) standards. Monitoring shall entail the visual inspection of excavated or graded area and trench sidewalls. The monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert construction equipment in order to investigate and salvage finds. The paleontological monitor shall have the authority to take sediment samples and test for microfossils at the discretion of the qualified professional paleontologist. If no significant fossils have been exposed or the qualified professional paleontologist has otherwise found that the scientific value of the resource has been exhausted, the qualified professional paleontologist may determine that full-time monitoring is no longer necessary or, with the approval of the City, may reduce or eliminate monitoring. MM-GEO-3: In the event that a paleontological resource is encountered when a monitor is not on - site or a potentially significant resource is encountered that requires additional investigation or cannot be quickly salvaged by the paleontological monitor, all construction shall cease within 50 feet of the discovery and the qualified professional paleontologist shall be notified immediately. If the monitor is present at the time of discovery, then the monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert the construction equipment around the find and notify the qualified professional paleontologist. The qualified professional paleontologist shall then visit the site and assess the resource for its scientific significance. Project excavations shall continue elsewhere, monitored by a paleontological resource monitor. The qualified professional paleontologist shall evaluate the find and contact the City as soon as possible with recommendations as to the significance and potential treatment of the find. Depending on the nature of the find, the determination of significance may require additional excavation, potentially including the preparation and execution of a Paleontological Testing Plan. If significant, depending on the nature of the resource, treatment shall require the preparation and execution of a Paleontological Treatment July 2023 30 Packet Pg. 62 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report Plan. The City, acting with the advice of the qualified professional paleontologist, shall determine the significance and treatment of the discovered resources. MM-GEO-4: All significant fossils collected shall be prepared in a properly -equipped paleontology laboratory to a point ready for permanent curation. Preparation shall include the careful removal of excess matrix from fossil materials and stabilizing and repairing specimens, as necessary. Any fossils encountered and recovered shall be prepared to the point of identification. Following the initial laboratory work, all fossil specimens shall be identified to the lowest taxonomic level, analyzed, photographed, and catalogued, before being delivered to an accredited local museum repository for permanent curation and storage. MM-GEO-5: At the conclusion of laboratory work and preparation for museum curation, a final report shall be prepared describing the results of the paleontological mitigation monitoring efforts associated with the Project. The report shall be prepared for the lead agency and the Project applicant. The report shall include a summary of the field and laboratory methods, an overview of the geology and paleontology in the Project vicinity, a list of taxa recovered (if any), an analysis of fossils recovered (if any) and their scientific significance, and recommendations. If the monitoring efforts produced fossils, then a copy of the report shall also be submitted to the designated museum repository. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the repository. The cost of curation is assessed by the repository and is the responsibility of the Project applicant. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES The Project's impacts related to tribal cultural resources that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.15, Tribal Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR. Identified potential impacts include those related to a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or local register, and significant to a California Native American Tribe. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The Project area is sensitive for tribal cultural resources based on the presence of California scrub oak, resources found during field reconnaissance surveys, and tribal consultation regarding the Project's location. Mitigation Measures MM-TCR-1 through MM-TCR-7, which involve implementation of a WEAP; monitoring; preparation and execution of an archaeological testing plan and consultation with the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians, as well as coordination with the County Coroner, in the event that unidentified tribal cultural resources are discovered; and collection, treatment, and disposition of discovered sensitive tribal archaeological resources, would reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources during construction to a less -than -significant level. July 2023 31 Packet Pg. 63 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Measures MM-TCR-1: In conjunction with Mitigation Measure MM-CR-1, prior to the start of construction, a qualified representative of the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians shall be retained to conduct a Tribal Cultural Resources Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for construction personnel regarding the aspects of Tribal Cultural Resources and the procedures for notifying the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians should Tribal Cultural Resources be discovered. MM-TCR-2: The Project applicant shall retain a professional Native American monitor procured by the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians to observe all soil disturbing activities, such as site clearance and grubbing, grading, and excavation. The Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians shall assign a Native American monitor to each grading or other earthwork machine engaged in ground disturbing activity that is active more than 100 feet from any other grading or other earthwork machine. If tribal cultural resources are encountered, the Native American monitor shall have the authority to request that ground -disturbing activities cease within 60 feet of discovery to assess and document potential finds in real time. MM-TCR-3: In the event that tribal cultural resources are discovered during Project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease, and a cultural resources principal investigator, who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology, shall assess the find. The principal investigator and tribal monitor shall have the authority to request ground - disturbing activities cease within the area of a discovery. Work on the other portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Consultation between the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians tribal monitor and lead agency shall occur to determine further action required for any inadvertent discoveries of tribal cultural resources. Depending on the nature of the find, the determination of significance may require additional excavation, potentially including the preparation and execution of a Phase II Archaeological Testing Plan. The City of Santa Clarita, acting with the advice of the consulting principal investigator and the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians, shall determine the significance and treatment of the discovered resources. MM-TCR-4: Prior to the disposition of any inadvertent discovery of tribal cultural resources, the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians shall be consulted on the treatment and reburial location of the tribal cultural resources. The Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians shall be given first right of refusal for the treatment, disposition, and possible collection/caretaking of tribal cultural resources. The Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians consider collection as a last resort and prefer tribal cultural resources either remain in -situ, or if required, be reburied. MM-TCR-5: Prior to the disposition of any materials suspected to be indicative of a midden, a cultural resources principal investigator, who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology, and the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians archaeologist shall assess the find and confirm whether it is funerary in nature. Once confirmed it is not suspected to be funerary - July 2023 32 Packet Pg. 64 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report associated, the midden shall be left in -situ whenever possible. If it is not possible to leave the midden in -situ, the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians shall be consulted for a treatment plan. MM-TCR-6: If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with the Project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which shall be enforced for the duration of the Project. Should the find be determined as Native American in origin, the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), as determined by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), shall be notified and consulted to provide recommendations to the landowner for the treatment of the human remains. However, pursuant to PRC Section 5097, the ultimate decision regarding the subsequent disposition of those discoveries shall be made by the landowner and the City of Santa Clarita. MM-TCR-7: A copy of any and all archaeological documents created as a part of the Project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, and monitoring reports) shall be provided to the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians. 5.4 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT As set forth in these findings, the implementation of the Project would not result in significant impacts that are considered unavoidable. CEQA requires that an EIR include an analysis of a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to a proposed project capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant adverse environmental impact associated with the project. The Draft EIR addressed the environmental effects of alternatives to the Project. A description of these alternatives, a comparison of their environmental impacts to the Project, and the City's findings are listed below. These alternatives are compared against the Project relative to the identified Project impacts, summarized in the sections above, and to the Project objectives, as stated in Section 2.2, Statement of Objectives, above. In making the alternatives findings below, the City of Santa Clarita certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered the information on alternatives provided in the EIR, including the information provided in the comments on the Draft EIR and the responses thereto. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS IN THE EIR Alternatives that were considered but rejected during the scoping process for detailed evaluation in the EIR are discussed below. Reduced Grading Alternative The Reduced Grading Alternative would reduce the amount of grading north of Placerita Creek on the Metropolitan Water District property and lower the back -cut on the Project Site north of the creek. As with the Project, this alternative would involve the Placerita Creek excavation and planted bank stabilization to mitigate existing peak flow deficiencies. Similarly, the creek would be widened to the same extent as the Project. The bridge across Placerita Creek would also be constructed to connect to the employee parking lot north of the creek. Accordingly, this alternative would not result in any reduction to the permanent jurisdictional impacts identified for the Project. July 2023 33 Packet Pg. 65 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report Approximately 120,000 cubic yards of dirt would be required as earthen fill to raise the main studio property elevation approximately one to two feet above the 100-year floodplain south of the Placerita Creek. The 100-year flood surface on the Project Site and the surrounding area would be eliminated through the addition of compacted earthen fill and the construction of storm drain systems originating at 12th and 13th Streets and conveying water to Placerita Creek. However, the Reduced Grading Alternative would no longer use the graded dirt from the north side of Placerita Creek as fill to elevate the Project Site south of the creek. As a result, an off -site replacement source of earthen fill material would be required to raise the Project Site. The impacts of trucking in 120,000 cubic yards of dirt across the City of Santa Clarita and over the 13th Street rail crossing would result in approximately 8,000 truck trips over a 16- to 20-week period. Impacts to local traffic, noise, and air quality caused by the earth import trucking process could result in significant impacts to the Newhall community. Additionally, the Reduced Grading Alternative would reduce the available parking at the employee surface parking lot north of Placerita Creek by a minimum of 100 spaces. Replacement parking would have to be met through the construction of a two -level parking structure, instead of a surface parking lot, north of the creek. Accordingly, the addition of a second -level parking deck to the employee surface parking lot would extend development north of the creek, which may have a greater visual impact when compared to the Project due to the addition of mass and the reduction in open space. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f), this alternative was rejected from further consideration. Alternative Sites Whittaker Bermite Property The Whittaker- Berm ite property is an undeveloped 996-acre site located in the center of the City of Santa Clarita and roughly bounded by Soledad Canyon Road on the north, Golden Valley Road on the east, Railroad Avenue on the west, and Circle J Ranch on the south. This former munition testing and manufacturing site has contamination issues, which include perchlorate, volatile organic compounds, and both soil and groundwater contamination. The property has undulating terrain, consisting of ridges and canyons. Accordingly, the City has identified many more ridgelines on the property when compared to the Project Site. In addition, the California Geological Survey maps the northern portion of the property within an Alquist-Priolo fault zone (associated with the San Gabriel fault zone). Furthermore, due to the undeveloped nature of the property, public infrastructure, including roads, sewer lines, water lines, and storm drain system, does not exist. As a result, development of the Project on this property would require extensive grading and excavation due to the existing topography and would be subject to more geological issues and hazards. Because public infrastructure is not currently available, major off -site public improvements would be required to serve the Project. Accordingly, this alternative would result in greater impacts related to air quality, energy, GHG emissions, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, and utilities. This alternative would also potentially have greater impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, and tribal cultural resources due to the undeveloped nature of the property. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f), this alternative was rejected from further consideration. July 2023 34 Packet Pg. 66 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report Saugus Speedway Property The Saugus Speedway property is a 40-acre site located immediately adjacent to the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station to the east and the Whittaker Bermite property to the southeast. The Saugus Speedway was first used as an auto racetrack and currently hosts the Saugus Swap Meet. The property has a history dating back to the early 1920s when Edmund Richard "Hoot' Gibson, a western film star and rodeo champion, built a ranch and rodeo grounds, where he hosted many shows and which were used as a movie set. In 1937, William and Mary Bonelli purchased the ranch, where they held rodeos and eventually built a quarter -mile dirt track. Bonelli Ranch Stadium was home to numerous car events. Later, the track was expanded to one-third mile, paved, and its name changed to Saugus Speedway. The paved track enabled the transition to stockcars, which was the primary race event through 1995, until the races stopped due to the decaying grandstands. Similar to the Project Site, the property is relatively flat. However, the majority of the property is within an Alquist-Priolo fault zone (associated with the San Gabriel fault zone). Accordingly, development of the Project on this property would require additional geotechnical investigation. Since the property is already limited in size with less than half the area of the 93.5-acre Project Site, it would not be able to accommodate the Project as proposed by the Applicant or provide as many employment opportunities as the Project to further the City's goal to provide more jobs in the City. In addition, this property is included on the City's inventory of sites suitable for housing development; development of the Project on this site would affect the City's ability to meet the State's Regional Housing Needs Allocation requirement and may have a potentially significant impact on population and housing. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f), this alternative was rejected from further consideration. Blue Cloud Movie Ranch The Blue Cloud Movie Ranch property is a 250-acre site located in the northeastern portion of the Saugus community. The property already supports a working movie set and film and entertainment production facility and is located away from sensitive receptors. However, it is not within a transit priority area or high quality transit area designated by the Southern California Association of Governments or in proximity to multiple transit options. Santa Clarita Transit Routes 4 and 14 provide transit service along Bouquet Canyon Road with a one -hour headway. Although development of the Project on this property would generate the same employment opportunities, which would contribute to improving the jobs/housing balance in the City, this alternative may potentially result in greater impacts to air quality, energy, GHG emissions, and transportation due to the lack of transit opportunities that encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation, which are afforded the Project Site. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f), this alternative was rejected from further consideration. The following alternatives were selected for evaluation in the Draft EIR: • Alternative 1: No Project Alternative • Alternative 2: Existing Zoning Alternative • Alternative 3: Reduced Studio Alternative (Environmentally Superior Alternative) Table 1 provides a comparison of environmental impacts for each of the alternatives in relation to environmental impacts associated with the Project. July 2023 35 Packet Pg. 67 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report Table 1 Summary Comparison of the Impacts of the Alternatives Impact Topic Project Alternative1 No Project Alternative 2 Existing Zoning Alternative 3 Reduced Density Aesthetics LTS Less/NI Similar/LTS Similar/LTS Air Quality LTS Less/NI Greater/LTSM Less/LTS Biological Resources LTSM Less/NI Less/LTSM Similar/LTSM Cultural Resources LTSM Less/NI Less/LTSM Similar/LTSM Energy LTS Less/NI Greater/LTS Less/LTS Geology and Soils LTSM Less/NI Less/LTSM Similar/LTSM GHG Emissions LTS Less/NI Greater/LTSM Less/LTS Hazards and Hazardous Materials LTS Greater/PSI Greater/LTS Similar/LTS Hydrology and Water Quality LTS Greater/LTS Similar/LTS Similar/LTS Land Use and Planning LTS Greater/LTS Similar/LTS Similar/LTS Noise LTS Less/NI Greater/LTS Similar/LTS Population and Housing LTS Greater/LTS Greater/LTS Similar/Beneficial Public Services LTS Less/NI Greater/LTS Less/LTS Transportation LTS Less/NI Greater/PSI Less/LTS Tribal Cultural Resources LTSM Less/NI Less/LTSM Similar/LTSM Utilities and Service Systems LTS Less/NI Greater/PSI Less/LTS Wildfire LTS Greater/PSI Greater/LTS Similar/LTS Notes: LTS = Less Than Significant Similar = Impact Similar to the Project LTSM = Less Than Significant with Mitigation Greater = Impact Greater than the Project NI = No Impact Less = Impact Less than the Project PSI = Potentially Significant Impact Alternative 1: No Project Alternative In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the No Project Alternative for a project on an identifiable property consists of the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) states that, "in certain instances, the no project alternative means `no build' wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained." Accordingly, for purposes of this analysis, Alternative 1, the No Project Alternative, assumes that no development would occur on the Project Site. The Project Site would continue to be vacant and occasionally used for special events. Findings As there are no significant and unavoidable impacts identified under the Project, Alternative 1 would have no improvement in this regard. 2. Alternative 1 would reduce or eliminate the less -than -significant impacts with mitigation or less -than -significant impacts for aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials (with the exception of wildfire risk), noise, public services, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. July 2023 36 Packet Pg. 68 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report 3. Alternative 1 would result in potentially greater impacts for wildfire, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, and population and housing. 4. Alternative 1 would not meet any of the basic Project objectives and is, therefore, rejected as infeasible. 5. The findings of the Project set forth in this document provide support for the Project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration. Facts in Support of Findings: Under the Alternative 1, the Shadowbox Studios Project would not be implemented, and no development would occur on the Project Site. The Project Site would continue to be vacant and occasionally used for special events. Because no construction or new operational activities would occur under this alternative, the less -than -significant impacts with mitigation or less -than - significant impacts for aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials (with the exception of wildfire risk), noise, public services, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems would be eliminated. However, this alternative would result in potentially greater impacts related to hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, population and housing, and wildfire for the following reasons: • Alternative 1 would not implement stormwater treatment controls that would be included in the Project or stabilize Placerita Creek as proposed under the Project to improve water quality and stormwater flows. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be less than significant but would be greater when compared to the less -than -significant impacts of the Project. • Alternative 1 would not contribute to meeting local and regional goals of developing areas within a Transit Priority Area (TPA) and High Quality Transit Area (HQTA) or developing an entertainment use in one of the City's four targeted industry sectors as identified in the City's General Plan Economic Development Element. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be less than significant but would be greater when compared to the less - than -significant impacts of the Project. • Alternative 1 would not contribute to meeting local and regional goals of developing areas within a TPA and HQTA, and the City would continue to be housing -rich as the employment opportunities that would be provided by the Project would not occur. Therefore, land use impacts would be less than significant but would be greater when compared to the less -than -significant impacts of the Project. • Alternative 1 would not implement ignition -resistant landscapes, ignition -resistant structures, specified fire safety measures, or fuel modification zones. Accordingly, Alternative 1 may result in a potentially significant impact related to wildfire if the Project Site is left undeveloped and the shrubs and chaparrals untreated. Therefore, impacts related to wildfire under this alternative would be greater when compared to the less -than - significant impacts of the Project. In addition, Alternative 1 would not achieve the underlying purpose of the Project to provide a state-of-the-art, full -service film and television campus that would provide independent media July 2023 37 Packet Pg. 69 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report production facilities in Santa Clarita. Similarly, the No Project Alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives, as identified below in Table 2. Table 2 Applicability of Project Objectives for Alternative 1 Alternative 1: No Project Project Objective Alternative Design and construct economically -viable and technologically -advanced sound stages, creative Does Not Meet office, and production support spaces with the infrastructure, parking, and technology to attract high -profile film, television, and streaming projects that require facilities designed to meet the specifications and demands of the movie, television, and entertainment industry and to allow flexibility to incorporate future technology advances. Promote economic growth in Santa Clarita, particularly in the Newhall community, by Does Not Meet encouraging the support for the entertainment industry by creating a secure campus environment, where media and entertainment -related uses are consolidated with pre- production, post -production, story development, and administrative offices in order to maximize creativity and productivity. Maximize the use of the entire property to create a studio campus environment that creates a Does Not Meet range of new media -related employment opportunities that cater to movie, television, and entertainment industries, as well as construction jobs, providing opportunities for local growth and improving the City's jobs to housing balance. Develop a studio campus along a transit corridor that is easily accessible by public Does Not Meet transportation, where media and entertainment -related uses are consolidated with pre- production, production, story development, and administrative offices within a single site to promote sustainability and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), resulting in corresponding reductions in air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Enhance the identity of the Newhall community as a movie, television, and entertainment Does Not Meet industry area. Enhance the visual appearance of the Project Site by providing architecturally distinct Does Not Meet development, while maintaining consistency with the design standards of the immediately adjacent Old Town Newhall Specific Plan area. Design a campus that would commemorate the filmmaking heritage of Santa Clarita. Does Not Meet Provide off -site improvements to enhance and/or provide pedestrian and bike connections to Does Not Meet adjacent communities and the Jan Heidt Newhall Metrolink Station for the benefit of the existing residents of the adjacent communities and future employees of the Project. Alternative 2: Existing Zoning Alternative Alternative 2, the Existing Zoning Alternative, would allow the development of uses that are consistent with the Project Site's existing zoning designations, which are MXN (Mixed Use Neighborhood) for the 40.6-acre portion of the Project Site south of Placerita Creek and NU5 (Non -Urban 5, one dwelling unit per acre) for the 51.1-acre portion of the Project Site north and a small area south of Placerita Creek. Approximately 1.8 acres would be dedicated for public ROW improvements on 12th, 13th, and Arch Streets. The MXN designation provides for a base density of up to 18 dwelling units per acre plus inclusion of commercial uses. The Existing Zoning Alternative proposes to develop the Project Site at the 18- July 2023 38 Packet Pg. 70 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report unit -per -acre level, for a total of 725 units. An additional 27.5 percent density bonus (199 units) is proposed on the MXN portion of the Project Site in accordance with State and Local Density Bonus Law based on the provision of 15 percent of the units as low-income apartments within the MXN area. The NU5 allowed density would be requested as a Clustered Density planning area in order to develop the area south of the creek as an NU5 overall density cluster site. Accordingly, this alternative would include 924 multi -family dwelling units, comprising a mix of rental apartments and for -sale attached dwelling units, and 50 single-family detached units. Alternative 2 proposes to provide the same Placerita Creek stabilization as the Project. This alternative would also include a 2.4-acre park and incorporate trails along the creek and throughout the development area. The area north of Placerita Creek would remain as natural open space and could be dedicated to the City of Santa Clarita for open space use. Findings 1. As there are no significant and unavoidable impacts identified under the Project, Alternative 2 would have no improvement in this regard. 2. Alternative 2 would reduce, but not eliminate, the less -than -significant impacts with mitigation or less -than -significant impacts for biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and tribal cultural resources. 3. Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts for aesthetics, hydrology and water quality, and land use and planning. 4. Alternative 2 would result in greater impacts for air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, population and housing, public services, transportation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. 5. The findings of the Project set forth in this document provide support for the Project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration. Facts in Support of Findings: In comparison to the Project, Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts relative to aesthetics, hydrology and water quality, and land use and planning. Alternative 2 would have slightly less impacts relative to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and tribal cultural resources due to reduced development/disturbance and preservation of the northern portion of the Project Site. However, this alternative would result in potentially greater impacts related to air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, population and housing, public services, transportation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire for the following reasons: • Alternative 2 would result in the exceedance of the regional thresholds of significance established by the South Coast AQMD for VOC, NOx, CO, PM1o, and PM2.5. These exceedances are attributed predominantly to natural gas combustion from natural gas fireplaces in the proposed residences under this alternative. Because the operational emissions would exceed the regional thresholds for all of the analyzed criteria pollutants, Alternative 2 would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants for which the South Coast Air Basin is non -attainment under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (03 and PM2.5) or the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (03, PM1o, and PM2.5), and, as such, on -site operational impacts would be significant without July 2023 39 Packet Pg. 71 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report mitigation. However, installation of electric fireplaces only would reduce all criteria pollutant emissions below the South Coast AQMD regional thresholds. • The residential and commercial development under Alternative 2 would result in a higher demand for natural gas and transportation fuel than the Project. Although Alternative 2 would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary use of energy and would result in a less -than -significant impact related to energy, impacts would be greater when compared to the less -than -significant impacts of the Project. • The residential development under Alternative 2 would generate a greater quantity of GHG emissions than the Project. Elimination of natural gas fireplaces, as discussed above, could reduce emissions, which would still be greater than the Project. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in a greater impact when compared to the less -than -significant impacts of the Project. • The northern portion of the Project Site north of Placerita Creek would remain vacant and undeveloped under Alternative 2. The existing conditions of the Project Site could have the potential to facilitate fire spread, particularly since the northeastern portion of the Project Site is adjacent to the areas with untreated, surface shrub and chaparral fuels. Accordingly, Alternative 2 may result in a significant impact related to wildfire if the northern portion of the Project Site is left undeveloped and the shrubs and chaparrals untreated. Therefore, impacts related to hazards related to wildland fires and wildfire under this alternative would be greater when compared to the less -than -significant impacts of the Project. • The multi -story multi -family residential buildings under Alternative 2 would be located across from the Alderbrook Drive residences and separated only by the MWD property. This alternative would not have the buffer that would be provided by the plant nursery and surface parking proposed by the Project and may result in slightly higher permanent noise impacts from the proposed residences, particularly those on the upper floors, when compared to the Project. These noise levels would not be different from the noise generated in the Project area. Accordingly, noise impacts under this alternative would be less than significant but would be greater than those of the Project. • Alternative 2 would introduce a population of approximately 2,786 persons to the Project Site. Although this alternative would be developed consistent with the zoning designations of the Project Site, this increase in population would account for 49.8 percent and 30 percent of the City's population and housing growth projections, respectively, between 2022 and 2026, and 1.3 percent and 1 percent of the County's population and housing growth projection, respectively, for the same period. The increase in housing would reduce the City's jobs/housing balance from 1.20 to 1 to 1.19 to 1. Although Alternative 2 would not contribute to meeting the City's aggressive goal of a 2 to 1 jobs/housing balance, this alternative would be consistent with the County's forecasted population and housing growth between 2022 and 2026. As such, this alternative would not induce unplanned growth in the Project area, and related impacts would be less than significant but would be greater when compared to the less -than -significant impacts of the Project. • Alternative 2 would introduce a permanent population of approximately 2,786 persons to the Project Site, which would, in turn, increase demand for fire and police protection services, as well as libraries. However, as with the Project, development under Alternative 2 would be designed in accordance with the California Fire Code, the County's Fire Code, July 2023 40 Packet Pg. 72 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report and LACoFD's requirements. Similarly, development under Alternative 2 would include several design features and security measures that would reduce the opportunity for criminal activity to occur on -site. Furthermore, the City undergoes an annual review of budget and need for capital improvement projects. The Capital Improvement Program ensures that the City has adequate funding for public facility improvements, such as the public library. Therefore, as with the Project, impacts to fire and police protection and libraries under Alternative 2 would be less than significant but would be greater than the less -than -significant impacts of the Project due to the additional increase in population, including residents, on the Project Site. • Alternative 2 would generate 8,551 daily trips as compared to the 6,993 daily trips generated by the Project. Because Alternative 2 would primarily consist of residential uses, it is anticipated to generate a higher vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita than the Project's 14.0 VMT per employee. However, this alternative would provide housing less than 0.5 mile from the Jan Heidt Newhall Metrolink Station, which would encourage residents of the development to utilize transit as an alternative to driving to their places of employment. Nonetheless, due to the greater number of daily trips generated under this alternative, impacts related to transportation would be greater when compared to the less - than -significant impacts of the Project. • The residential and commercial development under Alternative 2 would result in water demand and solid waste and wastewater generation that are greater than those identified for the Project. Accordingly, impacts to utilities and service systems under this alternative may be potentially significant and greater when compared to the less -than -significant impacts of the Project. In addition, Alternative 2 would not achieve the underlying purpose of the Project to provide a state-of-the-art, full -service film and television campus that would provide independent media production facilities in Santa Clarita. Similarly, Alternative 2 would not meet most of the Project objectives, as identified below in Table 3. Table 3 Applicability of Project Objectives for Alternative 2 Alternative 2: Existing Zoning Project Objective Alternative Design and construct economically -viable and technologically -advanced sound stages, creative Does Not Meet office, and production support spaces with the infrastructure, parking, and technology to attract high -profile film, television, and streaming projects that require facilities designed to meet the specifications and demands of the movie, television, and entertainment industry and to allow flexibility to incorporate future technology advances. Promote economic growth in Santa Clarita, particularly in the Newhall community, by Does Not Meet encouraging the support for the entertainment industry by creating a secure campus environment, where media and entertainment -related uses are consolidated with pre- production, post -production, story development, and administrative offices in order to maximize creativity and productivity. Maximize the use of the entire property to create a studio campus environment that creates a Does Not Meet range of new media -related employment opportunities that cater to movie, television, and July 2023 41 Packet Pg. 73 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report entertainment industries, as well as construction jobs, providing opportunities for local growth and improving the City's jobs to housing balance. Develop a studio campus along a transit corridor that is easily accessible by public Does Not Meet transportation, where media and entertainment -related uses are consolidated with pre- production, production, story development, and administrative offices within a single site to promote sustainability and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), resulting in corresponding reductions in air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Enhance the identity of the Newhall community as a movie, television, and entertainment Does Not Meet industry area. Enhance the visual appearance of the Project Site by providing architecturally distinct Meets development, while maintaining consistency with the design standards of the immediately adjacent Old Town Newhall Specific Plan area. Design a campus that would commemorate the filmmaking heritage of Santa Clarita. Does Not Meet Provide off -site improvements to enhance and/or provide pedestrian and bike connections to Does Not Meet adjacent communities and the Jan Heidt Newhall Metrolink Station for the benefit of the existing residents of the adjacent communities and future employees of the Project. Alternative 3: Reduced Studio Alternative Alternative 3, 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, comprising 400,000 square feet of sound stages; 396,000 square feet of workshops, warehouses, and support uses; 140,000 square feet of production and administrative offices; and 44,000 square feet of flex/catering and other specialty services. Overall building massing for Alternative 3 would remain similar to, or only slightly reduced from, the Project. Although this alternative would reduce the development's square footage, Alternative 3 would require the same amount of grading as the Project, including the portion of the Project Site within MWD property for use as an excess parking field. As with the Project, Alternative 3 would construct a bridge over Placerita Creek and develop the north parking lot. Because this alternative would disturb the same footprint as the Project, 13 oak trees would be removed with the same number of replacement trees as the Project. Perimeter walls, fencing, and perimeter landscaping, as well as all off -site improvements, would remain the same as the Project. The duration of construction of this alternative is anticipated to be the same as the Project. Findings As there are no significant and unavoidable impacts identified under the Proposed Project, Alternative 3 would have no improvement in this regard. 2. Alternative 3 would reduce, but not eliminate, the less -than -significant impacts with mitigation or less -than -significant impacts for air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, public services, transportation, and utilities and service systems. July 2023 42 Packet Pg. 74 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report 3. Alternative 3 would result in similar impacts for aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. 4. The findings of the Project set forth in this document provide support for the Project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration. Facts in Support of Findings: In comparison to the Project, Alternative 3 would result in similar impacts relative to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. Alternative 2 would have slightly reduced impacts relative to air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, public services, transportation, and utilities and service systems due to a slight reduction in building footprints by 24 percent. However, Alternative 3 would not meet all Project objectives, as shown below in Table 4. Although Alternative 3 would result in a slight reduced building footprint, it would require the same amount of grading and disturb the same footprint as the Project. Thus, Alternative 3 would not maximize the use of the entire Project Site, reducing media -related opportunities as compared to the Project. Table 4 Applicability of Project Objectives for Alternative 3 Alternative 3: Reduced Studio Project Objective Alternative Design and construct economically -viable and technologically -advanced sound stages, creative Meets office, and production support spaces with the infrastructure, parking, and technology to attract high -profile film, television, and streaming projects that require facilities designed to meet the specifications and demands of the movie, television, and entertainment industry and to allow flexibility to incorporate future technology advances. Promote economic growth in Santa Clarita, particularly in the Newhall community, by Meets encouraging the support for the entertainment industry by creating a secure campus environment, where media and entertainment -related uses are consolidated with pre- production, post -production, story development, and administrative offices in order to maximize creativity and productivity. Maximize the use of the entire property to create a studio campus environment that creates a Does Not Meet range of new media -related employment opportunities that cater to movie, television, and entertainment industries, as well as construction jobs, providing opportunities for local growth and improving the City's jobs to housing balance. Develop a studio campus along a transit corridor that is easily accessible by public Meets transportation, where media and entertainment -related uses are consolidated with pre- production, production, story development, and administrative offices within a single site to promote sustainability and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), resulting in corresponding reductions in air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Enhance the identity of the Newhall community as a movie, television, and entertainment Meets industry area. July 2023 43 Packet Pg. 75 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report Enhance the visual appearance of the Project Site by providing architecturally distinct Meets development, while maintaining consistency with the design standards of the immediately adjacent Old Town Newhall Specific Plan area. Design a campus that would commemorate the filmmaking heritage of Santa Clarita. Meets Provide off -site improvements to enhance and/or provide pedestrian and bike connections to Meets adjacent communities and the Jan Heidt Newhall Metrolink Station for the benefit of the existing residents of the adjacent communities and future employees of the Project. 0 T N U N 0 r X 0 0 t U) a� _ iQi Q w U Q H 00 2 X w M N d r _ d E L V r r Q July 2023 44 Packet Pg. 76 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report 6.0 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council declare that no new significant information as defined by the CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 has been received by the Planning Commission after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council certify the Final EIR based on the following findings and conclusions. 6.1 FINDINGS The Project would have the potential for creating significant adverse impacts. These significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified in the Draft EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in the Findings. 6.2 CONCLUSIONS 1. All significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the Project have been identified in the Draft EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to less -than -significant levels. 2. Alternatives to the Project, which could potentially achieve the basic objectives of the Project, have been considered and rejected in favor of the Project. July 2023 45 Packet Pg. 77 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. July 2023 46 Packet Pg. 78 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report 7.0 STATEMENT OF LOCATION AND CUSTODIAN OF DOCUMENTS Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e), the City of Santa Clarita, as the Lead Agency, shall specify the location and custodian of the documents of other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision has been based. A copy of the EIR and all supporting documents are available at the City Clerk's Office, located in the City Hall Building at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120, Santa Clarita, California, 91355. July 2023 47 Packet Pg. 79 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. July 2023 48 Packet Pg. 80 1.c PLANNING COMMISISON RESOLUION No. P23-11 EXHIBIT B Final EIR; and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Shadowbox Studios Project SCH No. 2022030762 Incorporated by Reference Document can be found at https://www.santa-clarita.com/city-hall/departments/community-development/planning- division/environmental-impact-reports-under-review/shadowbox-studios-project Packet Pg. 81 1.d RESOLUTION NO. P23-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE 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) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PROJECT IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact, and recommends that the City Council make the following findings of fact: A. An application for Master Case 21-019, the Shadowbox Studios 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 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. 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. 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 13 oak trees, including 7 heritage trees. Ridgeline Alteration Permit 21-001 to allow for the development within the Ridgeline Preservation zone. Packet Pg. 82 1.d Resolution P23-12 Master Case 21-109 July 18, 2023 Page 2 of 23 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 North Newhall Area (NNA), and located within the Placenta 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 Unified Development Code requirements that apply to all of Placenta 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 Jobs Creation Overlay Zone (JCOZ), which permits a 55-foot building height as well as a change to the General Plan text regarding building height in the North Newhall Area. 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 homeowner association - maintained hillside 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 Packet Pg. 83 1.d Resolution P23-12 Master Case 21-109 July 18, 2023 Page 3 of 23 beyond. Commercial uses are located immediately to the south of Project site, with single- family residential uses located beyond to the southeast. 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 of Santa Clarita 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, preservation of the PCSSD. Packet Pg. 84 1.d Resolution P23-12 Master Case 21-109 July 18, 2023 Page 4 of 23 O. A site tour of the Project site with the Planning Commission was held February 21, 2023, to provide the Planning Commission context for the site setting and surroundings. P. The City prepared a Draft EIR, for the Shadowbox Studios Project, that addressed all issues raised in comments received on the NOR The Draft EIR was circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, in compliance with CEQA. 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. Q. The Planning Commission public hearings for the Project were duly noticed in accordance with the noticing requirements for each of the Entitlements. The Project was advertised in The Signal, through on -site posting 14 days before the hearing, and by direct first-class mailing to property owners and occupants within 1,000 feet of the Project site. R. 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. S. 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. T. 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 Packet Pg. 85 1.d Resolution P23-12 Master Case 21-109 July 18, 2023 Page 5 of 23 consider. The Planning Commission continued the item to the July 18, 2023, Planning Commission meeting. U. On July 18, 2023, the Planning Commission received a presentation from staff on the follow-up items from the April 18, 2023, May 16, 2023, and June 20, 2023 meetings, along with the applicant's presentation, and public testimony. The Planning Commission considered the staff report, Draft Final EIR, Resolutions, and Conditions of Approval. V. The Draft EIR was presented to the Planning Commission on April 18, 2023. On July 18, 2023, the Planning Commission considered the Draft Final EIR prepared for the Project, as well as information provided in staff reports, presented to the Planning Commission from experts, and presented in public testimony, including letters submitted to the Planning Commission, prior to recommending approval of the Project. The Draft Final EIR for the Project has been prepared in compliance with CEQA. W. Based upon staff presentations, staff reports, applicant presentations, and public comments and testimony, the Planning Commission finds that the Project will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the area; nor will the Project be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property in the vicinity of the Project site; nor will the Project jeopardize, endanger, or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety, or general welfare since the Project conforms with the zoning ordinance and is compatible with surrounding land uses. The Project proposes the extension of all utilities and services to the Project site. Currently, all required utilities and services are available at locations adjacent to the Project site. X. 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, with the Community Development Department; the record specifically is in the custody of the Director of Community Development. SECTION 2. GENERAL FINDINGS FOR MASTER CASE 21-109. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Shadowbox Studios Project EIR, oral and written testimony, and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports, and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find, as follows: A. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan; The Shadowbox Studios Project is consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the General Plan of the City of Santa Clarita. More specifically, the Project is consistent with the following portions of the Land Use Element of the General Plan: Economic Vitality Goal LU4: A diverse and healthy economy. Packet Pg. 86 1.d Resolution P23-12 Master Case 21-109 July 18, 2023 Page 6 of 23 • Objective LU4.2: Promote job creation, focusing on employment generators in the technical and professional sectors. o Policy LU4.2.1: Pursue business attraction and expansion programs for clean industries that provide job opportunities for local residents, particularly in the areas of film/entertainment, biotechnology, aerospace, and technology. o Policy LU42.2: Achieve a balanced ratio of jobs to housing through business expansion and economic development programs, with a goal of at least 1.5 jobs per household. In addition, the Shadowbox Studios Project is consistent with the economic development strategies, practices, and policies of the Economic Development Element of the General Plan as follows. Jobs/Housing Balance: The City of Santa Clarita has an aggressive goal to achieve a 2:1 jobs/housing balance. One of the biggest goals in pursuing the jobs/housing balance is to attract high -paying, high -quality jobs. To accomplish this goal, the City will focus on the targeted industry clusters, which include aerospace, technology, biomedical, and film/entertainment. Development Objectives: The City will continue to evaluate each development proposal on its individual merits, thereby allowing flexibility for economic generating and jobs - producing uses: • Encouraging business opportunities throughout all facets of the community, supporting burgeoning villages of industry throughout the Santa Clarita Valley; • Applying non-traditional height, design, and planning standards for appropriate projects and uses that generate significant impact to the economy; and • Encouraging increased density in non-residential projects in appropriate locations to increase quality jobs and achieve desired jobs/housing balance. The Project proposes to develop a full -service film and television studio campus, a targeted industry under the City's General Plan to bring employment opportunities to the City. The Project is expected to generate over 2,000 direct employment opportunities in the City. B. The proposal is allowed within the applicable underlying zone and complies with all other applicable provisions of this code; The Shadowbox Studios Project requires the approval of entitlements consisting of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Map, Conditional Use Permit, Minor Use Permit, Oak Tree Permit, Hillside Development Review, Ridgeline Alteration Permit, Development Review, and Architectural Design Review in accordance with the City's UDC. With approval of the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and the approval of the associated entitlements, the proposed Project would comply with the underlying zone and all other applicable provisions of the UDC. Packet Pg. 87 1.d Resolution P23-12 Master Case 21-109 July 18, 2023 Page 7 of 23 C. The proposal will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, or be materially detrimental or injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located; and The Project was evaluated in accordance with the UDC, as well as the City's General Plan. The Project was designed to be in keeping with the provisions of the UDC as well as the goals and policies of the City's General Plan. The Project is located within the North Newhall Area (NNA) of the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District (PCSSD) and has been designed to meet the development standards identified in the PCSSD for the NNA as outlined below: Public Participation/Outreach • Be subject to public participation and outreach led by the applicant(s) or the applicant's representative, at the onset of and during conceptual planning and prior to formal submittal of a proposed project to the City. Outreach would include, but is not limited to, the Placerita Canyon Property Owners' Association. • The applicant has conducted ongoing outreach in the community, dating back to October of 2020. The applicant has hosted multiple meetings with homeowner groups, including the PCPOA, Placerita Canyon Corporation, Circle J Ranch Homeowner's Association, as well as with individual residents in the Placerita Canyon. In addition, the applicant has met with The Master's University, the Newhall School District, the property owner of the adjacent Arch Street commercial center, and a number of other organizations. Traffic Intrusion/Gateways • Be internally and externally pedestrian -oriented, and have equestrian and bicycle amenities and accommodations; • The proposed project is a closed studio campus so the internal pedestrian orientation is designed to support studio operations. Externally to the site, and at the direction of staff, the applicant has incorporated a Class I trail, which consists of a separated right of way including a two-way path for bicycles, and a pedestrian path, along the project frontage of 13th, Arch, and 12th Streets. The Class I trail would not preclude equestrian use. • Understand and acknowledge that any development at these locations will increase existing vehicular traffic and create new vehicular traffic, and that there will be impacts to equestrian and pedestrian circulation in the existing neighborhood, and therefore to minimize those impacts, special attention must be given to mitigate impacts caused by such identified access points; • The project has been designed to concentrate project related traffic at the proposed intersection of 13th Street and Arch Street. In response to community outreach, the applicant committed to eliminating project related ingress at Gate 3 (12th Street). Gate 3 would serve as Packet Pg. 88 1.d Resolution P23-12 Master Case 21-109 July 18, 2023 Page 8 of 23 emergency ingress only. Project related traffic would be permitted to exit Gate 3 by way of a right -turn out onto 12th Street, away from Placeritos Boulevard and away from the residential uses in Placenta Canyon. The project would include multi -use Class I trails along the frontage at 13th, Arch, and 12th Streets to provide for pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle connections from Placerita Canyon to Railroad Avenue. • Layout and orientation of any developments shall be designed to discourage and where possible prevent additional trips into Placerita Canyon caused by or resulting from such developments; • The project has been designed to concentrate project related traffic at the intersection of 13th and Arch Streets by locating the main project entrance (Gate 1) and secondary entrance (Gate 2) at the proposed signalized intersection of 13th and Arch Streets. No project related trips would be permitted to enter the project site from the 121h Street driveway (Gate 3). Gate 3 would allow project related egress, by way of a right turn out of Gate 3, westbound toward Arch Street. Gate 3 would provide emergency ingress only. As designed, vehicle traffic related to the project, would be directed away from Placerita Canyon Road and Placeritos Boulevard. Gates 1 and 2 are setback from the intersection of 13th and Arch Streets, designed with multiple vehicle lanes in order to provide ample on -site queuing of project related traffic. • Include defined entry gateways or monuments into the PCSSD, at Railroad Avenue, complete with landscaping and architectural elements with signage expressly stating there is no through traffic allowed; • The City's planned Dockweiler Drive Extension project would change the circulation pattern from Railroad Avenue at 13th Street. As such, there would be through access from the intersection at 13th Street and Railroad Avenue. The applicant has offered to provide entry signage into Placerita Canyon with "No through traffic" signs at Placeritos Boulevard and/or Placerita Canyon Road. The Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A) require the applicant to design and install gateway signage. • A traffic study shall be prepared for all new developments that are projected to generate two hundred fifty (250) or more new daily trips, within the areas encompassed by the NNA. The traffic study shall analyze those potentially impacted intersections within the NNA area and those that lie within a one (1) mile radius of the subject development site. • A TA, in compliance with the City's TAU, was prepared for the project and has been included as Technical Appendix L to the DEIR, whose findings have been incorporated into the proposed project design. Buffering and Transitions • Preserve the existing rural equestrian community, generally known as Placerita Packet Pg. 89 1.d Resolution P23-12 Master Case 21-109 July 18, 2023 Page 9 of 23 Canyon, and provide adequate buffers and graduated transitional design to ensure existing neighborhood protection and compatibility of character resulting from any proposed development; • The project proposes building heights ranging from 18 to 55 feet. Taller buildings have been situated on the central (studio buildings) and western portions (office, parking structure, and warehouse) of the project site, further from residential uses to the east and south. Single - story buildings (catering facilities) would be situated at the southeast portion of the project site, along 12th Street, where the project site is closer to residential uses. The Metropolitan Water District (MWD) right-of-way is approximately 200-feet wide and separates the project site from the nearest residential uses to the east. The applicant is proposing use of the MWD right-of-way to provide excess parking and a plant nursery in support of studio operations. There is an existing row of mature pepper trees located within the MWD right-of-way, along the unpaved alley behind the existing homes on Alderbrook Drive that would remain in place. • Incorporate the current Santa Clarita Valley Trails Advisory Committee (SCVTAC) network of multi -use trails into adjacent neighborhoods which shall have rural and equestrian characteristics; and • The SCVTAC is no longer an active committee. However multi -use trails have been incorporated into the project design to provide connectivity from the adjacent neighborhoods. At staff s direction, the applicant has incorporated a multi -use, Class I trail along the project frontage of 13th, Arch, and 12th Streets. In addition, the applicant would be conditioned to contribute to future multi -use Class I trail connecting Dockweiler Drive to the Jan Heidt Metrolink Station. • Require use of the MWD right-of-way as a landscaped buffer (subject to MWD approval) between the NNA within the PCSSD and the rest ofPlacerita Canyon, which landscaping shall consist of low water, low maintenance landscape material. Any use of the MWD right-of-way is subject to approval of MWD. The MWD right-of-way is improved with a water transmission pipeline and the right-of-way is needed for operation and maintenance of the MWD facilities therein. The adjacent residential properties to the east of the project site are separated by the MWD right-of-way and an unpaved alleyway. A row of mature pepper trees lines the length of the unpaved alleyway. The alleyway and the existing trees are proposed to remain in their existing condition with the project. The applicant proposal includes installation of a 12-foot wall, just east of the alleyway and pepper trees. The applicant proposes to use the MWD right-of-way for additional parking and to store plant materials that would support the studio production. The plant nursery allows the applicant to store plant materials that are used in the soundstage sets while providing greenery and buffering from adjacent uses, but is Packet Pg. 90 1.d Resolution P23-12 Master Case 21-109 July 18, 2023 Page 10 of 23 portable in the event of MWD maintenance activities. Architecture • Consist of three hundred sixty (360) degree architectural design with pedestrian - scaled building massing and forms where adjacent to existing residences, with the use of landscaping to visually soften hard edges of buildings; • Each building has been designed with 360-degree architecture, using an architectural theme that is consistent with the Community Character and Design Guidelines for the Newhall community. • Structures shall have varied building heights and designs shall create east/west sight lines. Building heights up to thirty-five (35) feet may be permitted. Additional height, not to exceed fifty (50) feet, may be permitted subject to the approval of a conditional use permit; • Structures are varied in height, from 18 feet to 55 feet. The single - story catering buildings are approximately 18 feet in height at the southeast corner of the project site, where buildings are nearest residential uses and to maintain lower profile and allow east/west sight line. Development has been set back from Placerita Creek, maintaining an east/west sightline along the creek and base of the northerly hillside. The studio buildings are located centrally on the project site and are 55 feet at the peak of the pitched roofline. Buildings along the western portion of the site include a three-story, 48-foot office building, 45-foot parking structure, and a two-story, 50-foot warehouse building. The project request includes a Zone Change in order to implement the Jobs Creation Overlay Zone (JCOZ) over the southerly portion of the project site, which, if approved, would permit the 55-foot building height as proposed. • Have transitional densities, as described above, decreasing in density and height in an easterly direction towards the MWD right-of-way away from Railroad Avenue, to include the MWD right-of-way as a landscaped buffer and detached single-family residences adjacent to the MWD right-of-way; and • The project has been designed to locate taller buildings on the central and western portions of the project site, further from residential uses to the east and south. The single -story catering facilities are situated at the southeast portion of the project site, along 12th Street, where the project site is closer to residential uses. The MWD right-of-way separates the project site from the nearest residential uses to the east. The applicant is proposing use of the MWD right-of-way to provide excess parking and a plant nursery in support of studio operations. There is an existing row of mature pepper trees located within the MWD right-of-way, along the unpaved alley behind the existing homes on Alderbrook Drive that will remain in place. • Building heights shall be subject to the same Unified Development Code requirements that apply to all ofPlacerita Canyon. • There are multiple zoning designations on properties within the Packet Pg. 91 1.d Resolution P23-12 Master Case 21-109 July 18, 2023 Page 11 of 23 PCSSD including residential, mixed -use, and commercial zoning designations. Each zoning designation dictates the allowable height. The project request includes a Zone Change in order to implement the JCOZ over the southerly portion of the project site, which would permit the 55-foot building heights as proposed with this project. Flood Control • Waterway bottoms and sides shall not be improved with concrete or hard impervious surfaces and shall be maintained in a natural appearance; • The existing alignment and natural soft bottom of Placenta Creek would remain intact with the project. The banks of the creek would be stabilized with buried rock bank protection that would have soil fill on top and be re -vegetated to preserve the natural appearance of the creek. • Fencing shall not be permitted to cross riverbeds or waterways in a manner which denies or interferes with easy trail access; and • The fencing plan for the project does not interfere with any existing trail access, nor does it impact existing waterways. • On -site flood control mitigation would provide assistance or relief to other hydrology/drainage impacts within Placerita Canyon due to changes of topography on NNA properties. • The project proposes bank stabilization in order to limit erosion of Placerita Creek. A Hydrology Study and Low Impact Development Report were prepared to assess the existing and post -construction stormwater runoff. Hydromodifications, including an infiltration/detention basin and underground infiltration chambers, have been incorporated into the project design to ensure that the volume and rate of flow from stormwater runoff into the creek would not exceed the existing conditions. Housing Types • It is not the City's intent to see affordable housing located on this site; and • The desired housing type in the NNA will attract residents who will assist in the economic revitalization of Downtown Newhall (Old Town Newhall). This is not applicable as the project proposal does not include residential uses. Economic Development • Based on the area's proximity to the nearby Metrolink station and Old Town Newhall, development in the NNA would be supportive of revitalization efforts, with an appropriate mix of retail, office, restaurant, and general commercial square footage combined with neighboring and integrated housing types. • The project proposes a full -service film and television studio campus near Metrolink and bus line services, anticipated to employ over 2,000 people and would have positive impact on indirect employment in the NNA, and Old Town Newhall Specific Plan area. Packet Pg. 92 1.d Resolution P23-12 Master Case 21-109 July 18, 2023 Page 12 of 23 Recreation • Include a site -specific and a community -based recreational component. • Private on -site amenities are proposed offering passive and active recreation opportunities including the Shadow Oak Park situated in the center of the catering buildings, a half basketball court, outdoor seating areas between studio buildings, and a dog park. The project proposal includes a public amenity in the form of a multi -use Class I trail along the project frontage of 13th, Arch, and 12th Streets. In addition, to the NNA development standards, the PCSSD has general criteria for all new development in the PCSSD. Many of these criteria are duplicative with NNA development standards. A discussion on the project's conformance with the applicable general development standards of the PCSSD is outlined here: • Trails. 19 Riding and hiking trails shall be provided as depicted on the latest Placerita Canyon Backbone Trails exhibit on file with Parks, Recreation and Community Services, to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services; Ar Trails shall be fenced to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services, with fences ofa rustic wood appearance; Ar Trail access shall be provided at all river crossings; Ar There shall be no obstructions including, but not limited to, landscaping, trash receptacles, or other similar structures within a designated trail; and Ar Fencing shall not be permitted to cross riverbeds in such a manner as to deny trail access. • The inclusion of multi -use Class 1 trails described in the NNA discussion above, has been incorporated into the project design at the direction of staff through the Development Review Committee process, in response to the trail requirements identified in the PCSSD. The project fencing does not conflict or deny access to existing trails. A property maintenance or homeowner maintenance association shall be established to maintain the private access route, private roads and drives, trail easements and other specific project amenities in all new residential projects ofgreater than four (4) dwelling units and all new commercial, industrial and institutional projects; • This does not apply to the project specifically, as all roadways and trails adjacent to the project are public; however, the project will be conditioned, as appropriate, to ensure maintenance of applicable amenities and landscaped areas. Street lights, in accordance with City standards, shall be installed only at road -to - road intersections; exterior lighting shall be designed to minimize off -site illumination, within the requirements for public safety. Exterior lighting on residential parcels shall be of top -shielded design to prevent direct off -site illumination; hoods shall be used to direct light away from adjacent parcels. Exterior Packet Pg. 93 1.d Resolution P23-12 Master Case 21-109 July 18, 2023 Page 13 of 23 lighting on nonresidential parcels shall be prohibited except where necessary for the safety ofpedestrian and vehicular traffic, as determined by the City. To minimize off - site illumination where lights are required, cut-offfixtures in keeping with a rural equestrian architectural style will be specified; • Any street light improvements associated with the project's proposed roadway design will be designed in conformance with the City's requirements. As it pertains to the on -site lighting, the applicant has prepared a site -specific lighting plan to ensure that necessary lighting is provided for safety and security while minimizing offsite effects from fixture glare. Specifically, the applicant is utilizing cut-off fixtures and back -light -control options as well as proposing the use of energy management controls in conjunction with occupancy sensors that will reduce the light output when motion is not detected. River bottoms and sides shall not be improved with concrete. Fencing shall not be permitted to cross riverbeds in such a manner as to deny trail access; • Placerita Creek would not be channelized with concrete side walls or floor. The project fencing would not deny access to existing trails. Bridges shall be limited to those required for public safety and shall be designed to accommodate equestrian access; • The studio campus is proposed to be a private, closed campus. The proposed bridge within the project site is not part of, or accessible to, the larger Placerita Canyon area, as it is located within a private development. The bridge is designed to be of the same height as the existing Placerita Creek bridge crossing on Railroad Avenue. All new residential projects ofgreater than four (4) dwelling units and all new commercial, industrial and institutional projects (including expansion thereof) shall connect to public sewer systems. Utilities shall be undergrounded to the nearest off - site connection; and • The applicant has completed a sewer area study as outlined in the DEIR for the project and would be conditioned to connect to the public sewer system as well as underground utility services. Existing and future drainage shall be accommodated to provide adequate carrying capacity and erosion protection and shall not create or extend detrimental hazards or consequences upstream. • The project has been designed to ensure that the site drainage would not increase the volume or rate of flow from the current condition Accordingly, with implementation of the associated conditions of approval including the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Plan ("MMRP"), the Project will not impact the public health, interest, safety, or general welfare, or be materially detrimental or injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity of the Project site. D. The proposal is physically suitable for the site. The factors related to the proposal's physical suitability for the site shall include, but are not limited to, the following: Packet Pg. 94 1.d Resolution P23-12 Master Case 21-109 July 18, 2023 Page 14 of 23 1. The design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics are suitable for the proposed use; With the Conditions of Approval, including the MMRP, the Project will be suitable for the site and the uses entitled with the Project. 2. The highways or streets that provide access to the site are ofsufcient width and are improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such proposal would generate; The Project completed a detailed traffic analysis to evaluate the impacts of the Project. The traffic analysis has identified roadway improvements to ensure the public roadways are sufficiently improved to support the additional Project traffic. The Project Conditions of Approval require the applicable improvements before the Building Official issues a certificate of occupancy. 3. Public protection services (e.g., Fire protection, Sheriprotection, etc.) are readily available; and The Project site is located in an established, urban environment that is serviced by existing law enforcement and fire protection services. The applicant must pay applicable fees to the law enforcement and fire protection agencies to assist in offsetting any impacts to the services necessary to properly service the Project. 4. The provision of utilities (e.g., potable water, schools, solid waste collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal, etc) is adequate to serve the site. The Project is in a portion of the City that is surrounded by developed communities with access to the necessary utilities to service the Project site. A detailed analysis for the provisions of utilities was completed for the Project in the Draft EIR determining that adequate services are available to meet the needs of the Project site. SECTION 3. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 21-002. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Shadowbox Studios Draft EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find, as follows: A. Properties which benefit from increased density or intensity of development resulting from the General Plan Amendment shall fully mitigate their increased sewer impact at the time that development occurs on the properties. Packet Pg. 95 1.d Resolution P23-12 Master Case 21-109 July 18, 2023 Page 15 of 23 A sewer area study was prepared for the Project and reviewed by the City Engineer to ensure there is adequate capacity for the Project's increased sewer impact. B. The proposed General Plan amendment is consistent with other elements of the City's General Plan pursuant to Government Code Section 65300.5; The southerly portion of the Project site (approximately 42.4 acres) has a land use designation of MXN, and the northerly portion (approximately 51.1 acres), including the portion of the Project site within Placerita Creek has a land use designation of NUS. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the General Plan land use designation to apply the MXN land use designation across the entire 93 acre Project site. In addition, the Project site is located within an area specifically identified in the General Plan as the NNA. The General Plan establishes a maximum residential density of 775 units and a maximum of 450,000 square feet of non-residential (commercial) development (excluding parking facilities) for the NNA. As such, the applicant is seeking a text amendment to the General Plan to increase the maximum allowable commercial floor area. Specifically, the applicant is seeking to increase the maximum commercial floor area by 1,135,000 square feet for a total of 1,585,000 square feet of commercial floor area in General Plan for the NNA. This would allow for build out of the proposed studio project as well as building out of the balance of the NNA. The applicant is also requesting a text amendment to clarify the height allowances specified in the NNA. To reflect the inclusion of JCOZ overlay on the southerly portion of the Project site. The text amendments are provided in Exhibit C. The proposed General Plan amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of other elements of the City's General Plan and will maintain integrated, consistent and compatible policies. Specifically, as discussed in Section 2 above, the Land Use Element, and Economic Development Element of the General Plan include goals, objectives, and policies that identify the film and entertainment industry as a targeted business sector and contemplate development consistent with the proposed Project, that would contribute to a balanced job to housing ratio as well as bring high -paying, high -quality employment opportunities into the City. SECTION 4. ZONE CHANGE FINDINGS FOR MASTER CASE 21-109. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record including, without limitation, the entire Shadowbox Studios Draft EIR, oral and written testimony, and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports, and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find, as follows: A. Principles and Standards for Zone Changes. The Council shall approve a Zone Change only after the applicant substantiates all of the following required findings: 1. That modified conditions warrant a revision in the zoning map as it pertains to the area Packet Pg. 96 1.d Resolution P23-12 Master Case 21-109 July 18, 2023 Page 16 of 23 under consideration; The Project site is approximately 93 acres, located at the northeast corner of Railroad Avenue and 13th Street and has two different zoning designations. The southerly portion of the Project site is MXN (approximately 42.4 acres), and the northerly portion, including the portion of the Project site within Placerita Creek, is NU5 (approximately 5 1. 1 acres). The dual zoning on the Project site presents challenges for a cohesive development of the site due to the nature of the allowable uses for each of the zoning designations. The MXN zone contemplates a mix of multi -family residential and commercial uses, where the NU5 zone contemplates single-family homes on larger one -acre lots. There are also physical constraints that, in practical application, isolate the northerly NU5 portion of the site from other single-family uses. Specifically, the MWD property immediately east of the Project site, and Placerita Creek and the hillside at the northeast corner of the Project site provide a physical separation between the Project site and other single-family homes to the east and north. Accordingly, the Project site warrants consideration of a revision to the zoning map as shown on the Zone Change Exhibit (Exhibit B) to establish consistent zoning classification across the entire Project site. The requested zone change would change the zoning classification of approximately 51.1 acres currently zoned NU5 to MXN. In addition to the Zone Change request that would establish MXN zoning designation over the entire Project site, the proposed request would add the southerly portion of the Project site (south of Placerita Creek) to the JCOZ. This would add approximately 53.4 acres to the JCOZ. The JCOZ applies to the construction of office and industrial buildings within the defined overlay zone areas to facilitate development in targeted industries in the City. At the time the JCOZ was established, it was applied to areas with high focus on employment, located adjacent to freeways or major transportation corridors, and areas where existing built environment or where future comparable building height is contemplated. The JCOZ applies additional development standards to office and industrial buildings specifically to "support the General Plan objective of promoting the creation of strong regional and local economies via the implementation of strategic land use planning policies. Specifically, the JCOZ overlay zone will: (1) attract and promote the creation of high -quality jobs within the City's four (4) targeted industries, which include aerospace, biomedical, entertainment, and technology, and other industries at the discretion of the Director; (2) enhance the City's overall jobs/housing balance; and (3) provide greater employment opportunities throughout the entire City." Under the JCOZ, the office and studio buildings would be permitted to a height of 55 feet without a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The current MXN zoning designation permits the studio use with approval of a CUP and the MXN zone allows for 50-foot building height without the need for a CUP. As such, the current zoning designation already contemplates the use and a comparable building height as would be permitted under the JCOZ. Notably, the sound stage buildings reach a height of 55 feet at the Packet Pg. 97 1.d Resolution P23-12 Master Case 21-109 July 18, 2023 Page 17 of 23 ridge of the roof. The office building, warehouse/production support building, and the parking structure, exclusive of elevator shafts, are 50 feet in height or less, consistent with the MXN zone. The Zone Change to establish the JCOZ over the south portion of the Project site, as well as the MXN zone on the northerly portion of the Project site is warranted for the studio use, which is a targeted industry under the City's General Plan objectives for economic development, located along a major transit corridor (Railroad Avenue) with access to State Route 14. 2. That a need for the proposed zone classification exists within such area; The proposed change to the zone classification is desirable to allow for the development of a film and television studio campus. The Project site currently has two zoning classifications; the NU5 zoning classification would not permit the studio use. In addition, the NU5 portion of the site is physically isolated from other single-family uses in the immediate vicinity. The proposed change to the zone classification for the northerly portion of the Project site is required to allow for a cohesive development. The incorporation of the Project site into the JCOZ is necessary to meet the objectives of the General Plan, as discussed in Section 2 and 3 above. That the particular property under consideration is a proper location for said zone classification within such area: a. That placement of the proposed zone at such location will be in the interest of public health, safety and general welfare, and in conformity with good zoning practice; and The proposed Zone Change would permit the studio campus Project that supports the goals and objectives of the General Plan as described above in Sections 2 and 3. The proposed Zone Change is in conformance with good zoning practice. b. That the proposed change is consistent with the adopted General Plan for the area unless a General Plan Amendment is filed concurrently and approve with said zone change. A General Plan Amendment was filed concurrently with the Zone Change request. For the reasons provided above, the Planning Commission can recommend the City Council make this finding. SECTION 5. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR TENTATIVE MAP 83513. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Shadowbox Studios Draft EIR, oral and written testimony, and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports, and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, and Packet Pg. 98 1.d Resolution P23-12 Master Case 21-109 July 18, 2023 Page 18 of 23 upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find, as follows: A. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The Project will not obstruct any public access as a result of the proposed subdivision. No public lands are identified on, or adjacent to the Project site that currently require access through the Project site. The land necessary for the roadway improvements to facilitate the Project will be provided from the Project site along the Project frontage. SECTION 6. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 21-001. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Shadowbox Studios Draft EIR, oral and written testimony, and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports, and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find as follows: A. That the natural topographic features and appearances are conserved by means of landform grading to blend any manufactured slopes or required drainage benches into the natural topography; B. That natural, topographic prominent features are retained to the maximum extent possible; C. That clustered sites and buildings are utilized where such techniques can be demonstrated to substantially reduce grading alterations of the terrain and to contribute to the preservation of trees, other natural vegetation and prominent landmark features and are compatible with existing neighborhood; D. That building setbacks, building heights and compatible structures and building forms that would serve to blend buildings and structures with the terrain are utilized; E. That plant materials are conserved and introduced so as to protect slopes from slippage and soil erosion and to minimize visual effects ofgrading and construction on hillside areas, including the consideration of the preservation ofprominent trees and, to the extent possible, while meeting the standards of the Fire Department; F. That street design and improvements that serve to minimize grading alterations and emulate the natural contours and character of the hillsides are utilized; G. That grading designs that serve to avoid disruption to adjacent properties are utilized; and H. That site design and grading that provide the minimum disruption of view corridors and scenic vistas from and around any proposed development are utilized. The north portion of the Project site contains a hillside exceeding 10% average cross -slope requiring the approval of a Hillside Development Review in accordance with the UDC, to develop the Project site. A portion of the hillside is identified as a Significant Ridgeline in the City's General Plan Conservation Element. The balance of the Project site is relatively Packet Pg. 99 1.d Resolution P23-12 Master Case 21-109 July 18, 2023 Page 19 of 23 flat. The Project includes grading at the base of the ridgeline in the northeast corner of the Project site. While grading would occur along the base of this ridgeline, the Project would still be consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element Policies because the Project would only alter the base of the ridgeline. The peak of the ridgeline will remain wholly intact, thus maintaining the existing view of the ridgeline. In addition, all buildings would be situated on the southerly, flat portion of the Project site. There are no physical structures proposed on the hillside, thus, there are no building pads being graded into the hillside. The proposed grading will blend into and maintain the existing contours of the hillside. Planting of the graded slope will be consistent with the City's Hillside Development Standards which requires landscape coverage and stabilization of graded slopes to be compatible with surrounding natural vegetation. In addition, the Project shall be compliant with the requirements of the Los Angeles County Fuel Modification Unit for development within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). Planting will generally consist of the use of native vegetation, and plant material that is compatible with the climate of the Santa Clarita Valley. SECTION 7. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 21-001. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Shadowbox Studios Draft EIR, oral and written testimony, and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports, and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find, as follows: A. The use or development will not be materially detrimental to the visual character of the neighborhood or community, nor will it endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare; B. The appearance of the use or development will not be substantially different than the appearance of adjoining ridgeline areas so as to cause depreciation of the ridgeline appearance in the vicinity; C. The establishment of the proposed use or development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties, nor encourage inappropriate encroachments to the ridgeline area; D. The proposed use or development demonstrates creative site design resulting in a project that will complement the community character and provide a direct benefit to current and future community residents of not only the proposed use or development, but the residents of the City as a whole; E. The use or development minimizes the effects ofgrading to the extent practicable to ensure that the natural character of the ridgeline is preserved; F. The proposed use or development is designed to mimic the existing topography to the greatest extent possible through the use of landform contour grading; and G. The proposed use or development does not alter natural landmarks and prominent natural features of the ridgelines. Packet Pg. 100 1.d Resolution P23-12 Master Case 21-109 July 18, 2023 Page 20 of 23 The hillside in the northeast corner of the Project site is identified as a Significant Ridgeline in the City's General Plan Conservation Element. The Project includes grading at the base of the ridgeline in the northeast corner of the Project site; however, the peak of the ridgeline would not be altered by the proposed grading. Thus, the ridgeline will remain intact and the grading will not be materially detrimental to the visual character in the vicinity. The proposed grading along the base of the ridgeline is designed to tie into the existing topography of the slope in order to maintain the existing character of the hillside along the northern portion of the Project site. As indicated in Section 6 above, the graded slope will be landscaped in accordance with the City's Hillside Development Standards and will be planted with oak trees as part of the Project's oak tree mitigation plan. SECTION 8. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR OAK TREE PERMIT (CLASS 4) 421-001. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Shadowbox Studios Project EIR, oral and written testimony, and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports, and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find as follows: A. The approving authority shall make one (1) or more of the following findings before granting an oak tree permit: a. The condition or location of the oak trees) requires cutting to maintain or aid its health, balance, or structure; b. The condition of the trees) with respect to disease, danger offalling, proximity to existing lots, pedestrian walkways or interference with utility services cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable preservation and/or preventative procedures and practices; c. It is necessary to remove, relocate, prune, cut or encroach into the protected zone of an oak tree to enable reasonable use of the subject property which is otherwise prevented by the presence of the tree and no reasonable alternative can be accommodated due to the unique physical development constraints of the property; or d. The approval of the request will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of the code. The Project site contains 16 oak trees that are protected by the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. The Project consists of the removal of 12 oak trees, including six heritage -sized oak trees. Of the 12 removals, four of the oaks are proposed to be relocated throughout the site. Removals and relocated oak trees will require mitigation in accordance with the City's Oak Tree Ordinance. The City would require replacement oak trees to be planted in the landscaped areas of the Project site to offset the loss of the removed oak trees. If planting on -site is not practicable, the applicant may donate the replacement oak trees to the City or provide the equivalent monetary value of the replacement trees to the City's Oak Tree Fund. Therefore, the Project includes Conditions of Approval to provide additional justification, which includes grading plan details, cross -sections, reappraisals, and a transplant study, before any proposed removal to be reviewed and approved by the City. The compliance with the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, including the Standards for Performance Packet Pg. 101 1.d Resolution P23-12 Master Case 21-109 July 18, 2023 Page 21 of 23 of Permitted Work of the Oak Tree Preservation Guidelines, ensures that the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and impacts. B. No heritage oak tree shall be removed unless one (1) or more of the above findings are made and the review authority also finds that the heritage oak tree's continued existence would prevent any reasonable development of the property and that no reasonable alternative can be accommodated due to the unique physical constraints of the property. It shall further be found that the removal ofsuch heritage oak tree will not be unreasonably detrimental to the community and surrounding area. There are six heritage -sized oak trees proposed for removal. An assessment of each tree has been provided in the applicant's Oak Tree Report. The heritage size trees are numbered as trees No. 1 through No. 5, and No. 7 in the Oak Tree Report. The City Arborist reviewed the Oak Tree Report and found the assessment of each tree to be consistent with the conditions observed upon site inspection. As stated in the Oak Tree Report, trees No. 1 and 2 have structural defects and/or stem failures; trees No. 3, 4, and 5 have suffered fire damage and resultant scarring and decay; and tree No. 7 has structural defects and disease. Due to the potential for structural failure of trees No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7, within the active studio campus, the trees are proposed for removal. SECTION 9. The Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council approve 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 for the development of the Shadowbox Studios Project, in the City of Santa Clarita, California, subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A). SECTION 10. 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 Planning Commission in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. SECTION 11. Limitations. The Planning Commission'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 Planning Commission'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. Packet Pg. 102 1.d Resolution P23-12 Master Case 21-109 July 18, 2023 Page 22 of 23 SECTION 12. 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 13. A copy of this Resolution will be mailed to the Applicant and to any other person requesting a copy. SECTION 14. This Resolution is the Planning Commission's final decision and will become effective immediately upon adoption. SECTION 15. The Planning Commission Secretary will certify to the adoption of this Resolution and certify this record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken. Packet Pg. 103 1.d Resolution P23-12 Master Case 21-109 July 18, 2023 Page 23 of 23 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 18th day of July, 2023. RENEE BERLIN, CHAIRPERSON PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: RACHEL CLARK, SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Rachel Clark, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 18th of July 2023, by the following vote of the Planning Commission: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY Packet Pg. 104 1.e EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION P23-12 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 21-0015 MINOR USE PERMIT 21-016, OAK TREE PERMIT 421-001, RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 21-001, ZONE CHANGE 21-001, AND TENTATIVE MAP 83513) DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL CONDITIONS GC1. These project approvals expire if the approved use is not commenced within two years from the date of this approval, unless it is extended in accordance with the terms and provisions of the City of Santa Clarita's (City) Unified Development Code (UDC). GC2. To the extent the use approved with this project is a different use than previously approved for the property, the prior approval is terminated along with any associated vested rights to such use, unless such prior approved use is still in operation, or is still within the initial pre -commencement approval period. Once commenced, any discontinuation of the use approved with this project for a continuous period of two years or more terminates the approval of this use along with any associated vested rights to such use. The use may not be re-established or resumed after the two-year period. Discontinuation includes cessation of a use regardless of intent to resume. GC3. The permittee may file for an extension of the conditionally -approved project before the date of expiration. If such an extension is requested, it must be filed not later than 60 days before the date of expiration. GC4. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "permittee" includes the permittee and any other persons, corporation, or other entity making use of this grant. The permittee must defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santa Clarita, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this project by the City, including any related environmental approvals. In the event the City becomes aware of any such claim, action, or proceeding, the City will promptly notify the permittee. Nothing contained in this condition prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, if both of the following occur: 1) the City bears its own attorneys' fees and costs; and 2) the City defends the action in good faith. The permittee is not required to pay or perform any settlement unless the settlement is approved by the permittee. GCS. The permittee and property owner must comply with all inspections requirements as deemed necessary by the Director. GC6. The project site must be developed and/or used in the manner requested and must be in substantial conformity with the submitted plans date -stamped Packet Pg. 105 1.e Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 2 of 38 July 18, 2023 July 18, 2023, unless revisions and/or additional conditions are specifically required herein. GC7. This approval runs with the land. All rights and obligations of this approval, including the responsibility to comply with the Conditions of Approval, are binding upon Permittee's successors in interest. The Conditions of Approval may be modified, terminated, or abandoned in accordance with applicable law including, without limitation, the Santa Clarita Municipal Code (SCMC). GC8. Any proposed deviations from the Exhibits, Project Description, or Conditions of Approval must be submitted to the Director for review and approval. Any unapproved deviations from the project approval will constitute a violation of the permit approval. GC9. When exhibits and/or written Conditions of Approval are in conflict, the written Conditions of Approval prevail over the exhibits. GC10. The effectiveness of this project will be suspended for the time period that any Condition of Approval is appealed whether administratively or as part of a legal action filed in a court of competent jurisdiction. If any Condition of Approval is invalidated by a court of law, the project must be reviewed by the City and substitute conditions may be imposed. GC 11. The Permittee is responsible for ascertaining and paying all City fees as required by the SCMC. This condition serves as notice, pursuant to Government Code § 66020(d) that the City is imposing development impact fees (DIFs) upon the project in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code § 66000, et seq.) and the SCMC. The permittee is informed that it may protest DIFs in accordance with Government Code § 66020. GC12. The Permittee must sign these Conditions of Approval, as set forth below, to acknowledge acceptance, within 30 days from the date of approval by the Planning Commission. GC13. This decision is not effective until Permittee acknowledges acceptance of all project conditions and any appeal period has lapsed, or a waiver of right to appeal is filed or if there is an appeal, until a final decision has been made on the appeal. By use of the entitlements granted by a development application, the Permittee acknowledges agreement with the Conditions of Approval. GC 14. The City will only issue permits for the development when the construction documents (e.g., building plans) substantially comply with the approved plans. Substantial conformity is determined by the Director. GC15. Anything which is not shown on the application/plans, or which is not specifically approved, or which is not in compliance with this section, is not approved. Any application and/or plans which are defective as to, without limitation, omission, dimensions, scale, use, colors, materials, encroachments, easements, etc., will render any entitlements granted by this approval null and void. Construction must cease until all requirements of this approval are complied with. Development entitlements may be withheld until violations of the SCMC are abated. Packet Pg. 106 1.e Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 3 of 38 July 18, 2023 GC16. The City will not issue a final Certificate of Occupancy until the Permittee complies with all project conditions. GC 17. Permittee must reimburse the City for all attorneys' fees expended by the City that are directly related to the processing of this project. The City will not issue a Final Certificate of Occupancy or other final occupancy approval until all attorneys' fees are paid by the Permittee. PLANNING DIVISION PL1. The permittee is granted approval for the following entitlements for the Shadowbox Studios Project associated with Master Case 21-109: a. Tentative Map 83513; b. General Plan Amendment 21-002; c. Zone Change 21-001; d. Conditional Use Permit 21-010; e. Minor Use Permit 21-016; f. Hillside Development Review 21-001 g. Ridgeline Alteration Permit 21-001; h. Oak Tree Permit 421-001; i. Development Review 21-012; and j. Architectural Design Review 21-016. PL2. The permittee is granted approval to construct the proposed film and television studio project in accordance with the approved plans on file with the Planning Division. PL3. The permittee must comply with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) prepared for the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the project (SCH No. 2022030762), which is incorporated by reference. PL4. Parking must be provided in accordance with the approved parking plan and the parking demand study on file with the Planning Division. PL5. All vehicle traffic associated with the film and television studio operation must enter at Gate 1 or Gate 2 as labeled on the approved plans on file with the Planning Division. Gate 3, as labeled on the approved plans on file with the Planning Division, is restricted to egress only and must be designed as a right turn exit, westbound on 12th Street. Emergency service only is permitted to use Gate 3 as an entrance. PL6. Vehicle traffic during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. must use Gate 1 for entrance and exit. Large trucks (53-foot) are not permitted to enter or exit the North parking lot or the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) parking area between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. PL7. If permission is granted by MWD, the permittee may utilize 11.4 acres of the MWD property, immediately adjacent to the east, to provide excess parking and storage for plants associated with film and television studio use. All plant material must be maintained in good condition. Storage of empty pallets, plant containers, or dead plant material is prohibited. No other outdoor storage is permitted on the MWD property. Packet Pg. 107 1.e Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 4 of 38 July 18, 2023 PL8. The permittee may install a 12-foot tall perimeter fencing along the property line in conformance with the fencing plan on file with this application. The fencing along the west property line, facing Railroad Avenue must be staggered so that there is a minimum 2-foot step back in the face wall, with step backs provided at a ratio of 150 feet to 50 feet. PL9. Incidental outdoor filming is permitted on the studio facility campus. Outdoor sets or soundstages are not permitted. Any incidental outdoor filming between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. will require issuance of a film permit by the Santa Clarita Film Office. PL10. All lighting must be directed down and shielded from neighboring uses. Drive aisle and parking lot lighting must utilize energy management controls and occupancy sensors to reduce lighting levels to the maximum extent possible when parking areas are not occupied in conformance with the Lighting Design Criteria on file with this application. PL1 L The permittee must prepare and submit a site -specific Emergency Operation Plan (EOP) to the Director before the Building Official issues a Certificate of Occupancy. The EOP must include an evacuation plan for the studio campus and must include a training program for all security personnel and tenants of the studio campus to ensure preparedness in the event of an emergency. The EOP must identify opportunities that would allow for the studio facility to shelter in place, and must identify opportunities that would allow for the studio facility to access the MWD right of way to the northeast as a means of evacuation in an emergency. PL12. The studio facility must have security personnel on -site 24 hours per day and must establish a contact phone number for site operations, to be posted at each entry gate, visible to the public. PL13. The architecture of the proposed project must be consistent with the approved conceptual architectural plans on file with this application and conform to the Community Character and Design Guidelines (CCDG) for the Newhall community. PL14. The maximum building height for each structure must be consistent with the approved conceptual architectural plans on file with this application. PL15. All roof -mounted equipment must be screened from public view. PL16. All ground -mounted mechanical equipment must be identified on the site plan and screened from public view. PL17. All utility connections must be designed to coordinate with the architectural elements of the building. PL18. No signage is included within this approval and is subject to a separate permit. The permittee must submit a sign program before the installation of signs on the project site. PL19. Heavy construction (including grading operations and earth movement) is limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development upon formal written notification. Packet Pg. 108 1.e Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 5 of 38 July 18, 2023 PL20. The existing row of mature pepper trees located along the MWD property must remain in place. The permittee development plans, including grading plans, building permit plans, and landscape plan must identify the existing trees on the site plan and must not include any improvements that necessitate removal of the pepper trees. PL21. Placerita Creek is not permitted to be channelized with exposed concrete. The existing natural creek bottom must be maintained. Creek bank stabilization must be designed with buried rock stabilization that allows for natural revegetation in conformance with the Tentative Map on file with this application and subject to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. PL22. The permittee must obtain all necessary approvals or permits from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Army Corps of Engineers, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board before the Building Official issues grading permits. PL23. The permittee must install Placerita Canyon gateway signage at the entrance into Placerita Canyon at Placeritos Boulevard, and at Placerita Canyon Road to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. The plan must incorporate express language to state that no through traffic is allowed. The proposed gateway signage must be presented to the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association before approval by the Director of Community Development. The permittee must obtain applicable encroachment permits and license agreement from the City Engineer for the construction and installation of any portion of the gateway signage located within the public right of way. Landscape Conditions LRl. Before final landscape plan approval, plans must be approved by the Fire Department Fuel Modification Unit. LR2. Before the issuance of grading permit(s) the permittee must provide final landscape, lighting and irrigation plans in conformance with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance for Planning Division review and approval. The plan must be prepared by a California -registered landscape architect and be designed with the plant palette suitable for Santa Clarita (Sunset Western Garden Book Zone 18, minimum winter night temperatures typically 20' to 30' F; maximum summer high temperatures typically 105' F to 110' F). The landscape design plan must meet the design criteria of the State Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance as well as all other current SCMC/UDC requirements. LR3. Final landscape plans must contain all elements as listed in the checklist for preliminary landscape plans and conform to the Landscaping and Irrigation Standards in the UDC (§ 17.51.030). The following elements must be addressed on the final landscape plans: (a) Landscape plans must show plant material to screen, at maturity, all trash enclosures, transformer boxes, vault boxes, backflow devices, and other exterior mechanical equipment. Screening material may include trees, shrubs (15-gallon minimum size), clinging vines, etc. Masonry block (concrete masonry unit) trash enclosures must be screened with both shrubs and clinging vines; Packet Pg. 109 1.e Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 6 of 38 July 18, 2023 (b) Landscape plans shall show all lighting fixtures, base dimensions, and typical finish elevations; (c) An earthen berm or headlight hedge, measuring thirty-six (36) inches in height, must be installed where vehicle lights on the property are directed towards public streets or residential properties. The headlight hedge must be a dense growing, minimum 15-gallon, evergreen shrub, measuring a minimum of thirty- six (36) inches in height and touching leaf to leaf at the time of landscape inspection; (d) The permittee must place water -conserving mulching material on all exposed soil in planting areas not covered by turfgrass. Mulching material may include, without limitation, shredded bark, river rock, crushed rock, pea gravel, etc., and must be at least two (2) inches deep; (e) Before occupancy, the permittee must install all proposed irrigation and landscape, including irrigation controllers, staking, mulching, etc., to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. The Director may impose inspection fees for more than one landscape installation inspection; and (f) Before occupancy, the permittee must submit to the Director of Community Development a letter from the project landscape architect certifying that all landscape materials and irrigation have been installed and function according to the approved landscape plans. ENGINEERING SERVICES DIVISION General Requirements ENl. At issuance of permits or other grants of approval, the permittee agrees to develop the property in accordance with City codes and other appropriate ordinances such as the Building Code, Plumbing Code, Grading Code, Highway Permit Ordinance, Mechanical Code, Unified Development Code, Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance, Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Code, and Fire Code. EN2. Before the City Engineer, or designee, issues a grading permit, the permittee must demonstrate compliance with UDC Section 17.51.007 (Connected City Infrastructure Program) requiring conduit from a location to be determined in the public right-of-way to the Minimum Point of Entry or similar location within the project area that serves as the main telecommunications closet. Conduit for this condition must be identified on development plans. EN3. Before the City Engineer, or designee, issues a grading permit, the permittee must obtain septic system removal permit from the Building Official for any existing septic system(s) on -site. The location of the existing septic system must be shown on the grading plan. EN4. Before the Building Official issues a Certificate of Occupancy, all new and existing power lines and overhead cables less than 34 KV within or fronting the project site must be installed underground. Packet Pg. 110 0 Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 7 of 38 July 18, 2023 ENS. Before the City Engineer, or designee, issues grading permit, the permittee must obtain the necessary approval from SCV Water Agency to remove and relocate the 6" ACP water line per the approved Plan. Thereafter, the 6" ACP water line easement must be vacated by the permittee to the satisfaction of the City Engineer EN6. Before the City Engineer, or designee, issues grading permit or Tract Map approval, whichever comes first, the permittee must update its improvement plans per the MWD letter dated January 13, 2022, which is incorporated by reference, and obtain its approval for the proposed improvements within their 250-foot-wide fee -property right-of-way, including the desilting basin on (APN: 2833-001-271), to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN7. Before the dual 60" RCB storm drain plan approval, the permittee must obtain all necessary approvals and maintenance easement from MWD for the proposed offsite grading and construction of desilting basin on its property (APN: 2833-001-271) as shown on Tract Map 83513, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN8. Before the City Engineer, or designee, issues grading permits, the permittee must obtain all necessary approvals and permits from the California Public Utilities Commission and Metrolink associated with this project, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN9. Before the City Engineer, or designee, issues grading permits or final map approval, whichever comes first, the permittee must dedicate and record, by a separate instrument, the following documents with Los Angeles County (County) Recorder's Office for the Dockweiler Drive Extension Project: A. Sufficient right-of-way dedication to the City of Santa Clarita along the project frontage on 12th Street, 13th Street and Arch Street as required per the Dockweiler Drive Extension project plans, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; B. On -site storm drain easement(s) to the City of Santa Clarita for the installation and maintenance of the proposed storm drain (36" RCP) and LID mitigation system as shown on the Dockweiler Drive Extension project & Shadowbox Studio plans, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and C. On -site temporary construction easement to the City of Santa Clarita for the Dockweiler Drive roadway improvements, storm drain & LID system installation and staging area for the Dockweiler Drive Extension Project, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Subdivision Requirements EN10. Before the Building Official issues the first building permit, a Tract Map prepared by or under the direction of a person licensed to practice land surveying in the State of California must be approved by the City and filed in the Office of the County Recorder, in compliance with applicable City, County, and State Subdivision Map Act. ENl1. Tentative map approval is subject to the permittee's acceptance of the following conditions for acquisition of easements/right-of-way along Arch Street, 13th Street, and Railroad Avenue: Packet Pg. 111 1.e Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 8 of 38 July 18, 2023 A. The permittee must secure, at the permittee's expense, sufficient title, or interest in land to permit construction of any required off -site improvements. B. If the permittee is unable to acquire sufficient title or interest to permit construction of the required off -site improvements, the permittee must notify the City of this inability not less than six months before consideration of the Tract Map. In such case, the City may thereafter acquire sufficient interest in the land, which will permit construction of the off -site improvements by the permittee. C. The permittee must pay all of the City's costs of acquiring said off -site property interests pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5. Permittee must pay such costs regardless of whether the Tract Map is recorded or whether a reversion occurs. The cost of acquisition may include, without limitation, acquisition prices, damages, engineering services, expert fees, title examination, appraisal costs, acquisition services, relocation assistance services and payments, legal services and fees, mapping services, document preparation, expenses, and/or damages as provided under Code of Civil Procedures Sections 1268.510-.620, and overhead. D. The permittee agrees that the City will have satisfied the 120-day limitation of Government Code Section 66462.5 and the foregoing conditions relating thereto when it files its eminent domain action in superior court within said time. E. At the time the permittee notifies the City as provided in "B" hereinabove, the permittee shall simultaneously submit to the City in a form acceptable to the City all appropriate appraisals, engineering specifications, legal land descriptions, plans, pleadings, and other documents deemed necessary by the City to commence its acquisition proceedings. Said documents must be submitted to the City for preliminary review and comment at least 30 days before the permittee's notice described hereinabove at "B" F. The permittee agrees to deposit with the City, within five days of request by the City, such sums of money as the City estimates to be required for the costs of acquisition. The City may require additional deposits from time -to -time. G. The permittee shall not sell any lot/parcel/unit shown on the Tract/Parcel Map until the City has acquired said sufficient land interest. H. If the superior court thereafter rules in a final judgment that the City may not acquire said sufficient land interest, the permittee agrees that the City may initiate proceedings for reversion to acreage. I. The permittee must execute any agreements mutually agreeable before approval of the Tract Map as may be necessary to assure compliance with the foregoing conditions. J. Failure by the permittee to notify the City as required by "B" hereinabove, or simultaneously submit the required and approved documents specified in "E" hereinabove, or make the deposits specified in "F" hereinabove, shall constitute permittee's waiver of the requirements otherwise imposed upon the City to acquire necessary interests in land pursuant to Section 66462.5. In such event, subdivider Packet Pg. 112 1.e Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 9 of 38 July 18, 2023 shall meet all conditions for installing or constructing off -site improvements notwithstanding Section 66462.5. EN12. Before the Tract Map is filed with the County Recorder, the permittee may not grant or record easements within areas proposed to be granted, dedicated, or offered for dedication for public streets or highways, access rights, building restriction rights, or other easements; unless subordinated to the proposed grant or dedication. If easements are granted after the date of tentative map approval, subordination must be executed by the easement holder before the filing of the Tract Map. EN13. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must label driveways as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" on the map, as directed by the City Engineer. EN14. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must vacate and/or relocate easements running through proposed structures, as directed by the City Engineer. EN15. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must offer in dedication any necessary easements (sewer, storm drain) for public improvements. EN16. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must post bonds for all proposed public improvements associated with the project, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN17. At map check submittal, the permittee must provide a preliminary subdivision report. A final subdivision guarantee is required before Tract Map approval. EN18. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must provide a Will Serve Letter stating that Community Antenna Television service (CATV) will be provided to this project. EN19. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must provide a Will Serve Letter from all necessary utilities, stating that service will be provided to this property. EN20. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must offer in dedication to the City the right to prohibit the erection of building(s) and other structures within open space. EN21. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must place a note on the map, prohibiting the lot owners within this development from interfering with the established drainage and from erecting concrete block walls or similar solid constructions, except as approved by the City Engineer. EN22. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must pay street maintenance fees to cover the cost of one-time slurry seal of public streets within the development. EN23. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must show on the map all Los Angeles County Flood Control District Easements. A permit will be required for any construction affecting these right-of-way or facilities. EN24. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must show on the map easements for maintenance purposes to the City of Santa Clarita for all drainage systems, Placerita Creek bank protections, W.Q.T./debris/desilting basins, and LID mitigation devices that are to be maintained by Drainage Benefit Assessment Area (DBAA), to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Packet Pg. 113 1.e Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 10 of 38 July 18, 2023 Grading and Geology Requirements EN25. Before the City Engineer, or designee, issues grading permit, the permittee must submit a grading plan consistent with the approved Plan, oak tree report, and conditions of approval. The grading plan must be based on a detailed engineering geotechnical report specifically approved by the geologist and/or soils engineer that addresses all submitted recommendations, including seismic hazards associated with liquefaction. EN26. Before grading plan approval, the permittee must acquire applicable permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. A copy of the permits, or a response letter from each agency indicating a permit is not required, must be submitted to the City Engineer, or designee before Plan approval. EN27. Before the City Engineer, or designee, issues grading permit, the permittee must obtain a Letter of Permission for grading over all easements, such as SCV Water Agency line and sewer main, from each easement holder. EN28. Before the City Engineer, or designee, issues grading permit, the permittee must obtain a Letter of Permission from Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) for the proposed grading and improvements shown on its property per Tentative Map 83513. EN29. Before grading plan approval, the permittee must obtain all necessary approvals from the County and City for the relocation of existing 18" sewer main (PC03-08). EN30. Before the Building Official issues a building permit, the permittee must relocate the 18" sewer main (PC03-08) and 6" ACP water main to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN31. Before the Building Official issues a building permit, the permittee must construct all grading and drainage facilities within the project site, obtain rough grade certifications, and a compaction report approved by the City Engineer. Drainage Requirements EN32. Before grading plan approval, the permittee must submit the 36" RCP storm drain plans along with the associated LID mitigation system connected with the Dockweiler Extension project to Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Land Development Division for review and approval. EN33. Before the 36" RCP storm drain plans approval, the permittee must obtain written approval from the Los Angeles County Flood Control District of all easements needed for future maintenance by the District. EN34. Before grading plan approval, the permittee must submit the LID mitigation plans associated with the 36" RCP storm drain to Engineering Services Division for review and approval; and provide maintenance easement to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN35. Before the Building Official issues a building permit, the permittee must construct the 36" RCP storm drain connected with the Dockweiler Drive Extension project to the satisfaction of Los Angeles County Flood Control District and the associated LID mitigation system to the satisfaction of the City of Santa Clarita. Packet Pg. 114 1.e Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 11 of 38 July 18, 2023 EN36. Before grading plan approval, the permittee must obtain approvals for the Placenta Creek Banks Protection Plans, Dual 60" RCB plans and associated W.Q.T./debris/desilting basins plans from City of Santa Clarita, Engineering Services Division and secure maintenance easement for each system. EN37. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must form DBAA to fund the ongoing maintenance of all drainage systems, debris basins(s)/LID mitigation devices that are not transferable to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District but required to be maintained by the City. EN38. Before the City's release of any bond monies posted for the construction of storm drain infrastructure, the permittee or subsequent property owners are responsible for providing all required materials and documentation to complete the storm drain transfer process from the City of Santa Clarita to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District. The permittee or subsequent property owners are also responsible for providing regularly scheduled maintenance of the storm drain infrastructure, as directed by the City Engineer, until such time that full maintenance be assumed by the Flood Control District. EN39. Specific drainage requirements for the site will be established at building permit application. Before the Building Official issues a Building Permit, the permittee must submit a precise grading plan. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zone Requirements EN40. The project is located in FEMA Flood Zone (AE, AO) in accordance with the Federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS). The permittee must comply with the New FEMA Map requirements. A. For the proposed improvements within the Floodway, the permittee is required to comply with FEMA requirements to revise the FIRMS. Before first building final, the permittee must complete a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for proposed improvements in the Floodway. B. For the proposed improvements within the Flood fringe, the permittee is required to comply with FEMA requirements to revise the FIRMS. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the permittee must complete a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLMOR) and prior to first building final, the permittee must complete a LOMR. Water Quality Requirements EN41. This project will disturb one acre or more of land. Therefore, the permittee must obtain coverage under a statewide General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit (General Permit). In accordance with the General Permit, the permittee must file with the State a Notice of Intent (NOI) for the proposed project. Before issuance of grading permit by the City, the permittee shall have approved by the City Engineer a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must include a copy of the NOI and must reference the corresponding Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) number issued by the state upon receipt of the NOI. Packet Pg. 115 1.e Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 12 of 38 July 18, 2023 EN42. This project is a development planning priority project under the City's NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit as a development with equal to one acre or greater of disturbed area that adds more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. Before issuance of grading permit, the permittee shall have approved by the City Engineer, an Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (USMP) that incorporates appropriate post construction Best Management Practices (BMPs), maximizes pervious surfaces, and includes infiltration into the design of the project. Refer to the Low Impact Development ordinance and the County of Los Angeles Low Impact Development manual for details. EN43. Before the Building Official issues a Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must form an assessment district to finance the future ongoing maintenance and capital replacement of SUSMP devices/systems identified on the latest approved Drainage Concept/Storm drain plan/Plan. The permittee must cooperate fully with the City in the formation of the assessment district, including, without limitation, the preparation of the operation, maintenance, and capital replacement plan for the SUSMP devices/systems and the prompt submittal of this information to City for review and approval. The permittee must pay for all costs associated with the formation of the assessment district. SUSMP devices/systems must include, without limitation, catch basin inserts, debris excluders, biotreatment basins, vortex separation type systems, and other devices/systems for stormwater quality. The permittee must maintain, at its cost, all SUSMP devices/systems until the district is established. Street Light Requirements EN44. Before street plan approval, the permittee must submit a Street Light Plan, consistent with the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District (PCSSD), to the Engineering Services Division for review and approval. Street -lighting systems must be designed as City -owned and maintained on the LS-2 rate schedule, using LED fixtures approved by the City's Streetlight Maintenance District Division. EN45. Before building final, the permittee must install street lights per the approved plans, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Street Improvement Requirements EN46. Before street plan approval, all streets must be designed in accordance with the SCMC and street design criteria, and consistent with the PCSSD. EN47. Before any construction (including, without limitation, drive approaches, sidewalks, sewer laterals, curb and gutter, etc.), trenching or grading within public street right-of- way, the permittee must submit a street improvement plan consistent with the approved Plan, oak tree report, and conditions of approval; and obtain encroachment permits from the City Engineer, or designee. EN48. Before street plan approval, the permittee must submit a street tree location plan to the City's Urban Forestry Division for review and approval. The location of the street trees shall not conflict with sewer or storm drain infrastructure. The plan must include proposed sewer lateral locations and storm drain infrastructure for reference. Packet Pg. 116 1.e Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 13 of 38 July 18, 2023 EN49. Before the Building Official issues a building permit, the permittee must dedicate to the City the right-of-way required for all adjacent street improvements as reflected on the approved plans. EN50. Before the Building Official issues a Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must dedicate sidewalk easements sufficient to encompass ADA requirements for sidewalks installed with drive approaches per the current City standard APWA 110-2, Type C, or equivalent. EN51. Before first building final, the permittee must fully construct the following street improvements within and along the frontage of the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer: Inverted Curb & Base & Street Street Sidewalk Landscaped Street Name Shoulder Gutter PavingLights g Trees 5'min Median 13th Street X X X* X X X 13th Street over Railroad Crossing X X X* X X X Arch Street X X X* X X X 12th Street X X X* X X Interior — Private Streets *** X X X X X * Street Lights at the intersection only; *** Streets or Private Drive and Fire Lane; X Sidewalk must be a minimum width of 8' along the north side of 13th Street and east side of Arch Street. Additionally, the permittee must pay for the cost difference of design, construction, and any necessary permitting of these public streets for deviating from the Dockweiler Drive Extension Project plans dated June 25, 2021, including the cost associated with the acquisition of additional rights -of -ways required as a result of the permittee's plans along all properties and existing businesses that are planned to be vacated with the Dockweiler Drive Extension Project. EN52. Before first building final, the permittee must construct the following off -site street improvements (and any additional street improvements required per the EIR) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, if the Dockweiler Drive Extension Project is not completed: Packet Pg. 117 1.e Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 14 of 38 July 18, 2023 Inverted Curb & Base & Street Street Sidewalk Landscaped Street Name Shoulder Gutter PavingLights g Trees 5'min Median Railroad Avenue X X X X X X 131h Street over Railroad Crossing + X X X X X Placerita Canyon Road X X X* X X Dockweiler Drive Extension from 121h Street to Placenta X X X* X X X Canyon Road * Street Lights at the intersection only; and + May require additional right-of-way and approval from CPUC and Metrolink EN53. Before street plan approval for improvements along 131h Street, the permittee must obtain all necessary approvals for construction phasing and traffic detour plans submitted to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN54. Before street plan approval, the permittee must design wheelchair ramps at each intersection, as directed by the City Engineer. Sewer Improvement Requirements EN55. Before the Building Official issues a building permit, the permittee must relocate the existing sewer main (PC03-08) per the plans submitted by the permittee. EN56. The on -site sewer must be a privately maintained system. Before Grading Plan approval, the permittee must submit an "on -site sewer plan." The "on -site sewer plan" must be designed per the California Plumbing Code and approved by the City's Building & Safety Division before Grading Plan approval. If compliance with the California Building Code is impractical, the permittee must prepare a sewer plan for a publicly maintained sewer. The public sewer plan must be reviewed and approved by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (Sewer Maintenance Division), Los Angeles County Sanitation District, and the City Engineer; and all necessary easements for maintenance of the sewer must be dedicated to the City of Santa Clarita. EN57. Before the Building Official issues a building permit, the permittee must annex the property into the County Sanitation District. The permittee must provide the City's Building & Safety Division with written confirmation from the Sanitation District that the property has been annexed. EN58. Before the Building Official issues a building permit, the permittee must pay the Placerita Canyon Sewer User Connection Fee and processing fee. The processing fee is subject to change and is based on the rate at the time of payment. The Placerita Canyon Sewer User Connection Fee is not subject to change. The User Fee is based on the number of Acres (AC), Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs), and cost per EDUs. For a Commercial Properties (CC) in Area 1, the cost per EDU is $412 and there are 15 EDUs per AC. Packet Pg. 118 1.e Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 15 of 38 July 18, 2023 Therefore, Total User Fee = 67.9AC x 15EDUs/AC x $412/EDU = 67.9 x 15 x 412 $ 419,622.00. Currently, the processing fee is $913.00. EN59. Before the Building Official issues a building permit, the permittee must upgrade the sewer per the approved sewer area study, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. At the discretion of the City Engineer, the permittee may be permitted to pay their fare cost for the sewer upgrades. Transit Oriented Improvements EN60. Before the Building Official issues a Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must dedicate necessary easements, and construct class 1 trail along the project frontage on 12th Street, Arch Street and 13ths Street, as required by Parks Planning and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN61. Before the Building Official issues a Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must pay an amount of $4,844,928 towards the trail from Dockweiler Drive Extension to Newhall Metrolink station including pedestrian bridge over Newhall creek and other future improvements associated with enhancing mobility in the Newhall area in accordance with the City's Non -Motorized plan. Bonds, Fees and Miscellaneous Requirements EN62. Before Final Map approval or award of the construction contract for Dockweiler Drive Extension project, whichever comes first, permittee must pay the applicable Bridge and Thoroughfare (B&T) in the amount of $10,146,300. EN63. Before City Engineer, or designee, issue encroachment permits for public improvements required to be installed by the project (Street, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Drain, and Street Lights), the permittee, by agreement with the City Engineer, must guarantee installation of the improvements through faithful performance bonds, letters of credit, or any other acceptable means. Building final will be withheld if the improvements are not completed. TRAFFIC DIVISION TRI . Adequate sight visibility is required at all driveway -street intersections and must follow the latest Caltrans manual for applicable requirements. Adequate sight visibility must be demonstrated on the final map and grading plan. This must be shown on all applicable plans before the Building Official issues a building permit. TR2. All project driveways and internal roadways must intersect with the adjacent roadways at 90 degrees or as close to 90 degrees as topography permits (no less than 80 degrees). This must be shown on all applicable plans before the Building Official issues a building permit. TR3. Before street plan approval, the permittee must show on the street plan drive approaches using a modified commercial driveway design (APWA 110-2, Type C or equivalent) that will provide a street/drive approach transition with a maximum algebraic grade difference of 10%. Construction details must be shown on the street plan providing a transition no greater than this maximum. Packet Pg. 119 1.e Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 16 of 38 July 18, 2023 TR4. Per the City's UDC (Section 17.53.020), project access locations must have a minimum stacking distance of 100' from the face of curb at signalized locations; a minimum stacking distance of 40' from the face of curb at non -signalized locations along 131h Street and Arch Street; and a minimum stacking distance of 20' from the face of curb at non -signalized locations along 121h Street. This is to be measured from the final curb line (flow line) to the first parking stall or drive aisle. TRS. All driveway openings must be a minimum 30-feet wide. All interior drive aisles must be a minimum of 26-feet wide. Driveways and drive aisles serving trucks and other large vehicles must be wider as necessary to accommodate these vehicles. These dimensions must be shown on all applicable plans before the Building Official issues the first building permit. TR6. The permittee is responsible for installation of new conduit for the installation or the future installation of fiberoptic cable due to street improvements associated with the project. This must be shown on all applicable plans and installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This interconnect conduit and cable is also required along new frontage improvements. All improvement plans for the above interconnect must be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. The interconnect conduit and cable must be installed at the time of the respective traffic signal and/or frontage improvements. TR7. Before issuance of any City -issued permit, the permittee must demonstrate that both the CPUC and Metrolink have granted approval of the project access at 13th Street/Arch Street, due to its proximity to the at -grade railroad crossing at Railroad Avenue/13th Street. TR8. Before street plan approval for any roadway improvements, the permittee must obtain all necessary approvals for construction phasing and traffic detour plans submitted to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The construction phasing and traffic detour plans must maintain access to the Placerita Canyon neighborhood for the duration of the roadway construction. The detour may require additional interim roadway and intersection improvements for the duration of the detour, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. TR9. Before issuance of building permits, the permittee must acquire and dedicate to the City the right-of-way required for all on -site and off -site street improvements as identified in Traffic Engineering Condition 11, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (See applicable Engineering Services Conditions of Approval under Subdivision Requirements regarding acquisition of easements and right-of-way.) TR10. The permittee must provide an additional traffic phasing study to determine the appropriate timing of the following improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. If a traffic phasing study is not provided before issuance of first building permit, these improvements must be completed before the Building Official issues the first Certificate of Occupancy. TRl 1. Railroad Avenue & 13th Street: Add Southbound Left -Turn Lane to provide 2 left -turn lanes, 2 through lanes Add 2 Westbound Lanes to provide 1 left -turn lane, 1 left/through lane, 1 right -turn lane Packet Pg. 120 1.e Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 17 of 38 July 18, 2023 • Add Second Eastbound Lane along 13th Street TR12. Arch Street & 13th Street: • Construct new signalized intersection with the following lane geometrics • Northbound (Arch St.): 1 left -turn lane, 1 left/through lane, 1 through/right-turn lane • Southbound (Gate 1): 2 through lanes, 1 right -turn lane • Eastbound (13th St.): 2 left -turn lanes, 1 through lane, 2 right -turn lanes • Westbound (Gate 2): 1 left -turn lane, 1 through/right-turn lane TR13. Arch Street & 12th Street: • Construct new signalized intersection with the following lane geometrics • Northbound (Dockweiler Dr.): 1 left -turn lane, 1 through lane, 1 through/right-turn lane • Southbound (Arch St.): 1 left -turn lane, 2 through lanes, 1 through/right-turn lane • Eastbound (12th St.): 1 left/through lane, 1 right -turn lane • Westbound (12th St.): 1 left/through lane, 1 right -turn lane TR14. Dockweiler Drive & Placerita Canyon Road: • Construct new signalized intersection with the following lane geometrics • Northbound (Dockweiler Dr.): 1 through/right-turn lane • Southbound (Dockweiler Dr.): 1 left -turn lane, 2 through lanes • Westbound (Placerita Canyon Rd.): 1 left -turn lane, 1 right -turn lane TR15. Bouquet Canyon Road & Valencia Boulevard: • Add Eastbound Right -Turn Lane to provide 3 left -turn lanes, 3 through lanes, 1 right - turn lane • Provide Eastbound Right -Turn Lane into shopping center on southeast corner TR16. Bouquet Canyon Road & Magic Mountain Parkway: • Add Southbound Through Lane to provide 3 through lanes, 1 right -turn lane TRIT Sierra Highway & Newhall Avenue: • Add Northbound Through Lane to provide 2 left -turn lanes, 3 through lanes, 1 right - turn lane TR18. Wiley Canyon Road & Lyons Avenue: • Add Southbound Left -Turn Lane to provide 2 left -turn lanes, 2 through lanes, 1 right - turn lane TR19. Orchard Village Road & Lyons Avenue: • Modify Eastbound Approach to provide 2 left -turn lanes, 3 through lanes TR20. Valle del Oro & Dockweiler Drive — install traffic signal TR21. Sierra Highway & SR-14 Southbound Ramps (requires Caltrans approval) • Add Southbound Left -Turn Lane to provide 2 left -turn lanes, 2 through lanes TR22. Placerita Canyon Road & SR-14 Northbound Ramps (requires Caltrans approval) Packet Pg. 121 0 Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 18 of 38 July 18, 2023 • Modify intersection to provide all -way stop control • Add Off Ramp Left -Turn Lane to provide 2 left -turn lanes, one right -turn lane TR23. Before the Building Official issues a Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must pay a traffic -signal timing fee for the update of the traffic -signal timing at up to ten intersections in the surrounding area. The cost is $4,000 per intersection ($40,000 total). TR24. Unless otherwise modified by the terms of a Construction Agreement between the Permittee and the City of Santa Clarita, before Final Map approval, the permittee must post a security in the amount of the applicable Bridge and Thoroughfare (B&T) District Fee to implement the Circulation Element of the General Plan as a means of mitigating the traffic impact of this project. This project is located in the Via Princessa B&T District. The current rate for this District is $21,820. The B&T rate is subject to change and is based on the rate at the time of payment. Release of the security is subject to confirmation of completion of Circulation Element roadway improvements as identified in the B&T Fee methodology. Standard B&T Fee Calculation: Commercial = the gross acres (93) x the district rate ($21,820) x 5.0 = $10,146,300 BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION Plans and Permits BS1. Construction drawings shall be prepared and submitted to the Building & Safety Division for plan review and building permit issuance. Supporting documents; such as structural and energy calculations, and geotechnical reports must be included with the plan submittal. BS2. Construction drawings submitted for plan review shall show must compliance with all applicable local, county, state and federal requirements and codes. The project shall comply with the building codes in effect at time of building permit application including all new supplements. a. Building permit applications are valid for one year and were received on December 16, 2022. If building permits (including "foundation only" permits) are not issued by the end of 2023, they will expire. Building permit applications may be extended with the condition the project complies with the newer 2022 California Codes. All building permits (including "foundation only" permits) require the clearance from all agencies listed in comment #13 below. BS3. Construction drawings submitted for plan review shall be complete. Submitted plans shall show all architectural, accessibility, structural, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical work that will be part of this project. Civil, landscape, interior design, and other plans not related to the building code are not reviewed by the Building & Safety Division. BS4. Construction drawings shall be prepared by qualified licensed design professionals (California licensed architects and engineers). Packet Pg. 122 1.e Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 19 of 38 July 18, 2023 BSS. The City of Santa Clarita has amended some portions of the 2019 California Building Codes. A copy of these amendments is available at the Building & Safety public counter and on our website at: htt2://www.santa-clarita.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=17773. A copy of the 2022 California Building Code amendments is available at the Building & Safety public counter and on our website: hltps://www.santa- clarita.com/home/sho"ublisheddocument/21751/638073266141000000 BS6. Construction drawings may be submitted electronically or by submitting paper plans. In either case an "eService Account" must be created to access our permitting system. Please log on to: www.santa-clarita.com/eservice and create an account by clicking "register for an Account." BS7. Construction drawings submitted to Building & Safety shall include a complete building code analysis and floor area justification for the proposed buildings per chapter 5 and 6 of the California Building Code. Sound stages without live audiences will be considered Group F-1 occupancies. Sound stages with live audiences will be considered Group A-1 occupancies. BS8. The submitted site plans must show all parcel/lot lines, easements, fire separation distances, restricted use areas, etc. Any construction proposed in an easement must obtain the easement owner's written permission or the easement must be removed. Parcel lines that overlap any proposed buildings must be removed (lot line adjustment) prior to building permit issuance. Clean Air, Electric Vehicle and Bicycle Parking per CalGreen BS9. Clean Air Vehicle parking spaces (including future Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stations) shall be provided and designated as "CLEAN AIR/VANPOOL/EV." The number of Clean Air Vehicles may be required to be up to 12% of the total number of parking spaces provided on the site per the 2019 CalGreen Building Standards Code supplement effective July 1, 2021, table 5.106.5.2. a. If building permits are not obtained by the end of 2023 and the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code is required to be followed, no Clean -Air parking spaces will be required. BS10. Electric Vehicle Charging Spaces (EVCS), shall be provided and equipped with the necessary infrastructure for the future installation of EV charging equipment. Future EVCS with the charging equipment not installed with this project are considered Clean Air Vehicle parking spaces. Up to 10% of the total number of parking spaces provided on site shall be EV Charging Spaces (future EV charging stations) per 2019 CalGreen Building Standards Code supplement effective July 1, 2021, table 5.106.5.3.3. a. If building permits are not obtained by the end of 2023 and the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code is required to be followed, the number of EV Capable spaces shall be required to be up to 20% of the total number of parking spaces provided on site. b. Additionally, the 2022 CalGreen Code requires up to 25% the number of EV Capable spaces to be installed with EV charging equipment and become EV Charging Stations. Packet Pg. 123 1.e Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 20 of 38 July 18, 2023 BS11. Short -Term Bicycle Parking shall be provided based on 5% of the total number of anticipated visitor parking spaces with a minimum of one two -bike rack. CalGreen section 5.106.4.1.1. BS12. Long-term bicycle parking (lockable) shall be provided based on 5% of the total number of tenant -occupant (employee) parking spaces with a minimum of one bicycle parking facility. CalGreen section 5.106.4.1.2. Agency Clearances BS13. Prior to issuance of building permits, clearances from the following agencies will be required: a. City Planning Division, b. City Engineering Services (soil report review and grading), c. City Environmental Services (Construction & Demolition Plan deposit), d. City Traffic & Transportation Planning, e. City Urban Forestry Division (when Oak Trees occur on site) f. Los Angeles County Fire Prevention Bureau, g. Los Angeles County Environmental Services (Health Dept. for food service & sales), h. Los Angeles County Environmental Programs (Industrial Waste), i. Los Angeles County Sanitation District, j. Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency, k. William S. Hart School District and appropriate elementary school district, An agency referral list with contact information is available at the Building & Safety public counter. Please contact the agencies above to determine if there are any plan review requirements and/or fees to be paid. Clearances from additional agencies may be required and will be determined during the plan review process. Accessibility BS14. All applicable disabled access requirements of Chapter 11B of the California Building Code, including site accessibility details and information, shall be shown on the architectural plans versus civil plans. BS15. Accessible parking spaces must be dispersed and located on the shortest accessible route to accessible entrances of all buildings. BS16. An accessible route between all accessible building entrances and the public sidewalk must be provided. Where more than one site route is provided, all routes must be accessible. BS17. At least one EVCS (or future EV Charging Station) serving each parking facility, shall be sized to be VAN accessible and located on an accessible route to the building entrances. CBC 11B-228.3, 11B-502.3 and 11B-812.7. BS18. Additional standard accessible EV parking spaces and ambulatory EV parking spaces shall be provided on an accessible route to the building entrances. CBC 11B-228.3 and 11B-812. Packet Pg. 124 0 Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 21 of 38 July 18, 2023 BS19. The required number of accessible parking spaces and required number of accessible EVCS (or future EV Charging Stations), shall be based on the number of parking spaces provided at each type of parking facility. CBC 1113-208.2 and 11B-228.3. Soil Reports and Grading BS20. A complete soils and geology investigation report is required. The report shall be formally submitted to the Engineering Division for review and approval. The recommendations of the report shall be followed and incorporated into the construction drawings. A copy of the report must be submitted to Building & Safety at time of plan submittal. BS21. The following grading work shall be completed before the Building Official issues building permits: a. The Engineering Services Division shall issue a grading permit and all rough grading and/or re -compaction work must be completed. b. A final compaction report and a Pad Certification for each building shall be submitted to and approved by the Engineering Services Division. Hazard Zones BS22. A portion of the project site is located within the City's Fire Hazard Zone. New buildings shall comply with the California Building Code Chapter 7A: MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS FOR EXTERIOR WILDFIRE EXPOSURE. A summary of these requirements is available at the Building & Safety's public counter or visit: http://www.santa-clarita.com/home/showdocument?id=10685. Plans submitted to Building & Safety shall show compliance with all applicable Fire Zone requirements. BS23. A portion of the project site is located within a Special Flood Hazard Zone. All construction within the floodplain shall comply with the City's Floodplain Ordinance (Chapter 10.06 of the Municipal Code), all Engineering Services Division requirements, all FEMA regulations, National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations, California Building Code, and ASCE 24-13. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION ES1. For the Sound Stage Buildings (475,473 square feet): Provide sufficient trash enclosures to house at least fifty (50) 3-yard bins. Twenty-five (25) of the bins should be reserved for recyclable materials only. In addition, space must be added for organics/food waste recycling per SB1383. For the Production Support Area (565,390 square feet): Provide sufficient trash enclosures to house at least fifty-eight (58) 3-yard bins. Twenty-nine (29) of the bins should be reserved for recyclable materials only. In addition, space must be added for organics/food waste recycling per SB1383. For the Office Buildings (198,087 square feet): Provide sufficient trash enclosures to house at least twenty-two (22) 3-yard bins. Eleven (11) of the bins should be reserved for recyclable materials only. In addition, space must be added for organics/food waste recycling per SB1383. Packet Pg. 125 0 Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 22 of 38 July 18, 2023 For the Catering Building (30,000 square feet): Provide sufficient trash enclosures to house at least four (4) 3-yard bins. Two (2) of the bins should be reserved for recyclable materials only. In addition, space must be added for organics/food waste recycling bins per SB1383. All enclosures must be shown on the site plan with dimensions, bin layout/floor plan, consistent with the surrounding architecture, and be constructed with a solid roof. Elevations for enclosures must be provided. The enclosure(s) must be located to provide convenient pedestrian and collection vehicle access. ES2. All enclosure requirements as listed in Environmental Services conditions above must be reviewed and approved prior to receiving agency clearance for issuance of building permits. ES3. Modifications to enclosure and bin requirements must be submitted to Environmental Services and may be presented as part of a Trash Management Plan. The Trash Management Plan must provide adequate trash, recycling and organics service and infrastructure for the project. The Trash Management Plan will be approved at the discretion of the Director of Neighborhood Services. The Trash Management Plan must be approved prior to receiving agency clearance for issuing of building permits. ES4. All demolition projects regardless of valuation, all commercial construction projects valuated greater than $200,000 or over 1,000 square feet for new construction, all new residential construction projects, and all residential additions and improvements that increase building area, volume, or size must comply with the City's Construction and Demolition Materials (C&D) Recycling Ordinance. ES5. C&D Materials Recycling Ordinance: a. Construction and Demolition Materials Management Plan (C&DMMP) must be prepared and approved by the Environmental Services Division before obtaining any grading or building permits. b. A minimum of 65% of the entire project's inert (dirt, rock, bricks, etc.) waste and 65% of the remaining C&D waste must be recycled or reused rather than disposing in a landfill. c. For renovation or tenant improvement projects and new construction projects, a deposit of 2% of the estimated total project cost or $15,000, whichever is less, is required. For demolition projects, a deposit of 10% of the estimated total project cost or $15,000, whichever is less, is required. The full deposit will be returned to the permittee upon proving that 65% of the inert and remaining C&D waste was recycled or reused. ES6. Per the California Green Building Standards Code, 100 percent of trees, stumps, rocks and associated vegetation and soils resulting primarily from land clearing must be reused or recycled. For a phased project, such material may be stockpiled on site until the storage site is developed. Packet Pg. 126 1.e Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 23 of 38 July 18, 2023 EST All projects within the City not self -hauling their waste materials must use one of the City's franchised haulers for temporary and roll -off bin collection services. Please visit GreenSantaClarita.com for a list of approved haulers. PARKS PLANNING PP 1. Before the Building Official issues the first Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must acquire the necessary right-of-way and dedication of easement, and construct the multi- purpose trail on -site, along 12th Street, Arch Street, and 13th street, from the southeast project limits at 12th Street to the intersection of 13th Street and Railroad Avenue, as shown on the Dockweiler Extension Project plans. The trail cross-section shall consist of four -foot wide landscape buffer, a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk for pedestrians and a 10-foot wide asphalt for two-way bike traffic and additional space as needed for lodgepole fencing. All trails must be constructed to City Standards including striping, signage, lodge pole fencing, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, or designee. A key component to be included in this trail segment is a public trail easement and construction of a trail railroad crossing on the north side of 13th Street. This crossing must meet Metrolink standards and the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, or designee. SPECIAL DISTRICTS DIVISION Oak Trees Permit, Bonding and Mitigation: SD1. The permittee is requesting an Oak Tree Permit for the removal of 12 oak trees, six (6) of which are classified as heritage oaks. The request also includes the encroachment into the protected zone of six (6) additional oak trees. SD2. The project site consists of 16 on -site oak trees, 12 of which are proposed for removal, including three (3) proposed on -site relocations. Two additional off -site oak trees are part of this project and proposed for encroachment. SD3. Two off -site oak trees identified as oak tree 917, and tree 918 are proposed for encroachment as a part of this application. Oak tree 918 is located within the MWD easement. This tree is currently being shown as a proposed removal/relocation. The permittee is required to protect and preserve this tree in place. Off -site oak tree 917 is located within the public right way along Arch Street and is proposed for encroachment only as needed for required street improvements. SD4. The permittee is permitted to remove 12 on -site oak trees, six of which are heritage in size and identified in the permittee's oak tree report as oak trees number 1H, 2H, 3H, 4H, 5H, and 7H. Trees 1H-5H are Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and tree 7H is a Valley oak (Quercus lobata). The remaining six removals are non -heritage and identified in the permittee's oak tree report as oak trees number 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13. Trees 8-10 are Valley oak (Quercus lobata) and trees 11-13 are Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). SD5. Prior to the issuance grading permits, and the removal of any oak trees, the permittee is required to bond for the International Society of Arboriculture (hereafter ISA) dollar Packet Pg. 127 1.e Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 24 of 38 July 18, 2023 value of the oak trees proposed for removal. The current ISA Dollar Value as documented in the permittee's oak tree report is listed at $790,800.00 dollars. SD6. The permittee is required to renew the bond annually until the project has reached completion and/or all required oak tree mitigation has been approved and accepted by the City of Santa Clarita. Copies of the renewal documents shall be submitted to the City of Santa Clarita Project Development Coordinator for records. Upon successful completion of all required oak tree mitigation, the bond will be exonerated and monies released to the permittee. SD7. The permittee shall be required to mitigate for the ISA Dollar Value of all oak trees located on site which have been approved for removal. Mitigation requirements shall be subject the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Ordinance and Preservation and Protection Guidelines. SD8. The dollar value of oak tree numbers 8, 9, and 10 which are proposed for relocation have a combined ISA value of $53,500.00. This amount may be deducted from the $790,800.00 mitigation requirement resulting in a total mitigation planting amount of $737,300.00. SD9. Mitigation plantings must be on -site in areas approved by the City Arborist and/or City Oak Tree Specialist. All mitigation oak trees, regardless of size will be protected under the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Ordinance and Preservation and Protection Guidelines. SD10. All mitigation oak trees planted on site which are considered nursery size container - grown trees, typically 24" inch box through 60" inch box trees shall be subject to a minimum two (2) year mandatory mitigation and monitoring period which begins once the trees are planted. SDI 1. All mitigation oak trees planted on site which are considered specimen size trees, typically 72" inch box trees and larger are subject to a minimum five (5) year mandatory mitigation and monitoring period which begins once the trees are planted. SD12. Larger specimen size oak trees must be planted in high visibility areas outside of the public right of way to be viewed by both residents and guest of the Placenta Canyon Community. These areas include the landscaped corners of Shadowbox Studio Gates 1, 2, and 3 as shown on the preliminary landscape plan. Relocated Oak Trees: SD13. Any oak tree proposed for and approved for relocation shall be performed by a qualified tree relocating company with a minimum of five years' experience in relocating native oak trees. SD14. Oak trees which have been approved for relocation shall be subject to a mandatory 90- day side boxing requirement before cutting the bottom roots. All three on -site oak trees approved for relocation are Valley oak species, and as a result, the required side boxing must take place early fall before leaf drop or as recommended by the tree relocating company. The permittee/developer shall coordinate with the tree relocating company on Packet Pg. 128 1.e Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 25 of 38 July 18, 2023 the timing of the relocation. Cutting roots in late fall, spring, and/or summer will not be permitted. SDI 5. Once boxed, all relocated oak trees shall be stored in a designated on -site staging area facing in the same direction as the tree was prior to removal until the tree(s) are ready to be planted. The north side of box shall be clearly marked so that there is no question as to the orientation of the tree once planted in its final location. SDI 6. Unless waived by the City Arborist, before grading, oak trees number 8, 9, and 10 shall have completed the 90-day side boxing requirement and been transferred/located to the approved staging area. SD17. The permittee and all its contractors must adhere to all recommendations issued by the permittee's Project Arborist (hereafter PA) both on site during all required monitoring and those identified within the submitted oak tree report prepared by Kerry Norman of Arbor Essence. Failure to comply shall be considered non -compliant and may result in the issuance of a Stop All Work notice. SD18. Oak tree numbers 8, 9, and 10 shall be subject to a minimum five (5) year post planting maintenance and monitoring period. During this period the permittee is required to submit monthly monitoring reports for the first year, quarterly reports at a rate of one report every three months for the following three (3) years and one report every six months for the final year for a total of 22 reports. This mitigation will begin once the relocated oak trees have been planted in their permanent location. Mitigation Oak Tree Plantings: SDI 9. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the permittee is required to submit the final oak tree mitigation site plan showing the location of all required oak trees to be planted on site as required for mitigation. SD20. The permittee's mitigation site plan must include a detailed legend clearly identifying the species of each oak with both common and botanical name, the number/quantity of oaks, the size of the tree, type of trunk (standard or low branch), the individual cost of the tree and the extended cost based upon the quantities of each species totaling the required mitigation planting amount of $737,300.00. SD21. Mitigation oak trees must consist of a mixture of California native oak trees which are suitable and compatible with Sunset Zone 18. Mitigation oak trees may include the following species; Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), Canyon oak (Quercus chrysolepis), Valley oak (Quercus lobata), Pasadena oak (Quercus engelmannii), and Interior live oak (Quercus wislizeni). SD22. When planting mitigation oak trees on site, the permittee and its contractors shall work closely with both the project arborist and the landscape architect to select the appropriate oak tree for each individual area selected for mitigation, taking into consideration the additional landscape which is proposed for the same location. SD23. The permittee must incorporate the Coast live oak, Canyon oak, and Valley oak in the proposed oak tree chaparral located at the north end of the project site. Packet Pg. 129 0 Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 26 of 38 July 18, 2023 SD24. When planting mitigation oak trees on both manufactured and natural slopes with a 2:1 ratio or higher, the permittee must install slope guards or other form of slope stabilization to prevent soil from building up and burying the trunk and roots of the oak trees. SD25. Both mitigation and relocated oak trees must have their own separate irrigation lines and irrigation controller stations dedicated specifically to the oak tree so water may be applied during drought restrictions. This requirement shall be shown on the irrigation plans and addressed under irrigation notes on the permittee's required final landscape plans. SD26. Irrigation to all mitigation and relocated oak trees shall consist of pressure compensating bubblers similar to the Rainbird 1400 Series (or equivalent). At no time may any form of overhead/spray irrigation be permitted within the protected zone of an oak tree or be permitted to come in contact with the trunk or canopy of any oak tree existing or proposed. SD27. Inspection tubes shall be required to be installed for all specimen and relocated oak trees which are installed on site both within the gates of the studio campus and those trees located outside the gates of the studio campus. Monitoring: SD28. Unless waived by the City Arborist, all work completed within the protected zone of an oak tree must be monitored, and completed by hand in the presence the of the permittee's project arborist or a qualified representative thereof. SD29. The protected zone is the area extending five (5') feet out from the edge of the dripline. The dripline is the edge of the tree canopy. For smaller oak trees or newly planted oak trees, the protected zone shall be no less than 15 feet from the trunk of the tree. SD30. Monitoring includes, without limitation, daily documentation, photos and recommendations of all work having taken place within the protected zone of an oak tree. Daily monitoring reports shall be submitted electronically via email to the City Arborist within 72 hours from the end of each working day when monitoring took place. SD31. Unless waived by the City Arborist, the permittee and its contractors must adhere to all direction issued by the project arborist. This shall include all recommendations included in the oak tree report and those issued on -site during all required monitoring. Failure to comply is considered non -compliant and may result in a Stop All Work until the permittee and its contractors have properly addressed the recommendation to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. SD32. The permittee and its contractors shall be required to give 72-hour minimum notice to the project arborist before any work taking place within the protected zone of an oak tree. SD33. Upon completion of the project and successful mitigation the permittee shall be required to submit a certification letter prepared by the Project Arborist certifying that all work performed within the protected zone of an oak tree was completed in compliance with the conditions of this oak tree permit. Packet Pg. 130 1.e Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 27 of 38 July 18, 2023 SD34. The permittee, including Shadowbox Studio employees and its contractors agree to, and shall provide the City Arborist and Project Arborist (Kerry Norman) reasonable access to the project site both during and after construction to allow for the required monitoring of all oak trees for a period not to exceed the required mitigation period. Reasonable is defined as the number of times needed to comply with the Conditions of Approval for City of Santa Clarita Master Case 21-109, and Oak Tree Permit 21-001. Construction and Preservation: SD35. Prior to issuance of grading permits and the start of oak tree relocation, the permittee and their contractors must schedule an on -site pre -construction meeting. SD36. Prior to the start of grading/construction, the permittee must have all required protective fencing in place around oak trees number 6H, 14, 15, 16, and off -site oak trees 17, and 18. Oak trees that are approved for encroachment shall have the protective fence placed at the furthest point away from the trunk that will allow for the approved impacts. All remaining oak trees must have the fence installed at the protected zone located five (5') feet out from edge of dripline. SD37. Protective fencing for oak trees 6H, 17, and 18 must consist of five (5') foot standard chain link material supported by steel post driven directly into the ground and evenly spaced at eight (8') feet on center. 36" inch silt fencing must be installed at the base of all protective fencing and be maintained in good repair throughout all phases of construction. SD38. A maximum of one non -gated three-foot wide opening must be left open on the opposite side of construction to allow for required monitoring by City Staff and the permittee's Project Arborist. SD39. Signage which reads "THIS FENCE IS FOR THE PROTECTION OF OAK TREES AND SHALL NOT BE REMOVED OR RELOCATED WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION BY THE CITY ARBORIST" shall be installed on the upper portion of the protected fencing at 50' foot intervals. Each sign shall measure 24" inches by 24" inches and be constructed of weatherproof materials. SD40. Once approved, at no time shall the permittee and/or its contractors be permitted to remove or make changes to the protective fencing. Protective fencing must remain in good repair throughout the project. At any time during the project the fence is damaged or in need of repair, the permittee and its contractor must make necessary repairs prior to the start of construction. SD41. At this time no protective fencing is required around oak trees number 14-16 which are located on the south facing side of the hill at the north end of the project site uphill and well outside of the proposed grading. Should any grading changes be made that would impact these trees, protective fencing shall be required before the start of grading. SD42. At no time will the permittee or their contractors be permitted to place or store any form of construction material, equipment, machinery or vehicles within the protected zone of an oak tree or within the proposed planting areas for both relocated oak trees and mitigation oak trees. Packet Pg. 131 1.e Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 28 of 38 July 18, 2023 SD43. At no time shall the permittee or its contractors be permitted to wash, rinse, clean or service any form of construction equipment, tools vehicles or machinery within 100 feet of an oak tree, or within the proposed planting areas for both relocated oak trees and mitigation oak trees. SD44. At no time will any form of liquid or dry contaminates including without limitation, oils, gasoline, diesel fuel, concrete, plaster and mortar be permitted to enter the protected zone of an oak tree or within the proposed planting areas for both relocated oak trees and mitigation oak trees. SD45. The permittee is required to have approved on -site concrete rinse out stations located throughout the project site. These and all other rinse out stations shall be located a minimum of 100' feet from any oak tree. SD46. All work completed within the protection zone of an oak tree shall be monitored by the permittee's Arborist of Record. SD47. Any root or roots that are encountered during construction including grading, excavation and trenching that are two (2") inches in diameter or larger shall be preserved at all times unless waived by the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Specialist. SD48. Exposed roots shall be immediately covered with moistened layers of burlap until backfill can be completed. Burlap may be removed or left on the root. Backfill shall consist of original native soil only. SD49. Any root which has been approved for removal shall be cut clean with a proper pruning device. All pruning of roots shall be completed by or in the presence of the permittee's Arborist of Record. SD50. Any oak tree that has been approved for trimming must be completed by an approved qualified tree trimming contractor certified through the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) or in the presence of the permittee's Project Arborist. SD51. All non -infested wood chips generated from pruning shall be recycled and used as mulch for existing oak trees. SD52. The permittee and its contractors must adhere to the recommendations of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 Part I, Best Management Practices and the ISA Pruning Standards for all tree care operations. SD53. The permittee and its contractors must adhere to the recommendations of the ANSI A300 Part IV (Management of Tree and Shrubs During Site Planning, Site Development and Construction) and Best Management Practices (Managing Trees During Construction) throughout the project. Landscape: SD54. Before issuance of grading permits or as required by the Director of Community Development, the permittee will be required to submit a final landscape plan. This final landscape plan must be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist. The final landscape Packet Pg. 132 0 Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 29 of 38 July 18, 2023 plan shall include all existing oak trees which were preserved as well as all mitigation and non -mitigation oak trees proposed within the landscape. SD55. Any landscape improvements including without limitation, plant material, walkways, trails, water features, patios, lighting, statues or art that are proposed for within the protected zone of an existing oak tree must be approved by the City Arborist. SD56. Although any planting within the protected zone of an oak tree is discouraged, only drought tolerant native species of plant material may be planted within the protected zone of an oak tree. This includes all mitigation oaks, relocated oak trees and existing oak trees. Refer to the "California Oak Foundation" publication "Compatible Plants Under & Around Oak Trees" which may be downloaded in a PDF format at www.californiaoaks.oro. SD57. At no time shall any form of landscaping be permitted within the Tree Protected Zone (TPZ) of any relocated oak tree. TPZ is five (5') feet from the edge of the canopy. SD58. At no time shall any overhead irrigation be permitted to come in contact with an oak tree. Only direct contact irrigation (drip and/or bubbler) systems may be installed within the protected zone of an oak tree. Overhead irrigation which has been approved for outside the protected zone shall be directed away from the canopy of the oak tree. SD59. The minimum protected zone for any non -established or existing oak tree is fifteen (15') feet. This includes all new oak trees that were planted for required mitigation. All turf shall be kept a minimum of 15 feet from any oak tree. SD60. Lineal root barriers shall be required along the edge of any proposed walkways, trails, drive approaches, street and any other form of hardscape that is approved for within the protected zone of an oak tree. SD61. Walkways and bike trails or any other form of hardscape that is approved for within the protected zone of an oak tree shall consist of an approved material such as permeable landscape pavers and asphalt. In some cases where concrete, asphalt, or pavers are approved in pads that exceed 120 square feet, the permittee is required to install approved aeration tubes. SD62. Upon completion of the installation of all required mitigation oak trees and before the Building Official issues a final Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee is required to submit a detailed GPS site plan with the location of all mitigation oak trees. A detailed legend identifying the number, size, species and cost of all oak trees planted on site must be included on this site plan. SD63. Permittee is required to install a 3-4-inch layer of natural woodchips throughout the protected zone of each planted and/or relocated oak tree. Mulch must consist of natural woodchips screened and chipped to 2-3-inches in length. Refer to Foothill Soils Inc. "Organic Forest Floor" (Organic Forest Floor is made from assorted tree trimmings and creates a natural appearing ground cover. This product is also used as a top dressing around shrubs, trees and flower beds. It retains moisture, saves water and controls weeds. Forest Floor also provides excellent erosion control for hills and slopes.) Packet Pg. 133 1.e Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 30 of 38 July 18, 2023 SD64. All un-infested wood generated from the removal of the oak trees must be chipped on - site, recycled and evenly distributed and used for mulch in and around the planting of the mitigation oak trees located at the north end of the project site. Before installing the mulch, the permittee's project arborist must inspect the trees for any signs of active infestations. SD65. All oak wood which is diseased and/or infested shall be chipped into 3-4-inch pieces, hauled off -site and taken to a proper green waste facility. Diseased and/or infested wood shall not be stored on site nor be hauled off -site for use of firewood at any time throughout the project. For additional information regarding diseased and infested oak wood, visit hlt2:HgroLips.ucanr.org/GSOB/ Special Districts Landscape Maintenance Districts (LMD) Landscape Medians and Side Panels: SD66. Any proposed impact to an existing landscape median or side panel must be designed to City LMD standards, require Special Districts review, and the written approval of the Director of Administrative Services. SD67. Any impact to the an existing median or side panel must be replaced/repaired to the satisfaction of Special Districts Administrator, Director of Administrative Services, and the City Engineer. SD68. Prior to issuance of grading and or construction permits or as required by Engineering and Planning, the permittee must submit final Street Improvement Plans for review and approval by the Special Districts Administrator. SD69. Street improvement plans must identify all existing and proposed improvements including without limitation the location of all public utilities, gas, sewer, electric, cable, communication lines, fiber optic, main water lines, the location of existing and proposed street lights, traffic signals, and the location of and proposed changes to existing irrigation mainlines, lateral lines, irrigation wire, valves, quick -couplers, controllers, backflows, water and electrical meters, and controller cabinets to both the medians and landscaped side panels. SD70. Street Improvement Plans must accurately show the public right of way including the location and width of both the public sidewalk and landscape parkways fronting Shadowbox Studios and the commercial shopping center on Arch Street, the accurate location of the existing protected oak tree (917), and any other street/right of way improvement required by the City of Santa Clarita. SD71. The permittee shall be required to install landscaped parkways fronting the Shadowbox Studio campus along 131h Street, Arch Street, 121h Street and the Section of 131h Street and Arch Street which fronts the commercial shopping center and offices, and all other street improvement areas as required by Engineering and Traffic. Landscape parkways shall be a minimum width of five feet in order to accommodate parkway trees. SD72. Landscape must include the installation of approved parkway trees, shrubs and irrigation. Packet Pg. 134 1.e Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 31 of 38 July 18, 2023 SD73. The permittee is required to install a separate water meter, electric meter, irrigation controller and dual-purpose cabinet for all LMD maintained landscape which is or will be located within the public right of way. SD74. Before planting, all parkway trees must be approved by Special Districts (LMD/Urban Forestry). SD75. Parkway trees shall be standard trunk trees with a strong central leader, and a natural canopy. Trees which have been topped or headed at the nursery, or have damage to the trunk, bark, branches, roots, or canopy, or are diseased/infested will not be accepted and must be returned to the nursery for replacement at no cost to the City of Santa Clarita. SD76. Before planting, all parkway trees or mitigation trees must be inspected by the City Arborist or a qualified representative of Urban Forestry. The pemittee must give a minimum of 48 hours prior notice for all tree deliveries. In some cases, Special Districts may request photos of the trees be taken at the nursery prior to delivery. These photos shall be recent photos of the exact trees to be delivered and not "stock" photos from the nursery. Depending on the location of the nursery providing the trees, Special Districts may require an on -site nursery inspection which may include a representative from Special Districts tagging the trees prior to delivery. SD77. Prior to planting, all parkway shrubs and groundcover must be inspected by qualified representative of Special Districts. The permittee must give a minimum of 48 hours prior notice to for all deliveries. In some cases, Special Districts may request photos of the shrubs be taken at the nursery prior to delivery. These photos must be recent photos of the exact group of shrubs to be delivered and not "stock" photos from the nursery. Depending on the location of the nursery providing the trees, Special Districts may require an on -site nursery inspection which may include a representative from Special Districts tagging the trees prior to delivery. SD78. All parkway trees proposed for within the public right of way shall meet and or exceed the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection/Urban Tree Foundation Minimum Guideline Specifications for Nursery Tree Quality. (Provided) SD79. 36" inch lineal root barrier shall be required for any tree planted within 10' feet of any sidewalk, walkway, driveway, landscape wall, retaining wall or any other form of hardscape improvement within the public right of way or within the required landscape setback. SD80. Any parkway tree planted within a turf setting shall have a minimum 48" inch diameter mulched tree well installed at the base of the tree. Mulch shall be installed no less than three (3") inches thick and shall not exceed four (4") inches. Mulch shall not be piled up against the trunk of the tree. SD81. The permittee is required to install the City of Santa Clarita approved landscape pavers for any raised median, existing and/or proposed which is a direct impact as a result of the Shadowbox Studio project. This includes medians without landscape and median safety strips with both existing and proposed landscape along Railroad Avenue, 13th Street, Arch Street, 12th and any other right of way improvement as required by the City of Santa Clarita including crosswalks. Packet Pg. 135 1.e Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 32 of 38 July 18, 2023 SD82. Permittee is required to remove and replace all portions of the existing stamped concrete in any raised median which is impacted as a result of the development of Shadowbox Studios. This includes all medians along Railroad Avenue from Lyons Avenue to 15th Street, and any new raised medians where street improvements are approved. SD83. Before issuance of grading permits or as required by the Planning Division, the permittee must submit a final landscape plan for review and approval by Special Districts. Landscape plan must be prepared by a California licensed/registered landscape architect. SD84. Landscape plan must include all required landscape including, without limitation, all mitigation oak trees, relocated oak trees, existing oak trees which are to be preserved and protected in place, on -site landscaping, all landscape located within the public right of way, all required parkway trees, irrigation, specifications, and detail blocks, and planting legends with individual planting symbols for all trees, shrubs, groundcover, and pavers. Unless waived by Special Districts, at no time shall any form of drip irrigation be permitted within the public right of way. SD85. The permittee is required to work closely with Special Districts as it relates to the final landscape. Special Districts will provide the permittee with individual specifications for the required pavers, street lights and any required landscape amenities required within the public right of way such as bollards and rails, benches, landscape boulders and specific irrigation valves and controllers. Landscape Maintenance Districts Local Zone Assessments: SD86. These parcels are located within Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) Areawide Zone 2008-1 Major Thoroughfare Medians, which was established to fund the construction and maintenance of landscaped medians on major thoroughfares throughout the City of Santa Clarita. Permittee is required to financially contribute to the Areawide Zone in a manner reflective of this LMD zone's assessment methodology. SD87. These parcels are located within Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) Zone 28 Newhall, which was created to fund the construction and maintenance of landscapes located in the Newhall Area. Permittee is required to financially contribute to Zone 28 in a manner reflective of this LMD zone's assessment methodology. SD88. This proposed project site currently consist of 18 separate parcels. The permittee is advised that each of the 18 parcels are currently being assessed at the vacant lot rate. The permittee is proposing to subdivide which would reduce the number of parcels from 18 to 5. As a result of the proposed project the current assessment rates for both LMD Zone 18, and 2008-1 will be adjusted to reflect these changes based upon the zones current assessment methodology. SD89. The permittee shall work closely with Special Districts and the City Engineer, and provide all necessary documents needed to calculate the new rates. Streetlight Maintenance District (SAIM) SD90. These parcels were originally annexed by County of Los Angeles into a Lighting District with a maximum assessment of $12.38 per EBU (Equivalent Benefit Unit) without a cost Packet Pg. 136 1.e Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 33 of 38 July 18, 2023 of living index/escalator. The permittee will be required to annex the parcel into the Santa Clarita Landscaping and Lighting District (SCLLD), Street -lighting Zone B. The District funds the operation and maintenance of various landscaping and lighting improvements throughout the City that provide special benefits to properties within the District. The annexation will bring the EBU rate current (FY 22/23, $93.91), and add the cost of living escalator (CPI). There is a one-time annexation fee of $500.00 + $100.00 per Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU). Benefit Units are based on land use and vacant/unimproved parcels are not assessed. Additional information may be required from the permittee to calculate the fee. • Following the completed annexation there will be an annual assessment included on the property tax bill. The assessments are based on land use, see attached EBU rate sheet. The proposed assessment to be calculated by assessment engineer. • A minimum of 120 days is required to process the annexation, which must be completed prior to final map approval, grading or building permit issuance, whichever occurs first. • Developer will work with Special Districts and obtain approval on the LED light fixtures, if any, to be installed on public streets. • Ownership of all new streetlights installed on public streets will be transferred to City of Santa Clarita. • Developer will work with Special Districts to determine if the streetlights will be metered or unmetered. SD91. Developer must install approved streetlights on 13th Street, Arch Street, and any other street which requires Street Improvements by Traffic and Engineering to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Streetlights must conform with the design and aesthetics of those streetlights approved for the Dockweiler Extension Project. SD92. Each streetlight must be properly identified with the approved City of Santa Clarita identification tag and number. Special Districts - Urban Forestry: SD93. The California pepper (Schinus molle) trees located on the east end of the MWD easement which line the alley of the homes located on Alderbrook Drive have been previously maintained by the City of Santa Clarita Urban Forestry Division. SD94. The permittee must assume all maintenance responsibility for all Pepper trees including the proper trimming, clean-up of any fallen limbs or debris from the trees and removal of any tree which has been declared as dead by a qualified arborist. SD95. Permittee is advised that the California pepper trees are protected and must be preserved in place during all construction occurring within the trees protected zone. Work within the Tree Protected Zone (TPZ) must be monitored by a professional qualified tree consultant. SD96. The permittee and its contractors are subject to the same construction and preservation conditions as found under the Oak Tree section of this document. Packet Pg. 137 1.e Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 34 of 38 July 18, 2023 SD97. For all tree on -site tree preservation, including native oak trees, the permittee must adhere to the ANSI (American National Standards Institute) A300 (Part 5) Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management Standard Practices (Management of Trees and Shrubs During Site Planning, Site Development, and Construction) and the companion publication Best Management Practices "Managing Trees During Construction 2nd Edition" at all times throughout the project. Maintenance and Establishment: SD98. All trees and shrubs planted within the public right of way that are to be maintained by the City of Santa Clarita are subject to a minimum of two-90-day maintenance and establishment periods. Any tree which declines to an unacceptable condition or dies within the first 90-day period must be replaced by the permittee at no cost to the City of Santa Clarita. Trees which have to be replanted are subject to the second 90-day maintenance and establishment period. The maintenance and establishment period will begin once the final landscape has been inspected and approved by a qualified representative of Special District's. SD99. Once planted, all parkway trees located within the public right of way are protected under the City of Santa Clarita Parkway Tree Ordinance 90-15. CONSOLIDATED FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY ("FIRE DEPARTMENT") Final Map Requirements FD1. A copy of the Final Map shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to recordation. The Final Map shall be submitted online to the Land Development Unit for review at epicla.lacounty.gov Final Map. The permittee will need to apply for the following Plan Type: Fire —Land Development —Final Map -Tract. FD2. Access as noted on the Tentative and the Exhibit Maps shall comply with Title 21 (County of Los Angeles Subdivision Code) and Section 503 of the Title 32 (County of Los Angeles Fire Code), which requires an all- weather access surface to be clear to sky. FD3. The driveways required for Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be indicated on the Final Map as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" with the widths clearly depicted. FD4. A common access agreement is required for the private driveway since multiple units are sharing the same access. Such language shall be included in the Covenant, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R) document and shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review prior to Final Map clearance. FDS. Submit a copy of the Grading Plan to the Fire Department for review and approval. Compliance required prior to Final Map clearance. The grading plan shall be submitted online to the Land Development Unit for review at epicla.lacounty.gov. The permittee will need to apply for the following Plan Type: Fire Land Development —Grading. FD6. The required public fire hydrants shall be installed prior to construction of the proposed buildings. The water plan for the new fire hydrant locations shall be submitted online to Packet Pg. 138 0 Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 35 of 38 July 18, 2023 the Land Development Unit for review at epicla.lacounty.gov. The permittee will need to apply for the following Plan Type: Fire Land Development —Water Plans & Systems Review. Access Requirements FD7. All on -site Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be labeled as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" on the site plan along with the widths clearly depicted on the plan. Labeling is necessary to assure the access availability for Fire Department use. The designation allows for appropriate signage prohibiting parking. FD8. Fire Apparatus Access Roads must be installed and maintained in a serviceable manner prior to and during the time of construction. Fire Code 501.4 FD9. All fire lanes shall be clear of all encroachments and shall be maintained in accordance with the Title 32, County of Los Angeles Fire Code. FD10. The Fire Apparatus Access Roads and designated fire lanes shall be measured from flow line to flow line. FD11. For buildings where the vertical distance between the access roadway and the highest roof surface does not exceed 30 feet, provide a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders and an unobstructed vertical clearance "clear to sky" Fire Apparatus Access Roads to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. The highest roof surface shall be determined by measurement of the vertical distance between the access roadway and the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of the roof to the exterior wall, or the top of parapet walls, whichever is greater. Fire Code 503.1., 503.2.1.2 & 503.2.1.2.1 FD12. For buildings where the vertical distance between the access roadway and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet from the lowest level of the Fire Apparatus Access Road, provide a minimum unobstructed width of 28 feet, exclusive of shoulders and an unobstructed vertical clearance "clear to sky" Fire Apparatus Access Roads to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. At least one required access route meeting this condition shall be located such that the edge of the Fire Apparatus Access Roadway, not including shoulders, that is closest to the building being served, is between 10 feet and 30 feet from the building, as determined by the fire code official, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. The side of the building on which the Fire Apparatus Access Road is positioned shall be approved by the fire code official. Fire Code 503.1.1; 503.2.1.2; 503.2.1.2.2 & 503.2.1.2.2.1 FD13. The dimensions of the approved Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be maintained as originally approved by the fire code official. Fire Code 503.2.2.1 FD 14. Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing 75,000 pounds and shall be surfaced to provide all- weather driving capabilities. Fire Code 503.2.3 Packet Pg. 139 1.e Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 36 of 38 July 18, 2023 FD15. Dead-end Fire Apparatus Access Roads more than 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved Fire Department turnaround. Refer to Figure 503.2.5 (1) and Figure 503.2.5(2) in Chapter 5 of the Fire Code. The turnaround shall be orientated on the access roadway in the proper direction of travel. Fire Code 503.2.5 FD16. The Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be provided with a minimum of a 32-foot centerline turning radius. Fire Code 503.2.4 FD17. A minimum 5-foot-wide approved firefighter access walkway leading from the Fire Department Apparatus Access Road to all required openings in the building's exterior walls shall be provided for firefighting and rescue purposes. Fire Code 504.1 FD18. Security barriers, visual screen barriers or other obstructions shall not be installed on the roof of any building in such a manner as to obstruct firefighter access or egress in the event of fire or other emergency. Parapets shall not exceed 36 inches from the top of the parapet to the roof surface on more than two sides. These sides should face an access roadway or yard sufficient to accommodate ladder operations. Fire Code 504.5 FD 19. Approved building address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification shall be provided and maintained to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. The numbers shall contrast with their background, be Arabic numerals or alphabet letters, and be a minimum of 4 inches high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch. Fire Code 505.1 FD20. The installation of security gates across a Fire Apparatus Access Road shall be approved by the fire code official. Where security gates are installed, they shall have an approved means of emergency operation, and be in compliance with following criteria: a. Gates shall be of the swinging or sliding type. b. Construction of gates shall be of materials that allow manual operation by one person. c. Gate components shall be always maintained in an operative condition and replaced or repaired when defective. d. Electric gates shall be equipped with a means of opening the gate by fire department personnel for emergency access. Emergency opening devices shall be approved by the fire code official. e. Methods of locking shall be submitted for approval by the fire code official. All locking devices shall comply with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department Regulation 5, Compliance for Installation of Emergency Access Devices. f. An approved key box, listed in accordance with UL 1037, shall be provided as required by Fire Code 506. The location of each key box shall be determined by the Fire Inspector. Fire Code Sections 503.5; 503.5.1; 503.2; 503.6 g. Where a single gate is provided, the gate width shall not be less than 20 feet, clear -to -sky, with all gate hardware is clear of the access way. Water System Requirements FD21. All fire hydrants shall measure 6"x 4N 2-1/2" brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA standard C503 or approved equal, and shall be installed in accordance with the County of Los Angeles Fire Code. Packet Pg. 140 1.e Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 37 of 38 July 18, 2023 FD22. The required fire flow for the public fire hydrants and public on -site fire hydrants for this project is 4000 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure for 4 hours. Three (3) public fire hydrants flowing simultaneously may be used to achieve the required fire flow. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system is required for the proposed buildings within this development. Fire Code 507.3 & Appendix B 105.1 FD23. Install 8 public fire hydrants as noted by the Fire Department. All required public fire hydrants shall be installed, tested, and accepted prior to beginning construction. Fire Code 501.4 FD24. Install 21 public on -site fire hydrants as noted by the Fire Department due to the size of development and to comply with Fire Protection System requirements. All required public on -site fire hydrants shall be installed, tested, and accepted prior to beginning construction. Fire Code 501.4 FD25. The required fire flow for the on -site fire hydrant for this project is 2500 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure for 2 hours. Two (2) on -site fire hydrants flowing simultaneously may be used to achieve the required fire flow with one being the furthest of the public fire hydrant. Each individual on -site fire hydrant is required to flow 1250 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure for 2 hours. Fire Code C 106.1 FD26. Install 15 private on -site fire hydrants as noted by the Fire Department. All required private on -site fire hydrants shall be installed, tested, and approved prior to building occupancy. Fire Code 901.5.1 FD27. Plans showing underground piping for private on -site fire hydrants shall be submitted to the Sprinkler Plan Check Unit for review and approval prior to installation. Fire Code 901.2 & County of Los Angeles Fire Department Regulation 7 FD28. All on -site fire hydrants shall be installed a minimum of 25 feet from a structure or protected by a two (2) hour rated firewall. Indicate compliance prior to project proceeding to the public hearing process. Fire Code Appendix C106.1 Fuel Modification FD29. Building 28 is located within an area described by the Fire Department as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. A "Fuel Modification Plan" shall be submitted to the Fuel Modification for review by the Fuel Modification Unit prior to building plan check approval. Please contact the Department's Fuel Modification Unit for details. The Fuel Modification Plan Review Unit is located at 605 North Angeleno Avenue in the City of Azusa CA 91702- 2904. They may be reached at (626) 969-5205 or visit https://www. fire.lacountygov/forestry-division/forestry-fuel-modification/ TRANSIT DIVISION TD1. Due to the proposed redesign of the Railroad Avenue/ 13th Street intersection, the existing bus stop located nearside of the intersection must be moved to farside (northside) of the intersection. Permittee must provide a proposed bus stop location and demonstrate the safety of the placement as it pertains to the intersection, merging lane, bike path, the existing bus stop at 15th street, and any other obstacles in the area. Packet Pg. 141 1.e Master Case 21-109 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 38 of 38 July 18, 2023 TD2. Permittee must provide a bus stop/s at the location of: Northbound Railroad Avenue farside 13th Street TD3. Permittee must construct a pedestrian path from the bus stop/s to the development. TD4. The bus stop/s must consist of a 10' x 25' concrete passenger waiting pad placed behind the sidewalk and bike path and relocate the existing bus stop furniture to the new location. TD5. Bus stop/s may require additional right of way (ROW) as approved by the City Engineer. TD6. Permittee must provide a site plan showing amenities within a 100 foot radius of the bus stop/s. This plan shall show the locations of all utility meters, utility structures, landscaping, buildings, pedestrian walkways, and parking spaces. This plan shall also show all other items not listed above located within the 100-foot radius of the bus stop/s. TD7. At the location of the bus stop/s, the sidewalk must meet the street for no less than 25'. TDB. Permittee must construct an in -street concrete pad pursuant to the current city standard and APWA 131-2. TD9. Bus stop/s must be shown and labeled on the site plan. TD10. Before the Building Official issues a Certificate of Occupancy for the first building, the bus stop/s must be installed to the satisfaction of City staff. Packet Pg. 142 4- 0 A ((606-4ZOW) soipn;S xogmopegS) ;iq!gx3 OBuBgO auoZ-8 1181HX3-U-£Zd .;u8wg3EPV N N N O N ca 4-0 U) U �N � O � L j 0 Lo >v QL O X O� L.L o 0 M 1.g PLANNING COMMISISON RESOLUION No. P23-11 EXHIBIT C City of Santa Clarita General Plan Land Use Page L-63 North Newhall Area The North Newhall Area (NNA) is an approximate 200-acre assemblage of land generally bounded by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) right-of-way on the east, Newhall Creek on the south and west, and a significant ridgeline south of Via Princessa on the north. Most of the NNA is located within the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District (PCSSD). The northern approximate 100 acres of this NNA is undeveloped with a hillside to the north, oak trees and Placerita Creek. The commercial corridor along the west side of Railroad Avenue consists of mixed retail and commercial uses. The southern approximate 100 acres of this area is primarily developed with existing single-family ranch style homes of varying sizes. A commercial center with a wide mix of industrial and retail uses is located at the entrance to the NNA adjacent to 13tn Street. Given the site's characteristics, its proximity to Downtown Newhall and to the Jan Heidt Metrolink Station location, and its surrounding and diverse communities, the NNA should be subject to a broader and more comprehensive planning approach and have an MX-N (Mixed -Use Neighborhood) and Community Commercial (CC) designation which acknowledges and preserves the existing standards in the current PCSSD. The NNA will be allowed to develop with guidelines, character and policies in place that will be designed to be protective of the existing, developed portions of Placerita Canyon. This development will be required to be done in a way to ensure that it provides buffering, transitional densities and protection to the existing developed areas and not intrude in or change the character of the developed areas of Placerita Canyon. Critical aspects of the PCSSD including the provision of trails and other amenities to support the rural equestrian lifestyle of the existing developed areas of Placerita Canyon shall be provided. Any development that is proposed is intended to enhance the Placerita Canyon gateway with attractive visual amenities. Reasonable Development Potential Based on the NNA gross acreage of 200 acres, the MX-N and CC designations theoretically could allow for approximately 4.3 million square feet of commercial development and up to3,600 residential units in the NNA. However, this NNA site has a number of pronounced physical constraints and other limitations that severely limit it from being developed to the maximum allowable standards. Those constraints include oak trees, an active creek which is a blue -line stream, the railroad, the MWD right-of-way, drainage/hydrology issues, and potential circulation/traffic issues. Due to these known property development constraints, and the sensitivity of any land development to adjacent existing rural equestrian residential neighborhoods, any proposed project(s) on this NNA site shall not exceed a total of 775 residential units and an aggregate total of 459,999 1,585,000 square feet of non-residential development, excluding parking facilities. Proposed projects on the NNA shall incorporate a landscape buffer along the MWD right-of-way and detached single-family residences adjacent to the MWD right- of -way. Density of development should transition downward to the east, toward the MWD right away. Being that the NNA is part of the PCSSD, the area north of Placerita Creek will be zoned NU-5 consistent with all like properties. Mixed -Use Neighborhood and Desired Development Characteristics Packet Pg. 144 1.g PLANNING COMMISISON RESOLUION No. P23-11 EXHIBIT C The future uses and development of the NNA site requires careful advance planning and consideration of any potential projects shall be required to address each of the following subject areas: Public Participation/Outreach Be the subject of public participation and outreach led by the applicant(s) or the applicant's representative, prior to formal submittal of a proposed project to the City. Such outreach would expressly include the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association, as well as other stakeholders such as the Circle J Ranch Homeowner's Association, the Old Town Newhall Association, the Hidden Knoll and Vista Valencia residents, The Master's College, and the Newhall School District. Traffic Intrusion/Gateways • Be internally and externally pedestrian -oriented, and have equestrian and bicycle amenities and accommodations; • Understand and acknowledge that any development at these locations will increase existing vehicular traffic and create new vehicular traffic, and that there will be impacts to equestrian and pedestrian circulation in the existing neighborhood, and therefore to minimize those impacts, special attention must be given to mitigate impacts caused by such identified access points; • Layout and orientation of any developments shall be designed to discourage and where possible prevent additional trips into Placerita Canyon caused by or resulting from such developments; • Include defined entry gateways or monuments into Placerita Canyon, complete with landscaping and architectural elements with signage expressly stating there is no through traffic allowed. Buffering and Transitions Preserve the existing rural equestrian community character known generally as Placerita Canyon, and provide adequate buffers and transitions resulting from any proposed development; Incorporate the current Santa Clarita Valley Trails Advisory Committee (SCVTAC) network of multi -use trails into adjacent neighborhoods which shall have rural and equestrian characteristics; Require use of the MWD right-of-way as a landscaped buffer between the NNA within the PCSSD and the rest of Placerita Canyon, which landscaping shall consist of low water, low maintenance, landscape material. Architecture • Consist of 360-degree architectural design with pedestrian -scaled building massing and forms where adjacent to existing residences, with the use of landscaping to visually soften hard edges of buildings; Ir Packet Pg. 145 1.g PLANNING COMMISISON RESOLUION No. P23-11 EXHIBIT C • Structures shall have varied building heights and designs shall create east/west sight lines; Have transitional densities, as described above, decreasing in density and height in an easterly direction towards the MWD right-of-way away from Railroad Avenue, to include the MWD right-of-way as a landscaped buffer and detached single-family residences adjacent to the MWD right-of-way; • With the exception of development within the Jobs Creation Overlay Zone (JCOZ), -9building heights shall be subject to the same Unified Development Code requirements that apply to all of Placerita Canyon. Flood Control • Waterway bottoms and sides shall not be improved with concrete or hard impervioussurfaces and shall be maintained in a natural appearance; • Fencing shall not be permitted to cross riverbeds or waterways in a manner which denies or interferes with easy trail access; On -site flood control mitigation would provide assistance or relief to other hydrology/drainage impacts within Placerita Canyon due to changes of topography on NNA properties. Housing Types • It is not the City's intent to see affordable housing located on this site; • The desired housing type in the NNA will attract residents who will assist in the economic revitalization of Downtown Newhall. Economic Development • Based on the area's proximity to the nearby Metrolink station and Old Town Newhall, propose a development that would be an economically sustainable village that is supportive of revitalization efforts, with an appropriate mix of retail, office, restaurant, and general commercial square footage combined with neighboring and integrated housing types. Recreation • Include a site -specific and a community -based recreational component. 191 Packet Pg. 146 x 01] #a a a \ \\ ,m,mdO]e _ ZO § ! mae'a:� 6 _ }� SHgea3AV ao m a e:m:«: y: _ dNSSDOnISXOG«OOdS \)}d@dQ 7�i .«« alo E H 01]'C6 GVOH]'IV'H V] ca :HOJ (]3dO]3A3(l io cli (§mM VO'VildVIO ViNVS iS Hg (INV 3AV (IVOHIIVH JO H3NHOO 3 N gn 4 ViNV�O ViNVS Iq a 7�i snisXOOMOCIVHS oici - 01]'C6 GVOH`T`VH'-"TV] ca :HOJ (]3dO]3A3(l i o �ZM VO'VildVIO ViNVS M N iS HiCl (INV 3AV (IVOHIIVH JO H3NH0O 3 N en 4 ViNV�O ViNVS �lq Wm soicinisXOOMOCIVHS aaaa h....... a 'IJ, 'M m 9i��HMN EH W M m -,A� M-u HIMU W Q.Mw -HIP Mn' H RM H HHU H. HM a T.T- . . . .... MR. ........ . ..... C%j 0 0 LU LU LU w LU LU CO F- LU < w 0 co - 01]'C6 GVOH`T`VH'-"TV] co :HOJ (]3dO]3A3(l io Z 6 m rmon Ca 0 1ZM VO'VildVIO ViNVS iS HiCl (INV 3AV (IVOHIIVH JO H3NHOO 3 N m gn 4 H, Im ViNV�O ViNVS Iq 7�i soicinisXOOMOCIVHS 6A�oa -p M" V H WM-li , , y . . . . . . . -, - M , g _ �--Hnm n12 M-�ql M . ................... . gaff. . . H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ G8 P P 0 P F- w Ed 0) K w z 0 F- w w 0 z i "T 01]'C6 GVOH`T`V-'-HV] co :HOJ (]3dO]3A3(l io Cl) Z on 1ZM VO'VildVIO ViNVS iS HiC� (INV 3AV (IVOHIIVH JO H3NHOO 3 N Im ViNV�O ViNVS IR co soicinisXOOMOCIVHS o ato 6A�oa -p M" M, M, V H WM-li , , y . . . . . . . -, - M , g , . -'MMM H A M im . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.3 .. ....... . . . . . . . ................... .......... FE a <z�,�P�,�. 0 011 'ss GVOHn�<1`Va -'.Vl w . V, m y ao3 a3d013n3a r _ m c� o wep U 1ZMV0'VlldV10V1NVS y iS HiCl 0NV 3AV0VOHIIVH 30 H3NHOO 3 N e $ 4 dll2id�O d1NdS ~ ` s "- soicin1S XOOMOCIVHS aaaa mNm oa o to $ 4 $g =$r4 " - w s m�$$o4g4 $a as w $ -w 4m a4 ��- $off g UP!' e�oa ®� ors$ m mo m a a=aao �� a�, oagga�s aa-- w aaa woa® osaa=®ao=M, o.�.00 w �soa- a a„.. �w� w "'o,, ,,. s=mgxwo w; mouag�=awoo.awaa�aserw�-w�osaoa=' �oa aoo a a_-, s ag __ - a_ �g 1.. € € § G 8 G8 G8 Y o000 00 or Ho 00000 o r—Q-r- 11 M.— z O z O a > > W J W J W W 2 2 M Er O O I z -ew,a.. o OII 'ss GVOHIIVa..VI w o V, m w :HOd a3dO]3n3a w o mnm Qj w U 1ZMVO'VildVIOVINVS y � o£a 4 N m oov �� I iS HiCl ONV 3AVOVOHIIVH d0 H3NHOO 3 N m gn 4 d112id�OdlNdSamNm INasoicin1SX08MOCIVHS 7�i aaaa o ................................... mAA m mm mm AAmm A A m I mmm mmA mm m mm m®Am A ® IIIIIII� III�I m ® , IIIIIIII� = IIIIIIII � l 1 1 I J J Mm —C m,. 1 mmA 1 l J 1 ` ME A mmm m (w�uaurl=wn�>s: si :ugw.ns awwms.w•wr�n 8 X OII 'ss OVOHIVI g m aoJ a3dol3n3a r _ $ w o mnm 0; -O 0� 1ZMVO'VildVIOVINVS _ 4 s oov I 1S Hl£l ONV 3AVOVOHIIVH 30 H3NHOO 3 N 5 `,dll2id�O d1NdS"_ ~ ` 711 SOIaf11SX08M04�/HS o a § soma , -.0" 9mMa 9w j_a- oe, eH oaS � w? 3awaa _ §®,m-H WU s wa aoa= Boa 5i � mo4§a'YW�.��awo oa aw aa�aa Mgr w'"wa oa a§0 0 0 :mgw - s $ $ § ;pUfflYo�www .... .. 4,. m k�1Gao Y 3oG GY�GG >4�§ �Ea .: » €§M_-H a���..�: H H'-»§ W a w 5'.�A A. W s a s s 3 3 3 r e<n mom mmm __ ____ a ARea as aaa vase am es® a«s%a s<s s®n 4$444......4444444 ddddddddddddddddddm dddddddddddddddd =ii.iaiai........ ��m�m�8m 8m8 a8 a8a8msw� w w w w�w�w �.d.�.�.d.d. N Z Z 0 - 0 W J W W J W 17 z O � 0 a F a w > W J J W W r r u W W X OII 'ss GVOHIIVa VI o g ®� H coaoJ a3dol3n3a r _ $ w o m rm on s zwa w Q �o��o �zs�svO'vllavlOvlNvs = m oov I iS HiCl (INV 3AVOVOHIIVH 30 H3NHOO 3 N m eq $ m �mm va N d112id�OdlNdS a s �& soicin1S XOOMOCIVHS aaaa mNm oa o o 1 3m �a$$o4 $4�w�44 Eaa �ta' � � 0 3 c g4��4a ��w m.�.as"$�o�s � �� �m mo oe '®,RH e$H S _ __jai o$a$"m ® ffl- 3iW �" ''ate oa'�a 4a a wG §`¢s a4� - Y5� - `s�- as a a` d ems a�aao a its oaae^, �5 ^® 3 5 sF� '� 3 9 8 -� 0 8 8 8 8 8 8 8-- woHaII®ao`>.== o,3soo w S4o3� - `s �y3y a aa�3: �W3 w 'a"�o��. 8:m W m 'am a wa mo4§a'Y'��.��awo oa aw aa�aa �Sr w'-w�oa aoa= Boa a§0 - �8§ `3 0 0 §� § - 8 at' gY g 9g ar'$ 3 __ ___ d _ _aq �.. € € ..... HH. "Hill HHHM, H. WH m k§acao Y ao GGY�GG>4�§ �Ea .:»§gad..:mow»§ a. o�OR M�o��4��.��'�S g�a ss a�m o�a��s'g ag 6 w 5'.����a ¢ s a s s 3 3 3 ...I s.......... sss =�=ia=a=.i. . . r e<n mom mmm __ ____ a ARe�a�aaa vase am es® a«s%a s<s s®n ddddddddddddddddddm dddddddddddddddd .�m�m�8m 8m8 a8 a8a8ms�. �.d.�.�.d.d. IF9 7777 Ch _ 3mn euvw Z O Z O Z O r r r > w > w > — w w w w � w LU co — co w w _ w J J J Q a a a A �Irl� III, — I A I ® ' E C C c— C I --- A � —L-- A —L-- A -�ew, g V, o 01] 'ss avoHTiVa.-V] — o m m y ao� a3dol3n3a r _ c� o Q ~ =O GN 1ZMVO'VlldVIOV1NVS wep U o£a 4 m oov vn I 1SHl£laNV 3AVaV0?JIIV?JJ0?J3N?JOJ 3N m � n s $ N ' d112id�O d1NdS a mNm I Wm 4 ~` soicin1S X08MOCIVHS aaaa oa o o 1 m a U § soma , -.0" m w wow � - m to $ 4 $g =$rm m " ��o$ $off,W-1 ' g G_ r w $,goo __e�oa ors$ m mo m o 4_' -M ®a Saw oawa a os 'ca w §`¢sa a �� s e- o a a a a a a a-- w ,,,�y �w� m a .��' �w��awa w; mO awe.=awoo.awaa�ase rw�-w�osaoa=' �oa a o ��a a _- a m„m„m„m„m„m„m ®a ee �ezmam m��w�maa o�=ea a4 sa �.=o 44 ��a.44 al... as o w =�==a=a=======ao s®n------------ddddddm dddddddddddddddd . m m 8m 8m8 a8 a8a8ms� �.d.�....... 3Nn HJ1tlW P7 N ,• � o :96 1 Z Z Z F H H ''H W '•'1 W W 11 W Ed Ed11 •'I � `'I UI F Z J J cc cc CL Q Q Q I n CL u �o E- o E o rEJ � L --- A 7�1 ---- A aur uwn�>s: si :ugw..,s awwms.w•wr�n 8 X OII 'ss GVOHI(IIVw`al=VI g m aoJ a3dol3n3a r _io$ o on Q w m rm s zwa w �zMvO'vllavlOvlNvsoo = iS HiCl ONV 3AVOVOHIIVH 30 H3NHOO 3 N m gn 4 $ �mm va N ViNV�O ViNVS s 4 _ ~ ` soicin1S XOOMOCIVHS ", aaaa oa o §�� � $ 4=$r4��� - w s m�$$o4g4 $a as w $ -w 4m a4 ��- $off g ��� � �$,�oo e�oa ®��� o�s$�m��mo��m�o a -li �� a �, oag a- w aaa woa ®o sa o.�.00 w �soa-- a a„.. �w� w "'o,, ,,. s=mgxwo w; mouag�=awoo.awaa�aserw�-w�osaoa=' �oa aoo a a_-, s ag __ - a_ �g 1.. € € § G 8 G8 G8 co 0 u a JL-- Ilw<<zowl+einms: sl .�i�.i3 a�ipii�e.w.wr�nv $ aoJa3do]3n3a rio$ c� w 0> n � Q $zwep �zs�svO'vliavIOvlNvsoy4 y=^ m 1S Hl£l aNV 3AVaV0allVa J0 a3Na0O 3 N x moo �� Io. - - a gn 4 �H _ Wa N r n d1Rid�OdlNdS s$ oa soicin1S X08MOCIVHS aaaa o - w s M �$$ �$,m— e$a as w $ .... WW'$ $off g o�s$�m��mo��m�o a Saw oawa a os 'ca = w §`¢sa PUS �� s � maaa a =aa., �� �' ® a��Gaw� o am a a � '� �� '� a � s �� awa a a a a =y�yM _ m=a�$... '� ��.-.�.�.a.�.a= a <_. a�rwa=w�oa.o ®a� ��� '? �o�moo � awW Y�o 6waa s-a�a `awo ��= 3°° a Eaaaa - a° o=o aaaw�. �wo=o § a„ao=,�ao�-�w y o ......... 4 �ooaowa`aw�aa�a.® 44 4 om® k ac�oo�s g- =ww o 4 as o:§ _ __ __ __ _=����aM �_� ���=®®W " �mm8G 8G8 G8 G8G oa�a.�:��¢.a. N N N \ > W J _/ _ -__— W W O O W771 - - Q --- ---- V � m o Z O LU LU �i - T X 0ll '£6 OV0?JI IV?J Vl o s o„ H m� aoJa3do]3n3a r _io o of Q w m rm seaw �zsI,6vO'vllavIOvlNvs yjN x moot/ vn _ 1SHl£IaNV 3AVaV0?JIIV?JJ0?J3N?JOJ 3N yg„sx g $ m ViNVd OViNVS Na N �H$ s m soicin1S X08MOCIVHS aaaa oa o §M..y . -.0" � a a - a ��� �, wed W -w� a a ---- a a a .. -.. -.. .. �. �'asaa o 3 a Eaaaa NOW", .,,,, ...........„........ awe a=was"�a s m'seoaeO. w€a o=�oxaoww�oxa8 4m o N w ._�H. �_=����a=��=�_����g_®®� w - se44a�m„�a �aaa„ o ww �... ww w _r e<n mom mmm __ ____ a ARe�a���� vase am es® a«s%a s<s U dddddddddddddddddddm ddddddddd dadaadd E e 8m8 a8 a8amms� .Fc FeF.F. F:F o< N N N ppr z -� z z z o o� o Q - > J W J J J W W W W F H _ F CO L \ (n W \vl O O w z � ,_III � I II %y!�� - - - �� l LE a _ MUNI III, II _ I e _ o - I r H 0 OII '£6 0V0?JIIVH -Vl 3eujpjne w WVRtl m w HOd 03dO13A30 w m o m nm Oj -O Q� lZ£66VO'VildVIOVINVS x 00o J �� _ 1S Hl£I ONV 3AVOVOHIIVH JO H3NHOO 3 N 4 W Fm ViNV�O d1NVS ' SoiciniS X08MOadHS a 4 a 0£4 aaaaa mom a�a�o a § soma , nU lm�$$o4g4 �$,�oo ®a Saw oawa a os 'ca w §`¢sa a �� s a a=aao �� oa��a�s a® e $� '�a-- w a. �w� w; mou�a,Qw;o.awaa�aserw�-w�osaoa=' �oa aoo . - �� �� '��� a ag �axo�w�� - a Eaaaa a a ......m„m �a ff4„„�� � as ®a �a�'� a� a� _; ® H. ®� e e�ezmamm��w�maa o�=eaa4 ��oe�sa �.=o44��a.44 aim o„aga as o w r e<n mom mmm __ ____ a ARe�a���� vase am es® a«s%a s<s s®n ddddddddddddddddddm dddddd d d d d d d d.. m 8m 8m8 a8 a8a8ms� �.d.�.�.d.d. N Z O w J :. 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 0 0 I V, p OII '£s aVOHIIVa -VI my a33a3dO]3n3a w m o m nm Oj lZMVO'VildVIOV1NVS x 00o J �� _ 1S Hl£l ONV 3AVOVOHIIVa dO a3NHOO 3 N 4 W Fm ViNV�O d1NVS ' SoiciniS X08MOadHS 6 o o m a 4 0£4 mom aaaaa a�a�o a § soma , nU lm�$$o4g4 �$,�oo ®a Saw oawa a os 'ca w §`¢sa a �� s a a=aao �� oa��a�s a® e $� '�a-- w a. �w� w; mou�a,Qw;o.awaa�aserw�-w�osaoa=' �oa aoo . - �� �� '��� a ag �axo�w�� - a Eaaaa a a ......m„m gaff.„„�� � as ® a �a�'� a� a� _; H. e e�ezma�m��w�maao�=eaa4��oe�sag.=sz„��a. „a�msaazaaa o w r e<nm�m mmm __ ____ a ARro�a���� veeeaees® a«s%a s<ss®n ddddddddddddddddd dmddddd.......... m 8m8m8 .............. �.d.�.�.d.d. N Z O r Q w J W 2 7��] Z y I —0L-j —-\"__..._1 ?i A LA Rii aur uwn�>s: si :ugw..ls awwms .w.wr�n 0 OII 'S6 GVOHI(IIVw`a -l=Vl r, V, m HOd a3dO]3n3a w o mnm o; _ -n? Q 4 Q1ZMVO'VildVIOVINVS 1S Hl£l NV 3AV VOHIIVH d0 H3NHOO 3 N IN Q q $ mo d112id�OdlNdS UP, a IN oa soicin1S Xz8MOCIVHS aaaa o to $ 4 $g =$r4 " - w s m�$$o4g4 $a as w $ -w 4m a4 ��- $off g ��� � �$,�oo e�oa ®��� o�s$�m��mo��m�o � � � a �� � � �� s � � � a a=aao �� a�, oagga�s '� a s e- o a a a a a a a-- w aaa woa® osaa=®ao�M, o.�.00 w �soa- a a„.. �w� w "'o,, ,,. s=mgxwo w; mou�ag��=awoo.awaa�aserw�-w�osaoa=' �oa aoo a a_-, s ag __ - a_ �g 1.. € € ............. gaff.„�„�� � § G8 G8G8G8G�awsa.a.��¢.a. V N 0 m 0 0 a w J W r CO w Cl) N 0 m z O w J W r w ti N N 0 m z 0 a w J W x r 0 0 co n N ii 0 J m U' z U 0 r ¢ W W N CD 0 m z O a w J W x r Er z N :7 m — z ¢ w J W CO W -ew,a.. v, o 01] 'ss avoHTiVa.V] g m m :HOJ a3dol3n3a r _ r DR 1ZMVO'VlldVIOV1NVS g 4 x �o V 2 1S Hl£l aNV 3AV aV0?JIIV?J d0 ?J3N?J0O 3 N m - gn 4 N ViNV�O d1NVSw w ¢soicin1SX08MOCIVHS 7�i aaaa w .$y p n H m y - "o$a $04��� _ - rosoa�oaaa - §4 - - - - §o-ago _-aga ,RH o$a$"m� m�,� "�o $ 4 - - �. wam'm w a gz§oo a< gom =a=a a o� , ® § Saw oawa a os ' ca § ¢sa w a U aao `�¢aa�6s®ao�=r� ��waoso w am a a� s a� s -'� o a„a�a a aaa= PM 6waa�'s6§o?§ two.. �, d �a3 mgg �. �o¢os� d �a� 3 d Edddd d° d MM UM Lazo... �4.... m .4 �=waeo�'sa��G�wox�occ�o����4sa���wa�a»����.�_�®���=®®w w ��_=�d a e ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "Ia mlmj9 a.a.a.a.aoag CM LO z O a w J W 2 H O co w 0 O z w Y z O a w J W 2 I. — cc O z x 0]]'C6GVOH]IVH VI 0 co :HOJ (]3dO]3A3(l Z 3:. on 1ZM VO'VildVIO ViNVS m m iS HiCl (INV 3AV (IVOHIIVH JO H3NHOO 3 N R ViNV�O ViNVS soicinisXOOMOCIVHS Ha A�soma -.0" a 9M 1 HHMFj-i-,M'®,RH N11 "ffl- F No —UH I § �'. ; L,.ffl'­ N 0 'ffl H a M �P M""M MW DHIH, . ................... . Ww— -WHH. —ffln . . . . . . I.H H MO, HHH". .M."E. 88 ..—H .................. ...... . — ............ co LO V co z z z z 2 2 0 0 c < < w w w w d d d w w < Er Lu 0 0 z Er w cc: Lu 2 w M cc Er (1) 0 M j) 9 0 z z 0 w w z w z w W x: < rj) F- cc: F-- < cc F- cc O m cc) P- z z z z 9 0 0 0 F- < < F- < F- F- < w w w w w w w w (1) w F-- w 0 0 cc F- w w w w O O cf) M (1) 0 0 0 z w z w z z m: w w W < x: F- $ p � _ o 3 y 3 s S .fix s Es. 2 h o :• w �8 � � ��� deb 4£ � g Ub�8 o 83 �O= Eb48 5➢ 2 ° 0 U U w U Ug= 0 i _mo mu �go��� aka two ?j^ap�pm Um�n o°� `�o UU� z ww z6 Jm m� am G� `� w uaarc ap w Q� z w � -w W N4iN 24a arcw Oq QaU'm(5nKU$ L-1 133HS 333 - 3NIlHOIVW �`zIS s rON .iNow I7 . I i j,j�I W N 30 00 W 44 0 x� mg a Q z ., £-1 133HS 33S - 3NPHO1WJ I 3p� I _ F I I T T t l! I I I I I I I I 1-1133Hs33s 3NnHDivw ♦ I � f f Fl-1 �0 j ! I I I II o II ��I r' I� - ar I � I m E pq 9 P® I '/I r•� F- � a IN ICI E - s �I i9 o I I _ I � H ♦ n ♦ �� �d I g s� � `♦ � � � n w p� Z � € e € M E gg � • � \ t� Z-1 133HS 33S - 3NIlHJ1VW lilt j bpgpp 1 s11eaA ';0s =aAs9�a "s aye Q - Y � Momdo 11WIl vvo�� oYYO {7 . oiYY�11JIN � 8 a ar 8 a 8 b � gggg §2 | § § §§| $ I!0HF o § a � Z�§ r�� a } M6 0 § �Cf) 2 � F- L X 01] 'ss avoa]iva v] g m :aod a3dol3n3a _ $ c� w o m ;nm o o; @ �zMvO'vliavIOvlfvvs V : £a 4 =MN 1S Hl£l aNV 3AV aVOaIIVa d0 a3Na0O 3 N m - gn 4 $ �mm va N ViNV�O d1NVS e w y ¢4 s soianis X08MOGVHS aaaa o o 101111111 10111111 IN 8 � s o Riijie m a 2 mY f°u� gym aes ��m�am 44 @Y=R R - R}YRRRSR�q AF BE 11111 Mollin'llil�l�Ill 11111 w of - - - - - - - - - - - -------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OPEN—\��Imgn�llln ------- ------ -- ` I Ng FW � I I c� gWg¢ I i i lL <_ NH-H s �. w��j� zF 0000�omw6 ' a a I a � O O' c � I I I�IIII ®�_:,'g o. � Illllln llllll �_ �x4 - Hr 1 Ep r-- ----- ---' III ea a �R m.eA p "------'r------ ? I II I ---------'----- Its I -- - - - - - - - - - I- L '�y ym- m m m mmm Gm9 i T r �x o CD _--- e-..—z im yA x O Q -----------------------; - 1 1 0 __., Q x H H o m N CJ w > o m �nm o O W m ^M moV vu�i N w a Wes= �LL OII '£6 OVOH]IVH VI ao3a3dO]3n3a lZ£66 VO'VildVIO V1NVS 1S Hl£l (INV 3AV OVOHIIVH d0 H3NHOO 3 N ViNV�O d1NVS SOIaf11S X08MOadHS o m _ _ ;g Q M 4 b¢'?� q & 7�o a aaaa w a L .T Cl) tpd-CO J �m� og pN w U) OCLU EL Q z Ucc H 0 U W Z � Q F om WW ------... - ___ - .nm--------------------------- _ ea�was 10 _"• �A Y a - etz sa e k - nr `JNIb31d0 _ W- vm.o ge � � a III g � i e_ I i i � i i44 �i pia •� �� __ --------- s_---------- _ - _ c _ ___- I .wog"', s 3Nn eas-- ----- a f�e---------- ----J 0 z CD W J CD Y Q N_ cc 0 J 0 c.> ^ x #a a' V] ` m,m� e _ co,i _ §§ - § 2§ mae'a:ViN 6 aHgea3AV ao m a e:m:«: _ \ _ § | j \G2e� d @d O d N S ■H / g 6 \\} SD OnIS XOG«OOd S x #a a' V] ^ t ,m,m� e _ % i _ §§ - § 2§ ma 6' a :ViN 6 aHgea3AV ao m a e:m:«: _ \ § | j \G2e� d @d O d N S ■H / g 6 \\} SD OnIS XOG«OOd S § #a a� « . . q $ ( § �® m,m� e w :§ } 4 z } ko + / t M IN , § + } t ©m m6' <G a a :� 6 2 e ! I SH �ea� ao m a e:m:«: a`) ) 71� \¥ed;\:¥a2�E d @dQdNS ~Ga )\\ _ \\SD OnIS XOG«OOd S \ \ƒ\ .d / \ § C� 011 #a ava « § M. R :a mdO]e w k [ S (+\ ma 6' a :� 6 #gyp):!/ } / SH �m«� ao a a e:m:«: } % d`\ } \ 2 u e gq; E § U 5 %(L \ SDOnIS XOG«OOdS / j 01] 'ss avoaI'iva w] sit6IM N P m Hod a3dol3n3a `'+ v oW gn m =m om Q 1ZM Vo'VlldVlo V1NVS aa=zg4 x � I 1S Hl£l oNV 3AV oV0?IIV?d0 ?3N?Oo 3N q z= E �a ViNV�O ViNVS w w�ea.p71� aSOIaf1SX08MOadHS w m a 1 6 ~+LU � - m' � m o m + + + "+ -- N �� W "+ Q ,�I �cp N + m+ m+ V �LL + �m� �z mry "+ "+ + �m U) LO + _ +z Q e "+ + `+ �+ + w / w - m + a +co m+ m+w 0 0 o + co 0 oo ++o �+ �+ o �+ �+ �+ �+ m+ __+ m+ + + ++ Pm+ ' "+<0 + + �+ �+ �+ + � + �+ �+ �+ +o r� + "+ o� +o �+ + 4+0 o+ �+ + 4+ o �+ r� lb +`+ +`+`+ +`+ +m+�+m+m+r+r+ +�+ + z + V"+ + o ti m+ m+ P+ "+ + +� P+ + + m+ co co + + "+ W W W W J `+ m.+ V + (n m " (n m J ry (n m (n m + �+ " + + U W m+ m+ ® _Ai® - Q o+ P+ + + "+ my coin corn + e+ Q� Q� W (7(7 (W7(7 ry+ + (nm" (nm" (nm" (nm" 1y M M W we 6b. of 3wu zL(¢ �wPOE 31tla neJl txTJ SVVld 9NUH9IrX�a�wi�3�6EE\R\'9 '3 NH zE[3-IEEE-R 3 N31 9NNntltp wlN1.tl3Limp -^^•---d^- OII '£6 OVOaI IVa Vl m m ao3a3dol3n3a lZ£l6 VO'VlIaVlO V1NVS IMP 1S Hl£l ONV 3AV OVOHIIVH d0 a3Na0O 3 N g m q U E£„8 x_ g / n c� N F m s azA N rh E l w V fill! f d112id�O dlNdS �o�sw� a$�a � � e w w =y a V LL SoiciniS X08MOCIVHS we os. of 3wu zL(¢ �wPOE 31tla neJl txTJ SVVld 9NUH9IrX�a�wi�3I6EE\R\'9 '—N— EE[3-IEEE-R 3w—I—M— wlN1.tl3Limp-^^•-^^-d^�,,.,.F�, m.,,,e y O 011'£6IVl 3 aoJ(]3da3do]3l3n3a Q�zMvO'vllavlOvlNvs 1S Hl£l ONV 3AV OVOHIIVH 3O a3NHOO 3 N d112id�O d1NdS SOIaf11S XOBMOadHS v LU a g m eaa-"a 6 w: 7�i waw� W �t +�� � Uj w Q CO I L N rt i � M L Ln 01 w o yam a¢� V+ N M ~ + W I -ti + 01, 1LLO + + + J `+ �+ �+ t t J t V Q U U + J - 7 S + Q� Q o V+ a D+ + + + LL + + m+ + V+ + �# of + o+ '+ + + + IL N m + M W + . -'A-' m op co o weos. of 3wu zL(¢�wPOE 31tla neJl txTJ SVVld 9NUH9IrX�a�wi�3�6EE\R\'9 '—N— --IEEE-R—N-1 9NM— wlN,.tl3Limp •-^^-d^�,,.,.F�, m.,,,e p oll '£s avoa']lVH V] P. @=F - 'n 8 y m 3 Hoda3dol3n3a fiw m a ®ga z £ �� ' v W p Np Li% 0 Q m lZM Vo'VildVIO VINVS ga-g J W ewe p c U = 4 m 1S Hl£l (INV 3AV (IVOHIIVH do H3NHOO 3 N gLn C7 d112id�OdlNdS sp, LU wbSOIaf11S 71� XOOMOCIVHS m e F E s a a a a a m+ + JU) �' W a Lr Y}u0 d J - Q � I L N m N aO � + Eg ®+ _ -+ ry m+ 19 Q Lu o +d� +o + + U + m� + m+ m+ 19 + OO �+ `+ P+ Q `+ P+ - + +o + - M v + + o m+"+ + + J w - +� a z m dLL _ t J + Q U o U �-l w J o W S Q N Q Q + e o � s ++ m+ �r + W we�.0i 3wu zzOZ �wmE.3ltla neJl txTJ SVtlli 9NUH9CFX�a�wi�3�6EE\iz\'9 '—N— S--IEEE-R—N-9NNnwa y O ill '£6 Vl 3 aoJ (]3dO]3a3dol3n3a Q C� lZ£16VO'VllaVlOV1NVS 1S Hl£l aNV 3nV aVoallVH 3o a3NHOO 3 N V c� to d112id�O d1NdS SOIaf11S XOBMOadHS 5 g w Un Q ao£4 Rmssw iq� -- z „8 Fg37�i wLU LU a w M W °t t t 9t °t °t °t °t °t c'+ + o+ o+ o+ o+ o+ n ~ / we 050i 3wLL Iz. 1 1 31tla —N— --IEEE-R —N-1 9NNntltp zo., t13Limp Ilco-�i�wt miPmsm Ana=i:�owsa a�n4an.waws��n ^ C 01] 'ss avoa]'iva v] sit.eIM P m Hoda3dol3n3a w U, Q1ZM Vo 'VlldVIo V1NVS q x v I 1S Hl£l oNV3�V oV0?JIIV?J d0 ?J3N?JOo3N 71� ViNV�O ViNdS o s w $ee w w� SoiciniS X08M04dHS m m ear a as a a w a a o we 050i 3wLL ZZ(¢ �wPOE 31tla neJl txTJ SVVld 9NUH9IrX�aaawiZ3�6EE\R\'9 '—N— [E[3-IEEE-R —N-1 9NM— ZOINZ t13Limp w-•---d^- oll '£6 GVoallVa Vl 00 '® M& :Hod (13dol3n3� + m w oW �z£�6vo'vliavlovlNvs ��g r ego g a =gg= m d a �� 1S HE£ (INV 3AV OVOHTVa 3o a3Naoo 3 N 00 N 'tF dl2id�OdlNdS = e � LU SOIaf1SX08M04VHS 6a a a a a�a g M rl — W 1 m+ + m+ a "+ "+ "+ o+�+ �LLI + + o + �+ + + + + 4j - F-t �+ �+ + �+ + + s+ + 1 �$+ + �+ + �+ + + 6 "+ 0 I� �+ g �+ + m+ + m+ m+ 1 a Q G LU + `+ + + 0.+ + �+ �+ �+ m+ + m+� -+ �+ �+ -+ P+ =+ =+ =t m+ m+Pam+ 1 I + o+ + � � m M W m +k, + "+ } J �+ �+ �+ + N+® + + m+ J Q 1 + �+ �+ + "+ "+ "+ + "+ o+ + �+ �t �t t + �+ + �+ �+ �+ r+ m+ W S + �++++ m+ Ww o+�+ m+ m+ ¢ g + �+ + �+ m+ P+ + m+ �+ �+ + + P+ -+ mt m+ o+ o+ �+ mid I1 + + + + + + o+ + �+ 1 I �+ + + + + r+ + + + 1 + v� m "+ + + ro OO OO + o\o+ n M W weos. of 3wu zL(¢�wPOE 31tla neJl txTJ SVtlli 9NUH9I7X�a�wi�3�6EE\R\'9 '—N— R—N-9NNntltp wND iHLamp w^•-^^-d^�.,.F�, m.,,,e 01] '£s aVoallVa V] 6 °' P m Hod a3dol3n3aLU w & z �� �z£vo'vllavIo v1Nvs VA `aaqp cl no 4x: m aE zm 1S Hl£l (INV 3AV (IVOHIIVH do a3Naoo 3 N g wJ z =8w ViNV�O ViNdS z _ -a 6 L �qm�m�ee SOIaf1SX08M04�HS a a a — + - J + +i o m ^ o �+ �+ 0 0- 0o m - Z I - ++ ++ + + 00 N . �+ + + �+ I ry+ + + + + + + _ 1 _+ ` P+ ~+ _+ m+ + + a �+ + �+ a+ "+ P+ + _+ "+ W + 1 � �� �� \� o o� o� I - + �+ _+ _+ _ _+° + �_+ mm + + + ® + I I =+ 1 = _ a I �+ + _+ 1 _+ _+ _+ �+ �+ _+ + `+ m+ "+ "+ _ �+ _+_+ + ® w �+ �+ °`+ m+ m+ m+ + 1 o � "+ ¢� �+ �+ �+ + �+ �+ �+ "+ 1 -+ �+ �+ °�+ �+ �+ + "+ _+ _+ I + + m o m g mom , �+ �� �+ + m+ + 6 + 1 0 o " o+ I o m m 1 ++++ I + +� m 0 0+ —N— -- C TZ —N-5NM— ZO ULO co all ill Kcs v✓ A.�. �/' ti�l / �w /. °.✓ �r�; _ >� - - - 'S I it '_ _ L-I- m a SIT ITI� s r I�y � }�\ �\��\. ✓ ��1 - \' � II II ti'� I I' I H ' I � I IV� 6 / Il I 1` �— i✓ \ Hill III �✓.'` � Ur�'� �� � �, `i✓I j ��.����o� �C E -, e I � _ �� , '�" 1 ill � .I I - C ✓ �'� �'� § �� _ �,w j LI J ✓� IIY � � 41 tr II� IIII'lil II EJ o Iu 4< a I � I IgI _ li � �.. a, .n .,i �� e � _ ❑ Myth .. � { v 1 IIII 1 ❑I Ir' N �I Hill '� � - � � IIIIIII. � V: I Am Ild I II I� ry I f IIII] ��rl� II III a e y II a I � I•= I IIII x r - 61 I I rI A �I ii .. H IIII �:. 1 _ _ .I � ��l -c - r�7 � �I - a''✓ ��--'�--ia3ks�� - �s - �. I I � T, � I J 11 l p STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1.n Gavin Newsom., Governor PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 320 WEST 4TH STREET, SUITE 500 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 (213)576-7083 July 5, 2023 Eugene D. Nelson - President E.D. Nelson Construction, Inc. 22115 Placeritos Boulevard. Santa Clarita, CA 91321 File Number: CORS 2023060001 13th Street City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles Re: 13th Street Highway -Rail Crossing (CPUC No. 101VY-30.39, DOT No. 746016J) in the City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles Dear Mr. Nelson, The California Public Utilities Commission (Commission/CPUC) has jurisdiction over the safety of highway -rail crossings (crossings) in California. On June 15, 2023, the Commission's Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch (RCEB) received your letter inquiring about the possibility of constructing a separate private crossing for the Shadowbox Studio project at 15`h Street to prevent the co -mingling of semi -trucks and commuter traffic at the existing 13th Street crossing in the City of Santa Clarita (City). The 13`h Street crossing is identified as CPUC No. 101VY-30.39 and DOT No. 746016J. Typically, a private crossing can be established directly between the railroad and private party and does not require approval from the CPUC. The railroad and the private party would need to discuss and agree to the improvements that would be needed at the private crossing, including ownership and maintenance responsibility of the private crossing. However, in reviewing the location of 15`h Street, it does not appear that a private crossing is feasible. A new roadway would require a modifications to the traffic signal to add additional phases, and given the short distance between the tracks the existing curb line (approximately 50 feet), the traffic signal would need to be interconnected with the crossing warning devices. This interconnection provides an indication to the traffic signal controller that a train is approaching, and allows the traffic signal to clear the tracks. Without this interconnection, any vehicles on the tracks could be trapped on the crossing. This interconnection, along with the changes to the traffic signal, would likely require the crossing to be maintained by the City to function safely. And if the City maintains the crossing, it would be classified as public, rather than private, and require authorization from the CPUC. In general, RCEB staff does not support new at -grade crossings along mainline tracks, whether public or private. The proposed crossing at 15`h Street would be on the existing Metrolink mainline track which has a high volume of commuter and freight trains, and per the CPUC's General Order 75-D, it is the CPUC's Policy to reduce the number of at -grade crossings on mainline tracks. General Order 75-D: 2. POLICY ON REDUCING NUMBER OF AT -GRADE CROSSINGS Packet Pg. 188 1.n Eugene D. Nelson COBS 2023060001 July 5, 2023 Page 2of2 As part of its mission to reduce hazards associated with at -grade crossings, and in support of the national goal of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the Commission's policy is to reduce the number of at -grade crossings on freight or passenger railroad mainlines in California. As noted above, the CPUC has jurisdiction over the safety of rail crossings. RCEB staff have been in discussions with the City and Metrolink regarding the expected impacts of the proposed Shadowbox development to the 131h Street crossing, and those concerns have been addressed by the City. Though RCEB staff understands your concern of additional traffic into your neighborhood, those concerns will need to be discussed with the City. If you have any additional questions, please contact me at (213) 999-3403 or christopher.palas e,cpuc.ca.gov. Sincerely, �= =0111 I Chris Palas Utilities Engineer Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch Safety and Enforcement Division Copy: City of Santa Clarita Metrolink Packet Pg. 189 1.0 ADAMSKI MOROSKI MADDEN CUMBERLAND & GREEN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Post Office Box 3835 • San Luis Obispo, California 93403-3835 T 805-543-0990 • F 805-543-0980 • www.ammcglaw.com July 11, 2023 Ms. Erika Iverson, Planner City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, CA 91355 EIverson(cr�,Santa-Clarita.com Re: REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE JULY 18, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING In the Matter of Shadowbox Studios Project City of Santa Clarita Master Case Number 21-109 Our Client- Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association (" PCPOA") Dear Ms. Iverson: Late in the afternoon on July 6th, we received over 2,000 pages of materials regarding the EIR for this project. We have not yet had the opportunity to review these voluminous materials in any detail. However, included in the materials were 12 pages incorrectly styled as "Errata and Clarifications to the Draft EIR". An Errata is a list of errors in a printed work discovered after printing and shown with corrections. An Errata is used to clarify misspellings, omissions, and other typographical answers. Errata deals with mistakes not new information that the City should have included and circulated in the DEIR. The characterization of this new information as an Errata is inappropriate and misleading. The Errata section of the "Final EIR" sets forth new information and substantive changes that were not contained in the DEIR. This "Final EIR" now contains significant new information added to the EIR after the time limit for public comment to the draft EIR expired. Nevertheless, the Errata Section erroneously characterizes new information as non - substantiative changes. Examples of this charade include the inclusion of: new traffic improvements; railroad crossing widening; obtaining different air permits from AQMD; biological concerns regarding the Crotch Bumble Bee and Mountain Lions; the insistence the Applicant retain a qualified biologist who will be on site during construction; new conditions governing construction activities for the project; new energy and emission standards; changes to the public and utility services; substantial changes to the Wildfire Section of the EIR; and changes to the Transportation Assessment. The new information now in the Errata Section of the "Final EIR" requires postponing the upcoming Planning Commission Hearing and the recirculation for public comment of the revised Paso Robles Office: 1948 Spring Street • Paso Robles, CA 93446-1620 • T 805-238-2300 • F 805-238-2322 Packet Pg. 190 Ms. Erika Iverson, Planner City of Santa Clarita July 10, 2023 Page 2 "Final EIR". CEQA Guidelines mandate the requested postponement and recirculation of the "Final EIR". The pertinent section of the applicable CEQA Regulation is reproduced below for your reference. 15088.5. RECIRCULATION OF AN EIR PRIOR TO CERTIFICATION " (a) A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this section, the term "information" can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not "significant" unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to implement. "Significant new information" requiring recirculation include, for example, a disclosure showing that: (1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. (2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it. (4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish and Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043)...." The New information added to an EIR is "significant". The EIR was changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to implement. This "Significant new information" requires recirculation of the EIR and postponement of the July 18tn Planning Commission Hearing. This is not the first time the City's handling of this project mandated a requested continuance from PCPOA and the public. My partner, Ty Green, criticized the City's failure to continue the public comment period for the DEIR in his May 22" d letter to you. His letter requested a mere 15-day continuance, within the existing statutory period for public comment, because of the daunting impacts this massive project posed to the community and the overwhelming number of materials to be reviewed. Another reason for the requested continuance occurred after his letter was sent to you when the City purposely delayed responding to our initial Public Records Request " PRR") of April 19, 2023. We received some of the requested materials from our PRR at the close of business on May 15, 2023, 24 hours before the Planning Commission Hearing on May 16, 2023. Packet Pg. 191 1.0 Ms. Erika Iverson, Planner City of Santa Clarita July 10, 2023 Page 3 Voluminous, but incomplete, materials requested in April were finally provided to us on the 25ch three days after the close of the public comment period, necessitating our second reason for a continuance. This document dump and its timing was brought to the Commission's attention at the May 16th Hearing. The Commission summarily swatted away our request. In fact, to date, we still have not received all the requested materials pursuant to our Public Records Requests. As a result, PCPOA and the public are being prevented from knowing all the relevant material information pertaining to this project while simultaneously being forced to comment on the project on a fast -track expedited timeline the project with incomplete information. I appeared at last month's Planning Commission Hearing decrying this rush to judgment. The City's express train to approval is ignoring full compliance with CEQA Guidelines and other requirements for this project. It is incredulous that the construction of 19 55-foot-high movie studios, requiring several zoning changes and other variances, purportedly poses no significant environmental impacts to the community! There are, in fact, significant traffic, biological, and wildfire impacts posed by this project that the City is ignoring. What's the rush? Yet, the City will not even propose the project be conditioned on the already approved Dockweiler Extension that successfully survived the EIR process and will ameliorate the traffic, wildfire, and evacuation impacts posed by this project benefiting the canyon residents. Safety trumps expediency. The City appears to be myopic in focusing on the potential tax revenues the Studio may generate while overlooking the inevitable wildfire calamity lurking "around the corner". A Wildfire affecting the Canyon is inevitable: it is only a matter of time, unfortunately. Even so, the EIR fails to consider the Wildfire and evacuation impacts posed not only to Placerita Canyon but also to the neighboring Circle J community (another disaster waiting to occur, unfortunately). Also overlooked in this rush to judgment is that Placerita Canyon is a Special Standards District. Neither the DEIR nor the "Final EIR" seriously consider the substantial impacts this project poses to this Special Standards District. Both the DEIR and the "Final EIR" are devoid of any analysis the significant impacts this project poses to the District and its Canyon Residents. Pertinent portions of the Special Standards District are reproduced below. 17.39.020 Placenta Canyon Special Standards District "Intent and Purpose. The purpose of the Placerita Canyon special standards district (PCSSD) is to protect, maintain, preserve and enhance the secluded, rural equestrian character of the community, to enhance the community's unique appeal and to help mitigate the cumulative impacts of residential development. Additionally, it is the purpose of these special standards to ensure that new and expanded structures are compatible with the characteristics of surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods, and protect the light, air, and privacy of existing single-family residences from negative impacts. These standards are also intended to ensure reasonable access Packet Pg. 192 Ms. Erika Iverson, Planner City of Santa Clarita July 10, 2023 Page 4 to public riding and hiking trails, and to minimize the need for installation of infrastructure such as sewers, streetlights, concrete sidewalks and concrete flood control systems that would alter the community's character, while providing for adequate drainage and other community safety features. B. Property Development Standards. The following requirements shall apply in all zones in the area identified as Placerita Canyon on the official zoning map and as described in subsection (G) of this section: 1. Animals which are kept or maintained as pets shall be permitted to continue when in accordance with the following: a. Two (2) horses or other similar animals which, in the opinion of the Director, are neither obnoxious nor detrimental to the public welfare may be kept on a lot or parcel of land which has a minimum area of five thousand (5,000) square feet, but less than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. b. The requirements of Chapter 17.62 (Animal Keeping) with respect to animal keeping are met, with the exception of the minimum lot area above. 2. Any new development shall adhere to the following standards or provide the following amenities: a. Trails. i. Riding and hiking trails shall be provided as depicted on the latest Placenta Canyon Backbone Trails exhibit on file with Parks, Recreation and Community Services, to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services; ii. Trails shall be fenced to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services, with fences of a rustic wood appearance; iii. Trail access shall be provided at all river crossings; iv. There shall be no obstructions including, but not limited to, landscaping, trash receptacles, or other similar structures within a designated trail; v. Fencing shall not be permitted to cross riverbeds in such a manner as to deny trail access; vi. All new residential projects of greater than four (4) dwelling units and all new commercial, industrial and institutional projects (including expansion thereof) shall provide trail easements, consistent with community goals and the Placenta Canyon backbone trails exhibit, to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services; vii. Unobstructed multipurpose pathways for both pedestrian and equestrian uses shall be developed in each new development to the satisfaction of both the Director of Public Works and the Director of Parks, Recreation, and Community Services. Although alignments that are not adjacent to roadways will generally be preferred, road easements may be used when the Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services determines that other locations are inappropriate; and viii. Trail construction shall be completed and maintained in accordance with the conditions set forth by the Department of Parks, Recreation, and Community Services. All information pertaining to trail requirements shall be shown on the tentative parcel or tract map and on the final parcel or tract map prior to the final map recordation; C. Street lights, in accordance with City standards, shall be installed only at road -to -road intersections; exterior lighting shall be designed to minimize off -site illumination, within the requirements for public safety. Exterior lighting on residential parcels shall be of top -shielded design to prevent direct off -site illumination; hoods shall be used to direct light away from adjacent parcels. Exterior lighting on nonresidential parcels shall be prohibited except where necessary for the safety of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, as determined by the City. To minimize off -site illumination where lights are required, cut-off fixtures in keeping with a rural equestrian architectural style will be specified; Packet Pg. 193 1.0 Ms. Erika Iverson, Planner City of Santa Clarita July 10, 2023 Page 5 D. Commercial/Industrial Zones. 1. Landscaping Requirements. a. Adequate buffering between residential and nonresidential areas shall be provided, in accordance with the provisions of this code; b. Street trees shall be required; c. Landscaped berms or other landscape treatment shall be used to screen the view of parking areas from the street; and d. Landscape plans shall incorporate twenty-four (24) inch box trees. 2. Lot Orientation. Properties fronting on Lyons Avenue shall be oriented with their primary access on Lyons Avenue. Site orientation shall discourage use of Placenta Canyon Road as a primary access. 3. Noise Limits. Any loud music (live or recorded) shall comply with the noise limits as set forth in Section 11.44.040 (Noise Limits). E. North Newhall Area. The following requirements shall apply to those properties in the Placerita Canyon special standards district that are within the North Newhall Area (NNA), as identified in the General Plan. The future uses and development within this area require careful advance planning and consideration of any potential projects shall be required to address each of the following subject areas: 1. Public Participation/Outreach. a. Be subject to public participation and outreach led by the applicant(s) or the applicant's representative, at the onset of and during conceptual planning and prior to formal submittal of a proposed project to the City. Outreach would include, but is not limited to, the Placerita Canyon property owners' association. 2. Traffic Intrusion/Gateways. a. Be internally and externally pedestrian -oriented, and have equestrian and bicycle amenities and accommodations; b. Understand and acknowledge that any development at these locations will increase existing vehicular traffic and create new vehicular traffic, and that there will be impacts to equestrian and pedestrian circulation in the existing neighborhood, and therefore to minimize those impacts, special attention must be given to mitigate impacts caused by such identified access points; c. Layout and orientation of any developments shall be designed to discourage and where possible prevent additional trips into Placerita Canyon caused by or resulting from such developments; d. Include defined entry gateways or monuments into the Placerita Canyon special standards district, at Railroad Avenue, complete with landscaping and architectural elements with signage expressly stating there is no through traffic allowed; and e. A traffic study shall be prepared for all new developments that are projected to generate two hundred fifty (250) or more new daily trips, within the areas encompassed by the NNA. The traffic study shall analyze those potentially impacted intersections within the NNA area and those that lie within a one (1) mile radius of the subject development site. 3. Buffering and Transitions. a. Preserve the existing rural equestrian community, generally known as Placenta Canyon, and provide adequate buffers and graduated transitional design to ensure existing neighborhood protection and compatibility of character resulting from any proposed development; b. Incorporate the current Santa Clarita Valley Trails Advisory Committee (SCVTAC) network of multi -use trails into adjacent neighborhoods which shall have rural and equestrian characteristics; and c. Require use of the MWD right-of-way as a landscaped buffer (subject to MWD approval) between the NNA within the PCSSD and Packet Pg. 194 1.0 Ms. Erika Iverson, Planner City of Santa Clarita July 10, 2023 Page 6 the rest of Placenta Canyon, which landscaping shall consist of low water, low maintenance landscape material. 4. Architecture. a. Consist of three hundred sixty (360) degree architectural design with pedestrian -scaled building massing and forms where adjacent to existing residences, with the use of landscaping to visually soften hard edges of buildings; b. Structures shall have varied building heights and designs shall create east/west sight lines. Building heights up to thirty-five (35) feet may be permitted. Additional height, not to exceed fifty (50) feet, may be permitted subject to the approval of a conditional use permit... 7. Economic Development. a. Based on the area's proximity to the nearby Metrolink station and Old Town Newhall, development in the NNA would be supportive of revitalization efforts, with an appropriate mix of retail, office, restaurant, and general commercial square footage combined with neighboring and integrated housing types..." As the Standards confirm, the EIR fails to address all the District's provisions, intent and purposes. This alone requires the EIR be amended and recirculated. CONCLUSION The "Final EIR" remains woefully inadequate for the reasons expressed above. At a minimum, the July 18th Planning Commission Hearing needs to be postponed and the "Final EIR" must be recirculated for public comment. Your duty to the public trust and canyon residents mandate such. We reserve the right and intend to further comment on the content of the "Final EIR" prior to July 18th to the extent that time and the availability of our consultants permit. A response to our requests by July 12th is warranted. Very truly yours, ADAMSKI MOROSKI MADDEN CUMBERLA & GREEN LLP JEFFR Y A. HACKER JAH:alr cc: Joseph Montes, Esq., jmontesgbwslaw.com Packet Pg. 195 1.0 Erika Iverson From: Jennifer Kilpatrick <jekilpatrick@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2023 12:47 AM To: Jason Crawford; Erika Iverson; Mike Hennawy; Carmen Magana; Joe Montes - BWS; Ken Striplin; peichman@santa-clarita.com; peichman@santaclarita.com; payala@santaclarita.com; rberlin@santa-clarita.com; rberlin@santaclarita.com; tburkhart@santa-clarita.com; dostrom@santa-clarita.com; dostrom@santaclarita.com; Jason Gibbs; Laurene Weste; Cameron Smyth; Bill Miranda; Marsha McLean Subject: Follow -Up Letter Concerning Shadowbox Studios Project, Master Case 21-09 - Likelihood of Deadly, Catastrophic Train Crash at 13th Street at Grade Crossing Attachments: ShadowBoxStudiosSecondCommentLtr06232023.rtf; CPUCInvestigationOf5PassengerTrainAccidents2003.pdf CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. I N U (n 0 To the Santa Clarita Mayor and City Council, Planning Commission Members, City Staff and City a U) Attorney: 0 3 0 M t Attached as the first document is a letter from me dated June 23, 2023 with new/additional information for you to read and for the Administrative Record on Master Case 21-09, the Shadowbox Studios "Project" as designed dated 6/23/03 which you will consider at your upcoming Planning Commission meeting. E The new information concerns train crash risk created by construction and occupancy of the o Shadowbox Studios Project, with links to relevant train crash photographs included in the letter. U The second document attached is a Calfornia Public Utilities Commission report from 2003, a concluding that all 5 train crashes on the "Antelope Valley Line" which goes through Santa Clarita just west of Shadowbox Studios, were caused by the actions of human being NOT part of train crews. E I ask you to read and consider the two documents and the information in them, and reject the land a use entitlements requested by the Project's owner and developer as shown in current site plan of Shadowbox Studios Project "as designed" as of June 24, 2023 forming a part of Master Cas 21-09. am submitting this letter for the Administrative Record in lieu of live testimony at your next Planning Commission meeting concerning this Project. Sincerely, Jennifer Kilpatrick J.D. On Behalf of Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment (SCOPE) jekilpatrick@yahoo.com Packet Pg. 196 (702) 684-4221 1.0 cc: Lynne Plambeck, SCOPE President r Q Packet Pg. 197 1.0 June 23, 2023 RE: Shadowbox Studios Construction & Occupancy/Use Greatly Heightening the Likelihood of a Freight Train or Metrolink Train Crash at the 13th Street At -Grade Crossing in Santa Clarita, CA My Dear Old Friends on the Santa Clarita City Council, Santa Clarita Planning Commission, Santa Clarita City Staff, City Manager and City Attorney: I sent you a letter on May 25, 2023 concerning my warning to you that the use and occupancy of Shadowbox Studios is very likely going to cause one or more violent, deadly train crashes at the at -grade crossing of Santa Clarita controlled 13th Street and the north -south train tracks immediately west of the Shadowbox Studios property which carry both Metrolink trains and freight trains on a daily basis. I incorporate that letter by reference, but won't repeat its gory detail from that letter, except to reiterate that on January 6, 2003 1 was a resident/voter/property owner in Santa Clarita, and a passenger in a Metrolink train crash at an intersection 'far milder and less risky' than the one you will create if you approve the construction, occupancy and use of Shadowbox Studios. (At present I am literally dying because of my physical injuries from that train crash, including broken metal in my body, because of that train crash.) I make these comments on behalf of Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment (SCOPE) as their train -crash expert, and on behalf of many of my 25 year friends who still live in Placerita Canyon. I am writing to you again, to send you some new information, and links to relevant Metrolink train crash photographs which illustrate the deadly risk you are creating to the lives of Santa Clarita residents/voters/property owners/taxpayers with the Project as presently designed. Here is the new information I am giving you to reinforce my opinion that you will create deadly risks to Santa Claritans if you approve this Project with its current proposed site plan: (1) Reading the City's EIR from the original Dockweiler Drive project, which would have added a new at -grade crossing linking Dockweiler to the east end of Lyons Avenue, when that EIR was written 30 Metrolink trains per day, plus 9 freight trains per day, travel along the train tracks parallel to Railroad Avenue, which is crossed by both 13th Street immediately southwest of the Shadowbox Studios land. That is a heck -of -long-time to have the massive traffic created by Packet Pg. 198 1.0 Shadowbox Studios, plus the massive number of cars attributable to the future ADU housing units which the State is forcing the City to allow to be built in Placerita Canyon east of the 14 freeway (and not counted in the Shadowbox EIR), plus the existing Placerita Canyon residents cars, plus the Masters College students and faculty cars all sitting there, on a daily aggregate basis waiting for all those trains to safely pass. You, the developer, and the Shadowbox Studios EIR grossly under -count the amount of time the 13th Street at -grade crossing will be shut down every day for passing trains. (2) 1 am attaching to the email which sends you this letter a short study done by the CPUC in 2003, after "my" Metrolink train crash plus 4 others on the "Antelope Valley Line" running through Santa Clarita and southwards, which shows that ALL of those train crashes were caused by human conduct NOT involving a train crew. That report was prepared was before the very deadly 2005 Glendale Metrolink train crash, which was also human caused. Frankly I cannot think of a single subsequent train crash on that Antelope Valley Line, even if minor, which was caused by humans who were on the train crew. That human truck and car driver at -grade crossing impatience/agitation factor with at -grade crossing is the most profound contributor to human caused train crashes on the Antelope Valley Line. (3) Within a few moments of "my" Metrolink train crash, while I was still buried in the crash debris inside the train car, a train crewman standing in the wreckage, watching over me told me "It was a Universal Studios truck driver who caused our train crash." Universal Studios, a movie studio, just like Shadowbox Studios. The dead truck driver was Jack Wysocki who was working on the filming of "The Run Down" a big -budget movie released later in 2003 by Universal Studios. While I was laying flat on my back, paralyzed, in the Intensive Care ward at Holy Cross hospital about a week after that 2003 Metrolink train crash caused by the Universal Studios truck driver, I received a phone call from a Universal Studios Driver -Captain, Gary S, who lived in Stevenson Ranch, who many of us in Santa Clarita knew at that time because he was active in their HOA. Gary expressed his condolences to me and said "I want to tell you about Jack Wysocki, the dead Universal Studios driver, who has worked on teams with me." In sum and substance Gary said 'Jack needed his job. Jack was under a tremendous pressure from the Universal movie production team working on The Run -Down, to move some materials from Point A to Point B QUICKLY. All of us assume that Jack drove through the downed -rail -crossing -gates trying to not get stuck waiting for a train, because of the pressure of the deadline he was facing, and the pressure from his bosses on the movie. Jack had probably been stuck at that Buena Vista/train track crossing many times, and may not have even seen the train coming, because of the time pressure he was under.' Packet Pg. 199 1.0 That description of the atmosphere of time -pressure on Movie/TV production -truck -drivers illustrates to you WHY the risk of a train crash at the 13th Street at -grade -crossing is more likely to be caused by some truck driver working at Shadowbox Studios than caused by some normal joe living in or going to college in Placerita Canyon. By putting this MASSIVE movie/TV production studio at this at -grade -crossing, with no other means of ingress and egress to the studio lot, YOU the City WILDLY increase the risk of a human -caused -train -crash, just like those covered in the 2003 CPUC report on Antelope Valley Line causation I am sending you. Frankly, its a moral and legal cop-out by the City and by Shadowbox Studios to say "CPUC won't let us put in a second at grade crossing" either at the north -end of the Project, or at the originally planned Dockweiler Drive at -grade crossing. That decision by the CPUC, to help SCRRA, Metrolink and the freight train line is, to me, a classic "TAKING" of private property without compensation by the State of California of Shadowbox Studios property rights of ingress and egress to their very -large property. It seems to me that prior to "just acquiescing" in CPUC's supposed -policy, without even formally applying for a second at -grade crossing in the vicinity of the Project, that the City and Shadowbox Studios are hypocrites who need to sue CPUC, SCRRA and Metrolink for an uncompensated taking of property rights which also puts human life in Santa Clarita outside of the trains at risk. Don't just acquiesce. Fight for Santa Claritans lives and safety. (4) As I told you in my May 2023 letter to you, my train car in the 2003 Burbank Metrolink Crash "spun around 180 Degrees" with the front of the train car ending up facing backwards as it fell over on its side, on the ground 20' from the 5 Freeway southbound curb -lane. Passenger train cars and freight train cars DO NOT simply, neatly fall over on their sides when there is a train crash. Instead, train cars are often propelled by tremendous momentum in a train crash, in some unpredictable direction and end up as far as 100' away from the train track, in many cases at 90 degrees to the direction of travel of the train. Seethe Metrolink and freight train crash photos at the link below. If you closely look at the "site plan" for Shadowbox Studios, its large office building is ridiculously close to the actual train track at 13th Street. That office building's location is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS in terms of risk -taking by the City, let alone by the property owner/developer, to put that office building so very, very close to the actual train track. (Its also worth noting that 'somebody' be it the freight train line or Metrolink claim that office building is actually encroaching on the train track fee title owner's right of way. The office building wouldn't be encroaching if it wasn't 'too close'.) You, the City, are "asking for" dead and gravely injured Santa Claritans from Placerita Canyon Packet Pg. 200 1.0 and Masters College SQUASHED and bloodied in their cars, sitting at the at -grade crossing, when the inevitable train crash occurs. You, the City, are "asking for" a crashed train car or two puncturing the corner and side walls of that office building in a train crash, with a freight train car, or a passenger train car puncturing the immediately adjacent windows and walls of that office building. And to make matters absolutely worse, the crashed, derailed train cars will make it IMPOSSIBLE for fire trucks, ambulances or a crane to get across the train tracks, from "mainland Santa Clarita" onto 13th Street in front of the Shadowbox Studios office building to rescue and evacuate human beings, let alone dig them out of a collapsed building with a crane. The 2 traffic studies provided to you by Shadowbox Studios don't even bother to mention that a train crash at the at -grade crossing will block emergency vehicles, and evacuation of the office building as well as the existing buildings on the south side of 13th Street I don't often mention to people that I've got a baccalaureat from the SUNY Buffalo School of Architecture and Planning (1975) and this site plan/land use plan for Shadowbox Studios is the most profoundly IDIOTIC, UNSAFE one I have ever seen in the 48 years since I graduated. Given the history of Metrolink train crashes alone, a "safe distance" for the Shadowbox Studios office building to be away from the train track is 100'. The more people using a building, especially a multi -story building, the bigger the "death and injury risk" in the building from a train crashing and derailing: (A) As indicated, my own Metrolink train car spun 180 Degrees at the end of its crash, derail and fall onto its side sequence. [No photos left online outside of LA Times paywall.] (B) In the 2005 Glendale Metrolink train crash and derailment, when the train hit a mere Jeep on the train track while the train was headed southbound, the train cars first flew to the west (hitting a parked freight tain) and then ricocheted and flew to the east, hitting an oncoming northbound Metrolink train. It was that "flying sideways" of the derailing train cars on southbound train which (1) killed and severely injured people in the southbound train and (2) severely injured people in the northbound train. The Glendale train crash illustrates that crashing, derailing train cars "fly sideways"...in the case of a train crash at Shadowbox Studios right into the Office Building as well as the studio buildings so close to the tracks. See: https://www.dailynews.com/2018/01/25/photos-a-look-back-at-the-2005-metrolink-train-cras h-in-glendale/ In particular see photograph #s 1, 5, 14, 16, 21, 39 of 39 photos on slide show, plus photo at top of news article. (C) In the profoundly deadly Chatsworth Metrolink train derailment and crash in 2008, the train cars also "derailed sideways" and flew off the train tracks in some cases 30' and at at 45 degree to 90 degree angles to the train track ... also illustrating what you can expect from a train Packet Pg. 201 1.0 derailment at the 13th Street at grade crossing next to the Shadowbox Studios office building, and the existing buildings on the other side of 13th Street. See: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kkanouse/2851501111 and https://www.google.com/search?q=Daily+News+photographs+Metrolink+Chatsworth+train+cr ash &tbm=isch&source=univ&fir=Pzr37mUd kqo-YM%252CF-Vp4dRxV1f81M%252C_%253BzZxR1 rTWNSkctM%252CLgmDvpdhN40M-M%252C_%253BY7OYiRfOYUeMiM%252C-H6vAfNSU172c M%252C_%253BScga-OfnBF6RiM%252CnKjQKvzjoO8RjM%252C_%253BL-ljpkxl4pHjkM%252CL wA-nwt6bhR18M%252C_%253BKvHxdDl8ZiSB3M%252CgXnebF4a1_sL9M%252C_%253Bsvjk-s2 YfBLmiM%252CLgmDvpdhN40M-M%252C_%253Bd_PRh7KfviKryM%252CyRoDEHmaXIXuFM%2 52C_%253BON 9a-rh2GtUphM%252CF-Vp4dRxV1f81M%252C_%253BhVgTSEkDuW1nOM%252C 6WUZuW9S9BJgnM%252C_&usg=A14= kTzxNwplAJp6VHraHOQzlZfIuHgUQ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKE wjO37uc4Nj_AhXKIOQIHf3xBVUQjJkEegQIFBAC&biw=1280&bih=609&dpr=1.5 (D) In America's most recent dire freight train crash, in East Palestine Ohio, some of the derailed train cars also derailed and/or fell sideways a significant distance from the train track. See: https://www.wkbn.com/news/local-news/east-palestine-train-derailment/photo-gallery-train-d era ilment-fire-in-east-palestine/ Look, in particular, at the derailed freight train cars NOT parallel to the train track, and how far away from the train track many of them landed despite the weight of their being full of cargo which might have slowed their movement down. Instead, the momentum of the freight filled train car propelled it even further from the tracks. You are "asking for disaster and death" of Santa Claritans if you put the Shadowbox Studios office building, let alone the studio buildings, so close to the actual train tracks as shown in the site plan/plot plan for this Project. REITERATED CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY: PLEASE, PLEASE GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE IN SANTA CLARITA WHO ARE YOUR VOTERS, PROPERTY OWNERS, RESIDENTS AND TAXPAYERS, EVEN IF YOU DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE SAFETY OF PEOPLE ON THE PASSENGER TRAINS WHEN A TIME -AND -BOSS -PRESSURED DRIVER FOR SHADOWBOX STUDIOS, LIKE THE LATE JACK WYSOCKI WHO CRASHED "MY" METROLINK TRAIN, CAUSES A DEADLY TRAIN CRASH AT THE 13TH STREET AT -GRADE CROSSING, IN NO SMALL PART BECAUSE OF YOUR AND THE DEVELOPER'S VERY, VERY RECKLESS, DANGEROUS DECISION MAKING ON THE SITE PLAN OF THE PROJECT. If you believe in God, and Santa Claritans are killed or maimed because of your reckless decision -making on the Shadowbox Studios Project, worsening a train crash at that 13th Street at grade crossing, the sin will be on your soul in the afterlife. Even if you don't believe, do the Packet Pg. 202 1.0 morally correct thing and insist on a redesign of the Shadowbox Studios project, moving the office building and the first few studio buildings due north of it much further back from the train track. 100' feet back from the track is the "safe number". Please feel free to phone me if you have any questions on my letters and written "testimony" before the Planning Commision. Sincerely, Jennifer Kilpatrick, J.D. jekilpatrick@yahoo.com (702) 684-4221 Packet Pg. 203 6/12/23, 1:54 PM (21,068 unread) - comanchecanyon@yahoo.com - Yahoo Mail 1.0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION INVESTIGATION OF FIVE PASSENGER TRAIN HIGHWAY -RAIL CROSSING ACCIDENTS Occurring in January 2003 In Los Angeles County, California PX us 0. https://maii.yahoo.com/d/folders/1/messages/358020/AFFQwlFygP6WZldRGgzc-CMeg2Q:2?guce_referrer=aHROcHM6Ly9tYWlsLnlh Packet Pg. 204 1.0 July 5, 2023 City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission Attn: Chair Renee Berlin 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Chair Berlin, On behalf of Old Town Newhall Association (OTNA) Board of Directors, I am writing to express our support for the Shadowbox Studios project. OTNA's mission is to restore, enhance and maintain historic Downtown Newhall as a social, cultural, and economic center for the Santa Clarita Valley. The Board of Directors is comprised of a wide range of individuals vested in the success of Old Town Newall, and support for the Shadowbox Studios project is unanimous. As Old town businesses desire more and consistent foot traffic on Main Street, the addition of 2,000 full-time industry jobs is anticipated to meaningfully increase foot traffic and patronage of local businesses in Old Town Newhall, and specifically on Main Street. The scale of the Shadowbox Studios project will further validate the viability of Newhall and will serve as a catalyst for more real estate investment and business development in the immediate area. The benefits to Old Town Newhall and Santa Clarita more broadly are significant. The Old Town Newhall Association recommends your approval of this project, and we look forward to creating a synergistic relationship between Shadowbox Studios, Old Town Newhall Association, and its members. Respectfully, Rob Younkin Chairperson Packet Pg. 205 1.0 ,K 'AM 1 HOMETOWNSTATION.COM July 11, 2023 City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission Attn: Chair Renee Berlin 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, California 91355 Dear Chair Berlin: I am writing to you on behalf of KHTS to express my full support for the Shadowbox Studios project. In 2022, the City of Santa Clarita experienced an increase in location filming. In 2022, the City of Santa Clarita experienced an increase in location filming. Through filming, approximately $38.5 million in economic impact was generated to the local economy. Maintaining filming in our local community benefits the local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses and homeowners. Our local businesses receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue for the City of Santa Clarita. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,000 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact in the region. A couple of years ago, Shadowbox reached out and wanted to meet me, hear about my business, and give me a briefing on the studio project. I applaud the sincere and genuine effort that the Shadowbox Studios team took to reach out to not just my business, but a lot of the businesses throughout Newhall. Santa Clarita, nicknamed "Hollywood North," offers not only a consummate industry workforce but a significantly minimized burden of production red tape. The Santa Clarita Film Office is known to the film industry for its prompt, friendly and cost-effective service. As demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow — for both major motion pictures and scripted television series — Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita and thereby retain productions that would otherwise escape to other Los Angeles filming submarkets. This is a great moment for our businesses in Newhall and we must move forward with this project. Anerely, J,�rri Seratti-Goldman Packet Pg. 206 1.0 l0[ATlONS July 11, 2023 City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission Attn: Chair Renee Berlin 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, California 91355 Dear Chair Berlin: I am writing to you on behalf of LA Film Locations to express my full support for the Shadowbox Studios project. In 2022, the City of Santa Clarita experienced an increase in location filming. In 2022, the City of Santa Clarita experienced an increase in location filming. Through filming, approximately $38.5 million in economic impact was generated to the local economy. Maintaining filming in our local community benefits the local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses and homeowners. Our local businesses receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue for the City of Santa Clarita. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,000 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact in the region. A couple of years ago, Shadowbox reached out and wanted to meet me, hear about my business, and give me a briefing on the studio project. I applaud the sincere and genuine effort that the Shadowbox Studios team took to reach out to not just my business, but a lot of the businesses throughout Newhall. Santa Clarita, nicknamed "Hollywood North," offers not only a consummate industry workforce but a significantly minimized burden of production red tape. The Santa Clarita Film Office is known to the film industry for its prompt, friendly and cost-effective service. As demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow — for both major motion pictures and scripted television series — Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita and thereby retain productions that would otherwise escape to other Los Angeles filming submarkets. This is a great moment for our businesses in Newhall and we must move forward with this project. Sincerely, Monica Harrison Owner, L.A. Film Locations Packet Pg. 207 1.0 M EGG P NTATION July 11, 2023 City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission Attn: Chair Renee Berlin 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, California 91355 Dear Chair Berlin: I am writing to you on behalf of Egg Plantation to express my full support for the Shadowbox Studios project. In 2022, the City of Santa Clarita experienced an increase in location filming. In 2022, the City of Santa Clarita experienced an increase in location filming. Through filming, approximately $38.5 million in economic impact was generated to the local economy. Maintaining filming in our local community benefits the local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses and homeowners. Our local businesses receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue for the City of Santa Clarita. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,000 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact in the region. A couple of years ago, Shadowbox reached out and wanted to meet me, hear about my business, and give me a briefing on the studio project. I applaud the sincere and genuine effort that the Shadowbox Studios team took to reach out to not just my business, but a lot of the businesses throughout Newhall. Santa Clarita, nicknamed "Hollywood North," offers not only a consummate industry workforce but a significantly minimized burden of production red tape. The Santa Clarita Film Office is known to the film industry for its prompt, friendly and cost-effective service. As demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow — for both major motion pictures and scripted television series — Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita and thereby retain productions that would otherwise escape to other Los Angeles filming submarkets. This is a great moment for our businesses in Newhall and we must move forward with this project. Sincerely, Shannon Mee Owner, Egg Plantation Inc. Packet Pg. 208 July 11, 2023 City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission Attn: Chair Renee Berlin 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, California 913SS Dear Chair Berlin: I am writing to you on behalf of Results Fitness to express my full support for the Shadowbox Studios project. In 2022, the City of Santa Clarita experienced an increase in location filming. In 2022, the City of Santa Clarita experienced an increase in location filming. Through filming, approximately $38.5 million in economic impact was generated to the local economy. Maintaining filming in our local community benefits the local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses and homeowners. Our local businesses receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue for the City of Santa Clarita. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,000 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact in the region. A couple of years ago, Shadowbox reached out and wanted to meet me, hear about my business, and give me a briefing on the studio project. I applaud the sincere and genuine effort that the Shadowbox Studios team took to reach out to not just my business, but a lot of the businesses throughout Newhall. Santa Clarita, nicknamed "Hollywood North," offers not only a consummate industry workforce but a significantly minimized burden of production red tape. The Santa Clarita Film Office is known to the film industry for its prompt, friendly and cost-effective service. As demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow — for both major motion pictures and scripted television series — Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita and thereby retain productions that would otherwise escape to other Los Angeles filming submarkets. This is a great moment for our businesses in Newhall and we must move forward with this project. Sin ely, i Rachel Cosgrove Owner, Results Fitness Packet Pg. 209 July 11, 2023 City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission Attn: Chair Renee Berlin 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, California 91355 Dear Chair Berlin: I am writing to you on behalf of Walker Lopez to express my full support for the Shadowbox Studios project. In 2022, the City of Santa Clarita experienced an increase in location filming. In 2022, the City of Santa Clarita experienced an increase in location filming. Through filming, approximately $38.5 million in economic impact was generated to the local economy. Maintaining filming in our local community benefits the local economy. Productions spend several millions of dollars on rentals and goods from businesses and homeowners. Our local businesses receive direct compensation and generate tax revenue for the City of Santa Clarita. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,000 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact in the region. Santa Clarita, nicknamed "Hollywood North," offers not only a consummate industry workforce but a significantly minimized burden of production red tape. The Santa Clarita Film Office is known to the film industry for its prompt, friendly and cost-effective service. As demand for studio space in the SCV continues to grow — for both major motion pictures and scripted television series — Shadowbox Studios is committed to partnering with the local film industry to buttress the film footprint in Santa Clarita and thereby retain productions that would otherwise escape to other Los Angeles filming submarkets. This is a great moment for our businesses in Newhall and we must move forward with this project. Sincer y i Jeff Walk r Co -Owner, Walker Lopez Barbershop 1.0 Packet Pg. 210 1.0 I SUPPORT THE SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PROJECT City of Santa Clarita Attn: Planning Commissioners 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING — SUPPORT Shadowbox Studios is a developer, owner, and operator of film and television studio campuses in the Atlanta, London, and Los Angeles metro areas. A typical production requires a studio with soundstages and ample support space that can accommodate a full cast, crew, and other staff. Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita will consist of 19 purpose-built, modern soundstages ranging from 15,000 to 40,000 square feet, as well as workshops and production offices that will meet the needs of even the most discriminating of filmmakers. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,00 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact. Shadowbox Studios has worked closely with the City, Placerita Canyon residents, adjacent property owners, the business community, and our local non -profits to define and refine the plans under consideration. It's a thoughtful plan and one that should be seen as great value to the City of Santa Clarita to further solidify our position as a major player in the film industry. I know there are many things to consider as part of the Environmental Impact Report and the City will ensure any impacts are mitigated. The biggest impact to the City is the economic value of Shadowbox Studios which we've been able to quantify. The trick now is to ensure we can get this project through the process quickly and take full advantage of this moment in time when the massive amounts of digital content creocm qe driving the need for more studio space. I urge y o keephis process moving quickly so we can take advantage of the benefits being brought to our C' Print Name Packet Pg. 211 1.0 I SU PPORT TH E SHADOWBOX STU DIOS PROD ECT City of Santa Clarita Attn: Planning Commissioners 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING — SUPPORT Shadowbox Studios is a developer, owner, and operator of film and television studio campuses in the Atlanta, London, and Los Angeles metro areas. A typical production requires a studio with soundstages and ample support space that can accommodate a full cast, crew, and other staff. Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita will consist of 19 purpose-built, modern soundstages ranging from 15,000 to 40,000 square feet, as well as workshops and production offices that will meet the needs of even the most discriminating of filmmakers. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,00 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact. Shadowbox Studios has worked closely with the City, Placerita Canyon residents, adjacent property owners, the business community, and our local non -profits to define and refine the plans under consideration. It's a thoughtful plan and one that should be seen as great value to the City of Santa Clarita to further solidify our position as a major player in the film industry. I know there are many things to consider as part of the Environmental Impact Report and the City will ensure any impacts are mitigated. The biggest impact to the City is the economic value of Shadowbox Studios which we've been able to quantify. The trick now is to ensure we can get this project through the process quickly and take full advantage of this moment in time when the massive amounts of digital content creation are driving the need for more studio space. I urge you to keep this process mov' g qu' ly so we can take advantage of the benefits being brought to our City. Signature �s Print Name Packet Pg. 212 1.0 I SUPPORT THE SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PROJECT City of Santa Clarita Attn: Planning Commissioners 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING — SUPPORT Shadowbox Studios is a developer, owner, and operator of film and television studio campuses in the Atlanta, London, and Los Angeles metro areas. A typical production requires a studio with soundstages and ample support space that can accommodate a full cast, crew, and other staff. Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita will consist of 19 purpose-built, modern soundstages ranging from 15,000 to 40,000 square feet, as well as workshops and production offices that will meet the needs of even the most discriminating of filmmakers. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,00 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact. Shadowbox Studios has worked closely with the City, Placerita Canyon residents, adjacent property owners, the business community, and our local non -profits to define and refine the plans under consideration. It's a thoughtful plan and one that should be seen as great value to the City of Santa Clarita to further solidify our position as a major player in the film industry. I know there are many things to consider as part of the Environmental Impact Report and the City will ensure any impacts are mitigated. The biggest impact to the City is the economic value of Shadowbox Studios which we've been able to quantify. The trick now is to ensure we can get this project through the process quickly and take full advantage of this moment in time when the massive amounts of digital content creation are driving the need for more studio space. I urge you to keep this process moving quickly so we can take advantage of the benefits being brought to our City. Signature Packet Pg. 213 1.0 I SUPPORT THE SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PROJECT City of Santa Clarita Attn: Planning Commissioners 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING — SUPPORT Shadowbox Studios is a developer, owner, and operator of film and television studio campuses in the Atlanta, London, and Los Angeles metro areas. A typical production requires a studio with soundstages and ample support space that can accommodate a full cast, crew, and other staff. Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita will consist of 19 purpose-built, modern soundstages ranging from 15,000 to 40,000 square feet, as well as workshops and production offices that will meet the needs of even the most discriminating of filmmakers. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,00 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact. Shadowbox Studios has worked closely with the City, Placerita Canyon residents, adjacent property owners, the business community, and our local non -profits to define and refine the plans under consideration. It's a thoughtful plan and one that should be seen as great value to the City of Santa Clarita to further solidify our position as a major player in the film industry. I know there are many things to consider as part of the Environmental Impact Report and the City will ensure any impacts are mitigated. The biggest impact to the City is the economic value of Shadowbox Studios which we've been able to quantify. The trick now is to ensure we can get this project through the process quickly and take full advantage of this moment in time when the massive amounts of digital content creation are driving the need for more studio space. I urge you to keep thJJ7rocess movi c ly so vy�can take advan e-benefits being brought to our City. /�� /} Signakure Print Packet Pg. 214 1.0 I SUPPORT THE SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PROJECT City of Santa Clarita Attn: Planning Commissioners 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING —SUPPORT Shadowbox Studios is a developer, owner, and operator of film and television studio campuses in the Atlanta, London, and Los Angeles metro areas. A typical production requires a studio with soundstages and ample support space that can accommodate a full cast, crew, and other staff. Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita will consist of 19 purpose-built, modern soundstages ranging from 15,000 to 40,000 square feet, as well as workshops and production offices that will meet the needs of even the most discriminating of filmmakers. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,00 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact. Shadowbox Studios has worked closely with the City, Placerita Canyon residents, adjacent property owners, the business community, and our local non -profits to define and refine the plans under consideration. It's a thoughtful plan and one that should be seen as great value to the City of Santa Clarita to further solidify our position as a major player in the film industry. I know there are many things to consider as part of the Environmental Impact Report and the City will ensure any impacts are mitigated. The biggest impact to the City is the economic value of Shadowbox Studios which we've been able to quantify. The trick now is to ensure we can get this project through the process quickly and take full advantage of this moment in time when the massive amounts of digital content creation are driving the need for more studio space. I urge you to keep this process moving quickly so we can take advantage of the benefits being brought to our City. Signature Print Name Packet Pg. 215 1.0 I SUPPORT THE SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PROJECT City of Santa Clarita Attn: Planning Commissioners 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING — SUPPORT Shadowbox Studios is a developer, owner, and operator of film and television studio campuses in the Atlanta, London, and Los Angeles metro areas. A typical production requires a studio with soundstages and ample support space that can accommodate a full cast, crew, and other staff. Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita will consist of 19 purpose-built, modern soundstages ranging from 15,000 to 40,000 square feet, as well as workshops and production offices that will meet the needs of even the most discriminating of filmmakers. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,00 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact. Shadowbox Studios has worked closely with the City, Placerita Canyon residents, adjacent property owners, the business community, and our local non -profits to define and refine the plans under consideration. It's a thoughtful plan and one that should be seen as great value to the City of Santa Clarita to further solidify our position as a major player in the film industry. I know there are many things to consider as part of the Environmental Impact Report and the City will ensure any impacts are mitigated. The biggest impact to the City is the economic value of Shadowbox Studios which we've been able to quantify. The trick now is to ensure we can get this project through the process quickly and take full advantage of this moment in time when the massive amounts of digital content creation are driving the need for more studio space. I urge you to keep this process moving quickly so we can take advantage of the benefits being brought to Signature Print Name Packet Pg. 216 1.0 I SUPPORT THE SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PROJECT City of Santa Clarita Attn: Planning Commissioners 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: SHADOWBOX STUDIOS PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING —SUPPORT Shadowbox Studios is a developer, owner, and operator of film and television studio campuses in the Atlanta, London, and Los Angeles metro areas. A typical production requires a studio with soundstages and ample support space that can accommodate a full cast, crew, and other staff. Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita will consist of 19 purpose-built, modern soundstages ranging from 15,000 to 40,000 square feet, as well as workshops and production offices that will meet the needs of even the most discriminating of filmmakers. As Shadowbox Studios Santa Clarita meets the growing need for studio space in Los Angeles County, it will also be facilitating over 2,00 full time industry jobs and generating over $1 billion of annual economic impact. Shadowbox Studios has worked closely with the City, Placerita Canyon residents, adjacent property owners, the business community, and our local non -profits to define and refine the plans under consideration. It's a thoughtful plan and one that should be seen as great value to the City of Santa Clarita to further solidify our position as a major player in the film industry. I know there are many things to consider as part of the Environmental Impact Report and the City will ensure any impacts are mitigated. The biggest impact to the City is the economic value of Shadowbox Studios which we've been able to quantify. The trick now is to ensure we can get this project through the process quickly and take full advantage of this moment in time when the massive amounts of digital content creation are driving the need for more studio space. I urge you to kee i ocess moving quickly so we can take advantage of the benefits being brought to our City. Print Name Packet Pg. 217