HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-06-22 - AGENDA REPORTS - APPEAL MELODY RANCH MC 04 070 (2)Agenda Item:
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Approval:
Item to be presented by: Aimee Schwimmer
DATE: June 22, 2004
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF
MASTER CASE 04-070, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04-007 -
MELODY RANCH SOUND STAGE
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Building Services
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission and adopt a
resolution adopting the Negative Declaration and approving Master Case 04-070 (Conditional
Use Pen -nit 04-007) for the construction and use of a 22,000 square foot building pad for a
16,000 square foot sound stage 45 -feet -in -height.
BACKGROUND
Melodv Ranch
The project site has historically been used for motion picture filming, beginning in 1934, when it
was known as Monogram Ranch. The City's General Plan and Unified Development Code both
note the historical significance of the site. Section 17.16.080.B.3.b states that "Melody Ranch is
a permitted use in the RL 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, and all related facilities and audience
participation. Incidental community activities and social events are permitted. Related office
space and limited commercial retail sales, incidental to the primary use shall be permitted." The
project site has been used for filming operations by the current property owner for approximately
10 years. The site's previous owner, Gene Autry, built some of the structures that remain at the
two parcels that comprise Melody Ranch today. This includes portions of the perimeter wall on
the northern and southern portions of the project site, and the 10 -acre parcel to the east of the
project site.
Adopted:2��7
The 15 -acre area within the Melody Ranch Section of the Placerita Special Standards District is
comprised of two parcels. One parcel is 10 acres in size and is the eastern parcel that the existing
structures, including the Hacienda, two sound stages and main street are located. This 10 -acre
parcel is adjacent to Oak Creek Avenue and is used as the primary access to Melody Ranch. The
second parcel is five acres in size and represents the project site for this conditional use permit.
This parcel is vacant of permanent structures. The project site is currently used for storage of
film sets and parking of star trailers (star waggons) when filming occurs. Storage and parking
will continue to occur on the project site when the proposed 22,000 square foot pad is
constructed.
Application Timeline
On February 18, 2004, a conditional use permit application was submitted by the applicant,
Melody Ranch Motion Pictures Studio, for the construction of a 45 -foot -high sound stage to be
used for motion picture filming. On March 25, 2004, the application was deemed complete.
On April 20, 2004, the Planning Commission voted 3-1 to approve the conditional use permit to
construct and use the 45 -foot -high sound stage on the project site.
On May 5, 2004, a letter of appeal from the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association
(PCPOA) was submitted to the City Clerk.
On June 1, 2004, the revised initial study and negative declaration was recirculated for public
review in compliance with CEQA. The revised initial study and negative declaration analyzed
potential impacts from the development and use of the 22,000 square foot pad for the 16,000
square foot sound stage that exceeds the 35 foot height limit.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to construct a 45 -foot high sound stage, 16,000 square feet in size, on
a 22,000 square foot building pad. The current property owner has stated that the proposed sound
stage (Stage C) is needed because the ambient noise outside interrupts production. Within the
last two years, flight patterns have changed and sounds from aircraft can be heard from the
project site. This disturbs filming and stops production. The applicant has stated that this sound
stage is needed to keep filming schedules on time, so Melody Ranch will continue to be a
desirable place for production companies to consider. The applicant anticipates that the Studio
will continue to be used for one production at a time, and that the new sound stage would not
allow for regular concurrent productions at Melody Ranch.
The applicant has stated that the additional 10 feet for a total of 45 feet will be necessary for
stage lighting and easy mobility of sets within the stage. Stage A, shown on the attached site
plan, is under 30 feet in height and is not used regularly as a sound stage due to the height. Stage
B is used as a sound stage, although the applicant states that the size limits production and
mobility of the crews within the building. A letter from the City's Economic Development
Division on file in the Planning Division states that 45 feet in height for a sound stage is the
`industry standard' for sound stages and compares the proposed Stage C to other motion picture
studios in Los Angeles County, where 45 feet is the minimum height for existing buildings.
As shown on the attached site plan, the design would include a lean-to, or covered patio around
the perimeter of the building and a walkway around the building. A retaining wall, five feet in
height, would be constructed along the northern and western portions of the proposed sound
stage and would be constructed around a ramp used for access to the stage to move in larger sets
(See architectural elevations and site plan). This retaining wall is included in the 22,000 square
foot pad area for the proposed sound stage.
The proposed pad, which includes the retaining wall, sound stage, and ramp, would be located
150 feet from the northern property line, and 345 feet from the southern property line of the
project site. The proposed sound stage (Stage C) is over 500 feet from the eastern boundary line
of the eastern 10 -acre parcel adjacent to the project site. This parcel abuts Oak Creek Avenue.
The proposed sound stage (Stage C) would be located directly west of the existing 35 -foot -high
sound stage (Stage B) on the adjacent 10 -acre parcel to the east. Stage C would be 100 feet west
of Stage B, and approximately 70 feet from the eastern boundary line of the five acre project site
to the west of the project site.
Melody Ranch
Melody Ranch has been used for film production since 1934, when it was known as Monogram
Ranch. The current property owner has been the operator of the Studio for approximately 10
years. Currently, Melody Ranch has a contract for the production of a television series. Filming
for this series occurs no more than six months a year. According to the property owner, the size
of the lot and the number and size of the sound stages generally precludes filming more than one
production at a time at Melody Ranch. The applicant has stated that with the additional sound
stage, no more than one production will continue to be filmed on the project site. It is not
anticipated that multiple productions will be filmed at the 15 acres that comprise Melody Ranch
after construction of Stage C.
The Motion Picture Studio consists of three parcels that total 20 acres. Two of the parcels, a
10 -acre property and a five -acre property, make up the 15 -acre area described in the City of Santa
Clarita's Unified Development Code as the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District, Melody
Ranch Section (UDC 17.16.080.13.3.b).
The 10 acre parcel currently serves as the main entrance for Melody Ranch and houses the two
existing sound stages (Stage A and B), parking, and various sets, including "main street." The
Melody Ranch Motion Picture Museum is also located on this parcel. There are temporary
offices located on the 10 acre site used by staff of the current television production. This site
also has two emergency access points along the northern property line that are accessible from
Oak Orchard Road. There are 194 parking spaces on this parcel.
The five acre parcel is the location of the proposed sound stage (Stage C) and is the project site
for this proposal. This five acre parcel is currently used for filming, parking, and storage of
unused props. This parcel is unpaved and contains clusters of oak trees, and 90 parking spaces
for vehicles and over -sized star wagons (trailers), known as "base camp. " There are no
permanent structures on this parcel; only a limited number of movie sets.
The Melody Ranch property owner also owns the third parcel. This five -acre parcel is located
outside of the Placerita Special Standards District, Melody Ranch Section. The property owner
is restricted from using this parcel for filming. There is a pre -fabricated residential unit on the
site used by the former property owner. The current property owners do not use the unit as a
residence or otherwise. There is one emergency access along the northern boundary of this
parcel that is accessed via Oak Orchard Road.
Biology
The project site does have oak trees, though the proposed sound stage would not encroach upon
the protected zone of the oaks. No oak trees would be removed with the proposed structure. For
this reason, the applicant is not required to submit an oak tree permit for review as part of this
application. Though impacts to the oak trees on the project site are not anticipated, the City's
Oak Tree Specialist has provided conditions to prohibit encroachment during construction of the
proposed sound stage.
Placerita Creek is located on the southern boundary line of the project site, further south of the
perimeter wall on the project site. The creek is located approximately 345 feet from the pad of
the proposed sound stage (Stage C). An eight -foot high perimeter wall runs along the southern
and northern boundary of the project site. The perimeter wall surrounds the 20 acres owned by
the Melody Ranch property owner. This wall separates the project site from the creek.
As stated in the initial study prepared for the project, the Regional Water Quality Control Board
and State Department of Fish and Game were contacted regarding this proposal. Both agencies
stated this project was exempt from their review because modifications to Placerita Creek were
not proposed and because no paved parking would occur on the project site.
Grading and Site Preparation
The project site is flat and has no topographic features. Approximately 3,000 cubic yards of
earth movement would occur on the project site for the construction of the sound stage. The
majority of the earth would be regraded and recompacted in the area of the proposed pad. The
average depth of cut would be two feet and the average depth of fill would be one foot.
Approximately 925 cubic yards of earth that is currently stored on the project site would be
included in the earth movement. The earth that is stored on the project site was purchased and
used as a prop for a previous production on the 10 -acre site. The applicant proposes to use a
portion of this dirt for construction of the sound stage. No import or export of earth is proposed.
The project site is in flood zone AO2. This requires that structures in this area be elevated a
minimum of 36" above the base of the elevation. This can be done by either raising the grade or
raise the foundation of the building. For this project, the applicant would raise the grade 36"
above the site elevation, therefore 3,000 cubic yards of earth are proposed to be moved with this
project.
Parking and Access
There are 194 parking spaces on the I0 -acre parcel used by the crew and cast of the productions
on the site. These spaces are located throughout the site, most on the southern boundary line of
the 10 -acre parcel. Spaces are also located in front of the `hacienda' which is one of the original
structures on the site, restored by the current property owners. This building is used as offices
and as a prop for filming. All of the parking areas are gravel. The project site has 90 parking
spaces. Because the proposes sound stage C would be 16,000 square feet and the City's Parking
Standards require one space for every 500 square feet of building area for industrial uses
(manufacturing), 32 parking spaces are required on site for the proposed sound stage C. Existing
parking on the 15 -acre Ranch is adequate to serve the proposed sound stage C.
Melody Ranch has three gated emergency accesses. Two are on the 10 -acre site, and one is one
the five -acre site to the west of the project site. Production companies that use Melody Ranch
are contractually required to have a 24-hour guard at the main entrance to the site (on Oak Creek
Avenue) during production. The guard directs visitors and vehicles to the designated parking
areas on the 15 -acre Ranch. The property owners also use orange cones and signs to direct
people to designated parking areas, such as areas for the crew and extras.
Fire and Emergency Safety
There is a fire hydrant on the 10 -acre eastern parcel located adjacent to one of the emergency
access point, located on the northern boundary line of the site.
Production companies are required, by the Melody Ranch property owner, to have a water truck
and driver on-site. The Studio has a water meter from Newhall County Water District that
allows the Studio to fill water trucks on an as needed basis. During filming, Melody Ranch
requires a Fire Safety Officer or Advisor from the Los Angeles County Fire Department to be
present at all times during filming.
Utilities
The sound stage would have fire sprinklers and an alarm system. This system would go directly
to a central fire alarm monitoring company. The two existing sound stages (Stage A and B) also
have fire sprinklers. The proposed sound stage would hook-up to the existing water line.
Utilities, such as electrical and water lines for the proposed sound stage would be installed
underground.
The previously approved site plan showed an existing power pole north of Stage B (on the
eastern 10 -acre site), and a proposed power pole north of the proposed Stage C on the project
site. This information was incorrect. A site visit to the 10 -acre site determined there was no
power pole north of Stage B and the applicant confirmed that all utilities for the proposed Stage
C would be located underground and that no power pole would be installed with the proposed
sound stage.
No restrooms would be installed within Stage C. Restroom facilities would be provided in
"Honeywagons." These restroom trucks are similar to portable dressing room trucks. All waste
is stored in holding tanks, which are pumped and cleaned regularly. The units are approved by
the Los Angeles County Health Department.
Noise
The proposed sound stage C is sound proof, therefore, no noise would be emitted from the
building during production, and outside ambient noise would not enter the facility.
Sets are constructed within the existing sound stage. Some sets are constructed off-site and
brought onto the Ranch (15 acres) and put together within a sound stage. Some sets are
constructed outside at the Ranch. This is rarely done due to the size of Melody Ranch and the
location of the existing structures. When a set is constructed, either within or outside of a stage
at Melody Ranch, the construction must comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. No additional
people or crew are needed than those already employed by the production company at Melody
Ranch and the materials used include water-based paint, and wood for the temporary use of sets.
Recirculation of the Negative Declaration
The Negative Declaration for the project was recirculated because additional information
clarifying the proposal and the surrounding property was submitted. The proposal for the
conditional use permit did not change. The initial study and negative declaration were revised to
include additional information regarding the project, including photos and conclusive analysis
regarding traffic and grading on the project site. Initially, information was submitted by the
applicant that 26,000 cubic yards of earth would be moved on the project site. This number was
incorrect and inconclusive because earth quantity numbers had not been calculated for the
proposed pad. Complete earth quantity calculations conclude that 3,000 cubic yards of earth are
proposed to be moved with the development of the sound stage. The site plan for the proposed
sound stage was also revised to include more accurate information regarding the location of
parking spaces on the project site, and parking on the adjacent 10 -acres, location of the fire
hydrant and emergency access on the neighboring five and 10 -acre parcels, and locations of
existing sound stages and sets on the neighboring 10 -acre parcel.
Modifications to Planning Commission Conditions of Approval
Conditions of approval for the project were modified based on the clarification provided by the
applicant. Condition FD5 initially required that the fire now for the site be 3,500 gallons per
minute. Because the site plan was revised to include the location of the fire hydrant on the
adjacent 10 -acre parcel, to the east of the project site, the fire flow was reduced to 2,250 gallons
per minute. Conditions OT3 was approved by the Planning Commission to require that excess
dirt be hauled off site. Because earth movement was clarified, and the applicant has not
requested approval to import or export earth, this condition was modified to state that excess
earth should be stored 50 feet from the protected area of the oaks. Condition ES 1 was revised to
include a requirement to submit a state SWPPP because parking occurs on the project site.
APPEAL
The Planning Commission's April 20, 2004 decision to approve the conditional use pen -nit for the
45 -foot -high sound stage was appealed within the appeal period by Arnold Graham, on behalf of
the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association. The appeal letter is attached to this report.
Also attached is a response to the appeal letter and the written opposition received during the
public comment period prior to the April 20, 2004, Planning Commission hearing.
Issues noted in the appeal letter are as follows:
• the public notice period;
• need for a master plan;
• construction of a power pole and retaining wall;
• cumulative impacts of the Melody Ranch expansion;
• use of the five acres to the west of the project site and construction of the perimeter wall
off-site;
• the studio is a unique project requiring a conditional use permit;
• assumed preferential treatment of Melody Ranch by the City of Santa Clarita;
• comments and clearances from required agencies;
• impacts to the existing septic system with the proposed development;
• potential impact on hydrology and water quality;
• impacts of earth movement; and
• liability of the Planning Commission and staff.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION SURROUNDING LAND USE ZONING
The site is located within the RL (Residential Low) zone and is designated Residential Low by
the City's General Plan. The RL zone "is intended for single-family detached homes at a density
of up to two and two tenths (2.2) dwelling units per gross acre. The keeping of horses and
related animals as an accessory use may be found in this zone." It is important to clarify that the
project site is included in the Placerita Special Standards District, where filming is permitted by
right on the project site, therefore, there is no land use conflict with the proposed use and zoning
designation of the project site.
The City's General Plan refers to Melody Ranch in the Open Space and Conservation Element
(Table OS -3, Historic Resources). In Table OS -3, Melody Ranch is noted as a City Point of
Historical Interest. The historic filming that has taken place since 1934, as well as the Spanish
style architecture is referred to in this section of the General Plan. The proposed building and use
is supported by the General Plan, more specifically, the General Plan Open Space Element Policy
10.6, which states, "Incorporate historic sites into proposed development in such a manner as to
preserve the integrity of the site whenever possible." The proposal is supported by this policy
because the proposed use will continue the historic use of the site, while not encroaching upon
any existing buildings, uses, or structures on the site or the surrounding area.
Surrounding land uses include:
GENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND USE
North RL RL Oak Orchard Road (40' in width)
South RL RL Placerita Creek and Placerita Canyon
Mobile Home Park
West RL RL Vacant Land (five -acre site)
East RL RL Oak Creek Avenue (40' in width)
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. City Council approve the entitlement with modifications.
2. Council deny Master Case 03-347.
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact to the City of Santa Clarita's budget is identified by staff.
ATTACHMENTS
Vicinity Map
Site Plan
Architectural Elevations
Appeal Letter
City Response to Appeal
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
Planning Commission Packet with Attachments available in the City Clerk's Reading File
Revised Initial Study available in the City Clerk's Reading File
Revised Negative Declaration available in the City Clerk's Reading File
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING/INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APPLICATION: Master Case Number 04-070
Conditional Use Permit 04-007
Initial Study 04-005
PROJECT PROPONENTS: Melody Ranch Motion Picture Studio
P.O. Box 220597
Santa Clarita, CA 91321
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request to construct a 22,000 square foot building pad for a 16,000
square foot sound stage, 45 -feet -in -height.
PROJECT LOCATION: Melody Ranch Motion Picture Studio
APN: 2834-031-008
A public hearing on this matter will be conducted by the City of Santa Clarita City Council on:
DATE: June 22, 2004
TIME: 6:00 PM
LOCATION: City Council Chambers
23920 Valencia Boulevard, First Floor
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
A DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared for the proposed development and will be
available for public review beginning at 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday June 1, 2004 at:
City Hall
Planning and Building Service Department
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
A copy of the draft negative declaration (without all supporting documents) will be posted at the Los
Angeles County Public Library, Valencia Branch during the public review period noted above.
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 hearing.
For further information regarding this proposal, please contact the City of Santa Clarita Department of
Planning and Building Services, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355.
Telephone: (661) 255-4330. Project Planner, Aimee Schwimmer.
Sharon L. Dawson, CMC
City Clerk
Posted: Santa Clarita City Hall June 1, 2004 Published: The Newhall Signal June 1, 2004
Los Angeles County Public Library, Valencia Branch June 1, 2004
cn
I.
U.
ju
4
16
NI
A3lQnG
00
i
N1
AH89H03MOHO
A y�VoNz'qboo
ai
AV '2
ARIE
vY
HO 40QlU3dd3d a MW
NOA
a
AV
5TD
lw
Pi
AV
.aOp
> 7iD Nlg
Q1
cn
I.
U.
LAW OFFICES
GRAHAM VAAGE & CISNEROS
PLEASE REPLY TO: Suite 1030 TELEPHONE
ARNOLD K. GRAHAM 500 NORTH BRAND BOULEVARD (8 18) 547-4800
GLENDALE CALIFORNIA 91203
FILE NO: Facsimile
PCPOA
(818) 547-3100
Via Hand Delivery, Facsimile (661) 255-
4938, and First Class Mail
May 5, 2004
Sharon Dawson, City Clerk
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 304
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Re: Appeal ofPlanninr Commission Approval of Conditional Use
Permit Application by Melody Ranch Motion Picture Studio
Master Case No. 04-070
(Conditional Use Permit 04-007 - Approved on April 20, 2004)
Dear Ms. Dawson:
This office represents the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association ("PCPOA") in
both the underlying objections to the Planning Commission's approval of the above -referenced
Conditional Use Permit, as well as on the appeal of that decision by PCPOA.
This letter constitutes a Notice of Appeal by PCPOA and its constituent members of the
Santa Clarita Planning Commission's ("Commission") Decision of April 20, 2004 approving
Melody Ranch Motion Picture Studio's Application for Conditional Use Permit 04-007, pursuant
to which Melody Ranch has sought the requisite authority from the City of Santa Clarita to allow
it to construct a 16,000 square foot sound stage, 45 feet in height, located at 24715 Oak Creek
Avenue (the "Project"), Master Case No. 04-070.
The grounds for the appeal include but are not limited to the following:
1. On March 31, 2004, the City of Santa Clarita Department of Planning and
Building Services ("City") mailed Notice of a public hearing scheduled for April
20, 2004 at 7 p.m., at which time the Planning Commission ("Commission")
proposed to consider and take action on Melody Ranch's Application for
Conditional Use Permit 04-007. The Notice advised that all written objections
were required to be submitted to the City on or before the close of business on
April 13, 2004 in order to be included in the official package to be provided to
and reviewed by the Commission in advance of the public hearing. Therefore, the
Notice -period was terminated as of April 13, 2004.
LAW OFFICES
GRAHAM VAAGE & CISNEROS
Sharon Dawson, City Clerk
May 5,-2004
Page 2
On April 13, 2004, by and through this office, PCPOA filed with the City its
formal written objections to the defective and inadequate Initial Study and
Negative Declaration prepared by the Applicant and the City, and to the City's
failure to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act ("CEQA") in regard to Melody Ranch's Application, and expressly requested
that copies of its objections be included both as a part of the official record of the
public hearing, and also that copies be specifically provided to the Planning
Commission members for their review and consideration prior to the scheduled
hearing.
Even though the Applicant's papers and documents, and the papers of other
supporters of the Applicant, including its attorney, were provided to the
Commission Members, the City Planning Staff deliberately did not include
PCPOA's written objections in the official Staff Report dated April 20, 2004, and
otherwise failed to timely provide the Commission Members with PCPOA's
objections in advance of the hearing to allow the Commission to review, evaluate,
and/or consider PCPOA's objections, thus segregating and treating different, and
with a negative status, PCPOA's opposition to the pending Application.
As a further confirmation of the preferential treatment given by the City to
Melody Ranch, while the City improperly excluded a copy of PCPOA's written
objections being given to the Planning Commission, it specifically did provide a
copy of PCPOA's objections to Hunt C. Braly, attorney for Melody Ranch who
thereafter submitted a written rebuttal on April 19, 2004 (after the close of filing
which was supposed to have been on April 13, 2004) to PCPOA's objections
which the Planning Commission had not been provided copies of.
Accordingly, the City failed to timely provide the Planning Commission with all
relevant data and objections to Melody Ranch's Conditional Use Permit
Application in advance of the hearing, and therefore the hearing was not properly
undertaken by the Planning Commission as a formal meeting and public hearing,
but rather the hearing on Melody Ranch's Application was a sham, deception and
pretense in that the Planning Commission and/or the City's Planning & Building
Services Department made a predetermined decision to approve said Application.
The Commission and/or the City's Planning & Building Services Department,
prior to the time of said hearing, had committed to approving Melody Ranch's
Application regardless and irrespective of any evidence that was or could have
been presented at the public hearing, including PCPOA's objections that were
properly submitted and filed, but which were deliberately and intentionally
excluded from the Staff Report submitted to the Planning Commission, making
the entire process a frivolous act and nullity, futile and without purpose or effect,
because the decision of the Planning Commission and/or the City's Planning &
LAW OFFICES
GRAHAM VAAGE & CISNEROS
Sharon Dawson, City Clerk
May 5, 2004
Page 3
Building Services Department had already been made and the approval
orchestrated in advance of the public hearing.
2. The approval of the Project by the City and its Planning Commission violates the
express requirements and mandate of CEQA, in that the public review and
comment period provided by the City specifically violated Public Resources Code
§21091(b), which expressly requires that "the public review period for a proposed
negative declaration ... shall not be less than 20 days." Public Resources Code
§21091(d)(1) further provides that the "... lead agency shall consider any
comments it receives on a ... proposed negative declaration.... if those comments
are received within the public review period."
In this matter, the stated public review period for the City's Negative Declaration
was from "March 31, 2004 to April 20, 2004" [see, Negative Declaration].
However, in violation of Public Resources Code §§21091(b) and (d)(1), the
Notice provided by the City expressly stated that in order for an objection or
comment to be included in the package to be considered by the Commission, it
had to be submitted to the City on or before April 13 2004. Accordingly, the
public was expressly deprived of the statutory requirements assured by the Public
Resources Code in that it was not given the full 20 days to review and comment
on the Negative Declaration, the City's Initial Study, or Melody Ranch's
Application for the Project.
Further, objections and comments, including those of PCPOA which were
submitted both prior to the City's artificial and prejudicial deadline of on or
before April 13, 2004, and also before the expiration of what should have been the
statutory 20 day review period, were not included or provided to the Commission
prior to the hearing, and therefore were not fully and properly considered by the
Planning Commission prior to its approval of the City's Negative Declaration and
Melody Ranch's Application for Conditional Use Permit 04-007, all in violation
of California's Public Resources Code and CEQA.
3. Approval of the Project further violates CEQA in that the Project is but one part
of Melody Ranch's incomplete conceptual Master Plan for growth ("Master
Plan"), which first must be submitted, analyzed and evaluated as a whole, and not
be divided into segmented projects for episodic approval. See, Citizens Assn. For
Sensible Development of Bishop Area v County of Invo (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d
151,165-168; and Association for a Cleaner Environment v. Yosemite Community
College Dist. (2004) 116 Cal.AppAth 629.
In the Staff Report dated April 20, 2004 and submitted to the Commission prior to
the CUP hearing, the City admits that "formal approval of a Master Plan for the
project site has not been issued by the City of Santa Clarita" and that although
LAW OFFICES
GRAHAM VAAGE & CISNEROS
Sharon Dawson, City Clerk
May 5, 2004
Page 4
"during the creation of the Placerita Special Standards District and the Melody
Ranch Section of the Special Standards District, the applicant [Melody Ranch]
submitted a proposed build out plan for the project site for consideration. ... The
plan was never formally approved." [Staff Report, pg. 4 of 6]
Accordingly, Melody Ranch's proposed Master Plan, as submitted at the time the
Special Standards District was created over 10 years ago, was rejected by the City.
To properly comply with the CEQA requirements, Melody Ranch must first
prepare and receive approval for its Master Plan of development of the Project.
The City has completely failed to require a full and complete Master Plan of all
development at Melody Ranch in advance of considering any individual project,
which may be a part thereof.
4. Approval of the subject Project further violates CEQA in that the Negative
Declaration, Initial Study, and Notice to the public all failed to disclose, review,
consider or analyze the full extent of the Project as proposed, and thus was not
evaluated as a whole under CEQA requirements.
In the City's Staff Report, the City admits that "...along with the sound stage, the
applicant is proposing to construct a power pole for the stage to be located to the
east of the proposed stage. Also the applicant proposes to construct a retaining
wall on the western side of the proposed structure. The retaining wall would be
no higher than four feet in height..." [Staff Report, pg. 2 of 6]
Nowhere in the Initial Study or Negative Declaration is there any discussion or
analysis of Melody Ranch's need to erect a "power pole" or to "construct a
retaining wall", nor is there any proper consideration of what the additional
building needs are in scope or in context, or how the proposed uses may
environmentally impact the site and Project, and the surrounding community.
5. Approval of the Project further violates CEQA in that in the absence of the
required completed full Master Plan, the Planning Commission did not, and could
not, consider the cumulative effects of the entire development, including all
phases both present and future, along with reasonably foreseeable future activities
that will likely change the scope or nature of this Project or its environmental
effects. See, Pub Res C §21083(b); 14 Cal Code of Regs §§15130(a), (b)(1)(A),
15126(e), 15355, 15142, 15143, 15355; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v
Relents of University of California (1988) 47 Ca.3d 376,394-396.
Clearly present, and acknowledged as a fact which specifically is required to have
been identified and considered is the existence of an additional 5 acres of property
recently acquired by the Applicant, which acreage is not zoned for more studio
LAW OFFICES
GRAHAM VAAGE & CISNEROS
Sharon Dawson, City Clerk
May 5, 2004
Page 5
use nor is it within the scope of the CUP, yet the Applicant has sought to include
it within the Project and the studio use by the erecting an 8 -foot perimeter wall —
without a permit — and including the property as part of the studio usage, all
without any concern by the City as the City has overtly and systemically looked
the other way and affirmatively ignored code enforcement, thus conspiring with
Melody Ranch to further violate community standards as it asserts its territorial
expansion with the implicit approval of the City.
6. The Planning Commission also improperly approved the subject Project without
requiring an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") as to the substantial impacts
the Project will have, and the cumulative effects of this and related projects, and
the effect the disapproved Master Plan will have on the environment. Melody
Ranch has in the past and continues to develop various projects without the
community having the full benefit of a Master Plan of development, and without
the City and the Planning Commission properly weighing and evaluating the
environmental impacts of each and every proposed project, including the subject
Project. This ad hoc processing of projects by the City is expressly contrary to the
purpose and intent of CEQA, and fails to provide the citizens of the City of Santa
Clarita with the well-defined protections afforded by CEQA. In addition, the
actions of the City deliberately seek to strip away public participation in the
environmental review process by depriving the members of the public their full
and complete right of public hearing and public participation guaranteed to them
as a part of a proper adherence to the fundamentals of CEQA. See, Pub Res C
§§21065, 21080, 21091, 21151; Friends of Westwood Inc. v. Los Angeles (1987)
191 Cal.App.3d 259, 271.
In these circumstances where there has developed a governmental culture and
practice of ignoring the multi-year and incremental construction of successive
buildings and structures on the Melody Ranch property, many without permit,
together with allowing the ever -encroaching and enlarging and continuing
expansion of territory and commercial uses of the property beyond the original
approved studio use, and the consequential effects and impacts on the surrounding
low density single family neighborhood which is expressly intended to be
protected both by the City's General Plan, the Special Standards District, and its
zoning and land use regulations, and where there are unique and substantial
effects on the environment resulting from the proposed Project, and where the
Project is unusual in size, dimension, location and situation such that a conditional
use permit is required because the proposed Project does not even fit within the
special use designation already provided to Melody Ranch, an Environmental
Impact Report CUR") is required. 14 Cal Code of Regs §15100; Friends o
Westwood Inc., supra at 191 Cal. App 3d 259, 272-273.
LAW OFFICES
GRAHAM VAAGE & CISNEROS
Sharon Dawson, City Clerk
May 5, 2004
Page 6
7. The City has violated its affirmative obligation to require full and complete
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 21080 (a) of the California Public Resources Code makes CEQA
applicable "to all discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by
public agencies, including, but not limited to ... the issuance of zoning variances,
conditional use permits, ...."
A "discretionary project" is one " ... which requires the exercise of judgment,
deliberation, or decision on the part of the public agency or body in the process of
approving or disapproving a particular activity ..." Starbird v. County of San
Benito (1981) 122 Cal. App. 3d 657 (holding that the County violated CEQA by
granting a CUP for a manufacturing use on property in a combined zoning district
without requiring the preparation on an EIR).
The Planning Commission improperly approved the subject Project premised on
an invalid Negative Declaration, without a full and complete study and analysis of
the effects of the Project on the environment, including the cumulative effects
Melody Ranch's piecemeal development of its property on the environment,
including this Project.
8. The Planning Commission improperly approved the Project by continuing its long
practiced and well-known practice of granting preferential treatment to Melody
Ranch [perhaps as a consequence of the close personal relationship which has
evolved and been perpetuated between members of the City and Melody Ranch,
including in conjunction with the private arrangement where the City uses and
materially benefits from the use of Melody Ranch as part of the City's annual
Cowboy Festival. Thus, the City has express conflicts of interest in approving the
Application submitted by its a "partner" with whom it has had a multi-year
contractual and symbiotic relationship with].
The legacy of preferential treatment and accommodation, which has been
accorded to Melody Ranch by the City, is both long in term and broad in scope,
including having granted Melody Ranch a special zoning designation for a heavy
commercial use in the midst of a low density rural single family residential area.
So systemic has been the preferential treatment accorded to Melody Ranch over
the years that it has effected a donation of governmental authority to a private
property owner, by relieving Melody Ranch from having to comply with many of
the normal governmental restrictions, standards and controls, and those where
compliance is required are only tacitly enforced, such as with the City's instant
Negative Declaration regarding the environmental impact from the most recent
Application to a constantly evolving and incrementally -growing commercial use
in the heart of an otherwise placid, pastoral rural canyon. Where Melody Ranch
LAW OFFICES
GRAHAM VAAGE & CISNEROS
Sharon Dawson, City Clerk
May 5, 2004
Page 7
has not already been ceded the powers to self -govern, the City has otherwise
abdicated its control over the property and its uses. The "business" relationship
between the City and Melody Ranch cannot be ignored when analyzing the lack of
objectivity when it comes to how Melody Ranch is preferentially allowed by the
City to use its property without normal governmental regulations and controls.
9. The Planning Commission improperly approved the subject Project without
obtaining comments and clearances from all required governmental agencies,
including but not limited to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board,
the Los County Fire Department, and the Army -Corp of Engineers. Expressly
ignored by the City was an evaluation of the potential impact on groundwater
conditions and potable water supplies resulting from the increased infusion of
thousands of gallons of sewage into the substrata from this proposed Project,
whose sewage migrates laterally until it intercepts a water table where it can flow
to a pumping source to be pumped again into domestic water supplies, not
dissimilar to the sewage supersaturation contributed upstream by conditions at
Master's College, neither of which is on a public sewer system. The City has also
ignored the potential impact on Placerita Creek, only 100 yards from the proposed
Project; the analysis of the potential for exacerbation of flooding conditions as the
footprint of a 16,000 square foot building impacts the areas of natural sheet flows
in a flat bottom canyon during those periodic but predictable flooding occurrences
which strike Placerita Canyon; and have admittedly ignored a full analysis of the
impact of moving 25,000 cubic yards of dirt on the Project site, including existing
stockpiled dirt (the genesis of which is unknown but reasonably can be concluded
to have originated from yet another Project the City ignored and looked away
from). Even aside from the issue of the grading ostensibly being confined to the
Project site, the moving of 25,000 yards of dirt equates to 2,500 truckloads of
materials being moved around on site, which is not a condition that is without
environmental impacts, both onsite and offsite.
10. In approving the subject Project, the Planning Commission and City staff
breached their sworn duties owed to the public and to the entire community of
Santa Clarita, for which independent liability shall attach, and for which there is
no right of indemnification since it is a knowing violation of sworn statutory
duties.
PCPOA appeals the Planning Commission's approval of the Project on April 20, 2004 on
the foregoing grounds, and reserves the right to further supplement its asserted grounds for
appeal.
PCPOA further requests that the Santa Clarita City Council set the appeal for public
hearing and determination, and that both this office and PCPOA be promptly notified of the date
and time the appeal is set for public hearing.
LAW OFFICES
GRAHAM VAAGE & CISNEROS
Sharon Dawson, City Clerk
May 5, 2004
Page 8
PCPOA is separately submitting the filing fee for this Notice of Appeal directly to the
City Clerk on this date, May 5, 2004.
Very truly yours,
AKG/jhn
Master Case 04-070
Melody Ranch Sound Stage C
Conditional Use Permit 04-007
Initial Study 04-005
CITY RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED IN APPEAL OF THE APRIL 20, 2004 PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MC 04-070
Section A, Issues raised in appeal letter
1. On March 31, 2004, the City of Santa Clarita Department of Planning and Building
Services ("City') mailed Notice of a public hearing scheduled for April 20, 2004 at 7 p.m., at
which time the Planning Commission ("Commission') proposed to consider and take action on
Melody Ranch's Application for Conditional Use Permit 04-007. The Notice advised that all
written objections were required to be submitted to the City on or before the close of business on
April 13, 2004 in order to be included in the official package to be provided to and reviewed by
the Commission in advance of the public hearing. Therefore, the Notice period was terminated
as of April 13, 2004.
On April 13, 2004, by and through this office, PCPOA filed with the City its formal written
objections to the defective and inadequate Initial Study and Negative Declaration prepared by
the Applicant and the City, and to the City's failure to comply with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (" CEQA') in regard to Melody Ranch's Application, and
expressly requested that copies of its objections be included both as a part of the official record
of the public hearing, and also that copies be specifically provided to the Planning Commission
members for their review and consideration prior to the scheduled hearing.
Even though the Applicant's papers and documents, and the papers of other supporters of the
Applicant, including its attorney, were provided to the Commission Members, the City Planning
Staff deliberately did not include PCPOA's written objections in the official Staff Report dated
April 20, 2004, and otherwise failed to timely provide the Commission Members with PCPOA's
objections in advance of the hearing to allow the Commission to review, evaluate, and/or
consider PCPOA's objections, thus segregating and treating different, and with a negative
status, PCPOA's opposition to the pending Application.
As a further confirmation of the preferential treatment given by the City to Melody Ranch, while
the City improperly excluded a copy ofPCPOA's written objections being given to the Planning
Commission, it specifically did provide a copy of PCPOA's objections to Hunt C. Braly,
attorney for Melody Ranch who thereafter submitted a written rebuttal on April 19, 2004 (after
the close of filing which was supposed to have been on April 13, 2004) to PCPOA's objections
which the Planning Commission had not been provided copies of.
Accordingly, the City failed to timely provide the Planning Commission with all relevant data
and objections to Melody Ranch's Conditional Use Permit Application in advance of the
hearing, and therefore the hearing was not properly undertaken by the Planning Commission as
a formal meeting and public hearing, but rather the hearing on Melody Ranch's Application was
a sham, deception and pretense in that the Planning Commission and/or the City's Planning &
Building Services Department made a predetermined decision to approve said Application. The
Commission and/or the City's Planning & Building Services Department, prior to the time of
said hearing, had committed to approving Melody Ranch's Application regardless and
irrespective of any evidence that was or could have been presented at the public hearing,
including PCPOA's objections that were properly submitted and filed, but which were
deliberately and intentionally excluded from the Staff Report submitted to the Planning
Commission, making the entire process a frivolous act and nullity, futile and without purpose or
effect, because the decision of the Planning Commission and/or the City's Planning & Building
Services Department had already been made and the approval orchestrated in advance of the
public hearing.
On March 31, 2004 a notice of public hearing and Notice of Intent was published in The Signal
and mailed to property owners within a 500 foot radius of the project site. The California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a notice of intent for an environmental
evaluation for this type of a project be noticed for a 20 -day period. The City of Santa Clarita's
Unified Development Code requires that public hearings before the Planning Commission be
noticed via mail no less than 21 days prior to the hearing. Both the CEQA-required notification
and the notice of the Planning Commission public hearing were noticed for a 21 -day public
review period, via mail and through written publication in The Signal.
As a courtesy, to allow the public to submit items prior to the hearing for the Planning
Commission to receive in the official Planning Commission packet, which contains the staff
report and associated site plan, etc, the Planning Division includes a date for which public
correspondence can be submitted to include in this packet. Correspondence received within this
time period is forwarded to the Planning Commission to review during their review of the
official packet. The date in which to submit is not the close of the public review period. The
public review period, stated on the official notice, extends to the date of the hearing. On April
20, 2004, prior to the hearing before the Planning Commission, staff received public
correspondence that was forwarded to the Planning Commission at the hearing. Also, written
correspondence was submitted to the Planning Commission during the public testimony portion
of the hearing. This was accepted as official public comment within the 21 -day public review
period.
The written objections referenced were received by staff within the 21 -day review period for the
Planning Commission hearing and CEQA-required Negative Declaration review period, on April
13, 2004. The referenced objections were made part of the public record and copies were given
to each of the Planning Commissioners at the Public Hearing on April 20, 2004.
Written correspondence that was received prior to noon on April 13, 2004 was included in the
official Planning Commission packet for the Commissioners review. This correspondence
included two letters of opposition to, and two letters in support of the project. No preferential
treatment or exclusion of the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association was given. It
should be noted that a letter received from the President of the PCPOA, Eugene Nelson, was
included in the Commissioners packet. Written correspondence to the Planning Commission
regarding this project included seven letters of support and five letters in opposition to the
proposal. These letters were included in the April 20, 2004 public record, and given to the
Planning Commission for review at the April 20, 2004 hearing.
The applicant's attorney requested copies of all correspondence received on the project on April
14, 2004. The applicant's attorney prepared a written response to the written opposition to the
project on April 19, 2004, within the 21 -day public notice time period. This letter, from the
applicant's attorney, as well as all written correspondence received on or before April 20, 2004
was included in the public record and submitted to the Planning Commission at the April 20,
2004 Planning Commission hearing.
The application for a conditional use permit to exceed the 35 -foot -height limit in the RL
(Residential Low) zone submitted by Melody Ranch complied with the applicable requirements
in the City's Unified Development Code and, therefore, staff recommended the Planning
Commission approve the project. During a regular public hearing of the Planning Commission,
and as stated in the Planning Commission Resolution, the Commissioners base their decision on
compliance with the UDC, and evidence presented to the Commission, this includes
correspondence, written and verbal provided during and prior to the public hearing.
2. The approval of the Project by the City and its Planning Commission violates the express
requirements and mandate of CEQA, in that the public review and comment period provided by
the City specifically violated Public Resources Code §21091(b), which expressly requires that
"the public review period for a proposed negative declaration ... shall not be less than 20 days. "
Public Resources Code §21091(d)(1) further provides that the "... lead agency shall consider
any comments it receives on a ... proposed negative declaration.... if those comments are
received within the public review period. "
In this matter, the stated public review period for the City's Negative Declaration was from
"March 31, 2004 to April 20, 2004" [see, Negative Declaration]. However, in violation of
Public Resources Code §§21091(b) and (d)(1), the Notice provided by the City expressly stated
that in order for an objection or comment to be included in the package to be considered by the
Commission, it had to be submitted to the City on or before April 13 2004. Accordingly, the
public was expressly deprived of the statutory requirements assured by the Public Resources
Code in that it was not given the full 20 days to review and comment on the Negative
Declaration, the City's Initial Study, or Melody Ranch's Application for the Project.
Further, objections and comments, including those of PCPOA which were submitted both prior
to the City's artificial and prejudicial deadline of on or before April 13, 2004, and also before
the expiration of what should have been the statutory 20 day review period, were not included or
provided to the Commission prior to the hearing, and therefore were not fully and properly
considered by the Planning Commission prior to its approval of the City's Negative Declaration
and Melody Ranch's Application for Conditional Use Permit 04-007, all in violation of
California's Public Resources Code and CEQA.
The approval of Master Case 04-070 by the Planning Commission does not violate the
requirements of CEQA for the 20 -day public review period because all comments on the project,
and the initial study and negative declaration prepared for the project received by April 20, 2004
were made part of the public record and submitted to the Planning Commission at the public
hearing to consider the entitlement and the initial study and negative declaration prepared for the
project.
The public notification for this project began on March 31, 2004 and ended April 20, 2004. This
was expressed on the notice of public hearing and notice of intent, sent via mail on March 31,
2004 to property owners within 500 feet of the project site, and advertised on March 31, 2004 in
The Signal. To allow the public to prepare and include written correspondence to the Planning
Commission to consider during review of the official packet, a date to submit correspondence is
given in the notice of public hearing and notice of intent, April 13, 2004, for this project. This
notice does not state the public review period ends with this date. All correspondence received,
via email, hand -delivery, fax and mail on or before April 20, 2004 was included in the public
record and submitted to the Planning Commission at the April 20, 2004 hearing.
3. Approval of the Project further violates CEQA in that the Project is but one part of
Melody Ranch's incomplete conceptual Master Plan for growth ('Master Plan'), which first
must be submitted, analyzed and evaluated as a whole, and not be divided into segmented
projects for episodic approval. See, Citizens Assn. For Sensible Development of Bishop Area v
County oflnyo (1985) 172 Ca1.App.3d 151,165-168; and Association for a Cleaner Environment
v_. Yosemite Community College Dist. (2004) 116 Ca1.App.4th 629.
In the Staff Report dated April 20, 2004 and submitted to the Commission prior to the CUP
hearing, the City admits that 'formal approval of a Master Plan for the project site has not been
issued by the City of Santa Clarita" and that although "during the creation of the Placerita
Special Standards District and the Melody Ranch Section of the Special Standards District, the
applicant [Melody Ranch] submitted a proposed build out plan for the project site for
consideration. ... The plan was never formally approved. " [Staff Report, pg. 4 of 6]
Accordingly, Melody Ranch's proposed Master Plan, as submitted at the time the Special
Standards District was created over 10 years ago, was rejected by the City. To properly comply
with the CEQA requirements, Melody Ranch must first prepare and receive approval for its
Master Plan of development of the Project.
The City has completely failed to require a full and complete Master Plan of all development at
Melody Ranch in advance of considering any individual project, which may be a part thereof.
There is no official Master Plan for development in Melody Ranch. No portion of the Unified
Development Code or General Plan requires Melody Ranch to receive approval of a master plan.
The California Environmental Quality Act does require that the planning the City does engage in
be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA. When CEQA is required, that review
must address all aspects of the project for which approval is sought.
The Melody Ranch property owners stated a conceptual plan of Melody Ranch was submitted as
an exhibit in 1990 during the preparation of the City's General Plan and Unified Development
Code. This plan was conceptual in nature and was not formally submitted for approval by the
City of Santa Clarita, it was used as a reference for the development of standards and analysis of
the Planning Area referenced in the General Plan. The master plan was not rejected by the City.
The City's UDC does not require a master plan for Melody Ranch, as it does for The Master's
College (Section 17.16.070) and in the conditions of approval for development, as stated in the
conditions for the dorm approved on September 6, 2001 for The Master's College. It should be
noted that The Master's College is larger (94 acres) and is a different use and land use
designation (PE, Private Education) than Melody Ranch (RL, Residential Low). The Placerita
Canyon Special Standards District does contain a section specific to Melody Ranch. This section
allows the primary use of a full service motion picture studio to operate at the 15 acres described
as Melody Ranch in the RL zone. There is no section of the Special Standards District specific
to The Master's College.
4. Approval of the subject Project further violates CEQA in that the Negative Declaration,
Initial Study, and Notice to the public all failed to disclose, review, consider or analyze the full
extent of the Project as proposed, and thus was not evaluated as a whole under CEQA
requirements.
In the City's Staff Report, the City admits that "...along with the sound stage, the applicant is
proposing to construct a power pole for the stage to be located to the east of the proposed stage.
Also the applicant proposes to construct a retaining wall on the western side of the proposed
structure. The retaining wall would be no higher than four feet in height... " [Staff Report, pg.
2 of 61
Nowhere in the Initial Study or Negative Declaration is there any discussion or analysis of
Melody Ranch's need to erect a `power pole" or to "construct a retaining wall", nor is there
any proper consideration of what the additional building needs are in scope or in context, or
how the proposed uses may environmentally impact the site and Project, and the surrounding
community.
The California Environmental Quality Act does not require that the `need' for the power pole and
retaining wall be discussed or analyzed. It does require that their environmental impacts be
analyzed.
The project was clarified by the applicant, such as the height of the retaining wall, the location of
parking and grading, and the site plan submitted for review was revised after the appeal letter
was received. The applicant is not requesting approval of a power pole with this project. No
power pole will be installed as part of the project, and the site plan was revised to reflect this.
Utilities for the proposed sound stage will be located underground. Also, no permanent
restrooms are being installed in the proposed sound stage C, therefore, no hook-up to the existing
septic system or new system is necessary. Temporary `honey waggons' and `star waggons' will
be located at the 15 -acre Melody Ranch when filming and use of sound stage C occurs. This is
the current practice during production at the 15 -acre Ranch and the existing system will not be
impacted. Also, the 26,000 square foot building pad, which includes the proposed retaining wall,
to be five feet in height, the ramp to access the stage and the architectural elements of the sound
stage, such as the lean to/porch that would surround the outside of the stage, has been included in
the project description and environmental impacts evaluated in the recirculated initial study and
negative declaration.
The project description and evaluation of impacts in the initial study prepared for the project was
recirculated for public review prior to the hearing before the City Council. Further analysis of
the project, including the clarification of earth movement, inclusion of the building pad
consisting of the retaining wall, access ramp to the proposed sound stage and inclusion of the
conditions of approval in the project description and evaluation was incorporated in the initial
study and recirculated for public review.
5. Approval of the Project further violates CEQA in that in the absence of the required
completed full Master Plan, the Planning Commission did not, and could not, consider the
cumulative effects of the entire development, including all phases both present and future, along
with "reasonably foreseeable future activities that will likely change the scope or nature of this
Project or its environmental effects. See, Pub Res C §21083(b); 14 Cal Code of Regs
§§15130(a), (b)(1)(A), 15126(e), 15355, 15142, 15143, 15355; Laurel Heights Improvement
Assn. v. Re ents of University of California (1988) 47 Ca.3d 376,394-396.
Clearly present, and acknowledged as a fact which specifically is required to have been
identified and considered is the existence of an additional 5 acres of property recently acquired
by the Applicant, which acreage is not zoned for more studio use nor is it within the scope of the
CUP, yet the Applicant has sought to include it within the Project and the studio use by the
erecting an 8 -foot perimeter wall — without a permit — and including the property as part of the
studio usage, all without any concern by the City as the City has overtly and systemically looked
the other way and affirmatively ignored code enforcement, thus conspiring with Melody Ranch to
further violate community, standards as it asserts its territorial expansion with the implicit
approval of the City.
No master plan for development at Melody Ranch is required. The initial study and negative
declaration analyze potential impacts of the proposed sound stage and associated building pad,
which includes the retaining wall, architecture of the building, and ramp to the sound stage C.
The property owners of Melody Ranch own three contiguous parcels, zoned RL (Residential
Low). Two contiguous parcels that total 15 acres are described as being within the Placerita
Special Standards District, Melody Ranch Section. The 10 -acre parcel is the eastern -most parcel
of the 20 acres and is adjacent to Oak Creek Avenue. Primary access for the 20 acres is on this
10 -acre parcel. The five acre parcel located adjacent to the 10 -acre parcel that completes the 15 -
acre Ranch referenced in the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District Melody Ranch Section
is the project site for sound stage C. This area was referenced and evaluated in the initial study
and negative declaration prepared for the project. The five -acre site referenced above is zoned
RL and is not included in the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District, Melody Ranch
Section. This five -acre site completes the 20 acres owned by the Melody Ranch property owners
is the western -most property of the three contiguous parcels. This parcel is located directly to
the west of the project site. This area was not analyzed in the initial study because no
construction related to the sound stage is proposed on this parcel. This parcel is vacant of
permanent structures. This parcel does have one pre -fabricated residential unit which was used
by the former property owner. This unit is not used by the current property owners.
The perimeter wall referenced is a perimeter wall located on the westem boundary line of the
westem-most five -acre parcel. Because this is not located on the project site, this wall was not
analyzed with the sound stage. This wall ranges from eight to nine feet high and was constructed
without the appropriate building permits. A stop work order was placed on the wall by City staff
and the applicant was informed by the City of Santa Clarita that a variance application was
required for this wall because it exceeds the six-foot maximum height for boundary line walls in
the UDC. The applicant has submitted a variance application for the wall. The variance
application is incomplete at this time.
6. The Planning Commission also improperly approved the subject Project without
requiring an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR') as to the substantial impacts the Project will
have, and the cumulative effects of this and related projects, and the effect the disapproved
Master Plan will have on the environment. Melody Ranch has in the past and continues to
develop various projects without the community having the full benefit of a Master Plan of
development, and without the City and the Planning Commission properly weighing and
evaluating the environmental impacts of each and every proposed project, including the subject
Project. This ad hoc processing of projects by the City is expressly contrary to the purpose and
intent of CEQA, and fails to provide the citizens of the City of Santa Clarita with the well-defined
protections afforded by CEQA. In addition, the actions of the City deliberately seek to strip
away public participation in the environmental review process by depriving the members of the
public their full and complete right of public hearing and public participation guaranteed to
them as apart of a proper adherence to the fundamentals of CEQA. See, Pub Res C §§21065,
21080, 21091, 21151; Friends of Westwood Inc. v. Los Angeles (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 259,
271.
In these circumstances where there has developed a governmental culture and practice of
ignoring the multi-year and incremental construction of successive buildings and structures on
the Melody Ranch property, many without permit, together with allowing the ever -encroaching
and enlarging and continuing expansion of territory and commercial uses of the property beyond
the original approved studio use, and the consequential effects and impacts on the surrounding
low density single family neighborhood which is expressly intended to be protected both by the
City's General Plan, the Special Standards District, and its zoning and land use regulations, and
where there are unique and substantial effects on the environment resulting from the proposed
Project, and where the Project is unusual in size dimension, location and situation such that a
conditional use permit is required because the proposed Project does not even ft within the
special use designation already provided to Melody Ranch an Environmental Impact Report
CUR") is required. 14 Cal Code of Regs §15100; Friends of Westwood. Inc., supra at 191 Cal.
App 3d 259, 272-273.
The initial study prepared for sound stage C did not identify any significant impacts as a result of
the project, therefore, an EIR is not required for the project. The statement that a project is
unique or requires a conditional use permit does not compel the preparation of an EIR. A formal
Master Plan for Melody Ranch is not currently required by the City's UDC or General Plan, nor
was a Master Plan for Melody Ranch disapproved by the City of Santa Clarita.
Buildings referenced in the appeal letter as constructed without permits include sets and props
used for filming. The Uniform Building Code exempts props from receiving approval of
building permits. Research of the permits issued for the three parcels (20 acres) owned by the
Melody Ranch property owners was completed prior to the Planning Commission hearing.
Building permits have been issued for the two existing sound stages on the 10 -acre parcel. There
are no non -permitted structures on the project site. The five acres outside of the Placerita
Canyon Special Standards District, Melody Ranch Section does have a non -permitted eight to
nine foot high perimeter wall constructed on the western boundary of the parcel. The applicant
was informed by the City of Santa Clarita that a variance application was required for the wall.
The applicant has submitted a variance application. This application is incomplete at this time.
The Placenta Special Standards District, Melody Ranch Section allows for a full-service motion
picture studio to operate on the 15 -acre Ranch. The use of the proposed structure is permitted by
right by the Special Standards District. The conditional use permit was necessary because the
proposed height of 45 feet exceeded the 35 foot height limit in the RL (Residential Low) zone.
7. The City has violated its ajjlirmative obligation to require full and complete compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 21080 (a) of the California Public Resources Code makes CEQA applicable "to all
discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies, including, but
not limited to ... the issuance ofzoning variances, conditional use permits, .... ..
A "discretionary project" is one " ... which requires the exercise of judgment, deliberation, or
decision on the part of the public agency or body in the process of approving or disapproving a
particular activity ... " Starbird v. County of San Benito (1981) 122 Cal. App. 3d 657 (holding
that the County violated CEQA by granting a CUP for a manufacturing use on property in a
combined zoning district without requiring the preparation on an EIR).
The Planning Commission improperly approved the subject Project premised on an invalid
Negative Declaration, without a full and complete study and analysis of the effects of the Project
on the environment, including the cumulative effects Melody Ranch's piecemeal development of
its property on the environment, including this Project.
The City of Santa Clarita has not violated its obligation to require full and complete compliance
with CEQA. This project is a discretionary project, therefore, it is required to be analyzed under
CEQA. The requirements of CEQA were met because an initial study was completed to analyze
potential impacts of the project. This initial study concluded that no significant impacts would
result from the proposed sound stage, therefore, a negative declaration was prepared.
It should be noted that if the sound stage complied with the 35 foot height limit, the project
would not be discretionary, and therefore, exempt from CEQA. A stage under 35 feet in height
could be ministerially approved.
The project site is not located or adjacent to a combined use zone. The project site, as well as
Placerita Canyon is designated RL (Residential Low), with the exception of The Master's
College, which is zoned PE (Private Education). The RL zone is a residential use zone. The
Placerita Canyon Special Standards District allows the operation of a full service motion picture
film studio on the project site that is defined in this section of the UDC.
The Planning Commission approved the project based on a valid negative declaration. The
analysis in the initial study was revised to include further information on possible cumulative
impacts that would result from the sound stage. The initial study concluded no significant
impacts would result from the proposed stage and a negative declaration was prepared and
circulated in compliance with CEQA.
8. The Planning Commission improperly approved the Project by continuing its long
practiced and well-known practice of granting preferential treatment to Melody Ranch [perhaps
as a consequence of the close personal relationship which has evolved and been perpetuated
between members of the City and Melody Ranch, including in conjunction with the private
arrangement where the City uses and materially benefits from the use of Melody Ranch as part
of the City's annual Cowboy Festival. Thus, the City has express conflicts of interest in
approving the Application submitted by its a 'partner" with whom it has had a multi-year
contractual and symbiotic relationship with].
The legacy of preferential treatment and accommodation, which has been accorded to Melody
Ranch by the City, is both long in term and broad in scope, including having granted Melody
Ranch a special zoning designation for a heavy commercial use in the midst of a low density
rural single family residential area. So systemic has been the preferential treatment accorded to
Melody Ranch over the years that it has effected a donation of governmental authority to a
private property owner, by relieving Melody Ranch from having to comply with many of the
normal governmental restrictions, standards and controls, and those where compliance is
required are only tacitly enforced, such as with the City's instant Negative Declaration
regarding the environmental impact from the most recent Application to a constantly evolving
and incrementally -growing commercial use in the heart of an otherwise placid, pastoral rural
canyon. Where Melody Ranch has not already been ceded the powers to self -govern, the City
has otherwise abdicated its control over the property and its uses. The "business" relationship
between the City and Melody Ranch cannot be ignored when analyzing the lack of objectivity
when it comes to how Melody Ranch is preferentially allowed by the City to use its property
without normal governmental regulations and controls.
This state's system of land use regulation does not allow for preferential treatment. All negative
declarations that are adopted by the City and every EIR that is certified has to be based upon
substantial evidence in the record. Every discretionary permit (including conditional use
permits) has to be based on findings that area supported by substantial evidence in the record.
The fact that the applicant was required to submit and complete application for a conditional use
permit, and receive approval from the Planning Commission for the conditional use permit, and
that the applicant was required to submit a variance application for the off-site perimeter wall
shows that there is no preferential treatment of Melody Ranch by the City of Santa Clarita.
Research of the City's Building and Safety Division's permit data base shows Melody Ranch has
obtained the required permits for the construction of the two existing sound stages on the parcel
located to the east of the project site for Stage C, as well as the special event permits required for
events other than filming at Melody Ranch, as well as the Cowboy Poetry and Music Festival.
Sets used for filming are exempt from the Uniform Building Code, therefore, no building permits
are required for sets and props.
Annually, the City and Melody Ranch complete a contractual agreement with the City of Santa
Clarita for the Cowboy Poetry and Music Festival. Stating the responsibilities of each of the
parties. The contract completed is a standard professional services agreement the City uses for
each agreement with second parties.
Melody Ranch was included in the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District because it has
historically, by multiple property owners, operated as a full-service motion picture studio. This
is evidenced in both the City's General Plan Open Space Element and the UDC. The proposed
sound stage, with the approval of a conditional use permit, and the use of Melody Ranch as a full
service motion picture studio comply with the City's UDC. No legacy of preferential treatment
has been given to Melody Ranch or is evident from the history of the permits required and issued
for uses and structures at Melody Ranch.
9. The Planning Commission improperly approved the subject Project without obtaining
comments and clearances from all required governmental agencies, including but not limited to
the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Los County Fire Department, and the
Army Corp of Engineers. Expressly ignored by the City was an evaluation of the potential
impact on groundwater conditions and potable water supplies resulting from the increased
infusion of thousands of gallons of sewage into the substrata from this proposed Project, whose
sewage migrates laterally until it intercepts a water table where it can flow to a pumping source
to be pumped again into domestic water supplies, not dissimilar to the sewage supersaturation
contributed upstream by conditions at Master's College, neither of which is on a public sewer
system. The City has also ignored the potential impact on Placerita Creek, only 100 yards from
the proposed Project; the analysis of the potential for exacerbation offlooding conditions as the
footprint of a 16, 000 square foot building impacts the areas of natural sheet flows in a flat
bottom canyon during those periodic but predictable flooding occurrences which strike Placerita
Canyon; and have admittedly ignored a full analysis of the impact of moving 25,000 cubic yards
of dirt on the Project site, including existing stockpiled dirt (the genesis of which is unknown but
reasonably can be concluded to have originated from yet another Project the City ignored and
looked away from). Even aside from the issue of the grading ostensibly being confined to the
Project site, the moving of 25,000 yards of dirt equates to 2,500 truckloads of materials being
moved around on site, which is not a condition that is without environmental impacts, both
onsite and offsite.
The California Environmental Quality Act requires that the City provide responsible and trustee
agencies with an opportunity to comment on the negative declaration. After the review period
has expired, the City approved the project, even though it has not received comments from those
other agencies. These agencies do not have to clear the project before the City can act.
Responsible agencies, agencies that have discretional approval power over some aspect of the
project, area expected to act after the City has acted.
Prior to the Planning Commission hearing, the Los Angeles County Fire Department issued
conditions of approval for Stage C. These conditions were included in the conditions approved
by the Planning Commission.
Prior to the recirculation of the negative declaration, the Regional Water Quality Control Board
and the Department of Fish and Game were contacted directly regarding the project. Both stated
the project was exempt from their review.
Prior to the recirculation of the negative declaration, the applicant's engineer confirmed that
earth movement for the project consisted of 3,000 cubic yards and not 26,000 cubic yards of
earth. With the original submittal, incomplete information was submitted stating the earth
quantity numbers for the proposed sound stage and pad. The applicant's engineer did not
complete the calculations for the earthmovement, therefore, the incorrect earth quantity was
originally analyze. This is a significant change to the project description and analysis of the
project and the initial study was revised to analyze this number.
Prior to the recirculation of the negative declaration, the applicant confirmed that the stage would
not hook-up to the existing septic system used at Melody Ranch. Stage C would not include
restrooms. Temporary honey and starwagons that are used for the production staff would be
used when Stage C was used. No impact to the existing system is anticipated.
No portions of the proposal were ignored in the negative declaration approved by the Planning
Commission or in the recirculated negative declaration.
10. In approving the subject Project, the Planning Commission and City staff breached their
sworn duties owed to the public and to the entire community of Santa Clarita, for which
independent liability shall attach, and for which there is no right of indemnification since it is a
knowing violation ofsworn statutory duties.
Planning Commission members are immune from liability for actions of the Commission, and
staff is immune from liability for the issuance or denials of permits and approvals.
Staff acted within their duties. Staff considered all information presented prior to making a
recommendation to the Planning Commission. Staff acted within all duties to the public and the
community.
Section B, Issues raised in letter of opposition to the Planning Commission
1. A master plan for Melody Ranch be review and approved prior to additional construction
on the project site.
Although a formal approval of a master plan for the project site has not been issued by the City
of Santa Clarita, during the creation of the Placerita Special Standards District and the Melody
Ranch Section of the Special Standards District, the applicant submitted a proposed buildout plan
for the project site for consideration. The plan was used to create the Melody Ranch Section of
the Placenta Canyon Special Standards District. The plan was never formally approved.
2. Melody Ranch is a disturbance to the surrounding low density residential community that
is protected by the Special Standards District.
Melody Ranch was established as a motion picture studio prior to the City of Santa Clarita
incorporation. The Placerita Special Standards District identifies and supports the continued
historic full service motion picture studio use at Melody Ranch.
3. Growth at the project site impacts traffic and sewage disposal, and there are non -
permitted structures on the project site. Attached to the letter is a chronology of experiences
with Melody Ranch, and letters from property owners regarding operations.
The owners of the project site have used the portion of the site specified in the Special Standards
District as a motion picture studio. This area includes the eastern 15 -acres known as Melody
Ranch. The site plan shows that the proposed sound stage is within the area described in the
Melody Ranch section of the Placenta Special Standards District. Also, the owners are required
to receive approval from the Los Angeles County Department of Health for any impacts to the
on-site sewage system or for the installation of a new system. The third sound stage would
enable filming to occur within an enclosed sound proof area, so there is less disturbance to
neighbors. As a condition to this approval, the proposed sound stage would receive the required
building permits.
4. Staff has not met with the surrounding community and that structures have been built on
the site that have not been soley used as sets or scenery. That spot planning has been used to
avoid developing a cohesive plan on the project site.
Staff has met with the community each time a meeting was requested by the community.
The structures previously permitted at the site have meet the development standards in the City's
UDC, and if used accessory to filming, they are permitted by right. Structures permitted on the
site are not limited to sets or scenery if they are accessory to the full service motion picture use
of the site. A permit history search for the project site was completed by staff. This search
covered code enforcement actions and building permits issued for the site. Unpermitted
structures on the 15 acres described in the Melody Ranch Section of the Placerita Canyon
Special Standards District were not found as a result of the permit history search. The only non -
permitted structure found during this search was the perimeter wall on the five -acre site to the
west of the project site. The applicant was notified by staff that a variance was required for the
wall because it exceeded the six -foot -high limit for walls in the RL zone. The applicant has
submitted a variance application for the wall.
At this time, no Master Plan has been required by the City of Santa Clarita for the project site,
therefore, when a structure complies with the use allowed for the area, and the development
standards, it can be ministerially approved at the Planning Division.
5. Letter dated April 13, 2004 from appellant to the Interim Director of Planning and
Building Services and the Planning Commission.
A. A full Environmental Study and Report is required under CEQA for Melody
Ranch's project prior to project approval consideration by the Planning Commission
An initial study was completed for the project that concluded there would be no substantial
impacts as a result of the project. A negative declaration was circulated for the required public
review period prior to the Planning Commission's decision to approval the project.
B. The City's mitigated negative declaration is invalid
Staff completed a negative declaration for the project. No substantial impacts were found in the
initial study and no impacts that could be mitigated as part of the project were included in the
negative declaration.
The California Environmental Quality Act requires information and analysis in initial studies be
based on substantial evidence and factual evidence. The information in this letter from the
appellant does not give substantial evidence as to why an environmental impact report should be
completed for the project. The initial study and negative declaration recirculated for the project
contains substantial evidence that there would be no substantial impacts as a result of the project.
___ m._ 'R-- T_,. - ----------------
From:
w „r
Sharon Dawson - PCPOA /Melody Ranch CEQA compliance Page 1 ''
r^ From: "Arnold K. Graham" <akgraham@grahamvaagelaw.com>
To: Amy Schwimmer <aschwimmer@santa-clarita.com>
Date: 6/18/2004 10:13:13 AM
Subject: PCPOA / Melody Ranch CEQA compliance
Dear Ms. Schwimmer:
I was advised last evening by the President of PCPOA that they are
withdrawing their opposition to the Melody Ranch proposal inasmuch as they
have been able to establish what they believe will be a meaningful dialogue
with the owners of Melody Ranch and resolved certain of the issues in
dispute, and have also received reassurances from the City regarding Code
inspections, compliance and related property development issues presently
satisfactory to them that there will not be
unsurprised/directed/reviewed/controlled expansion in Placenta Canyon which
otherwise would erode and derogate the rural environment which is legally
required to be protected by the City's General Plan, and the City's prior
commitments to the PCPOA community.
Accordingly, please mark your files and records to the effect that PCPOA has
withdrawn its opposition to the pending Melody Ranch application for
construction of the additional sound stage.
Yours very truly,
ARNOLD K. GRAHAM
GRAHAM VAAGE &CISNEROS
500 North Brand Blvd., Ste 1030
Glendale, CA 91203
Tel. 818-547-4800
Fax 818-547-3100
cc: Client
naron Dawson - Melody Ranch appeal , - Page 1
�^ From:
Aimee Schwimmer
To:
Bertoni, Vince; Luoma, Kai
Date:
6/17/2004 4:26:05 PM
Subject:
Melody Ranch appeal
Sharon and Susan (FYI) I spoke with the president of the PCPOA, appellant for the Melody Ranch sound
stage on the June 22 agenda. He has verbally withdrawn the appeal and is forwarding a letter stating the
withdraw.
I spoke with Brad W. about the withdraw of an appeal and he said that the fact that the PC's decision was
appealed nullifies the PC approval. He spoke with Carl about this earlier and this is Carl's interpretation of
the law.
So, because the appellant has withdrawn the appeal, the PC's decision is nullified and the Council does
need to carry on with their hearing.
Aimee Schwimmer, AICP
Associate Planner
City of Santa Clarita Planning Division
(661)255-4330
CC: Coffman, Susan; Dawson, Sharon