Resolution - CEQA — Santa Clarita City Council, August 22, 2023

Page 1 of 10 ends

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:

1. Architectural Design Review 21-016 for the review of the project architecture to ensure it follows the applicable provisions of the Unified Development Code (UDC), the General Plan, and other applicable requirements.

2. Conditional Use Permit 21-010 to allow for construction of a film and television studio campus in the Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MXN) zone, and for new development within the Planned Development Overlay zone.

3. Development Review 21-012 to allow for the construction of a film and television studio campus development in compliance with the applicable provisions of the UDC, the General Plan, and other applicable requirements.

4. General Plan Amendment 21-002 to amend the General Plan Land Use Map in order to designate the entirety of the Shadowbox Studios Project site as MXN and a text amendment to the Land Use Element for the North Newhall Area (NNA).

5. Hillside Development Review 21-001 to allow for development on property with an average cross slope in excess of 10 percent.

6. Minor Use Permit 21-016 to allow for the reduction in residential density below the minimum required density for the MXN zone.

7. Oak Tree Permit (Class 4) 421-001 to allow for the removal of more than 12 oak trees, including 6 heritage trees.

8. Ridgeline Alteration Permit 21-001 to allow for the development within the Ridgeline Preservation zone.

Page 2 of 10 ends

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 NU5.

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 3 of 10 ends

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.

J. The Project includes use of 11.4 acres of the MWD property immediately east, for surplus parking. Use of the MWD property is subject to approval by MWD and is not required for operation of the Project. Any parking provided on MWD property would be in excess of the required parking for the Project.

K. The environmental impacts of the proposed Project were reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”). In accordance with CEQA, the City is the lead agency and the City Council is the decision-making body for the Shadowbox Studios Project. The City’s Planning Commission is a recommending body for the Project.

L. The City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared for the Project. The City determined that the following areas must be addressed in the EIR for the Project: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy consumption, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use planning, noise, population and housing, public services, transportation/traffic, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire.

M. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Project EIR was circulated to affected agencies, pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, for 30 days, beginning on March 29, 2022, and ending on April 28, 2022. Agencies that received the NOP include, but are not limited to, the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, South Coast Air Quality Management District, law enforcement agencies, school districts, water agencies, and utility companies serving the Santa Clarita Valley in accordance with CEQA’s consultation requirements. Comments from public agencies, organizations, and members of the public were received in response to the NOP for the Project.

N. A scoping meeting was held at City of Santa Clarita City Hall on April 21, 2022, to obtain information from the public as to issues that should be addressed in the EIR. Notice of the scoping meeting was published in The Signal newspaper on March 29, 2022. Approximately 30 people attended the scoping meeting. The topics of concern, that were raised at the meeting, included traffic, flood and drainage, preservation of Placerita Creek, and preservation of the PCSSD.

O. The City prepared a Draft EIR for the Shadowbox Studios Project that addressed all issues raised in comments received on the NOP. The Draft EIR was circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, in compliance with CEQA.

Page 4 of 10 ends

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 5 of 10 ends

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 6 of 10 ends

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 7 of 10 ends

SECTION 4. CONSIDERATION OF A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES.

Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including the Shadowbox Studios Project Draft Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Project and the Draft Final EIR and otherwise, upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission and the City Council, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and to the City Council, the City Council further finds that the Draft Final EIR analyzes a reasonable range of Project alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project, would lessen any of the significant impacts of the Project, and adequately evaluates the comparative merits of each alternative.

A. The objectives of the Project are specified in the Draft Final EIR and Section 2.3 of Exhibit A. These objectives are used as the basis for comparing the Project alternatives and determining the extent that the objectives would be achieved relative to the proposed Project.

B. Alternative 1 – No Project/No Development Alternative. This alternative is required by CEQA Guidelines and compares the impacts that might occur if the site is left in its present condition with those that would be generated by the proposed Project. Under this alternative, no development or redevelopment would occur beyond what exists today, and the site remains in its current state.

This alternative would have the least impact compared to the Project; however, it would have potentially greater impacts related to wildfire, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, and population and housing and would not attain any of the Project Objectives as summarized in Section 2.3 of Exhibit A. Therefore, this alternative is infeasible.

C. Alternative 2 – Existing Zoning. This Alternative would allow development of uses that are consistent with the Project site’s existing zoning designations, which are MXN for 40.6 acres located south of Placerita Creek, and NU5 for the 51.1-acre balance of the Project site that extends north across Placerita Creek. Approximately 1.8 acres would be dedicated for public right-of-way.

The Existing Zoning Alternative would propose mixed use development on the MXN portion of the site in accordance with local and State Density Bonus Law, for a total unit count of 924 units, and 50,000 square feet of commercial floor area. A total of 50 units of detached residential housing would be included in the NU5 area southerly of the creek. This alternative would provide the same Placerita Creek stabilization as the Project but would not construct a bridge across Placerita Creek, would not include any development of the area north of Placerita Creek, nor propose use of the MWD right-of-way. The roadway circulation for this Alternative anticipates a three-legged intersection at 13th and Arch Streets. Alternative 2 would not meet the Project Objectives, as summarized in Section 2.3 of Exhibit A, and would have greater impacts on air quality, energy consumption, Greenhouse Gas emissions, public services, transportation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. Therefore, Alternative 2 is infeasible.

Page 8 of 10 ends

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 9 of 10 ends

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 10 of 10 ends

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
nd day of August, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

______________________________

CITY CLERK

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

Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 i

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 EIR ......... 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

Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 1

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)
Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 2
This page intentionally left blank.

Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 3

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 (I-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, Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 4
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 façade of the proposed support building and outdoor break areas between the stage buildings, as well as a basketball half court along the western façade 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 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 5
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.

Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 6
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 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.

Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 7
 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 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 8
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.

Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 9

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.

Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 10

Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 11

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.

Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 12
This page intentionally left blank.

Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 13

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:

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:

Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 14
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?
Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 15
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 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 16
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? Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 17
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
Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 18
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? l) 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?
Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 19
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 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 20
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?
Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 21
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.

Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 22
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 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.

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-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-3 and MM-BIO-6 through MM-BIO-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-BIO-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- BIO-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-BIO-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 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 23
compensatory mitigation as required in Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-5. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-5 would reduce potential impacts to State- or federally-protected wetlands to less-than-significant levels.

Mitigation Measures
MM-BIO-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 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 24
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.

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 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 25
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-BIO-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-BIO-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
Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 26
 Best management practices
 Maintenance and monitoring program
 Adaptive management strategies
 Key stakeholders and responsible parties
 Funding
 Contingencies
MM-BIO-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-BIO-4, shall be prepared and submitted for approval by CDFW, USACE, and RWQCB prior to initiating construction or any site disturbance.

MM-BIO-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).

Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 27
MM-BIO-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-BIO-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-BIO-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 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 28
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 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 29
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.

Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 30
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.

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 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 31
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 Fernandeño 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.

Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 32
Mitigation Measures
MM-TCR-1: In conjunction with Mitigation Measure MM-CR-1, prior to the start of construction, a qualified representative of the Fernandeño 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 Fernandeño 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 Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians to observe all soil disturbing activities, such as site clearance and grubbing, grading, and excavation. The Fernandeño 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 Fernandeño 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 Fernandeño 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 Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians shall be consulted on the treatment and reburial location of the tribal cultural resources. The Fernandeño 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 Fernandeño 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 Fernandeño 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- Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 33
associated, the midden shall be left in-situ whenever possible. If it is not possible to leave the midden in-situ, the Fernandeño 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 Fernandeño 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.

Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 34
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-Bermite 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.

Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 35
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.

Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 36
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

1. 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.

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
Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 37

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 Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 38
production facilities in Santa Clarita. Similarly, the No Project Alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives, as identified below in Table 2.

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- Table 2
Applicability of Project Objectives for Alternative 1
Project Objective
Alternative 1:

No Project
Alternative
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 facilities designed to meet the specifications and demands of the movie, television, and entertainment industry and to allow flexibility to incorporate future technology advances.

Does Not Meet
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.

Does Not Meet
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.

Does Not Meet
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.

Does Not Meet
Enhance the identity of the Newhall community as a movie, television, and entertainment industry area.

Does Not Meet
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.

Does Not Meet
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 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.

Does Not Meet
Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 39
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, PM10, 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 (O3 and PM2.5) or the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (O3, PM10, and PM2.5), and, as such, on-site operational impacts would be significant without Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 40
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, Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 41
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
Project Objective
Alternative 2:

Existing Zoning
Alternative
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 facilities designed to meet the specifications and demands of the movie, television, and entertainment industry and to allow flexibility to incorporate future technology advances.

Does Not Meet
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 Does Not Meet
Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 42
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. 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.

Does Not Meet
Enhance the identity of the Newhall community as a movie, television, and entertainment industry area.

Meets
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 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.

Does Not Meet
Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 43

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
Project Objective
Alternative 3:

Reduced Studio
Alternative
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 facilities designed to meet the specifications and demands of the movie, television, and entertainment industry and to allow flexibility to incorporate future technology advances.

Meets
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.

Meets
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.

Meets
Enhance the identity of the Newhall community as a movie, television, and entertainment industry area.

Meets
Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 44

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.

Meets
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 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.

Meets
Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 45

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.

Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 46
This page intentionally left blank.

Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 47

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.

Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Shadowbox Studios Project Final Environmental Impact Report

July 2023 48
This page intentionally left blank.

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-clarita.com/city-hall/departments/community-development/planning- division/environmental-impact-reports-under-review/shadowbox-studios-project

Santa Clarita City CouncilAugust 22, 2023

Santa Clarita City Council
August 22, 2023