Santa Clarita City Council
April 26, 2022

(FINAL)

Addendum
Old Town Newhall Specific
Plan Update
FEBRUARY 2022
Prepared for:

CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Community Development Department
Planning Division
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302
Santa Clarita, California 91355
Contact: Hai Nguyen, Associate Planner
Prepared by:

38 North Marengo Avenue
Pasadena, California 91101
Contact: Nicole Cobleigh

Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 i
FEBRUARY 2022
Table of Contents

SECTION PAGE
Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................ iii 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Purpose of Addendum ............................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 CEQA Compliance ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Project Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 3

1.4 Previously Certified EIR .......................................................................................................................... 4 2 Project Description ............................................................................................................................................ 22

2.1 Originally Approved Plan ..................................................................................................................... 22

2.1.1 Project Location and Setting ................................................................................................. 22

2.1.2 Project Objectives .................................................................................................................. 22

2.1.3 OTNSP Details ........................................................................................................................ 23

2.2 OTNSP Implementation ....................................................................................................................... 23

2.2.1 Revisions to OTNSP ............................................................................................................... 23

2.2.2 Buildout Implementation ....................................................................................................... 25

2.3 Updated Plan ....................................................................................................................................... 25 3 Initial Study Checklist........................................................................................................................................ 30

3.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................ 36

3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................................................... 41

3.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................. 44

3.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................................... 50

3.5 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................................. 57

3.6 Energy .................................................................................................................................................. 61

3.7 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................................ 63

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................ 69

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................................................................... 71

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................................... 75

3.11 Land Use and Planning ....................................................................................................................... 80

3.12 Mineral Resources .............................................................................................................................. 82

3.13 Noise .................................................................................................................................................... 84

3.14 Population and Housing ...................................................................................................................... 88

3.15 Public Services .................................................................................................................................... 90

3.16 Recreation ............................................................................................................................................ 96

3.17 Transportation ..................................................................................................................................... 99

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................. 104

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................................ 107

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 ii
FEBRUARY 2022

3.20 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................................... 111

3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................................. 114 4 References and Preparers .............................................................................................................................. 118

4.1 References Cited ............................................................................................................................... 118

4.2 List of Preparers ................................................................................................................................ 119

APPENDIX(CES)
None

FIGURE(S)
Figure 1 Regional Location and Vicinity Map ................................................................................................. 121 Figure 2 Originally Approved Plan Zoning ....................................................................................................... 123 Figure 3 Updated Plan Zoning ......................................................................................................................... 125

TABLE(S)
Table 1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation from the 2005 OTNSP EIR ..................................................................... 5 Table 2. OTNSP Amendments ........................................................................................................................................ 24 Table 3. Originally Approved Plan’s Assumed Percent Built to New Standards ......................................................... 25 Table 4. Buildout Scenarios for the Originally Approved Plan and Updated Plan ....................................................... 26 Table 5. OTNSP Zoning Distribution .............................................................................................................................. 28

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 iii
FEBRUARY 2022
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
AB Assembly Bill
AE Arts and Entertainment zone
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CB Creative/Business zone
CD Creative District zone
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CO Carbon monoxide
COR Corridor zone
GHG Greenhouse gases
HABS Historic American Building Survey
LCP Lyons Corridor Plan
LSTs Localized significance thresholds
N Neighborhood zone
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OTNSP Old Town Newhall Specific Plan
PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SB Senate Bill
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
UC Urban Center zone
UG-1 Urban General 1 zone
UG-2 Urban General 2 zone
UDC Unified Development Code
VMT Vehicle miles traveled

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 iv
FEBRUARY 2022

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 1
FEBRUARY 2022
1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of Addendum
The City of Santa Clarita (City) certified a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Old Town Newhall Specific Plan (Originally Approved Plan) in 2005 ( State Clearinghouse No. 2005021012). The EIR was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and contains a disclosure and analysis of potential environmental effects associated with implementation of the Originally Approved Plan. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City also adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Old Town Newhall Specific Plan (OTNSP). Based on the analysis contained in the EIR and other considerations, the City Council approved the OTNSP in 2005 following certification of the EIR.

Since certification of the EIR and approval of the OTNSP in 2005, the OTNSP has been amended seven times, with the last revision in 2020. For the current amendment, the City is proposing to maintain the planning framework of the 2005 OTNSP and its subsequent amendments, while revising specific regulations and ad ding new ones to reflect the economic and regulatory realities of 2022 . The OTNSP Update will be referred to as the “Proposed Project” or “Updated Plan” in this Addendum. The purpose of this Addendum is to analyze the proposed modifications to the Original ly Approved Plan and its subsequent amendments, and to determine whether implementation of the Updated Plan would result in any new significant environmental impacts not identified in the certified EIR, or whether any previously identified significant effects would be substantially more severe under the Updated Plan. This Addendum also evaluates whether mitigation measures or alternatives previously found infeasible would become feasible due to changes that have occurred since certification of the EIR. The previously certified EIR is hereby incorporated for reference.

1.2 CEQA Compliance
Under CEQA, the Lead Agency is required to prepare an Addendum to a previously-certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary to a prior certified EIR, but none of the conditions calling for preparation of a Subsequent EIR have occurred (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164). Once an EIR has been certified, a Subsequent EIR is only required when the Lead Agency determines that one of the following conditions has been met:

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 2
FEBRUARY 2022
A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration;
B. Significant effects previously exa mined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
C. Mitigation measures or alternative previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the e nvironment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

CEQA recommends that a brief explanation of the decision to prepare an Addendum rather than a Subsequent EIR be included in the record for a proposed project (C EQA Guidelines Section 15164(e)). This Addendum has been prepared because the proposed Updated Plan is consistent with the Originally Approved Plan evaluated in the 2005 Program EIR (State Clearinghouse #2005021012) and its subsequent amendments.

The Updated Plan does not require major revisions to the Final Program EIR because no new significant impacts or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant impacts would occur . The anticipate d environmental impacts of the Updated Plan, as explained in detail in the following analysis and checklist, have been analyzed and mitigated accordingly in the previous Final Program EIR prepared for the OTNSP certified in 2005, and there have been no new circumstances since that time that would result in new or more severe significant environmental impacts. Lastly, as evaluated in the supporting analysis of this Addendum, mitigation measures that have been previously identified would adequately reduce imp acts to less than significant levels. Those mitigation measures that have been identified in the Final Program EIR and are applicable to the Updated Plan are identified within this analysis.

Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15163(c) or (e), an Addendum need no t be circulated for public review, but can be included in or attached to the Final EIR. Prior to approval of the Updated Plan, the City will consider this Addendum together with the Final EIR when making a decision regarding the Updated Plan.

CEQA Guidelines Revisions
Since certification of the 2005 Final Program EIR, the State adopted updates to the CEQA Guidelines to add efficiency and clarity to aspects of the guidelines and to incorporate recent case law and legislation that had not yet been reflected in the text of the guidelines. The recently adopted updates also include revisions to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, which consists of environmental checklist questions that are used by many lead agencies as the framework for environmental documents prepared pursuant to CEQA.

The most recent comprehensive revisions of the State CEQA Guidelines were adopted on December 28, 2018.

Additionally, provisions of Senate Bill (SB) 743 applied statewide beginning on July 1, 2020. The recent updates to Appendix G can be summarized as follows: narrowing the scope of aesthetic impacts; moving the topic of paleontology from the cultural resources section to the geology section; adding threshold questions to address the topic of energy; expanding wildfire issues; combining airport safety and noise into one threshold question; deleting the reference to private airstrips; incorporating vehicle miles traveled analysis into the transportation section; making the hydrology and utilities questions more concise and applicable to modern issues; clarifying that land use

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 3
FEBRUARY 2022
conflicts must relate to a physical impact; and adding “unplanned” to the population growth question, so that the question now focuses only on unplanned growth. In addition to thes e revisions, a prior revision was made that involved the addition of the topic of tribal cultural resources as a separate section in Appendix G. The tribal cultural resources section was added to Appendix G after passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 52, which required an update to the CEQA Guidelines to ensure that the topic of tribal cultural resources was addressed in CEQA documents.

The environmental checklist questions used in the EIR for the Originally Approved Plan were based on the version of the CEQA Guidelines and Appendix G that was in place when the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was released for public review in 2005. Section 15007(c) of the CEQA Guidelines states that “ [i]f a document meets the content requirements in effect when the document is sent out for public review, the document shall not need to be revised to conform to any new content requirements in guideline amendments taking effect before the document is finally approved.” Because the 2005 EIR was released for public review prior to adoption of the guideline amendments, the analysis for the Updated Plan does not need to be updated to conform with the revised guidelines. Furthermore, the EIR was also finalized and certified prior to adoption of the guidelines’ amendments. As such, changes pertaining to the CEQA Guidelines amendments do not need to be addressed in this Addendum. For these reasons, no revisions are required in the CEQA analysis of the Updated Plan as a result of the CEQA Guidelines updates. The adoption of these CEQA guidelines updates does not constitute substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Updated Plan will be undertaken, nor does it constitute new information of substantial importance that would change the impact conclusions in the certified 2005 EIR.

Nevertheless, since this Addendum is prepared after the CEQA amendments went into effect and in the interest of providing the public and decision makers as much information on the environmental consequences as possible, this document includes discussio ns, for informational purposes only , of whether the Updated Plan’s potential effects in the environmental categories that were added to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines in 2018 (i.e., energy, wildfire, and vehicle miles traveled).

1.3 Project Overview
On December 22, 2005, the Santa Clarita City Council adopted the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan, now known as, and referred to herein as the Old Town Newhall Specific Plan (OTNSP) and certified the Final EIR with the approval of City Council Resolution 05-133. The Originally Approved Plan consists of an approximately 271-acre area and planned for the development of up to 1,092 new residential units and nearly 1-million square feet of new commercial space over a 20 - to 25-year horizon. As described in the Originally Approved Plan , a portion of this growth would be attributed to new development, while some would also include revitalization of existing buildings within the OTNSP area.

The Originally Approved Plan established the overall vision for the Old Town Newhall area and has guided its growth, development, and revitalization over the last 15 years. The OTNSP is a regulatory document that codifie d development standards, design guidelines, and implementation measures for the development of buildings, places, streets, and infrastructure. The City is proposing an update to the Old Town Newhall Specific Plan (Proposed Project or Updated Plan) to continue the implementation of the Originally Approved Plan and its subsequent amendments, refine land use designations, and update development standards for the planning area.

The City of Santa Clarita, as lead agency for the Proposed Project, has the responsibility for reviewing, processing, and approving the Proposed Project. This document is an Addendum to the 2005 EIR of the OTNSP to accommodate a subsequent discretionary action for the proposed updates to the OTNSP. As such, the following is a summary of discretionary actions the City of Santa Clarita will consider:

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 4
FEBRUARY 2022
▪ Approval of the Old Town Newhall Specific Plan Update

1.4 Previously Certified EIR
As stated previously, the OTNSP EIR was certified in 2005 along with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The 2005 Final Program EIR (PEIR) evaluated and analyzed the potential environmental impacts associat ed with the implementation of the 2005 OTNSP.

The Initial Study prepared for this proposed Specific Plan (and distributed with the Notice of Preparation) concluded that the project could result in potentially significant adverse impacts in the following a reas: Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use/Planning, Noise, Population/Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Traffic and Circulation, Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities/Service Systems.

The Initial Study found that there were no impacts or less than significant impacts in the following areas: Aesthetics, Agriculture, and Mineral Resources. The NOP was circulated for 30 days, from February 3, 2005 to March 4, 2005.

During that time, comment letters were received from agencies and members of the public. Because of comments received, the following topics were added to the scope of the EIR: Aesthetics - Light and Glare and Biology – Avian Species.

Table 1, below, represents an adaptation of Table 2.0-1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation from the 2005 EIR.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 5
FEBRUARY 2022
Table 1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation from the 2005 OTNSP EIR Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation
Residual
Level of
Significance

5.1 Geology
GEO-1: Implementation of the
proposed Specific Plan will
result in additional development
and population in seismically
active area.

Class III None required Class III
GEO-2: Implementation of the
proposed Specific Plan would
expose soils to erosion.

Class III Implementation of measures proposed in Plan Sections 5.2 (long term erosion control) and

5.12 (short-term erosion control). Class III
GEO-3: Pedestrian bridge area
may terminate in an area of
landslide hazard.

Class II
Amend the proposed Specific Plan to require a study for landslide hazards during design of the bridge. Design bridge to avoid hazards and/or comply with the recommendations of a geotechnical study.

Class III
GEO-4: Development may be
exposed to liquefaction
hazards.

Class II Utilities and infrastructure improvements proposed for hazard areas require site-specific geotechnical study prior to final design and compliance with recommendations. Class III GEO-Cumulative: Continued
development will increase the
population and number of
structures at risk of damage or
loss from geologic or seismic
hazards.

Class III None required Class III

5.2 Biological Resources
BIO-1: Bridge construction
would result in the loss of native
vegetation.

Class II
The proposed Specific Plan implements a stormwater management plan that includes the restoration of the riparian habitat along the creek.

Prior to final design of either the creekside trail or the multi-modal bridge, the following will occur:

Conduct in-season survey by a qualified biologist/botanist, the following measures implemented if special status plant species are identified:

Class III

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 6
FEBRUARY 2022
a. Construction or operational activity shall cease until protective measures are put in place
b. Identified plant species removed and relocated
c. Impacts to Endangered species subject to federal and/or State Endangered Species Act

Copies of all surveys shall be submitted to the ACOE and CDFG.

ACOE and CDFG shall review and approve final plans for species replacement and habitat restoration in creekside trail or the bridge.

Jurisdictional delineation of wetlands and floodways required prior to issuance of development permits.

Riparian habitats disturbed by construction shall be replaced by creating riparian habitats of similar functions and values. Restoring any habitat, including wetlands, shall follow at least 1:1 replacement ratios.

Crossing and bank restoration design criteria:
a. Designed with respect to potential long-term impacts; including impediments to flow/erosion.
b. Design shall not impede wildlife movement.
c. Design shall ensure passibility of fish, animals, and other wildlife during flows and dry season.

Qualified biologist shall develop planting plan listing appropriate native plants for revegetation activity.

Erosion control measures designed into bank restoration/bridge design. (see Construction Impacts).

Fire setbacks and buffers shall be established to protect surrounding wildlife and habitat from development.

When planting natives for fire buffers/setbacks, plant choice shall be chosen based on compatibility with chaparral and riparian scrub.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 7
FEBRUARY 2022
BIO-2: Grading related to bridge
construction would result in loss
of habitat and may adversely
affect sensitive species.

Class II
Conduct in-season survey by a qualified biologist, to determine the presence of special status wildlife species, including nesting birds. If sensitive species or nesting birds are identified construction shall cease until protective measures are put in place. Impacts to Endangered species subject to federal and/or State Endangered Species Act.

See also above
Class III
BIO-3: Bridge security lighting
may illuminate the streambed
and adversely affect wildlife
movement.

Class II Lighting of the multi-modal bridge shall be designed in such a way that provides safety for pedestrians and bicyclist, but does not significantly increase light levels in the surrounding riparian environment. Optional methods include:
• directional controls
• controlling amount, number, and type of lighting
• shielding the lighting
Class III
BIO-4: Indirect impacts to plant
communities and wildlife may
result from human presence.

Class II
Human access to revegetation and bank restoration areas shall be prohibited and sensitive areas shall be well marked with signage and fencing.

Pets and other domestic animals are prohibited from entering any revegetation and bank restoration areas. Pets shall be restrained by a leash when using trail and bridge.

Class III
BIO-Cumulative: Cumulative
projects could result in habitat
loss for wildlife, contribute to
the fragmentation of the City,
impact surrounding
ecosystems, and incrementally
degrade habitat quality.

Class II
The proposed Specific Plan includes the following enhancement measures:
• Use native trees to provide habitat
• A Creekside bicycle and pedestrian path
• Enhancement of existing equestrian and pedestrian trail • The Street Tree Plan connecting the urban environment with the natural environment
• A Storm water project that includes the restoration of the riparian habitat along the creek.

See also above
Class III

5.3 Hydrology and Water Quality
HYD-1: Implementation of the
proposed Specific Plan will
result in development within a
100-year flood hazard area.

Class II
Prior to issuance of grading permits for property wholly or partially located within the Flood Hazard Area, developers shall provide the City with required documentation, and pay all required fees.

Development within designated flood zone shall ensure that structures are elevated at least one foot above Flood Hazard Area, per City’s Floodplain Management policies

Class III

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 8
FEBRUARY 2022
Projects modifying the configuration of any floodway shall submit a report prepared by a qualified hydrologist, which identifies impacts and outlines solutions which maintain or replace floodway function and values.

HYD-2: Development will
incrementally alter existing
drainage patterns.

Class II
The proposed Specific Plan includes a Stormwater Management program (refer to Mitigation Included in Project Description in Section 5.3).

In the case that the specific stormwater protection measures proposed in the Specific Plan are not feasible at the time construction is proposed, options which achieve the similar or better function or value can be considered.

Class III
HYD-3: Development will
incrementally affect the
groundwater recharge capacity.

Class III See above
Class III
HYD-4: Development will
increase flows to existing
stormwater infrastructure.

Class III See above
Class III
HYD-5: The project is consistent
with the Basin Plan. Class III None required Class III
HYD-Cumulative: Development
will increase impervious
surfaces, increasing volume
and velocity of runoff and the
potential for a reduction in the
quality of surface water.

Class III See above
Class III

5.4 Cultural Resources
CULT-1: Buildout will not affect
known archaeological
resources.

Class III None required Class III
CULT-2: Implementation will
result in the removal or
alteration of buildings deemed
potentially eligible for listing.

Class II
Procedures for future projects:

Where a proposed project will result in demolition or alteration of a property included on the Master List, a follow-up survey shall be performed to conclusively determine its significance.

If the resource is determined to be significant, the following measures shall be implemented:

For Historic Buildings or Building Additions
Proponents shall meet with the Historical Society and City architectural review staff or consultant to discuss and address size, bulk, scale, massing, and exterior design elements. • Window framing on wood-sided historic buildings shall be wood. • Wood sided historic buildings shall maintain wood exterior.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 9
FEBRUARY 2022
• Slope of hipped or gabled roof on new buildings or additions shall be compatible with the slope on existing buildings.
• Metal roofing shall be burnished and shall be installed to be compatible with existing metal roofs

Proposed renovations of historic structure:

Renovations to existing historic structures designated to enhance function, safety and longevity. Proposed renovations of all buildings identified on the Master List shall use durable, State Historic Building Code compliant materials that fit the period of construction and architectural character of the existing buildings. Shall meet State Historic Building Code.

Proposed demolition: Demolition of historic buildings allowed only after recordation according to Historic American Building Survey (HABS) standards.

Projects involving significant historical resources shall follow the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties With Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstruction Historic Buildings (refer to Section 5.4).

The following actions shall be required as mitigation measures, either singly or in combination, whenever preservation, adaptive re-use, or incorporation of historic structures is not reasonably possible:
a. Demolition of the historic structure with recordation according to the HABS standards.

Item a plus commemoration of demolished structure with a display of text and photos designed by a professional historical consultant at these locations:
• In interior of new building proposed for site (item b) • On exterior of new building proposed for site (item c) • On perimeter of property at primary entrance (item d) e. Items b, c, and d plus salvage of significant materials of historic structure for conservation in historical display.
f. Items b, c, and d plus advertisements for acquisition and relocation of historic structure with its subsequent rehabilitation and adaptive re-use at its new site. g. Item c plus compatible incorporation of façade only of historic structure into design of the new building on site.
h. Item c plus preservation of historic structure on site as non-habitable space (storage/mechanical equipment).

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 10
FEBRUARY 2022
i. Item c plus relocation and preservation of historic structure on site for use as non- habitable space.
j. Item c plus relocation and preservation of historic structure on site for use as habitable space, including compliance with State Historic Building Code. k. Item j plus rehabilitation and adaptive re-use off-site for habitable space, including State Historic Building Code compliance.

CULT-3: Implementation will
result in changes to the current
context of potentially historic
structures.

Class II
The proposed Specific Plan includes policies that address historic resources:

Historic Preservation – The issue of preserving and reinforcing the historic and pedestrian nature of Downtown is fundamental to the success of the revitalization effort. To accomplish this, it will be useful for the City to act on the results of the Historic Resources Survey prepared for this Plan to appropriately inform decisions and actions about future public and private development.

See also above
Class III
CULT-Cumulative: Impacts
associated with historical
resources are limited to the
planning area; the cumulative
scenario consists of buildout of
the proposed Specific Plan.

Class III See above Class III

5.5 Transportation and Circulation
CIRC-1: Under 2010 Build
alternative, San
Fernando/Railroad intersection
would degrade to level- of-
service “D” with ICU increase of

0.07. Class II
Construct a second northbound right-turn lane from San Fernando Road onto Railroad Avenue. Accomplished by retaining the existing right-turn lane, converting existing outside through lane into a second right-turn lane, retaining other existing through lane, and providing another through lane to the south.

Class III
CIRC-2: Temporarily closure of
Railroad Avenue’s outside
northbound travel lane in 2010
would impact transit operations.

Class II
Relocate the northbound Railroad Avenue bus stop by:
a. widening Railroad Avenue to north for a bus zone, or b. reconfiguring the kiss-and-ride lot to the northwest of Railroad Avenue and Market Street
Class III
CIRC-3: Implementation will
result in additional parking in
2010.

Class III None required Class III
CIRC-4: Implementation of the
Specific Plan along with General Class III Each of these intersections would be reconstructed under the Specific Plan’s actions such that acceptable levels-of- service would be achieved or maintained. Class III

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 11
FEBRUARY 2022
Plan buildout in 2025 will result
in acceptable levels of service
at studied intersections during
the AM peak hour.

CIRC-5: Under 2025 Build
scenario, San Fernando/13th
degrade to level-of-service “F”
with ICU increase of 0.08.

Class II
Reconfigure the San Fernando/13th intersection’s western leg/eastbound approach to consist of one shared left and through lane and one right-turn lane when the land uses served by the intersection are redeveloped.

Class III
CIRC-6: Under 2025 Build
alternative, San
Fernando/Railroad degrade to
level-of-service “D” with an ICU
increase of 0.20.

Class II
Add a second northbound right-turn lane from San Fernando Road onto Railroad Avenue.

Accomplished by retaining existing right-turn lane, converting existing outside through lane into a second right-turn lane, retaining other existing through lane, and providing another through lane to the south.

Relocate railroad crossing gate assembly and widen San Fernando Road southerly.

Restripe lanes on San Fernando Road.

Class III
CIRC-7: Under 2025 Build
Alternative, Lyons/Railroad
degrade to level-of-service “E”
with ICU increase of 0.28.

Class I
City shall monitor intersection performance at Railroad/Lyons. Based on results of monitoring efforts conducted, and eventual formal proposal for Dockweiler Drive, City shall design the intersection at the Dockweiler Drive extension to achieve acceptable levels of service.

Class I
CIRC-8: Public transportation
will not be significantly affect in
the cumulative, Year 2025
Scenario.

Class III None required Class III
CIRC-9: Implementation would
provide parking to serve 2025
demand.

Class III None required Class III

5.6 Air Quality
AQ-1: Additional population may
be inconsistent with the Air
Quality Management Plan
(AQMP).

Class III None required Class III
AQ-2: Buildout of land uses
would increase emissions from
motor vehicles.

Class III
The proposed Specific Plan contains strategies intended to reduce reliance on motor vehicles and reduce emissions, including:
• Tree planting throughout the planning area
• Additional parking for transit users
• Mixed-use development near transit
Class III

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 12
FEBRUARY 2022
• Improvements in traffic flow
• Improvements to pedestrian facilities
• The construction of multi-modal paths
AQ-3: Traffic generated at
Interim Year Scenario (2010),
will not create CO Hotspots.

Class III None required Class III
AQ-4: Parking Structures may
create conditions conducive to
pollutant buildup, including CO.

Class II
Parking structures developed in the planning area shall open on three sides or be provided with mechanical ventilation.

Exhaust points of ventilation systems shall be located such that impacts to sensitive receptors are minimized.

Parking structure design shall avoid the creation of CO Hotspots from vehicle queuing, by ensuring adequate ingress/egress and ventilation.

Class III
AQ-5: Where residential is
located above commercial,
odors from commercial uses
may pose a nuisance pursuant
to Rule 402.

Class II
Table 5-1 in the proposed Specific Plan includes a requirement for discretionary review of mixed-use projects where potential compatibility concerns will be addressed.

During discretionary review of mixed-use projects involving bars, taverns and nightclubs or personal services such as nail salons, hair salons, and dry cleaners, reviewers shall ensure odors are reduced or eliminated pursuant to AQMD Rule 402.

Class III
AQ-6: Increased traffic
generated at buildout will
increase levels of toxic air
contaminants in planning area.

Development will also increase
number of sensitive receptors
exposed to emissions from
trains idling.

Class II The Air Toxins Control Plan includes standards which regulate air toxins and control locomotive idling emissions. Class III
AQ-Cumulative: General Air
Quality. Continued growth in the
City, as foreseen under the
General Plan, would contribute
to existing exceedances of air
quality standards.

Class I See above Class I
AQ-Cumulative: CO Hot Spots. In
cumulative, 2025 Scenario,
Railroads/Lyons intersection
Class III None required Class III

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 13
FEBRUARY 2022
will operate at a deficient level
of service.

5.7 Noise
N-1: Noise generated by parking
garage activity may adversely
impact surrounding uses.

Class II
Appropriate acoustical treatments and noise insulation features shall be incorporated into the design of commercial buildings surrounding parking garages, such that interior noise standards of 45 dBA are maintained (refer to Additional Mitigation Measures in Section

5.7).

A detailed acoustical analysis shall be conducted when the potential for interior noise impacts are identified.

Class III
N-2: Development near the train
station may increase exposure
to ground vibration and noise.

Class II
Outdoor spaces shall generally be designed so that noise from railroad is attenuated through buildings or other intervening structures.

See also above
Class III
N-3: Implementation of the
proposed Specific Plan may
increase traffic-generated noise
from streets on the periphery of
Downtown core.

Class I
The proposed Specific Plan designates tree planting throughout the planning area, benefiting residents and visitors by reducing perception of traffic noise and nuisance.

Noise levels at sensitive receptors located along Lyons Avenue shall be monitored as traffic levels increase. If noise increases above acceptable thresholds are discerned, the City shall design and install necessary attenuating features, such as sound walls.

Class I
N-4: Mixed use projects may
expose residential land uses to
noise from non-residential uses.

Class II
Prior to approval of mixed-use projects involving commercial tenants with nighttime activities City shall ensure that noise compatibility has been addressed such that applicable standards are met.

See also above
Class III
N-Cumulative: Development in
the City will continue to increase
traffic and traffic-related noise
along area roadways.

Class I See above Class III

5.8 Aesthetics
AES-1: Buildout will increase
sources and amount of light
and glare affecting the planning
area.

Class III
Parking lot pole lights and streetlights shall be fully hooded and back shielded.

Prior to development, proposed lighting shall be indicated on site plans that demonstrate that spill-over of lighting would not affect surrounding areas.

Security lighting screened such that lighting gloves are not visible from a distance of more than 20 feet.

Class III

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 14
FEBRUARY 2022

Street lighting shall use cutoff luminaries, reducing high levels of glare and light pollution for motorist.

New development shall incorporate techniques to reduce light and glare, such as use of low reflectivity glass, muted colors for building materials in high visibility areas, and the use of plant material.

AES-2: Buildout will alter visual
qualities of the planning area
and may adversely affect visual
corridors.

Class III None required Class III
AES-3: Buildout may produce
shadowing/shading from
increased building heights and
street trees.

Class III See above Class III
AES-Cumulative: Buildout will
contribute to the cumulative
change in the visual
appearance of the City, in a
positive way.

Class IV
The purposed Specific Plan’s Code plans for new development that complements the form and scale of Downtown Newhall.

The standards and design elements capture the best qualities of the established form and character of the area based on a block-by-block assessment.

The Code sets forth a palette of allowable building frontages and building location on the lot, to maintain consistency with the established pattern of development. Each of the recommended zones are planned to suit the
role it plays within the context of the Downtown.

Class IV

5.9 Wastewater
WW-1: Development will
increase flows through the
existing collection
infrastructure.

Class III
Proposed Specific Plan incorporates infrastructure improvements necessary to accommodate buildout.

City requires verification of adequate capacity and payment of development fees prior to permit issuance.

Class III
WW-2: Development will
increase volume of wastewater
requiring treatment and may
change the makeup of
wastewater.

Class III None required Class III

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 15
FEBRUARY 2022
WW-Cumulative: Development
in City will increase amount of
wastewater generated and
delivered to treatment facilities.

Class III None required Class III

5.10 Water Supply
WS-1: Development will
increase demand on water
supply.

Class III None required Class III
WS-2: Development will
increase demand on water
supply infrastructure.

Class III None required Class III
WS-Cumulative: In the context
of growth in the region, project
is consistent with current
UWMP.

Class III None required Class III

5.11 Public Services
PUB-1: Additional demand on
fire services. Class III
Measures to apply to specific projects:
• Multiple ingress/egress access for the circulation of traffic, and emergency response.
• Project shall comply with applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants. • All applicable fire code, and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire hydrants, fire flows, brush clearance and fuel modification plans, must be met.
• Specific fire/safety requirements for construction phase will be addressed at building and fire plan check. Fire and life safely requirements may apply. • New building shall be accessible to Fire Department apparatus by way of access roadways, with an all- weather surface of not less than prescribed width. • Access roads maintain ten (10) feet of brush clearance on each side. Fire access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance clear-to-sky with the exception of protected tree species.
• Fire Department requirements for access, fire flows and hydrants addressed during permitting.
• Required fire sprinkler systems for some residential and most commercial occupancies.
• Final fire flows based on building size, relationship to other structures, property lines, and types.

Class III

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 16
FEBRUARY 2022
• Fire hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet in commercial areas and shall meet specific Mitigation requirements found in Section 5.11.
• Turning radii shall not be less than 32 feet.
• All on site driveway/roadways shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 28 feet, clear-to- sky.
• The 28 feet in width shall be increased in residential and non-residential developments when necessary (refer to Section 5.11)
• Residential with density of more than 4 units/acre have cul-de-sac exceptions (refer to Section 5.11)
• Single Family detached homes shall require a minimum fire flow of 1,250 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for a two-hour duration.

Two family dwelling units (duplexes) shall require a fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for a two –hour duration.

When there are five or more units taking access to a single driveway the minimum fire flow shall be increased to 1,500 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for a two-hour duration.
• Fire hydrant spacing in residential shall be 600 feet and shall meet Mitigation requirements found in Section 5.11.
• A Fire Department approved turning area shall be provided for all driveways exceeding 150 feet in length and at the end of all cul-de-sacs. • Fire Department access shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 28 feet, clear-to-sky and be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any single unit.
• Streets or driveways within the development shall meet Mitigation requirements found in Section 5.11.
• All access devices and gates shall meet Mitigation requirements found in Section

5.11. • All access devices and gates must comply with California code of Regulations, Title 19, Article 3.05 and Article 3.16.

PUB-2: Additional demand
placed upon police services. Class III The proposed Specific Plan discusses the inclusion of the police substation in the new Community Center. Class III
PUB-3: Additional demand upon
schools in the area. Class II None required Class III
PUB-4: Additional demand upon
park facilities. Class III Proposed Specific Plan includes improvements to William S. Hart Park and the enhancement of connections between local parks and trails.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 17
FEBRUARY 2022
PUB-5: Increased solid waste
generation and demand for
disposal capacity.

Class III None required Class III
PUB-Cumulative: Cumulative
development will increase the
structures, residents, and
employees requiring fire and
police protection
Class III None required Class III
PUB-Cumulative: Cumulative
development in City will
continue to increase students
attending schools and other
educational facilities.

Class III Schools are considered mitigated by the continued imposition of developer’s fees. Class III PUB-Cumulative: Continued
growth in the City will increase
the demand for park space.

Class III None required Class III
PUB-Cumulative: Amount of
solid waste going into landfills
will continue to increase with
regional growth.

Class I None required Class I

5.12 Construction
Biological CON-1: Construction
may temporarily disturb
biological resources, directly
and indirectly.

Class II
Creek setbacks, 50 feet from the top of the creek bank; unless otherwise authorized by a land use permit (exceptions include the creekside trail).

The project proponent shall consult with the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Army Corps of Engineers prior to finalizing design on the creek walk or crossing.

Class III
Hydrology and Water Quality
CON-2: Construction activities
will disturb soils and pose a risk
of releasing hazardous
materials.

Class II
NPDES Permits required for projects in excess of one acre.

Erosion control measures required if run-off impacts creek - straw bales, siltation fences, berms and basins.

Mitigation measures addressed on a project by project bases, depending on size and level of disturbance.

Class III
Traffic and Circulation CON-3:

Construction activities will Class II
• Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. • Provide temporary traffic controls during all phases of construction activities to maintain traffic flow.

Class III

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 18
FEBRUARY 2022
temporarily disturb traffic
patterns and access routes.
• Schedule construction activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial system to off- peak hours to the degree practicable.
• Establish a haul route.
• Consolidate truck deliveries when possible.
• Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on and off site.
• A circulation plan shall be required on a project by project basis if vehicle and pedestrian routes and residential areas conflict with construction activities.

Air Quality CON-4: Construction
activities will result in
dust/equipment emissions.

Class I
Operations
• The City, in consultation with SCAQMD where necessary, shall evaluate, prior to permit issuance, the applicability of the following measures to each particular project, based on site- and project- specific information. • Maintain equipment and vehicle engines in good condition and in proper tune per manufacturers’ specifications.
• Suspend use of all construction equipment operations during second stage smog alerts.
• Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel- or gasoline-powered generators.
• Use methanol- or natural gas-powered mobile equipment and pile drivers and propane- or butane- powered on-site mobile equipment
• Store all volatile liquids in closed containers.
• No open burning of debris, lumber or other scrap
• Evaluate, prior to final construction approval, a particular project’s risk of releasing significant quantities of diesel particulate emissions, using applicable SCAQMD Guidelines. Projects which exceed acceptable thresholds may be required to install one or more pieces of filtering equipment (diesel particulate filter or diesel oxidation catalyst) and/or use emulsified fuels, on their highest emitting piece or pieces of equipment on site. The project proponent shall consult with City and/or SCAQMD and comply with their recommendations.

Dust Control
• Water vehicle traffic areas at a minimum twice daily
• Streets adjacent to project site swept as needed
• Exposed areas, new driveways and sidewalks shall be seeded, treated with soil binders, or paved
• Cover stockpiles and trucks hauling soil or other loose materials. • Sweep project area streets at least once daily.

Class I

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 19
FEBRUARY 2022
• Appoint a dust control monitor to oversee and implement all dust control measures. • The Contractor shall maintain continuous control of dust resulting from construction operations.
• When wind conditions create considerable dust, the Contractor shall suspend grading operations, and/or water the exposed areas.
• During construction, the amount of disturbed area shall be minimized. • Onsite vehicles speeds reduced to 15 mph or less.

Noise CON-5: Construction
activity would temporarily
increase ambient noise.

Class I
Activities
• All construction activity in the planning area subject to the City Noise Ordinance. • For construction activity noise attenuation techniques employed as needed. • Group noisy activities together in time, rather than spreading them out intermittently.

Equipment
• Equip diesel equipment with factory-recommended exhaust mufflers and steel muffling sleeves. Provide portable noise barriers around jack hammering, and barriers constructed of 3/4-inch plywood lined with 1-inch thick fiberglass on the work side. Electrical power shall be used to run air compressors and similar power tools, when feasible. Compressor hoods shall be closed while equipment is in operation. Use electrically powered rather than gasoline or diesel powered forklifts.

Operations
• Keep noisy equipment as far as possible from noise- sensitive site boundaries. • Work in or near occupied buildings, the Contractor is cautioned to keep noise associated with any activities to a minimum.
• Designate a haul route and staging plan
Class I
Hazardous Material CON-6:

Construction activity may
release asbestos, lead, PCBs,
etc.

Class III
• Los Angeles County Fire Department Haz-Mat Division shall review routes for material transport.
• If hazardous materials are suspected/discovered on project site, Haz-Mat Division shall be notified and construction activity shall be temporarily suspended. • During construction, all project-related spills of hazardous materials within or adjacent to project sites shall be cleaned up immediately. • If hazardous materials are presumed to be present on a demolition site Best Management Practices shall be implemented.

Class III
Utilities and Infrastructure CON-
7: Construction activities will
pose temporary risk to existing
utility infrastructure.

Class III None required Class III

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 20
FEBRUARY 2022
CON-Cumulative:

Demolition/construction of
several structures in the project
area at the same time. Air
quality impacts could result.

Class II
Develop and implement a construction management plan, as approved by the City prior to issuance of a demolition, grading or building permit, which includes measures located elsewhere in this EIR and in the proposed Specific Plan.

Class II
Source: City of Santa Clarita 2005b, Table 2.0-1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Note:
1) Please note EIR Section numbers are included for reference 2) Impacts were categorized in the following manner: Class I (Significant and Unavoidable); Class II (Significant and Mitigatable); Class III (Less than Significant); Class IV (Beneficial)

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 21
FEBRUARY 2022

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 22
FEBRUARY 2022
2 Project Description

2.1 Originally Approved Plan

2.1.1 Project Location and Setting
Old Town Newhall is located in the City of Santa Clarita (City), east of the Santa Susana Mountains in northern Los Angeles County, California (refer to Figure 1, Regional Location and Vicinity Map). Santa Clarita generally lies east of the Interstate 5 (I-5) south of Castaic. Major landmarks in the area include Six Flags Magic Mountain theme park to the northwest, I-5 to the west, and the Santa Clara River to the north. The OTNSP planning area is comprised of approximately 271 acres generally bound by Newhall Creek to the east, 14th Street to the north, Newhall Avenue and William S. Hart Park to the west, and the intersection of Pine Street to the south. The exact boundaries of the OTNSP planning area are shown in Figure 1. Additionally, Figure 2, Originally Approved Plan Zoning, details the existing zoning classifications of the OTNSP.

2.1.2 Project Objectives
CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 requires an EIR to include a statement of objectives sought by a project. The objectives assist the City in developing a reasonable range of alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR. Project objectives also aid decision makers in preparing Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

The statement of objectives provides the underlying purpose of a project and may discuss a project’s benefits. As such, the Originally Approved Plan’s objectives are as follows:

1. Provide a seamless connection to the suburban and natural surroundings of the area

2. Design the area such that there is a five-minute walk from center to edge, in order to maximize pedestrian usage

3. Provide an interconnected network of multi-modal thoroughfares

4. Provide a rich set of public spaces, both thoroughfares that range from lively streetscapes to passages, as well as places of repose, such as plazas

5. Provide a mix of residential, retail, and office uses

6. Provide a set of community and public facilities that enable the people living there to be civically engaged

7. Include educational facilities that promote life-long learning

8. Provide immediate public access to nature

9. Provide places for recreational activity in plazas and pocket parks

10. Provide housing types for people of a variety of incomes and ages

11. Provide a landscape in keeping with the climate and culture of Newhall

12. Include sustainability measures that advance the long-term value and viability of the neighborhood

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 23
FEBRUARY 2022

2.1.3 OTNSP Details
The OTNSP, adopted on December 22, 2005, consisted of the approval of an application for Master Case 05-029 comprising of the following entitlements:
• Specific Plan 05-001, to reaffirm the vision of the past plans for the Downtown Newhall area, to tr anslate the vision to physical terms, and to provide specific tools and a high level of detail for implementation of physical improvements, including parking;
• General Plan Amendment 05 -001, to modify the existing General Plan land use designations to Spec ific Plan (SP) and to amend the Circulation Element to change San Fernando Road from a major highway to a local arterial and to change Railroad Avenue from a non-Circulation Element Road to a secondary highway; • Zone Change 05-001, to change the land use designation of the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan site from Residential Suburban, Community Commercial, Residential Moderate, Open Space, Industrial, Commercial, and Residential Medium High to Specific Plan; and
• Unified Development Code Amendment, to have t he Specific Plan supersede the existing Downtown Newhall Special Standards District.

California Government Code Section 65450 states that after a general plan has been adopted, a specific plan may be prepared for the systematic implementation of the general plan for all or part of the area covered by the general plan. The OTNSP was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Government Code (Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections 65450–65457), which would allow jurisdictions to adopt specific plans to implement their general plans. Adoption of a specific plan is a legislative act that is conducted in the same manner as a general plan. The purpose of a specific plan is to provide for the orderly development of a property through compliance with site-specific development standards that are consistent with the intent and policies of the general plan. Upon adoption of a specific plan, it becomes the zoning for the s ite. The Originally Approved Plan set regulations that govern the allowable land uses, development density, and development standards for future development projects, in place of the City’s previous zoning designations. Regulations and standards in the Cit y’s UDC that are not covered by the OTNSP continue to be applicable to future development.

As described in the 2005 EIR and reiterated in this Addendum, a review of the City’s General Plan shows that the proposed OTNSP Update is compatible and consistent with the goals and policies outlined in the General Plan. The Updated Plan was prepared to provide the essential relationship between the policies of the City’s General Plan and the future development of the planning area. By functioning as a regulatory do cument, the OTNSP continues to provide a means of implementing the City’s General Plan. All future development plans and entitlements within the OTNSP boundaries must be consistent with the standards set forth in the OTNSP, including the Updated Plan.

2.2 OTNSP Implementation

2.2.1 Revisions to OTNSP
Since the adoption of the OTNSP, there have been seven amendments approved, as detailed below in Table 2:

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 24
FEBRUARY 2022
Table 2. OTNSP Amendments
Master
Case/Ordinance Year Key Detail Project Description
CEQA
Compliance
MC07-016/
Ordinance No.
08-2
2008 Prohibit
Medical
Marijuana
Prohibited medical marijuana dispensaries
citywide
Negative
Declaration
MC10-069/
Ordinance No.
10-14
2010 Outdoor Dining Established Main Street Outdoor Dining Guidelines within Downtown Newhall
Specific Plan (DNSP) Public ROW
Class 1
Exemption
MC11-129/
Ordinance No.
12-1
2012 Comprehensive Amended the DNSP to address various
issues identified in working with the code
language since adoption of the DNSP. This
was the first comprehensive update.

Negative
Declaration
MC13-115/
Ordinance No.
14-04
2014 Reformat/
Name Change
Amendments to: 1) Reformat the specific
plan to a standard size; 2) Update the zoning
map to reflect existing and likely future
conditions; and 3) Code revisions to reflect
updated UDC references, add glossary
definitions, and to make the document
internally consistent.

Negative
Declaration
MC16-206/
Ordinance No.
17-04
2017 Retail
Moratorium
Amendments to regulate land uses on Main
Street in support of the moratorium adopted
by City Council on April 26, 2016, that
supports land uses related to the Arts and
Entertainment District. Changes included the
reorganization and expansion of the
Permitted Use Charts along with associated
revisions to the OTNSP Glossary.

Improvements included the coordination of
land use categories and descriptions
between the OTNSP and the UDC, in an
effort to create consistent terms,
descriptions, and nomenclature between the
two documents.

Negative
Declaration
MC17-027/
Ordinance Nos.
17-15 and 17-

16. 2018 Parking Code
language
revisions;
Parking in lieu
program
Ordinance No. 17-15: Revised to parking
code language in other OTNSP zones.

Ordinance No. 17-16: Established a Parking-
In-Lieu Program used to fund local parking
facilities in place of the parking assessment
district envisioned by the OTNSP.

Negative
Declaration
MC20-043/
Ordinance No.
20-10
2021
(February)
Text revisions Updated the City’s UDC, Lyons Corridor Plan (LCP), Soledad Canyon Road Corridor Plan
(SCP), and OTNSP. Revisions to the OTNSP
included: adopting the outdoor open space
requirements that are currently found in the
LCP and SCP; clearly state the permitted
height in the OTNSP’s different zones, along
with the review process for projects; and
remove references to the City’s Mixed Use
Negative
Declaration

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 25
FEBRUARY 2022
Ordinance. Other amendments included
incidental text revisions and updates.

Source: City of Santa Clarita
Note: DNSP = Downtown Newhall Specific Plan; ROW = right-of-way; OTNSP = Old Town Newhall Specific Plan

2.2.2 Buildout Implementation
“Buildout” is most simply described as the total anticipated amount of development possible in a particular area.

Buildout is not best described, however, as 100% development of all vacant and developed parcels in a planning area at the maximum densities allowed. Parcels are rarely developed to 100% of their potential. There are many considerations which reduce the development potential of a parcel. They include easements, setback requirements, cost, public pressure, topography, geology, drainage, cultural resources, noise sources, and infrastructure. In the planning area, the relatively high level of existing development also reduces the likelihood of buildout at maximum levels. It is highly unlikely that all of the property owners in the planning area would elect to completely redevelop their parcels. It is much more likely that vacant parcels will develop to a portion of the maximum potential, and that property owners will remodel or make additions to existing buildings (City of Santa Clarita 2005b). Based on these and other considerations, the buildout of a particular plan is something less than the 100% development scenario.

As such, the buildout of the Originally Approved Plan was based on a parcel-by-parcel analysis of existing conditions, site constraints, and development potential as shown in Table 3, below.

Table 3. Originally Approved Plan’s Assumed Percent Built to New Standards Zone Anticipated Buildout
UC (Urban Center) 75%
COR (Corridor) 60%
UG-2 (Urban General 2) 40%
UG-1 (Urban General 1) 30%
CD (Creative District) 30%
Average: 55%
Existing Development to Remain 45%
Source: City of Santa Clarita 2005b
Note:
1 In the UC zone, the ground floor is always commercial or civic use; the upper two floors may be either additional commercial (i.e. office) or residential (i.e. apartments and/or lofts). The Originally Approved Plan determined upper floors are generally assumed to be the latter.

2.3 Updated Plan
In 2005, the City certified the OTNSP EIR evaluating the environmental impacts associated with ultimate buildout of the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan, now known as the OTNSP. As stated previously, the OTNSP planning area is comprised of approximately 271 acres generally bound by Newhall Creek to the east, 13th Street to the north, Newhall Avenue and William S. Hart Park to the west, and the intersection of Pine Street and San Fernando Road

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 26
FEBRUARY 2022
(now Main Street and Railroad Avenue) to the south. See Figure 3, Updated Plan Zoning, for proposed changes to zoning classification (further discussed below). These boundaries (as shown in Figure 3) would not change under the Updated Plan.

The purpose of this Addendum is to evaluate the difference, or delta, between the OTNSP buildout scenarios of the 2005 Originally Approved Plan and the 2022 Updated Plan, as detailed in Table 4. Additionally, Table 4 includes existing conditions from 2004 and 2021, proposed updates included in the Updated Plan, and a net change between the Originally Approved Plan and the Updated Plan.

Table 4. Buildout Scenarios for the Originally Approved Plan and Updated Plan

Residential
(Dwelling Units)
Non -Residential
(Square Feet)
Originally
Approved Plan
Updated Plan Originally
Approved
Plan
Updated Plan
Structures
Existing 690 719 957,243 801,697
Existing to Remain a 310 323 236,922 200,424
Proposed 1,092 1,092 1,017,422 1,017,422
Total at Buildout b 1,402 1,415 1,254,344 1,217,846
Net Change from Existing 712 696 297,101 416,149
Population c
Existing 2,588 2,696 N/A N/A
Buildout 5,258 5,306 N/A N/A
Net Change from Existing 2,670 2,610 N/A N/A
Source: City of Santa Clarita 2005b, Dudek
Notes: Existing conditions data was collected in 2004 for Originally Approved Plan and 2021 for the Updated Plan a 45% of the existing residential development was anticipated to remain under the Originally Approved Plan ; 25% of existing non - residential square feet was anticipated to remain under the Originally Approved Plan b Total at Buildout = Existing to Remain + Proposed
c Population generation is based on 3.75 persons per dwelling unit As shown in Table 4 above, 712 new dwelling units and approximately 300,000 new square feet of non-residential development were anticipated to be developed by 2025. In addition, the Originally Approved Plan anticipated a population increase of 2,670 new residents would be introduced to the OTNSP planning area over the planning 2005-2025 period. However, under existing conditions in 2021, the OTNSP area reflects an existing housing stock of 719 units and approximately 800,000 square feet of non -residential development. This represent a nominal increase from 2004 existing conditions of approximately 29 dwelling units and a decrease of 155,546 square feet of non -residential development. This change in conditions can be attributed to refined parcel data with the availability of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) coupled with the removal of existing uses since the adoption of the Originally Approved Plan. Moreover, based on existing conditions, the OTNSP is currently short 683 dwelling units and 452,647 square feet of non -residential development. As such, the assum ptions under the Originally Approved Plan are not anticipated to occur by the original 2025 buildout year.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 27
FEBRUARY 2022
Under the Updated Plan, there are no proposed changes to the planning area’s zoning distribution of land use types (i.e., commercial, residential, etc.). Instead, the Updated Plan would consolidate the Urban General 1 (UG -1) and Urban General 2 (UG -2) zones from the zoning classifications of the OTNSP and re name those areas as Neighborhood (N). Similar to the UG-2 zone, the N zone is applied to areas appropriate for a mixture of residential and low-intensity non-residential land uses, with architectural types limited to those that are compatible with the form of houses. This zone generally surrounds the Arts and Entertainment zone (formerly known as the Urban Center zone). The proposed consolidation and zone change from UG -1 and UG -2 to N would allow for more types of residential and non-residential land uses within previously limited areas of the planning area.

In addition to the proposed consolidation of zones into a new zoning classification of N, the Updated Plan includes revisions to other existing OTNSP zoning designations. These revisions include name changes as well as minor modifications to each zone’s intent. The following summarizes the proposed changes:
• Urban Center (UC) would be renamed to Arts and Entertainment (AE) to better reflect the City’s vision • Creative District (CD) would be renamed to Creative/Business (CB) to b etter reflect the flexibility of a creative district and business zone.
• Corridor (COR) zone has been retained in name and in intent.

As described above, the Updated Plan would result in a change in land use intensity for areas currently zoned UG-

1. See Figure 3, Updated Plan Zoning , for a visual comparison of the change in zone. Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan’s buildout is assumed with the same considerations of lot area, buildable area, and percent built to new standards for each zone. In addition, similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the likelihood of development in each zoning district under the Updated Plan is estimated to be an average of 55% per zone.

Furthermore, as with the Originally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan uses the same assumptions for existing development to remain. As shown in Table 4, 45% of existing residential development and 25% of non-residential development was, and is expected, to remain the same. As such, the Updated Plan’s buildout conditions (as shown in Table 4) represent the amount of gross new construction anticipated in the updated buildout year of 2040.

Table 4 reveals a nominal increase in existing dwelling units and a decrease in non-residential square feet between 2004 and 2021, as detailed above. As such, the Updated Plan would result in a decreased delta represented by the net change from existing conditions of 16 dwelling units1 and an increase in 119,048 square feet of non - residential development 2. However, the difference between buildo ut scenarios represents a n increase in anticipated residential development and a decline in anticipated non -residential development . As mentioned previously, these assumptions can be attributed to refined parcel data with the availability of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) coupled with the removal of existing uses since the adoption of the Originally Approved Plan. Under the Updated Plan, the total at buildout assumes an increase of 13 dwelling units3 (0.93% increase4) and a decrease of 36,498 square feet of non -residential development 5 (2.9% decrease 6). Th e increase in residential development buildout and decrease in non-residential development buildout attributes to the change in existing conditions, as presented in Table 4, and not a result of proposed zoning changes under the Updated Plan (i.e., “downzoning”). This is because the Updated Plan would further the OTNSP’s proposed capacity of residential and non-residential development.

1 696 – 712 = (16)
2 416,149 – 297,101 = 119,048
3 1,415 – 1,402 = 13
4 (1,415 – 1,402)/ 1,402 = 0.00927247 x 100 = 0.93% increase 5 1,217,846 – 1,254,344 = (36,498)
6 (1,217,846 – 1,254,344)/ 1,254,344 = 0.0290973 x 100 = 2.9% decrease

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 28
FEBRUARY 2022
Similar to the discussion, above, the OTNSP area is anticipated to result in a nominal increase in total population buildout from what was assumed under the Originally Approved Plan and proposed under the Updated Plan. As shown in Table 4, 2021 population estimates were more than those in 2004, but less than anticipated. As such, the total population buildout under the Updated Plan would result in an increase of approximately 48 residents7 (0.91% increase8).

The Updated Plan does not include additions or modifications to the OTNSP transportation or other plan components identified in the Originally Approved Plan. The Updated Plan would consolidate the UG -1 and UG -2 zones into N . As such, approximately 16.2 2 acres of previously designated UG -1 zoned land and approximately

36.82 acres of land previously zoned UG-2 would be renamed as N. Therefore, the total acreage of land zoned N would be 53.05 acres9 or approximately 26% of the OTNSP area, as shown in Table 5, below.

Table 5. OTNSP Zoning Distribution
Zone
Acreage under
Originally
Approved Plan
Percent of Total
Zoning
Distribution
Acreage under
Updated Plan
Percent of Total
Zoning
Distribution
UC (Urban Center) 1 18.08 9% 18.08 9% (No Change)
COR (Corridor) 22.94 11% 22.94 11% (No Change)
UG-2 (Urban General 2) 36.83 18% -- Consolidated
UG-1 (Urban General 1) 16.22 8% -- Consolidated
N (Neighborhood) 1 -- 53.05 26%
CD (Creative District) 1 22.08 11% 22.08 11% (No Change) Open Space 86.29 43% 86.29 43% (No Change)
Total Zoning Distribution 202.43 100% 202.43 100%
Public Rights-of-Way 67.96 N/A 67.96 No Change
Total Planning Area 2 270.39 (271) N/A 271 No Change
Source: City of Santa Clarita 2005b, Dudek
Notes:

A portion of William S. Hart Park is included in the Open Space zoning distribution, including Creekview Park, Veteran’s Memorial Park, and other open space uses; Public Rights-of-Way (ROW) (e.g., streets and alleys) are not included in the zoning distribution.

1 The Updated Plan would rename existing zoning classifications: UC would be changed to Arts and Entertainment (AE); CD would be changed to Creative/Business (CB) . As described in Section 2.3, the UG -1 and UG -2 zones would be consolidated to a new zone Neighborhood (N).
2 For the purposes of this analysis, the planning area is considered approximately 271 acres, consistent with the Originally Approved Plan.

7 5,306 – 5,258 = 48
8 (5,306 – 5,258)/ 5,258 = 0.00912895 x 100 = 0.91% increase 9 16.22 + 36.82 = 53.05

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 29
FEBRUARY 2022

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 30
FEBRUARY 2022
3 Initial Study Checklist

1. Project title:
2022 Old Town Newhall Specific Plan Update

2. Lead agency name and address:

City of Santa Clarita
Community Development Department
Planning Division
23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355

3. Contact person and phone number:

Hai Nguyen
Associate Planner
Planning Division
(661) 255-4365
[email protected]

4. Project location:

Generally bound by Newhall Creek to the east, 13th Street to the north, Newhall Avenue and William S. Hart Park to the west, and the intersection of Pine Street and San Fernando Road (now Main Street and Railroad Avenue) to the south

5. Project sponsor’s name and address:

City of Santa Clarita
Community Development Department
23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355

6. General plan designation:

Specific Plan

7. Zoning:

Specific Plan

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 31
FEBRUARY 2022

8. Description of project. (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary):

The Updated Plan would consolidate the UG-1 and UG-2 zones from the OTNSP zoning classifications and rename those areas as N.

Since the adoption of the Originally Approved Plan, 2021 existing conditions represent a net gain of 29 dwelling units and a net loss of 155,546 square feet of non -residential development. Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan’s buildout is assumed with the same considerations of lot area, buildable area, and percent built to new standards for each zone. However, the difference between buildout scenarios represents a nominal increase in dwelling units and a decrease in non-residential development.

Under the Updated Plan, the total at buildout increases by 13 dwelling units and decrease s by 36,498 square feet of non-residential development. The changes in buildout scenarios attributes to the change in existing conditions and not a result of proposed zoning changes under the Updated Plan. Similarly, the total population within the OTNSP area at buildout would result in a n increase of approximately 48 residents under the Updated Plan.

9. Surrounding land uses and setting (Briefly describe the project’s surroundings):

North: Single-family and rural r esidential, Newhall Elementary School, The Master’s University, Newhall Creek/ Placerita Creek
South: William S. Hart Regional Park, open space, industrial uses East: Open space, single-family residential, Dr. J. Michael McGrath Elementary School, mobile home park, general commercial uses
West: Single-family residential

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):

None required.

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determi nation of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
Not Applicable. AB 52 requires that tribal cultural resources be evaluated under CEQA. However, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1(b), AB 52 consultation does not apply in this case because the environmental document is not a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report and is instead an Addendum to a previously prepared CEQA document.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 32
FEBRUARY 2022
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
New significant environmental effects or substantially more severe significant environmental effects compared to those identified in the previous CEQA document. The subject areas checked below were determined to be new significant environmental effects or to be previously identified effects that have a substantial increase in severity either due to a change in project, change in circumstances or new information of substantial importance, as indicated by the checklist and discussion on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and
Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise Population and
Housing
Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities and Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 33
FEBRUARY 2022
Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

No substantial changes are proposed in the project and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous approved ND or MND or certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. In addition, there is no "new information of substantial importance" as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, the previously adopted ND or MND or previously certified EIR adequately discusses the potential impacts of the project without modification.

No substantial changes are proposed in the project and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous approved ND or MND or certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. In addition, there is no "new information of substantial importance" as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, the previously adopted ND, MND or previously certified EIR adequately discusses the potential impacts of the project; however, minor changes require the preparation of an ADDENDUM.

Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the prev ious adopted ND, MND or certified EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is "new information of substantial importance," as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). However, all new potentially significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects are clearly reduced to below a level of significance through the incorporation of mitigation measures agreed to by the project applicant. Therefore, a SUBSEQUENT MND is required.

Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous ly certified EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is "new information of substantial importance," as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). However, only minor changes or additions or changes would be necessary to make the previously certified EIR adequate for the project in the changed situation. Therefore, a SUPPLEMENTAL EIR is required.

Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous certified EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is "new information of substantial importance," as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, a SUBSEQUENT EIR is required.

Signature

Date

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 34
FEBRUARY 2022
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
A finding of “No New Impact/No Impact” means that the potential impact was fully analyzed and/or mitigated in the prior CEQA document and no new or different impacts will result from the proposed activity.

A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No New Impact/No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following eac h question. A "No New Impact/No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No New Impact/No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

A finding of “New Mitigation is Required” means that the project have a new potentially significant impact on the environment or a substantially more severe impact than analyzed in the previously approved or certified CEQA document and that new mitigation is required to address the impact.

A finding of “New Potentially Significant Impact” means that the project may have a new potentially significant impact on the environment or a substantially more severe impact than analyzed in the previously approved or certified CEQA document that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance or be avoided.

A finding of “Reduced Impact” means that a previously infeasible mitigation measure is now available, or a previously infeasible alternative is now available that will reduce a signif icant impact identified in the previously prepared environmental document.

All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an e arlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the proposed action. c. Infeasible Mitigation Measures. Since the previous EIR was certified or previous ND or MND was adopted, discuss any mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible that would in fact be feasible or that are considerably different from those previously analyzed and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.
d. Changes in Circumstances. Since the previous EIR was certified or previous ND or MND was adopted, discuss any changes in the project, changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken and/or “new information of substantial importance” that cause a change in conclusion regarding one or more effects discussed in the original document.

Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zonin g ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 35
FEBRUARY 2022
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sour ces used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; b. Differences between the proposed activity and the previously ap proved project described in the approved ND or MND or certified EIR; and
c. The previously approved mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 36
FEBRUARY 2022

3.1 Aesthetics

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
I. AESTHETICS – Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, 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) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?

Originally Approved Plan General Discussion
As described in Section 1.2 of this Addendum, since certification of the 2005 PEIR, the State has adopted updates to the CEQA Guidelines (including Appendix G) to add efficiency and clarity to aspects of the guidelines and to incorporate recent case law and legislation. A summary of impacts is provided in Table 1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation from the 2005 OTNSP EIR, above under Section 1.4 of this Addendum.

The 2005 PEIR determined impacts to aesthetics would be:
• Less than significant related to light and glare; visual qualities of corridors; shade and shadow • Beneficial impacts related to cumulative impacts to visual appearance The following mitigation measures were incorporated in the 2005 PEIR . Although the 2005 PEIR did not identify each mitigation measure with a specified number, this Addendum provides identification as shown below (e.g., MM- AES-1):

MM-AES-1: Parking lot pole lights and streetlights shall be fully hooded and back shielded.

Prior to development, proposed lighting shall be indicated on site plans that demonstrate that spill- over of lighting would not affect surrounding areas.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 37
FEBRUARY 2022
Security lighting screened such that lighting gloves are not visible from a distance of more than 20 feet.

Street lighting shall use cutoff luminari es, reducing high levels of glare and light pollution for motorist.

New development shall incorporate techniques to reduce light and glare, such as use of low reflectivity glass, muted colors for building materials in high visibility areas, and the use of plant material.

MM-AES-2: The purposed Specific Plan’s Code plans for new development that complements the form and scale of Downtown Newhall.

The standards and design elements capture the best qualities of the established form and character of the area based on a block-by-block assessment.

The Code sets forth a palette of allowable building frontages and building location on the lot, to maintain consistency with the established pattern of development. Each of the recommended zones are planned to suit the role it plays within the context of the Downtown.

Although the PEIR analyzed thresholds of significance related to aesthetics, Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR, Initial Study/Notice of Preparation for Downtown Newhall Specific Plan and Comment Letters , determined impacts to aesthetics would not result in potentially significant impacts. This is consistent with the above determinations. As such, the following impact determinations from the 2005 Initial Study are as follows:
• Less than significant related to scenic vista; scenic resources; visual character or quality; and light or glare Update Plan Analysis
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No New Impact . Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR determined less than significant impacts would occur relative to scenic vistas. Areas of visual interest adjacent to the OTNSP planning area include the creeks and the oak woodlands of William S. Hart Park. However, publicly accessible scenic vistas are l imited to higher-elevation areas within the park. As such, it was determined the Originally Approved Plan would not impact those areas.

The Updated Plan would consolidate the UG-1 and UG-2 zones from the OTNSP zoning classifications and rename those areas as N. A change in zoning designation would not result in a direct impact to scenic vistas. However, the Updated Plan would facilitate future development of residential and non -residential uses within the OTNSP area which would result in indirect impacts associated with the construction and operation of future projects. While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non -residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative a t this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project -specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to scenic vistas would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 38
FEBRUARY 2022
No new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No New Impact . Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR determined less than significant impacts would occur related to scenic resources within a State scenic highway. Moreover, the Initial Study determined no scenic highways are located in or adjacent to the OTNSP planning area. Under 2021 existing conditions, a portion of Interstate 5, specifically located along the southwestern edge of the Sant a Clarita Valley and south of the OTNSP planning area is designated as an eligible segment of a State scenic highway (Caltrans 2021).

However, there are no officially designated State scenic highways within the vicinity of the OTNSP planning area.

The Updated Plan would consolidate the UG-1 and UG-2 zones from the OTNSP zoning classifications and rename those areas as N. A change in zoning designation would not result in a direct impact to scenic resources within a State scenic highway . Furthermore, no impact would occur without the official designation of a State scenic highway. Future subsequent projects within the OTNSP would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. As such, potential impacts related to aesthetics would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project -specific CEQA review. No new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.
c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project 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?
No New Impact. The 2005 PEIR determined less than significant impacts would occur related to scenic quality. Moreover, the 2005 PEIR identified beneficial cumulative effects would occur as a result of the Originally Approved Plan. Moreover, the 2005 PEIR cited one of the OTNSP project objectives is to revitalize and improve the visual qualities of Downtown Newhall through a comprehensive program of public and private investment. Furthermore, new development would be required to comply with OTNSP guidelines governing aesthetic stan dards (i.e., architectural styles and character, heights, etc.) which would be consistent with the City’s UDC. As such, the 2005 PEIR incorporated MM-AES-2, which ensures standards outlined in the OTNSP are met and reduce potentially significant impacts to scenic quality.

Incorporated OTNSP design features reduced impacts with the adoption and implementation of the OTNSP.

The 2005 PEIR demonstrated consistency with the City’s General Plan and other regulations governing scenic quality. As mentioned previous ly, California Government Code Section 65450 states that after a general plan has been adopted, a specific plan may be prepared for the systematic implementation of the general plan for all or part of the area covered by the general plan. The OTNSP was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Government Code (Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections 65450–65457), which would allow jurisdictions to adopt specific plans to implement their general plans.

Adoption of a specific plan is a legislative act that is conducted in the same manner as a general plan. The purpose of a specific plan is to provide for the orderly development of a property through compliance with site-specific development standards that are consistent with th e intent and policies of the general plan.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 39
FEBRUARY 2022
Upon adoption of a specific plan, it becomes the zoning for the site. The Originally Approved Plan set regulations that govern the allowable land uses, development density, and development standards for future development projects, in place of the City’s previous zoning designations. Regulations and standards in the City’s UDC that are not covered by the OTNSP continue to be applicable to future development.

The Updated Plan would consolidate the UG-1 and UG-2 zones from the OTNSP zoning classifications and rename those areas as N. A change in zoning designation would not result in a direct impact to scenic quality. However, the Updated Plan would facilitate future development of residential and non -residential uses within the OTNSP area which would result in indirect impacts associated with the construction and operation of future projects. While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non -residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project -specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to scenic quality would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review.

In summary, as with the Originally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan would incorporate the previously adopted mitigation measure MM-AES-2. Therefore, the Updated Plan would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporate d related to scenic quality. No new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect da y or nighttime views in the area?
No New Impact. The 2005 PEIR determined impacts would be less than significant related to substantial light and glare as well as shade and shadow impacts. The Originally Approved Plan would indirectly result in light and g lare generation along with the buildout of the OTNSP area. As such, the 2005 PEIR incorporated mitigation measure MM-AES-1, which is designed to reduce light and glare impacts by implementing design features for future proposed lighting. Therefore, as with the Originally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan would incorporate the previously adopted mitigation measure to reduce impacts to less than significant. Moreover, as mentioned previously, California Government Code Section 65450 states that after a general plan has been adopted, a specific plan may be prepared for the systematic implementation of the general plan for all or part of the area covered by the general plan. The Originally Approved Plan set regulations that govern the development standards for future development projects, in place of the City’s previous zoning designations. Regulations and standards in the City’s UDC that are not covered by the OTNSP continue to be applicable to future development.

The Updated Plan would consolidate the UG-1 and UG-2 zones from the OTNSP zoning classifications and rename those areas as N. A change in zoning designation would not result in a direct impact to light and glare or shade and shadow. However, the Updated Plan would facilitate future development of residential and non-residential uses within the OTNSP area which would result in indirect impacts associated with the construction and operation of future projects. While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non -residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to light and glare would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 40
FEBRUARY 2022
No new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 41
FEBRUARY 2022

3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES – In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) 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 non-agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) 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) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Originally Approved Plan General Discussion
As shown in Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR, Initial Study/Notice of Preparation for Downtown Newhall Specific Plan and Comment Letters, the Lead Agency determined impacts to agriculture and forestry resources would not result in potentially significant impacts, and thus, were not further analyzed in the 2005 PEIR. As such, the following impact determinations from the 2005 Initial Study are as follows:
• No impact related to conversion of Farmland; conflict with existing agricultural zoning or Williamson Act; and conversion of an existing agricultural use

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 42
FEBRUARY 2022
Updated Plan Analysis
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 non-agricultural use? No New Impact. Under existing conditions, the OTNSP area is comp rised of land designated as “Urban and Built-Up” and “Other Land” as defined by the California Department of Conservation, below.

Other Land is defined as “Land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines, borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than forty acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land” (DOC 2021a).

Urban and Built-Up land “is occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10 -acre parcel. Common examples include residential, industrial, commercial, institutional facilities, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, and water control structures” (DOC 2021a).

As such, the OTNSP area does not include land designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance . Therefore, as with the Originally Approved Plan, the adoption of the Updated Plan would not convert the aforementioned farmland designations to a non-agricultural use. The Updated Plan would not result in any new or different impacts from those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No New Impact. The Updated Plan would consolidate the UG-1 and UG-2 zones from the OTNSP zoning classifications and rename those areas as N. As with the Originally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan would not result in a conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses. Moreover, the Updated Plan does not change allowable uses and permit requirements for agricultural uses such as horticulture and plant nurseries. Additionally, the 2005 PEIR determined no impact would occur to an existing Williamson Act contract. As such, the Updated Plan would not result in any new or different impacts from those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required. c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest la nd (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))? No New Impact. Similar to the analysis discussed above in Threshold 3.2(b), the Updated Plan would not result in a conflict with existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production. The Updated Plan would consolidate the UG-1 and UG-2 zones from the OTNSP zoning classifications and rename those areas as N. As such, the Updated Plan would not result in any new or different impacts from those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 43
FEBRUARY 2022
d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No New Impact. Under existing conditions, the OTNSP area does not consist of forest land. The Updated Plan would consolidate the UG-1 and UG-2 zones from the OTNSP zoning classifications and rename those areas as N. As such, similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use. Therefore, the Updated Plan would not result in any new or different impacts from those previously id entified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.
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 non -agricultural use or conversion of fore st land to non -forest use?
No New Impact. Given the above discussion, the proposed changes under the Updated Plan would not result in the conversion of Farmland to a non-agricultural use nor would it result in the conversion of forest land to a non -forest use. The Updated Plan is a policy document and does not result in direct physical changes to the environment nor does it involve changes to the location or nature of existing Farmland or forest land. The proposed changes under the Updated Plan would not result in any new or different impacts from those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 44
FEBRUARY 2022

3.3 Air Quality

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b) 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) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?

Originally Approved Plan General Discussion
As described in Section 1.2 of this Addendum, since certification of the 2005 PEIR, the State has adopted updates to the CEQA Guidelines (including Appendix G) to add efficiency and clarity to aspects of the guidelines and to incorporate recent case law and legislation. A summary of impacts is provided in Table 1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation from the 2005 OTNSP EIR, above under Section 1.4 of this Addendum.

The 2005 PEIR determined impacts to air quality would be:
• Significant and unavoidable related to construction dust and equipment emissions and cumulatively considerable impacts related to the exceedance of air quality standards • Less than significant with mitigation incorporated related to cumulatively considerable emissions from demolition and construction
The following mitigation measures were incorporated in the 2005 PEIR . Although the 2005 PEIR did not identify each mitigation measure with a specified number, this Addendum provides identification as shown below (e.g., MM- AQ-1):

MM-AQ-1: The proposed Specific Plan contains strategies intended to reduce reliance on motor vehicles and reduce emissions, including:
• Tree planting throughout the planning area
• Additional parking for transit users
• Mixed-use development near transit
• Improvements in traffic flow

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 45
FEBRUARY 2022
• Improvements to pedestrian facilities
• The construction of multi-modal paths
MM-AQ-2: Parking structures developed in the planning area shall open on three sides or be provided with mechanical ventilation.

Exhaust points of ventilation systems shall be located such that impacts to sensitive receptors are minimized.

Parking structure design shall avoid the creation of CO Hotspots from vehicle queuing, by ensuring adequate ingress/egress and ventilation.

MM-AQ-3: Table 5-1 in the proposed Specific Plan includes a requirement for discretionary review of mixed - use projects where potential compatibility concerns will be addressed.

During discretionary review of mixed-use projects involving bars, taverns and nightclubs or personal services such as nail salons, hair salons, and dry cleaners, reviewers shall ensure odors are reduced or eliminated pursuant to AQMD Rule 402.

MM-AQ-4: The Air Toxins Control Plan includes standards which regulate air toxins and control locomotive idling emissions.

MM-AQ-5: Operations:
• The City, in consultation with SCAQMD where necessary, shall evaluate, prior to permit issuance, the applicability of the following measures to each particular project, based on site- and project- specific information.
• Maintain equipment and vehicle engines in good condition and in proper tune per manufacturers’ specifications.
• Suspend use of all construction equipment operations during second stage smog alerts. • Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel- or gasoline-powered generators. • Use methanol- or natural gas -powered mobile equipment and pile drivers and propane - or butane- powered on-site mobile equipment
• Store all volatile liquids in closed containers.
• No open burning of debris, lumber or other scrap
• Evaluate, prior to final construction approval, a particular project’s risk of releasing significant quantities of diesel particulate emissions, using applicable SCAQMD Guidelines. Projects which exceed acceptable thresholds may be required to install one or more pieces of filtering equipment (diesel particulate filter or diesel oxidation catalyst) and/or use emulsified fuels, on their highest emitting piece or pieces of equipment on site. The project proponent shall consult with City and/or SCAQMD and comply with their recommendations.

Dust Control:
• Water vehicle traffic areas at a minimum twice daily
• Streets adjacent to project site swept as needed
• Exposed areas, new driveways and sidewalks shall be seeded, treated with soil binders, or paved
• Cover stockpiles and trucks hauling soil or other loose materials. • Sweep project area streets at least once daily.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 46
FEBRUARY 2022
• Appoint a dust control monitor to oversee and implement all dust control measures. • The Contractor shall maintain continuous control of dust resulti ng from construction operations.
• When wind conditions create considerable dust, the Contractor shall suspend grading operations, and/or water the exposed areas.
• During construction, the amount of disturbed area shall be minimized. • Onsite vehicles speeds reduced to 15 mph or less.

MM-AQ-6: Develop and implement a construction management plan, as approved by the City prior to issuance of a demolition, grading or building permit, which includes measures located elsewhere in this EIR and in the proposed Specific Plan.

In addition, Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR, Initial Study/Notice of Preparation for Downtown Newhall Specific Plan and Comment Letters, determined some impacts to air quality would not result in potentially significant impacts, and thus, were not further analyzed in the 2005 PEIR. As such, the following impact determinations from the 2005 Initial Study are as follows:
• No impact related to objectionable odors
Updated Plan Analysis
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No New Impact. As with the Originally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan’s planning area is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which is principally responsible for air pollution control, and works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, local governments, as well as State and federal agencies to r educe emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources to meet state and federal ambient air quality standards. The SCAQMD has adopted a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to meet the State and federal ambient air quality standards. AQMP s are updated regularly in order to effectively reduce emissions, accommodate growth, and minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the economy. In March 2017, the SCAQMD released the Final 2016 AQMP, which continues to evaluate curr ently integrated strategies and control measures to meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), as well as explore new and innovative methods to reach its goals. Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined in Chapter 12, Sec tion

12.2 and Section 12.3 of the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993). These indicators are discussed below:
• Consistency Criterion No. 1: The proposed project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP. • Consistency Criterion No. 2: The project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of project build-out phase.

The violations that Consistency Criterion No. 1 refer to are the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and NAAQS. CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if localized significance thresholds (LSTs) or regional significance thresholds were exceeded (further discussed in Threshold 3.3(c), below). The 2005

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 47
FEBRUARY 2022
PEIR determined the Originally Approved Plan would not exceed the applicable LST thresholds or regional significance thresholds for construction activities. Cumulative operational impacts were cons idered significant and unavoidable whereas the Originally Approved Plan, considered along with other development anticipated in the region, would continue to contribute to existing exceedances of State and federal air quality standards, including those for ozone and PM10. The Updated Plan would result in similar impacts as discussed in the 2005 PEIR. No new impact would occur.

The 2016 AQMP demonstrates that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved within the timeframes required under federal law. Growth projections from local general plans adopted by cities in the district are provided to the SCAG, which develops regional growth forecasts, which are then used to develop future air quality forecasts for the AQMP. Development consistent with the growth projections in the City’s General Plan is considered to be consistent with the AQMP. The 2005 PEIR determined t he Originally Approved Plan would not exceed growth projections and would be consistent with the AQMP. As with the Originally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan consists of redevelopment of the Downtown Newhall area, resulting in increased housing and commercial opportunities. The Originally Approved Plan includes components and discrete projects across phased timelines to its 2025 buildout. As shown in Section 2.3 and Table 4 of this Addendum, the Updated Plan’s buildout scenario would result in 1,415 dwelling units as compared to 1,402 units as anticipated for the Originally Approved Plan. This represents a difference of 13 units (0.93% increase), which is nominally more than the projections under the Originally Approved Plan.

On the other hand, Table 4 reveals a difference of 36,498 square feet (2.9% decrease) of non-residential development between the Updated Plan’s buildout scenario and the Originally Approved Plan. As such, this represents a change in buildout scenarios that is less than what was considere d under the Originally Approved Plan. Similarly, population projections for the Updated Plan would increase by 48 residents (0.91% increase), which is nominally more than what was anticipated under the Originally Approved Plan.

Given the slight change unde r the Updated Plan when compared to the Originally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan would result in comparable impacts to those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.
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? No New Impact. As described in the 2005 PEIR, the OTNSP planning area is located within the SCAB and is subject to the regulations of the SCAQMD. At the time of the adoption of the Originally Approved Plan, the planning area was in non-attainment for both the federal and State standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen diox ide, and the State standard for PM 10. The air quality monitoring station for the Santa Clarita Valley is located in Newhall. According to the 2005 PEIR, ozone is of particular concern in the Santa Clarita Valley. A review of SCAQMD data showed that the Santa Clarita Valley has some of the highest ozone readings in the air basin. This is due in large part to transport of pollutants from the Los Angeles Basin. In general, ozone levels are in decline throughout California, due mainly to reductions in automobile emissions due to engine alterations (City of Santa Clarita 2005b).

According to the 2005 PEIR, buildout in accordance with the Originally Approved Plan would increase the total amount of residential and commercial square footage in the OTNSP planning ar ea. Vehicle trips associated with the new residential and commercial square footage would generate emissions. As such, given the scale of the Originally Approved Plan, construction and operation were determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. For instance, the 2005 PEIR determined the buildout of land uses would increase emissions from motor vehicles. As such, the 2005 PEIR incorporated MM-AQ-1 (as detailed

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 48
FEBRUARY 2022
above) which implements strategies to reduce reliance on motor vehicles and reduce emissions. Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan would nominally change overall buildout scenarios (specifically, an 0.93% increase in residential development, a 2.9% decrease in non -residential development, and an 0.91% increase in population) and is, thus, anticipated to result in similar impacts.

Implementation of the Originally Approved Plan would continue under the extended buildout year of 2040 under the Updated Plan. As such, the Updated Plan would result in comparable impacts to those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required. c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No New Impact . The SCAQMD has established that impacts to air quality are s ignificant if there is a potential to contribute to or cause localized exceedances of the federal and/or state ambient air quality standards (NAAQS/CAAQS). Collectively, these are referred to as LSTs. Sensitive receptors are those more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than are the population at large. People most likely to be affected by air pollution include children, the elderly, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. According to the SCAQMD, sensitive receptors includ e residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long -term healthcare facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes (SCAQMD 1993).

The 2005 PEIR analyzed the potential impacts associated with the implementation of the Originally Approved Plan such as demolition and construction activities near residences. Furthermore , demolition activities associated with the Originally Approved Plan may include buildings where asbestos -containing materials or lead paint is of concern. As such, 2005 PEIR included MM-AQ-5, which requires standards for construction activities and dust control, to reduce potentially significant impacts . However, even with the incorporation of this mitigation measure, the 2005 PEIR determined impacts would be significant and unavoidable to sensitive receptors. Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan would incorporate MM-AQ-5 to reduce potentially significant construction -related emission impacts to sensitive receptors. However, impacts would continue to be significant and unavoidable given the nominal changes to the buildout scenarios between the Originally Approved Plan and the Updated Plan.

The 2005 PEIR also analyzed potential impacts associated with project-specific operational air quali ty impacts, including traffic-generated emissions which have the potential to result in carbon monoxide (CO) hotspots. The 2005 PEIR determined impacts would be less than significant and would not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. The 2005 PEIR incorporated MM-AQ-2 (as detailed above) which facilitates mechanical ventilation design for proposed parking structures to reduce impacts to sensitive receptors.

Additionally, the 2005 PEIR incorporated MM-AQ-4, which requires compliance with the Air Toxins Control Plan and reduces impacts related to locomotive idling emission s to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures would continue to be incorporated to reduce similar impacts as a result of the Updated Plan.

Cumulative construction impacts were determined to be less than significant under the Originally Approved Plan. However, the 2005 PEIR included MM-AQ-6, which requires the development and implementation of a construction management plan. Such a plan is comprised of measures identified throughout the PEIR.

Cumulative operational impacts were considered significant and unavoidable whereas the Originally Approved Plan, considered along with other development anticipated in the region, would continue to contribute to existing exceedances of State and federal air quality standards, including those for ozone and

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 49
FEBRUARY 2022
PM10. This mitigation measure would continue to be incorporated to reduce similar impacts as a result of the Updated Plan.

Given the above, under the Updated Plan, impacts would be similar due to the nominal changes proposed to the buildout scenarios . As detailed above, the Updated Plan would result in an 0.93% increase in residential development, a 2.9% decrease in non -residential development, and an 0.91% increase in population. As such, the Updated Plan would result in comparable impacts to those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
No New Impact . The 2005 PEIR defined objectionable odors as emissions from land uses supporting livestock, waste, or industrial operations. Similar with the Originally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan would not facilitate the development of these land uses. However, MM-AQ-3, as detailed above, requires compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402 to reduce odors from proposed uses within mixed-use projects involving bars, taverns and nightclubs or personal servic es such as nail salons, hair salons, and dry cleaners .

Compliance would be ensured during project -specific discretionary review of future mixed -use projects within the OTNSP area. Under the Updated Plan, this measure would apply to future discretionary act ions within the OTNSP area. Therefore, the Updated Plan would result in similar impacts and incorporate MM- AQ-3 to further reduce to a less than significant level. As such, no new or different impacts would occur than previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 50
FEBRUARY 2022

3.4 Biological Resources

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?

d) 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) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?

Originally Approved Plan General Discussion
As described in Section 1.2 of this Addendum, since certification of the 2005 PEIR, the State has adopted updates to the CEQA Guidelines (including Ap pendix G) to add efficiency and clarity to aspects of the guidelines and to incorporate recent case law and legislation. A summary of impacts is provided in Table 1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation from the 2005 OTNSP EIR, above under Section 1.4 of this Addendum.

The 2005 PEIR determined impacts to biological resources would be:

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 51
FEBRUARY 2022
• Less than significant related to bridge construction and the loss of native vegetation; grading and the loss of habitat and sensitive species; bridge security lighting and streambed and wildlife movement; human presence and plant communities; cumulatively considerable habitat degradation; and construction effects to biological resources
The following mitigation measures were incorporated in the 2005 PEIR . Although the 2005 PEIR did not identify each mitigation measure with a specified number, this Addendum provides identification as shown below (e.g., MM- BIO-1):

MM-BIO-1: The proposed Specific Plan implements a stormwater management plan that includes the restoration of the riparian habitat along the creek.

Prior to final design of either the creekside trail or the multi-modal bridge, the following will occur:

Conduct in-season survey by a qualified biologist/botanist, the following measures implemented if special status plant species are identified:
a. Construction or operational activity shall cease until protective measures are put in place b. Identified plant species removed and relocated
c. Impacts to Endangered species subject to federal and/or State Endangered Species Act Copies of all surveys shall be submitted to the ACOE and CDFG.

ACOE and CDFG shall review and approve final plans for speci es replacement and habitat restoration in creekside trail or the bridge.

Jurisdictional delineation of wetlands and floodways required prior to issuance of development permits.

Riparian habitats disturbed by construction shall be replaced by creating riparian habitats of similar functions and values. Restoring any habitat, including wetlands, shall follow at least 1:1 replacement ratios.

Crossing and bank restoration design criteria:
a. Designed with respect to potential long-term impacts; including impediments to flow/erosion. b. Design shall not impede wildlife movement.
c. Design shall ensure passibility of fish, animals, and other wildlife during flows and dry season.

Qualified biologist shall develop planting plan listing appropriate native plants for revegetati on activity.

Erosion control measures designed into bank restoration/bridge design. (see Construction Impacts).

Fire setbacks and buffers shall be established to protect surrounding wildlife and habitat from development.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 52
FEBRUARY 2022
When planting natives for fire buffers/setbacks, plant choice shall be chosen based on compatibility with chaparral and riparian scrub.

MM-BIO-2: Conduct in -season survey by a qualified biologist, to determine the presence of special status wildlife species, including nesting birds. If sensitive species or nesting birds are identified construction shall cease until protective measures are put in place. Impacts to Endangered species subject to federal and/or State Endangered Species Act.

MM-BIO-3: Lighting of the multi -modal bri dge shall be designed in such a way that provides safety for pedestrians and bicyclist, but does not significantly increase light levels in the surrounding riparian environment. Optional methods include:
• directional controls
• controlling amount, number, and type of lighting
• shielding the lighting
MM-BIO-4: Human access to revegetation and bank restoration areas shall be prohibited and sensitive areas shall be well marked with signage and fencing.

Pets and other domestic animals are prohibited from entering a ny revegetation and bank restoration areas. Pets shall be restrained by a leash when using trail and bridge.

MM-BIO-5: The proposed Specific Plan includes the following enhancement measures:
• Use native trees to provide habitat
• A Creekside bicycle and pedestrian path
• Enhancement of existing equestrian and pedestrian trail • The Street Tree Plan connecting the urban environment with the natural environment • A Storm water project that includes the restoration of the riparian habitat along the creek MM-BIO-6: Creek setbacks, 50 feet from the top of the creek bank; unless otherwise authorized by a land use permit (exceptions include the creekside trail).

The project proponent shall consult with the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Army Corps of Engineers prior to finalizing design on the creek walk or crossing.

In addition, Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR, Initial Study/Notice of Preparation for Downtown Newhall Specific Plan and Comment Letters, determined some impacts to biological resources would not result in potentially significant impacts, and thus, were not further analyzed in the 2005 PEIR. As such, the following impact determinations from the 2005 Initial Study are as follows:
• No impact related to conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan • Less than significant related to local policies (i.e., tree preservation policy) • Less than significant with mitigation incorporated related to special status species; riparian habitats; federally protected wetlands; and migratory species/nursery sites

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 53
FEBRUARY 2022
Updated Plan Analysis
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No New Impact. The Originally Approved Plan included components which would result in direct impacts to the environment. For example, the 2005 PEIR identified impacts would occur related to bridge construction, which would result in the loss of native vegetation. As such, impacts to sensitive plant communities were mitigated with the incorporation of MM-BIO-1, which impleme nts a stormwater management plan, in -season surveys, coordination with regulatory agencies, among other procedures.

Implementation of MM-BIO-1 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

The 2005 PEIR also identified potentially significant impacts related to grading for bridge construction which would result in the loss of habitat. As a result, the 2005 PEIR incorporated MM-BIO-2, which ensures future development includes in-season surveys by a qualified biologist to determine the presence of special status wildlife species, including nesting birds , and outlines procedures for potential occurrence during construction. Implementation of MM-BIO-2 would reduce impacts to biological resources to a less than significant level.

Additionally, indirect impacts to plant communities and wildlife were identified in the 2005 PEIR as potentially significant as a result of human presence. Thus, the 2005 PEIR included mitigation measure MM-BIO-4 to restrict access to sensitive habitat rehabilitated under the Originally Approved Plan.

The Updated Plan does not include additions or modifications to the OTNSP plan components identified in the Originally Approved Plan. The Updated Plan would instead only consolidate the UG-1 and UG-2 zones into the newly designated N zone. Additionally, the Updated Plan is a policy document and would not result in direct physical changes to the environment. While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation o f new residential and non -residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to biological resources would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review.

In summary, the Updated Plan does not propose c hanges or additions to components of the Originally Approved Plan which would result in need for the aforementioned mitigation measures. No new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required. b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No New Impact. The Originally Approved Plan included components which would result in direct impacts to the environment. For example, as mentioned previously, the Originally Approved Plan included plan components such as the construction of a bridge which were found to result in impacts to riparian habitats.

As such, the 2005 PEIR incorporated mitigation measures MM-BIO-1, which implements a stormwater management plan to reduce impacts to creekside trail improvements; MM-BIO-2 (as discussed above); and MM-BIO-4, which restricts access to sensitive habitat rehabilitated under the Originally Approved Plan .

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 54
FEBRUARY 2022
Additionally, construction impacts were found to result in temporary disturbance of biological resources as a result of the Originally Approved Plan. Mitigation measure MM-BIO-6 requires all development to have a 50-foot setback from the Newhall Creek to reduce potential impacts to riparian habitat.

The Updated Plan does not include additions or modifications to the OTNSP plan components identified in the Originally Approved Plan. The Updated Plan would instead only consolidate the UG-1 and UG-2 zones into the newly designated N zone. Additionally, the Updated Plan is a policy document and would not result in direct physical changes to the environment. While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non -residential development, the loc ation and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to biological resources would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review. Furthermore, future subsequent projects would be required to comply with the provisions of MM-BIO-6 to reduce impacts to riparian habitats.

No new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No New Impact . As stated previously, the Originally Approved Plan included components which would result in direct impacts to the environment. Similar to the discussion provided in Threshold 3.4(b), the 2005 PEIR incorporated mitigation measure MM-BIO-4 to restrict access to sensitive habitat rehabilitated under the Originally Approved Plan. With the implementation o f mitigation, impacts were found to be less than significant.

The Updated Plan does not include additions or modifications to the OTNSP plan components identified in the Originally Approved Plan. The Updated Plan would instead only consolidate the UG-1 and UG-2 zones into the newly designated N zone. Additionally, the Updated Plan is a policy document and would not result in direct physical changes to the environment. While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential a nd non -residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to biological resources would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review.

No new or different impacts would occur than those previously iden tified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.
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 i mpede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No New Impact . As stated previously, the Originally Approved Plan included components which would result in direct impacts to the environment. Similar to the discussion provided in Threshold 3.4(b), the 2005 PEIR incorporated mitigation measure MM-BIO-2, which ensures future development includes in-season

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 55
FEBRUARY 2022
surveys by a qualified biologist to determine the presence of special status wildlife species, including nesting birds , and outlines procedures for potential occurrence during construction . As such, implementation of MM-BIO-2 would reduce impacts to biological resources to a less than significant level.

Moreover, impacts were identified as potentially significant related to bridge security lighting which would result in illumination to streambed and adversely affect wildlife movement. Thus, the 2005 PEIR included mitigation measure MM-BIO-3 to incorporate sensitive lighting designs for the proposed bridge. These measures reduced impacts to a less than significant level.

The Updated Plan does not include additions or modifications to the OTNSP plan components identified in the Originally Approved Plan. The Updated Plan would instead only consolidate the UG-1 and UG-2 zones into the newly designated N zone. Additionally, the Updated Plan is a policy document and would not result in direct physical changes to the environment. While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non -residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to biological resources would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review.

No new or different impacts would occur th an those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No New Impact . As stated previously, the Originally Approved Plan included components which would result in direct impacts to the environment, including potential conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation (e.g., the City’s Oak Tree Ordinance). As such, the 2005 PEIR included mitigation measure MM-BIO-5, which ensures native trees are incorporated into future development along with a Street Tree Plan for the OTNSP area. Incorporation of MM-BIO-5 reduced impacts associated with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources (i.e., protected trees).

The Updated Plan does not include additions or modifications to the OTNSP plan components identified in the Originally Approved Plan. The Updated Plan would instead only consolidate the UG-1 and UG-2 zones into the newly designated N zone. Additionally, the Updated Plan is a policy document and would not result in direct physical changes to the environment. While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non -residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to biological resources would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review. Furthermore, future subsequent projects would be required to comply with the provisions of MM-BIO-5 to reduce impacts related to the City’s Oak Tree Ordinance.

No new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 56
FEBRUARY 2022
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No New Impact . Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR determined no Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan applied to the OTNSP planning area. As such, no impact was found to occur.

The Updated Plan would consolidate the UG-1 and UG-2 zones from the OTNSP zoning classifications and rename those areas as N. A change in zoning designation would not result in a direct impact to biological resources. However, the Updated Plan w ould facilitate future development of residential and non - residential uses within the OTNSP area which would result in indirect impacts associated with the construction and operation of future projects. While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non -residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to biological resources would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review.

No new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 57
FEBRUARY 2022

3.5 Cultural Resources

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?

c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Originally Approved Plan
As described in Section 1.2 of this Addendum, since certification of the 2005 PEIR, the State has adopted updates to the CEQA Guidelines (including Appendix G) to add efficiency and clarity to aspects of the guidelines and to incorporate recent case law and legislation. A summary of impacts is provided in Table 1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation from the 2005 OTNSP EIR, above under Section 1.4 of this Addendum.

The 2005 PEIR determined impacts to cultural resources would be:
• Less than significant related to archaeological resources; eligible structures as historical resources; existing historical resources; and cumulatively considerable effects to historical resources The following mitigation measures were incorporated in the 2005 PEIR . Although the 2005 PEIR did not identify each mitigation measure with a specified number, this Addendum provides identification as shown below (e.g., MM- CUL-1):

MM-CUL-1: Procedures for future projects:

Where a proposed project will result in demolition or alteration of a property included on the Master List, a follow-up survey shall be performed to conclusively determine its significance. If the resource is determined to be significant, the following measures shall be implemented:

For Historic Buildings or Building Additions
Proponents shall meet with the Historical Society and City architectural review staff or consultant to discuss and address size, bulk, scale, massing, and exterior design elements. • Window framing on wood-sided historic buildings shall be wood. • Wood sided historic buildings shall maintain wood exterior. • Slope of hipped or gabled roof on new buildings or additions shall be compatible with the slope on existing buildings.
• Metal roofing shall be burnished and shall be installed to be compatible with existing metal roofs

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 58
FEBRUARY 2022
Proposed renovations of historic structure:

Renovations to existing historic structures designated to enhance function, safety and longevity.

Proposed renovations of all buildings identified on the Master List shall use durable, State Historic Building Code compliant materials that fit the period of construction and architectural character of the existing buildings. Shall meet State Historic Building Code.

Proposed demolition: Demolition of historic buildings allowed only after recordation according to Historic American Building Survey (HABS) standards.

Projects involving significant historical resources shall follow the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties With Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstruction Historic Buildings (refer to Section 5.4).

The following actions shall be required as mitigation measures, either singly or in combination, whenever preservation, adaptive re -use, or incorporation of historic structures is not reasonably possible:
a. Demolition of the historic structure with recordation according to the HABS standards.

Item a plus commemoration of demolished structure with a display of text and photos designed by a professional historical consultant at these locations:
o In interior of new building proposed for site (item b) o On exterior of new building proposed for site (item c) o On perimeter of property at primary entrance (item d)

e. Items b, c, and d plus salvage of significant materials of historic structure for conservation in historical display.

f. Items b, c, and d plus advertisements for acquisition and relocation of historic structure with its subsequent rehabilitation and adaptive re-use at its new site. g. Item c plus compatible incorporation of façade only of historic structure into design of the new building on site.
h. Item c plus preservation of historic structure on site as non -habitable space (storage/mechanical equipment).
i. Item c plus relocation and preservation of historic structure on site for use as non -habitable space.
j. Item c plus relocation and preservation of historic structure on site for use as habitable space, including compliance with State Historic Building Code. k. Item j plus rehabilitation and adaptive re -use off -site for habitable space, including State Historic Building Code compliance.

MM-CUL-2: The proposed Specific Plan includes policies that address historic resources:

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 59
FEBRUARY 2022
Historic Preservation – The issue of preserving and reinforcing the historic and pedestrian nature of Downtown is fundamental to the success of the revitalization effort. To accomplish this, it will be useful for the City to act on the results of the Historic Resources Survey prepared for this Plan to appropriately inform decisions and actions about future public and private development.

In addition, Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR, Initial Study/Notice of Preparation for Downtown Newhall Specific Plan and Comment Letters, determined some impacts to cultural resources would not result in potentially significant impacts, and thus, were not further analyzed in the 2005 PEIR. As such, the following impact determinations from the 2005 Initial Study are as follows:
• Less than significant related to paleontological resources (see Section 3.7, Geology and Soils, of this Addendum)
Updated Plan Analysis
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
No New Impact. The 2005 PEIR identified particular properties within the OTNSP planning area as eligible for listing as historical resources and to be retained during implementation of the Originally Approved Plan.

Additionally, the 2005 PEIR included discussion applicable to the Originally Approved Plan’s implementation regarding the relocation of the Pardee House from Heritage Junction. As such, the 2005 PEIR incorporated mitigation measures MM-CUL-1 and MM-CUL-2, which outlines policies and procedures for historical resources and, thus, reduces impacts to a less than significant level.

The Updated Plan would consolidate the UG-1 and UG-2 zones from the OTNSP zoning classifications and rename those areas as N. Moreover, the Updated Plan would not change or include new or different plan components as previously adopted under the Originally Approved Plan. A change in zoning designation would not result in a direct impact to historical resources. However, the Updated Plan would facilitate future development of residential and non-residential uses within the OTNSP area which would result in indirect impacts associated with the construction and operation of future projects. While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non -residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project -specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to historical resources would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review.

As with the Originally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan would incorporate the previously adopted mitigation.

Implementation of previously adopted mitigation measures (MM-CUL-1 and MM-CUL-2) would reduce impacts to historical resources for future subsequent projects. Therefore, the Updated Plan would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated related to historical resources. No new or different impacts would occur than those pre viously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 60
FEBRUARY 2022
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
No New Impact. The 2005 PEIR states the records search yielded no records of archaeological resources previously documented for the OTNSP planning area. As such, the 2005 PEIR determined no impact on known archaeological resources would occur. However, actions taken in the event of resources discovery are regulated by State law (i.e., California State Public Resources Code Section 5097.90).

The Updated Plan would consolidate the UG-1 and UG-2 zones from the OTNSP zoning classifications and rename those areas as N. A chan ge in zoning designation would not result in a direct impact to archaeological resources. However, the Updated Plan would facilitate future development of residential and non-residential uses within the OTNSP area which would result in indirect impacts associated with the construction and operation of future projects. While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non -residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to cultural resources would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review.

No new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No New Impact. Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR states no known cemeteries or other human burials are located in the OTNSP planning area. As such, the 2005 PEIR determined no impact on known human remains would occur. However, accidental discovery of such burials requires stop work and reporting to the coroner, as regulated by State law (e.g., California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99).

The Updated Plan would consolidate the UG-1 and UG-2 zones from the OTNSP zoning classifications and rename those areas as N. A change in zoning designation would not result in a direct impact to archaeological resources, historical resource s, or human remains. However, the Updated Plan would facilitate future development of residential and non -residential uses within the OTNSP area which would result in indirect impacts associated with the construction and operation of future projects . While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non -residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effec ts. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to cultural resources would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review.

No new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 61
FEBRUARY 2022

3.6 Energy

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
VI. Energy – Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?

b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

Originally Approved Plan
Since certification of the 2005 PEIR, updates have been made to the State CEQA Guidelines as previously described in Section 1.2 of this Addendum. Revisions to the State CEQA Guidelines involve incorporation of a new subdivision (b) of Section 15126.2, Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental Impacts (amended December 28, 2018). The Natural Resources Agency added subdivision (b) to Section 15126.2 to remove any question about whether such an analysis is required. The revised State CEQA Guid elines also added a new impact category – “Energy” – to Appendix G by incorporating the changes to Section 15126.2(b) discussed. As such, energy was not addressed in the 2005 PEIR.

However, under Chapter 6, Growth -Inducing and Significant Irreversible Eff ects, the consumption of energy resources was discussed. Section 15126 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify any significant irreversible changes associated with a proposed project. Such changes typically include use of non -renewable resources or land use changes that would preclude other types of development in the future. The 2005 PEIR identified the following irreversible commitments of non-renewable resources due to implementation of the OTNSP:
• The consumption of building materials for roads, structures, and infrastructure; and • The continued use of energy resources for heating and transportation None of the secondary impacts of increased urbanization were considered a significant irreversible adverse environmental impact (City of Santa C larita 2005b). Additionally, the 2005 PEIR included discussion relative to energy under the General Plan consistency analysis . Here, the 2005 PEIR demonstrated the Specific Plan’s consistency with goals and policies related to energy. As such, the Specific Plan was found to not conflict with applicable General Plan goals and policies.

Updated Plan Analysis
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? Less than Significant Impact. Typically, energy resources analyzed under CEQA include electricity, natural gas, and petroleum. As with the Originally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan consists of redevelopment of

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 62
FEBRUARY 2022
the Downtown Newhall area, resulting in increased housing and commercial opportunities. As shown in Table 4, buildout scenarios for residential would increase by 0.93% and decrease by 2.9% for non- residential development under the Updated Plan as compared to the Originally Approved Plan. As such, the change in energy consumption would be comparable under the Updated Plan than the Originally Approved Plan.

Furthermore, the Updated Plan would consolidate the UG -1 and UG -2 zones from the OTNSP zoning classifications and rename those areas as N. A change in zoning designation would not result in a direct impact to energy resources. However, the Updated Plan would facilitate future development of residential and non-residential uses within the OTNSP area which would result in indirect impacts associated with the construction and operation of future projects. While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non -residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to energy resources would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review.

Given the above, the Updated Plan would result in less than significant impacts related to energy consumption. No further analysis is required.
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than Significant Impact. Similar to the implementation of the Originally Approved Plan, future subsequent projects associated with the Updated Plan would be subject to and would comply with, at a minimum, the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (24 CCR, Part 6). Part 6 of T itle 24, which establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and non -residential buildings constructed in California in order to reduce energy demand and consumption. The Updated Plan would consolidate the UG-1 and UG -2 zones from the OTNSP zonin g classifications and rename those areas as N . A change in zoning designation would not result in a direct impact to energy resources. However, the Updated Plan would facilitate future development of residential and non -residential uses within the OTNSP ar ea which would result in indirect impacts associated with the construction and operation of future projects . While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non -residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential imp acts related to energy resources would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review.

Additionally, the Updated Plan would comply with California code requirements for energy efficiency.

Additionally, as discussed in Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Addendum, the Updated Plan would not conflict with the various local plans that would reduce energy use, including the City’s Climate Action Plan. Therefore, the Updated Plan would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, the Updated Plan would result in comparable impacts related to energy consumption. No further analysis is required.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 63
FEBRUARY 2022

3.7 Geology and Soils

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

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.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
c) 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?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?

f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?

Originally Approved Plan
As described in Section 1.2 of this Addendum, since certification of the 2005 PEIR, the State has adopted updates to the CEQA Guidelines (including Appendix G) to add efficiency and clarity to aspects of the guidelines and to incorporate recent case law and legislation. A summary of impacts is provided in Table 1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation from the 2005 OTNSP EIR, above under Section 1.4 of this Addendum.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 64
FEBRUARY 2022
The 2005 PEIR determined impacts to geology and soils would be:
• Less than significant related to development and population in a seismically active area; exposure to soil erosion; landslide hazards; liquefaction hazards; and cumulatively considerable geologic and seismic hazards
The following mitigation measures were incorporated in the 2005 PEIR . Although the 2005 PEIR did not identify each mitigation measure with a specified number, this Addendum provides identification as shown below (e.g., MM- GEO-1):

MM-GEO-1: Implementation of measures proposed in Plan Sections 5.2 (long term erosion control) and 5.12 (short-term erosion control).

MM-GEO-2: Amend the proposed Specific Plan to require a study for landslide hazards during design of the bridge. Design bridge to avoid hazards and/or comply with the recommendations of a geotechnical study.

MM-GEO-3: Utilities and infrastructure improvements proposed for hazard areas require site -specific geotechnical study prior to final design and compliance with recommendations.

In addition, Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR, Initial Study/Notice of Preparation for Downtown Newhall Specific Plan and Comment Letters , determined some impacts related to geology and soils would not result in potentially significant impacts, and thus, were not further analyzed in the 2005 PEIR. As such, the following impact determinations from the 2005 Initial Study are as follows:
• No impact related to septic tanks
• Less than significant related to exposure to a known earthquake fault rupture; seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction; unstable soil; expansive soil; and paleontological resources Updated Plan Analysis
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
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.

No New Impact . The Updated Plan would co nsolidate OTNSP zoning classifications and rename those areas. A change in zoning designation would not result in a direct impact to the environment. An impact would occur if a future subsequent project would be proposed on or adjacent to a known earthquake fault.

The 2005 PEIR determined no known faults were located within the OTNSP planning area. As such, similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan would result in less than significant impacts related to the risk of loss, injury, or death involving a known earthquake fault. No new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 65
FEBRUARY 2022
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
No New Impact. As with the discussion found within the 2005 PEIR, the 2021 existing conditions for the Santa Clarita Valley are at risk of damage from strong seismic ground shaking. Earthquake faults exist within the vicinity of the OTNSP planning area and could result in an earthquake of sufficiently high magnitude to damage building or infrastructure. The 2005 PEIR determined less than significant impacts would occur with the redevelopment of the OTNSP area through the implementation of the Originally Approved Plan. Similarly, the Updated Plan would facilitate the construction of new residential and non - residential development, the likes of which would be constructed with modern construction techniques in compliance with existing regulations. As such, the Updated Plan would reduce potential hazards from ground shaking over existing conditions. Furthermore, although the Updated Plan (as with the Originally Approved Plan) would result in the introduction of a new population to the OTNSP area, impacts related to the risk of loss, injury, or death would be reduced to the extent feasible by compliance with current building codes and avoidance of areas directly overlying or adjacent to faults.

Additionally, while the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non-residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project -specific CEQA review. No new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Reduced Impact. Liquefaction is a phenomenon where near surface soils lose cohesion and convert to a fluid state because of severe vibration. Loose, granular soils are most susceptible, while more stable silty clay and clay materials are generally somewhat less affected. The potential for liquefaction is generally associated with unconsolidated, saturated loose granulated soils. In general, liquefaction potential varies according to soil type, with recent, unconsolidated alluvial soils having the highest potential. The potential for liquefaction decreases with increased consolidation of soil particles; therefore, soils with a greater propensity for cons olidation, such as finely grained clays, have a reduced liquefaction hazard. Areas underlain by bedrock have the lowest potential for liquefaction (City of Santa Clarita 2005b).

The 2005 PEIR determined a small portion of the OTNSP area is within a liquefa ction hazard zone.

Specifically located in the north end of the William S. Hart Park and adjacent areas to the north (City of Santa Clarita 2005b). The Originally Approved Plan included utility and roadway improvements along Newhall Avenue in this area and did not plan for any development in this area. As such, the 2005 PEIR incorporated MM-GEO-3, which require site-specific geotechnical study prior to final design and compliance with recommendations for utility and infrastructure improvements.

Under the Updated Plan, changes to the zoning classifications would not result in new development planned within areas identified as liquefaction hazard zones. Moreover, the Updated Plan does not include changes or addition to other plan components as proposed in the Originally Approved Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 66
FEBRUARY 2022
However, while the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non-residential development, the locati on and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to seismic -related ground failure would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review.

Given the above, reduced impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.
iv) Landslides?
Reduced Impact. The occurrence of landslides is generally influenced by a number of factors, including slope angle, soil moisture content, vegetative cover, and the physical nature of the underlying strata.

Landslides can be triggered by one or more specific events includ ing development-related construction, seismic activity, soil saturation, and fires (City of Santa Clarita 2005b). The 2005 PEIR determined landslide hazard areas are limited to William S. Hart Park and areas east of Newhall Creek. As such, as mentioned above, impacts were determined to be less than significant as development, in general, under the Originally Approved Plan would not be subject to risk of landslides. However, the 2005 PEIR included impact analysis related to a bridge proposed for Newhall Creek, which would terminate in areas prone to landslides east of the creek. Furthermore, under the Originally Approved Plan, no development was planned within this area of the OTNSP. Nonetheless, the 2005 PEIR incorporated mitigation measure MM-GEO-2, which r equires design recommendation to avoid geologic hazards.

The Updated Plan’s proposed zoning changes would facilitate the construction of development but would not result in new or different conditions than previously identified areas prone to landslides. As such, less than significant impacts would occur, and no mitigation would be required.

However, while the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non-residential development, the location and design of such futur e projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to landslides would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project -specific CEQA review.

Given the above, reduced impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Reduced Impact. The 2005 PEIR determined impacts related to substantial soil erosion would be less than significant. Although the majority of the OTNSP planning area was currently developed, the 2005 PEIR incorporated mitigation measure MM-GEO-1, which implements long -term erosion controls to reduce erosion potential to specific improvement components related to the Newhall Creek. The Updated Plan would not result in the change or addition to plan components beyond the proposed changed to zoning classifications. Therefore, as with the Originally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan would not substantially change soil conditions and result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 67
FEBRUARY 2022
However, while the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non-residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative a t this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to soil erosion would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review.

Given the above, reduced impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.
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?
No New Impact. Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR determined that impacts would be less than significant based on the City’s Safety Element findings that the OTNSP is not underlain with soil that is considered unstable, either at risk for landslides, subsidence, or lateral spreading. Similarly, the Updated Plan woul d not change these determinations.

Furthermore, while the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non-residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to a dequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to soil stability would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review.

No new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? No New Impact. Similar to the findings of Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR, the Updated Plan would result in less than significant impacts related to expansive soils. Furthermore, while the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non -residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to a dequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project -specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to soil stability would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review. Therefore, no new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequatel y supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No New Impact. Similar to the findings of Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR, the Updated Plan would result in no impact related to septic tanks as the OTNSP would not utilize sceptic systems during implementation.

Therefore, no new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 68
FEBRUARY 2022
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
No New Impact. Similar to the findings of Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR, the Updated Plan would result in less than significant impacts related to paleontological resources. The 2005 PEIR determined no known paleontological resources are located within the OTNSP planning area. However, while the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of ne w residential and non -residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. Furthermore, in the event of an inadvertent discovery of paleontol ogical resources, California State Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 prohibits excavation or removal of any “vertebrate paleontological site or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands.” As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to paleontological resources would be examined in accordance with CEQA and the State Public Resources Code as part of the required project-specific CEQA review. Therefore, no new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 69
FEBRUARY 2022

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?

Originally Approved Plan General Discussion
As described in Section 1.2 of this Addendum, since certification of the 2005 PEIR, the State has adopted updates to the CEQA Guidelines (including Appendix G) to add efficiency and clarity to aspects of the guidelines and to incorporate recent case law and legislation . At the time the 2005 PEIR was certified, there was no legislation or regulatory guidance with respect to CEQA analysis of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and climate change. The passage of AB 32 on September 27, 2006, the adoption of the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) implementing Climate Change Scoping Plan (CARB’s Scoping Plan) in December 2008, and the adoption of State CEQA Guidelines specific to GHG emissions analysis all occurred subsequent to certification of the 2005 PEIR. Therefore, the 2005 PEIR did not evaluate the impacts of the Originally Approved Plan on GHG emissions because the State CEQA Guidelines did not include project impacts on global climate change.

Updated Plan Analysis
a) Would the project g enerate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. As with the Originally Approved Plan, the Up dated Plan consists of redevelopment of the Downtown Newhall area, resulting in increased housing and commercial opportunities. As shown in Table 4, buildout scenarios under the Updated Plan would represent an 0.93% increase in residential development and a 2.9% decrease in non-residential development as compared to the Originally Approved Plan. As such, the change in GHG emission generation would be comparable under the Updated Plan to the Originally Approved Plan.

The Updated Plan would consolidate the UG-1 and UG-2 zones from the OTNSP zoning classifications and rename those areas as N. A change in zoning designation would not result in a direct generation of GHG emissions. However, the Updated Plan would facilitate future development of residential and non- residential uses within the OTNSP area which would result in indirect impacts associated with the construction and operation of future projects. While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non -residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 70
FEBRUARY 2022
are proposed. Potential GHG impacts would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review.

Given the above, the Updated Plan would result in less than significant impacts related to GHG emissions.

No further analysis is required.
b) Would the project generate c onflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact associated with GHG emissions would occur if the OTNSP was found to be inconsistent with the applicable regulatory plans and policies to reduce GHG emissions, such as AB 32/SB 32, the City’s Climate Action Plan, and SB 375 (specifically, SCAG’s Connect SoCal).

As with the Originally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan consists of redevelopment of the Downtown Newhall area, resulting in increased housing and commercial opportunities. However, as mentioned above in Threshold 3.8(a) , buildout scenarios under the Updated Plan wo uld represent an 0.93% increase in residential development and a 2.9% decrease in non-residential development as compared to the Originally Approved Plan. As such, the change in GHG emission generation would be comparable under the Updated Plan to the Originally Approved Plan. The Updated Plan would consolidate the UG-1 and UG-2 zones from the OTNSP zoning classifications and rename those areas as N. A change in zoning designation would not result in a direct generation of GHG emissions. However, the Update d Plan would facilitate future development of residential and non-residential uses within the OTNSP area which would result in indirect impacts associated with the construction and operation of future projects. While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non-residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project -specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential GHG impacts would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review.

Given the above, the Updated Plan would result in less than significant impacts related to plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. No further analysis is required.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 71
FEBRUARY 2022

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?

d) Be located on a site that 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?

e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard or excessive noise
for people residing or working in the project
area?

f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?

g) Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?

Originally Approved Plan General Discussion
As described in Section 1.2 of this Addendum, since certification of the 2005 PEIR, the State has adopted updates to the CEQA Guidelines (including Appendix G) to add efficiency and clarity to aspects of the guidelines and to incorporate recent case law and legislation. A summary of impacts is provided in Table 1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation from the 2005 OTNSP EIR, above under Section 1.4 of this Addendum.

The 2005 PEIR determined impacts to hazards and hazardous materials would be:

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 72
FEBRUARY 2022
• Less than significant related to release of asbestos, lead, PCBs, etc. during construction activity The following mitigation measures were incorporated in the 2005 PEIR . Although the 2005 PEIR did not identify each mitigation measure with a specified number, this Addendum provides identification as shown below (e.g., MM- HAZ-1):

MM-HAZ-1:
• Los Angeles County Fire Department Haz-Mat Division shall review routes for material transport. • If hazardous materials are suspected/discovered on project site, Haz-Mat Division shall be notified and construction activity shall be temporarily suspended. • During construction, all project-related spills of hazardous materials within or adjacent to project sites shall be cleaned up immediately.
• If hazardous materials are presu med to be present on a demolition site Best Management Practices shall be implemented.

In addition, Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR, Initial Study/Notice of Preparation for Downtown Newhall Specific Plan and Comment Letters, determined some impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would not result in potentially significant impacts, and thus, were not further analyzed in the 2005 PEIR. As such, the following impact determinations from the 2005 Initial Study are as follows:
• No impact related to locat ed on a hazardous materials site; located within an airport land use plan; and located within the vicinity of a private airstrip
• Less than significant related to hazardous emissions
Updated Plan Analysis
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
No New Impact . Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan would not directly create a significant hazard to the public or environment. Additionally, implementation of the Updated Plan (as with the Originally Approved Plan) would not introduce land uses that would pose a significant hazard or result in potential sources of hazardous materials. However, the Originally Approved Plan includes com ponents, such as transportation improvements to San Fernando Road (now Main Street and Railroad Avenue), that the Updated Plan would not change or add to. As such, the 2005 PEIR incorporated mitigation measure MM-HAZ-1, which implements safety procedures which reduced impacts to a less than significant level.

While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non - residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review. Therefore, no new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 73
FEBRUARY 2022
b) Would the pr oject create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
No New Impact. See the discussion provided under Threshold 3.9(a). No new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required. 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? No New Impact. Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR identified William S. Hart High School as the one school within one-quarter mile north of the OTNSP planning area. The Updated Plan, as with the Originally Approved Plan, would facilitate the construction of residential and non -residential development (commercial with limited industrial to the north and south), the construction of which is not anticipated to result in increased emissions of hazardous emissions o r the ongoing handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non - residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the requ ired project-specific CEQA review. Therefore, no new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required. d) Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous mate rials 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?
No New Impact. Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR identified no known hazardous material sites within the OTNSP planning area. As such, impacts were anticipated to not occur. The Updated Plan would result in changes to existing zoning classifications under the Originally Approved Plan and , as with the Originally Approved Plan, facilitate the construction of future development. While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non-residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project -specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review. Therefore, no new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where su ch a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No New Impact. Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR identified no airports or airport land use plan within the OTNSP planning area. As such, no impacts were anticipated to occur. The Updated Plan would result in changes to existing zoning classifications under the Originally Approved Plan and facilitate the construction

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 74
FEBRUARY 2022
of future development. While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non -residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evalua te their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project -specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review. Therefore, no new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required. f) Would the project impair implementation of or phys ically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No New Impact. As described in Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR, implementation of the Originally Approved Plan would result in substantial changes to the street network within the planning area, including San Fernando Road (now Main Street and Railroad Avenue), and intersections along Lyons and Newhall Avenue.

As such, the 2005 PEIR determined these changes could impact evacuation plans. However, the Updated Plan would not result in a change or addition to plan components beyond the proposed consolidation of zoning classifications. As such, the Updated Plan is not anticipated to result in the direct impairment of emergency evacuation plans. While the Updated Plan w ould allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non-residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project -specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to emergency evacuation plans would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project -specific CEQA review. Therefore, no new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required. g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No New Impact. As described in Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR, portions of the OTNSP planning area are within areas designated as a fire hazard zone (see Section 3.20, Wildfire, of this Addendum for more discussion). However, under the Updated Plan, as with the Originally Approved Plan, redevelopment of the OTNSP planning area would improve fire safety and improve existing buildings to current standards and regulations related to fire safety.

While the Updated Plan wou ld allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non - residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future s ubsequent projects would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to wildland fires would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review. Therefore, no new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 75
FEBRUARY 2022

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality?

b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, 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 offsite;

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; or

iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?

e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?

Originally Approved Plan General Discussion
As described in Section 1.2 of this Addendum, since certification of the 2005 PEIR, the State has adopted updates to the CEQA Guidelines (including Appendix G) to add efficiency and clarity to aspects of the guidelines and to incorporate recent case law and legislation. A summary of impacts is provided in Table 1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation from the 2005 OTNSP EIR, above under Section 1.4 of this Addendum.

The 2005 PEIR determined impacts to hydrology and water quality would be:

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 76
FEBRUARY 2022
• Less than significant related to development within a 100-year flood hazard area; alteration of the existing drainage patterns; groundwater recharge capacity; increase flows to existing stormwater infrastructure; consistency with the Basin Plan; cumulatively considerable effects related to impervious surfaces and water quality; and risk of soils releasing hazardous materials during construction The following mitigation measures were incorporated in the 2005 PEIR . Although the 2005 PEIR did not identify each mitigation measure with a specified number, this Addendum provides identification as shown below (e.g., MM- HYD-1):

MM-HYD-1: Prior to issuance of grading permits for property wholly or partially located within the Flood Hazard Area, developers shall provide the City with required documentation, and pay all required fees.

Development within designated flood zone shall ensure that structures are elevated at least one foot above Flood Hazard Area, per City’s Floodplain Management policies Projects modifying the configuration of any floodway shall submit a report prepared by a qualified hydrologist, which identifies impacts and outlines solutions which maintain or replace floodway function and values.

MM-HYD-2: The proposed Specific Plan includes a Stormwater Management program (refer to Mitigation Included in Project Description in Section 5.3).

In the case that the specific stormwater protection measures proposed in the Specific Plan are not feasible at the time construction is proposed, options which achieve the similar or better function or value can be considered.

MM-HYD-3: NPDES Permits required for projects in excess of one acre.

Erosion control measures required if run -off impacts creek - straw bales, siltation fences, berms and basins.

Mitigation measures addressed on a project by project bases, depending on size and level of disturbance.

In addition, Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR, Initial Study/Notice of Preparation for Downtown Newhall Specific Plan and Comment Letters , determined some impacts related to hydrology and water quality would not result in potentially significant impacts, and thus, were not further analyzed in the 2005 PEIR. As such, the following impact determinations from the 2005 Initial Study are as follows:
• No impact related to inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow • Less than significant related to water quality standard violations; substantial erosion; flooding; polluted runoff; and water quality degradation

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 77
FEBRUARY 2022
Updated Plan Analysis
a) Would the project violate any water qua lity standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
No New Impact. As described in the 2005 PEIR, implementation of the OTNSP would result in potential impacts to the Newhall Creek and groundwater from polluted runoff as a result of construction activity. As such, the 2005 PEIR incorporated mitigation measure MM-HYD-3, which would require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for future subsequent projects in excess of one acre and implement erosion control measures during construction activities to reduce impacts to water quality.

Therefore, impacts were determined to be less than significant with mitigation.

The Updated Plan would not result in direct physical impacts to the environment. The Updated Plan would result in changes to existing zoning classifications under the Originally Approved Pla n and facilitate the construction of future development. While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non-residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this t ime to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project -specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to water quality would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review. Additionally, future subsequent projects would be subject to previously adopted mitigation measures such as MM-HYD-3 to reduce impacts to water quality. Therefore, no new or differen t impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.
b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? No New Impact. As discussed in the 2005 PEIR, development planned under the OTNSP would result in similar amounts of impermeable surfaces as under existing conditions. Similarly, the Updated Plan would not result in changes or addition to plan components identified within the Originally Approved Plan with exception of the proposed consolidation of zoning classifications within the OTNSP. As such, impacts related to groundwater supplies would not directly occur as a result of the Updated Plan. While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non -residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project -specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to water quality would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review. Therefore, no new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 78
FEBRUARY 2022
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 or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ii) Substantially increase t he rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
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?
No New Impact. As described in the 2005 PEIR, the OTNSP planning area is currently served by existing stormwater infrastructure which manages the flow of drainage from existing conditions. Stormwater lines are located along Newhall Avenue, Railroad Avenue, and San Fernando Road. Additionally, as ment ioned previously, the OTNSP planning area is largely developed, paved, and otherwise impermeable (City of Santa Clarita 2005b). Furthermore, the Originally Approved Plan identified strategies, policies, and specific actions to improve stormwater infiltration in the planning area. For example, the 2005 PEIR incorporated mitigation measures MM-HYD-1, which would implement procedures for development proposed within a flood hazard area, and MM-HYD-2, which would implement a Stormwater Management program.

Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level.

Implementation of the Updated Plan would not change existing conditions nor would it differ from or add to plan components under the Originally Approved Plan. As such, similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan would not divert the flow of surface runoff from existing infrastructure and drainage patterns.

The Updated Plan would result in the consolidation of existing zoning cl assifications and would facilitate the construction of future development. While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non -residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too spe culative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review. Therefore, no new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required. d) In flood haz ard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No New Impact. The 2005 PEIR identified areas within the OTNSP which are located within a flood hazard zone. As such, the Originally Approved Plan was de signed to rehabilitate or replace housing and other structures currently within a designated flood zone and further subject future subsequent projects to applicable requirements under the Uniform Building Code, for example. Moreover, compliance with applicable regulations would reduce impacts related to flood hazard. Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan would not result in the designation of land uses within flood-prone areas.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 79
FEBRUARY 2022
Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR determined the OTNSP planning area is too distant from both the ocean and major waterbodies for tsunami or seiches to pose a risk. Additionally, the Initial Study determined no impact would occur related to mudflows. Under the Updated Plan, the OTNSP planning area would not change location and there have been no changes in circumstance to the findings in the 2005 PEIR. As such, no new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No New Impact. The 2005 PEIR states the OTNSP planning area is located within the Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. Under the Originally Approved Plan, proposed land uses were determined to not substantially change and, therefore, would not conflict with the Basin Plan. Additionally, the increased infiltration, bioswales, and stormwater management program included in the Originally Approved Plan would further the objectives of the Basin Plan to protect the public health and welfare and to maintain or enhance water quality. Therefore, impacts were considered less than significant under the Originally Approved Plan.

The Updated Plan would result in the consolidation of existing zoning classifications and would facilitate the construction of future development. While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non -residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review. Therefore, no new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 80
FEBRUARY 2022

3.11 Land Use and Planning

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) 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?

Originally Approved Plan General Discussion
A consistency analysis was prepared for the 2005 PEIR to demonstrate consistency between the Originally Approved Plan with the City’s General Plan’s goals and policies. Provisions of the General Plan were reviewed for their relevance to the Specific Plan in terms of scope, purpose, and/or content. As such, analy sis was conducted to ensure consistency with the Land Use, Housing, Community Design, Economic Development /Community Revitalization, Human Resources, Public Services and Facilities, Park and Recreation, Air Quality, Noise, and Safety Elements of the Genera l Plan. In addition, the 2005 PEIR contains discussion on the Originally Approved Plan’s consistency with the City’s Zoning Ordinance, Redevelopment Agency Five -Year Implementation Plan, the City’s Beautification Master Plan, the SCAQMD Basin Plan, and the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).

Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR, Initial Study /Notice of Preparation for Downtown Newhall Specific Plan and Comment Letters , determined some impacts related to land use and planning would not result in potentially significant impacts, and thus, were not further analyzed in the 2005 PEIR. As such, the following impact determinations from the 2005 Initial Study are as follows:
• No impact related to conflict with applicable habitat conservation plan • Less than significant related to physical division of an established community Updated Plan Analysis
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No New Impact. The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a linear feature (e.g., a major highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a means of access (e.g., a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community or between a co mmunity and outlying area. The Updated Plan would not physically divide an established community. Instead, the Updated Plan would consolidate the UG-1 and UG-2 zones from the OTNSP zoning classifications and rename those areas as N. The proposed re-zoning would not result in physical effects to the environment. Future action within the N zone would allow for more types of residential and non-residential land uses within previously limited areas zoned UG-1. As such, similar to the Originally Approved Plan, d evelopment proposed in the OTNSP would not physically divide an established community. Further, the Originally Approved Plan seeks to enhance multi -modal linkages for the existing community. The Updated Plan would not change those

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 81
FEBRUARY 2022
components of the OTNSP. Therefore, no new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required. 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? No New Impact . As described in the 2005 PEIR, the OTNSP was created in order to transform the commercial character of Downtown Newhall into a mixed use, pedestrian oriented, economically vital center, consistent with the vision for Downtown Newhall expressed in the City’ s General Plan. Thus, the OTNSP resulted in new land use categories as introduced by the Originally Approved Plan. These new land use categories include UG-2 and UG -1, which are not new land uses not foreseen in the General Plan.

Rather, these land uses were reapportioned within the area according to the vision expressed in the OTNSP.

The Originally Approved Plan was found to be consistent with the City’s General Plan goals and policies under the analysis presented in Chapter 4, Consistency with Plans and Policies, of the 2005 PEIR . As mentioned above, Chapter 4 of the PEIR demonstrated consistency with the Land Use, Housing, Community Design, Economic Development /Community Revitalization, Human Resources, Public Servic es and Facilities, Park and Recreation, Air Quality, Noise, and Safety Elements of the General Plan. Additionally, the 2005 PEIR contains discussion on the Originally Approved Plan’s consistency with the City’s Zoning Ordinance, Redevelopment Agency Five -Year Implementation Plan, the City’s Beautification Master Plan, the SCAQMD Basin Plan, and SCAG’s RTP.

The Updated Plan would consolidate the UG-1 and UG-2 zones from the OTNSP zoning classifications and rename those areas as N . Therefore, the Updated Plan would not result in a change in consistency as detailed in the 2005 PEIR. Furthermore, the adoption of a specific plan amendment (such as the Updated Plan) would establish zoning and development standards to guide future development on site. When a specific plan is adopted in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code, the specific plan may effectively supersede portions or all of the current zoning regulations for specified parcels or plan area and becomes an independent set of zoning regulations that prov ide specific direction to the type and intensity of uses permitted, and may define other types of design and permitting criteria. Upon approval, the proposed amendment to the OTNSP (Updated Plan) would be adopted by ordinance and serve as the primary zoning document for the OTNSP planning area. Where the Updated Plan is silent, the relevant sections and requirements of land use regulations shall apply. The Updated Plan supersedes any conflict with the City’s zoning regulations, as shown by the consolidation of zones UG-1 and UG-2 to N. Therefore, upon approval of the specific plan amendment, the Updated Plan would be consistent with the City’s Municipal Code and General Plan.

As with the Originally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project site adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. No new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 82
FEBRUARY 2022

3.12 Mineral Resources

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) 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) 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?

Originally Approved Plan General Discussion
Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR, Initial Study /Notice of Preparation for Downtown Newhall Specific Plan and Comment Letters , determined impacts related to mineral resources would not result in potentially significant impacts, and thus, were not further analyzed in the 2005 PEIR. As such, the following impact determinations from the 2005 Initial Study are as follows:
• Less than significant related to loss of availability of regionally valuable mineral resources and locally important mineral resources
Updated Plan Analysis
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?
No New Impact. As stated in Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR, the OTNSP area is currently developed and mineral resource extraction operations are neither active nor anticipated given existing developed conditions. According to the California Department of Conservation, there are no active mining operations within or adjacent to the OTNSP area (DOC 2021b). Furthermore, Chapter 4, The Code, of the OTNSP does not permit mineral resource extraction activities to occur within the allowed u ses of the planning ar ea.

Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan would not result in the addition of mineral resource extraction uses for regionally important mineral resources. No new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required. 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? No New Impact. As stated in Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR, the OTNSP area is currently developed and mineral resource extraction operations are neither active nor anticipated given existing developed conditions. According to the California Department of Conservation, there are no active mining operations within or adjacent to the OTNSP area (DOC 2021b). Furthermore, Chapter 4, The Code, of the OTNSP does not permit mineral resource extraction activities to occur within the allowed uses of the planning area.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 83
FEBRUARY 2022
Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan would not result in the addition of mineral resource extraction uses for locally important mineral resources. No new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 84
FEBRUARY 2022

3.13 Noise

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
XIII. NOISE – Would the project result in:
a) 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) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) 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 two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?

Originally Approved Plan General Discussion
The 2005 PEIR determined impacts to noise would be:
• Significant and unavoidable related to traffic -generated noise and temporary increase in ambient noise during construction
• Less than significant related to parking garage noise; ground vibration and noise associated with the train station; sensitive residential land uses; and cumulatively considerable traffic noise effects The following mitigation measures were incorporated in the 2005 PEIR . Although the 2005 PEIR did not identify each mitigation measure with a specified number, this Addendum provides identification as shown below (e.g., MM- NOI-1):

MM-NOI-1: Appropriate acoustical treatments and noise insulation features shall be incorporated into the design of commercial buildings surrounding parking garages, such that interior noise standards of 45 dBA are maintained.

A detailed acoustical analysis shall be conducted when the potential for interior noise impacts are identified.

MM-NOI-2: Outdoor spaces shall generally be designed so that noise from railroad is attenuated through buildings or other intervening structures.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 85
FEBRUARY 2022
MM-NOI-3: The proposed Specific Plan designates tree planting throughout the planning area, benefiting residents and visitors by reducing perception of traffic noise and nuisance.

Noise levels at sensitive receptors located along Lyons Avenue shall be monitored as traffic levels increase. If noise increases above acceptable thresholds are discerned, the City shall design and install necessary attenuating features, such as sound walls.

MM-NOI-4: Prior to approval of mixed-use projects involving commercial tenants with nighttime activities City shall ensure that noise compatibility has been addressed such that applicable standards are met.

MM-NOI-5: Activities:
• All construction activity in the planning area subject to the City Noise Ordinance. • For construction activity noise attenuation techniques employed as needed. • Group noisy activities together in time, rather than spreading them out intermittently.

Equipment:
• Equip diesel equipment with factory -recommended exhaust mufflers a nd steel muffling sleeves. Provide portable noise barriers around jack hammering, and barriers constructed of 3/4-inch plywood lined with 1-inch thick fiberglass on the work side. Electrical power shall be used to run air compressors and similar power tool s, when feasible. Compressor hoods shall be closed while equipment is in operation. Use electrically powered rather than gasoline or diesel-powered forklifts.

Operations:
• Keep noisy equipment as far as possible from noise- sensitive site boundaries. • Work in or near occupied buildings, the Contractor is cautioned to keep noise associated with any activities to a minimum.
• Designate a haul route and staging plan
In addition, Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR, Initial Study/Notice of Preparation for Downtown Newhall Specific Plan and Comment Letters, determined some impacts related to noise would not result in potentially significant impacts, and thus, were not further analyzed in the 2005 PEIR. As such, the following impact determinations from the 2005 Initial Study are as follows:
• No impact related to being located within an airport land use plan and within the vicinity of a private airstrip

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 86
FEBRUARY 2022
Updated Plan Analysis
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?
No New Impact. As described in the 2005 PEIR , impacts related to noise generated by parking garage activity were determined to be significant to surrounding uses. As such, the 2005 PEIR incorporated MM- NOI-1, which requires installation of appropriate acoustical treatments and noise insulation features for parking garages. Additionally, MM-NOI-4 ensures noise generated from nighttime activities of mixed -use projects would meet applicable noise standards.

The Updated Plan does not include additions or modifications to the OTNSP transportation or other plan components identified in the Originally Approved Plan. The Updated Plan would instead only consolidate the UG -1 and UG -2 zones into the newly designated N zone. Additionally, the Updated Plan is a policy document and would not result in direct physical changes to the en vironment. While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non -residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects are required to comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance, and are subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed.

Potential impacts related to substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review.

Given the above , the Updated Plan would incorporate previously adopted MM-NOI-1 and MM-NOI-4 (as applicable) to reduce impacts to sensitive residential land uses. Future subsequent projects would be subject to these previously adopted mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts during project-specific CEQA review.

Furthermore, the 2005 PEIR identified potentially significant impacts related to construction noise. As such, mitigation measure MM-NOI-5, which regulates construction activities, equipment, and operations , was incorporated. However, even with the incorporation of this mitigation measure, the 2005 PEIR determined that impacts would be significant and unavoidable related to construction noise. Similarly, in regard to off- site traffic noise impacts, the 2005 PEIR incorporated mitigation measure MM-NOI-3, which enabled a tree planting program to reduce noise levels at sensitive receptors. However, even with the incorporation of this mitigation measure, the 2005 PEIR determined impacts would be significant and unavoidable related to traffic noise. As discussed above, the Updated Plan proposes nominal changes to zoning which would result no new or different impacts than previously analyzed under the 2005 PEIR. Additionally, even with the incorporation of MM-NOI-5 and MM-NOI-3, impacts under the Updated Plan would be significant and unavoidable to construction noise and off-site traffic noise.

Given the above, impacts would be comparable to those previously analyzed under the 2005 PEIR; no new or more severe impacts would occur. No further analysis is required. b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No New Impact . As described in the 2005 PEIR , future subsequent projects implemented under the Originally Approved Plan and proposed near the train station would be exposed to increased grou nd vibration and noise. As such, the 2005 PEIR incorporated mitigation measure MM-NOI-2, which regulates

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 87
FEBRUARY 2022
design placement of outdoor spaces away from existing railroads to reduce railroad noise which may expose development to ground vibration and noise. Implementation of MM-NOI-2 reduced impacts to a less than significant level.

As with the Originally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non -residential development. However, the Updated Plan is a policy document and would not result in direct physical changes to the environment. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review. Furthermore, similar to the 2005 PEIR, the Updated Plan would be subject to mitigation measure MM-NOI-2, which regulates design placement of outdoor spaces away from existing railroads to reduce railroad noise which may expose development to ground vibration and noise. As such, with the incorporation of this mitigation measure, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, no new or different impacts would occur than those previously analyzed under the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.
c) 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 two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No New Impact. As described in Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR, the OTNSP area is not within the vicinity of a public or private airport. Therefore, as with the Originally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan would result in no impact related to the exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Therefore, no new or different impacts would occur than those previously analyzed under the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 88
FEBRUARY 2022

3.14 Population and Housing

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:
a) 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)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?

Originally Approved Plan General Discussion
Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR, Initial Study /Notice of Preparation for Downtown Newhall Specific Plan and Comment Letters, determined impacts related to population and housing would not result in potentially significant impacts, and thus, were not further analyzed in the 2005 PEIR. As such, the following impact determinations from the 2005 Initial Study are as follows:
• Less than significant impact related to the displacement of existing housing or people Updated Plan Analysis
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 exa mple, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No New Impact. As described in Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR, the Originally Approved Plan’s buildout would result in the development of approximately 712 net new dwelling units and a growth of 2,670 people over the population existing at the time the PEIR’s analysis. The PEIR determined impacts associated with population growth could be significant. Please see the analysis found within Sections 3.15, Public Services, and 3.17, Transportation, among others throughout this Addendum for more discussion.

The Updated Plan would consolidate the UG-1 and UG-2 zones from the OTNSP zoning classifications and rename those areas as N. Table 4 details the Updated Plan’s anticipated buildout based on 2021 existing conditions. Since the adoption of the Originally Approved Plan, 2021 existing conditions represent a net gain of 29 dwelling units and a net loss of 155,546 square feet of non -residential development. Table 4 also demonstrates the Updated Plan’s build out assumptions is based on the same considerations of lot area, buildable area, and percent built to new standards for each zone. Under the Updated Plan, the total at buildout increases by 13 dwelling units and decrease s by 36,498 square feet of non -residential development, representing a 0.93% increase in dwelling units and a 2.9% decrease in non -residential

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 89
FEBRUARY 2022
development, over the Originally Approved Plan. The changes in buildout attribute to the change in existing conditions and not a result of proposed zoning changes under the Updated Plan. Similarly, the total population buildout under the Updated Plan would result in a n increase of approximately 48 residents.

Therefore, the Updated Plan’s anticipated buildout and population growth represent a nominal change as compared to the Originally Approved Plan.

Furthermore, the Updated Plan does not include additions or modifications to the OTNSP transportation or other plan components identified in the Originally Approved Plan . Moreover, the Updated Plan does not include the construction of a new roadway or substantial infrastructure improvements. The Updated Plan would only involve substantive zoning changes for areas currently designated as UG-1 and UG-2. As such, the Updated Plan would not indirectly induce substantial unplanned population growth through the extension of roads or other infrastructure. No new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required. b) Would the project displac e substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No New Impact. As described above, the 2005 PEIR determined the Originally Approved Plan would result in less than significant impacts related to the displacement of existing housing or people. The Updated Plan would consolidate the UG-1 and UG-2 zones from the OTNSP zoning classifications and rename those areas as N. Implementation of the Updated Plan would result in a wider variety of development types within areas zoned N than previously permitted under the Originally Approved Plan’s zoning classifications . Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, implementation of the Updated Plan would not require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Existing housing and populations would be only temporarily displaced as residential areas are redeveloped. As such, impacts would be le ss than significant. No new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 90
FEBRUARY 2022

3.15 Public Services

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
XV. 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 significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?

Originally Approved Plan General Discussion
The 2005 PEIR determined impacts to public services would be:
• Less than significant related to fire services; police services; schools; park facilities; cumulative considerable effects to police and fire services; cumulatively considerable effects to schools; and cumulatively considerable effects to park facilities
The following mitigation measures were incorporated in the 2005 PEIR. Although the 2005 PEIR did not identify each mitigation measure with a specified number, this Addendum provides identification as shown below (e.g., MM- PUB-1):

MM-PUB-1: Measures to apply to specific projects:
• Multiple ingress/egress access for the circulation of traffic, and emergency response. • Project shall comply with applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants.
• All applicable fire code, and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire hydrants, fire flows, brush clearance and fuel modification plans, must be met. • Specific fire/safety requirements for construction phase will be addressed at building and fire plan check. Fire and life safely requirements may apply. • New building shall be accessible to Fire Department apparatus by way of access roadways, with an all-weather surface of not less than prescribed width. • Access roads maintain 10 feet of brush clearance on each side. Fire access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance clear-to-sky with the exception of protected tree species. • Fire Department requirements for access, fire flows, and hydrants addressed during permitting. • Required fire sprinkler systems for some residential and most commercial occupancies. • Final fire flows based on building size, relationship to other structures, property lines, and types.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 91
FEBRUARY 2022
• Fire hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet in commercial areas and shall meet specific Mitigation requirements found in Section 5.11.
• Turning radii shall not be less than 32 feet.
• All on site driveway/roadways shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 28 feet, clear-to- sky.
• The 28 feet in width shall be increased in residential and non-residential developments when necessary (refer to Section 5.11).
• Residential with density of more than four units/acre have cul -de-sac exceptions (refer to Section 5.11).
• Single Family detached homes shall require a minimum fire flow of 1,250 gallon s per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for a two -hour duration. Two family dwelling units (duplexes) shall require a fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for a two –hour duration. When th ere are five or more units taking access to a single driveway the minimum fire flow shall be increased to 1,500 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for a two-hour duration. • Fire hydrant spacing in residential shall be 600 feet and shall meet Mitigation requirements found in Section 5.11.
• A Fire Department approved turning area shall be provided for all driveways exceeding 150 feet in length and at the end of all cul-de-sacs.
• Fire Department access shall provide a minimum unobst ructed width of 28 feet, clear -to-sky and be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any single unit. • Streets or driveways within the development shall meet Mitigation requirements found in Section 5.11.
• All access devices and gates shall meet Mitigation requirements found in Section 5.11. • All access devices and gates must comply with California code of Regulations, Title 19, Article

3.05 and Article 3.16.

MM-PUB-2: The proposed Specific Plan discusses the inclusion of the police substation in the new Community Center.

MM-PUB-3: Proposed Specific Plan includes improvements to William S. Hart Park and the enhancement of connections between local parks and trails.

MM-PUB-4: Schools are considered mitigated by the continued imposition of developer’s fees.

In addition, Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR, Initial Study/Notice of Preparation for Downtown Newhall Specific Plan and Comment Letters, determined some impacts related to public services would not result in potentially significant impacts, and thus, were not further analyzed in the 2005 PEIR. As such, the following impact determinations from the 2005 Initial Study are as follows:
• Less than significant impact related to other public facilities • Less than significant with mitigation incorporated related to schools

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 92
FEBRUARY 2022
Updated Plan Analysis
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 significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?
No New Impact. As described in the 2005 PEIR, continued development in the OTNSP planning area would place additional demand on fire services. However, the OTNSP area is served by established fire service, including necessary infrastructure and personnel. As such, impacts were determined to be less than significant with the implementation of existing requirements (including fees and code requirements) for future subsequent projects under the Originally Approved Plan.

Under the Updated Plan, the total at buildout scenarios would increase by 13 dwelling units and decrease by 36,498 square feet of non -residential development as compared to the Originally Approved Plan.

Moreover, the total population buildout under the Updated Plan would result in a nominal increase of approximately 48 residents as compared to the Originally Approved Plan’s population buildout (representing an 0.91% increase). A nominal increase in population growth would not result in a substantive need to maintain acceptable service ratios , response tim es, or other performance objectives for fire protection services. As such, the nominal change in population growth would not result in substantial adverse environmental impacts associated with the construction of new or physically altered fire protection facilities.

Additionally, the Updated Plan is a policy document and would not result in direct physical changes to the environment. While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non-residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to fire protection services would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review.

Furthermore, similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan would incorporate previously adopted mitigation measure MM-PUB-1, which outlines specific measures for implementation of the OTNSP. The application of MM-PUB-1 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, as with the Originally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan would result in less than significant impacts related to fire protection services. Comparable impacts to those identified for the Originally Approved Plan would occur under the Updated Plan. No further analysis is required.

Police protection?
No New Impact. As described in the 2005 PEIR , implementation of the Originally Approved Plan would place additional demand upon police services. However, the OTNSP planning area is currently developed and served by existing police services. Additionally, the Originall y Approved Plan implements a number of components designed to increase public safety in the area. Furthermore, future subsequent projects would be subject to development impact fees and property tax revenue. As such, impacts were found to be less than significant.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 93
FEBRUARY 2022
Under the Updated Plan, the total at buildout scenarios would increase by 13 dwelling units and decrease by 36,498 square feet of non -residential development as compared to the Originally Approved Plan.

Moreover, the total population buildout un der the Updated Plan would result in a nominal increase of approximately 48 residents as compared to the Originally Approved Plan’s population buildout (representing an 0.91% increase). A nominal increase in population growth would not result in a substantive need to maintain acceptable service ratios , response times, or other performance objectives for police protection services. As such, the nominal change in population growth would not result in substantial adverse environmental impacts associate d with the construction of new or physically altered police protection facilities.

Additionally, the Updated Plan is a policy document and would not result in direct physical changes to the environment. While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non-residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to police protection services would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review.

Furthermore, the 2005 PEIR incorporated mitigation measure MM-PUB-2, which discusses the inclusion of the police substation in the new Community Center. As with the Originally Approved Plan, implementation of MM-PUB-2 would reduce impacts of the Updated Plan to a less than significant level. Therefore, as with the Originally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan would result in less than significant impacts related to police protection services. Comparable impacts to those of the Originally Approved Plan would occur under the Updated Plan. No further analysis is required.

Schools?
No New Impact. As described in the 2005 PEIR , implementation of the Originally Approved Plan would place additional demand upon schools in the area that were, at the time of the 2005 PEIR, enrolled beyond capacity. As such, the 2005 PEIR incorporated mitigation measure MM-PUB-4, which collects school impact fees, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Under the Updated Plan, the total at buildout scenarios would nominally increase by 13 d welling units as compared to the Originally Approved Plan (representing an 0.93% increase) . Although the Updated Plan would not directly result in the construction of the projected residential development, the Updated Plan would result in an indirect student enrollment generation to the surrounding area. As described in the 2005 PEIR and under existing conditions, the planning area is within the boundaries of the William S. Hart Union High School District and the Newhall Elementary School District. In the 2019-2020 school year, Newhall Elementary School District had a cumulative total of 41,617 students enrolled (Ed-Data 2021a). Similarly, the William S. Hart Union High School District had a cumulative total of 6,267 students enrolled (Ed -Data 2021b).

Since the OTNSP area is served by multiple school districts, the projected enrollment generation is calculated by utilizing the statewide average yield factor, provided by the State Allocation Board under the Office of Public School Construction (DGS 2008) . The statewide average student yield factor for unified school districts is 0.7 students per dwelling unit. Conservatively assuming all 13 dwelling units would generate a student population, the Updated Plan could generate up to approximately 9 new students. This

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 94
FEBRUARY 2022
accounts for a nominal percentage for both the William S. Hart Union High School District and the Newhall Elementary School District. Therefore, the Updated Plan would not result in substantial adverse environmental impacts associated with the con struction of new or physically altered school facilities.

Furthermore, as with the Originally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan would incorporate previously adopted mitigation measure MM-PUB-4, which collects school impact fees from developers of new residen tial, commercial, and industrial developments within the boundaries of the applicable school district for the purposes of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. Comparable impacts to those of the Originally Approved Plan would occur under the Proposed Plan. No further analysis is required.

Parks?
No New Impact. As described in the 2005 PEIR , identified a deficit parkland to population comparison within the City. However, existing parks (such as William S. Hart Park) reduce the impa ct burden due to proximity to the OTNSP planning area. Furthermore, the City’s General Plan does not identify any recreational needs in or near the planning area. Additionally, park development fees would be required for future subsequent projects. Although the 2005 PEIR determined less than significant impacts, mitigation measure MM-PUB-3 was incorporated, which includes improvements to William S. Hart Park and the enhancement of connections between local parks and trails . The 2005 OTNSP recommendations to improve connections resulted in the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Newhall Avenue and Main Street. This serves as southern gateway to Old Town Newhall while also improving access via new crosswalks across Newhall Avenue.

Under the Updated Plan, the total at buildout scenarios would increase by 13 dwelling units as compared to the Originally Approved Plan. Moreover, the total population buildout under the Updated Plan would result in a nominal increase of approximately 48 residents as compared to the Originally Approved Plan’s population buildout (representing an 0.91% increase). A nominal increase in population growth would not result in a substantive need to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives for parks.

As such, the nominal change in population growth would not result in substantial adverse environ mental impacts associated with the construction of new or physically altered park facilities.

Additionally, the Updated Plan is a policy document and would not result in direct physical changes to the environment. While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non-residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projec ts would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to park would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project -specific CEQA review.

Furthermore, similar to the Origi nally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan would incorporate previously adopted mitigation measure MM-PUB-3. Therefore, as with the Originally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan would result in less than significant impacts related to parks. No new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 95
FEBRUARY 2022
Other public facilities?
No New Impact. Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR determined impacts related other public services would be less than significant. The Originally Approved Plan included plans for a new library facility, therefore, impacts to library functions were considered to be beneficial.

Under the Updated Plan, the total at buildout scenarios would increase by 13 dwelling units and decrease by 36,498 square feet of non-residential development as compared to the Originally Approved Plan. These changes in buildout attribute to the change in existing conditions (as shown in Table 4) and not a result of proposed zoning changes under the Updated Plan. As such, the total population buildout under the Updated Plan would result in a nominal increase of approximately 48 residents as compared to the Originally Approved Plan’s population buildout (representing an 0.91% increase) . A nominal increase in populatio n growth would not result in a substantive need to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives for other public services, such as libraries. As such, the nominal change in population growth would not result in substantial adverse environmental impacts associated with the construction of new or physically altered government facilities. Therefore, as with the Originally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan would result in less than significant impacts related to other public services. No new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 96
FEBRUARY 2022

3.16 Recreation

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
XVI. 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) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?

Originally Approved Plan General Discussion
The 2005 PEIR states the City of Santa Clarita provides and maintains a number of park facilities, including 18 City parks totaling 240 acres. William S. Hart Park, located along the southwest boarder of planning area, is operated by Los Angeles County Parks and Recreation, and totals over 265 acres. Creekview Park is a 5-acre City-owned park that is located within the planning area, east of Park Street. The Newhall Community Park is another City -owned park that is in close proximity to the planning area, it totals over 14 acres. The City also maintains a trail system throughout the City. At the time of the Originally Approved Plan, the City maintained a goal of 4 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. However, the City disclosed a deficient of approximately 42% in parkland by this standard (City of Santa Clarita 2005b).

The City further identified funding for park development would be levied on new development through the application of development impact fees. Moreover, parks acquisition would be funded through Quimby Act fees, levied on new residential subdivisions (City of Santa Clarita 2005b).

For more discussion on 2005 PEIR impacts related to recreation, see Section 3.15 of this Addendum.

Updated Plan Analysis
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? No New Impact. As described in the 2005 PEIR , identified a deficit parkland to population comparison within the City. Howeve r, existing parks (such as William S. Hart Park) reduce the impact burden due to proximity to the OTNSP planning area. Furthermore, the City’s General Plan does not identify any recreational needs in or near the planning area. Additionally, park development fees would be required for future subsequent projects. Although the 2005 PEIR determined less than significant impacts, mitigation measure MM-PUB-3 was incorporated, which includes improvements to William S. Hart Park and the enhancement of connections b etween local parks and trails . The 2005 OTNSP recommendations to

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 97
FEBRUARY 2022
improve connections resulted in the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Newhall Avenue and Main Street. This serves as southern gateway to Old Town Newhall while also improving access via new crosswalks across Newhall Avenue.

Under the Updated Plan, the total at buildout scenarios would increase by 13 dwelling units as compared to the Originally Approved Plan. Moreover, the total population buildout under the Updated Plan would result in a nominal increase of approximately 48 residents as compared to the Originally Approved Plan’s population buildout (representing an 0.91% increase). A nominal increase in population growth would not result in a substantial increase in the use of existing parks and recreational facilities.

Additionally, the Updated Plan is a policy document and would not result in direct physical changes to the environment. While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non-residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to recreational facilities would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project- specific CEQA review.

Therefore, similar to the discussion contained in Section 3.15 of this Addendum, the Updated Plan would incorporate previously adopted mitigation measure MM-PUB-3. As with the Originally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan would result in less than significant impacts related to recreational facilities. No new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No New Impact . As described above in Threshold 3.16(a), mitigation measure MM-PUB-3 was incorporated, which includes improvements to William S. Hart Park and the enhancement of connections between local parks and trails. The 2005 OTNSP recommendations to improve connections resulted in the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Newhall Avenue and Main Street. This serves as southern gateway to Old Town Newhall while also improving access via new crosswalks across Newhall Avenue.

The Updated Plan does not include additions or modifications to the OTNSP transportation or other plan components identified in the Originally Approved P lan. The Updated Plan would instead only consolidate the UG -1 and UG -2 zones into the newly designated N zone. Additionally, the Updated Plan is a policy document and would not result in direct physical changes to the environment. While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non -residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project -specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review.

No new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 98
FEBRUARY 2022

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 99
FEBRUARY 2022

3.17 Transportation

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION – Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities?

b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

Originally Approved Plan General Discussion
As described in Section 1.2 of this Addendum, since certification of the 2005 PEIR, the State has adopted updates to the CEQA Guidelines (including Appendix G) to add efficiency and clarity to aspects of the guidelines and to incorporate recent case law and legislation. A summary of impacts is provided in Table 1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation from the 2005 OTNSP EIR, above under Section 1.4 of this Addendum.

The 2005 PEIR determined impacts to transportation and circulation would be:
• Significant and u navoidable related to levels of service (LOS) effects at the intersection of Lyons and Railroad
• Less than significant related to LOS effects at the intersection of San Fernando and Railroad; temporary closure of Railroad Avenue and transit operations; addi tional parking; LOS during AM peak hours; LOS effects at the intersection of San Fernando and 13th Street; public transportation; temporary disruption of traffic patterns during construction
The following mitigation measures were incorporated in the 2005 P EIR. Although the 2005 PEIR did not identify each mitigation measure with a specified number, this Addendum provides identification as shown below (e.g., MM- TRA-1):

MM-TRA-1: Construct a second northbound right -turn lane from San Fernando Road onto Railroa d Avenue.

Accomplished by retaining the existing right-turn lane, converting existing outside through lane into a second right-turn lane, retaining other existing through lane, and providing another through lane to the south.

MM-TRA-2: Relocate the northbound Railroad Avenue bus stop by:

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 100
FEBRUARY 2022
a. widening Railroad Avenue to north for a bus zone, or b. reconfiguring the kiss-and-ride lot to the northwest of Railroad Avenue and Market Street MM-TRA-3: Each of these intersections would be reconstructed under the Specific Plan’s actions such that acceptable levels-of- service would be achieved or maintained.

MM-TRA-4: Reconfigure the San Fernando/13th intersection’s western leg/eastbound approach to consist of one shared left and through lane and one right -turn lane when th e land uses served by the intersection are redeveloped.

MM-TRA-5: Add a second northbound right -turn lane from San Fernando Road onto Railroad Avenue.

Accomplished by retaining existing right-turn lane, converting existing outside through lane into a second right-turn lane, retaining other existing through lane, and providing another through lane to the south.

Relocate railroad crossing gate assembly and widen San Fernando Road southerly.

Restripe lanes on San Fernando Road.

MM-TRA-6: City shall monitor int ersection performance at Railroad/Lyons. Based on results of monitoring efforts conducted, and eventual formal proposal for Dockweiler Drive, City shall design the intersection at the Dockweiler Drive extension to achieve acceptable levels of service.

MM-TRA-7:
• Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. • Provide temporary traffic controls during all phases of construction activities to maintain traffic flow.
• Schedule construction activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial system to off-peak hours to the degree practicable.
• Establish a haul route.
• Consolidate truck deliveries when possible.
• Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on and off site.
• A circulation plan shall be required on a project by project basis if vehicle and pedestrian routes and residential areas conflict with construction activities.

In addition, Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR, Initial Study/Notice of Preparation for Downtown Newhall Specific Plan and Comment Letters, determined some impacts related to transportation would not result in potentially significant impacts, and thus, were not further analyzed in the 2005 PEIR. As such, the following impact determinations from the 2005 Initial Study are as follows:
• No impact related to change in air traffic patterns
• Less than significant impact related hazardous design features; inadequate parking capacity; and conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 101
FEBRUARY 2022
Updated Plan Analysis
a) Would the pr oject conflict with a program , plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? No New Impact. As described above, the 2005 PEIR determined less than significant impacts would occur with mitigation incorporated related to intersection operations and congestion levels of service. The 2005 PEIR incorporated mitigation measures MM-TRA-1 and MM-TRA-3 through MM-TRA-6 to reduce impacts to the following intersections across different scenarios: San Fernando Road and Railroad Avenue, S an Fernando Road and 13 th Street, and Lyons Avenue and Railroad Avenue. However, even with the incorporation of MM-TRA-6, impacts to levels of service for the Lyons Avenue and Railroad Avenue intersection under the 2025 Build Alternative was determined to be significant and unavoidable. The Updated Plan does not include additions or modifications to the OTNSP transportation or other plan components identified in the Originally Approved Plan. The Updated Plan would instead only consolidate the UG -1 and UG -2 zones into the newly designated N zone. Additionally, changes to the State CEQA Guidelines no longer require a utomobile delay and traffic congestion be identified as impacts to be considered on the environment (California Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(2)). As such, policies related to a utomobile delay and traffic congestion would not be applicable per Senate Bill (SB) 743 .

Therefore, impacts related to the consistency with programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system (e.g., LOS) would not occur under the Updated Plan.

The Originally Approved Plan included transportation components designed to create transit -oriented development to encourage Metrolink usage and pedestrian circulation. As such, the 2005 PEIR determined less than significant impacts would occur to transit operations with the incorporation of MM-TRA-2, which outlines design changes to the transit facilities on Railroad Avenue. The Updated Plan would not include new or altered transportation components. Therefore, the Updated Plan would result no new impact than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.

While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non - residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects a re proposed. Potential impacts related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT), as defined in S ection 15064.3(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review.

Given the above, no new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR.

No further analysis is required.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? No New Impact . As described abo ve in Threshold 3.17(a), the 2005 PEIR incorporated mitigation measures MM-TRA-1 and MM-TRA-3 through MM-TRA-6 to reduce impacts to the following intersections across different scenarios: San Fernando Road and Railroad Avenue, San Fernando Road and 13th Street, and Lyons Avenue and Railroad Avenue. However, even with the incorporation of MM-TRA-6, impacts to levels of service for the Lyons Avenue and Railroad Avenue intersection under the 2025 Build Alternative was determined to be significant and unavoidable.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 102
FEBRUARY 2022
The Updated Plan does not include additions or modifications to the OTNSP transportation or other plan components identified in the Originally Approved Plan. The Updated Plan would instead only consolidate the UG-1 and UG-2 zones into the newly designated N zone. Therefore, impacts related to the consistency with programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system (e.g., LOS) would not occur under the Updated Plan. Furthermore, changes to the State CEQA Guidelines no longer require automobile delay and traffic congestion be identified as impacts to be considered on the environment (California Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(2)). As such, policies related to automobile delay and traffic congestion would not be applicable per Senate Bill (SB) 743.

While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non - residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT), as defined in S ection 15064.3(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review.

Given the above, no new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR.

No further analysis is required.
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)? No New Impact . Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR describes transportation plan components under the Originally Approved Plan which were intended to create a pedestrian orientated environment with traffic calming and streetscape improvements. As such, impacts were considered less than significant.

Construction activities under the Originally Approved Plan’s implementation were anticipated to result in temporary disturbance in traffic patterns and access routes. As such , the 2005 PEIR incorporated mitigation measure MM-TRA-7 to reduce construction -related impacts through specified procedures for future subsequent projects . The Updated Plan would incorporate the previously adopted mitigation to ensure impacts are reduced to a less than significant level.

While the Updated Plan would allow for the const ruction and operation of new residential and non - residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects wou ld be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT), as defined in S ection 15064.3(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review.

Given the above, no new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR.

No further analysis is required.
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? No New Impact. As described above, the 2005 PEIR determined less than significant impacts would occur.

Additionally, as noted in Threshold 3.17(c), mitigation measure MM-TRA-7 was incorporated to reduce construction-related impacts to access routes during the im plementation of future subsequent projects.

The Updated Plan would incorporate the same mitigation measure to ensure impacts are reduced to a less

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 103
FEBRUARY 2022
than significant level. However, the implementation of MM-TRA-7 would be ensured during future subsequent projects’ required project -specific CEQA review. While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non-residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adeq uately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project -specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT), as defined in Section 15064.3(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review.

Given the above, no new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR.

No further analysis is required.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 104
FEBRUARY 2022

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical resources as
defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or

b) A resource determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to
a California Native American tribe.

Originally Approved Plan General Discussion
Since certification of the 2005 PEIR, updates to the State CEQA Guidelines hav e gone into effect. One of the revisions to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines was made in 2016 that incorporated threshold questions for tribal cultural resources. The tribal cultural resources section was added to Appendix G after passage of AB 52, which required an updated to the State CEQA Guidelines to ensure that the topic of tribal cultural resources was addressed in CEQA documents. Regarding the topic of tribal cultural resources, AB 52 is applicable to projects that have a notice filed on or after July 1, 2015. The Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Originally Approved Plan was circulated for 30 days from February 3, 2005 to March 4, 2005 . As such, the provisions of AB 52, including the Native American Consultation process established since the preparation of the 2005 PEIR, were not applicable to the Originally Approved Plan.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 105
FEBRUARY 2022
Updated Plan Analysis
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or e ligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? No New Impact. The 2005 PEIR did not evaluate potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. However, as described in Threshold 3.5(a) of this Addendum, potential impacts to historical resources were analyzed.

As stated above, the 2005 PEIR identified particular properties within the OTNSP planning area as eligible for listing as historical resources and to be retained during implementation of the Originally Approved Plan.

Additionally, the 2005 PEIR included discussion applicable to the Originally Approved Plan’s implementation regarding the relocation of the Pardee House from Heritage Junction. In summary, the 2005 PEIR incorporated mitigation measures MM-CUL-1 and MM-CUL-2, which outlines policies and procedures for historical resources and, thus, reduces impacts to a less than significant level.

The Updated Plan would consolidate the UG-1 and UG-2 zones from the OTNSP zoning classifications and rename those areas as N. Moreover, the Updated Plan would not change or include new or different plan components as previously ad opted under the Originally Approved Plan. A change in zoning designation would not result in a direct impact to historical resources. However, the Updated Plan would facilitate future development of residential and non-residential uses within the OTNSP area which would result in indirect impacts associated with the construction and operation of future projects. While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non -residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project -specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impa cts related to historical resources would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review.

As with the Originally Approved Plan, the Updated Plan would incorporate the previously adopted mitigation.

Implementation of previously adopted mitigation measures ( MM-CUL-1 and MM-CUL-2) would reduce impacts to historical resources for future subsequent projects. Therefore, the Updated Plan would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated related to historical resources. No new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 ? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

No New Impact. The 2005 PEIR did not evaluate potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. However, the Updated Plan does not include additional locations not previously addressed in the 2005 PEIR nor does the Updated Plan include new disturbances to previously investigated sites. Given that the provisions of AB 52 were not applicable to the 2005 PEIR and no tribal cultural resource issues were raised at the time the

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 106
FEBRUARY 2022
2005 PEIR was certified, CEQA documents tieri ng from the 2005 PEIR (such as this Addendum) are not required to address issues related to tribal cultural resources (Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 515). Therefore, no further analysis is required.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 107
FEBRUARY 2022

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?

b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry, and multiple dry years?

c) 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) 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 goals?

e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?

Originally Approved Plan General Discussion
As described in Section 1.2 of this Addendum, since certification of the 2005 PEIR, the State has adopted updates to the CEQA Guidelines (including Appendix G) to add efficiency and clarity to aspects of the guidelines and to incorporate recent case law and legislation. A summary of impacts is provided in Table 1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation from the 2005 OTNSP EIR, above under Section 1.4 of this Addendum.

The 2005 PEIR determined impacts to utilities and service systems would be:
• Significant and un avoidable related to cumulatively considerable effects on solid waste generation and regional landfill capacity
• Less than significant related to construction risk to existing infrastructure; increased wastewater flows; increase of wastewater treatment; cumulatively considerable effects on wastewater generation and treatment facilities; increase demand on water supply; increase demand on water suppl y infrastructure; cumulatively considerable effects to the UWMP; and solid waste generation and disposal capacity

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 108
FEBRUARY 2022
The following mitigation measures were incorporated in the 2005 PEIR. Although the 2005 PEIR did not identify each mitigation measure with a specified number, this Addendum provides identification as shown below (e.g., MM- UTL-1):

MM-UTL-1: Proposed Specific Plan incorporates infrastructure improvements necessary to accommodate buildout.

City requires verification of adequate capacity and payment of development fees prior to permit issuance.

In addition, Appendix 1.0 of the 2005 PEIR, Initial Study/Notice of Preparation for Downtown Newhall Specific Plan and Comment Letters, determined impacts related to utilities and service systems would not res ult in potentially significant impacts, and thus, were not further analyzed in the 2005 PEIR. As such, the following impact determinations from the 2005 Initial Study are as follows:
• No impact related exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements; and compliance with federal, State, and local regulations governing solid waste

• Less than significant impact related to construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities
Updated Plan Analysis
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? No New Impact . The 2005 PEIR determined less than significant impacts would occur related to the construction and implementation of the Originally Approved Plan.

The Updated Plan would consolidate the UG-1 and UG-2 zones from the zoning classifications of the OTNSP and rename those areas within the newly designated N zone. Furthermore, the Updated Plan does not include additions or modifications to OTNSP plan components identified in the Originally Approved Plan.

While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non - residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subs equent projects would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to utilities and service systems would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project- specific CEQA review.

Given this, no new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 109
FEBRUARY 2022
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? No New Impact. The 2005 PEIR determined the Originally Approved Plan would facilitate the construction and operation of future subsequent projects which would increase demand on water supply. However , impacts were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation was required.

Similar to the discussion provided in Threshold 3.19(a), above, the Updated Plan would not result in direct physical changes to the environment. Potential impacts related to water supplies would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review. The 2005 PEIR determined less than significant impacts would occur related to sufficient water supplies. Moreover, the Updated Plan would result in nominal changes to the buildout scenarios for residential and non-residential development. These changes include an increase of 13 dwelling units and a decrease of 36,498 square feet of non-residential development anticipated under the Updated Plan. As such, these changes in buildout would not result in new or different impacts than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required. 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?
No New Impact. The 2005 PEIR determined the Originally Approved Plan would facilitate the construction and operation of future subsequent projects which would increase wastewater flows through existing collection infrastructure. As such, the 2005 PEIR incorporated mitigation measure MM-UTL-1, which ensures adequate capacity planning is accommodated in future buildout. Implementation of this mitigation measures reduced impacts to a less than significant level. Furthermore, impacts were found to be less than significant relative to wastewater volume and cumulative impacts related to wastewater generation.

Similar to the discussion provided in Threshold 3.19(a), above, the Updated Plan would not result in direct physical changes to the environment. Potential impacts related to wastewater treatment capacity would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project -specific CEQA review. The 2005 PEIR determined less than significant impacts would occur related to sufficient water supplies. Additionally, mitigation measure MM-UTL-1, which ensures adequate capacity planning is accommodated in future buildout would be incorporated under the Updated Plan for future subsequent projects. No new or different impacts than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR would occur. No further analysis is required. 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 goals? No New Impact. The 2005 PEIR determined the Originally Approved Plan would facilitate the construction and operation of future subsequent projects which would increase solid waste generation and demand for disposal capacity. However, impacts were determined to be less than s ignificant. Furthermore, the 2005 PEIR’s cumulative analysis determined the amount of solid waste generated from the Originally Approved Plan in combination with regional growth would result in significant and unavoidable impacts. No mitigation was incorporated to reduce impacts.

Similar to the discussion provided in Threshold 3.19(b), above, the Updated Plan would not result in direct physical changes to the environment. Potential impacts related to solid waste generation and capacity would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review. Moreover,

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 110
FEBRUARY 2022
the Updated Plan would result in nominal changes to the buildout scenarios for residential and non - residential development. These changes include an increase of 13 dwelling units and a decrease of 36,498 square feet of non-residential development anticipated under the Updated Plan. As such, these changes in buildout would not result in new or different impacts than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No New Impact . The 2005 PEIR identified regulatory requirements such as AB 939, the California Integrated Waste Management Act, which establishes diversion rates for cities and counties relative to solid waste disposal to landfills in an effort to change waste reduction methods. The 2005 PEIR incorporated diversion rates in compliance with AB 939 to calculate impact analyses shown in Threshold 3.19(d). Thus, implementation of the Originally Approved Plan was found to not affect compliance with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Similar to the discussion provided in Threshold 3.19(d), above, the Updated Plan would not result in direct physical changes to the environment. While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non -residential development, the location and design of su ch future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to solid waste reduction compliance would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review.

Given the above, no new or different impacts than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR would occur.

No further analysis is required.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 111
FEBRUARY 2022

3.20 Wildfire

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
XX. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?

b) 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) 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) 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?

Originally Approved Plan General Discussion
Since certification of the 2005 PEIR, updates to the State CEQA Guidelines have gone into effect. One of the revisions to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines involves a more extensive wildfire analysis for projects located in or near state responsibility areas for firefighting or lan ds classified as very high fire hazard severity zones (14 CCR 15000 et seq., as amended December 28, 2018). Wildfire hazards were not specifically addressed in the 2005 PEIR as thresholds of significance; however, the 2005 PEIR analyzed impacts related to wildfire in other sections throughout the PEIR (e.g., Public Services and within the General Plan consistency analysis). For example, the City’s General Plan includes policies and programs to minimize potential damage and hazards resulting from fire. Policies address building material, roadway construction, fire protection service requirements (response time), evacuation/emergency route designation, fuel modification zones, and controlled burns for wildfire prevention. As such, development in any fire hazard area is required to be evaluated by the City for consistency with the fire hazard policies (City of Santa Clarita 2005b).

Updated Plan Analysis
Under existing conditions, portions of the OTNSP area are located in a state responsibility area or in a state - designated very high fire hazard severity zone (CAL FIRE 2021). As such, as under current conditions and as was the case under the Originally Approved Plan, portions of the Updated Plan are susceptible to wildfire risk.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 112
FEBRUARY 2022
a) Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No New Impact. The 2005 PEIR did not evaluate potential impacts to wildfire. However, the Updated Plan would consolidate the UG-1 and UG-2 zones from the zoning classifications of the OTNSP and rename those areas within the newly designated N zone. Furthermore, the Updated Plan does not include additions or modifications to OTNSP plan components identified in the Originally Approved Plan.

While the Updated Plan would allow for the con struction and operation of new residential and non - residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects w ould be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review.

Given this, no new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No New Impact . The 2005 PEIR did not evaluate potential impacts to wildfire. However, s imilar to the discussion in Threshold 3.20(a), the Up dated Plan would not result in direct physical changes to the environment. As such, future subsequent projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. Potential impacts related to wildfire exacerbation would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review. Given this, no new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required. 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? No New Impact. The 2005 PEIR did not evaluate potential impacts to wildfire. However, the Updated Plan would consolidate the UG-1 and UG-2 zones from the zoning classifications of the OTNSP and rename those areas within the newly designa ted N zone. Furthermore, the Updated Plan does not include additions or modifications to OTNSP plan components identified in the Originally Approved Plan. The Updated Plan would not result in direct physical changes to the environment. However, future subsequent projects, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time, would be subject to project - specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. No new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required. 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? No New Impact. The 2005 PEIR did not evaluate potential impacts to wildfire. However, the Updated Plan would not result in direct physical changes to the environment. However, future subsequent projects, the

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 113
FEBRUARY 2022
location and design of such future projects ar e too speculative at this time, would be subject to project - specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed.

Furthermore, the Updated Plan would result in nominal changes to the buildout scenarios for residential and non-residential development. These changes include an increase of 13 dwelling units and a decrease of 36,498 square feet of non-residential development anticipated under the Updated Plan. As such, these changes in buildout would not result in new or different impacts than those pre viously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 114
FEBRUARY 2022

3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
is Required
No New/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?

b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.)

c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?

a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
No New Impact. The Originally Approved Plan included components which would result in direct impacts to the environment. Therefore, the 2005 PEIR incorporated mitigation measures MM-BIO-1 through MM- BIO-6 to reduce potentially s ignificant impacts to a less than significant level. Similarly, potentially significant impacts were identified relative to historical resources. Thus, the 2005 PEIR incorporated mitigation measures MM-CUL-1 and MM-CUL-2, which outlines policies and proced ures for historical resources and, thus, reduces impacts to a less than significant level. Moreover, the 2005 PEIR determined no impact on known archaeological resources would occur. However, actions taken in the event of resources discovery are regulated by State law (i.e., California State Public Resources Code Section 5097.90).

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 115
FEBRUARY 2022
The Updated Plan does not include additions or modifications to the OTNSP plan components identified in the Originally Approved Plan. The Updated Plan would instead only consolidate the UG-1 and UG-2 zones into the newly designated N zone. Additionally, the Updated Plan is a policy document and would not result in direct physical changes to the environment. While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of ne w residential and non -residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too speculative at this time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to biological and cultural resources would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review.

No new or different impacts would occu r than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
No New Impact. The 2005 PEIR analyzed cumulative considerable impacts as a result of the Originally Approved Plan, as further detailed throughout this Addendum. T he Updated Plan would result in nominal changes as compared to the Originally Approved Plan.

The Updated Plan would consolidate the UG-1 and UG-2 zones from the OTNSP zoning classifications and rename those areas as N. Table 4 details the Updated Plan’s anticipated buildout based on 2021 existing conditions. Since the adoption of the Originally Approved Plan, 2021 existing conditions represent a net gain of 29 dwelling units and a net loss of 155,546 square feet of non -residential development. Table 4 also demonstrates the Updated Plan’s buildout assumptions is based on the same considerations of lot area, buildable area, and percent built to new standards for each zone. Under the Updated Plan, the total at buildout increases by 13 dwelling units and decreases by 36,498 square feet of non -residential development, representing a 0.93% increase in dwelling units and a 2.9% decrease in non -residential development, over the Originally Approved Plan. The changes in buildout attribute to the change in existing conditions and not a result of proposed zoning changes under the Updated Plan. Similarly, the total population buildout under the Updated Plan would result in an increase of approximately 48 residents.

Given the above, the Updated Plan would not result in impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. No new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR.

No further analysis is required.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
No New Impact. As further detailed throughout this Addendum, the Updated Plan would not result in new or different impacts as compared to the Originally Approved Plan as analyzed in the 2005 PEIR. Therefore, the Updated Plan would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Moreover, the Updated Plan is a policy doc ument and would not result in direct physical changes to the environment. While the Updated Plan would allow for the construction and operation of new residential and non-residential development, the location and design of such future projects are too spec ulative at this

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 116
FEBRUARY 2022
time to adequately evaluate their potential environmental effects. As such, future subsequent projects would be subject to project-specific CEQA review at the time such projects are proposed. Potential impacts related to biological and cult ural resources would be examined in accordance with CEQA as part of the required project-specific CEQA review.

No new or different impacts would occur than those previously identified in the 2005 PEIR. No further analysis is required.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 117
FEBRUARY 2022

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 118
FEBRUARY 2022
4 References and Preparers

4.1 References Cited
14 CCR 15000–15387 and Appendices A through L. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.

CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2021. Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) Viewer.

Accessed November 2021. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/
California Public Resources Code, Section 21000–21177. California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.

Caltrans (California State Department of Transportation). 2021. Scenic Highways: State Scenic Highway Map.

Accessed December 2021.
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1 aacaa
City of Santa Clarita. 2005a. Downtown Newhall Specific Plan (now known as Old Town Newhall Specific Plan).

Adopted December 22, 2005. Revised December 8, 2020.

City of Santa Clarita. 2005b. Downtown Newhall Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Public Review Draft. June 15, 2005. State Clearinghouse Number 2005021012.

DGS (Department of General Services). 2008. State Allocation Board, Office of Public School Construction. State of California Enrollment Certification/ Projection: School Facility Program. SAB 50-01 (Rev 06/08). https://www.dgsapps.dgs.ca.gov/OPSC/ab1014/sab50-01instructions.pdf.

DOC (California Department of Conservation). 2021a. Department of Conservation, Interactive Web Maps.

Important Farmland Time Series. Accessed November 2021. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/agriculture/DataViewer/index.html DOC (California Department of Conservation). 2021b. Department of Conservation. Mines Online (MOL). Accessed November 2021. Web. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html Ed-Data (Education Data Partnership). 2021a. Newhall Elementary School District. District Summary. Accessed November 2021. https://www.ed-data.org/district/Los-Angeles/Newhall.

Ed-Data (Education Data Partnership). 2021b. William S. Hart Union High School District. District Summary.

Accessed November 2021. https://www.ed-data.org/district/Los-Angeles/William-S.-Hart-Union-High.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/ceqa-air-quality- handbook-(1993).

SCAQMD. 2017. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Adopted March 2017. https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/final-2016-aqmp.

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 119
FEBRUARY 2022

4.2 List of Preparers
City of Santa Clarita
Hai Nguyen, Associate Planner
Mikaela Manion, Assistant Planner II
Dudek
Nicole Cobleigh, Senior Project Manager
Brandon Whalen-Castellanos, Environmental Planner
Gaurav Srivastava, AICP, Urban Design Director
Catherine Tang Saez, AICP, Senior Urban Designer

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 120
FEBRUARY 2022

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

126
Ne w ha l l Ave
L y o n s Ave
Main St
Marke t St
Railroad
Ave
P
ine
S
t
Project Location
Old Town Newhall Specific Plan Update
SOURCE: ESRI World Imagery
Date: 2/14/2022 - Last saved by: kzecher - Path: Z:\Projects\j1331604\MAPDOC\Specific Plan Update\Figure 1_Project Location .mxd 01 , 0 0 0 500
Feet
FIGURE 1
Long
Beach
BellflowerEl Segundo La Habra
Heights
Bell Gardens
Diamond
Bar
Pomona
Whittier
WalnutMalibu
West
Hollywood
Temple C ity
San
Dimas
Agoura Hills
Hidden
Hills
Arcadia
Duarte
Pasadena
Glendale
San Fernando
Santa Clarita
Palmdale
Lancaster
Palos Verdes
Estates
Burbank
Hermosa Beach
Santa Monica
Los Angeles
Kern County
Ventura
County
Orange
County
Old Town Newhall
Specific Plan Boundary
Mexico
IdahoOregon
Nevada
Los Angeles
County
Project Site

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 122
FEBRUARY 2022

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
121 O L D T O W N N E W H A L L S P E C I F I C P L A N City of Santa Clarita, California
A D O P T E D DE C EM B E R 2 2 , 2 0 0 5
R E V I S E D : DE C EM B E R 8 , 2 0 2 0
CHAPTER 4 : THE CODE
M

EADVIEW
AV

NEWHALL
AV
15TH ST
8TH ST

WAYMANST
WALNUT
ST
8TH ST
13TH ST

MARKET ST

PLACERITOS BLVD
CAST
AV
NEW

HALL AV
CR
OSS
ST
ADENAV
ARCH
ST
OAK ST
2ND ST
6TH ST
ALDER

BROOK DR

WILDWOOD

CANYONRD

MARKETST

EDISON RD
3RD ST
9TH ST

MAPLE ST

PLACERITA CANYON RD
5THST

OAK ORCHARD RD

MIDDLEBANK DR
SPRUCE
ST
CHES

TNUT ST

PINE ST

PARK ST
4TH ST

BREI CTHACIENDA LN
14TH ST
11THST
13TH ST
13TH PL
12TH ST
8TH ST
WALNUT
ST

QUIGLEY

CANYON RD

DAVEY AV

AGRAMONTE DR
12TH ST

OAK ORCHARD RD
ADEN
AV
AR
CH
S
T
LOG

DELL AV
PINE
ST
KAN
SAS ST
CHE
STNU
T ST

BRECKENRIDGE
PL

MATTHEW
PL

HASKELL

VISTALN
PINE
ST
AR

CADIA ST
RACE
ST
AM

ELIA LN

SHADELAND
DR
MAIN
ST
NEWHA
LL AV

RAILROADAV
RA
ILRO
AD AV

LYONS AV

NEWHALL AV
RA
ILRO
AD
AV
C
L
Q:\PROJECTS\CD\130306k1\mxd\onsp_plan.mxd
´
0 250 500
Feet
Parcel data: Copyright May 2014,
County of Los Angeles. All rights reserved.

Map reproduced with permission granted
by Rand McNally 2012.

The City of Santa Clarita does not warrant
the accuracy of the data and assumes no
liability for any errors or omissions.

Map prepared by: City of Santa Clarita
GIS Division
Old Town Newhall LibraryL
Open Space (86.13 acres)
Urban Center (18.13 acres)
Urban General 1 (16.2 acres)
Urban General 2 (36.82 acres)
Creative District (22.27 acres)
Corridor (22.37 acres)
Parcel
ONSP Boundary
Designated Civic Building Site*
Designated Parking Structure Site*
C
P
*Potential location: property owners
are not required to build the civic
facilities or parking structures.

Old Town Newhall
Specific Plan
P
P C
121
Originally Approved Plan Zoning
Old Town Newhall Specific Plan Update
FIGURE 2SOURCE: City of Santa Clarita
Path: Z:\Projects\j1331604\MAPDOC\Specific Plan Update

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 124
FEBRUARY 2022

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Date: 2/18/2022 - Last saved by: kzecher - Path: Z:\Projects\j1331604\MAPDOC\Specific Plan Update\Figure 3_Updated Plan Zon ing.mxd Newhall Ave
L y o n s A ve
Main St
Railroad
Ave
Market
St
P
ine
S
t
Updated Plan Zoning
Old Town Newhall Specific Plan Update
SOURCE: City of Santa Clarita
0 670 335
Feet
Old Town Newhall
Specific Plan Boundary
Zoning Districts
Corridor
Creative/Business District
Open Space
Arts & Entertainment District
Neighborhood
FIGURE 3

ADDENDUM TO FOR THE OLD TOWN NEWHALL SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 13316 126
FEBRUARY 2022

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK