Agenda packet — Watsonville City Council, January 17, 2023 (part 6 of 7)

(2) adopted a resolution finding “no issues” affecting any airport; or (3) established an alternative procedure for airport planning. (Watsonville Pilots Ass’n, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at p. 1071.) Because of this, the county and each affected city must adopt all of the Handbook’s criteria. (Id. at pp. 1071-72.) The City has no discretion—it must “accept” and “put into effect” the Handbook’s criteria by “uniting” the criteria with the City’s general plan, “a very strong mandate.” (Id. at pp. 1072.) In short, the City is required to adopt the compatibility criteria in the Handbook as part of its general plan. (Id. at p. 1079.) The City is also required to include all applicable federal regulations as part of its general and specific plans. (Handbook, p. 1-4; Pub. Util. Code, §21670.1, subd. (e).) The City must also submit its general and specific plans to the Division of Aeronautics for review. (Ibid.)....

Pursuant to the September 2014 Superior Court decision, Order and Writ, the Court ordered the EIR and related approvals for the 2030 General Plan be set aside (Attachment 6). The Court also prohibited the City from using the 2030 General Plan “or basing any action on or engaging in any activity pursuant to” the 2030 General Plan or resolutions, unless and until the environmental review and the 2030 General Plan and resolutions are revised to comply with the Court’s Statement of Decision and California law. (Order and Judgment, ¶3.)....
(February 28, 2017 staff report, p. 3-4.) City Staff ultimately recommended the denial of a permit for the Pajaro Valley Haigh School Auditorium Project, explaining:
“First, the City cannot determine consistency with the 2030 General Plan. The Court requires certain contents in the City’s 2030 General Plan. The City’s 2005 General Plan does not comply with the Court decisions. And, the 2030 General Plan has been voided and City is prohibited from basing any action on or engaging in any activity pursuant to the 2030 General Plan until the Writ is discharged.

The Courts made clear that “the General Plan must be submitted to the Department of Aeronautics upon its adoption and before returning it to the Court.” (Statement of Decision, p. 7:3-4.) Caltrans has objected to “piecemeal” review. (December 21, 2016 letter.) Without Caltrans’ complete review and approval, the City cannot get its General Plan approved and therefore cannot make the findings of compliance with its General Plan as required by the Court.

Accordingly, the Council’s approval of the CDP/SUP amendment would be challenged in Court as a “circumvention” of the Court’s decision. This could open the City up to challenges on the return or discharge of the Writ. (See Los Angeles Int’l Charter High Sch. v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1348, 1355 [petitioner opposed return on writ and appealed trial court’s discharge order]; City of Carmel-ByThe-Sea v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 964, 970 [petitioner successfully moved for order finding respondent had not complied with writ].) The Superior Court retained jurisdiction and may take all steps necessary to enforce the writ.” Attachment 2.10

Page 704 of 965 ends

Justin Meek
Re: Crocker’s Locker Self-Storage
August 12, 2022

Page 8 ends

Here, Caltrans has said that “[a]pproval of the use permit application and coastal development permit amendment request essentially circumvents the Superior Court’s orders and this is not acceptable.” (December 21, 2016 letter.) Caltrans is a party to the Superior Court lawsuit, so it may seek compliance with the Writ. If the City approves the amendment, Caltrans would say the City has not obeyed the Court’s order.

In summary, the City cannot make either of the required findings to approve the CDP/SUP amendment, until the 2030 General Plan has been submitted to Caltrans and the writ of mandate has been discharged.”
(February 28, 2017 staff report, p. 4, emphasis added.) Notably, the City also agreed in a Joint Stipulation and Order Re Partial Return to Writ of Mandate Enabling City Approval of Athletic Field Project and Auditorium Project for Pajaro Valley High School (“Stip and Order Re Partial Return”) that both WPA I and WPA II “ordered the CITY, inter alia, to comply with the State Aeronautics Act and this Court’s respective Statements of Decision and to take no action on development proposals within the Airport Influence Area until the CITY has duly incorporated the provisions of the Airport Handbook into the CITY General Plan.” (Stip and Order Re Partial Return, 8:24-28.) Moreover, this Stipulation and Order also states that “the CITY remains mandated to incorporate the Airport Handbook into its General Plan as ‘nondiscretionary’ standards, and utilize the most stringent of those Airport Handbook standards….” (Stip and Order Re Partial Return, 10:13-17.) The issues identified by City staff with regards to the Pajaro Valley Haigh School Auditorium Project remain an issue here: because the General Plan is still noncompliant with the State Aeronautics Act, no permits or any other land use approvals may be authorized at this time.

See Camp v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 123 Cal. App. 3d 334, 353 (stating that because a subdivision map was approved “at a time when there existed no adequate general plan, the Board . . . could not have legally found the subdivision consistent with the requisite general plan and thus that approval was unlawful and must be set aside.”). Thus, without a valid general plan, the City must take the position that it will not issue permits or otherwise make new land use decisions. See also Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984)156 Cal.App.3d 1176, 1184-1185 (stating that a conditional use permit issued on the basis of invalid general plan is thereby itself invalid, to the extent that the “permitted use implicates a defective policy or standard in the general plan,” continuing on to state that “the scope of authority of the agency to enact a general plan and zoning ordinances and to apply them is governed by the requirements of state law. A permit action taken without compliance with the hierarchy of land use laws is ultra vires as to any defect implicated by the uses sought by the permit”) (emphasis added); Friends of “B” Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 998 (“City approval of a proposed subdivision, construction of public improvements, and private sale of subdivided lots may be enjoined for lack of consistency of the subdivision map with the general plan.”) Again, under WPA I, the City Council does not have any discretion to modify the criteria set forth in the Handbook and cannot override it to approve an inconsistent project under any Attachment 2.10
page 14 of 36
WPA
Comment 1.11 Page 705 of 965
Justin Meek
Re: Crocker’s Locker Self-Storage
August 12, 2022

Page 9 ends

circumstances. WPA has successfully defended these mandatory Airport Safety Zones in Court twice to date. As a result of these Court cases, the most stringent of the land use controls contained in the CDOA Handbook are applicable to the area surrounding the Watsonville Airport. The MND even acknowledges that “Santa Cruz County has been identified as a ‘no procedure county’ as there is only one public use airport—the Watsonville Municipal Airport….” (MND, p. 69.)
WPA requests that the City deny the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and deny the Project, as the city must first adopt a General Plan that fully complies with WPA I and WPA II and fully incorporates the Handbook in a nondiscretionary fashion in the General Plan.

For the foregoing reasons, the City Council cannot approve this Project.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21167(f), we request that the City forward a Notice of Determination to this office if the Project is finally approved. That section provides:

If a person has made a written request to the public agency for a copy of the notice specified in Section 21108 or 21152 prior to the date on which the agency approves or determines to carry out the project, then not later than five days from the date of the agency’s action, the public agency shall deposit a written copy of the notice addressed to that person in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Very truly yours,

WITTWER PARKIN LLP
William P. Parkin
cc: Client
Attachment 2.10

Page 706 of 965 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

Attachment 2.10

Page 707 of 965 ends

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE (“CDFW”)

COMMENT LETTER
August 23, 2022
70 Nielson Street
Crockers Lockers Project
City of Watsonville, California
Attachment 2.10

Page 708 of 965 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

Attachment 2.10

Page 709 of 965 ends

State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Bay Delta Region
2825 Cordelia Road, Suite 100
Fairfield, CA 94534
(707) 428-2002
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
August 23, 2022
Mr. Justin Meek
City of Watsonville
250 Main Street
Watsonville, CA 95076
[email protected]
Subject: Crocker’s Locker Project, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, SCH No. 2022070219, City of Watsonville, Santa Cruz County Dear Mr. Meek:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has reviewed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared by the City of Watsonville (City) for the Crocker’s Lockers Project (Project), located in Santa Cruz County, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1 CDFW is submitting comments on the IS/MND to inform the City, as the Lead Agency, of potentially significant impacts to biological resources associated with the Project.

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is a Trustee Agency with responsibility under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15386 for commenting on projects that could impact fish, plant, and wildlife resources (i.e., biological resources). CDFW is also considered a Responsible Agency if a project would require discretionary approval, such as permits issued under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), the Native Plant Protection Act, the Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Program, and other provisions of the Fish and Game Code that afford protection to the state’s fish and wildlife trust resources.

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
California Endangered Species Act
Please be advised that a CESA Permit must be obtained if the Project has the potential to result in “take” of plants or animals listed under CESA, either during construction or over the life of the Project. Issuance of a CESA Permit is subject to CEQA documentation; the CEQA document must specify impacts, mitigation measures, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. If the Project will impact CESA listed species, early consultation is encouraged, as significant modification to the Project and mitigation measures may be required in order to obtain a CESA Permit.

1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B1F66667-C7B4-4754-8926-6584F54751D9 Attachment 2.10

Page 710 of 965 ends

Mr. Justin Meek
City of Watsonville
August 23, 2022

Page 2 of 7 ends

CEQA requires a Mandatory Finding of Significance if a project is likely to substantially impact threatened or endangered species (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21001(c), 21083, and CEQA Guidelines §§ 15380, 15064, 15065). Impacts must be avoided or mitigated to less-than-significant levels unless the CEQA Lead Agency makes and supports Findings of Overriding Consideration (FOC). The CEQA Lead Agency’s FOC does not eliminate the Project proponent’s obligation to comply with Fish and Game Code, § 2080 et. seq.

Lake and Streambed Alteration
CDFW requires an LSA Notification, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq., for any Project activities that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow; change or use material from the bed, channel, or bank including associated riparian or wetland resources; or deposit or dispose of material where it may pass into a river, lake, or stream. Work within ephemeral streams, washes, watercourses with a subsurface flow, and floodplains are generally subject to notification requirements. CDFW, as a Responsible Agency under CEQA, would consider the CEQA document for the Project.

CDFW may not execute a final LSA Agreement until it has complied with CEQA (Pub.

Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) as the Responsible Agency.

Raptors and Other Nesting Birds
CDFW has authority over actions that may result in the disturbance or destruction of active nest sites or the unauthorized take of birds. Fish and Game Code sections protecting birds, their eggs, and nests include §§ 3503 (regarding unlawful take, possession or needless destruction of the nests or eggs of any bird), 3503.5 (regarding the take, possession or destruction of any birds-of-prey or their nests or eggs), and 3513 (regarding unlawful take of any migratory nongame bird). Migratory birds are also protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: Ted Crocker
Objective: The Project would develop an existing paved parking lot into a self-storage facility which would consists of six self-storage buildings. Four of the buildings would be single-story and two would be two-story. A seventh building would be constructed as a manager’s building. In total, the Project would provide 1,072 storage units and 149,796 square feet of building space. The Project would replace and relocate the existing driveway and include approximately 21 parking spaces. The Project would remove 125 trees and retain 51 trees along Airport Boulevard and Nielson Street. The Project would also include two bioretention areas and other onsite storm drainage improvements.

Timeframe: The Project would be completed within 12 months. The existing site would be demolished prior to construction of the proposed buildings.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B1F66667-C7B4-4754-8926-6584F54751D9 Attachment 2.10

Page 711 of 965 ends

Mr. Justin Meek
City of Watsonville
August 23, 2022

Page 3 of 7 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND LOCATION
The Project site is located at 70 Nielson Street on a 4.39-acre parcel (APN 015-111-49) at the corner of Airport Boulevard, across from the Watsonville Municipal Airport in Watsonville, California. The Project site is developed and consists of a paved parking lot and parking lot islands that are landscaped with ornamental trees. In addition, there is a wetland approximately 0.1 mile south of the Project site. Special-status species with the potential to occur in or near the Project site include, but are not limited to, California redlegged frog (Rana draytonii), federally listed as threatened and a California Species of Special Concern (SSC) and Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia), federally listed as threatened and state listed as endangered.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the following comments and recommendations to assist the City in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on biological resources. Based on the Project's avoidance of significant impacts on biological resources with implementation of mitigation measures, including those recommended by CDFW below, CDFW concludes that an IS/MND is appropriate for the Project.

COMMENT 1: Santa Cruz Tarplant
Issue: A reconnaissance level survey for Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia) was conducted outside of the blooming period for the species, July-October, (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2014) which may affect accurate determination of presence on-site for the species.

Evidence the impact would be significant: While the site is mostly developed with an existing paved parking lot, there is potential for the plant to occur in unpaved areas on the Project site. The Project site is directly adjacent to a known Santa Cruz tarplant population at the Watsonville Municipal Airport, which holds the largest population of Santa Cruz tarplant with 28 million individuals recorded in 1998. The number of individuals recorded has decreased since then with approximately 512,000 individual plants recorded in 2012 (USWFW, 2014). Because Santa Cruz tarplant is an annual species, the number of individuals recorded in a year is highly dependent on rainfall and other factors. Santa Cruz tarplant produces two types of seeds, ray achenes and disk achenes (USFWS, 2014). Generally, the seeds fall within the vicinity of the plant and not have a structural means for dispersal, although it is possible that some ray achenes may be dispersed long distances by animals (USWFS, 2014). Ray achenes also form lasting seed banks with seeds that remain viable for an unknown amount of time, with seeds up to 15 years old successfully germinating (USFWS, 2014).

DocuSign Envelope ID: B1F66667-C7B4-4754-8926-6584F54751D9 Attachment 2.10
page 21 of 36
CDFW
Comment 2.1 Page 712 of 965
Mr. Justin Meek
City of Watsonville
August 23, 2022

Page 4 of 7 ends

While the Biotic Report states that no special-status plants are expected to occur in the Project area due to the lack of suitable grassland habitat and regular landscaping, there is potential for the species to occur within the unpaved areas given the proximity to a large known population and longevity of the seedbank. Surveys conducted during the blooming period when the plant will be both evident and identifiable are necessary for an accurate determination of presence on site. Furthermore, since Santa Cruz tarplant is an annual species, surveys over consecutive seasons may be necessary to increase the likelihood of detection and account for variances in weather and other disturbances from year to year.

Santa Cruz tarplant is an endangered species under CESA (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.). Species listed under CESA may not be taken2 at any time except under the provisions of a Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP), (Fish & G Code § 2081.7), a Memorandum of Understanding for scientific education or management purposes (Fish & G. Code §2081, subd. (a)), or an Incidental Take Permit (Fish & G.

Code § 2081 (b)).

Recommendation: CDFW recommends the City add a Mitigation Measure to include focused surveys for Santa Cruz tarplant during the blooming period of the species.

Recommended Mitigation Measure: An experienced qualified botanist, familiar with the native plant communities of Santa Cruz County, shall conduct a focused Santa Cruz tarplant survey during the blooming period of the species, from July to October. The surveys shall occur throughout the entire Project prior to the initiation of construction and the results shall be included in the Project environmental document. Surveys shall be conducted according to: Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to SpecialStatus Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFW 2018), available at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline.

If Santa Cruz tarplant is detected within the Project area, additional measures may be needed to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate potential Project impacts. Measures may include work stoppage, flagging and avoidance of occurrences, collection of propagation material, site restoration and/or obtaining an Incidental Take Permit (Fish and Game Code section 2081, subd., (b)).

COMMENT 2: Project Timing
Issue: While Mitigation Measure Bio-2 includes measures to perform clearing and earth moving activities during dry weather to the maximum extent practical and to stop grading work in the event of rain, more restrictive dry weather measures may be

2 Take is defined in Fish & G. Code, § 86 as hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B1F66667-C7B4-4754-8926-6584F54751D9 Attachment 2.10
page 22 of 36
CDFW
Comment 2.1
CDFW
Comment 2.2 Page 713 of 965
Mr. Justin Meek
City of Watsonville
August 23, 2022

Page 5 of 7 ends

necessary to prevent impacts to California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) and other native amphibians.

Evidence the impact would be significant: While there are no wetlands, streams, or lakes at the Project site, the project is located 0.1 mile from a wetland and approximately 0.5 mile from Struve Slough and Harkins Slough. While there are no documented occurrences of California red-legged frog at the unnamed wetland, it provides suitable foraging and dispersal habitat for California red-legged frog according to the Biological Resources Report for the IS/MND. Furthermore, there are multiple occurrences of California red-legged frogs within one mile of the project site (California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), 2022). Amphibians are more active seasonally during wet weather conditions and in the winter. California red-legged frog often travel to upland habitat during periods of wet weather and can travel up to a mile over the course of the wet season (USFWS, 2002). Due to the proximity of wetlands and potential habitat for California red-legged frog near the site, ground disturbing work such as grading and excavating during the wet season may result in potential impacts to frogs dispersing through in search of upland habitat.

Recommendation: CDFW recommends City include a measure to further restrict work during the winter and wet weather.

Recommended Mitigation Measure: All work shall begin on or after June 15 and all work shall be completed by October 15 of each year. Project activities shall be restricted to dry weather during the work period. Project activities shall be timed with awareness of precipitation forecasts and potential increases in stream flow and amphibian activity.

Project activities shall cease when the National Weather Service (NWS) 24-hour weather forecast indicates a 40 percent chance or higher of precipitation of at least

0.10-inch of precipitation. All necessary sediment and erosion control measures shall be implemented prior to the onset of precipitation.

COMMENT 3: Artificial Lighting
Issue: Additional lights would be added to the site to replace the existing pole mounted lights, including a yard light and security light, however the details of the replacement lights are not given in the IS/MND. The Project has the potential to increase the amount of artificial night lighting on the Project site which may significantly affect fish and wildlife resources.

Evidence the impact would be significant: Night lighting can disrupt the circadian rhythms of many wildlife species. Many species use photoperiod cues for communication such as bird song (Miller, 2006), determining when to begin foraging (Stone et al., 2009), behavior thermoregulation (Beiswenger, 1977), and migration (Longcore and Rich, 2004).

DocuSign Envelope ID: B1F66667-C7B4-4754-8926-6584F54751D9 Attachment 2.10
page 23 of 36
CDFW
Comment 2.2
CDFW
Comment 2.3 Page 714 of 965
Mr. Justin Meek
City of Watsonville
August 23, 2022

Page 6 of 7 ends

Recommendations to minimize significant impacts: CDFW recommends eliminating all non-essential artificial lighting. If artificial lighting is necessary, CDFW recommends avoiding or limiting the use of artificial lights during the hours of dawn and dusk, when many wildlife species are most active. CDFW also recommends that outdoor lighting be shielded, cast downward, and does not spill over onto other properties or upwards into the night sky (see the International Dark-Sky Association standards at http://darksky.org/) and limited to warm light colors with an output temperature of 2700 kelvin or less.

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e)). Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the CNDDB. The CNNDB online field survey form and other methods for submitting data can be found at the following link:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plantsand-Animals.

FILING FEES
CDFW anticipates that the Project will have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of filing fees is necessary (Fish and Game Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089). Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW.

CONCLUSION
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Project’s IS/MND. If you have any questions regarding this letter or for further coordination with CDFW, please contact Ms. Serena Stumpf, Environmental Scientist, at (707) 337-1364 or [email protected]; or Mr. Wesley Stokes, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory), at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Erin Chappell
Regional Manager
Bay Delta Region
ec: State Clearinghouse # 2022070219
DocuSign Envelope ID: B1F66667-C7B4-4754-8926-6584F54751D9 Attachment 2.10
page 24 of 36
CDFW
Comment 2.3 Page 715 of 965
Mr. Justin Meek
City of Watsonville
August 23, 2022

Page 7 of 7 ends

REFERENCES
Beiswenger, R. E. 1977. Diet patterns of aggregative behavior in tadpoles of Bufo americanus, in relation to light and temperature. Ecology 58:98–108. [CNDDB] California Natural Diversity Data Base. 2022. Results of electronic records search. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch.

Accessed March 2022 from https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data.

Longcore, T., and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological light pollution - Review. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:191–198.

Miller, M. W. 2006. Apparent effects of light pollution on singing behavior of American robins. The Condor 108:130–139.

Stone, E. L., G. Jones, and S. Harris. 2009. Street lighting disturbs commuting bats.

Current Biology 19:1123–1127. Elsevier Ltd.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Recovery Plan for the California Redlegged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. viii + 173 pp.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Holocarpha macradenia (Santa Cruz tarplant) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Ventura, California.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B1F66667-C7B4-4754-8926-6584F54751D9 Attachment 2.10

Page 716 of 965 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

Attachment 2.10

Page 717 of 965 ends

1 Responses to WPA Comments provided by William P. Parkin.

Response to WPA Comment 1.1:

WPA Comment noted, there are numerous cases that provide direction on thresholds for challenging CEQA documents.

The WPA Commenter correctly summarizes information from Page 69 of the IS/MND and expresses concern the IS/MND has not accurately characterized airport-related risks. As described in Responses below, the IS/MND accurately characterizes and evaluates the potential for the Project to result in airportrelated safety hazards for people residing or working in the project area.

Response to WPA Comment 1.2:

WPA Comment noted, there are numerous cases that provide direction on thresholds for challenging CEQA documents. However, Section 6.9(e) of the IS/MND, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, specifically addresses safety hazards for people residing or working in the project area of projects 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. In accordance with Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21670.1(e), the preparation of an airport land use compatibility plan is not required; however, the City must submit future general and specific plans for review by the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics.

Page 71 ends

to height, which is based upon the standards set forth in Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Subpart C, Standards for Determining Obstructions to Air Navigation and applicable airport design standards published by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). As stated in the IS/MND, the FAA issued a letter on February 25, 2022 which determined “no hazards would result to air navigation” from the project and that the project’s structures will not exceed obstruction standards. As stated in the IS/MND, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics also reviewed the proposed project, including identifying two trees that penetrate one of the Airport’s Part 77 surfaces. As stated in the IS/MND, conditions of approval would require the project to trim or remove these trees (T15 and T17 on the existing tree plan, Sheet T1).

The IS/MND correctly concluded that the project would not pose a risk to air navigation. The WPA Commenter disregards the determination of the FAA and Caltrans analysis of the proposed height.

Response to WPA Comment 1.3:

WPA Comment noted, there are numerous cases that provide direction on thresholds for challenging CEQA documents. The WPA Commenter points out that public policy related to risk may include an assessment of the “…public’s perception of risk…” and suggests that the MND should have included analysis of societal tolerance for, or acceptance of, risk. Because subjective considerations are debatable and require speculation, when available, the City relies on adopted objective standards to support CEQA analysis. In this instance, the IS/MND used the objective standards contained in The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (CalTrans, 2011) to consider risk tolerance and perception (see Appendix F).

Response to WPA Comment 1.4:

WPA Comment noted, there are numerous cases that provide direction on thresholds for challenging CEQA documents.

The Basic Compatibility Policies for “Safety Zone 2 – Inner Approach/Departure Zone”, which is provided on the next page, include the following:
 Avoid: Multi-story uses; uses with high density or intensity  Prohibit: Office buildings greater than 3 stories
Attachment 2.10

Page 718 of 965 ends

2 Attachment 2.10

Page 719 of 965 ends

3 Because office buildings up to two stories in height are discouraged but not prohibited in Safety Zone 2, staff found that the proposed 2 story storage building would have comparable height and significantly lower population density than an office building, and would not, therefore, result in a potentially significant environmental impact. This conclusion is supported by the “Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation” issued by the FAA on February 25, 2022.

Though not a CEQA issue, in an abundance of caution, the applicant has reduced the height of all structures, including Building C, located within Airport Safety Zone 2 from two stories to one. (As a result, please note that the maximum height of Building C has been reduced from 21'-3" to 12'-0".) Although specific references were not provided, the WPA Commenter is correct; however, pursuant to Figure 4C Safety Zone 2 - Inner Approach/Departure Zone, on page 4-21 of the Handbook, Zone 2 specifically allows for low-hazard materials storage and warehouses, including low-intensity light industrial uses. Further, the Handbook allows for limited non-residential uses to activities that attract few people (i.e., are less than the average- and single-acre nonresidential intensity limits), and avoid multistory uses / uses with high density or intensity. The Handbook does not prohibit two-story structures and allows parking to be a determinant for calculating occupancy loads in safety zones. The IS/MND correctly concludes the average density of the proposed project would be consistent with the Handbook standards for Zones 2, 5, and 6, as stated on page 71 of the IS/MND.

The Handbook also states (p. 4-19), “The primary focus when establishing nonresidential compatibility criteria should be on determining the types of land uses that are and are not acceptable within each safety zone . . . To set the line between compatible and incompatible, planners have turned to the concept of usage intensity – the number of people per acre – as the best common denominator by which to compare the safety compatibility of most land use types.” As explained in more detail, the IS/MND has accurately determined the usage intensity of the Project site in accordance with the Handbook’s recommended procedures and concluded the two-story building (Building C) that would be located within Safety Zone 2 is compatible with Watsonville Airport. The City also notes that the height of the building (Building C) planned to be within Safety Zone 2 would have had a maximum height of 21'-3" above ground level, which is less than the height of the trees and light poles along the Project’s Airport Boulevard frontage.

The maximum allowable height within this district is 35 feet. The managers building, a detached, 2,360 square-foot structure would be 29 feet, the tallest structure on the site. Maximum height of the two-level storage structures would be 23'-0". Therefore, the proposed maximum height of the project would be lower than what is allowed within the district. Further, a mini-warehouse facility is a compatible use with the surrounding low-intensity, light manufacturing buildings and hospital. The project buildings range from 10'-2¼" to 23'-0" feet in height and are similar in height and scale to adjacent structures which generally consist of two-story buildings on 20,000 to 35,000 square-foot lots.

Pursuant to Figure 4C Safety Zone 2 - Inner Approach/Departure Zone on page 4-21 of the Handbook, the maximum single acre non-residential intensity limitations for a "suburban" setting is 80-120 and for a "rural" setting is lower at 50-80. The City of Watsonville is a suburban community; therefore, a threshold of 80 is used to evaluate whether a project exceeds the single-acre intensity limit for Zone 2, which is the lower limit for a suburban community like Watsonville.

Response to WPA Comment 1.5:

The WPA Commenter correctly cites the 50% reduction allowance on page G-1 of the Handbook identifies office and retail uses only. In the second example provided in Exhibit G2, involving a furniture store (assumed to consist of 50% sales floor and 50% warehouse), the 50% adjustment factor was applied to both the retail and warehouse portions of the building, thereby reducing the estimated occupancy by half. Further, the proposed storage facility is a “non-residential” building and would generate a substantially lower occupancy rate than office or retail use.

Attachment 2.10

Page 720 of 965 ends

4 The WPA Commenter correctly identifies that the IS/MND’s safety analysis adjusted the Project’s maximum occupancy level (1 person / 300 square feet of gross floor area based on Building and Fire Codes) with a 50% adjustment. The WPA Commenter is incorrect that the Handbook limits this adjustment to office and retail uses. Although the Handbook discusses the 50% occupancy adjustment in the context of retail and office uses, it does not, as a rule, limit or preclude the use of an adjustment to maximum occupancy levels for any particular land use. In fact, Handbook Appendix G identifies multiple options for determining concentrations of people at a particular site, noting on p. G-1, “The most difficult part about making a people-per-acre determination is estimating the number of people likely to use a particular facility.”
With regards to office and retail uses, the Handbook states (p. G-1, emphasis added), “Surveys of actual occupancy levels conducted by various agencies have indicated that many retail and office uses are generally occupied at no more than 50% of their maximum occupancy levels, even at the busiest times of day. Therefore, the number of people calculated for office and retail uses should usually be adjusted (50%) to reflect the actual occupancy levels before making the final people-per-acre determination. Even with this adjustment, the CBC-based methodology typically produces intensities at the high end of the likely range.”
The City notes neither the California Building Code nor the Handbook contain base maximum occupancy rates for self-storage facilities. The closest occupant load factors are for “accessory storage areas” and “warehouses” type buildings; the former has an occupant load factor of 1 person / 300 square feet of gross floor area, while the latter has a load factor or 1 person / 500 square feet. Accordingly, the IS/MND’s maximum occupancy level of 1 person / 300 square feet of gross floor area is based on an appropriate function of space as a self-service storage facility. While another appropriate function could be “warehouse”, for which the Building Code assigns a maximum occupancy level of 1 person / 500 square feet of gross floor area. Using this factor would result in a greater number of people that could be present onsite. The City notes that the Handbook itself, in providing example occupancy level calculations, applies the 50% reduction to the warehouse component of a furniture store (Handbook p. G-4, example 2), indicative that adjustments are appropriate in many cases. The adjusted maximum occupancy level for a warehouse land use (1 person / 500 square feet of gross floor area with a 50% adjustment) would result in a maximum of 44 people at the site, less than the 73 people occupancy considered in the IS/MND.

The IS/MND’s estimate of the maximum occupancy of the site is based on recommended methodologies contained in the Handbook as well as project specific characteristics. Although the proposed Project may not be a traditional office or retail land use, it does provide retail self-storage facilities to the general public, and the operation of this facility is not expected to approach potential maximum occupancy levels defined by the Building Code. The IS/MND, therefore, applies intensity/occupancy adjustments that are correct, appropriate, and justified for the project.

Response to WPA Comment 1.6:

The WPA Commenter may be misreading the table within Figure 4C in the Handbook. Non-residential intensities are evaluated on an average and single acre basis. The single-acre intensity is twice (2x) the average (e.g., 80 for the single-acre and 40 for the average-acre intensity limits for zone 2). As shown or demonstrated in Table 9 in the IS/MND, 10 is the estimated number of occupants using the average intensity (people/acre) methodology and 73 is the estimated number of occupants using the average singe acre intensity (people/acre) methodology.

Response to WPA Comment 1.7:

Noted on pages 53, 62 and 80, the IS/MND correctly concludes the project is consistent with the General Plan, including the land use designation and policies.

Attachment 2.10

Page 721 of 965 ends

5 Response to WPA Comment 1.8 and 1.9:

The WPA Commenter is incorrect that the IS/MND’s noise analysis is inconsistent with the Handbook for several reasons.

First, as a point of clarification, the noise monitoring conducted for the project included two short-term (30 minutes) noise monitoring sites, for a total of one-hour of noise monitoring, not 30 minutes. The IS/MND (Table 10) clearly discloses both the maximum and average ambient noise levels measured at the site during the monitoring period, and as noted by the WPA Commenter, states (p. 88) that maximum noise levels of up to 85.3 dBA were associated with aircraft approaches into Watsonville Airport. The City notes that there is no prescriptive requirement regarding the length of environmental noise measurements. The ambient noise measurements conducted for the project captured typical overflight noise levels and are considered representative of short-term noise levels at the sight. The WPA Commenter does not present evidence to indicate this is not the case.

Second, the WPA Commenter does not reflect the additional information provided on page 96 the IS/MND, including evidence that: (1) The project is located outside the airport’s 65 community noise equivalent level (CNEL) contour zone for both 2016 and 2036 airport operations; (2) The project may be exposed to airport noise levels up to 60 CNEL; (3) The manager’s unit, the only potential for long-term exposure, would be outside the airport’s 60 CNEL noise contour; and (4) the State considers areas outside the 65 CNEL noise contour zone to have an acceptable aircraft noise exposure. A map showing the noise contours near the site is below (Aircraft Noise Monitoring Report 2015 by WJV Acoustics, Inc.) Third, the WPA Commenters reference to information in the Handbook indicating that exposure to noise level above 75 dBA is misleading because the referenced information provided on page D-34 of the Project Site
Attachment 2.10

Page 722 of 965 ends

6 Handbook is presented in terms of 24-hour noise exposure expressed on the day-night noise level (DNL or Ldn) basis. Reactions based on daily noise exposure levels are not germane to the short-term noise levels presented in Table 10 of the IS. Rather, it is appropriate to compare the information on page D-34 of the Handbook to daily noise exposure levels at the site, which as documented above, would be below the acceptable 65 CNEL noise limit for airport noise exposure.1 Finally, the Handbook does not establish a specific numeric noise limit for single-event aircraft overflights.

The City notes the IS/MND discloses measured aircraft overflight noise levels at the site (p. 88), and concludes these noise levels would not be considered excessive on a short-term basis or result in subjective or interference effects or physiological harm.

The City notes the nature of the project (retail self-storage) is such that the individual visitor is unlikely to be on-site for more than several hours at a time at most, which reduces the potential for excessive noise exposure. Furthermore, as described above, the single long-term receptor at the site (manager’s unit) would be exposed to airport-related noise levels below 60 CNEL, a compatible noise exposure level for this use.

For the reasons described above, the IS/MND’s is consistent with the Handbook, and correctly concludes that the proposed Project would not expose people visiting, working, or residing in the project area to excessive airport-related noise levels.

Response to WPA Comment 1.10:

The WPA Comment correctly summarizes the Public Utilities Code’s requirements to minimize public exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards in areas around public airports. The WPA Comment also correctly summarizes the court’s decision in Watsonville Pilots Association, et al. v. City of Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1059. However, as noted in the IS/MND, the project was evaluated based on the Handbook and concluded the project met the safety standards that apply to the project site.

Response to WPA Comment 1.11:

Comment noted.

1 Refer to the IS/MND (p. 85) for a description of the differences in the DNL and CNEL noise exposure metrics. In practice, the difference between noise levels calculated using the DNL and CNEL metrics is usually less than 0.5 dBA.

Attachment 2.10

Page 723 of 965 ends

7 Responses to CDFW Comments
Response to CDFW Comment 2.1:

In response to the comment regarding the Santa Cruz tarplant, the City of Watsonville will include a mitigation measure that requires a focused survey for the Santa Cruz tarplant during its blooming period (July to October). This survey shall be conducted by an experienced, qualified botanist, familiar with the native plant communities of Santa Cruz County. The surveys shall occur prior to the initiation of construction and the results shall be included in the Project environmental document. Focused surveys shall be conducted using the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special-Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFW 2018), available at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline. Errata and Revisions, for this addition follows.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2a – Pre-Activity Focused Survey for Santa Cruz Tarplant. Prior to initial ground disturbance and during the appropriate blooming period (June to October), a focused survey for Santa Cruz tarplant will be conducted by a qualified plant ecologist within suitable habitat in the project footprint and a 50-foot buffer around the project footprint, where feasible. The purpose of the survey will be to assess the presence or absence of Santa Cruz tarplant. If Santa Cruz tarplant is not found in the impact area or the identified buffer, then no further surveys or mitigation will be warranted. If Santa Cruz tarplant is found in the impact area, then Mitigation Measures BIO-1b will be implemented. The results of the survey will be documented.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2b – Avoidance Buffers. To the extent feasible, and in consultation with a qualified botanist, the project proponent will construct the project to avoid impacts on all populations of special-status plant species within the project site or within the identified buffer of the impact area.

Avoided special-status plant populations will be protected by establishing and observing the identified buffer between plant populations and the impact area. All such populations located in the impact area or the identified buffer, and their associated designated avoidance areas, will be clearly depicted on any construction plans. In addition, prior to initial ground disturbance or vegetation removal, the limits of the identified buffer around special-status plants to be avoided will be flagged or fenced. The flagging will be maintained intact and in good condition throughout project-related construction activities. If avoidance is not feasible, then CDFW and/or USFWS will be consulted to determine the appropriate mitigation measures, which may include salvage and relocation of individual plants and/or off-site preservation, enhancement, and management of occupied habitat for the species.

Response to CDFW Comment 2.2:

In response to CDFW’s comment regarding dry weather work, the City of Watsonville will revise the existing mitigation measure BIO-2 to state that grading activities shall be limited to the dry season between June 15th and October 15th of each year. Limiting grading to this time will minimize potential impacts to the California red-legged frog populations and other amphibians in the area. Additionally, precipitation forecasts shall be monitored throughout the construction phase. Project activities will be ceased when the National Weather Service (NWS) 24-hour weather forecast predicts a 40 percent or greater chance of precipitation of at least 0.10-inch of precipitation. Errata and Revisions, for this addition follows.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2 – Best Management Practices. The initiation of grading and any earthmoving activities shall be limited to the dry season between June 15th and October 15th of each year. Project activities will be ceased when the National Weather Service (NWS) 24-hour weather forecast predicts a 40 percent or greater chance of precipitation of at least 0.10-inch of precipitation. The project shall employ Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect water quality per the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A list of example BMPs may include the following:

Attachment 2.10

Page 724 of 965 ends

8 • Store, handle, and dispose of construction materials and wastes properly to prevent their contact with stormwater.
• Control and prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants, including solid wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, wash water or sediment, and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains and water courses.
• Avoid cleaning, fueling, or maintaining vehicles on-site, except in a designated area in which runoff is contained and treated. • Perform clearing and earth moving activities during dry weather to the maximum extent practical. • Remove spoils promptly and avoid stockpiling of fill materials when rain is forecast. Cover soil stockpiles and other materials with a tarp or other waterproof material during rain events. • Trash and construction related solid wastes must be deposited into a covered receptacle to prevent contamination and dispersal by wind.
• In the event of rain, all grading work is to cease immediately.

Response to CDFW Comment 2.3:

In response to CDFW’s comment regarding potential impacts of artificial lighting on wildlife, the City of Watsonville will include a mitigation measure that requires that the project eliminate non-essential exterior artificial lighting. For essential exterior artificial lighting, the project shall avoid using exterior light fixtures that produce uplighting, are unshielded, and that produce upwards light spillage to minimize the amount of light pollution. If lighting is used, the project shall use shielded lighting to cast light down or explore the use of motion-detecting light sensors to minimize lighting impacts. Additionally, essential artificial lighting shall be limited to warm light colors with an output temperature of 2700 kelvin or less. The City should refer to the International Dark Sky Association (www.darksky.org) for additional guidance. Errata and Revisions, for this addition follows.

Mitigation Measure Land Use and Planning 1 – Glare Prevention. All exterior lighting shall be directed such that lights create as little off-site glare and nuisance as is feasible. All exterior lighting fixtures shall be glare-shielded and down-facing. All exterior lighting shall be limited to warm light colors with an output temperature of 2700 kelvin.

Attachment 2.10

Page 725 of 965 ends

9 Errata on the 70 Nielson Street
Crockers Lockers Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SCH No. 2022070219
Prepared for:

City of Watsonville
Department of Community
Development
250 Main Street
Watsonville, CA 95076
Prepared by:

MIG, Inc.
800 Hearst Ave
Berkeley, CA
94710
October 2022
Attachment 2.10

Page 726 of 965 ends

10 Mitigation Measure BIO-2 – Best Management Practices. The initiation of grading and any earthmoving activities shall be limited to the dry season between June 15th and October 15th of each year. Project activities will be ceased when the National Weather Service (NWS) 24-hour weather forecast predicts a 40 percent or greater chance of precipitation of at least 0.10-inch of precipitation. The project shall employ Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect water quality per the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A list of example BMPs may include the following:
• Store, handle, and dispose of construction materials and wastes properly to prevent their contact with stormwater.
• Control and prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants, including solid wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, wash water or sediment, and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains and water courses.
• Avoid cleaning, fueling, or maintaining vehicles on-site, except in a designated area in which runoff is contained and treated. • Perform clearing and earth moving activities during dry weather to the maximum extent practical. • Remove spoils promptly and avoid stockpiling of fill materials when rain is forecast. Cover soil stockpiles and other materials with a tarp or other waterproof material during rain events. • Trash and construction related solid wastes must be deposited into a covered receptacle to prevent contamination and dispersal by wind.
• In the event of rain, all grading work is to cease immediately.

Attachment 2.10

Page 727 of 965 ends

ATTACHMENT 2.11 | Acoustical Terminology
M:\CDD\CC Packet\CCPKT 2023\1-17-23\70 Nielson St\Attachments\2.11 Acoustical Terminology.docx ATTACHMENT 2.11 page 1 of 1
Ambient Noise Level: The composite of noise from all sources near and far. In this context, the ambient noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.

Decibel, dB: A unit for describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20
micropascals (20 micronewtons per square meter).
dBA: A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement for sound. A-weighted decibels, abbreviated dBA, are an expression of the relative loudness of sounds in air as perceived by our ears.

CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level. The average equivalent sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of five decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and ten decibels to sound levels in the night from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. For example, a 45-dBA sound level at 8:00 p.m. in the evening would contribute as much to the overall day-night average as a 50-dBA daytime sound level at 8:00 a.m. in the morning.

Leq: Equivalent Sound Level. The sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. Leq is typically computed over 1, 8 and 24‐hour sample periods.

NOTE: The CNEL represents daily levels of noise exposure averaged on an annual basis, while the Leq represents the average noise exposure for a shorter time period, typically one hour.

Lmax: The maximum noise level recorded during a noise event.

Lmin: The minimum noise level recorded during a noise event.

Ln: The sound level exceeded "n" percent of the time during a sample interval (L90, L50, L10, etc.). For example, L10 equals the level exceeded 10 percent of the time.

Noise Exposure Contours: Lines drawn about a noise source indicating equal levels of noise exposure. CNEL contours are frequently utilized to describe community exposure to noise for noise compatibility planning.

Page 728 of 965 ends

December 5, 2022

VIA EMAIL
Planning Commission
City of Watsonville
Planning Commission
250 Main Street
Watsonville, California 95076
[email protected]
Re: December 6, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting; Agenda Item # 5.b Crocker’s Lockers Self-Storage Project—70 Nielson Street (APN 015-111-49) Dear Members of the Commission:

This law firm represents the Watsonville Pilots Association (“WPA”), one of the prevailing parties in Watsonville Pilots Association, et al. v. City of Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1059 (WPA I). WPA is dedicated to protecting the safety of pilots and members of the public on the ground in and around the Watsonville Airport. WPA objects to the proposed construction of the Crocker’s Lockers Self Storage project, which involves the development of six self-storage buildings, and a seventh building which would be a manager’s building (“Project”).

As we pointed out in the letter on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) dated August 12, 2022, the MND is inadequate as a matter of law, as it essentially ignores the Project’s impacts on the Watsonville Airport and the airport safety zones. We incorporate that letter herein by reference, and the letter is included in your packet. We find the staff responses to our comments to be simply a disagreement with our analysis and the staff’s responses are inconsistent with the requirements in WPA I and the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (“Handbook”).

Once again, staff is contending that the Handbook’s discretionary provisions allow flexibility. However, the Court of Appeal explained that the Watsonville Airport is in a “noprocedure” county and that “an affected city in a no-procedure county must ‘accept’ and ‘put into effect’ the Handbook’s criteria by ‘unit[ing]’ the criteria with the city’s general plan, a very strong mandate.” WPA I at 1072. As explained infra, the City is required to adopt the strictest criteria in the Handbook.

Page 729 of 965 ends

Planning Commission
Re: Crocker’s Locker Self-Storage
December 6, 2022

Page 2 ends

and in Watsonville Pilots Association v. City of Watsonville, Case No. CV176416 (“WPA II”) where the Superior Court found that a revised 2030 General Plan again violated the Aeronautics Act because, among other reasons, it granted the City discretion in a no procedure county.

In addition, this letter is to once again remind the City that it does not currently have the authority to issue permits for this application as the City’s General Plan does not yet comply with the Public Utilities Code as required by WPA I. Therefore, the Project must be denied.

I. The Mitigated Negative Declaration Fails to Adequately Analyze AirportRelated Impacts The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that the Project is located within two miles of the Watsonville Municipal Airport and is within Watsonville Municipal Airport Safety Zones 2, 5, and 6. (MND, p. 69.) However, despite this acknowledgement, the Mitigated Negative Declaration glosses over the actual risk levels associated with the Project’s location within these safety zones.

As the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (“Handbook”) states that “Maintaining a high degree of safety as lands near airports are developed is clearly an important planning objective.” (Handbook, Appendix F, p. F-1.) Furthermore, While measurement of risks provides essential input to the making of public policy, it is not the only consideration. In our society, decisions about how to respond to many risks—particularly ones affecting many people or whole communities—are not the sole purview of experts. Moreover, such decisions are not based simply on technical analyses and data. The public’s perception of risks plays a major role as well. Perception is a key component in any assessment of societal risk.
(Handbook, Appendix F, p. F-3.) However, the MND fails to truly analyze the levels of risks posed by the Project’s proximity to the Watsonville Airport. “Ultimately, the decisions we—as individuals or as a society—make in response to hazards come down to a question of our tolerance for or acceptance of the risks which are known or believed to be involved.” (Handbook, Appendix F, p. F-6.) Therefore, without such information it is impossible to know the risks that are being accepted, thus thwarting the central purpose of CEQA: “The ultimate inquiry, as case law and the CEQA guidelines make clear, is whether the EIR includes enough detail ‘to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.’” Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 515.

The Staff Report prepared for this Planning Commission meeting claims that “the IS/MND Section 6.9(e), Hazards and Hazardous Materials, specifically addresses safety hazards for people residing or working in the project area of projects located within an airport land use plan, and the City must submit future general and specific plans for review by the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics.” (Staff Report, p . 24.) However, such analysis is not a substitute for Attachment 2.12

Page 730 of 965 ends

Planning Commission
Re: Crocker’s Locker Self-Storage
December 6, 2022

Page 3 ends

the Handbook’s requirement to analyze all possible risks posed by the Project’s proximity to the airport, not simply the risks the City deems worthy of analysis. As the Handbook points out, the assessment of risks and determination of appropriate actions to be taken in response to those risks is a complex process. (Handbook, Appendix F, p. F-2.) Moreover, The beginning point for any efforts to develop public policies to address most risks is to measure the extent to which a particular risk exists… the two fundamental components of risk measurement are frequency and consequences. Frequency measures when or how often an adverse event might occur. The consequences component describes what the effects of such an event might be (in terms of fatalities, injuries, property damage, service interruption, etc.). For most risks involving physical hazards (and certainly those related to airport area land uses), it is useful to consider a third component. Accident frequency can be thought of not just in terms of how often accidents occur, but also in terms of their distribution. The distribution component of risk identifies where or for whom there is an exposure to accidents (geographically or to certain segments of the population).” (Handbook, Appendix F, p. F-2.) There are no such discussions of frequency, consequences or distribution of risks anywhere in the MND. A “negative declaration is inappropriate where the agency has failed either to provide an accurate project description or to gather information and undertake an adequate environmental analysis.” City of Redlands v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 398, 406. An “agency should not be allowed to hide behind its own failure to gather relevant data.” Id. at p. 408.

In addition, it is unclear how the submittal of future general and specific plans for review by the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics ensures the Project will remain low risk, especially when none of the risks are actually disclosed. “Impermissible deferral of mitigation measures occurs when [the agency] puts off analysis or orders a report without either setting standards or demonstrating how the impact can be mitigated in the manner described....’” Save the Agoura Cornell Knoll v. City of Agoura Hills (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 665, 687, citing Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 260, 280-281. Here, because none of the risks are analyzed in a meaningful way, there is no way to know whether these broad unspecified plans will in fact mitigate the actual risks. “Numerous cases illustrate that reliance on tentative plans for future mitigation after completion of the CEQA process significantly undermines CEQA’s goals of full disclosure and informed decision making; and consequently, these mitigation plans have been overturned on judicial review as constituting improper deferral of environmental assessment.” Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 316.

The Staff Report also asserts that the MND utilized the “objective standards contained in the Handbook to consider risk tolerance and perception.” (Staff Report, p. 24.) However, the Staff Report’s assertion ignores the fact that the City fails to have a compliant General Plan and that the analysis is not as simple as applying the standards the Staff deems relevant. “In our society, decisions about how to respond to many risks—particularly ones affecting many people Attachment 2.12

Page 731 of 965 ends

Planning Commission
Re: Crocker’s Locker Self-Storage
December 6, 2022

Page 4 ends

or whole communities—are not the sole purview of experts. Moreover, such decisions are not based simply on technical analyses and data. The public’s perception of risks plays a major role as well. Perception is a key component in any assessment of societal risk.” (Handbook, Appendix F, p. F-3.) There is no true discussion of the risk anywhere in the MND. The Handbook points out,
Ultimately, the decisions we—as individuals or as a society—make in response to hazards come down to a question of our tolerance for or acceptance of the risks which are known or believed to be involved. This is not a question which can be answered in an absolute sense, however. Society’s allocation of resources must be taken into account. It is always possible to reduce risk, but the cost of doing so increases as the risk becomes smaller.
(Handbook, Appendix F, p. F-6.) But the City has to apply strict standards.

The MND fails to acknowledge that the Handbook concludes that the risk level is “High” in Safety Zone 2. Moreover, the Handbook states that “Multi-story uses” should be avoided in Safety Zone 2. The Project originally included one two-story building in Safety Zone 2. In response to WPA’s initial letter, the Staff Report states that “in an abundance of caution, the applicant has reduced the height of all structures, including Building C, located within Airport Safety Zone 2 from two stories to one.” (Staff Report, p. 24.) The Staff Report strains credulity when it asserts that this is “not a CEQA issue.” However, simply reducing the building’s height does not absolve the applicant from providing an actual safety analysis to ensure the public is aware of the possible risks that may remain, and the safety of pilots and aircraft passengers.

Furthermore, the MND takes liberties with the intensity limitations in the Handbook.

The MND concludes that “The Handbook states that most non-residential buildings are not fully occupied at all times. Therefore, the Handbook allows for reducing the total occupancy using these codes by a set factor, 50% for most uses.” (MND, p. 70-71.) This is an overstatement.

The Handbook actually limits the 50% reduction to retail and office uses. (Handbook, p. G-1.) The Project is neither a retail nor an office use. Therefore, the MND’s assumptions are incorrect.

The Staff disputes this assertion. However, because the most stringent standards must be employed, the Staff’s assertions miss the mark. Indeed, the Handbook states that “Therefore, the number of people calculated for office and retail uses should usually be adjusted (50%) to reflect the actual occupancy levels before making the final people-per-acre determination. Even with this adjustment, the CBC-based methodology typically produces intensities at the high end of the likely range. (Handbook, p. G-1, emphasis added.) As stated above, the City is obligated to apply the strictest standards in the Handbook.

In addition, the MND does not apply the strictest standards in the Handbook for occupancy levels. Since Santa Cruz County is a no procedure county, the strictest standards must be applied. For instance, the Staff Report asserts, even with the 50% reduction, asserts that the number of people per acre in Safety Zone will be 51 people per acre. (Staff Report, p. 18.) Attachment 2.12

Page 732 of 965 ends

Planning Commission
Re: Crocker’s Locker Self-Storage
December 6, 2022

Page 5 ends

In Safety Zone 2, the Maximum Nonresidential Intensity is 40-60 people per gross acre.

However, the Staff Report only uses the Maximum Allowable Single-Acre Intensity range, which is 80-120 people per acre. If the lower limit of 40 people is used, which is required, then the project violates the handbook standard even under the Staff Report’s erroneous calculation.

While the City is not permitted to use the high range of the Maximum Nonresidential Intensity criteria, even if the correct occupancy calculation is used (i.e., the adjustment of 50% is not employed), the Project violates the high range of the Maximum Nonresidential Intensity criteria.

The MND’s discussion of potential safety hazards is not only cursory, but also entirely flawed because the City has not yet incorporated the Handbook into its General Plan, as required by the State Aeronautic Act and the holding in WPA I. The court in Resource Defense Fund v.

County of Santa Cruz (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 800, 806, held that “[s]ince consistency with the general plan is required, absence of a valid general plan, or valid relevant [] elements or components thereof, precludes enactment of zoning ordinances and the like.” Thus, without a valid general plan, the City cannot conclude the Project complies with the State Aeronautics Act and the Handbook. Therefore, a fair argument exists that the Project will create a significant impact.

II. The City Cannot Issue Land Use Approvals because the General Plan is Noncompliant with the State Aeronautics Act
In any event. the City cannot approve the Project, which is within Airport Safety Zones, because the City’s General Plan violates the State Aeronautics Act. The City must update its General Plan to comply with the Public Utilities Code before it can approve this Project. We fully explain this obstacle to approval in our letter on the MND. However, we summarize the key points below.

In 2006, WPA filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the City’s adoption of an updated City General Plan (the 2030 General Plan). (Santa Cruz Superior Court Case No. 154571.) The Santa Cruz Superior Court found that the City had violated both the State Aeronautics Act and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), because, inter alia, the 2030 General Plan unlawfully modified Airport Safety Zone 3 and land use compatibility guidelines, and the EIR inadequately analyzed aviation impacts and traffic impacts and failed to consider a reasonable range of alternatives. The Court of Appeal upheld this judgment in WPA I.

The Court of Appeal explained that the Watsonville Airport is in a “no-procedure” county and that “an affected city in a no-procedure county must ‘accept’ and ‘put into effect’ the Handbook’s criteria by ‘unit[ing]’ the criteria with the city’s general plan, a very strong mandate.” WPA I at 1072. The Court further explained that “what we can glean from the legislative history” of the applicable “1994 amendment of Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1” is “perfectly consistent with requiring an affected city in a no-procedure county to adopt all of the Handbook’s criteria and inconsistent with allowing such city to choose to adopt only some of those criteria.” WPA I at 1073.

Attachment 2.12

Page 733 of 965 ends

Planning Commission
Re: Crocker’s Locker Self-Storage
December 6, 2022

Page 6 ends

The Court of Appeal also stated that the City’s contention “lacks merit” when it claimed that “the Legislature did not intend to mandate that an affected city in a no-procedure county adopt the specific criteria in the Handbook but intended to require only that such a city adopt some subset of those criteria.” Id. The Court also explicitly rejected the City’s claim that “the contours of the[] zones and the nature of the compatibility criteria [both of which ‘chapter 9 of the Handbook contains’] are left to the discretion of the local agency because the criteria ‘depend on each locality’s answer to the basic questions’ about how much risk it is willing to accept [Italics added by Court.],” holding that “[t]his claim directly conflicts with the Legislature’s intent in enacting the 1994 legislation.” WPA I at 1076. The Court further stated that “it would defy the Legislature’s intent to conclude that the City has discretion to modify the criteria to suit itself based on the City’s own determination.” WPA I at 1077.

The Project cannot be approved until the City has converted the Handbook into mandatory provisions in its General Plan. State law establishes Airport Safety Zones around airports and makes compliance mandatory as to the Watsonville Airport. The WPA has successfully defended these mandatory Airport Safety Zones in Court twice to date: in WPA I and in Watsonville Pilots Association v. City of Watsonville, Case No. CV176416 (“WPA II”) where the Superior Court found that a revised 2030 General Plan again violated the Aeronautics Act because, among other reasons, it granted the City discretion in a no procedure county.

In fact, the City itself has admitted the lack of incorporation of the Handbook into the General Plan prohibits the City from approving development within the Airport Safety Zones.

The City has agreed with this conclusion before. (See February 28, 2017, Staff Report for the Pajaro Valley High School Auditorium Project, p.3-4, attached hereto as Exhibit A.) Notably, the City also agreed in a Joint Stipulation and Order Re Partial Return to Writ of Mandate Enabling City Approval of Athletic Field Project and Auditorium Project for Pajaro Valley High School (“Stip and Order Re Partial Return”) that both WPA I and WPA II “ordered the CITY, inter alia, to comply with the State Aeronautics Act and this Court’s respective Statements of Decision and to take no action on development proposals within the Airport Influence Area until the CITY has duly incorporated the provisions of the Airport Handbook into the CITY General Plan.” (Stip and Order Re Partial Return, 8:24-28, attached hereto as Exhibit B.) Moreover, this Stipulation and Order also states that “the CITY remains mandated to incorporate the Airport Handbook into its General Plan as ‘nondiscretionary’ standards, and utilize the most stringent of those Airport Handbook standards….” (Stip and Order Re Partial Return, 10:13-17.)
The issues identified by City staff with regards to the Pajaro Valley High School Auditorium Project remain an issue here: because the General Plan is still noncompliant with the State Aeronautics Act, no permits or any other land use approvals may be authorized at this time.

Page 734 of 965 ends

Planning Commission
Re: Crocker’s Locker Self-Storage
December 6, 2022

Page 7 ends

City must take the position that it will not issue permits or otherwise make new land use decisions. See also Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984)156 Cal.App.3d 1176, 1184-1185 (stating that a conditional use permit issued on the basis of invalid general plan is thereby itself invalid, to the extent that the “permitted use implicates a defective policy or standard in the general plan,” continuing on to state that “the scope of authority of the agency to enact a general plan and zoning ordinances and to apply them is governed by the requirements of state law. A permit action taken without compliance with the hierarchy of land use laws is ultra vires as to any defect implicated by the uses sought by the permit”) (emphasis added); Friends of “B” Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 998 (“City approval of a proposed subdivision, construction of public improvements, and private sale of subdivided lots may be enjoined for lack of consistency of the subdivision map with the general plan.”) Therefore, WPA respectfully requests that the Commission reject the MND and approval of the Project, and recommend that the City Council do the same.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Very truly yours,

WITTWER PARKIN
William P. Parkin
cc: Client
Justin Meek ([email protected])
Attachment 2.12

Page 735 of 965 ends

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A
Attachment 2.12

Page 736 of 965 ends

Page 1 of 6 ends

C:\Users\alan.smith\Desktop\PVHS CDP Amendment Staff Report.smrev (003).doc\2/27/2017 2:47 PM\JM\dm City of Watsonville
Community Development Department

M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: February 27, 2017
TO: Charles A. Montoya, City Manager
FROM: Justin Meek, AICP, Principal Planner/Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: Consideration of a Resolution denying an amendment to Coastal Development Permit/Special Use Permit (CDP/SUP) No. 00-28 for the Pajaro Valley High School (PVHS) Auditorium Project.

AGENDA ITEM: February 28, 2017 City Council

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution denying an amendment to CDP/SUP No. 00-28 for the PVHS Auditorium Project.

BASIC PROJECT DATA
LOCATION: 500 Harkins Slough Road LOT SIZE: 32± acres APN: 018-281-63 ZONING / GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CZ-C (Coastal Zone - C) / CZ (Coastal Zone) EXISTING USE: Public high school
PROPOSED USE: Public high school with new 15,380± square-foot auditorium building SURROUNDING USES: Private land under agricultural production and environmental management as open space
APPLICANT: Adam Lint, Supervisor of Facilities Planning Pajaro Valley Unified School District
294 Green Valley Road, Watsonville, CA 95076
PROPERTY OWNER: Pajaro Valley Unified School District
294 Green Valley Road, Watsonville, CA 95076
Attachment 2.12
page 9 of 81
CITY COUNCIL 8.D.1.

Page 737 of 965 ends

Page 2 of 6 ends

C:\Users\alan.smith\Desktop\PVHS CDP Amendment Staff Report.smrev (003).doc\2/27/2017 2:47 PM\JM\dm

STAFF ACKNOLEDGEMENT -
Staff recognizes and supports every Council member’s concerns about PVHS getting the expansion they need, and thoroughly supports the children and families of Pajaro Valley High School; however the City must abide by State law and the decisions of the Santa Cruz County Superior Court and so the City cannot approve the permit based upon the following narrative:

BACKGROUND
Proposal
On November 22, 2016, the applicant, Pajaro Valley Unified School District (District), submitted an application for an amendment to CDP/SUP No. 00-28 to allow the construction of a new 15,380± square-foot auditorium building on a vacant 0.5± acre portion of the PVHS campus located at 500 Harkins Slough Road (APN 018-281-63). The project would construct a three-story, 30-foot-tall, 450-seat auditorium on the PVHS campus next to the cafeteria and lunch shelters (Attachment 1). This amendment to the CDP/SUP is for an Auditorium that never existed in the 2002 application..

On December 21, 2017, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics sent a letter in opposition to the City approving the project until the City adopts State airport land use compatibility standards from the State Airport Land Use Handbook into the City’s proposed 2030 general plan (Attachment 2).

On February 2, 2017, the City sent the District a letter explaining why the findings required to approve the amendment to SUP No. 00-28 cannot be made until the City has a general plan that complies with the State Aeronautics Act. (Attachment 3).

On February 10, 2017, the District requested the City process the District’s application for the CDP amendment anyway. (Attachment 4).

Site History
CDP/SUP No. 00-28 was approved by the Council on June 26, 2001, to allow construction of a 2,200 student high school by the District (Resolution No. 171-01 CM). The school was constructed in 2002-2003 and includes ten separate buildings clustered in the center of the site with a series of smaller one-story buildings along the eastern perimeter that step back to twostory buildings moving westerly on the site. In a 2001 memo from the California Coastal Commission (Coastal Commission) to the City and District, the Coastal Commission required a separate CDP or CDP amendment application for any future buildings and/or extension of utilities onto the subject site (Attachment 5).

PROCEDURE
Pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 9-5.413 of the Watsonville Municipal Code (WMC), the Zoning Administrator shall refer any request for modifications to an approved coastal permit to the decision-making body that approved the coastal permit.

DISCUSSION

FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL
A modification request to an approved coastal permit may be granted only if the reviewing body determines that: (1) the proposed modification would not lessen or avoid the intended effect of the approved coastal permit; and (2) the modified project would be consistent with the Local Coastal Program. (WMC, §9-5.413, subd. (d).)
Attachment 2.12

Page 738 of 965 ends

Page 3 of 6 ends

C:\Users\alan.smith\Desktop\PVHS CDP Amendment Staff Report.smrev (003).doc\2/27/2017 2:47 PM\JM\dm

The Local Coastal Program means a local government’s (a) land use plans, (b) zoning ordinances, (c) zoning district maps, and (d) within sensitive coastal resources areas, other implementing actions, which, when taken together, meet the requirements of, and implement the provisions and policies of, the California Coastal Act at the local level. (Pub. Resources Code, §30108.6.) In turn, “land use plan” means the relevant portion of a local government’s general plan, or local coastal element which are sufficiently detailed to indicate the kinds, location, and intensity of land uses, the applicable resource protection and development policies and, where necessary, a listing of implementing actions.” (Pub. Resources Code, §30108.5.)

To approve the CDP/SUP amendment, the City must find the project would not “lessen or avoid” the effect of the approved coastal permit, and determine consistency with the general plan, among other things.

LAND USES IN THE VICINITY OF THE WATSONVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT The high school is located in Runway Protection Zone 6 Traffic Pattern Zone, for the Watsonville Municipal Airport. The City’s 2030 General Plan has been in litigation for several years. The Santa Cruz County Superior Court and the 6th District Court of Appeal have issued decisions that the Watsonville 2030 General Plan is legally defective, among other reasons, because the General Plan does not include the strictest interpretation of the California Airport Land Use Handbook (Handbook) as required by the California State Aeronautics Act (SAA) .

In 2010, the Court of Appeal found that the City did not comply with the SAA, because it did not include the Handbook compatibility standards in its general plan. (Watsonville Pilots Ass'n v. City of Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1079.) Santa Cruz County has been identified as being a “no procedures county.” (Handbook, p. 1-4.) This means that the County has not: (1) established an Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) (2) adopted a resolution finding “no issues” affecting any airport; or (3) established an alternative procedure for airport planning. (Watsonville Pilots Ass'n, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at p. 1071.) Because of this, the county and each affected city must adopt all of the Handbook’s criteria. (Id. at pp. 1071-72.) The City has no discretion—it must “accept” and “put into effect” the Handbook’s criteria by “uniting” the criteria with the City’s general plan, “a very strong mandate.” (Id. at pp. 1072.) In short, the City is required to adopt the compatibility criteria in the Handbook as part of its general plan. (Id. at p. 1079.) The City is also required to include all applicable federal regulations as part of its general and specific plans. (Handbook, p. 1-4; Pub. Util. Code, §21670.1, subd. (e).) The City must also submit its general and specific plans to the Division of Aeronautics for review. (Ibid.)

Since the Court of Appeal opinion, the City has taken corrective actions to address the SAA and CEQA deficiencies. In 2013, the City certified a new Final EIR and approved a revised general plan amendment (2030 General Plan). However, a second lawsuit was filed and in September 2014, the Superior Court granted judgment against the City and issued a second writ of mandate.

Page 739 of 965 ends

Page 4 of 6 ends

C:\Users\alan.smith\Desktop\PVHS CDP Amendment Staff Report.smrev (003).doc\2/27/2017 2:47 PM\JM\dm environmental review and the 2030 General Plan and resolutions are revised to comply with the Court’s Statement of Decision and California law. (Order and Judgment, ¶3.) The City is still working to comply with the Writ and California law (Attachment 7). City staff have worked for the past year with aviation consultants Mead & Hunt, the Watsonville Pilot’s Association and the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics to develop an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) that is intended to be a first step to comply with the Court’s decision finding deficiencies in the City’s draft 2030 General Plan and EIR (Attachment 8).

The ALUCP would provide appropriate airport land use compatibility standards to be incorporated in the City’s General Plan.

DIFFICULTIES IN MAKING THE REQUIRED FINDINGS
Based on the above, the City cannot approve the CDP/SUP amendment because the City cannot make the required findings regarding the effect of the amendment, or its consistency with the general plan, given the Writ and the lack of Caltrans input.

First, the City cannot determine consistency with the 2030 General Plan. The Court requires certain contents in the City’s 2030 General Plan. The City’s 2005 General Plan does not comply with the Court decisions. And, the 2030 General Plan has been voided and City is prohibited from basing any action on or engaging in any activity pursuant to the 2030 General Plan until the Writ is discharged.

Accordingly, the Council’s approval of the CDP/SUP amendment would be challenged in Court as a “circumvention” of the Court’s decision. This could open the City up to challenges on the return or discharge of the Writ. (See Los Angeles Int’l Charter High Sch. v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1348, 1355 [petitioner opposed return on writ and appealed trial court’s discharge order]; City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 964, 970 [petitioner successfully moved for order finding respondent had not complied with writ].) The Superior Court retained jurisdiction and may take all steps necessary to enforce the writ.

Attachment 2.12

Page 740 of 965 ends

Page 5 of 6 ends

C:\Users\alan.smith\Desktop\PVHS CDP Amendment Staff Report.smrev (003).doc\2/27/2017 2:47 PM\JM\dm

COASTAL PERMIT CHANGE APPEALS TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION Any action on the District’s coastal permit may be appealed to the Coastal Commission as described in WMC Section 9-5.410 if : (1) if the original coastal permit was appealable to the Coastal Commission; (2) the development authorized by the original coastal permit would be appealable pursuant to WMC Section 9-5.410 at the time the modification request is received by the City; or (3) if the modification requested is such that the proposed modified project would be appealable pursuant to WMC Section 9-5.410. (WMC, §9-5.413, subd. (d).) A modification request may be granted if the Coastal Commission, on appeal, determines that:
(1) the proposed modification would not lessen or avoid the intended effect of the approved coastal permit; and (2) the modified project would be consistent with the Local Coastal Program.

COASTAL PERMIT APPEALS TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION
Any major public works project is appealable to the Coastal Commission. (WMC, 9-5.410 subd. (b)(1)(ii), Pub. Resources Code, §30601, subd. (3), and Pub. Resources Code, §30603, subd. (a)(5).) During a telephone call with City staff, Coastal Commission staff said the PVHS Auditorium Project is a major public works project (personal communication, Susan Craig, Central Coast District Manager, January 30, 2017).

An appeal may be filed only by the applicant, an aggrieved person, or any two members of the Coastal Commission. An appeal shall be made in accordance with the appeal procedures contained in Article 4 (Administration and Procedure) of Chapter 5 (Coastal Zone Implementation Plan) of Title 9 (Planning and Zoning) of the Watsonville Municipal Code except that appeals by any two members of the Coastal Commission shall be filed before the effective date of the permit, or not later than ten working days following the date of receipt of the notice of final action in the Coastal Commission’s District Office, whichever is later.

Appeals by members of the Coastal Commission may be made following decisions of the reviewing body.

Grounds of appeal, pursuant to subsections (1)(i) and (1)(ii) of subsection (b) of WMC Section 9-5.410 are limited to an allegation that the development does not conform to the certified Local Coastal Program.

Appeals to the Coastal Commission must be filed with the Coastal Commission on forms prescribed by and available from the Coastal Commission.

CEQA
The District is the Lead Agency for reviewing and approving projects on its property. On September 14, 2016, the District adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the PVHS Auditorium Project.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Staff and the City Council of the City of Watsonville clearly recognize and support the students and families of Pajaro Valley High School for the needed expansion and growth of the high school. However, the City has also identified the constraints agreed to by PVUSD, that the City cannot alone alleviate.

Attachment 2.12

Page 741 of 965 ends

Page 6 of 6 ends

C:\Users\alan.smith\Desktop\PVHS CDP Amendment Staff Report.smrev (003).doc\2/27/2017 2:47 PM\JM\dm Staff recommends the Council deny the application thereby allowing the District to have a near term hearing before the Coastal Commission; if the Council follows staff recommendation and denies the application, the District can appeal immediately to the California Coastal Commission.

If the Council rejects staff recommendation and grants the application, a lawsuit challenging the Council’s decision is expected to soon follow and would have to be decided by the Superior Court, a lengthy process that could take years to complete. If the Superior Court says that the City correctly denied the application, the District will appeal to the Coastal Commission. If the Superior Court decides the City was wrong in denying the application, the Watsonville Pilot’s Association and CalTrans Division of Aeronautics will appeal to the Coastal Commission.

So either way there will be an appeal to the Coastal Commission. The only question is when:
immediately by the District or a few years from now by either the District or others.

If this is truly about the kids and students of PVHS, the appropriate Council action is to deny the application. There is nothing the City can do to expedite – regardless of what the families and kids have been told.

Staff therefore recommends the City Council adopt the attached Resolution denying an amendment to CDP/SUP No. 00-28 for the PVHS Auditorium Project because it cannot make the required findings.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no negative fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund incurred by denying the proposed amendment to CDP/SUP No. 00-28 for the PVHS Auditorium Project.

ALTERNATIVES
None

ATTACHMENTS

1. Project Plans

2. Letter from Caltrans to the City (December 21, 2016)

3. Letter the City to District (February 2, 2017)

4. Letter from the District to the City (February 10, 2017)

5. Memorandum from Tami Grove, Coastal Commission Deputy Director, to John Doughty, City of Watsonville Community Development Director, John Casey, PVUSD Superintendent et al regarding New Millennium High School in Watsonville — Response to PVUSD’s September 13, 2001 Memo to the City of Watsonville (September 25, 2001)

6. Superior Court Order and Judgment (September 12, 2014)

7. Superior Court Writ of Mandamus (September 12, 2014)

8. Superior Court Statement of Decision (September 12, 2014) cc: City Attorney
Attachment 2.12

Page 742 of 965 ends

Attachment 1
1 of 6
Attachment 2.12

Page 743 of 965 ends

page 15 of 81
Attachment 1
2 of 6
Attachment 2.12

Page 744 of 965 ends

page 16 of 81
Attachment 1
3 of 6
Attachment 2.12

Page 745 of 965 ends

page 17 of 81
Attachment 1
4 of 6
Attachment 2.12

Page 746 of 965 ends

page 18 of 81
Attachment 1
5 of 6
Attachment 2.12

Page 747 of 965 ends

page 19 of 81
Attachment 1
6 of 6
Attachment 2.12

Page 748 of 965 ends

page 20 of 81
STATE OF CALlFORNIA—CALIFORNlA STATE 1'RANSPO' ON AGENCY “ EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Governor

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS — MS. #40
l l20 N STREET ‘
P. 0. BOX 942874 Serious‘ droughtl
SACRAMENTO, CA 94274-0001 H9117-Save Wat?”
PHONE (916) 654-4959
FAX (916) 653-9531
TTY 711
www dotca gov
December 21, 2016
Mr. Justin Meek, AICP, Principal Planner
Community Development Department
City of Watsonville
250 Main Street
Watsonville, CA 95076-5097
Dear Mr. Meek:

Thank you for providing the Pajaro Valley Unified School District’s (PVUSD) use permit (PP20l6- 192) and coastal development permit amendment request (CDP No. 00-28) application package to us for our review and comment. The postmark shows that the city of Watsonville (City) mailed these materials on November 29, 2016, and these were marked received by the California Department of Transportation, Division ofAeronautics (Division) on Tuesday, December 6, 2016.

As noted in the materials, the City requested comments by December 7, 2016. It is highly irregular for an agency to expect comments on such a short tum-around. In fact, we find it questionable and suggestive that the City may be neglecting court orders.

As you are aware, the Division responded via email on December 6, 2016, to an email dated November 29, 2016, that you sent to me regarding the proposed auditorium at Paj aro Valley High School by PVUSD. The next day, December 7, 2016, I received the application materials discussed herein. Our email response attached to the application materials regarding the auditorium remains unchanged.

Santa Cruz County Superior Court (Court) ordered the City to adopt general plan policies pertaining to airport land use compatibility. The Court determined that Santa Cruz County is a “no procedure county” and must comply with the Court’s order, which is still pending until the City files a return on the writ showing compliance. The Court’s decision mandates that the City adopt airport land use compatibility policies according to the strictest interpretation of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook) in compliance with the State Aeronautics Act (SAA). This means that the matter is pending further Court action, and the Division will take the opportunity to comment at the appropriate time during this process, but not in a piecemeal manner.

Pursuant to California Public Utilities Code section 2l670(t), PVUSD is subject to airport land use laws and other requirements of the SAA, and is subject to the Court’s previous decisions (trial and appellate Courts), and the Court’s pending decision. With that in mind, the City is not authorized to pick and choose the application of Handbook policies at its discretion, but must use the strictest interpretation of Handbook’s definition of “existing land use” to comply with the Court orders.

Further, the Division is willing to review any agreement between the City and the Watsonville Pilot’s Association. The agreement must be consistent with the Court’s ruling regarding the strictest interpretation of the SAA and the Handbook criteria pertaining to these issues. This includes the proposal to build an additional building that would concentrate a higher intensity of “Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated, and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability”
Attachment 2
1 of 2
Attachment 2.12

Page 749 of 965 ends

Mr. Justin Meek
December 21, 2016

Page 2 ends

student in one location. This preliminary review would not be a substitute for the City in adopting the strictest airport land use compatibility policies as required by Santa Cruz County Superior Court. The Court ordered that “the general and specific plans shall be submitted upon adoption to the Division ofAeronautics” for review. Approval ofthe use permit application and coastal development permit amendment request essentially circumvents the Superior Court’s orders and this is not acceptable.

Please contact me at (916) 654-5314 or by email at [email protected] if you have any concerns or comments.

Sincerely,

ROBERT FIORE,
Associate Transportation Planner
c: Ms. Natalie Kirkish, Wittwer Parken LLP, 147 S. River Street, Suite 221, Santa Cruz, CA 95060-4540
Mr. John Randolph, Watsonville Pilots Association, P.O. Box 2074, Freedom, CA 95019-2074
Ms. Rainey Graeven, Coastal Program Analyst, California Coastal Commission, 725 Front Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060-4538
"Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated, and efficient transportation system to enhance California '5‘ economy and livability"
Attachment 2
2 of 2
Attachment 2.12

Page 750 of 965 ends

CITY OF WATSONVILLE
“Opportunity through diversity; unity through cooperation” 250 Main Street  Watsonville  California  95076  (831) 768-3050 www.cityofwatsonville.org
P:\CURPLAN\Projects\PVHS Auditorium Project\CDP Denial Letter.docx

February 2, 2017
Adam Lint, Supervisor of Facilities Planning
Pajaro Valley Unified School District
Maintenance, Operations & Facilities Department
294 Green Valley Road
Watsonville, CA 95076
RE: PVHS Auditorium Project, Coastal Development Permit Amendment Dear Mr. Lint,
Thank you for your application submitted on November 22, 2016, for an amendment to Coastal Development Permit/Special Use Permit (CDP/SUP) No. 00-28 to allow construction of a new 15,380± square-foot auditorium building on a vacant 0.5± acre portion of the Pajaro Valley High School (PVHS) campus located at 500 Harkins Slough Road (APN 018-281-63).

The original CDP/SUP was approved by the City on June 26, 2001, to allow construction of a 2,200 student high school by the Pajaro Valley Unified School District (District). The school was constructed in 2002-2003 and includes ten separate buildings clustered in the center of the site with a series of smaller one-story buildings along the eastern perimeter that step back to twostory buildings moving westerly on the site. Any new buildings and/or extension of utilities onto subject site was identified in a 2001 letter from the California Coastal Commission (Coastal Commission) to the City, District and local State Assemblyman as requiring a separate CDP or CDP amendment application (Attachment E). The proposed amendment to the CDP/SUP was routed to City departments, Caltrans, and the Coastal Commission for review and comment because the project is located in the Coastal Zone “Area C” and airport influence area of the Watsonville Municipal Airport.

The City is constrained in reviewing and approving projects within an airport influence area, such as Safety Compatibility Zone 6 (Traffic Pattern Zone), because of past litigation and a pending decision on a writ of mandate. On March 21, 2008, the Superior Court of State of California for the County of Santa Cruz found that the City had violated both the State Aeronautics Act (SAA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), because, in part, the draft 2030 General Plan Update unlawfully modified airport land use compatibility guidelines, and the EIR inadequately analyzed aviation impacts. The Court issued a writ requiring the City incorporate airport land use compatibility policies into its general plan. This decision was later upheld upon appeal. The City therefore cannot approve this project because of the uncertainty created from not having an adopted general plan with airport land use compatibility policies that comply with the Court’s ruling.

Attachment 3
1 of 19
Attachment 2.12

Page 751 of 965 ends

PVHS Auditorium Project, Coastal Development Permit Amendment

Page 2 ends

250 Main Street  Watsonville  California  95076  (831) 768-3050 www.cityofwatsonville.org
The City and its consultants have worked for the past year with aviation consultants Mead & Hunt, the Watsonville Pilot’s Association and the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics to develop an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) that is intended to be a first step to comply with the Court decision finding deficiencies in the City’s draft 2030 General Plan and EIR. The ALUCP would provide appropriate airport land use compatibility policies to be incorporated in the City’s general plan.

Pajaro Valley High School is located in Safety Compatibility Zone 6. The boundary of Safety Compatibility Zone 6 is determined mathmatically based on criteria set forth in the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook). The Handbook lists children’s schools as a use that should be “limited” in Safety Compatibility Zone 6. Because no published decision nor the Superior Court decision has yet explained or interpreted the meaning of the word “limited” in the Handbook, it would be imprudent for City staff to recommend approving the proposed auditorium expansion to the City Council. Comments received from the Coastal Commission and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics are consistent with the City’s position.

California Coastal Commission staff directed City staff to consult with Caltrans Division of Aeronautics to resolve compatibility issues before processing the CDP/SUP amendment. In particular, Coastal Commission staff instructed City staff to consult Caltrans regarding any commitments to develop and adopt general plan policies related to airport land use compatibility.

Caltrans Division of Aeronautics indicated that they understood the Court ordered the City to adopt general plan policies pertaining to airport land use compatibility. In addition, Caltrans staff contend that the City must adopt airport land use compatibility policies according to the “strictest interpretation” of the Handbook. While the Court decision did not state that the City shall apply the “strictest interpretation” of the Handbook, it did state that “the City has absolutely no discretion whatsoever with respect to the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.” 1 Caltrans staff also contend that pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 216702 of the California Public Utilities Code (PUC) the District, albeit a subdivision of the State, is subject to the SAA, and the Court’s previous decisions and pending decision. Caltrans staff have said in an email to City staff dated December 6, 2016, that they are “willing to review what the City would consider to be the strictest interpretation of the SAA, the California Education Code regarding an additional building that would concentrate a higher intensity of students in one location, and the Handbook criteria pertaining to these issues.” Subsequently in a letter to staff dated December 21, 2016, Caltrans staff state, “the Division is willing to review any agreement between the City and the Watsonville Pilot’s Association. The agreement must be consistent with the Court’s ruling regarding the strictest interpretation of the SAA and the Handbook criteria pertaining to these issues” and “this preliminary review would not be a substitute for the City in adopting the

1 Watsonville Pilots Association v. City of Watsonville (2014), Case No. CV176416, Statement of Decision, p. 6. 2 (f) It is the intent of the Legislature to clarify that, for the purposes of this article that special districts, school districts, and community college districts are included among the local agencies that are subject to airport land use laws and other requirements of this article.

Attachment 3
2 of 19
Attachment 2.12

Page 752 of 965 ends

Attachment 3
3 of 19
Attachment 2.12

Page 753 of 965 ends

PVHS Auditorium Project, Coastal Development Permit Amendment

Page 4 ends

250 Main Street  Watsonville  California  95076  (831) 768-3050 www.cityofwatsonville.org
Bob Fiore, Office of Aviation Planning, Division of Aeronautics, California Department of Transportation, 1120 N Street, MS-40, Sacramento, CA 95814 Lori Ballance, Attorney, City Legal Counsel
Clarissa Canady, Attorney, District Legal Counsel
Attachment 3
4 of 19
Attachment 2.12

Page 754 of 965 ends

ATTACHMENT A | California Coastal Commission Correspondence A-1
From: Graeven, Rainey@Coastal <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, December 12, 2016 at 5:15 PM
To: Justin Meek <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments on Application No. pp 2016-192
Dear Justin,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above-referenced Coastal Permit application. Please include these comments as part of the administrative record for this project, and distribute to the applicant and relevant State and resource agencies. Please also include Coastal Commission staff on any future routings, including other agency comments from this round of comments.

Project Description and Location:

The project proposes to amend CDP 00-28 to construct an approximately 15,380 square-foot auditorium on the Pajaro Valley on an undeveloped area on the eastern perimeter within the development envelope.

Comments:

1. Visual Simulations. The proposed project is located on the eastern perimeter of the development site, and according to the IS/ Negative Declaration, it will be visible from Highway 1.

As such, the application should require visual simulations of the project as seen from various angles/directions along Highway 1 (including at least one from Northbound lanes and one from southbound travel lanes) and any other protected viewsheds (e.g. Watsonville State Wildlife Area, Harkins Slough, etc.) in the project vicinity. The project simulations should include an image providing current existing conditions and as proposed on a single sheet for each ease of comparison.

2. Other Agency Approvals. Please consult with Caltrans’ Aeronautics Division regarding any commitments to develop and adopt General Plan Policies related to airport land use compatibility.

Most notably, because the Division’s review of the project may alter the ultimate siting and design, we would encourage the City to resolve these matters with the Division prior to processing the CDP for the project in order to avoid the need for amending and/or reprocessing the CDP to account for such changes.

Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the above comments.

Sincerely,

Rainey Graeven
Coastal Program Analyst, Central Coast District
California Coastal Commission
725 Front Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
(831) 427-4863
Attachment 3
5 of 19
Attachment 2.12

Page 755 of 965 ends

ATTACHMENT B | Caltrans Correspondence
B-1
From: Fiore, Robert A@DOT <[email protected]>
Sent: Tue, December 6, 2016 at 9:51 AM
To: ron.bolyard, jeff.brown, don.haug, Justin Meek <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Division's Letter to the Dept of Education Justin,
It is my understanding that the Santa Cruz County Superior Court ordered the City to adopt General Plan policies pertaining to airport land use compatibility. The courts determined that Santa Cruz County is a “no procedure county” and must comply with the court’s order, which is still pending until the City files a return on the writ showing compliance. The court decisions mandate that the City must adopt airport land use compatibility policies according to the strictest interpretation of the California Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook) in compliance with the State Aeronautics Act (SAA). This means that the matter is pending further court action, and the Division will take the opportunity to comment at the appropriate time during this process, but not in a piece meal manner.

Also be advised that pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 21670(f), Pajaro Valley Unified School District is subject to airport land use laws and other requirements of the SAA, and is subject to the court previous decisions (trial and appellate court), and the courts pending decision. With that in mind, the City is not authorized to pick and choose using its discretion, but use the strictest interpretation of Handbook’s definition of “existing land use” to comply with the court orders. With that in mind, the State is willing to review what the City would consider is the strictest interpretation of the SAA, the California Education Code regarding an additional building that would concentrate a higher intensity of students in one location, and the Handbook criteria pertaining to these issues.

Regards,

Bob Fiore
Office of Aviation Planning
Division of Aeronautics
California Department of Transportation
1120 N Street, MS-40
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-654-5314
[email protected]
From: Justin Meek <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 3:20 PM
To: Fiore, Robert A@DOT <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Division's Letter to the Dept of Education

Bob,

Thank you for sharing the letter sent to the Department of Education regarding the proposed PVHS campus expansion project consisting of a sports complex containing a football field with bleachers, running track and pool. The letter explains that the location of the proposed sports complex is on a 10- acre parcel Caltrans recommended against developing, in 2000, as one of the high school's site alternatives, and that Caltrans could not provide a school site evaluation recommendation for the sports complex project until litigation holding up the adoption of the City's General Plan was settled. The current PVHS campus is located south by southeast of the subject 10-acre parcel.

As part of your review of the proposed PVHS auditorium project, please address the following questions:

1. Is the existing PVHS campus considered "existing development" as discussed in Section 3.5 of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Caltrans 2011), and therefore not subject to an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for the Watsonville Municipal Airport? Attachment 3
6 of 19
Attachment 2.12

Page 756 of 965 ends

B-2

2. Would the addition of a building within the existing footprint of the PVHS campus that does not result in increasing the number of students and/or teachers onsite (i.e., the land use intensity) trigger a new "school site evaluation," pursuant to California Education Code Section 17215? In short, please address whether or not the school district has a vested right to build the auditorium because it would serve the current student body and is located on a 0.5± acre portion of the previously approved and built school site, and therefore would not be subject to Caltran's airport land use compatibility guidelines for potentially incompatible uses.

If an evaluation is deemed required, please note that the City of Watsonville is a suburban community and not located in unincorporated rural Santa Cruz County. According to the Figure 4G (Safety Zone 6 - Traffic Pattern Zone) of the Handbook, the upper range for the maximum non-residential intensity for a single site in a suburban community is 800 to 1,200 people per gross acre.

Thank you for your time in addressing these questions.

Regards,

Justin Meek, AICP
Principal Planner
City of Watsonville
831.768.3077
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Fiore, Robert A@DOT <[email protected]> wrote:

Justin,
The attached letter was submitted to the California Department of Education regarding Pajaro Valley School District’s expansion of the school. The Division would cite the court’s decision and would enforce the strictest interpretation of the Handbook accordingly.

Regards,
Bob Fiore
Office of Aviation Planning
Division of Aeronautics
California Department of Transportation
1120 N Street, MS-40
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-654-5314
[email protected]
Attachment 3
7 of 19
Attachment 2.12

Page 757 of 965 ends

B-3
Attachment 3
8 of 19
Attachment 2.12

Page 758 of 965 ends

B-4
Attachment 3
9 of 19
Attachment 2.12

Page 759 of 965 ends

ATTACHMENT C | Litigation Background
C-1
The draft WatsonvilleVista 2030 General Plan Update is currently in litigation due to noncompliance with the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (2011). The Santa Cruz Superior Court has said that any development proposed within any Airport Safety Compatibility Zone will require compliance with the Handbook.

The City finds itself in this situation because of two lawsuits filed by the Watsonville Pilots Association regarding violation of the State Aeronautics Act (SAA), and other California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) related matters in regard to proposed development surrounding the Airport. The City and Caltrans were defendants in both actions.

The first lawsuit was the subject of a published appellate court decision entitled the Watsonville Pilots Association v. City of Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1059. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s recession of the City’s general plan, finding the City to be in violation of CEQA and the SAA. The appellate court identified Santa Cruz County to be a “no procedure” county and mandated compliance of the Handbook, without discretion.

In the second lawsuit, entitled the Watsonville Pilots Association v. City of Watsonville, case number CV 176416, the Santa Cruz Superior Court again rescinded the City’s general plan. This case is pending based on the City adopting a general plan in compliance with SAA. According to Caltrans, any review and/or discretionary actions taken prior to adopting an updated general plan would be premature and contrary to the writ of mandamus and the statement of decision (court order).

The City is in the process of drafting airport land use compatibility policies to be incorporated in the City’s general plan in compliance with the court order.

The City makes airport land use development decisions in the airport influence area, which should be based on its general plan incorporating the Handbook’s criteria. Without an adopted general plan in place, the City is unable to make any such decision in the event the City opposed Caltrans’ evaluation of and recommendations for proposed school site facilities.

Based on the above, with the Santa Cruz Superior Court granting a second writ against the City and retaining jurisdiction over the subject litigation until the City is in compliance with the SAA, the City is unable to review and approve the proposed PVHS Auditorium project until the aforementioned litigation is settled.

Attachment 3
10 of 19
Attachment 2.12

Page 760 of 965 ends

ATTACHMENT D | Appeal Process & Criteria
D-1
Appealable Modification Request
Pursuant to WMC Section 9-5.413(d), any action on a coastal development permit modification request shall be appealable to the Coastal Commission as described in WMC Section 9-5.410 for the following coastal development permit modification requests: (1) if the original coastal development permit was appealable to the Coastal Commission; (2) if the development authorized by the original coastal development permit would be appealable pursuant to Section 9-5.410 at the time the modification request is received by the City; or (3) if the modification requested is such that the proposed modified project would be appealable pursuant to Section 9-5.410.

A modification request may be granted only if the reviewing body, either the City or the Coastal Commission if on appeal, determines that: (1) the proposed modification would not lessen or avoid the intended effect of the approved coastal development permit; and (2) the modified project would be consistent with the Local Coastal Program. If the modification request is denied by the City, or by the Coastal Commission if on appeal, then the terms and conditions of the original coastal development permit shall remain in effect.

Appeals to the Coastal Commission
Pursuant to WMC Section 9-5.410(b)(1)(ii), PRC Section 30601(3) and PRC Section 30603(a)(5), any major public works project is appealable to the Coastal Commission.

An appeal may be filed only by the applicant, an aggrieved person, or any two members of the Coastal Commission. An appeal shall be made in accordance with the appeal procedures contained in Article 4 (Administration and Procedure) of Chapter 5 (Coastal Zone Implementation Plan) of Title 9 (Planning and Zoning), except that appeals by any two members of the Coastal Commission shall be filed prior to the effective date of the permit, or not later than ten working days following the date of receipt of the notice of final action in the Coastal Commission’s District Office, whichever is later. Appeals by members of the Coastal Commission may be made following decisions of the reviewing body, Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, or City Council.

Grounds of appeal, pursuant to subsections (1)(i) and (1)(ii) of subsection (b) of WMC Section 9-5.410 shall be limited to an allegation that the development does not conform to the certified Local Coastal Program.

Appeals to the Coastal Commission pursuant to this section must be filed with the Coastal Commission on forms prescribed by and available from the Coastal Commission.

Attachment 3
11 of 19
Attachment 2.12

Page 761 of 965 ends

STATE OF CALiFOHNlA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY (WAY D/‘W5. Gavemw Efliawfifiikiifi $@rfie§?%Et.- Céiihiiihlififiifinhé
CENTRAL COAST ozsrmcr OFFICE
725 FRONT STREET. SUITE 300
SANTA CRUZ. CA 95050
PHONE: (331) 4274353
FAX: (331) 427-4577
Date: September 25, 2001 V
To: John Doughty, City of Watsonville Community Development Director John Casey, PVUSD Superintendent
Fred Keeley, 27th Assembly District Assemblyman
From: Tami Grove, Coastal Commission DeputyDirec
Subject: New Millennium High School in Watsonville — Response to PVUSD’s September 13, 2001 Memo to the City of Watsonville
The purpose of this memo is to follow-up for the record the substance of the series of phone conversations we’ve all had in the past week regarding the School District’s September 13, 2001 memo to the City of Watsonville in which the District provides a series of “clarifications” to the City’s coastal development permit (CDP) decision (City application number 00-28; since appealed to the Coastal Commission as appeal number A~3-WAT-01-070). In these conversations, this office has observed that while the District’s memo generally addresses the same issues raised in our August 30, 2001 memo, it does not fully track that memo, making it difficult to interpret the degree to which it answers the issues and potential solutions identified.

Now having had time to more fully analyze the District’s memo and discuss some of pur concerns, we write to describe for the District. our understanding as to how uncertainties in the memo can and will be addressed. Following our meeting this afternoon, we understand that the City and School Districtwill provide a further memo committing to these provisions prior to the Comrnission’s scheduled hearing on this item on October 10, 2001. As we discussed previously, the primary resolution we are seeking is agreement from the City and School District that the final project components discussed below will be submitted to the Comrnission’s Executive Director for review and approval prior to exercise of the City’s CDP. 1) Parcels. ~=~-—--
a) Although a complicated land deal appears to be in process, it has not been finalized for Area C properties. Prior to the exercise of the permit, the District will provide a graphic to the City and the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission that will identify all property lines resulting from the final purchase. The proposed school parcel(s) must be clearly identified as such; and the non-school parcel(s) likewise identified. Our understanding from the memo is that the District commits to not exercising the high school CDP until any such parcel(s) have been approved by a separate CDP. b) To facilitate understanding of the project and the local coastal program’s (LCP’s) legal document requirements, all required Area C easements and/or other property restrictions (e.g., for sewer and water non~access strips, agricultural uses, agricultural'buffers, open i
G:\Central Cc-ast\P .84 R‘.WAT\Appeals\New Millennium High School 2ClD‘i\A=3~W.£\"r=(n'~D70 (PVUSD NMHS) claritication memo omissions §.?.5.2001.doc
Attachment 3
12 of 19
Attachment 2.12
page 34 of 81
ATTACHMENT E | Coastal Commission Memorandum

Page 762 of 965 ends

John Boughtyt City of Watsonville Community Eleveiopment Director John Casey, SVUSD Superintendent -
Fred Keeley, 27th Assembly District Assemblyman
New Millennium High School in Watsorwille
Senunnber25,200l

Page 2 ends

space uses, environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESI-IA), and ESHA buffers) will be clearly cross—referenced and keyed to the final resulting property lines graphic described above.

From what we understand from the memo, the roughly 10—acre future expansion area is proposed to be protected forschool use or, in the event that school use does not occur, agriculture, open space, and/or habitat uses. If this l0—acre area is so obtained, it must be clear that only school use (subjcc.t.to...future CDP applications). or agriculture, open-space, and/or habitat uses are allowed and this must be recorded as a deed restriction on the property. The deed restriction must limit the uses allowed on the site and must be submitted to the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission and the City Planning Director for review and approval prior to its recordation. The approved deed restriction must then be recorded prior to the exercise of the CDP. 2) Protecting ESHA and Agricultural Areas.
8)
b)
Our understanding is that the District intends to ensure that the LCP requirements for BS1-IA and agricultural areas and their buffers shall be met. This means that:
i) All areas shown on LUP Figure 2a as ESHA and/or ESHA buffer will be protected, enhanced, and/or restored for habitat purposes.
ii) That portion of Area C generally north of the school use, excluding the ESHA/ESI-IA buffer areas identified in the LCP, shall be protected for open space, agriculture or habitat purposes exclusively. .
iii) All Area C agricultural buffers will be maintained and managed to minimize land use conflicts with adjacent agricultural uses consistent with LCP requirements. Unless and until the LCP is modified by the Commission as currently requested by the City, a 200 foot agricultural buffer shall be maintained on the northern portion of the school parcels created.
iv) All appropriate LCP required easements shall be recorded over each ESHA, ESHA buffer, ‘agricultural (or open space or habitat) use area, and agricultural buffer. v) All ESHA and ESI-IA buffer area LCP requirements shall be addressed within a revised biological plan that is currently being prepared to address restoration, enhancementfand long—term management. The District will provide evidence that funding for the implementation ofthe plan over the life of the project is ensured (i:e., provisions are made for short term steps to be taken as well as long—term management and remediation as necessary to meet plan goals and objectives).

More specifically, from what you have provided, we understand that the District has committed to the following actions:

Attachment 3
13 of 19
Attachment 2.12

Page 763 of 965 ends

John Eoughty, City at Watsonvitle Commtznityfievaloprnent Slrector John Casey, PVUSB Superintendent
Fred Keeley, 27th Assembly District Assemblyman
New Millennium High School in Wateorwilte
September 25, 2001

Page 3 ends

i) Executing and recording easements and/or conveying property or properties pursuant to all requirements of LCP Section 9-5.705(g)(5) (“Biological and Agricultural Easements”) for all ESHA, ESHA buffer, agricultural, and agricultural buffer areas on Area C (as above-described). All such easement areas shall be shown on, and cross—referenced to, the final parceiization graphic described above.

Preparing a revised wetland restoration, buffer, and landscape plan (“Plan”) developed with input from a qualified wetland biologist and hydrologist that applies to all of Coastal Zone Area C and provides for: (I) the restoration of Hanson Slough to a functional wetland; (2) the restoration of the Hanson Slough buffer to a functional wetland upland habitat; (3) the enhancement of habitat buffers for (a) the West Branch of Struve Slough (i.e., the entire upland slope east of the existing farm road shown as ESHA on Land Use Plan Figure 2a), (b) the riparian headwaters of Hanson Slough located along the western boundary of Area C, and (c) the California Department of Fish and Game reserve located along I-larkins Slough Road; and (4) incorporation of the emergent wetland located along Harlcins Slough Road. The Plan shall be consistent with LCP Section 9-5.705(c)(4)(ii) and 9~5.705(g)(9) (“Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area Buffers”) requirements for each of the restoration/enhancement areas, and shall be consistent with all plan parameters established by LCP Section 9-5.7OS(g)(4) (“Biological Restoration Plans”). The Plan shall be submitted with written evidence from the appropriate official(s) from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game indicating that the Plan was developed in consultation with each agency -and has subsequently been distributed for their review. The Plan shall be submitted with written evidence indicating that all owners of property affected by the Plan consent to the implementation of the Plan on their property. The Plan shall be submitted with evidence of adequate funding with which to implement the Plan over the life of the project. The ‘Applicant shall undertake enhancement and restoration activities in accordance with the approved Plan. It is the responsibility of the Applicant, or of an appropriate third party if such party has accepted legally enforceable responsibility, to implement all enhancement and restoration measures specified in the Plan. c) In order to ensure LCP consigtency, prior to exercising the CD? (1) all required easements and (2) the revised wetland restoration, buffer, and landscape plan shall be - submitted to the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission and the City Planning Director for review and approval.
3) Water and Sewer Non»Access Easement.
a) From what we understand from the memo, the one=foot Water and Sewer Non’—Access Easement shall be located along the parcel boundaries of any school parcel(s) created in such a way as to form a complete polygon (i.e., to “surround” the school parcel(s) created as seen in a site plan view). The easement shall be consistent with all LCP requirements for the easement as per ll’ Section 9~5.705(c)(4)(ix)(ae) and shall be recorded free of Attachment 3
14 of 19
Attachment 2.12

Page 764 of 965 ends

John Qoughty, City of Watsonville Community Development Director John Casey, PVUSQ Superintendent "
Fred Keeley, 27th assembly District Assemblyman
New Millennium High School in Watsonville
September 25, 2001

Page 4 ends

4)
5)
b)‘
prior liens and encumbrances that may affect the interest being conveyed. The one foot Water and Sewer Non—Access Easement shall be identified in relation to each possible parcelization scenario graphic.
ln order to ensure LCP consistency, prior to exercising the CDP, the Water and Sewer Non—Access Easement shall be submitted prior to recording for the review and approval of the Executive Director, the City Planning Director, and the City Attorney. The approved easement shall be recorded free of prior liens and encumbrances which may affect the interest being conveyed.

V '
Geotechnic al. ,1
3)
b)
The final grading plans shall include evidence indicating that the development proposed complies with all requirements of LCP Section 9—5.705(c)(5)(ii)(arn) regarding geotechnical investigation requirements, and is consistent with all elements of California Division of Mines and Geology Note 48 (“Checklists for the review of Geologic/Seismic Reports for California Public Schools, Hospitals, and Essential Services Buildings”).

There shall be at least one slope stability analysis for each slope based on the final grading plans. The final grading plans shall be submitted with a signed stamp from the consulting geotechnical engineer and/or geologist indicating that the development is safe from a geotechnical perspective in terms of issues including, but not limited to, seismically induced settlement, liquefaction, and lateral spreading.

In order to ensure'LCP consistency, prior to exercising the CDP, final grading plans with all required stamps and signatures shall be submitted to the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission and the City Planning Director for review and approval.

Water quality.
a)
b)
Commission water quality staff advise that the fossil filters identified by the District to filter and treat runoff from vehicular areas prior to discharge to the detention pond systemiare inadequate. Consistent with the District’s indication that the specific brand or technique for filtering runoff would be selected in consultation with Commission staff, we observe that alternative BM?s are necessary for this‘ water quality component. The more appropriate engineered filtration device specifically designed to remove vehicular contaminants is the Stormwater Management “Storm Filter” system (or its equivalent).

One such filtration and treatment device will be required for the west detention pond system and a second such device will be required for the east detention pond system in order to effectively remove the anticipated vehicular contaminants.

We are not aware of a management and maintenance plan for the detention pond water quality system. Such a plan is necessary to ensure that the system functions properly, and needs to be adequately responsive to the need for adaptive management (as to appropriate plantings, remediation techniques, etc.) as necessary. Ongoing maintenance and Attachment 3
15 of 19
Attachment 2.12

Page 765 of 965 ends

John Doughty, City of Watsomrltle Community Development Director John Casey, PVUSD Superintendent
Fred Keeley, 27th Assembly District Assemblyman
New Millennium High $c:hool in Watsonville
September 25, 2001

Page 5 ends

d)
inspection parameters must be identified. All methods and timing must be identified (e. g., when and how accumulated sediment is to be removed, grass mowed, invasive vegetation removed, pond bottoms reestablished, etc). We understand the Districts commitment to water quality BMPS to extend to developing an adequate long—tem1 management and maintenance plan for the detention pond system and that this plan shall be provided with any final plan sheets involving storm water runoff and water quality measures.

We understand the District’s commitment to water quality BMPS to extend to all proposed outside storage areas and loading areas to indicate that they will be graded and paved and either: (1) surrounded by a low containment -berm; or (2) covered. All such areas will be: (1) equipped with storm drain valves which can be closed in the case of a spill; or (2) equipped with a wash down outlet to the sanitary sewer. We further understands the memo to indicate that such measures shall be identified on any final plan sheets involving storm water runoff and water quality measures.

In order to ensure LCP consistency, prior to exercising the CDP, all final plan sheets involving storm water runoff and water quality measures shall be submitted to the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission and the City Planning Director for review and approval.
6) Aeronautics Review.
a) The safety of the site for students and educators is addressed by the LC? in LUP Policy Ill.C.5.a.(4) and IP Section 9-5.705(c‘)(5)(i)(ad). Given the information provided and questions raised in the permit appeals to, the Commission, we are seeking, and understand that the Districtis committed to, full and complete consultation with experts in the Caltrans Division“ of Aeronautics in light of all the submitted information on: the site, planned school facilities on the site, typical airport operations (e.g., Watsonville Airport’s primary role as a amateur pilot flight instruction airport), and the sites location relative to typical Watsonville Airport operations. As you know, our cartographic evaluation of the submitted school facilities plan indicates that the northernmost portion of the school’s project plans extends into the airport runway’s inner turning zone. While we appreciate that th‘é"District has cornrnitted to a professional survey to map all aeronautics indicators for safety in relation to the school and the airport, we are concerned that this alone will not suffice to answer the final question of safety for aeronautics issues. Therefore, we suggest two options of resolution for the District to pursue: (1) revise its school facilities site plan so that it clearly falls within the area previously submitted for Caltrans’ evaluation; or (2) maintain the existing school facilities site plan. In either case, the District needs to superirnpose the specified aeronautics setback surveys over the final parcelization graphic (described above) and the facilities plan for the school and submit it to the Caltrans Aeronautics Division for their final review. This composite graphic needs to show the surveyed boundaries of all of Area C, the proposed parcels, the school facilities, and at least the end of the airport runway with a graphic scale provided for ease of reference. With this graphic submitted for their evaluation, the Caltrans Aeronautics Attachment 3
16 of 19
Attachment 2.12

Page 766 of 965 ends

dehn Eoughty. City of Watsotwille Ccrnrnunity Development Director John Gasey, PVLESD Superintendent
Fred Keeley, 27th Assembly District Assemblyman
New Millennium High School in Wateonville
September 25, 2001

Page 6 ends

7)
b)
Division should be requested by the District to confirm that the final area in which school facilities are planned is safe for public school development with respect to potential airport safety concerns as required by the LCP.
in order to ensure LCP consistency, prior to exercising the CDP’, final plans with the required Caltrans Aeronautics Division safety confirmation shall be submitted to the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission and the City Planning Director for review and approval.

Revised site plan submitted with memo.
3)
b)
C)
.d)
Although implied, it needs to be clear, that created slopes“ ‘shall be contoured with natural undulations to more closely resemble natural slopes to the extent feasible.

The final treatment of the previously identified service road turn around needs to be specified. Fromthe site plan submitted with the memo, it appears as though the turnaround has been eliminated. The memo text, however, indicates that it may be “reconfigured, relocated or eliminated.” Our understanding from the submitted site plan is that it the turn around has been eliminated from the project.

We do not understand why the memo text indicates that the portable classrooms may be “reconfigured” when the site planidentifles them in specific locations and at specific elevations. We will expect the final site plan to indicate the final locations for the portables.

The memo identifies that the fences shall be revised to be consistent with the LCP. Since the LCP requires wood fencing, we understand this to mean that all fencing will be rustic split rail fencing of rough~hewn and unpainted wood timbers (e.g., cedar). The only exception is that rustic wood fencing with no gaps can be utilized if such fencing is required to screen sensitive habitat areas from development. Where containment is necessary for play areas (e.g., baseball fields, tennis courts, etc.), agricultural fencing (i.e., square-gapped metal fencing on wood posts) of the maximum gap size possible to contaidthe circutnferenceof ball used shall be allowed. Our understanding is that chain link and concrete pre—cast fenclpg will not be installed onythe school site.

The memo indicates that no unallowed uses or facilities shall be located within the ESHA, ESHA buffer, or Agricultural buffer areas. Since the previous site plan (i.e., prior to the memo) identified portions of ballfields, a chain link fence, and some storm drain utilities located within the 100’ buffer area for the CDFG reserve, we understand this to mean that these shall be removed and/or relocated out of the required buffer. We understand that the revised restoration plan is to incorporate the most southerly ponds and related infrastructure of the detention pond system (i.e., those located within required buffers) within the buffer enhancement component. As such, these could be considered part of the habitat buffer enhancement and thus could be considered allowed uses.

Attachment 3
17 of 19
Attachment 2.12

Page 767 of 965 ends

John Doughty, City of Wateorwille Community Development Director John Casey, Pi/USD Superintendent
Fred Keeley, 27th Assembly District Assemblyman
New Millennium High School in Wazsonville
September 25, aaor

Page 7 ends

f)
s)
h)
i)
We understand the memo to indicate that there will be only two buildings with a height in excess of 30 feet from finished grade; neither of these two buildings will be taller than 37 feet from finished grade.

The memo indicates that the lighting plan will be reevaluated. We thus understand that there shall be no exterior night lighting, other than the minimum lighting necessary for pedestrian, vehicular, and safety purposes. All lighting shall be directed away from environmentally sensitive habitat areas and shall not be visible from any vantage point within environmentally sensitive habitat areas. All interiorelighting shall be directed away from windows which are visible from environmentally sensitive habitat areas. All lighting shall be downward directed and designed so that it does not produce any light or glares off—site, with particular emphasis to preserving the darkness present in existing nighttime Highway One views ofArea C.

We understand the memo to indicate that LCP requirements for agricultural buffers on the interior of Area C shall be met (i.e., currently a 200 foot buffer requirement), except that the 200 foot agricultural buffer on the northern portion of the school parcels created may be reduced if the Commission approves a pending LCP amendment request.

We understand the memo to indicate that the existing well will remain functional and the District will provide a delivery mechanism for adjacent farmers to use the well as directed by the LCP. We interpret this to mean that that the owner(s) and/or operator(s)_ of the agricultural operation on the property north of the school site have or shall have: (1) been made aware that the existing well-on the high school parcel is to be retained; (2) demonstrated a need for the well water; ‘(3) been offered the well water to be used for agricultural purposes on the remainder property; and (4) either (a) declined the use of the well water described in subsection (3) above, or (13) agreed to pay current market costs for the well water described in subsection (3) above. In the event of 400), the District shall make all necessary legal and physical arrangements with the adjacent farming operator for the agricultural water to be delivered to the northernmost property boundary of the school "site." Such costs to be shared equitably between the District and the agricultural USCIS . -JA
In order to ensure LCP consistency, prior to exercising the CDP, final site plans substantially in conformance with the site plans provided with the memo and showing the above clarifications shall be submitted to the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission and the City Planning Director for review and approval. 8) Additional CDP required.
a) The ambiguity in the memo and accompanying site plan could lead to some confusion regarding several elements that have been removed from the project andfor may be planned in the future. We understand the memo to indicate that, at a minimum,‘ the following SllE,l.l,l,,cI§.Cllll,fC;i separate CDP or CD? _amenrln1eynt applications should they be pursued in the future:

Attachment 3
18 of 19
Attachment 2.12

Page 768 of 965 ends

John Doughty, filly of Watsonville Community Development Director John Casey, PVUSD Superintendent
Fred Keeley, 27th Assembly District Assemblyman
New Millennium High School in Watsomriile
September 25, 2001
?age 8
it) Since the District has chosen to remove building C at this time, any future construction of that building shall require a separate CD? or CDP amendment application.
ii) Any proposed building adjacent to building I (identified as a “future” building on School District plans) shall require a separate CD? or CD1? amendment application. iii) Any extension of utilities not shown on a final approved site plan shall require a separate CDP or CDP amendment application“.
iv) Any future development north of the parking lot shown on the site plan (including the referem:..ecl JO acre ,“expansior1 parcel”) shall require all Separate (EDP or CD}? amendnient application.
.6
Attachment 3
19 of 19
Attachment 2.12

Page 769 of 965 ends

Attachment 4
1 of 1
Attachment 2.12

Page 770 of 965 ends

Page 771 of 965 ends

Page 2 ends

space uses, environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESI-IA), and ESHA buffers) will be clearly cross—referenced and keyed to the final resulting property lines graphic described above.

More specifically, from what you have provided, we understand that the District has committed to the following actions:

Attachment 5
2 of 9
Attachment 2.12

Page 772 of 965 ends

Page 3 ends

Page 773 of 965 ends

Page 4 ends

Page 774 of 965 ends

Page 5 ends

Page 775 of 965 ends

Page 6 ends

Attachment 5
6 of 9
Attachment 2.12

Page 776 of 965 ends

Page 7 ends

Attachment 5
7 of 9
Attachment 2.12

Page 777 of 965 ends

Page 778 of 965 ends

ac__b_zn W
3:3
mc_E.zo m
5:38
Attachment 5
9 of 9
Attachment 2.12

Page 779 of 965 ends

1 Jonathan Wittwer, SBN 058665
William P. Parkin, SBN 139718
2 WITTWER PARKIN LLP
147 S. River Street, Suite 221
3 Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Telephone: (831) 429-4055
4 Facsimile: (831) 429-4057
[email protected]
5 Attorneys for Petitioners,
I E f1
SEP 12 2014 JJ
ALEX CALVO, t;LERK

BY FLORENCE PATTEN

DEPUTY, SANTA CRUZ COUNTY
6 WATSONVILLE PILOTS ASSOCIATION and
FRIENDS OF BUENA VISTA and SIERRA CLUB
7 8
9 10
11 it 12
Q 13
U 14
15 16
11 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ

WATSONVILLE PILOTS ASSOCIATION,
a California non-profit corporation,
FRIENDS OF BUENA VISTA, an
unincorporated association, and the SIERRA
CLUB, a non-profit public benefit
corporation,
Petitioners,
vs.

CITY OF WA T..SONVILLE, CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
DMSION OF AERONAUTICS and DOES 1
THROUGH 15,
Respondents.

Case No. CV176416
~6P91119) ORDER AND JUDGMENT
1 Attachment 6
1 of 4
Attachment 2.12

Page 780 of 965 ends

1 2
3 4
s
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
This matter came on regularly for a hearing on June 20, 2014, in Department in Department 5 of the above-entitled court, the Honorable Paul M. Marigonda presiding. William Parkin appeared for Petitioners Watsonville Pilots Association, Friends of Buena Vista, and the Sierra Club (Petitioners). Rick Jarvis and Alan Smith appeared for Respondents City of Watsonville and the City Council of the City of Watsonville (collectively "City"). And, Raiyn Bain appeared on behalf of Respondent California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (CDOA).

The Court having reviewed the record of City of Watsonville's proceedings in this matter and having accepted said records into evidence, and having reviewed the evidence, the briefs, other papers and arguments submitted by counsel and presented at the hearing on June 20, 2014, and the Court having entered a Statement of Decision (attached hereto as Exhibit A) granting the Petition for Writ of Mandate, and based on the foregoing enters the following order and judgment:

1. Judgment is entered in favor of Petitioners Watsonville Pilots Association, Friends of Buena Vista, and the Sierra Club (collectively "Petitioners") and against the City ofWatsonville and the City Council of the City of Watsonville in this proceeding on the grounds stated in the Court's Statement of Decision attached hereto as Exhibit "A."·

2. A Peremptory Writ of Mandate directed to Respondents City of Watsonville and City Council of the City of Watsonville shall issue from this Court, remanding the proceedings to said Respondents and commanding said Respondents to set aside certification of the revised Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") and all their decisions, approvals and findings for the Watsonville Vista 2030 General Plan ("Project") on January 22,2013 and April23, 2013, including, but not limited to, approval of Resolutions 12-13, 13-13 and 63-13, and to comply with the Court's Statement of Decision and to follow California law, statutes and regulations including but not limited to complying with the State Aeronautics Act, the California 28 Order and Judgment 2
Attachment 6
2 of 4
Attachment 2.12

Page 781 of 965 ends

1 Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines. Thereafter, if said 2 Respondents undertake reconsideration of any of the actions required to be set aside, such 3 reconsideration shall be required to be in accordance with this Court's Statement of Decision 4 attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
5 6
7 3. Injunctive relief is hereby granted as follows. Respondents City ofWatsonville and City Council of the City of Watsonville are prohibited from implementing the Watsonville Vista 2030 General Plan or Resolutions 12-13, 13-13 and 63-13 or basing any action on or engaging in 8 any activity pursuant to the Watsonville Vista 2030 General Plan or Resolutions 12-13, 13-13 9 and 63-13, unless and until the environmental review and the Watsonville Vista 2030 General 10 Plan and Resolutions 12-13, 13-13 and 63-13 are revised to comply with the Court's Statement 11 12
13 of Decision and California law, including but not limited to its statutes and regulations known as the California State Aeronautics Act, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines

4. Petitioners are awarded their costs of suit as against the City of Watsonville and the 14 City Council of the City of Watsonville upon application to this Court pursuant to California 15 Rules of Court, R:ule 3.1700.
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27

5. This Court reserves jurisdiction to determine the amount of attorneys' fees to be awarded to Petitioners upon application to this Court pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule

3.1702.

6. The Court reserves jurisdiction over said Respondents' proceedings by way of return to the Peremptory Writ of Mandate, and reserves jurisdiction to determine compliance with the Writ of Mandate. Said Respondents are required to file a return to the Peremptory Writ of Mandate within 30 days of service of the Peremptory Writ, showing that said Respondents have set aside certification of the EIR and all of said Respondents' decisions, approvals and findings for the Watsonville Vista 2030 General Plan including, but not limited to, approval of Resolutions 12- 13, 13-13 and 63-13 within 30 days of service ofthis Peremptory Writ. Thereafter, if said Respondents undertake reconsideration of any ofthe actions required to be set aside, said 28 Order and Judgment 3
Attachment 6
3 of 4
Attachment 2.12

Page 782 of 965 ends

1 2
3 Respondents must file a further return to this Peremptory Writ demonstrating continued compliance with the Peremptory Writ. In the event of such reconsideration, the Court retains jurisdiction until the Court has determined that said Respondents have complied with this 4 Court's Statement of Decision and the Judgment entered herein. 5 G
7 8
9 7. No Peremptory Writ of Mandate shall issue in this case as against the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, and notwithstanding the foregoing, no costs or attorneys fees shall be awarded in favor of the California Department ofTransportation, Division of Aeronautics, as against Petitioners.
10 11
12 13
Dated: S£P 1 2 2014
14 Approved as to Form:
15 !Jo~ o'%ecAeJ... +o bl..{ .'
Rick Jarvis 16
17 Attorney for Respondents
City of Watsonville and City
18 Council of the City of Watsonville
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 myn mn
Attorney for Respondent
California Department of Transportation
28 Order and Judgment
PAUL M. MARIGONDA
Paul M. Marigonda
Judge of the Superior Court
4 Attachment 6
4 of 4
Attachment 2.12

Page 783 of 965 ends

it
0 u
1 Jonathan Wittwer, SBN 058665
William P. Parkin, SBN 139718
2 WITTWER PARKIN LLP ·
147 S. River Street, Suite 221
3 Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Telephone: (831) 429-4055
4 Facsimile: (831) 429-4057
[email protected]
5 Attorneys for Petitioners,
6 WATSONVILLE PILOTS ASSOCIATION and
FRIENDS OF BUENA VISTA and SIERRA CLUB
Ef~
SEP 12 ;01~ ~J ALEX C. \LVO, CLL=AK
BY ROF:~NCE PATTEN
OEPUT'!, SAf\!'r!\ CRUZ COUNTY
7 8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
10 11
12 13
14 WATSONVILLE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, Case No. CV176416
a California non-profit corporation, FRIENDS OF BUENA VISTA, an unincorporated association, and the SIERRA WRIT OF MANDAMUS CLUB, a non-profit public benefit
corporation,
15 16 Petitioners,
'l] 17 vs.
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 CITY OF WATSONVILLE, CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
DMSION OF AERONAUTICS and DOES 1
THROUGH 15,
Respondents.
1 "”
COPY
|._|
b—I|—l "‘°*°°°\Ic~u-.:.~.um
N033333355
I0 1-‘
[QN
N)U)
Ix) -It
l\J L11
(0Ox
[0 \I
IO 00
Jonathan Wittwer, SBN 058665
William P. Parkin, SBN 139718
WITTWER PARKIN LLP ‘
147 S. River Street, Suite 221
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Telephone: (831) 429-4055
Facsimile: (831) 429-4057
[email protected]
SEP122014
LEX C.‘;?.V0, CLERK

BY FLOFLENCE PATIEN
DEPUT‘/. SANT."a CRUZ COUNTY
Attorneys for Petitioners,
WATSONVILLE PILOTS ASSOCIATION and
FRIENDS OF BUENA VISTA and SIERRA CLUB

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
WATSONVILLE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, Case No. CV176416
a California non-profit corporation,
FRIENDS OF BUENA VISTA, an
unincorporated association, and the SIERRA
CLUB, a non—profit public benefit
corporation,

WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Petitioners,
VS.

CITY OF WATSONVILLE, CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS and DOES 1
THROUGH 15,
Respondents.

Attachment 7
1 of 3
Attachment 2.12
page 56 of 81 Page 784 of 965
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 TO THE CITY OF WATSONVILLE AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WATSONVILLE, and each of you:

Judgment having been entered in this proceeding ordering that a peremptory writ of mandate be issued .from this Court,
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED, by the second regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council following service of this writ:

1. To set aside your certification of the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") and all your decisions, approvals and findings for the Watsonville Vista 2030 General Plan on January 10 22, 2013 and April 23, 2013, including, but not limited to, approval of Resolutions 12-13, 13-13 11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 and 63-13. You are hereby directed to comply with the Court's Statement of Decision and to follow California law, including but not limited to its statutes and regulations known as the California Aeronautics Act, the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines.

2. These proceedings are hereby remanded to you to proceed in accordance with this Court's Statement of Decision and Judgment, and to take any further related action specially enjoined on you by law to implement the Court's Statement of Decision and Judgment. . 3. You are prohibited from implementing the Watsonville Vista 2030 General Plan or Resolutions 12-13, 13-13 and 63-13, or basing any action on or engaging in any activity pursuant to the Watsonville Vista 2030 General Plan or Resolutions 12-13, 13-13 and 63-13, unless and until the environmental review and the Watsonville Vista 2030 General Plan and Resolutions 12- 13, 13-13 and 63-13 are revised to comply with the Court's Statement of Decision, and California law, including but not limited to its statutes and regulations known as the California State Aeronautics Act, the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines and the Court is satisfied that you have complied with this peremptory writ of mandamus by way of a return to the writ.
28 Wn"t of Mandamus 2
‘°°°-Joxuursmw
10 ll
r-n IN)
1-4 Ln
I-—A -Pb
15 16
17 18
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 TO THE CITY OF WATSONVILLE AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WATSONVILLE, and each of you:

Judgment having been entered in this proceeding ordering that a peremptory writ of mandate be issued -from this Court,
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED, by the second regularly scheduled meeting ofthe City Council following service ofthis writ:

1. To set aside your certification ofthe Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) and all your decisions, approvals and findings for the Watsonville Vista 2030 General Plan on January 22, 2013 and April 23, 2013, including, but not limited to, approval ofResolutions 12-13, 13-13 and 63-13. You are hereby directed to comply with the Court’s Statement of Decision and to follow California law, including but not limited to its statutes and regulations known as the California Aeronautics Act, the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the CEQA I Guidelines.

2. These proceedings are hereby remanded to you to proceed in accordance with this Court's Statement ofDecision and Judgment, and to take any further related action specially enjoined on you by law to implement the Court’s Statement of Decision and Judgment. . 3. You are prohibited from implementing the Watsonville Vista 2030 General Plan or Resolutions 12-13, 13-13 and 63-13, or basing any action on or engaging in any activity pursuant to the Watsonville Vista 2030 General Plan or Resolutions 12-13, 13-13 and 63-13, unless and until the environmental review and the Watsonville Vista 2030 General Plan and Resolutions 12- 13, 13-13 and 63-13 are revised to comply with the Court’s Statement ofDecision, and California law, including but not limited to its statutes and regulations known as the California State Aeronautics Act, the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines and the Court is satisfied that you have complied with this peremptory writ of mandamus by way ofa return to the writ.

Writ ofMandamus 2
Attachment 7
2 of 3
Attachment 2.12

Page 785 of 965 ends

1 4. This Court reserves jurisdiction over your proceedings by way of return to this 2 Peremptory Writ of Mandate, and reserves jurisdiction to determine compliance with the Writ of 3 Mandate, the Court's Statement of Decision and Judgment entered herein. You shall file a return 4 to this Peremptory Writ of Mandate within 45 days of service of this Peremptory Writ, showing 5 6
7 8
that you have set aside your certification of the EIR and all your decisions, approvals and findings for the Watsonville Vista 2030 General Plan on January 22, 2013 and April23, 2013, including, but not limited to, approval of Resolutions 12-13, 13-13 and 63-13. Thereafter, ifyou undertake reconsideration of any of the actions required to be set aside, you must file a further 9 return to this Peremptory Writ demonstrating your continued compliance with this Peremptory 10 Writ. In the event of such reconsideration, the Court retains jurisdiction until the Court has 11 determined that Respondents have complied with this Court's Statement ofDecision and the 12 Judgment entered herein.
13 14
15 Dated: SEP 1 2 2014
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
Approved as to Form:

Rick Jarvis
Attorney for Respondents
City of Watsonville ~d City
Council of the City of Watsonville
Raiyn ld~~ Bain •
Attorney for Respondent
California Department of Transportation
28 Writ of Mandamus

FLORENCE PATTEN
Clerk of the Superior Court
3 5.4
2! O~ooo-qoxu-..c.L.a;g
p_4 p-A
l—l I\J
1- U.)
5-4 -F
|—I KI’!
H-A Ox
I—I| \l
—I O0
in- \O
19 O
l\3 I--I
NII9
[0 9-)
ix) -5
I0U1
Ix)O\
N \I
[Q ®

4. This Court reserves jurisdiction over your proceedings by way ofreturn to this Peremptory Writ ofMandate, and reserves jurisdiction to detennine compliance with the Writ of Mandate, the Court’s Statement ofDecision and Judgment entered herein. You shall file a return to this Peremptory Writ ofMandate within 45 days of service ofthis Peremptory Writ, showing that you have set aside your certification ofthe EIR and all your decisions, approvals and findings for the Watsonville Vista 2030 General Plan on January 22, 2013 and April 23, 2013, including, but not limited to, approval ofResolutions 12-13, 13-13 and 63-13. Thereafier, ifyou undertake reconsideration of any ofthe actions required to be set aside, you must file a further return to this Peremptory Writ demonstrating your continued compliance with this Peremptory Writ. In the event of such reconsideration, the Court retains jurisdiction until the Court has determined that Respondents have complied with this Court’s Statement ofDecision and the Judgment entered herein.

Dated; SEP ‘I2 2014 FLORENCE PATTEN
Clerk ofthe Superior Court
Approved as to Fonn:

Rick Jarvis
Attorney for Respondents
City of Watsonville and City
Council ofthe City of Watsonville
fl4\./
Raiyn Bain ‘
Attorney for Respondent
California Department ofTransportation
Writ ofMandamus 3
Attachment 7
3 of 3
Attachment 2.12

Page 786 of 965 ends

Jonathan WittWer, SBN 058665
William P. Parkin, SBN 139718
2 WITTWER PARKIN LLP
147 S. River Street, Suite 221
3 Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Telephone: (831) 429-4055
4 Facsimile: (831) 429-4057
[email protected]
5 Attorneys for Petitioners,
6 WATSONVILLE PILOTS ASSOCIATION and
FRIENDS OF BUENA VISTA and SIERRA CLUB
E
SEP-12 2014
ALEX ~ALVO, CLERK
BY FLOf1ENCE PATTEN

DEPUTY, SANTA CRUZ COUNTY
7 8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
10 11
'>"- 12
"0}3
0 14 u
: 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 WATSONVILLE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, Case No. CV176416
a California non-profit corporation,
FRIENDS OF BUENA VISTA, an
unincorporated association, and the SIERRA (RAQP'; 127) STATEMENT OF CLUB, a non-profit public benefit DECISION
corporation,
Petitioners,
vs.

CITY OF WATSONVILLE, CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
DMSION OF AERONAUTICS and DOES 1
THROUGH 15,
Respondents.

Attachment 8
1 of 9
Attachment 2.12
page 59 of 81 Page 787 of 965
This matter came on regularly for a hearing on June 20,2014, in Department 5 of the 2 above-entitled court. the Honorable Paul M. Marigonda presiding. William Parkin appeared for 3 Petitioners Watsonville Pilots Association, Friends of Buena Vista, and the Sierra Club 4 (Petitioners). Rick Jarvis and Alan Smith appeared for Respondents City of Watsonville and the 5 City Council ofthe City of Watsonville (collectively "City''). And, Rai:yn Bain appeared on 6 behalf of Respondent California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics 7 (CDOA).
8 The evidence consists of the 16 volumes of the Administrative Record from Case No. 9 154571 and on file with the Court, and four volumes lodged in the above captioned matter. See 10 Stipulation Regarding Certification of the Administrative Record. Said record was certified by 11 the City.
12 The Court has considered the evidence, the pleadings, the briefs filed by the parties, the 13 oral arguments of counsel presented at the hearing on June 20, 2014. For the reasons set forth 14 below, the Court's decision is to grant the Petition for Writ of Mandate. 15 16 A. STATEMENT OF FACTS
17 On May 23, 2006, the City adopted an amendment to the City General Plan denominated 18 the "Watsonville Vista 2030 General Plan" (2030 Plan) and certified the associated 19 Environmental Impact Report (EIR). (AR vol. 1: 1-23). The 2030 Plan included new areas to 20 be annexed into the City, one of which, the Buena Vista area, partially surrounds the Watsonville 21 Airport. (AR vol. 1: 27, 290). Petitioners filed petitions for writ of mandate challenging the 22 City's 2006 certification of the 2030 Plan EIR and adoption of the 2030 Plan. (See Santa Cruz 23 Superior Court Case No. 154571- "WPA !').
24 On March 21,2008, this Court issued a Statement of Decision granting the petitions. (AR 25 vol. B:11868). The Court found that the City had violated both the SAA and CEQA, because, 26 inter alia, the 2030 Plan unlawfully modified Airport Safety Zone 3 and land use compatibility 27 guidelines, and the EIR inadequately analyzed aviation impacts and traffic impacts, and failed to 28 consider a reasonable range of alternatives. (AR vol. B:l1868-11877). Judgment was entered Statement of Decision 2
Attachment 8
2 of 9
Attachment 2.12

Page 788 of 965 ends

1 for the Petitioners against the City, and a peremptory writ of mandate was issued directing the 2 City to set aside its certification ofthe ElR., its approval ofthe 2030 Plan, and its 2005 resolution 3 amending the Airport Master Plan. (AR vol. B:l1930-11932). The City. filed a Notice of Appeal 4 in June 2008. On March 15, 2010, the Sixth District Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the 5' trial court. Watsonville Pilots Assn. v. City of Watsonville, (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1059. On 6 May 11, 2010, the City Council rescinded its approval of the EIR, the 2030 Plan and related 7 approvals to comply with the writ of mandate upheld by the Court of Appeal. (AR vol. A: 10561- 8 10563).
9 On June 12, 2012, the City circulated for a 45-day public review period a "Re-circulated 10 Draft Environmental Impact Report." During the public review period, tlle City's Planning 11 Commission conducted a public hearing on the revised 2030 Plan and the Re-circulated Draft 12 ElR. and recommended that the City Council adopt the same. (AR vol. A: 11048-11 049). 13 On September 25, 2012, the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider 14 readoption of the 2030 Plan and the Final Re-circulated ElR, but continued the hearing. On 15 November 14, 2012, the City issued a .. Revised Re-circulated EIR" for a45-daypublic comment 16 period. (AR vol. A:ll049).
17 On January 22, 2013, the City Council certified a Final ElR. with all of the recirculated 18 revisions and reapproved tJte 2030 Plan. (AR vol. A: 11049). On April23, 2013 (and after this 19 litigation was filed), the City Council made additional changes to the 2030 Plan. (AR vol. 20 A: 11181-11185). By this action, the Petitioners challenged the validity of both the revised 2030 21 Plan and the Revised Re-circulated 2030 Plan EIR.
22 23 The ruling of this Court is to grant the Petition for Writ of Mandate as follows:
24 1) lnfill and Population Growth Projections
25 When the Court examines whether an EIR meets its informational requirements, as noted 26 by the standard of review, the Court looks to whether the document is sufficient as an 27 informative document. The Court reviewed the population numbers that were presented in the 28 record. It is unclear in examining the record what analysis was used in the final EIR to support Statement of Decision 3
Attachment 8
3 of 9
Attachment 2.12

Page 789 of 965 ends

the figures as to infill potential. In 2006, the City projected that by 2030 there would be 70,418 2 residents and 5,700 new households based on 2004 projections from the Association of 3 Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG). But then in 2008, AMBAG reduced its population 4 projections significantly. The City's revised 2030 plan estimated that the City's population 5 would grow by 14,632 individuals using the formula that 3.63 persons is the average household. 6 The City's projections were higher than AMBAG's 2008 projections, and it appears that the City 7 reached its numbers by just averaging the 2004 and 2008 AMBAG projections rather than doing 8 an empirical method study looking at historical data. The final EIR justifies the projection 9 saying: "In 2008 AMBAG issued a new set of growth forecasts which were markedly reduced for 10 the City of Watsonville. This was likely due to the deep recession that has been experienced 11 throughout the United States." The concern that this Court has is that these numbers were 12 averaged, but without any empirical analysis. It is not clear how the City concluded that 13 AMBAG's consideration of the economy was somehow overly influencial in the numbers 14 AMBAG brought forth. There is no explanation and no analysis as to how averaging the 2004 15 and 2008 projections would reflect the historical trends or give any sort of meaningful projection 16 of new residents and households by 2030. Therefore the City has not presented substantial 17 evidence to support its figures.
18 With respect to infill potential within existing City limits, the revised General Plan 19 reduced potential infill in the City by 650 units. The City states that this analysis was done in a 20 detailed parcel by parcel analysis of potential infill. But looking at the record there is no analysis 21 of infill conducted since the 2005 General Plan, and none in the 2030 Plan. And when 22 responding to a comment the City said the infill reduction was based on the updated housing 23 element that was prepared in 2010. But the housing element states that the 2005 General Plan 24 was used. So both in the prior 2030 plan and the revised 2030 p~an, the· City is still using the 25 2005 General Plan for the housing element. The City also used round numbers. Some infill 26 numbers in areas of the City were reduced by 200, others areas were reduced by 100. These infill 27 reductions were done without a proper analysis that informs the public, and the conclusions are 28 not supported by substantial evidence.

Statement of Decision 4
Attachment 8
4 of 9
Attachment 2.12

Page 790 of 965 ends

1 2) Mitigation Measures for Highway 1 Traffic Are Inadequate 2 To mitigate impacts to Highway 1, the EJR states that the City would support the 3 widening of Highway 1, and HOV lanes, between the Santa Cruz/Monterey County boundary. 4 The case of Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1173 involved 5 a project that was going to be near State Highway 273 and Highway 5 in Shasta County. The 6 Anderson First court concluded that any mitigation measures must be based on "on a reasonable 7 plan of actual mitigation that the relevant agency commits itself to implementing." Jd. at 1187. 8 Thus, it has to be something that is actual and not assumed. 9 The City's position has been that because llighway 1 is a state highway, the City cannot 10 control it or decide to expand it. The City argues that it will support widening and participate 11 through a voter initiative. However, special taxes under such an initiative would require a two12 thirds vote of the electorate. The mitigation measures regarding traffic assume that certain things 13 will happen, or hope for certain things to happen: voter support of a mitigation project. The 14 Anderson First case holds that mitigations must actually be implemented and not merely adopted 15 and then neglected or discarded. Here, the mitigation depends on a potential vote of the public, 16 and hoping that a two-thirds vote is achieved.
17 The Petitioners had suggested some mitigations within the City to reduce the impact of 18 vehicles on Highway 1, such as regulation of traffic lights, installation of traffic lights and 19 metering. By saying that there is no fmancially feasible or equitable way to mitigate the 20 acknowledged regional traffic impact and finding that this is significant and unavoidable, without 21 any real mitigation analysis, is insufficient.
22 With respect to the mitigation measures, and the impact of the mitigations, the Court also 23 finds that the City's actions in certifying the revised EIR without any actual mitigation measure 24 to address these traffic impacts is not supported by substantial evidence and is an abuse of. 25 discretion.
26 27 3) Measure U
28 The leading case on amendment of initiatives involves implementation of the November Statement of Decision 5
Attachment 8
5 of 9
Attachment 2.12

Page 791 of 965 ends

1 1996 Initiative Proposition 215 which added Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 (i.e.,. 2 medical marijuana). People v. Kelly (2010) 47 Ca1.4th 1008. That case had to do with a 3 challenge by a defendant to the alleged am~dment to the Medical Marijuana Compassionate Use 4 Act (Proposition 215). The language that is significant to the Court is that People v. Kelly did 5 hold that laws can be enacted addressing the general subject matter of an initiative. !d. at 1025. 6 Although Measure U created these urban limit lines for the 20 and 25 year growth, it is not clear 7 that the reduction ofinfill violates Measure U. It's a close question, but the Court is not going.to 8 void the 2030 plan as an amendment to Measure U because the Court believes it addresses the 9 general subject matter of Measure U. Thus, the Petition is denied as to this ground. 10 11 4) The Alternatives Analysis is Flawed
12 As already determined by this Court, the population and infill numbers are not supported 13 by substantial evidence. The revised EIR considers four alternatives. The revised EIR says each 14 one of them is infeasible. The analysis and findings of infeasibility as to Alternatives 1 and 2 are 15 flawed, because the population and infill numbers are not supported by substantial evidence as 16 determined by the Court supra. Whether the Court addresses Alternatives 3 and 4 is not 17 important. The rejection of Alternatives 1 and 2 is based on the projections that the Court 18 believes are not supported by substantial evidence. Ifthe more recent 2008 AMBAG population 19 projections are used, and the 650 units that the City claims are reduced from in:fill potential are 20 considered, the City could accommodate 1913 units by infill without annexation, which would 21 meet the City's objective for distributing 1900 new units of new growth. And the rejection based 22 on employment constraint is not sufficient. Most of the objectives that are sought by the General 23 Plan could be met even if the employment objective was not fully met. 24 25 5) The General Plan Violated the Aeronautics Act
26 One thing is abundantly clear from the 2010 Court of Appeal's decision: the City has 27 absolutely no discretion whatsoever with respect to the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook 28 ("Aeronautics Handbook"). The Court of Appeal in this matter (at 183 Cal.App.4th 1 059) said Statement of Decision 6
Attachment 8
6 of 9
Attachment 2.12

Page 792 of 965 ends

1 because there is no Airport Land Use Commission, the City has no discretion with respect to the 2 Aeronautics Handbook under the State Aeronautics Act. 3 Under Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1, it is very clear that the General Plan must 4 be submitted to the Department of Aeronautics upon its adoption. Sending the draft General Plan 5 with the alternative section of the draft EIR is not enough. The City may have been 6 understandably frustrated by the CDOA's inability to make certain meetings despite their efforts. 7 But, not submitting the General Plan to CDOA is a violation of21670.1. 8 Section.l3.i.5 of the General Plan appears to still allow the City some discretion to fmd 9 "no alternate site" so as to allow uses that represent special safety concerns that . must be 1 0 prohibited for Airport Safety Zones 3 and 5 in the Aeronautics Handbook. The Court of Appeal 11 made clear that the City has no such discretion because this is a "no procedure" county. Thus, 12 section 13.i.5 does not pass muster.
13 Another issue that was raised was the deletion of certain safety protection language m 14 Section 13.i.5 on April23, 2013. While the Court does not find it reasonable to prohibit all infill 15 in Zones 3 and 5, the Court has concerns regarding the area within 500 feet from the runway 16 and considers such deletion to result in a safety problem inconsistent with the Aeronautics 17 Handbook. The Court is bound by the dictates of the Appellate Courts throughout the State in 18 the application of Aeronautic Handbook policies.
19 In light of finding the foregoing violations of the State Aeronautics Act, the Court need 20 not rule on Petitioners contentions that the City violated CEQA by failing to analyze the 2030 21 Plan's inconsistencies with the Aeronautics Handbook, and failing to respond to comments in the 22 2030 Plan EIR.
23 As to the issues raised by CDOA in its response brief, the Court first addresses and denies 24 the City's objections pursuant to Government Code section 65009, subd. (b). Based on the 25 uniqueness of the situation and the mandates of the Court of Appeal decision regarding PUC 26 section 21670.1, Government section 65009 is excused as it pertains to CDOA raising new 27 issues not addressed during the administrative process. The Court further coQ.cludes that the 28 Watsonville Airport Master Plan ("W AMP") is a document for land use planning on the airport, Statement of Decision 7
Attachment 8
7 of 9
Attachment 2.12

Page 793 of 965 ends

1 and is not the proper document for airport land use compatibility planning. The Handbook 2 criteria shall be incorporated as part of the City's general plan, and not in other documents, such 3 as the WAMP. Lastly, the Court concludes that the City violated PUC section 21670.1 by 4 improperly placing the majority of the information regarding airport land use compatibility issues 5 in the Public Hazards section rather than the Land Use and Community Development section, 6 thus failing to incorporate or refer to the policies contained in the Public Hazards section. 7 CONCLUSION
8 For the reasons detailed above, the Court finds that the City violated the California 9 Environmental Quality Act and the State Aeronautics Act, and orders that a Writ of Mandamus 10 issue directing the City to rescind its approval of the Watsonville Vista 2030 Plan, its 11 certification of the revised EIR, its adoption of the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and 12 all related approvals. The Court hereby orders that judgment be entered in favor of the 13 Petitioners.
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Dated: _ S_£P_ 1_2_2_U._I4_
Approved as to Form:
f'Jo\- ob~ec\-eJ.. -\n bl.{ ~' Rick Jarvis
Attorney for Respondents
City ofWatsonville and City
Council of the City of Watsonville
Statement of Decision
PAUL M. MARIGONDA
THE HONORABLE PAUL M. MARIGONDA
8 Attachment 8
8 of 9
Attachment 2.12

Page 794 of 965 ends

I !UifL~~ 2 Attorney for Respondent
3 4
5 6
7 B
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
California Department of Transportation
Statement of Decision 9
Attachment 8
9 of 9
Attachment 2.12
page 67 of 81 Page 795 of 965

EXHIBIT B
Exhibit B
Attachment 2.12

Page 796 of 965 ends

JEANNE SCHERER, Chief Counsel
LAUREN A. MACHADO, Deputy Chief Counsel
2 JOANNE GEORGALLlS, Assistant Chief Counsel
3 RAIYN BAIN Attorney Bar No. 146862
1120 N Street (MS 57) P.O. Box 1438
4 Sacramento, Califomia 95812-1438
Telephone: (916) 654-2630
5 Facsimile: (916) 654-6128
6 Attorneys for

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
7 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
8 9
10 11
Alan J. Smith, SBN: 87770

GRUNSKY, EBEY, FARRAR & HOWELL
240 Westgate Drive
Watsonville, CA 95076
Telephone: (831) 722-2444
Facsimile: (831) 722-6153
Attorneys for Respondents 12
13 CITY OF WATSONVILLE and the CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF WATSONVILLE
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
William P. Parkin, SBN 139718

WITTWER & PARKIN, LLP
335 Spreckels Drive, Suite H
Aptos, CA 95003
Telephone: (831) 429-4055
Facsimile: (831) 429-4057
[email protected]
Attorneys for Petitioner

WATSONVILLE PILOTS ASSOCIATION

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
22 WATSONVILLE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, a Case Nos. 176416
23 24
25 26
27 28
California non-profit corporation, et a1.

Petitioners,
vs.

CITY OF WATSONVILLE, et a1.

Respondents.

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER RE PARTIAL RETURN TO WRIT

OF MANDATE ENABLING CITY

APPROVAL OF ATHLETIC FIELD

PROJECT AND AUDITORIUM PROJECT

FOR PAJARO VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL
Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Re Partial Return to Writ of Mandate ,

ELECTRONICALLY RECEIVED
10/30/2019 10:42 AM
xxxxxx 17CV02271
Filed
November 1, 2019
Alex Calvo, Clerk
Gonzalez, Sandra
Deputy, Santa Cruz County
By
Attachment 2.12

Page 797 of 965 ends

Introduction
2 Petitioner Watsonville Pilots Association ("WPA"), and Respondents City of Watsonville 3 and City Council of the City of Watsonville (collectively "CITY"), and the Califomia 4 5
Depmiment ofTranspOliation, Division of Aeronautics ("AERONAUTICS DIVISION"), 6 (collectively "the Parties") by and through their respective attomeys, hereby jointly stipulate and 7 agree as set fOlih below. Furthennore, because the Pajaro Valley Unified School District 8 ("PVUSD"), particularly its Pajaro Valley High School ("PVHS") site, is directly affected by 9 this Stipulation and its requested Court Order, PVUSD, by and through its attomey, hereby 10 represents that it concurs with this Stipulation and the requested Court Order, though it is not a 11 12 party to this litigation but is a pa1iy to the related Settlement Agreement between PVUSD and 13 WPA.
14 15 RECITALS
16 Purposes of Stipulation
17 18 WHEREAS, one purpose of this Joint Stipulation is to obtain a Court Order rendering 19 effective the CITY's April 24, 2018 Approval of the PVUSD PVHS Athletic Field Project and 20 the CITY's June 25,2019 Approval of the PVUSD PVHS Auditorium Project ("CITY's 21 Approvals") (by amendment to the Coastal Development Pennit ("COP") and Special Use 22 Pennit ("SUP") with Design Review Pennit (collectively and hereinafter "COP/SUP No. 00- 23 24
28"» pursuant, respectively, to an October 19, 2017 letter and a January 9, 2019 letter, each 25 fi·om the AERONAUTICS DIVISION to the CITY, such Court Order to detelmine that the 26 CITY's Approvals are properly "grandfathered" with regard to the two Peremptory Writs of 27 Mandate issued in favor ofWPA by this CQurt in Case Nos. CV 176416 ("WPA II") and Case 28 Nos. CV 154571 and CV 154572 ("WP A I" - consolidated as Case No. 154571 in Santa Cruz Joint Stipulation alld [Proposed} Order Re Partial Relul'll 10 Writ of Mandate , Attachment 2.12

Page 798 of 965 ends

2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 County Superior Court and affinned by the Sixth District Court of Appeal Published Opinion in Watsonville Pilots Assn. v. City o/Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal.AppAth 1059) (collectively the "COURT DECISIONS").

WHEREAS, the additional, interdependent purposes of this Stipulation are to obtain a Court Order that:
(I) the specific limited grandfathering of the Amendment to CDP/SUP No. 00-28 does not apply to any other pending or future projects and no precedent for any pending or future projects is created by the foregoing; and
(2) the COURT DECISIONS, including but not limited to the Judgments and Peremptory Writs of Mandate issued therein remain in full force and effect, and thereunder the CITY remains mandated to incorporate the Airport Handbook into its General Plan as "nondiscretionary" standards, and utilize the most stringent of those Airport Handbook standards, and to otherwise comply with the aforementioned Judgments and Writs.

Summary Background fol' Joint Stipulation
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2018 the City Council adopted a Resolution approving an Amendment to CDP/SUP No. 00-28 for the PVUSD Athletic Field Project at PVHS based, inter alia, on the following:
[O]n June 29,2017, PVUSD and the WPA commenced confidential meetings to discuss a settlement proposal the WPA was prepared to offer to resolve the parties' differences. and
[O]n September 13, 2017, PVUSD entered into a Settlement Agreement with the WPA.

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement WPA and PVUSD made Joint Requests to the AERONAUTICS DIVISION to enable the CITY to approve the Athletic Field Project and subsequently the Auditorium Project and the AERONAUTICS DIVISION on Joint Stipulation and [Proposed} Order Re Partial Return to Writ of Mandate , Attachment 2.12

Page 799 of 965 ends

October 19,2017 the AERONAUTICS DIVISION sent a letter to the CITY conditionally 2 enabling processing and approval by the CITY of the Athletic Field Project and by subsequent 3 letter on JanualY 9,2019 the Auditorium Project, each by Amendment to COP/SUP No. 00-28 . 4 Those letters noted that AERONAUTICS DIVISION had previously informed the CITY that 5 6 consideration of any amendment to COP/SUP No. 00-28 issued to PVUSD for PVHS in 2001 7 would be premature until the CITY first amended its General Plan to incorporate the criteria in 8 the California Airport Land Use PlalUling Handbook and FAA Regulations (collectively "Airport 9 Handbook"). The AERONAUTICS DIVISION's letters then proceeded to enable "Limited 10 Grandfatheling" from that requirement based on the following:

II
12 (I) When the AERONAUTICS DIVISION evaluated the school site for acquisition 13 suitability in August of2000, PVUSD had devoted uses and vested plans for the 14 15 sports fields and bleachers and an auditorium in the locations now proposed. 16 (2) Because of the Settlement Agreement between PVUSD and the WPA, PVUSD has 17 revised its Athletic Field Project and School Site developability to restore PVHS to 18 19 the footprint for acquisition suitability not objected to by the AERONAUTICS 20 DIVISION on August 14, 2000, including by having now completed recordation of a 21 Deed Resttiction precluding development of the so-called "Expansion Area" not 22 previously considered or approved by the AERONAUTICS DIVISION. The 23 AERONAUTICS DIVISION's letter further noted that in the Settlement Agreement, 24 25
PVUSD also agreed to grant an Avigation Easement to support the AERONAUTICS 26 DIVISION's August 14,2000 suitability finding which required an Avigation 27 Easement, and which has now been duly recorded.
28 Joint Stiplilation and [Proposed} Order Re Partial Relllrn to Writ of Mandate , Attachment 2.12

Page 800 of 965 ends

WHEREAS, the AERONAUTICS DIVISION letters have recognized that grand fathering 2 could reasonably be allowed for:
3 4 (1) Application processing and decision by the CITY for Amendment to COP/SUP No. 5 00-28 for the Athletic Field Project and the AuditOllum Project without prior 6 incorporation of the Airport Handbook into the Watsonville General Plan as "non7 discretionary" standards as othelwise required by the COURT DECISIONS; and 8 9 (2) Allowing intensity of use for:
\0
II a. (a) the entire proposed 8+/- acre Athletic Field Project to be based on the 12 maximum intensity of I ,200 people stated in the 2011 California Airport Land 13 Use Planning Handbook, Page 4-25, (with an exception for fomteen annual 14 Special Events with a maximum usage intensity of2,200 people); and 15 16 b. (b) for the Auditorium Project to be based on the 1 ,200-person maximum 17 allowed in the 2011 Handbook,
18 19 rather than applying the "most stringent" Airport Handbook standards, conditions, 20 and criteria, otherwise mandated, under the COURT DECISIONS. 21 22 WHEREAS, the AERONAUTICS DIVISION letters stated that it would not object to the 23 above-described "Limited Grandfathering" under the below summarized specified conditions, 24 which were required to be included in the CITY's Approval Documents for the Athletic Field 25 26
Project and for the Auditorium Project:
27 28
Joint Stiplliation and [Proposed} Order Re Partial Retllrn to Writ of Mandate , Attachment 2.12

Page 801 of 965 ends

(I) The Athletic Field Project and the Auditorium Project shall be located on the 2 "Existing Footprint" Area of the PVHS School Site found suitable by the 3 AERONAUTICS DIVISION in 2000.
4 5 (2) A Legal Instrument signed by PVUSD which is binding in favor of, and enforceable 6 by the CITY and the WPA, must be recorded (and was recorded on October 16,2018 7 in the form of a Deed Reshiction and Declaration of Covenants) precluding any 8 9 development on the "Expansion Area" (the northerly area of approximately nine acres 10 outside the Existing Footprint). The CITY (as well as WPA) shall accept a legal II obligation to enforce such Legal Instrument and it shall run with the land and be for 12 aviation safety purposes.
13 14 (3) PVUSD shall record an Avigation Easement over the PVHS School Site dedicated in 15 favor of the Watsonville Airport and the WPA in a specified form and the CITY shall 16 accept such Avigation Easement as a legal obligation to enforce such Avigation 17 Easement and it shall run with the land and be for aviation purposes. Said Avigation 18 19 Agreement was recorded October' 16, 2018.
20 (4) Lighting of any Athletic Field or having any event on or at an Athletic Field. 21 22
illuminated with even temporary lighting, shall be prohibited for aviation safety 23 purposes and this prohibition shall be included in the Avigation Easement. 24 (5) PVUSD shall deposit One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) into an escrow 25 26 account from which the CITY may withdraw into its Airport Enterprise Fund 27 amounts for costs incurred to remove vertical obstructions (i.e., trees, poles and other 28 similar objects), or to install approach lighting, or for any other purpose which would Joint Stipulation and [Proposed} Order Re Partial Return to Writ of Mandate '- Attachment 2.12

Page 802 of 965 ends

2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 II
12 13
14 IS
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 enhance lowering the current minimums to 250 feet above ground level ("250' agl") for approach to the AirpOlt.
(6) PVUSD shall abide by the current development restrictions on the lands surrounding the Existing Footprint as required by the existing 2001 COP, including, but not limited to, the ESHA and agricultural buffer areas surrounding the PVHS School Site.

WHEREAS, the October 19,2017 AERONAUTICS DIVISION letter and the January 9, 2019 AERONAUTICS DIVISION Letter to the CITY each closed by establishing the following requirement for any CITY Approval of the PVUSD Application for the Athletic Field Project and the Auditorium Project, respectively, to become effective:

In fuliher addition to the foregoing, if the [CITY] approves PVUSD's application for an amendment to the COP to enable development and operation of the Athletic Field Project, before such Approval may become effective, the [AERONAUTICS DIVISION] will require the [CITY] and WP A to join it in signing and submitting to the Superior COlllt a Stipulation for Paliial Retum to Writ satisfactory to the [AERONAUTICS DIVISION] and obtaining an Order thereon signed by the COUlt. Such Stipulation and Order shall provide for a COUlt Order that the above "limited grandfathering" is authorized and that approving the amendment to the COP enabling development and operation of the Athletic Field Project is proper, that no precedent is created by the foregoing, that the COUlt Judgments and Writs in Superior COUlt Case Nos. CV 176416 and consolidated Case Nos. CV 154571 and CV 154572 (the latter based on the Sixth District Court of Appeal Opinion in Watsonville Pilots Assn. v. City o/Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1059) remain in full force and effect, and that the City is mandated to incorporate the AirpOlt Handbook into its General Plan as "nondiscretionary" standards, and utilize the most stringent of those standards, and to otherwise comply with the aforementioned Judgments and WIltS.

WHEREAS, on April 24, 2018 the CITY, by and through its City Council, adopted Resolution No. 67-18 which approved conshuction and operation of the Athletic Field Project and on June 25,2019 adopted Resolution No. 18-19 (PC) which approved construction and operation of the Auditorium Project, each Approval being for an Amendment to COP/SUP No. 00-28 and said Resolutions intended to incorporate in said Approval the above-described "Limited Grandfathering" subject to the above-listed conditions. The Parties by this Joint Joint Stipulation and [Proposed} Order Re Partial Return to Writ 0/ Mandate o Attachment 2.12

Page 803 of 965 ends

Stipulation and Request for Court Order thereon intend to achieve compliance with the above2 quoted requirement of the AERONAUTICS DIVISION for the CITY Approvals of the PVUSD 3 Applications for the Athletic Field Project and the Auditorium Project to become effective. 4 5
WHEREAS, pursuant to the COURT DECISIONS, this Comt has issued two separate 6 Judgments and two separate Peremptory Writs of Mandate in favor ofWPA and against the 7 CITY (one on May 2,2008 and one on September 12,2014), each Writ ordering the CITY to, 8 inter alia:
9 (I) file an initial Return to PeremptOtY WIit of Mandate showing that the CITY has set 10 aside its certification of an EIR and all its decisions, approvals, and findings for 11 12 adoption of separate versions a Watsonville Vista 2030 General Plan (which the 13 CITY has done in each case); and
14 (2) file a "further Return" to PeremptOtY Writ (in the event the CITY undertakes 15 reconsideration of the CITY General Plan Update and associated EIR) demonstrating 16 the CITY's continued compliance with the Peremptory Writ, whereupon, this Court 17 18 expressly retains jurisdiction until the Court has detennined that the CITY has 19 complied with thisCoUlt's Statement of Decision and the Judgment entered in the 20 applicable COURT DECISION.
21 22 The CITY has not filed a "further Return" to either of the separate Peremptory Writs. Each of 23 the separate Writs prohibited the CITY ii'OIn implementing, basing any action on, or engaging in 24 any activity pursuant to the affected version of the Watsonville Vista 2030 General Plan. Both 25 Writs effectively ordered the CITY, inter alia, to comply with the State Aeronautics Act and this 26 27
Court's respective Statements of Decision and to take no action on development proposals within 28 the AirpOlt Influence Area until the CITY had duly incorporated the provisions ofthe Airport Handbook into the CITY General Plan. The CITY has not yet reconsidered its rescinded 2030 Joint Stipulation and [Proposed} Order Re Partial Return to Writ of Mandate o Attachment 2.12

Page 804 of 965 ends

General Plan or revised its existing 2005 General Plan to comply with the Court's Statements of 2 Decision or Judgments in the COURT DECISIONS (WPA I and WPA II). 3 WHEREAS, in consideration of the foregoing background and this Court's retention of 4 5
jurisdiction, the AERONAUTICS DIVISION has required this Joint Stipulation and COUli Order 6 thereon to render effective the CITY's Approvals for the PVUSD PVHS Athletic Field Project 7 and the Auditorium Project pursuant to "limited grandfathering" as described and conditioned in 8 leiters dated October 17, 2017 and January 9, 2019, respectively, from the AERONAUTICS 9 DIVISION to the CITY.
10 II
12 JOINT STIPULATION
13 NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE AS 14 FOLLOWS:
15 A. The RECITALS set forth above are true and correct. 16 B. The CITY has approved separate PVUSD applications for an Amendment to the 17 18 CDP/SUP No. 00-28 (and other required pennits and approvals) to allow construction and 19 operation of the PVUSD PVHS Athletic Field Project and Auditorium Project. 20 C. The AERONAUTICS DIVISION, the CITY, and the WPA hereby jointly agree upon, 21 sign, and submit to the Superior COUli this Joint Stipulation for Partial Return to Writ 22 satisfactOlY to the AERONAUTICS DIVISION and request an Order thereon duly executed by 23 24
the Court providing that the CITY's Approvals of the Athletic Field Project and the Auditorium 25 Project as described and conditioned in leiters dated October 17, 2017 and January 9, 2019, 26 respectively, from the AERONAUTICS DIVISION to the CITY are rendered effective, and that 27 such Court Order determines that the CITY's Approvals are properly grandfathered with regard 28 to the two Peremptory Writs of Mandate issued in favor ofWPA by this Court in the COURT Joint Stipulation and [Proposed} Order Re Partial Return to Writ of Mandate n Attachment 2.12

Page 805 of 965 ends

2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 II
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 DECISIONS. The AERONAUTICS DIVISION, the CITY, and the WPA hereby jointly, and interdependently further stipulate that:
(1) this specific limited grandfathering is only applicable and appropriate with respect to the Athletic Field Project as approved on April 24, 2018 and the Auditorium Project as approved on June 25,2019, each of the CITY's Approvals resulting in amendment to COP/SUP No. 00-28, and that such limited grand fathering does not apply to any amendments after June 25, 2019 to CDP/SUP No. 00-28, and does not apply to any other pending or future projects imd no precedent for any pending or future projects is created by the foregoing; and
(2) the COURT DECISIONS, including but not limited to the Judgments and Peremptory Writs of Mandate issued therein remain in full force and effect, and thereunder the CITY remains mandated to incorporate the Airport Handbook into its General Plan as "nondiscretionary" standards, and utilize the most stringent ofthose Airport Handbook standards, and to otherwise comply with the aforementioned Judgments and Writs.

D. This stipulation may be executed in counterpart originals andlor with faxed signatures.

Dated gt:lsr-1L, 2019
~

WITTWER ARKIN LLP
By:

W /limn P. Parkin
Attomeys for PETITIONER

WATSONVILLE PILOTS ASSOCIATION
Joint Stipulation and [Proposed} Order Re Partial Return to Writ of Mandate '0 Attachment 2.12

Page 806 of 965 ends

If~ Dated: Attgcist :lf{-' 20 19
2 J
l
(, Dated: August /S' , 20 19 CALIFORNIA DEPARTrvlENT OF TRANSPORTATION 7 By. ~~ f.) .
9 III
II
12 IJ
~
Il
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 2J
II
26 27
28 . __ IL_u ~{) __ ~ ___ _ Raiyn Bain
Allorney for RESPONDENT CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
DlVISION or AERONAUTICS
Concurrence with all of the Joregoing is hereby given on behalf of the PA.JARO V ALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.

Dated : August __ ,2019
By:

DAl\ ~IlS WOLIVER KELLEY
Clarissa R. Canady, COllnsel for
Pajaro Valley Unified School District
Joillt Stipulalioll alld [Propo.l'ed} Order lie ['arlial Relul'lI 10 Writ o/Mandale "
Attachment 2.12
page 79 of 81 Page 807 of 965
.Dated: August _, 20 19
2 3
4 l

THE ORUNSKY LA W FIRM
By:

Alan Smith, City Attorney
Attorneys for RESPONDENTS CITY OF
WATSONVILLE and THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF WATSONVILLE
6 Dated: August __ , 2019 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 7 8
9 10
II
12 13
14 IS
16 17
18 19
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
By:

Raiyn Bain
Attorney for RESPONDENT CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS
Concurrence with all of the foregoing is hereby given on behalf of the PAJARO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.

Dated: August~, 2019 DANNIS WOLIVER KELLEY
By: 'cg-;Jr=\bt. t;sel for
Pajaro Valley Unified School District
Joint Stipulation and [Proposed} Order Re Parlied Return to Writ of Mandate " Attachment 2.12

Page 808 of 965 ends

ORDER
2 J
IT IS SO ORDERED ns stipulated above.
4 5
6 Date:

Paul P. Burdick
7 Judge of the Superior Court
8 9
10 II
12 IJ
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Re Partial Re/urn to Writ of Mandate "
xxxxxxxxxxxxx John Gallagher
Signed: 10/31/2019 11:22 AM
Attachment 2.12

Page 809 of 965 ends

In Process
C:\ProgramData\activePDF\Temp\DocConverter\API\Input\$7047d0222697$7CC0265F382942E69BB2BACBBAD86670.docx 1 of 32

RESOLUTION NO. 19-22 (PC)

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL

ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

OVERLAY DISTRICT, SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (APP.

NO. 1656) TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CROCKERS
LOCKERS PROJECT OF 1,072 SELF-STORAGE UNITS WITH A
MANGERS APARTMENT ON A 4.4± ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 70
NIELSON STREET, WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA (APN 015-111-49) Project: Crockers Lockers Project
APN: 015-111-49
WHEREAS, on May 10, 2021, Ed Boersma, applicant, on behalf of Ted Crocker (APN: 015-111-49), property owner, applied for a establishing a Planned Development Overlay District, Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit with Design Review and Environmental Review (App. No. 1656) to allow the construction of 1,072 self-storage units with a manager’s apartment at the subject site; and WHEREAS, the project site is designated Industrial on the General Plan Land Use Diagram and is within the Industrial Park (IP) Zoning District; and WHEREAS, a mini-warehouse or self-storage facility is allowed conditionally with issuance of a Special Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting the establishment of a PD Overlay District to allow for a reduction in the required number of parking stalls. The project proposes 22 total parking stalls, a significant decrease from the 152 total parking stalls required for mini-warehouse use (DLU 114) on the site per WMC § 14-17.401(b). With the establishment of a PD Overlay District, the site’s zoning designation would change from Industrial Park to Industrial Park/Planned Development (IP to IP/PD); and WHEREAS, the project is located within Airport Safety Zones 2, 5, and 6; and DocuSign Envelope ID: 239F89D5-0286-408B-B66F-09226D7D2BEF

Page 810 of 965 ends

In Process
C:\ProgramData\activePDF\Temp\DocConverter\API\Input\$7047d0222697$7CC0265F382942E69BB2BACBBAD86670.docx 2 of 32 WHEREAS, on June 8, 2021, the project was referred to the Watsonville Airport Advisory Committee; and
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2021, the application was deemed complete; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission shall review the requested Planned Development Overlay District, Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit with Design Review, and Environmental Review and make a recommendation to the City Council, which shall review the matter at a public hearing for adoption by ordinance; and WHEREAS, pursuant to WMC Section 14-12.400 of the Watsonville Municipal Code (WMC), development subject to Design Review include all new construction, exterior remodeling, additions, or changes in use requiring additional parking, which involves structures used for multi-family residential, commercial, industrial or public purpose; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project, in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, notice of time and place of the hearing to consider the requested Planned Development Overlay District, Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit with Design Review and Environmental Review (App. No. 1656) was given at the time and in the manner prescribed by the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Watsonville.

The matter called for hearing evidence both oral and documentary introduced and received, and the matter submitted for decision; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all written and verbal evidence regarding this application at the public hearing and has made Findings, attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A,” in support of the approval of a Planned Development Overlay District, Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit with DocuSign Envelope ID: 239F89D5-0286-408B-B66F-09226D7D2BEF

Page 811 of 965 ends

In Process
C:\ProgramData\activePDF\Temp\DocConverter\API\Input\$7047d0222697$7CC0265F382942E69BB2BACBBAD86670.docx 3 of 32 Design Review and Environmental Review (App. No. 1656) to allow construction of 1,072 self-storage units with a manager’s apartment on a 4.4± acre site located at 70 Nielson Street (APN 015-111-49).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Watsonville, California, as follows:

Good cause appearing, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Watsonville does hereby recommend the City Council grant approval of a Planned Development Overlay District, Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit with Design Review and Environmental Review (App. No. 1656), attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C,” subject to the Conditions attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B,” to allow construction of the Crockers Lockers Project on a 4.4± acre site located at 70 Nielson Street, Watsonville (APN 015-111-49).

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Watsonville, California, held on the 6th day of December, 2022, by Commissioner Dodge, who moved its adoption, which motion being duly seconded by Commissioner Acosta, was upon roll call, carried and the resolution adopted by the following vote:

Ayes: Commissioners: Acosta, Dodge, Kammer, Rojas, Sencion, VeitchOlson Noes: Commissioners:

Absent: Commissioners: Dorantes-Pulido
_________________________________ _______________________________ Suzi Merriam, Secretary Lucy Rojas, Vice-Chair
Planning Commission Planning Commission
DocuSign Envelope ID: 239F89D5-0286-408B-B66F-09226D7D2BEF

Page 812 of 965 ends

In Process
C:\ProgramData\activePDF\Temp\DocConverter\API\Input\$7047d0222697$7CC0265F382942E69BB2BACBBAD86670.docx 4 of 32 CITY OF WATSONVILLE EXHIBIT “A”

PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No: 1656
APN: 015-111-49
Applicant: Ed Boersma, on behalf of Ted Crocker
Hearing Date: December 6, 2022
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT FINDINGS (WMC § 14-16.2508) The following findings apply to the Planned Development (PD) Overlay District which is proposed to modify the parking requirement for a mini-warehouse type use to allow construction of six buildings with a total of 1,072 self-storage units and one two-story manager’s office with an apartment above on the project site and provide 22 onsite parking spaces instead of 152 parking spaces per WMC Section 14-17.401(b) for DLU 114.

1. The District is consistent with the General Plan and/or the Local Coastal Land Use Plan, and/or adopted area plans when applicable.

Supportive Evidence
The project site is designated Industrial on the General Plan Land Use Diagram and is within the Industrial Park (IP) Zoning District. The intent of this land use designation is to serve the industrial needs of the community and the purpose of the IP Zoning District is to provide a separate and exclusive district for light, nonnuisance industry, business, service, and research work; to promote an industrial business, service, and research area which is not dependent on rail transport and not requiring outdoor storage; to foster and encourage the development of specialized manufacturing, business, service, and research institutions; to promote and protect design and landscape qualities in the district; to minimize traffic congestion through the provision of adequate off-street parking and loading; and to protect the district and surrounding area and any adjacent residential or commercial property from noise, illumination, glare, and unsightliness, including outdoor storage, odors, dust, dirt, litter, smoke, fumes, vibration, heat, fire, and other hazards. WMC § 14-16.500. General categories of allowed uses include wholesale sales, heavy commercial, construction and trade shops, general manufacturing, food processing, and related services, businesses and uses. A mini-warehouse or self-storage facility is allowed conditionally with issuance of a Special Use Permit.

The project involves new construction of a self-storage facility with 1,072 storage units in 149,796± square feet of building area, within six (6) detached structures.

One 2-story manager's building would contain an office on the ground floor and apartment above. The project requires review and approval of a PD Overlay District to allow for parking stall reductions to 22 onsite parking spaces.

2. The District is consistent with the purposes of WMC Chapter 14-16 and other applicable sections of Title 14.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 239F89D5-0286-408B-B66F-09226D7D2BEF

Page 813 of 965 ends

In Process
C:\ProgramData\activePDF\Temp\DocConverter\API\Input\$7047d0222697$7CC0265F382942E69BB2BACBBAD86670.docx 5 of 32 Supportive Evidence
The PD process can be used to make modifications to subdivision and zoning district development standards for project sites that exceed one acre. The purpose of the PD process is to provide a technique to foster development plans which serve public objectives more fully than development plans permitted under conventional zoning regulations. A PD Overlay District may provide for modifications on district regulations, such as to building setbacks, building height, lot area, parking, and use.

Approval of the proposed PD Overlay District is required to reduce the minimum number of onsite parking spaces for this project (i.e., from 152 to 22 spaces). The project would replace and relocate an existing driveway, and new onsite circulation would consist of drive aisles ranging in width from 25 to 32 feet to provide access to the storage units and 22 parking spaces, located throughout the site and along the drive aisles. One disabled parking space would be provided in front of the office and another parking space would be provided within the garage of the manager’s building for the onsite manager. The proposed onsite parking reduction is based on the estimated daily average and peak hour trips and short duration of miniwarehouse visits. Project operation is estimated to generate an average of 227 daily vehicle trips, including 15 AM peak hour trips and 24 PM peak hour trips during the weekday commuter periods. The average stay is 20 minute or less.

3. The General Development Plan includes planned variations to underlying district regulations which serve public purposes to an equivalent or higher degree than would underlying district regulations.

Supportive Evidence
The site is nearby to the Watsonville Municipal Airport and is within three Airport Safety Zones: the Inner Approach/Departure (Zone 2), Sideline (Zone 5), and Traffic Pattern (Zone 6), as defined in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Each safety zone specifies average- and single-acre intensity limitations which cannot be exceeded.

The lower limit for the average number of people allowed in the Handbook for Zones 2, 5, and 6 are 40, 70, and 200 people per acre, respectively. The project would result in up to 10 people per acre across the site and, therefore, the project would not exceed the maximum allowable average-acre intensity limitations in the Handbook.

The lower limit in the Handbook for single-acre limitations for Zones 2, 5, and 6 are 80, 210, and 800 people per acre, respectively. The project proposes up to 76 people per acre and, therefore, the project would not exceed the maximum allowable single-acre intensity limitations in the Handbook.

Variations from the conventional development standards of the existing IP District are justified as the project is designed to meet the development criteria of the Handbook in a manner which offers a service that would enhance the safety of people living or working near the Airport, by substantially reducing the number of people onsite and provides a land use that would be permitted by the underlying district regulations. The strict application of the minimum parking requirement for DocuSign Envelope ID: 239F89D5-0286-408B-B66F-09226D7D2BEF

Page 814 of 965 ends

In Process
C:\ProgramData\activePDF\Temp\DocConverter\API\Input\$7047d0222697$7CC0265F382942E69BB2BACBBAD86670.docx 6 of 32 a mini-warehouse type use would result in an oversupply of parking and limit the number of storage units that could be provided onsite. The minimal number of required onsite parking spaces would be excessive, due to the substantially reduced amount of activity associated with a mini-warehouse facility.

4. The General Development Plan can be coordinated with existing and proposed development of surrounding areas.

Supportive Evidence
The site is located within an industrial area, bordered on the north and east by industrial properties (zoned IP: Industrial Park), and by the Watsonville Community Hospital (zoned N: Institutional) to the south. Across Airport Boulevard is the Watsonville Municipal Airport (zoned PF: Public Facilities). The subject property contains a parking lot and surrounding properties are developed predominantly with industrial-type uses; a mini-warehouse facility is a compatible use with the existing industrial development and hospital to the south.

The redevelopment of the site would not affect surrounding properties. The project would be constructed in one phase and take approximately 300 calendar business days. The proposed project would not generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site.

The project would also not cause new stormwater runoff issues for the surrounding area. Standard permit conditions under the NPDES/Construction General Permit require that the applicant utilize various measures including onsite sediment control best management practices, damp street sweeping, temporary cover of disturbed land surfaces to control erosion during construction, and utilization of stabilized construction entrances and/or wash racks, among other methods.

Furthermore, the existing road network can serve the site and surrounding area.

Existing sidewalks are present on both sides of Airport Boulevard, Nielson Street, and Hangar Way, linking the project site to the surrounding pedestrian network and providing pedestrian access between the project site and the surrounding residential and commercial uses.

5. The General Development Plan is designed so that existing or proposed utility services and facilities and other public improvements are adequate for the population densities and land uses proposed.

Supportive Evidence
Pursuant to the IS/MND, the project would not require or result in the construction of new or expanded public utilities and service facilities. Infrastructure improvements would occur to connect project components to existing public and private utilities infrastructure. City standards include undergrounding all new connections to overhead facilities, including electric, telephone, and television lines. Construction would comply with City standards, and the impact would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would be sufficient for the population the use will serve and land use proposed.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 239F89D5-0286-408B-B66F-09226D7D2BEF

Page 815 of 965 ends

In Process
C:\ProgramData\activePDF\Temp\DocConverter\API\Input\$7047d0222697$7CC0265F382942E69BB2BACBBAD86670.docx 7 of 32

6. If applicable, a final subdivision map for the proposed planned development shall be recorded within two years of the expected date of adoption of the General Development Plan for the planned development.

Supportive Evidence
Not applicable. The proposed project does not involve recordation of a final subdivision map.

7. The General Development Plan is planned so that the total development in each individual development phase can exist as an independent unit; adequate assurance will be provided that such objective will be attained; that the uses proposed will not be detrimental to present and planned surrounding uses, as shown in the General Plan, but will have a beneficial effect which could not be achieved without being located in a PD District.

Supportive Evidence
The project would be constructed in one phase and take approximately 300 calendar business days to complete. As previously stated, a mini-warehouse is considered compatible with surrounding development and project construction would not negatively affect nearby industrial uses and the hospital.

8. The General Development Plan includes streets and thoroughfares, suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic, and the proposed densities will not generate traffic in such amounts as to overload the street network outside the development.

Supportive Evidence
Pursuant to the IS/MND, the project would generate traffic that is consistent with existing traffic from land uses in the area, which are industrial, commercial, and residential and the project would not result in incompatible uses as it relates to transportation and traffic. The proposed project would not generate traffic in an amount that would overload the street network outside the development.

Transportation-related impacts related to minimum sight distances and construction activities were found to be less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated.

9. The General Development Plan is designed so that existing or proposed utility services and facilities and other public improvements are adequate for the population densities and land uses proposed.

Supportive Evidence
Section 6.15 of the IS/MND assesses the potential impacts to public services and utilities from the proposed project and no significant impacts were identified. The project is subject to development impact fees and property taxes to offset project related impacts to public services and utility systems such as fire protection services, traffic control and roadways, storm drain facilities, water and wastewater facilities, and other public facilities and equipment. The impacts would be less than significant.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 239F89D5-0286-408B-B66F-09226D7D2BEF

Page 816 of 965 ends

In Process
C:\ProgramData\activePDF\Temp\DocConverter\API\Input\$7047d0222697$7CC0265F382942E69BB2BACBBAD86670.docx 8 of 32

10. The General Development Plan is designed so that proposed ratios for offstreet parking are consistent with parking regulations.

Supportive Evidence
The minimum parking requirement for the proposed project (DLU 114) is one parking space for each 10 storage cubicles distributed throughout the facility, two spaces for the manager’s quarters, and one space for every 25 storage cubicles near the manager’s office for prospective renters, pursuant to WMC Section 14-

17.401(b). Based on the proposed number of storage units (1,072), the proposed project would have to provide 152 parking spaces to meet the City’s minimum parking standard for this type of use.

The project proposes 22 onsite parking stalls located primarily along drive aisles.

One parking space would be provided in the garage floor of the manager’s building.

The project includes a Planned Development application to modify the City’s parking standard. The applicant provided examples of other comparable selfstorage facilities with reduced parking to demonstrate that 152 spaces would not be needed for this location. In addition, the Transportation Study for the project (W-Trans, 2021) indicates that the proposed project is not expected to general a large number of trips. Given the temporary nature of mini-warehouse visits, the 22 proposed onsite parking stalls are expected to be sufficient to accommodate the estimated number of trips to the site.

11. The General Development Plan will not have a detrimental and unmitigable financial impact on the City.

Supportive Evidence
The project would offer a service that would enhance the area and provide a land use that would be permitted by the underlying district regulations. Mentioned previously, the project is subject to development impact fees and property taxes to offset project related impacts to public services and utility systems.

SPECIAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS (WMC § 14-12.513)
The purpose of the Special Use Permit is to ensure the proper integration of uses which, because of their special nature, may be suitable only in certain locations or zoning districts. This special review shall be for the purpose of determining that the proposed use is, and will continue to be, compatible with surrounding, existing, or planned uses; and for the further purpose of establishing such special conditions as may be necessary to ensure the harmonious integration and compatibility of uses with the surrounding area.

1. The proposed use at the specified location is consistent with the policies embodied in the adopted General Plan and the general purpose and intent of the applicable district regulations.

Supportive Evidence
The project site is designated Industrial on the General Plan Land Use Diagram and is within the IP Zoning District. The intent of this land use designation is to serve the industrial needs of the community and the purpose of the IP Zoning District is to provide a separate and exclusive district for light, non-nuisance DocuSign Envelope ID: 239F89D5-0286-408B-B66F-09226D7D2BEF

Page 817 of 965 ends

In Process
C:\ProgramData\activePDF\Temp\DocConverter\API\Input\$7047d0222697$7CC0265F382942E69BB2BACBBAD86670.docx 9 of 32 industry, business, service, and research work; to promote an industrial business, service, and research area which is not dependent on rail transport and not requiring outdoor storage; to foster and encourage the development of specialized manufacturing, business, service, and research institutions; to promote and protect design and landscape qualities in the district; to minimize traffic congestion through the provision of adequate off-street parking and loading; and to protect the district and surrounding area and any adjacent residential or commercial property from noise, illumination, glare, and unsightliness, including outdoor storage, odors, dust, dirt, litter, smoke, fumes, vibration, heat, fire, and other hazards. WMC § 14-

16.500. General categories of allowed uses include wholesale sales, heavy commercial, construction and trade shops, general manufacturing, food processing, and related services, businesses and uses. A mini-warehouse or selfstorage facility is allowed conditionally with issuance of a Special Use Permit.

The proposed project is consistent with the following General Plan goals, policies, and implementation measures concerning land use compatibility, design, site improvement, and airport compatibility and public safety:
 Policy 4.I: Land Use Regulation – The City shall regulate future urban development to be consistent with the goals of this General Plan.  Implementation Measures 4.I.4: Environmental Review – The City shall use the environmental review process to ensure that project mitigations sustain and implement the policies of this General Plan, reduce environmental impacts to acceptable levels, and make adequate provisions for public safety.  Goal 5.1: Visual Resources – Preserve and enhance the built and natural visual resources within Watsonville.
 Goal 5.2: Community Appearance – Blend new development with recognized values of community appearance and scenic qualities, and ensure that new development enhances, rather than detracts from, its surroundings.  Goal 5.6: Urban Design – Achieve high standards of street, site and building design that are both efficient, and aesthetically pleasing.  Policy 5.A: Project Design Review – The preservation of visual resources shall be accomplished through the design review process.  Policy 5.B: Design Consistency – The City shall review new development proposals to encourage high standards of urban design and to ensure that elements of architectural design and site orientation do not degrade or conflict with the appearance of existing structures.
 Implementation Measure 5.B.3: Enhancement – The City shall utilize the development standards, zoning ordinance regulations for each district, and the design review guidelines to ensure that new development is an asset to the existing neighborhood and community with regard to parking, landscaping, open space, and project design.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 239F89D5-0286-408B-B66F-09226D7D2BEF

Page 818 of 965 ends

In Process
C:\ProgramData\activePDF\Temp\DocConverter\API\Input\$7047d0222697$7CC0265F382942E69BB2BACBBAD86670.docx 10 of 32  Goal 10.6: Aviation Facilities – Maintain, protect, and improve the facilities and services of the Watsonville Municipal Airport as part of the regional transportation network.
 Policy 10.Q: Aviation Facilities – As the only general aviation airport in Santa Cruz County, the Watsonville Airport shall be protected from adjacent development which is incompatible with existing and future services as outlined in the Airport master Plan and Regional Airport System Plan.  Implementation Measure 10.Q.3: State Guidelines – The City shall use the State’s guidelines to review and manage development within the airport’s area of influence.
 Goal 12.1: Land Use Safety – Plan for and regulate the uses of land in order to provide a pattern of urban development that will minimize exposure to hazards from either natural or human-related causes.
 Policy 12.A: Environmental and Public Safety – The City shall plan for and maintain development standards that minimize risk to human lives and property resulting from environmental and man-cause hazards. The City shall protect neighboring residential development from the immediate threats of potentially hazardous industrial or agricultural materials and airport hazards through careful land use planning.
 Implementation Measure 12.A.1: Airport Compatibility – The City shall use its development review process to ensure that proposals within the Airport Operations Impact Area are carefully analyzed to prevent and minimize potential hazards. Projects shall be consistent with the city and state’s guidelines for buildings and land uses compatible with airports.  Policy 12.M: Noise – The City shall utilize land use regulations and enforcement to ensure that noise levels in developed areas are kept at acceptable levels, and that future noise-sensitive land uses are protected from noise that is harmful.
 Implementation Measure 12.M.1: Traffic Noise – The City shall enforce provisions of the California Vehicle Code and local ordinances to reduce vehicular noise intrusion in residential areas and near other noise sensitive land uses such as schools and hospitals.

The project would provide a mini-storage facility on land designated for light industrial use. A mini-warehouse facility is a compatible use with the surrounding low-intensity, light manufacturing buildings and hospital. The project will consist of seven, one-and-two story buildings totaling 149,796 square feet of floor area.

These buildings range from 10'-2¼" to 23'-0" feet in height, and similar in height and scale to adjacent structures which generally consist of two-story buildings on 20,000 to 35,000 square-foot lots. The proposed manager’s unit would be 29' tall.

The buildings would have a simple contemporary design and provide new DocuSign Envelope ID: 239F89D5-0286-408B-B66F-09226D7D2BEF

Page 819 of 965 ends

In Process
C:\ProgramData\activePDF\Temp\DocConverter\API\Input\$7047d0222697$7CC0265F382942E69BB2BACBBAD86670.docx 11 of 32 vegetative screening along Neilson Street and Airport Boulevard. As further discussed under Access and Traffic Safety, the proposed project would not generate traffic in such an amount that would overload the street network outside the development.

The project is not consistent with all objectives in the General Plan, especially those concerning job creation and maximizing the economic opportunities for a site. In particular, the project is not consistent with General Plan Goal 4.4 since the project would provide only one job and not help the City achieve economic diversity and a better jobs/housing balance. While not consistent with this goal, the development potential for the project site is limited by its proximity to the Airport.

The Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Handbook establishes criteria for appropriate height, use, noise, safety, density, and intensity for Airport Safety Zones to ensure future development is compatible with airports. The project would meet all established criteria set forth in the Handbook and would comply with the maximum on-site occupancy to a higher degree than required by the Handbook. Additionally, the project is consistent with all development regulations in the IP Zoning District except for parking, and the applicant has requested a reduction through its application for a PD Overlay District.

Based on a review of the General Plan’s goals and policies, the proposed project is in harmony with the overall intent of the City’s General Plan goals and policies, including those pertaining to land use compatibility, design, site improvement, and airport compatibility and public safety.

2. The proposed use is compatible with and preserves the character and integrity of adjacent development and neighborhoods and includes improvements or modifications either on-site or within the public rights-ofway to mitigate development related adverse impacts such as traffic, noise, odors, visual nuisances, or other similar adverse effects to adjacent development and neighborhoods.

Supportive Evidence
The proposed project would provide an infill industrial use within an existing urbanized area consisting predominantly of industrial development.

The proposed project would not generate traffic in such an amount that would overload the street network outside the development. An Initial Study has been prepared for the proposed project, which includes a Transportation Study.

Transportation-related impacts related to sight distances and construction activities were found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

The proposed lighting provides adequate light to illuminate the site, consistent with light levels in a parking lot and for site circulation. A condition of approval requires all exterior lighting fixtures to be shielded or downcast. A photometric analysis demonstrates that little to no light would spill over onto adjoining properties and roadways. Any potential spillover would be further obscured from view by buildings, landscape plantings and fencing. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to create a glare nuisance.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 239F89D5-0286-408B-B66F-09226D7D2BEF

Page 820 of 965 ends

In Process
C:\ProgramData\activePDF\Temp\DocConverter\API\Input\$7047d0222697$7CC0265F382942E69BB2BACBBAD86670.docx 12 of 32

3. The proposed use will not generate pedestrian or vehicular traffic which will be hazardous or conflict with the existing and anticipated traffic in the neighborhood.

Supportive Evidence
The proposed project would not generate traffic which would be hazardous or conflict with existing and anticipated traffic in the neighborhood. An Initial Study has been prepared for the proposed project, which includes a Transportation Study. Transportation-related impacts related to sight distances and construction activities were found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

4. The proposed use incorporates roadway improvements, traffic control devices or mechanisms, or access restrictions to control traffic flow or divert traffic as needed to reduce or eliminate development impacts on surrounding neighborhood streets.

Supportive Evidence
City and State regulations are in place to regulate sight distance and site obstructions to address safe ingress/egress on the site. Based on criteria published by Caltrans, on-street parking will be restricted on Nielson Street for 25 feet on either side of the eastern driveway to achieve a minimum sight distance of 150 feet at each driveway access point.

The City also requires that “clear corner triangle” regulations be maintained in that no obstruction between two feet and eight feet above grade shall be placed on any corner lot in any zoning district in which a minimum front yard is established, per WMC Section 14-40.060. As shown on the proposed Site Plan, the proposed 6'-9" monument sign in the southwest portion of the site near Airport Boulevard and Nielson Street is located outside the “clear corner triangle” area, in compliance with City regulations.

In addition to sight distance and sight vision compliance, the project will have access to existing pedestrian facilities. Sidewalks exist on both sides of Airport Boulevard, Nielson Street, and Hangar Way, effectively linking the project site to the surrounding pedestrian network. Signalized crosswalks are present on the north and east legs of the Airport Boulevard/Nielson Way intersection. Overhead streetlights exist along Airport Boulevard, Nielson Street, and Hangar Way.

Overall, the existing facilities provide adequate pedestrian access and connections between the project site and surrounding industrial development, the hospital, and residential neighborhoods within walking distance. No other roadway improvements, traffic control devices or access restrictions to control or divert traffic flow is needed.

5. The proposed use incorporates features to minimize adverse effects, including visual impacts and noise, of the proposed special use on adjacent properties.

Supportive Evidence
The project site is not located under the recommended flight paths as shown on the Watsonville Municipal Airport Noise Abatement Map. Based on the Aircraft DocuSign Envelope ID: 239F89D5-0286-408B-B66F-09226D7D2BEF

Page 821 of 965 ends

In Process
C:\ProgramData\activePDF\Temp\DocConverter\API\Input\$7047d0222697$7CC0265F382942E69BB2BACBBAD86670.docx 13 of 32 Noise Monitoring Report prepared by WJV Acoustics in 2018, the project site is located outside of the airport’s 65 dB CNEL noise exposure contour under both existing (2016) and future (2036) conditions. The western portion of the site, which is approximately 500 feet southwest of the Runway 2 centerline, may be exposed to airport noise levels of 60 dB CNEL under existing and future conditions; however, the majority of the site would be exposed to noise levels less than 60 dB CNEL (WJV Acoustics, 2018). The onsite manager’s residence would be located in the eastern part of the site, outside of the 60 dB CNEL noise exposure contour mapped for the Airport. According to the WJV Acoustics report, “The State of California and the FAA consider areas outside the CNEL 65 dB contour to have an acceptable aircraft noise exposure under normal conditions for noise compatibility planning purposes.”
Ambient noise monitoring conducted at the site indicates that individual aircraft approaches and departures at Runway 2 may generate noise levels up to 85 dBA Lmax. Such single noise level events are short in duration and do not approach noise levels that would be considered excessive on a short-term basis. While maximum noise levels recorded at the site were associated with aircraft operations, traffic on Airport Boulevard and, to a lesser degree, Nielson Street are the primary contributors to measured ambient noise levels of 68.3 dBA Leq near Airport Boulevard and 60.7 dBA Leq near Nielson Street. The lowest measured noise level at the site (47.7 dBA Lmin) is representative of quiet conditions when there is no nearby traffic or aircraft approaching the Airport.

The Public Safety Element in the General Plan identifies the City’s noise compatibility guidelines for different land uses. According to Figure 12-6 of the General Plan, the normally acceptable noise limit for industrial land uses is 80 dB CNEL. A lower limit of 65 dB CNEL is multi-family residential development, such as the manager’s building. Based on the Aircraft Noise Monitoring Report (WVJ Acoustics, 2018) and ambient noise monitoring conducted at the site, the project would not expose people working or residing at the site to noise at unacceptable levels.

Adjacent uses are predominantly industrial and residential development is not in close proximity to the site. The nearest residential neighborhood is located along Airport Boulevard at Colonial Manor Mobile Home Park, approximately 0.3 miles north east of the site. The project consists of a new mini-warehouse facility and would not represent a visual impact on adjoining properties.

In addition, as previously mentioned, the proposed project lighting would not impact nearby properties. The project will include wall mounted lights, as well as a single 20-foot-tall light standard at the main driveway entrance. Lighting fixtures will include one pole-mounted light fixture, 66 interior facing LED wall lights, six wall sconces at the managers building, four exterior facing LED downlights, and four downward casting security lights. The proposed lighting would provide low to moderate light intensities around the buildings and within parking areas. These lighting levels would provide adequate light to illuminate the site, consistent with light levels in a parking lot and for site circulation. The photometric analysis also demonstrates that anticipated light intensities would not result in a visual nuisance.

Little to no light would spill over onto adjoining properties. Any potential spillover DocuSign Envelope ID: 239F89D5-0286-408B-B66F-09226D7D2BEF

Page 822 of 965 ends

In Process
C:\ProgramData\activePDF\Temp\DocConverter\API\Input\$7047d0222697$7CC0265F382942E69BB2BACBBAD86670.docx 14 of 32 light would be further obscured from view by buildings, landscape plantings and fencing. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to create a glare nuisance.

6. The proposed special use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the particular provisions of this chapter and all other requirements of this title applicable to the proposed special use and uses within the applicable base zoning district.

Supportive Evidence
Approval of a Special Use Permit shall authorize only the particular use for which the permit is issued and may include a limit on time the use may continue. No use authorized by a Special Use Permit shall be enlarged, extended, increased in intensity or relocated unless an application is made to modify the Special Use Permit in accordance with the procedures set forth in this Code. Development of the use shall not be carried out until the applicant has secured all the permits and approvals required by this title, the Code and County, State, Federal, or other agencies.

7. The proposed special use will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience and welfare, and will not result in material damage or prejudice to other property in the vicinity.

Supportive Evidence
The project involves the redevelopment of an existing parking lot as a miniwarehouse facility in an urbanized area with predominantly industrial development.

A mini-warehouse facility in this location would provide a valuable service to the community and is complementary with existing land uses nearby. In addition, as the site is within a developed area, it is currently served by municipal services, including water, sewer, police and fire, and therefore would not cause a serious public health or safety problem to future patrons of the mini-warehouse facility and onsite manager. Further, an Initial Study has been prepared for the proposed project, wherein, any potential negative impacts were found to be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures.

DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS (WMC § 14-12.403)

1. The proposed development is consistent with the goals and policies embodied in the adopted General Plan and the general purpose and intent of the applicable district regulations.

Supportive Evidence
The project site is designated Industrial on the General Plan Land Use Diagram and is within the IP Zoning District. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan goals, policies, and implementation measures concerning land use compatibility, design, site improvement, and airport compatibility and public safety, as outlined above in section Special Use Permit Findings #1.

2. The proposed development is compatible with and preserves the character and integrity of adjacent development and neighborhoods and includes improvements or modifications either on-site or within the public rights-ofDocuSign Envelope ID: 239F89D5-0286-408B-B66F-09226D7D2BEF

Page 823 of 965 ends

In Process
C:\ProgramData\activePDF\Temp\DocConverter\API\Input\$7047d0222697$7CC0265F382942E69BB2BACBBAD86670.docx 15 of 32 way to mitigate development related adverse impacts such as traffic, noise, odors, visual nuisances, or other similar adverse effects to adjacent development and neighborhoods.

Supportive Evidence
The proposed project would provide an infill industrial use within an existing urbanized areas consisting predominantly of industrial development.

Transportation-related impacts related to sight distances and construction activities were found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

3. The proposed development will not generate pedestrian or vehicular traffic which will be hazardous or conflict with the existing and anticipated traffic in the neighborhood.

Identified mitigation measures include, but are not limited to, a minimum sight distance of 150 feet at each project driveway access point and on-street parking shall be restricted on Nielson Street for 25 feet on either side of the eastern driveway. Further, restrictions on vegetation height along the project frontage on Nielson Street and the submittal of a Construction Period Traffic Control Plan is required to be submitted to the City for review and approval. Mitigation Measures have been included as Conditions of Approval.

4. The proposed development incorporates roadway improvements, traffic control devices or mechanisms, or access restrictions to control traffic flow or divert traffic as needed to reduce or eliminate development impacts on surrounding neighborhood streets.

Supportive Evidence
City and State regulations are in place to regulate sight distance and site obstructions to address safe ingress/egress on the site. Based on criteria published by Caltrans, on-street parking will be restricted on Nielson Street for 25 DocuSign Envelope ID: 239F89D5-0286-408B-B66F-09226D7D2BEF

Page 824 of 965 ends

In Process
C:\ProgramData\activePDF\Temp\DocConverter\API\Input\$7047d0222697$7CC0265F382942E69BB2BACBBAD86670.docx 16 of 32 feet on either side of the eastern driveway to achieve a minimum sight distance of 150 feet at each driveway access point.

5. The proposed development incorporates features to minimize adverse effects including visual impacts of the proposed development on adjacent properties:
a) Harmony and proportion of the overall design and the appropriate use of materials;
b) The suitability of the architectural style for the project; provided, however, it is not the intent of this section to establish any particular architectural style;
c) The sitting of the structure on the property, as compared to the sitting of other structures in the immediate neighborhood;
d) The size, location, design, color, number, and lighting; and e) The bulk, height, and color of the project structure as compared to the bulk, height, and color of other structures in the immediate neighborhood.

Supportive Evidence
The project involves providing infill industrial use within an existing urbanized area consisting predominantly of industrial development. The site is bordered on the north and east by industrial properties (zoned IP: Industrial Park) and by the Watsonville Community Hospital (zoned N: Institutional) to the south. Across Airport Boulevard is the Watsonville Municipal Airport (zoned PF: Public Facilities).

A mini-warehouse facility is a compatible use with the existing light manufacturing buildings to the east and north and the Watsonville Community Hospital to the south. The proposed mini-warehouse facility would operate in a manner consistent with other Industrial Park uses. In addition, the proposed design and project mass would be compatible with the surrounding development.

Residential development is not located directly adjacent or in close proximity to the site. The nearest residential units are along Airport Blvd, 0.3 miles northeast at DocuSign Envelope ID: 239F89D5-0286-408B-B66F-09226D7D2BEF

Page 825 of 965 ends

In Process
C:\ProgramData\activePDF\Temp\DocConverter\API\Input\$7047d0222697$7CC0265F382942E69BB2BACBBAD86670.docx 17 of 32 Colonial Manor Mobile Home Park. Single-family residential homes exist southeast of the site along Anna Street, 0.34 miles away.

As previously mentioned, the proposed lighting would not impact nearby properties, as little to no light would spill over onto nearby properties. Any potential spillover light would be further obscured from view by buildings, landscape plantings and fencing. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to create a new source of potential light spillover or glare nuisance.

6. The proposed development complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the particular provisions of this chapter, any City of Watsonville architectural guidelines, development and public improvement standards, and all other requirements of this title applicable to the proposed development.

7. The proposed development will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience and welfare or result in material damage or prejudice to other property in the vicinity.

Supportive Evidence
The project involves the redevelopment of an existing parking lot as a miniwarehouse facility in an urbanized area with predominantly industrial development.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 239F89D5-0286-408B-B66F-09226D7D2BEF

Page 826 of 965 ends

In Process
C:\ProgramData\activePDF\Temp\DocConverter\API\Input\$7047d0222697$7CC0265F382942E69BB2BACBBAD86670.docx 18 of 32 CITY OF WATSONVILLE EXHIBIT “B”

PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No: 1656
APN: 015-111-49
Applicant: Ed Boersma, on behalf of Ted Crocker
Hearing Date: December 6, 2022

SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT WITH DESIGN REVIEW

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
General Conditions:

1. Approval. This approval applies to the Plan Set identified as “Crockers Lockers” located at 70 Nielson Street, Watsonville, CA 95076, dated and received by the Community Development Department on October 6, 2021, and Revised on October 18, 2022, and filed by Ed Boersma, applicant, on behalf of Ted Crocker, property owner. (CDD-P)

2. Conditional Approval Timeframe. This Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit with Design Review (App. No. 1656) shall be null and void if not acted upon within 24 months from the effective date of the approval thereof. Time extensions may be considered upon receipt of written request submitted no less than forty-five (45) days prior to expiration and in accordance with the provisions of Section 14-10.1201 of the Watsonville Municipal Code (WMC). (CDD-P)

3. Modifications. Modifications to the project or conditions imposed may be considered in accordance with WMC Sections 14-12.1000 and 14-10.1305. All revisions shall be submitted prior to field changes and are to be clouded on the plans. (CDD-P)

4. Substantial Compliance. Project development shall be accomplished in substantial accordance with the approved Plan Set. Any required revisions to the Plan Set shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director or designee. (CDD-P)

5. Grounds for Review. The project shall be in compliance with the conditions of approval, all local codes and ordinances, appropriate development standards, and current City policies. Any deviation will be grounds for review by the City and may possibly result in revocation of the Specific Development Plan, Special Use Permit, or Design Review Permit, pursuant to Part 13 of WMC Chapter 14-10, or other code enforcement actions, pursuant to WMC Chapter 14-14. (CDD-P)

6. Appeal Period/Effective Date. This Permit shall not be effective until 14 days after approval by the decision-making body or following final action on any appeal. (CDD-P)

7. Necessary Revisions. The applicant shall make and note all revisions necessary to comply with all conditions of approval. The applicant shall certify in writing below DocuSign Envelope ID: 239F89D5-0286-408B-B66F-09226D7D2BEF

Page 827 of 965 ends

In Process
C:\ProgramData\activePDF\Temp\DocConverter\API\Input\$7047d0222697$7CC0265F382942E69BB2BACBBAD86670.docx 19 of 32 the list(s) of conditions that the building plans comply with the conditions of approval. (CDD-P)

8. Conditions of Approval. A copy of the final conditions of approval must be printed on the first or second sheet of plans submitted for future permits. Plans without the conditions of approval printed directly on the first or second page will not be accepted at the plan check phase. (CDD-P)

9. Required Statement. The applicant and contractor who obtains a building permit for the project shall be required to sign the following statement, which will become conditions of the building permit:
“I understand that the subject permit involves construction of a building (project) with an approved Special Use Permit with Design Review. I intend to perform or supervise the performance of the work allowed by this permit in a manner which results in a finished building with the same level of detail, articulation, and dimensionality shown in the plans submitted for building permits. I hereby acknowledge that failure to construct the building as represented in the building permit plans, may result in delay of the inspections process and/or the mandatory reconstruction or alteration of any portion of the building that is not in substantial conformance with the approved plans, prior to continuation of inspections or the building final.”
Signature of Building Contractor Date
CEQA Environmental Document Filing Fee Condition:

10. CDFW Filing Fee. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) imposes and collects a filing fee to defray the costs of managing and protecting California’s fish and wildlife resources, including, but not limited to, consulting with other public agencies, reviewing environmental documents, recommending mitigation measures, and developing monitoring programs. The applicant shall pay the fee for filing the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). (CDD-P) Building and Fire-related Conditions:

11. Required Permits. The applicant shall obtain all required building permits (Building, Electrical, Plumbing, Mechanical, Grading, etc.) for this project. (CDDB-E)

12. Building Code. Project construction shall comply with the California Building Code as adopted by the City. (CDD-B)

13. Fire Code. Project construction shall comply with California Fire Code as adopted by the City. (WFD)

14. Energy Efficiency. The project design shall conform with energy conservation measures articulated in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code and will DocuSign Envelope ID: 239F89D5-0286-408B-B66F-09226D7D2BEF

Page 828 of 965 ends

In Process
C:\ProgramData\activePDF\Temp\DocConverter\API\Input\$7047d0222697$7CC0265F382942E69BB2BACBBAD86670.docx 20 of 32 address measures to reduce energy consumption such as low-flow shower heads, flow restrictors for toilets, low consumption lighting fixtures, and insulation and shall use drought tolerant landscaping. (CDD-B)

15. Floodplain Development Permit. The applicant shall obtain a Floodplain Development Permit prior to issuance of a building permit, if applicable, in accordance with WMC Section 9-2.400. (CDD-E, PW)
Project Specific Conditions:

16. Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Plan (MMRP). Where not in conflict with specific conditions of approval, the project is subject to compliance with the MMRP adopted for the project. A reporting program shall be prepared and submitted to the City that establishes a format and timing for submittal of how mitigations have been implemented. (CDD-P)
Public Works & Utilities Conditions:

17. Connection Fees. The applicant shall comply with WMC Section 6-3.523.

Connection fees and charges shall be in accordance with a schedule established by resolution of the Council. Connection fees shall be in effect for all new connections to a public sanitary sewer main. New Construction. All newly constructed residential or commercial units shall pay the appropriate sanitary sewer connection fees as set forth by Council resolution prior to receiving an occupancy permit. All newly constructed industrial facilities shall, prior to receiving an occupancy permit, acquire by purchase or lease sufficient POTW capacity in an amount equal to not less than its estimated peak monthly discharge. A sewer connection fee must be collected by the City for this project. (PW, CDD-E)

18. Sanitary Sewer Lateral(s). The applicant shall comply with WMC Section 6-3.503.

Each parcel under separate ownership is required to have a separate sanitary sewer lateral. Upon change of ownership of a parcel sharing a sanitary sewer lateral, the owner of that parcel shall install a separate sanitary sewer lateral. (PW, CDD-E)
Prior to or concurrent with the issuance of a Building Permit, the following requirements shall be met:

19. Public Works Comments/Corrections. The applicant shall revise the project plans in accordance with the comments/corrections provided by Alex Yasbek, Civil Engineer, dated October 28, 2021, and repeated below. (CDD-E, PW)

20. Soil Percolation Test Results & Bio-Retention Area. Provide results of soil percolation testing justifying the use of 5min/inch infiltration rate in the design of the bio-retention areas. (PW, CDD-E)

21. Bio-Retention Basin Detail. Provide statement from project Geotechnical Engineer confirming that lining as shown in detail “Bio-Retention Basin Detail” on Sheet C4 confirms with intent of statement “Bio-retention swales constructed within 10 feet or less from building foundation should be lined with a 20-mil pond liner.” DocuSign Envelope ID: 239F89D5-0286-408B-B66F-09226D7D2BEF

Page 829 of 965 ends

In Process
C:\ProgramData\activePDF\Temp\DocConverter\API\Input\$7047d0222697$7CC0265F382942E69BB2BACBBAD86670.docx 21 of 32 (PW, CDD-E)

22. Soil Infiltration Rates. Revise and adjust bio-retention sizing as necessary to accommodate soil infiltration rates and the incorporation of a liner where needed.

Show revised calculation in a revised Stormwater Control Plan. (PW, CDD-E)

23. Stormdrain. Clearly show the connection between bio-retention basin 1 and the existing stormdrain system. Please indicate which existing stormdrain lines are to be removed or abandoned and which lines are new. (PW, CDD-E)

24. Post Construction Stormwater Requirements. The project is subject to the WMC Section 6-3.535 (Post Construction Requirements). The applicant shall prepare a stormwater control plan (SWCP) that demonstrates compliance with post-construction requirements (PCR) 1 – 4 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to issuance of a building permit. (CDD-E)

25. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Prior to issuance of the grading permit to begin project construction activities, the applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and submit the project SWPPP for review and approval by the City Engineer. The applicant shall also file a Notice of Intent (NOI) and associated fee to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The project SWPPP shall be utilized as a framework to prescribe and implement BMPs.

Construction and project operations shall implement BMPs to reduce pollutants within stormwater discharges to the maximum extent possible. The approved SWPPP shall be maintained throughout the construction period. The City shall verify that all post-construction BMPs are installed and functioning properly prior to issuing a certificate of occupancy. (CDD-E, PW)

26. Colors & Materials. The applicant shall submit a colors and materials board for review and approval by the Community Development Director or designee prior to issuance of a building permit. (CDD-P)

27. Landscaping & Irrigation Plan. The applicant shall submit three copies of the final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan for review and approval by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit. The Landscaping Plan shall provide drought-tolerant plants suitable for the Central Coast region. The Irrigation Plan shall provide an automatic water system (e.g., drip system) to irrigate all landscape areas. (CDD-B-E-P)
a. LANDSCAPING – The Landscape Plan shall indicate the types, quantities, locations and sizes of all plant material, including any existing major vegetation designated to remain and method of protecting planting areas from vehicular traffic. The Landscape Plan shall be drawn to scale, and plant types shall be clearly located and labeled. The plant list shall give the botanical name, common name, gallon sizes to be planted, and quantity of each planting. A minimum of 25 percent of all shrub material shall have a minimum 5-gallon container size. (CDD-E-P)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 239F89D5-0286-408B-B66F-09226D7D2BEF

Page 830 of 965 ends

In Process
C:\ProgramData\activePDF\Temp\DocConverter\API\Input\$7047d0222697$7CC0265F382942E69BB2BACBBAD86670.docx 22 of 32 b. IRRIGATION SYSTEM – Automatic, low-flow irrigation system(s) shall be installed in all landscaped areas. Irrigation shall be programmed for night or early morning hours in order to minimize evaporation. (CDD-P) c. WATER CONSERVATION – The project shall utilize water conservation, water recycling, and xeriscaping to the maximum extent possible. Irrigation systems shall be designed and maintained to avoid run-off, over-spray, or other similar conditions where water flows to waste. (CDD-B-E-P)
d. NEW TREES – As proposed in the preliminary landscape plans, the project shall provide a minimum of eight (8) fern pine trees along the northern perimeter of the site and six (6) dwarf apple trees near the eastern entrance.

Low water use shrubs and ground cover would be planted along the perimeter of the site, with an emphasis on the east and southern portions along Airport Boulevard and Nielson Street. Two bioretention basis will be added at the southeast and southwest portions of the site. (CDD-P)
e. LANDSCAPE & IRRIGATION INSTALLATION – All landscaping and irrigation shall be approved and installed prior to occupancy of the project. (CDD-P) f. WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE – The applicant shall submit a landscape documentation package and demonstrate compliance with the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, pursuant to WMC Section 6-3.801. (CDD-P-E)

28. Tree Removal. The Caltrans Division of Aeronautics staff have identified two trees as encroaching on the 2/20 Transitional Surface at 450 feet east of Runway 2/20 Approach End centerline, which are identified as T15 and T17 on the Existing Tree Plan (sheet T1). To ensure that the trees to not pose an airspace obstruction hazard, the applicant shall have the removed. (CDD-P)

29. Lighting. Plans submitted for building permit issuance shall show the locations and details of any exterior lighting fixtures. All lighting shall be downward facing and/or shielded and shall not spillover onto adjacent property, public roadways, and/or riparian habitat. (CDD-P)

30. Glare Prevention (Mitigation Measure Land Use & Planning 1). All exterior lighting shall be directed such that lights create as little off-site glare and nuisance as is feasible. All exterior lighting fixtures shall be glare-shielded and down-facing.

All exterior lighting shall be limited to warm light colors with an output temperature of 2700 kelvin. (CDD-P-B)

31. Trash Enclosure. The trash enclosure shall conform with City of Watsonville Public Improvement Standard No. S-602, and is subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. (CDD-P-E, PW)

32. Utility Connection. The project shall connect to City utilities. (CDD-E) DocuSign Envelope ID: 239F89D5-0286-408B-B66F-09226D7D2BEF

Page 831 of 965 ends

Watsonville City CouncilJanuary 17, 2023

Watsonville City Council
January 17, 2023