Watsonville City Council
October 10, 2023

Reso No. (PC)
C:\Users\celia.castro\Desktop\Resolution - Zoning Amendment.docx ri 8/31/2023 11:27:13 AM AJS ______ MDH ______ CDD ______ 14 Supportive Evidence
Development in downtown started before the City was incorporated in 1868. The area contains a mix of contemporary and historic buildings, urban plazas, higherdensity residential buildings, government offices, community-serving retail uses, and is home to numerous community events that attract both visitors and residents.

Once a thriving and bustling downtown, the Main Street has struggled to compete regionally with other commercial areas and has experienced high retail and commercial vacancy rates for the past several decades. The City has taken many steps to revitalize the downtown since the destructive 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, including several downtown plans and downtown design guidelines, as well as the development of a new Civic Plaza that is home to the South County Courthouse, City library, City administrative offices, City Council Chambers, and public meeting space.

The proposed zoning amendments are consistent with the Watsonville 2005 General Plan and would allow implementation of the DWSP, which would help revitalize downtown. The goals and policies of the DWSP strive to facilitate housing production and preservation; increase retail-entertainment activity; encourage higher-density mixed-use residential projects; add visitor-oriented uses; support a greater range of civic and cultural activities; improve the safety and comfort of pedestrians; enhance bicycle infrastructure and connections; and target uses and activities that appeal to a wide range of Watsonville’s residents and employees.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B604B29A-CDC7-4C36-B3A2-F58BC8791CD5 Attachment 7

EXHIBIT B
DocuSign Envelope ID: B604B29A-CDC7-4C36-B3A2-F58BC8791CD5 Attachment 7

Reso No. (PC)
C:\Users\celia.castro\Desktop\Resolution - Zoning Amendment.docx ri 8/31/2023 11:27:13 AM AJS ______ MDH ______ CDD ______ 16 This page is intentionally left blank.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B604B29A-CDC7-4C36-B3A2-F58BC8791CD5 Attachment 7

Reso No. (PC)
C:\Users\celia.castro\Desktop\Resolution - Zoning Amendment.docx ri 8/31/2023 11:27:13 AM AJS ______ MDH ______ CDD ______ 17 CITY OF WATSONVILLE EXHIBIT C

PLANNING COMMISSION
SECTION 1: That a new Part 26, “DWSP District”, is hereby added to Chapter 14-16 (Zoning Regulations) of the Watsonville Municipal Code as follows:

Part 26: DWSP—Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan District 14-16.2600 Application.

The regulations set forth in Chapter 6 (Land Use and Zoning) of the Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan (DWSP) apply to all parcels in the DWSP plan area as identified in the City Watsonville Zoning Map, as may be amended. The land use and development standards in Chapter 6 of the DWSP shall supersede other land use and development standards set forth in Title 14 of the Watsonville Municipal Code. 14-16.2601 Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to deliver the physical outcomes for downtown Watsonville, based on the community’s Vision, Goals, and Policy Direction as described in Chapter 2 of the DWSP.
14-16.2602 Intent.

The intent of the DWSP is to enable a lively and dynamic mix of diverse land use within a safe, comfortable, pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use downtown environment.

The DWSP establishes new zones and overlays, which are intended to concentrate urban activity and intensity in the center of downtown and allows development to transition to existing lower-intensity neighborhood settings at the periphery of the DWSP plan area and to industrial activity to the south.
14-16.2603 Permitted and conditional uses.

The land uses in Table 6-3 and as described in Section 6.4 (Land Use Regulations) of the DWSP set forth permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited uses in the DWSP plan area.
14-16.2604 District Regulations.

Section 6.5 (Form Regulations) in Chapter 6 of the DWSP set forth standards and guidelines concerning building placement, building height, building massing, façade design, frontages, and encroaching architectural elements.

Section 6.6 (Site Standards & Guidelines) in Chapter 6 of the DWSP set forth standards and guidelines that regulate the design and location of elements of a site for the purpose of the health, safety, and general welfare of the immediate occupants of each building, and for the neighborhood. Provisions in Section 6.6 apply to waste and utilities placement, site walls, lighting, and onsite open space.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B604B29A-CDC7-4C36-B3A2-F58BC8791CD5 Attachment 7

Reso No. (PC)
C:\Users\celia.castro\Desktop\Resolution - Zoning Amendment.docx ri 8/31/2023 11:27:13 AM AJS ______ MDH ______ CDD ______ 18 SECTION 2: That “DWSP District” is hereby added to end of the table in Section 14-

16.100 of Chapter 14-16 (Zoning Regulations) of the Watsonville Municipal Code as follows:

Part Section

SPECIFIC PLAN
26 DWSP DWSP District 14-16.2600
DocuSign Envelope ID: B604B29A-CDC7-4C36-B3A2-F58BC8791CD5 Attachment 7

Reso No. ______ (CM) 1
Meeting Date: 101023 SWZ ______ RM ______ CDD ______

RESOLUTION NO.__________ (CM)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

WATSONVILLE, ADOPTING AND CERTIFYING A FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DOWNTOWN
WATSONVILLE SPECIFIC PLAN; AND ADOPTING CONCURRENTLY

ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PROJECT, AND A MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN ACCORDANCE WITH

THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, the Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan (DWSP) is a planning tool to implement the General Plan and to guide development in a specific area; and WHEREAS, the DWSP is intended to be a tool for developers, property owners, City staff and decision makers by providing strong and clear policies, development standards, and a vision that guides land use decisions, infrastructure improvements, design, and economic development activities in the project area; and WHEREAS, the overarching goals of the DWSP are to facilitate housing production and preservation; increase retail-entertainment activity; encourage higherdensity mixed-use residential projects; add visitor-oriented uses; support a greater range of civic and cultural activities; improve the safety and comfort of pedestrians; enhance bicycle infrastructure and connections; and target uses and activities that appeal to a wide range of Watsonville’s residents and employees; and
WHEREAS, the DWSP establishes new zones and overlays, which are intended to concentrate urban activity and intensity in the center of downtown and allows development to transition to existing lower-intensity neighborhood settings at the periphery of the DWSP plan area and to industrial activity to the south; and WHEREAS, the new zones consist of the Downtown Core and Downtown Neighborhood Zones; and

Reso No. ______ (CM)
Meeting Date: 101023
2 WHEREAS, the Downtown Core Zone is an active, walkable environment, characterized by buildings up to six stories. This is the heart of Downtown—generally flanking Main Street—where the most active and intense development patterns and uses are anticipated. Upper floors contain residential units or office space. Buildings are close to the sidewalk and have little-to-no side setbacks; and WHEREAS, the Downtown Neighborhood Zone is characterized by smaller scale buildings than those of the Downtown Core Zone and generally includes a similar mix of active and residential uses; and
WHEREAS, as part of implementing the DWSP, it is anticipated that the City will amend the Zoning Map to reflect the boundaries of the DWSP plan area; and WHEREAS, as part of implementing the DWSP, it is anticipated that the City will amend the Zoning Code (Title 14 of the Watsonville Municipal Code) to create a new DWSP district and reference the permitted uses and development standards in Chapter 6 of the adopted DWSP document; and
WHEREAS, as the DWSP’s zoning is inconsistent with the Watsonville 2005 General Plan, it is anticipated that City will amend the General Plan concurrent with the Specific Plan to ensure consistency between the two documents; and WHEREAS, as part of implementing the DWSP, it is anticipated that the City will adopt a General Plan Amendment to add two new mixed-used land use designations and align the General Plan land use diagram by changing the existing land use designations of the DWSP plan area to correspond with the zones shown on the Regulating Plan, Figure 6-1, of the DWSP; and
WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment also includes amending implementation measures 4.A.3, 4.C.6 and 10.C.2; and

Reso No. ______ (CM)
Meeting Date: 101023
3 WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study, in 2022, to evaluate potential impacts of the DWSP (or “project”) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Following preparation of the Initial Study, the City determined the potential for the proposed project to result in potentially significant impacts; and WHEREAS, on October 7, 2022, the City prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) stating that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project would be prepared. This NOP, along with the accompanying Initial Study was circulated to the public, local, state, and federal agencies, and other interested parties to solicit comments on the project through November 25, 2022. Concerns raised in response to the NOP were considered during preparation of the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2023, the City published a Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR, which started a 45-day public review period. The NOA was filed with the California Office of Planning and Research under State Clearinghouse No. 2022100602.

The review period for the Draft EIR ended on June 26, 2023; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15086, the City consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and others during the public review and comment period; and WHEREAS, the City received two letters or emails from public agencies and two letters or emails from individual members of the public during the 45-day Draft EIR public review and comment period; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared written responses to the comments received during the comment period and included these responses in a separate volume entitled DWSP Final EIR. The Final EIR includes a list of those who commented on the Draft EIR, copies of written comments, written responses to comments regarding the environmental review,

Reso No. ______ (CM)
Meeting Date: 101023
4 and errata with minor text changes made to the Draft EIR as a result of comments. The Final EIR was made available for public review on August 11, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR and Final EIR, consisting of the comments received during the 45-day public review and comment period on the Draft EIR, written responses to those comments, and revisions to the Draft EIR made by the Errata constitute the Final EIR prepared for the DWSP (SCH #2022100602). For the purposes of this Resolution, the EIR shall refer to the Draft EIR, as revised by the Errata to the Draft EIR, which is included as chapter 3 in the Final EIR document; and
WHEREAS, the EIR identified certain significant and potentially significant adverse effects on the environment what would result from implementing the DWSP; and WHEREAS, the EIR outlined various mitigation measures that would substantially lessen or avoid many of the project’s significant effects on the environment, as well as alternatives to the project as proposed that would provide some environmental advantages; and
WHEREAS, the City is required to adopt all feasible mitigation measures or feasible project alternatives that can substantially lessen or avoid any significant environmental effects of the project; and
WHEREAS, the EIR analyzed the project alternatives, including a No Project Alternative (#1), Repurposed Walker Street Industrial Uses Alternative (#2), and Reduced Density Alternative (#3); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code §21081 and CEQA Guidelines §15091, a lead agency, before approving a project for which an EIR has been prepared and certified, must adopt findings specifying whether mitigation measures and, in some instances, alternatives discussed in the EIR, have been adopted or rejected as infeasible; and

Reso No. ______ (CM)
Meeting Date: 101023
5 WHEREAS, a set of Findings of Fact are attached with this Resolution in order to satisfy Public Resources Code §21081 and CEQA Guidelines §15091; and WHEREAS, all of the alternatives would not sufficiently satisfy the project objectives. For example, the Reduced Density Alternative (#3) would not fulfill to the same or better level objectives related to creating inclusive housing opportunities, promoting local economic prosperity, or innovate mobility options and connections. Additionally, lowered density housing may be less financially feasible; and WHEREAS, on September 5, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Watsonville reviewed and considered the potential environmental impacts of the project and adopted Resolution No. 11-23 (PC), recommending that the City Council adopt and certify the EIR for the DWSP, as well as a set of CEQA Findings and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that none of the alternatives addressed in the EIR would be both feasible and environmentally superior to the proposed project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council specifically finds that where more than one reason for approving the proposed project and rejecting alternatives and suggested mitigation measures is given in its findings or in the record, and where more than one reason is given for adopting the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council would have made its recommendation on the basis of any one of those reasons; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires, in accordance with CEQA, to declare that, despite the potential for significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives, there exist certain overriding economic, social, and other considerations for

Reso No. ______ (CM)
Meeting Date: 101023
6 approving the proposed Project that the City Council believes justify the occurrence of those impacts; and
WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed project have been adequately evaluated; and
WHEREAS, notice of time and place of the hearing to consider the adoption a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, adoption of findings of fact and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and certification EIR for the project was given at the time and in the manner where appropriate public noticing procedures have been followed and a public hearing was held according to Section 14-10.900 of the Watsonville Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all evidence received, both oral and documentary, and the matter was submitted for decision.

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

1. Pursuant to CEQA section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, and in support of its approval of the DWSP, the City Council has reviewed and considered the CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the project, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference; and finds that such Findings of Fact are supported by substantial evidence; and adopts the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations.

2. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091 and in support of its approval of the DWSP, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that requires all mitigation

Reso No. ______ (CM)
Meeting Date: 101023
7 measures described in the Final EIR be implemented, as set forth in the MMRP, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference and adopts the MMRP.

3. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), which is attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this reference, includes the Draft EIR, written responses to those comments, and revisions to the Draft EIR made by the Errata prepared for the DWSP (SCH #2022100602) dated August 2023, including all its related appendices and attachments and is hereby adopted and certified for the DWSP concurrently with the foregoing actions.

4. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091(e), the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council has based its determination are located in and may be obtained from, the Office of the City Clerk located at 275 Main Street, #400, Watsonville California. The City Clerk is the custodian of records for all matters before the City.
************************************

Reso No. (CM)
Meeting Date: 101023 SWZ ______ RM ______ CDD ______
1 CITY OF WATSONVILLE EXHIBIT A

CITY COUNCIL

CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT & STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS I. INTRODUCTION TO CEQA FINDINGS
The City of Watsonville (City) prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan (DWSP or project). The Final EIR, which is comprised of the Draft EIR; Responses to Public Comments; Errata to the Draft EIR; and appendices and supporting technical studies and reports, addresses the potential environmental effects associated with implementation of the DWSP, including potential construction and operation impacts of the development and land uses envisioned in the DWSP.

The Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Findings) set forth below are presented for adoption by the City Council, as the City' s findings under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.) relating to the project. The Findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of this City Council regarding the project’s environmental impacts, mitigation measures, alternatives to the project, and the overriding considerations, which in this City Council’s view, justify approval of the proposed project, despite significant and unavoidable environmental effects.

A. Project Location
Watsonville is in the southern area of Santa Cruz County, approximately 14 miles southeast of the city of Santa Cruz, approximately 16 miles north of the city of Salinas, and approximately 22 miles northeast of the city of Monterey. Watsonville is bordered by the unincorporated communities of Freedom to the north, Interlaken to the east, and Pajaro to the south. The Monterey Bay/Pacific Ocean is approximately three miles west of the City.

The DWSP plan area encompasses approximately 195.5 acres within Downtown Watsonville, located in the southeastern portion of the City. Approximately 55.5 acres (28 percent) of the DWSP plan area is dedicated to streets and rights-of-way. Downtown is centered on Main Street and extends west to the edge of existing neighborhoods and the industrial district, south to Pajaro, and several blocks east to the existing neighborhoods.

State Route 152 runs through the approximate center of the DWSP plan area and operates along portions of Main Street and as a one-way couplet along E Lake Avenue and E Beach Street. Riverside Drive on the south end of the DWSP plan area is a part of State Route 129.

B. Project Description Summary
The proposed project consists of the Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan (DWSP).

Generally, a specific plan is a regulatory tool that local governments use to implement their General Plan and to guide development in a localized area. The proposed DWSP

Reso No. (CM)
Meeting Date: 101023 SWZ ______ RM ______ CDD ______
2 has been developed to articulate a community vision and a planning framework for the downtown area of Watsonville that would serve as a guide for the City and other public agency decision makers, community members, and stakeholders over the next 20 to 30 years. The proposed DWSP provides a land use and mobility plan along with development and design regulations to guide future public and private development projects in the downtown area. Additionally, the DWSP includes an implementation strategy and mechanisms to ensure development is coordinated and satisfying the intent of the DWSP. Implementation of the DWSP would require an amendment to the City’s current General Plan.

The land use components of the DWSP would help the City achieve its objective of incorporating higher density commercial and housing opportunities by accommodating additional residential uses in a compact and active mixed-use environment through both new construction and adaptive reuse of historic or existing buildings. The DWSP envisions the addition of up to 3,886 new residential units, 231,151 square feet of commercial development, 376,827 square feet of industrial development, and 114,572 square feet of civic space within the downtown area. Because the planning area is mostly developed with commercial buildings and established residential neighborhoods, the DWSP directs future potential growth toward a limited number of vacant or under-utilized sites that could be redeveloped.

The mobility components of the DWSP focus on the provision of multi-modal transportation options in the downtown area, such as vehicle, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian mode options. It includes design concepts for downtown streets, as well as bicycle and pedestrian network improvements. In addition, the mobility component identifies mobility goals, such as the provision of complete streets, effective and sufficient parking, curb management, a road diet, a roundabout, and travel demand management strategies.

C. Project Objectives
The DWSP would encourage higher-intensity, mixed-use neighborhoods by coalescing the City’s Downtown with adjacent industrial and residential areas to create walkable and complete neighborhoods with a mix of retail, services, amenities, employment, and residential uses that would help to activate the Downtown area. The DWSP establishes the following guiding principles and objectives for Downtown Watsonville:
 Preserve key elements that make Downtown unique
 Establish a varied choice of uses and experiences for our diverse community  Create diverse and inclusive housing opportunities
 Promote local economic prosperity
 Create a vibrant, safe, and active Downtown
 Foster a healthy, inclusive, & culturally connected community where all can thrive  Re-imagine and innovate mobility options and connections  Incorporate sustainable design elements to improve community health D. Procedural Compliance with CEQA
The City of Watsonville prepared an Initial Study to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed project. Following preparation of the Initial Study, the City determined the potential for the proposed project to result in potentially significant impacts. The City prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on October 7, 2022, stating that an EIR for the

Reso No. (CM)
Meeting Date: 101023 SWZ ______ RM ______ CDD ______
3 project would be prepared. This NOP, along with the accompanying Initial Study was circulated to the public, local, state, and federal agencies, and other interested parties to solicit comments on the project through November 25, 2022. Concerns raised in response to the NOP were considered during preparation of the Draft EIR. The Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR was published on May 12, 2023. The Draft EIR was published for public review and comment on May 12, 2023 and was filed with the California Office of Planning and Research under State Clearinghouse No. 2022100602. The review period for the Draft EIR ended on June 26, 2023.

The City prepared written responses to the comments received during the comment period and included these responses in a separate volume entitled Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. The Final EIR includes a list of those who commented on the Draft EIR, copies of written comments (coded for reference), written responses to comments regarding the environmental review, and errata with minor text changes made to the Draft EIR as a result of comments. The Final EIR was made available for public review on August 11, 2023.

E. Consideration and Incorporation of the Environmental Impact Report In adopting these Findings, the City Council finds that the Final EIR was presented, which reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving the proposed project. By these Findings, the City Council ratifies, adopts, and incorporates the analysis, explanations, findings, responses to comments, and conclusions of the Final EIR. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Final EIR represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City.

The City finds, accordingly, that the Final EIR was published, circulated and reviewed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and constitutes an accurate, objective, and complete Final EIR. The Final EIR is hereby incorporated by reference into these Findings of Fact.

F. Requirements for CEQA Findings
Pursuant to Public Resources Code §21081 and CEQA Guidelines §15091, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant impact:
1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. 2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.
3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.

The City of Watsonville has made one or more of these specific written findings regarding each significant impact associated with the DWSP. Those findings are presented below, along with a presentation of facts in support of the Findings of Fact. The City of

Reso No. (CM)
Meeting Date: 101023 SWZ ______ RM ______ CDD ______
4 Watsonville finds that these Findings of Fact are based on full appraisal of all viewpoints, including all comments received up to the date of adoption of these Findings of Fact, concerning the environmental issues identified and discussed. These Findings of Fact are based on evidence contained in the totality of the administrative record before the City Council, including but not limited to the Final EIR supporting evidence cited herein.

II. LOCATION AND CUSTODIAN OF THE RECORD
The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which the City of Watsonville’s Findings of Fact are based are located at 250 Main Street, Watsonville, California. The custodian of these documents is Justin Meek, AICP, Principal Planner. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code § 21081.6(a)(2) and 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15091(e).

For purposes of CEQA and these Findings of Fact, the Record of Proceedings for the project consists of the following documents, at a minimum:
 The Initial Study, Notice of Preparation, and all other public notices issued by the City of Watsonville and in conjunction with the project.  The Draft and Final EIRs, including appendices and technical studies included or referenced in the Draft and Final EIRs, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project.
 All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public comment period on the Draft EIR.
 All comments and correspondence submitted to the City of Watsonville with respect to the project.
 All Findings and resolutions adopted by the City of Watsonville decision makers in connection with the project and all documents cited or referred to therein.  All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the project prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc., consultant to the City of Watsonville.
 All reports, memoranda, documentation, data output files relating to the land use and transportation modeling for the project.
 All documents and information submitted to the City of Watsonville by responsible, trustee, or other public agencies, or by individuals or organizations, in connection with the project, up through the date the City of Watsonville City Council approved the project.
 Matters of common knowledge to the City of Watsonville, including, but not limited to federal, State, and local laws and regulations.
 Any documents expressly cited in these Findings of Fact, in addition to those cited above.
 Any other materials required to be in the Record of Proceedings by Public Resources Code § 21167.6(e).

III. FINDINGS FOR IMPACTS IDENTIFIED AS POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT BUT

MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
The City of Watsonville hereby finds that the following mitigation measures identified in the EIR which will avoid or substantially lessen the following environmental impacts reducing them to a less than significant level, have been required in or incorporated into

Reso No. (CM)
Meeting Date: 101023 SWZ ______ RM ______ CDD ______
5 the project. These findings are based on the discussion of impacts in the detailed impact analyses in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIR, as well as relevant responses to comments in the Final EIR. The findings below are for impacts where implementation of the project may result in the following significant environmental impacts that will be reduced to less than significant levels following mitigation:

A. Air Quality

1. The development envisioned in the DWSP would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. (EIR Impact AQ-3)
a) Potential Impact. The development envisioned in the DWSP could incorporate generators, other permitted sources of toxic air contaminants, potentially unpermitted sources and potentially heavy-duty truck traffic in excess of 100 vehicles per day. Emissions from these sources could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, such as concentrations of diesel exhaust.
b) Mitigation Measures. Project mitigation measures AQ-3(a) through AQ-3(b) are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before this City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation. The impacts related to sensitive receptors exposure to substantial pollutant concentrations will be mitigated to a less than significant level by requiring the use of specialized construction equipment, such as Tier 4 equipment, and preparation of the Health Risk Assessment to identify and design the measures necessary to reduce pollutant concentrations at receptors.
(2) Remaining Impacts. Remaining impacts related to sensitive receptors exposure to substantial pollutant concentrations would not be significant.
d) Supporting Evidence. Please refer to pages 4.2-20 through 4.2-23 of the Draft EIR.

B. Biological Resources

1. Project activities could disturb known special status species or their associated habitat, including migratory nesting birds. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation. (EIR Impact BIO-1) a) Potential Impact. The proposed project would remove habitat suitable for special-status wildlife species, such as Santa Cruz tarplant, and could directly impact these species if present within the suitable habitat during construction.

Additionally, removal of vegetation cover during construction could impact nesting migratory bird species or their nests.
b) Mitigation Measures. Project mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the MMRP. c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before this City Council, the City Council finds that:
(3) Effects of Mitigation. The impacts related to special-status species and nesting migratory birds, including their habitats, will be mitigated to a less than significant level by requiring surveys to conducted by a

Reso No. (CM)
Meeting Date: 101023 SWZ ______ RM ______ CDD ______
6 qualified biologist prior to construction, relocation of Santa Cruz tarplant, and excluding construction access from both tarplant and active migratory nest sites.
(4) Remaining Impacts. Remaining impacts related to special-status species, nesting migratory birds, and their habitat would not be significant.
d) Supporting Evidence. Please refer to pages 4.3-6 through 4.3-8 of the Draft EIR.

C. Cultural Resources

1. Future development facilitated by the DWSP would have the potential to encounter subsurface resources as excavation required for construction could occur in undisturbed soil. Damage or destruction of archaeological resources would be a potential adverse change in the significance of archaeological resources. Accordingly, project impacts would be potentially significant, and mitigation is required. (Draft EIR Appendix A- Initial Study Section 5, Cultural Resources)
a) Potential Impact. Construction of the development envisioned in the DWSP, including new buildings and infrastructure, would involve excavation and ground disturbance. Ground-disturbing activities would have the potential to unearth previously unidentified archaeological resources. b) Mitigation Measures. Project mitigation measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3 are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the MMRP. c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before this City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation. The impacts related to archaeological resources will be mitigated to a less than significant level by requiring construction activities to halt near archaeological finds until further evaluated and protected, as applicable, by a qualified archaeologist. (2) Remaining Impacts. Remaining impacts related to archaeological resources would not be significant.
d) Supporting Evidence. Please refer to pages 19 through 21 of the Initial Study, which is provided as Appendix A to the Draft EIR.

D. Geology and Soils

1. Future development facilitated by the DWSP would have the potential to encounter subsurface paleontological resources as excavation required for construction could occur in undisturbed soil. Damage or destruction of paleontological resources would be a potentially significant impact, and mitigation is required. (Draft EIR Appendix A: Initial Study Section 7, Geology and Soils)
a) Potential Impact. Construction of the development envisioned in the DWSP, including new buildings and infrastructure, would involve excavation and ground disturbance. Ground-disturbing activities would have the potential to unearth and damage or destroy paleontological resources. b) Mitigation Measures. Project mitigation measure GEO-1 is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the MMRP.
c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before this City Council, the City Council finds that:

Reso No. (CM)
Meeting Date: 101023 SWZ ______ RM ______ CDD ______
7 (1) Effects of Mitigation. The impacts related to paleontological resources will be mitigated to a less than significant level by stopping construction work in the area of uncovered paleontological resources until evaluation by a paleontologist is completed and treatment has been applied consistent with the direction of the paleontologist.
(2) Remaining Impacts. Remaining impacts related to paleontological resources would not be significant.
d) Supporting Evidence. Please refer to pages 29 through 30 of the Initial Study, which is provided as Appendix A to the Draft EIR.

E. Hazards and Hazardous Materials

1. Implementation of the DWSP could accommodate development on or near hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

However, compliance with applicable regulations and implementation of mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant. (EIR Impact HAZ-1)
a) Potential Impact. Development envisioned in the DWSP would occur on hazardous sites, depending on the property or properties where specific projects are proposed within the DWSP plan area. Construction on these hazardous sites could expose workers to hazardous materials. Operation of the development could expose people to hazardous materials on these sites. b) Mitigation Measures. Project mitigation measures HAZ-1(a) and HAZ-1(b) are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the MMRP. c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before this City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation. The impacts related to hazardous materials sites will be mitigated to a less than significant level by requiring a Phase I and/or Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, and as applicable, a soil management plan and soil remediation activities to remove hazardous materials.
(2) Remaining Impacts. Remaining impacts related to hazardous materials sites would not be significant.
d) Supporting Evidence. Please refer to pages 4.5-8 through 4.5-11 of the Draft EIR.

F. Tribal Cultural Resources

1. Development envisioned in the DWSP would have the potential to adversely change tribal cultural resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR1 would reduce the impact to less than significant. (EIR Impact TCR-1) a) Potential Impact. Subsurface excavation and grading required for the construction of the development envisioned in the DWSP would have the potential to uncover and either damage or destroy unknown or unidentified tribal cultural resources, if present.
b) Mitigation Measures. Project mitigation measure TCR-1 is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the MMRP.
c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before this City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation. The impacts related to tribal cultural resources will be mitigated to a less than significant level by requiring construction work to halt around discovery of a potential tribal cultural resource, and

Reso No. (CM)
Meeting Date: 101023 SWZ ______ RM ______ CDD ______
8 development of a mitigation plan is the resource is determined to be a tribal cultural resource, in consultation with a representative from the applicable Native American tribe.
(2) Remaining Impacts. Remaining impacts related to tribal cultural resources would not be significant.
d) Supporting Evidence. Please refer to pages 4.9-4 through 4.9-5 of the Draft EIR.

IV. FINDINGS FOR IMPACTS IDENTIFIED AS SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE The City of Watsonville hereby finds that the following environmental impacts would be significant and unavoidable. These findings are based on the discussion of impacts in the detailed impact analyses in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIR, as well as relevant responses to comments in the Final EIR. The findings below are for impacts where implementation of the project may result in the following significant environmental impacts that will remain significant following mitigation, and therefore are also unavoidable:

A. Air Quality

1. The proposed project would introduce additional housing to the area and contribute to population growth that conflicts with the growth assumptions in the Air Quality Management Plan. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable. (EIR Impact AQ-1)
a) Potential Impact. The proposed project would add an estimated 3,866 additional residential units, which would increase the City’s population by 13,679 to approximately 64,348. According to AMBAG’s population forecast, the City’s population would be 56,344 in 2045. Therefore, the estimated population of 64,348 with buildout of the DWSP would exceed AMBAG’s population forecasts for 2045 by approximately 8,004 people. Since the anticipated increase in population would be inconsistent with long-term growth projections for the county, implementation of the DWSP would conflict with an air quality plan. Additionally, emissions from operation of the development envisioned in the DWSP would exceed regional threshold of ROG, CO and PM10.
b) Mitigation Measures. Project mitigation measure AQ-1, as set forth in Draft EIR Section 4.2, Air Quality, is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the MMRP. After implementation of mitigation measure AQ-1, the impact will still be considered significant and unavoidable. c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before this City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Mitigation is Feasible. Mitigation measure AQ-1 is determined to be the only feasible measures the City can impose to reduce the proposed development’s impacts resulting from conflicts with an air quality plan.

Mitigation measure AQ-1 requires project level analysis of air pollutant emissions and development of project specific mitigation to reduce those emissions below applicable thresholds established by the Monterey Bay Air Resources District. This mitigation measure applies to discretionary projects in the DWSP plan area that are not exempt from CEQA.
(2) Remaining Impacts. There are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce population and employment and be consistent with

Reso No. (CM)
Meeting Date: 101023 SWZ ______ RM ______ CDD ______
9 the objectives of the DWSP. Reducing the growth envisioned in the DWSP would not necessarily reduce population growth because people could still move to the region or Basin, but would reside outside of the DWSP plan area. Additionally, as the AQMP is updated to reflect new growth assumptions, the anticipated growth from the DWSP would be accounted for in the next AQMP emissions calculations. However, as the growth forecasts are currently inconsistent with AQMP projections, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable until that time. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the project override remaining significant adverse impacts of the project resulting in potential conflicts with an air quality plan, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section IX, below.
d) Supporting Evidence. Please refer to pages 4.2.16 through 4.2-17 of the Draft EIR.

2. Construction and operation of development envisioned by the DWSP would result in the temporary and long-term generation of air pollutants, which would affect local air quality and exceed MBARD thresholds. Therefore, this impact is significant and unavoidable. (EIR Impact AQ-2) a) Potential Impact. Long-term operation of the development envisioned in the DWSP would generate emissions attributed to vehicle trips (mobile emissions), the use of natural gas and electricity (energy source emissions), and consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscape maintenance equipment (area source emissions) from development envisioned in the DWSP. The emissions from operational sources would exceed Monterey Bay Air Resources District’s significance thresholds for ROG, CO, and PM10. Construction emissions would be below these thresholds.
b) Mitigation Measures. Project mitigation measure AQ-1, as set forth in Draft EIR Section 4.2, Air Quality, is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the MMRP. After implementation of mitigation measure AQ-1, the impact will still be considered significant and unavoidable. c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before this City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Mitigation is Feasible. Mitigation measure AQ-1 is determined to be the only feasible measures the City can impose to reduce the proposed development’s impacts resulting from operational air pollutant emissions. Mitigation measure AQ-1 requires project level analysis of air pollutant emissions and development of project specific mitigation to reduce those emissions below applicable thresholds established by the Monterey Bay Air Resources District. This mitigation measure applies to discretionary projects in the DWSP plan area that are not exempt from CEQA.
(2) Remaining Impacts. While mitigation measure AQ-1 is feasible and would be implemented, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable because the cumulative emissions of the development envisioned in the DWSP could still exceed thresholds established by the Monterey Bay Air Resources District.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the project override remaining significant adverse

Reso No. (CM)
Meeting Date: 101023 SWZ ______ RM ______ CDD ______
10 impacts of the project resulting in the generation of air pollutant emissions, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section IX, below.
d) Supporting Evidence. Please refer to pages 4.2-17 through 4.2.20 of the Draft EIR.

3. The DWSP would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to emissions of air pollution and conflicts with an applicable air quality management plan. (EIR Impact AQC1) a) Potential Impact. Long-term operation of the development envisioned in the DWSP would generate emissions attributed to vehicle trips (mobile emissions), the use of natural gas and electricity (energy source emissions), and consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscape maintenance equipment (area source emissions) from development envisioned in the DWSP. The cumulative total emissions from operational sources would exceed Monterey Bay Air Resources District’s significance thresholds for ROG, CO, and PM10.

Additionally, cumulative population growth in the region would exceed AMBAG’s population forecasts for 2045.
b) Mitigation Measures. Project mitigation measures AQ-1, AQ-3(a), and AQ3(b), as set forth in Draft EIR Section 4.2, Air Quality, are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the MMRP. After implementation of mitigation measures AQ-1, AQ-3(a), and AQ-3(b), the impact will still be considered significant and unavoidable.
c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before this City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Mitigation is Feasible. Mitigation measures AQ-1, AQ-3(a), and AQ3(b) are determined to be the only feasible measures the City can impose to reduce the proposed development’s impacts resulting from cumulative population growth and air pollutant emissions. Mitigation measure AQ-1 requires project level analysis of air pollutant emissions and development of project specific mitigation to reduce those emissions below applicable thresholds established by the Monterey Bay Air Resources District. Mitigation measures AQ-3(a) and AQ-3(b) require specialized construction equipment, such as Tier 4 equipment, and project-specific health risk assessments to ensure sensitive land uses are not exposed to concentrations of toxic pollutants that exceed regulatory thresholds. These mitigation measures apply to discretionary projects in the DWSP plan area that are not exempt from CEQA. (2) Remaining Impacts. While mitigation measures AQ-1, AQ-3(a), and AQ-3(b) are feasible and would be implemented, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable because the cumulative emissions of the development envisioned in the DWSP could still exceed thresholds established by the Monterey Bay Air Resources District. Likewise, these mitigation measures would not prevent cumulative population growth, which would exceed current AMBAG’s population projections for 2045. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the project override remaining significant adverse cumulative impact of the project resulting in the generation of air

Reso No. (CM)
Meeting Date: 101023 SWZ ______ RM ______ CDD ______
11 pollutant emissions and population growth, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section IX, below. d) Supporting Evidence. Please refer to page 4.2-24 of the Draft EIR.

B. Cultural Resources

1. Development envisioned in the DWSP could adversely affect known and previously unidentified historical resources. Impacts to historical resources would be significant and unavoidable. (EIR Impact CUL-1) a) Potential Impact. Development under the proposed project could impact historical resources through construction activities associated with buildout.

Future infill development could consist of modern-style architecture, which if located near a historic building, could adversely change the historic context or setting in which the historic building occurs. Moreover, if future infill development would involve redevelopment/demolition of existing structures, it is possible that such structures could have historical significance (as determined by site specific evaluation) given the presence of structures that are over 50 years old within the DWSP plan area. Redevelopment or demolition could result in the permanent loss of or permanent adverse changes to historic structures.
b) Mitigation Measures. Project mitigation measures CUL-1(a), CUL-1(b), and CUL-1(c), as set forth in Draft EIR Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the MMRP. After implementation of mitigation measures CUL-1(a), CUL-1(b), and CUL-1(c), the impact will still be considered significant and unavoidable. c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before this City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Mitigation is Feasible. Mitigation measures CUL-1(a), CUL-1(b), and CUL-1(c) are determined to be the only feasible measures the City can impose to reduce the proposed development’s impacts to historic resources. Mitigation measure CUL-1(a) requires a historic resources evaluation for individual projects in the DWSP plan area. Mitigation measure CUL-1(b) requires treatment of historic properties consistent with standards of the Secretary of the Interior. Mitigation measure CUL1(c) requires site-specific documentation of historic resources if impacts to those resources are unavoidable. Other measures were considered but rejected because they were deemed infeasible on ineffective, including complete avoidance of historic and potentially historic resources in the DWSP plan area. However, complete avoidance of these resources would prohibit much of the development envisioned I the DWSP, resulting in the inability to achieve project objectives.

Accordingly, mandatory avoidance of the existing and potential historic resources is infeasible.
(2) Remaining Impacts. While mitigation measures CUL-1(a), CUL-1(b), and CUL-1(c) are feasible and would be implemented, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable because the DWSP envisions development that would require unavoidable changes to historic or potentially historic resources.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the project override remaining significant adverse impacts of the project resulting in the demolition or loss of a historic

Reso No. (CM)
Meeting Date: 101023 SWZ ______ RM ______ CDD ______
12 resource, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section IX, below.
d) Supporting Evidence. Please refer to pages 4.4-15 through 4.4-17 of the Draft EIR.

2. The DWSP would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact on historic-era cultural resources. (EIR Impact CUL-C1)
a) Potential Impact. Development envisioned in the DWSP would alter or demolish historic structures or alter the setting in which historic structures occur within the DWSP plan area. Other development in Watsonville but outside of the DWSP plan area could also impact historic resources. Because the proposed project would result in direct significant impacts to historic resources in the DWSP plan area, and historic resources elsewhere in Watsonville could also be impacts, there would be fewer historic resources remaining in the City of Watsonville.
b) Mitigation Measures. Project mitigation measures CUL-1(a), CUL-1(b), and CUL-1(c), as set forth in Final EIR Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the MMRP. After implementation of mitigation measures CUL-1(a), CUL-1(b), and CUL-1(c), the impact will still be considered significant and unavoidable. c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before this City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Mitigation is Feasible. Mitigation measures CUL-1(a), CUL-1(b), and CUL-1(c) are determined to be the only feasible measures the City can impose to reduce the proposed development’s impacts to historic resources. Other measures were considered but rejected because they were deemed infeasible on ineffective, as set forth in Finding III.B.1(c)(1) above, incorporated herein by this reference.
(2) Remaining Impacts. There are no mitigation measures that would meet the objectives of the DWSP while retaining the historic resources. While mitigation measures CUL-1(a), CUL-1(b), and CUL-1(c) are feasible and would be implemented, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable because the DWSP envisions development that would require unavoidable changes to historic or potentially historic resources. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the project override remaining significant adverse impacts of the project resulting in the demolition or loss of a historic resource, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section IX, below.
d) Supporting Evidence. Please refer to pages 4.4-17 through 4.4-18 of the Draft EIR.

C. Noise

1. Construction of development envisioned by the DWSP would temporarily increase noise levels at nearby noise-sensitive receptors. Operation of development envisioned by the DWSP would introduce new onsite noise sources and contribute to increases in traffic noise. Construction and onsite operational noise could exceed standards. This impact would be significant and unavoidable even with mitigation. (EIR Impact NOI-1)

Reso No. (CM)
Meeting Date: 101023 SWZ ______ RM ______ CDD ______
13 a) Potential Impact. Construction of the development envisioned in the DWSP would require heavy machinery and power tools, which would generate noise that exceeds thresholds of significance. Likewise, operation of the development would also generate noise that exceeds thresholds, such as noise from vehicle travel.
b) Mitigation Measures. Project mitigation measures NOI-1(a) and NOI-1(b), as set forth in Draft EIR Section 4.6, Noise, are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the MMRP. After implementation of mitigation measures NOI-1(a) and NOI-1(b), the impact will still be considered significant and unavoidable.
c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before this City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Mitigation is Feasible. Mitigation measures NOI-1(a) and NOI-1(b) are determined to be the only feasible measures the City can impose to reduce the proposed development’s impacts related to noise. Other measures were considered but rejected because they were deemed infeasible or ineffective, such as prohibiting construction. Prohibiting construction is not feasible because it would prevent development envisioned in the DWSP, thereby preventing implementation of the DWSP.
(2) Remaining Impacts. There are no mitigation measures that would meet the objectives of the DWSP while avoiding noise that exceeds thresholds of significance. While mitigation measures NOI-1(a) and NOI1(b) are feasible and would be implemented, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable because the DWSP envisions development that would require heavy machinery for construction and subsequent operational activities that produce noise.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the project override remaining significant adverse impacts of the project resulting from the generation of noise, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section IX, below.
d) Supporting Evidence. Please refer to pages 4.6-9 through 4.6-13 of the Draft EIR.

2. Construction of development envisioned by the DWSP would temporarily generate groundborne vibration. If required for construction, pile driving or use of a vibratory roller could potentially exceed FTA vibration thresholds and impact people or buildings. This impact would be significant and unavoidable even with mitigation. (EIR Impact NOI-2)
a) Potential Impact. Construction of the development envisioned in the DWSP would require heavy machinery that would generate groundborne vibration that could damage buildings or disturb sensitive receptors.
b) Mitigation Measures. Project mitigation measure NOI-2, as set forth in Draft EIR Section 4.6, Noise, is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the MMRP. After implementation of mitigation measure NOI-2, the impact will still be considered significant and unavoidable.
c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before this Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds that:

Reso No. (CM)
Meeting Date: 101023 SWZ ______ RM ______ CDD ______
14 (1) Mitigation is Feasible. Mitigation measure NOI-2 is determined to be the only feasible measures the City can impose to reduce the proposed development’s impacts related to groundborne vibration. Mitigation measure NOI-2 requires the development of a groundborne vibration plan for specific projects in the DWSP plan area if they would utilize certain construction equipment in proximity to certain land uses and structures. The vibration control plan must include measures to reduce vibration below significance thresholds, or to avoid structural damage where reduction of vibration is not possible. Other measures were considered but rejected because they were deemed infeasible or ineffective, such as prohibiting construction activities involving heavy machinery. Prohibiting construction with heavy machinery is not feasible because it would prevent development envisioned in the DWSP, thereby preventing implementation of the DWSP.
(2) Remaining Impacts. There are no mitigation measures that would meet the objectives of the DWSP while preventing groundborne vibration in excess of thresholds of significance. While mitigation measure NOI-2 is feasible and would be implemented, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable because the DWSP envisions development that would require heavy machinery for construction.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the project override remaining significant adverse impacts of the project resulting from the generation of groundborne vibration, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section IX, below.
d) Supporting Evidence. Please refer to pages 4.6-13 through 4.6-16 of the Draft EIR.

3. The construction activities for the development envisioned in the DWSP would have a cumulatively considerable contribution toward a significant cumulative impact on noise. (EIR Impact NOI-C1)
a) Potential Impact. Construction of the development envisioned in the DWSP plus construction in Watsonville but outside of the DWSP plan area would require heavy machinery that would generate noise levels in excess of thresholds of significance.
b) Mitigation Measures. Project mitigation measures NOI-1(a) and NOI-1(b), as set forth in Draft EIR Section 4.6, Noise, are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the MMRP. After implementation of mitigation measures NOI-1(a) and NOI-1(b), the cumulative impact will still be considered significant and unavoidable.
c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before this City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Mitigation is Feasible. Mitigation measures NOI-2 is determined to be the only feasible measures the City can impose to reduce the proposed development’s impacts related to groundborne vibration. Other measures were considered but rejected because they were deemed infeasible or ineffective, such as prohibiting construction activities involving heavy machinery. Prohibiting construction with heavy machinery is not feasible because it would prevent development

Reso No. (CM)
Meeting Date: 101023 SWZ ______ RM ______ CDD ______
15 envisioned in the DWSP, thereby preventing implementation of the DWSP.
(2) Remaining Impacts. There are no mitigation measures that would meet the objectives of the DWSP while preventing noise levels from exceeding thresholds of significance. While mitigation measure NOI1(a) and NOI-1(b) are feasible and would be implemented, cumulative noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable because the DWSP envisions development that would require heavy machinery for construction alongside other development in Watsonville requiring similar machinery.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the project override remaining significant adverse impacts of the project resulting from the generation of cumulative noise levels, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section IX, below.
d) Supporting Evidence. Please refer to pages 4.6-16 through 4.6-18 of the Draft EIR.

D. Transportation

1. Development envisioned in the DWSP would conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). Impacts would be significant and unavoidable. (EIR Impact TRA-2)
a) Potential Impact. Residential development envisioned in the DWSP would generate vehicle miles traveled (VMT), but residential VMT would not exceed applicable thresholds of significance. However, commercial and industrial development envisioned in the DWSP would generate VMT that exceeds thresholds of significance. Specifically, commercial/office development would generate 9.0 VMT per employee, which is less than the 9.6 VMT under existing conditions but still above the significance threshold of 7.4 VMT. Industrial development would generate 13.5 VMT per employee, which would be less than 14.2 VMT per employee under existing conditions but still exceed the significance threshold of 11 VMT.
b) Mitigation Measures. Project mitigation measure TRA-1, as set forth in Draft EIR Section 4.8, Transportation, are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the MMRP. After implementation of mitigation measure TRA-1, the impact will still be considered significant and unavoidable. c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before this City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Mitigation is Feasible. Mitigation measure TRA-1 is determined to be the only feasible measure the City can impose to reduce the proposed development’s impacts related to VMT per employee. Mitigation TRA-1 requires each individual office and industrial development project in the DWSP plan area to have a corresponding transportation demand management (TDM) plan and monitoring program developed by the applicant or developer of the project. Other measures were considered but rejected because they were deemed infeasible or ineffective, such as prohibiting commercial/office and industrial development. Prohibiting these land uses is not feasible because it would prevent implementation of the DWSP and block its objectives from implementation.

Reso No. (CM)
Meeting Date: 101023 SWZ ______ RM ______ CDD ______
16 (2) Remaining Impacts. There are no mitigation measures that would meet the objectives of the DWSP while avoiding VMT per employee that exceeds thresholds of significance. While mitigation measure TRA-1 is feasible and would be implemented, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable because the DWSP envisions a full range of land uses in the DWSP plan area to promote walkability and active modes of transportation.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the project override remaining significant adverse impacts of the project resulting from the generation VMT per employee, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section IX, below.
d) Supporting Evidence. Please refer to pages 4.8-14 through 4.8-16 of the Draft EIR.

2. The DWSP would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative VMT impact related to a conflict or inconsistency with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). (EIR Impact TRA-C1) a) Potential Impact. Residential development envisioned in the DWSP would generate vehicle miles traveled (VMT), but residential VMT would not exceed applicable thresholds of significance, even when combined with VMT generated from other residential growth in Watsonville and Santa Cruz County through 2040. However, commercial and industrial development envisioned in the DWSP would generate VMT that exceeds thresholds of significance when combined with VMT from other commercial and industrial development in Santa Cruz County. Specifically, cumulative commercial/office development would generate 8.5 VMT per employee in 2040, which would exceed the significance threshold of 7.4 VMT. Cumulative industrial development in Santa Cruz County, including the DWSP plan area, would generate 12.8 VMT per employee, which would exceed the significance threshold of 11 VMT.
b) Mitigation Measures. Project mitigation measure TRA-1, as set forth in Draft EIR Section 4.8, Transportation, are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the MMRP. After implementation of mitigation measure TRA-1, the cumulative impact will still be considered significant and unavoidable. c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before this City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Mitigation is Feasible. Mitigation measure TRA-1 is determined to be the only feasible measure the City can impose to reduce the proposed development’s impacts related to VMT per employee. Mitigation TRA-1 requires each individual office and industrial development project in the DWSP plan area to have a corresponding transportation demand management (TDM) plan and monitoring program developed by the applicant or developer of the project. Other measures were considered but rejected because they were deemed infeasible or ineffective, such as prohibiting commercial/office and industrial development. Prohibiting these land uses is not feasible because it would prevent implementation of the DWSP and block its objectives from implementation. (2) Remaining Impacts. There are no mitigation measures that would meet the objectives of the DWSP while avoiding VMT per employee that exceeds thresholds of significance. While mitigation measure TRA-1 is

Reso No. (CM)
Meeting Date: 101023 SWZ ______ RM ______ CDD ______
17 feasible and would be implemented, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable because the DWSP envisions a full range of land uses in the DWSP plan area to promote walkability and active modes of transportation.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the project override remaining significant adverse impacts of the project resulting from the generation VMT per employee, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section IX, below.
d) Supporting Evidence. Please refer to pages 4.8-16 through 4.8-17 of the Draft EIR.

V. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
A. Legal Requirements for Alternatives
CEQA requires that environmental impact reports assess feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that may substantially lessen the significant effects of a project prior to approval Public Resources Code Section 21002). Apart from the "no project" alternative, the specific alternatives or types of alternatives that must be assessed are not specified. CEQA establishes no categorical legal imperative as to the scope of alternatives to be analyzed in an EIR. Each case must be evaluated on its own facts, which in turn must be reviewed in light of the statutory purpose. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal.3d. 553, 556 1990]). The legislative purpose of CEQA is to protect public health and welfare and the environment from significant impacts associated with all types of development by ensuring that agencies regulate activities so that major consideration is given to preventing environmental damage while providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian Public Resources Code Section 21000).

In short, the objective of CEQA is to avoid or mitigate environmental damage associated with development. This objective has been largely accomplished in the project through the inclusion of project modifications and mitigation measures that reduce the potentially significant impacts to an acceptable level. The courts have held that a public agency “may approve a developer's choice of a project once its significant adverse environment effects have been reduced to an acceptable level— that is, all avoidable significant damage to the environment has been eliminated and that which remains is otherwise acceptable” (Laurel Hills Homeowners Assoc. v. City, 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 [ 1978]).

B. Identification of Project Alternatives
The CEQA Guidelines state that the “range of potential alternatives to the project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one of more of the significant effects” of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c)). Thus, consideration of the project objectives is important to determining which alternatives should be assessed in the EIR.

The EIR identifies the following objectives for the DWSP:
 Preserve key elements that make Downtown unique
 Establish a varied choice of uses and experiences for our diverse community  Create diverse and inclusive housing opportunities
 Promote local economic prosperity

Reso No. (CM)
Meeting Date: 101023 SWZ ______ RM ______ CDD ______
18  Create a vibrant, safe, and active Downtown
 Foster a healthy, inclusive, and culturally connected community where all can thrive
 Re-imagine and innovate mobility options and connections  Incorporate sustainable design elements to improve community health The City evaluated the alternatives listed below in the EIR:
 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
 Alternative 2: Repurposed Walker Street Industrial Uses Alternative  Alternative 3: Reduced Density Alternative
Given that the main purpose of the DWSP is to provide a comprehensive land use and mobility plan, along with development and design regulations, to guide future public and private development in the downtown area of Watsonville, it would not be feasible to evaluate an alternative location (i.e., another city of location in Watsonville). The DWSP must, by its nature, guide future development located in the DWSP plan area, which is downtown Watsonville. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) allows for consideration of alternatives to a project, or its location (emphasis added), but does not mandate inclusion of a location alternative in an EIR. Accordingly, to evaluate another location for downtown development would not be meaningful for the purposes of informing a decision about the proposed DWSP, and a Location Alternative was not discussed or evaluated further in the EIR.

C. Findings on Alternatives

1. No Project Alternative
a. Description. Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed DWSP would not be adopted or implemented. Therefore, the City’s General Plan would not need to be amended to reflect the DWSP. Thus, any new development in the DWSP plan area would occur consistent with the existing land use designations and the allowed uses within each designation in the City’s General Plan.

Development under this alternative is anticipated to be less intensive and result in greater low-density development within the DWSP plan area compared with the DWSP, because the proposed DWSP envisions increased density compared to the General Plan. Specifically, under this alternative, the DWSP plan area would have approximately 64 housing units, approximately 1.6 million square feet of commercial space, and approximately 809,000 square feet of industrial space, all of which includes existing development already in the DWSP plan area. The transportation and mobility improvements envisioned in the DWSP would also not occur under this alternative. For example, as describe in Table 2.2 in Section 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the proposed DWSP envisions uncoupling East Lake Avenue and East Beach Street as pair one-way streets in opposing directions and instead making each a two-way street. The current General Plan does not envision this mobility improvement.
b. Findings and Rationale. The No Project Alternative is a feasible alternative but it would not achieve the project objectives as listed on page 5-1 of the Draft EIR. The objectives of the proposed project center on encouraging and facilitating growth in the DWSP plan area, which consists of the downtown area of Watsonville. The City’s General Plan also facilitates growth in the DWSP

Reso No. (CM)
Meeting Date: 101023 SWZ ______ RM ______ CDD ______
19 plan area, and therefore, Alternative 1 is consistent with this component of the project objectives. However, Alternative 1 would not satisfy specific project objectives about the types and density of growth within the DWSP plan area.

For example, Alternative 1 includes only 64 housing units in the DWSP plan area, which would fail to meet the objective of creating diverse and inclusive housing opportunities. Because the DWSP would provide more density in the DWSP plan area compared with the General Plan, Alternative 1 could also fail to promote economic prosperity and a vibrant and active downtown when compared with the DWSP. Additionally, because the General Plan does not envision the mobility improvements contained in the DWSP, Alternative 1 would also not meet the project objective to re-imagine and innovate mobility options in the DWSP plan area.
c. Supporting Evidence – Please refer to pages 5-2 through 5-4 of the Draft EIR.

2. Repurposed Walker Street Industrial Uses Alternative a. Description – Under the Repurposed Walker Street Industrial Uses Alternative, the Walker Street corridor would be changed into an active transitoriented area. The transit-oriented area would include new housing in proximity to transit and new retail, galleries, breweries, coffee roasters, and coffee shops, as well some creative offices and makerspaces. The existing industrial uses on Walker Street would be phased out over time. Specifically, over time, Alternative 2 would remove approximately 7,300 square feet of existing retail space and approximately 375,827 square feet of industrial space. The General Plan and zoning designations for this area would be Downtown Mixed Use and Downtown Neighborhood, respectively. These designations would allow for a mix of residential and retail uses, including within the same building. Other parts of the DWSP plan area would remain as envisioned in the proposed DWSP. b. Findings and Rationale – The Repurposed Walker Street Industrial Uses Alternative is a feasible alternative, but it would not achieve most of the project objectives, as listed on page 5-1 of the Final EIR. The objectives of the proposed project center on encouraging and facilitating growth in the DWSP plan area, which consists of the downtown area of Watsonville. Alternative 2 would also facilitate growth in the DWSP plan area, and therefore, Alternative 2 is consistent with this component of the project objectives. Alternative 2 could fulfill select objectives to a greater extent than the DWSP, such as establishing a varied choice of uses and experiences downtown and creating diverse and inclusive housing opportunities. Alternative 2 could better fulfill these objectives because it would facilitate more housing and mixed-use development within the DWSP plan area compared with the DWSP. However, Alternative 2 would fail to satisfy select objectives as well as the DWSP. For example, Alternative 2 could be less successful at promoting local economic prosperity, because it would remove much of the industrial development and employment from the DWSP plan area.
c. Supporting Evidence – Please refer to pages 5-4 through 5-7 of the Draft EIR.

3. Reduced Density Alternative
a. Description – The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce the residential and non-residential development density facilitated by the proposed DWSP such that approximately 25 percent fewer new residential dwelling units and 25

Reso No. (CM)
Meeting Date: 101023 SWZ ______ RM ______ CDD ______
20 percent less office, commercial, dining, and industrial development square footage would be created. Development would occur within the same areas where development would occur under the proposed DWSP, only at a reduced density. Generally, this would be achieved by reducing the height of new residential buildings by a story and the overall size of other types of new buildings in the DWSP plan area compared with the heights or FAR proposed or envisioned in the DWSP.
b. Findings and Rationale – The Reduced Project Alternative is a feasible alternative, but it would not achieve some of the project objectives, as listed on page 6-1 of the Final EIR. The objectives of the proposed project center on encouraging and facilitating growth in the DWSP plan area, which consists of the downtown area of Watsonville. The Reduced Project Alternative would also facilitate growth in the DWSP plan area, but development would occur at reduced density. Therefore, compared with the DWSP, the Reduced Project Alternative would fulfill several objectives to a lesser extent. For example, Alternative would not fulfill to the same or better level objectives related to creating inclusive housing opportunities, promoting local economic prosperity, or innovate mobility options and connections. Alternative 3 would not fulfill the objective to innovate mobility options and connections as well as the DWSP because it would place fewer residents downtown where many goods and services are easily reached by active transportation modes, such as walking and cycling.
c. Supporting Evidence – Please refer to pages 5-7 through 5-10 of the Draft EIR.

D. Environmentally Superior Alternative
The environmentally superior alternative is discussed on page 5-11 of the Draft EIR.

Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, another environmentally superior alternative must be identified. For the EIR analysis, the Reduced Density Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. The Reduced Density Alternative is also referred to as “Alternative 3” in the Draft EIR.

The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce or slightly reduce impacts to air quality, cultural resources, and noise, compared to the DWSP. However, compared with the DWSP, the Reduced Density Alternative would result in a slightly more severe impact related to transportation. The Reduced Density Alternative would be the most effective alternative to reduce the potentially significant impacts of the DWSP. For this reason, the Reduced Density Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives considered and evaluated in the EIR. The Reduced Density Alternative would be feasible to implement. However, as discussed above in Findings V.C.3.b, compared with the DWSP, the Reduced Density Alternative would fulfill several objectives to a lesser extent. For example, the Reduced Density Alternative would not fulfill to the same or better level objectives related to creating inclusive housing opportunities, promoting local economic prosperity, or innovate mobility options and connections. Additionally, lowered density housing may be less financially feasible.

Based on the foregoing findings, and even though the Reduced Density Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the Commission rejects that Alternative 3.

Reso No. (CM)
Meeting Date: 101023 SWZ ______ RM ______ CDD ______
21 VI. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATION MEASURES

PROPOSED IN DRAFT EIR COMMENTS
Comments received on the Draft EIR did not recommend alternatives to the DWSP. Some comments on the Draft EIR suggested revisions to the mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR. In response to Draft EIR comments, some mitigation measures were revised, including mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2. The revisions to mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 were for purposes of clarification and do not constitute “significant new information” requiring recirculation. (See Public Resources Code Section 21092.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.)
VII. FINDINGS ON RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR AND

REVISIONS TO THE FINAL EIR
Appendix 1 of the Final EIR includes the comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to those comments. The focus of the responses to comments is on the disposition of significant environmental issues as raised in the comments, as specified by CEQA Guidelines § 15088(b). The Final EIR also incorporates information obtained and produced after the Draft EIR was completed, including additions, clarifications and modifications. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Final EIR and all of this information.

The City Council finds that responses to comments made on the Draft EIR (Chapter 2 to the Final EIR) and revisions contained in the Errata to the Draft EIR (Chapter 3 to the Final EIR) merely clarify, amplify or make insignificant modifications to the analysis presented in the document and do not trigger the need to recirculate per CEQA Guidelines §15088.5(b). Revisions made to the Draft EIR are shown in Section 3 of the Final EIR in strikethrough and underline text to denote deletions and additions, respectively.

VIII. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The City Council finds that a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the DWSP EIR has been prepared and has been adopted concurrently with these Findings of Fact (Public Resources Code, § 21081.6(a)(1)). The MMRP for the project has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code and Sections 15091(d) and 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines.

The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure the adopted mitigation measures adopted in the Findings of Fact for the DWSP EIR are implemented, in accordance with CEQA requirements. The Findings of Fact adopt feasible mitigation measures to reduce the significant environmental impacts of the project. The mitigation measures adopted in the DWSP EIR Findings of Fact are listed in their entirety in the MMRP. The MMRP is available at City Hall at the address provided in Section II.

IX. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO THE DWSP

FINDINGS
The City is the lead agency under CEQA, responsible for the preparation, review and certification of the Final EIR for the Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan. As the lead

Reso No. (CM)
Meeting Date: 101023 SWZ ______ RM ______ CDD ______
22 agency, the City is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and which of those impacts are significant. CEQA also requires the lead agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the proposed action.

In making this determination the lead agency is guided by the CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, which provides as follows:
a) “CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region -wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region - wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposal project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered ` acceptable,”
b) “When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record."
c) “If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination ....”
In addition, Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds that economic, legal, social, technical, or other reasons make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR and thereby leave significant unavoidable adverse project effects, the public agency must also find that overriding economic, legal, social, technical or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant unavoidable adverse effects of the project.

The Final EIR identified a number of alternatives to the proposed DWSP, and the administrative record of proceedings, including without limitation the Final EIR and these findings, determined the extent to which these alternatives meet the basic project objectives, while avoiding or substantially lessening any significant adverse impacts of the proposed DWSP.

Analysis in the Final EIR for the Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan has concluded that the proposed project will result in air quality, historic resources, noise, and transportation impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. These impacts are set forth in Section III, above, which is incorporated herein by this reference. All other potential significant adverse project impacts have been mitigated to a level less than significant based on mitigation measures identified in the EIR.

Reso No. (CM)
Meeting Date: 101023 SWZ ______ RM ______ CDD ______
23 In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 and other applicable law, the City has, in determining whether or not to approve the DWSP, balanced the economic, social, technological, and other benefits of the DWSP against its unavoidable environmental risks, and finds that each of the benefits of the project set forth below outweigh and make acceptable the significant adverse environmental effects that are not mitigated to lessthan-significant levels. This statement of overriding considerations is based on the City' s review of the Final EIR and other information in the administrative record.

Each of the benefits identified below provides a separate and independent basis for overriding the significant environmental effects of the project. The benefits of the project are as follows:
 Facilitating a diverse mix of housing production and preservation in the DWSP plan area
 Encouraging higher-density mixed-use residential development in the DWSP plan area
 Increasing retail-entertainment activity in the DWSP plan area  Adding visitor-oriented uses to the DWSP plan area
 Supporting a greater range of civic and cultural activities in the DWSP plan area  Improving the safety and comfort of pedestrians
 Enhancing bicycle infrastructure and connections
 Highlighting Watsonville’s unique setting and resources to make downtown a regional attraction
 Enhancing commercial activity in the DWSP plan area as a driver for downtown’s economic vitality and growth
 Targeting uses and activities that appeal to a wide range of Watsonville’s residents and employees and providing these uses and activities in the DWSP plan area Effectively, the benefits of the project would be to improve the livability of downtown Watsonville by increasing infill potential and mobility and providing a full range of land uses and services in proximity to one another.

A. Conclusion
Based on the objectives identified for the project, review of the project, review of the EIR, and consideration of public and agency comments, the City Council has determined that the project should be approved and that any remaining unmitigated environmental impacts attributable to the project are outweighed by the specific social, environmental, land use, and other overriding considerations.

The City Council has determined that any environmental detriment caused by the proposed DWSP has been minimized to the extent feasible through the mitigation measures identified herein and, where mitigation is not feasible, has been outweighed and counterbalanced by the significant social, environmental, and land use benefits to be generated to the City. Accordingly, the City Council hereby adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth above and finds that the benefits of the project outweigh the benefits of other examined alternatives.

Reso No. (CM)
Meeting Date: 101023 SWZ ______ RM ______ CDD ______
24 This page is intentionally left blank.

25 Mitigation Measure
Action
Required
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency or Party
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
Air Quality
AQ-1. Conduct Project Specific Air Quality Analysis.

The City shall require future projects that are subject to discretionary approval and that are not found to be
exempt from CEQA review to evaluate potential air quality impacts as part of project-level CEQA analysis and
implement respective mitigation measures to minimize
impacts that exceed MBARD project level thresholds.

Ensure non-exempt CEQA
projects evaluate air quality
impacts and implement
mitigation, if applicable.

Prior to issuance of
grading or building
permits.

Once prior to start
of construction,
and if applicable,
annually in
accordance with
respective
mitigation
measures.

City of
Watsonville.

AQ-3(a). Construction Equipment
The project applicant for individual developments or
projects envisioned in the DWSP shall ensure the
following requirements are incorporated into applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts.

Contractors shall confirm the ability to supply the
compliant construction equipment prior to any grounddisturbing and construction activities:
 Mobile off-road construction equipment (wheeled or
tracked) greater than 50 hp used during construction
of the project shall meet the U.S. EPA Tier 4 final
standards. In the event of specialized equipment use
where Tier 4 equipment is not commercially available
at the time of construction, the equipment shall, at a
minimum, meet the Tier 3 standards. Zero-emissions
construction equipment may be incorporated in lieu of
Tier 4 final equipment. A copy of each equipment’s
certified tier specification or model year specification shall be available to the City upon request at the time of mobilization of each piece of equipment.
 Mobile off-road construction equipment less than 50
hp used during construction of the individual projects
shall be electric or other alternative fuel type. A copy of each unit’s certified tier specification or model year specification shall be available to the City upon
request at the time of mobilization of each applicable
unit of equipment.
 Electric hook-ups to the power gird shall be used
instead of temporary diesel- or gasoline-powered
generators, whenever feasible during construction of
development or projects envisioned in the DWSP. If
generators need to be used, the generators shall be
non-diesel generators.

Ensure that all bid
documents, purchase
orders, and contracts for
projects confirm that
contractors can supply
compliant construction
equipment.

Prior to issuance of
grading or building
permits.

Once prior to start
of construction,
then as needed
during
construction
activities.

City of Watsonville
- Public Works
Engineering/
Building
Inspectors.

26 Mitigation Measure
Action
Required
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency or Party
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
AQ-3(b). Operational Health Risk Assessment
The City shall require all applicants for development
projects in the plan area that are within the buffer
distances cited in the CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use
Handbook: A Community Health Perspective April 2005,
and incorporate any of the following features, to conduct an operational health risk assessment. The health risk
assessment shall follow MBARD and the Office of
Environmental Health Hazards Assessment guidelines.

The health risk analysis shall mitigate the risk in
exceedance of regulatory thresholds to below the
regulatory thresholds. The features that shall require an operational health risk analysis include:
 Incorporation of unpermitted sources (such as
industrial processes that emit TACs);
 Incorporation of diesel heavy duty-vehicles greater
than 100 trips per day; or
 Incorporation of more than 300 hours per week of
diesel transportation refrigeration unit operations.

For individual projects
where construction
activities would occur within
the buffer distances cited in
the CARB’s Air Quality and
Land Use Handbook,
prepare an operational
health risk assessment to
determine potential risk and
compare the risk to MBARD
thresholds.

Prior to
construction.

Once. City of
Watsonville.

Biological Resources
BIO-1. Pre-Disturbance Santa Cruz Tarplant Survey
and Mitigation Planting
Prior to commencement of construction activities on
property with undeveloped areas or unmaintained
landscaping within the plan area, an experienced
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 June to October. The surveys shall occur throughout the entire project area where potential Santa Cruz
tarplant habitat has been identified, prior to the initiation of construction and the results shall be included in the project environmental document. Surveys shall be
conducted according to CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying
and Evaluating Impacts to Special-Status Native Plant
Populations and Natural Communities.

If Santa Cruz tarplant is detected or likely to occur 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, and/or site restoration. In the event that StateEnsure qualified biologist conducts pre-construction
surveys using specified
protocol and methods.

If species is found during
surveys, ensure biologist
prepares a Habitat
Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan that includes
information specified in
measure.

If applicable, ensure
replacement population is
established at ratio
specified by CDFW or 1:1;
whichever is greater, and
monitored according to the
Habitat Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan.

Ensure annual monitoring
reporting is provided to the
City.

Implement surveys,
as described in the
mitigation measure,
prior to the start of
construction.

If applicable,
establish mitigation
population or other
mitigation
determined by
CDFW following
project construction.

If applicable,
implement success
monitoring annual,
following
established of
mitigation
population.

Once prior to start
of construction,
and if applicable,
annually in
accordance with
the Habitat
Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan.

City of Watsonville
– qualified
biologist.

27 Mitigation Measure
Action
Required
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency or Party
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
listed plants cannot be avoided during construction, the project proponent shall obtain an ITP pursuant to Fish
and Game Code section 2081, subdivision (b) (See cal.

Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 783.4 & 786.9). If a population of Santa Cruz tarplant is found, mitigation for the loss of individuals shall be conducted. Mitigation shall be
achieved by establishing a new population of Santa Cruz tarplant in an area approved by the USFWS and CDFW.

This area shall not be developed and shall contain
suitable habitat types for establishing a new population.

Mitigation shall be a 1:1 ratio (impact mitigation) of plant establishment on an acreage basis.

Monitoring of the new mitigation population shall occur annually. Annual monitoring shall include quantitative
sampling of the Santa Cruz tarplant population to
determine the number of plants that have germinated and set seed. This monitoring shall continue annually or until success criteria have been met; once annual monitoring
has documented that a self-sustaining population of this annual species has been successfully established on site, this mitigation measure shall be determined to have been met and the project applicant released from further
responsibility.

Establishment of the plant population shall be subject to a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. To ensure the
success of mitigation sites required for compensation of permanent impacts on Santa Cruz tarplant, the project
applicant for specific development projects in the plan area for which this mitigation measure applies shall retain a qualified biologist to prepare a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. The Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan shall be submitted to the City of Watsonville for
review and approval prior to the start of construction. The Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall include, at a minimum, the following information:
 A summary of habitat and species impacts and the
proposed mitigation for each element
 A description of the location and boundaries of the
mitigation site(s) and description of existing site
conditions
 A description of any measures to be undertaken to
enhance (e.g., through focused management) the
mitigation site for special-status species

28 Mitigation Measure
Action
Required
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency or Party
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
 Identification of an adequate funding mechanism for
long-term management
 A description of management and maintenance
measures intended to maintain and enhance habitat
for the target species (e.g., weed control, fencing
maintenance)
 A description of habitat and species monitoring
measures on the mitigation site, including specific,
objective performance criteria, monitoring methods,
data analysis, reporting requirements, monitoring
schedule, etc. Monitoring will document compliance
with each element requiring habitat compensation or
management. At a minimum, performance criteria will
include a minimum 1:1 mitigation ratio for the number
of plants in the impacted population (at least one plant preserved for each plant impacted).
 A contingency plan for mitigation elements that do not meet performance or final success criteria within
described periods; the plan will include specific
triggers for remediation if performance criteria are not met and a description of the process by which
remediation of problems with the mitigation site (e.g., presence of noxious weeds) will occur
 A requirement that the project proponent will be
responsible for monitoring, as specified in the Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, for at least three (3)
years post-construction; during this period, annual
reporting will be provided to the City’s Supervising
Environmental Planner. At the request of CDFW or
USFWS, the annual reporting shall also be provided to
these agencies.

BIO-2. Nesting Bird Avoidance
To the extent feasible, construction activities shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. The nesting
season for most birds in Santa Cruz County extends from February 1 through August 31. If Project-related work is scheduled during the nesting season (typically February 15 to August 30 for small bird species such as
passerines; January 15 to September 15 for owls; and
February 15 to September 15 for other raptors), a
qualified biologist shall conduct two surveys for active nests of such birds within 14 days prior to the beginning of project construction, with a final survey conducted
Ensure qualified biologist
conducted pre-construction
nesting bird surveys.

If applicable, ensure
construction-free buffers
are established and
maintained until the end of
nesting season (August 31)
or until a biologist
determines the young have
fledged the nest.

No more than seven
days prior to the
initiation of
construction
activities and prior
to tree removal, tree
trimming, or other
vegetation clearing.

Prior to start of
project
construction.

Ongoing
throughout
construction
occurring during
the nesting bird
season.

City of
Watsonvillequalified biologist.

29 Mitigation Measure
Action
Required
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency or Party
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
within 48 hours prior to construction. Appropriate
minimum survey radii surrounding the work area are
typically the following: i) 250 feet for passerines; ii) 500 feet for small raptors such as accipiters; and iii) 1,000 feet for larger raptors such as buteos. Surveys shall be
conducted at the appropriate times of day and during
appropriate nesting times. These surveys shall be
conducted no more than seven days prior to the initiation of construction activities and shall be conducted prior to tree removal, tree trimming, or other vegetation clearing.

During the survey, the biologist shall inspect all trees and other potential nesting habitats, including trees, shrubs, ruderal grasslands, and buildings in and immediately
adjacent to the impact areas for nests.

If the qualified biologist documents active nests within the project area or in nearby surrounding areas, a species
appropriate buffer between the nest and active
construction shall be established by the biologist. The buffer shall be clearly marked and maintained until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. Prior to construction, the qualified biologist shall conduct
baseline monitoring of the nest to characterize “normal” bird behavior and establish a buffer distance which allows the birds to exhibit normal behavior. The qualified
biologist shall monitor the nesting birds daily during
construction activities and increase the buffer if the birds show signs of unusual or distressed behavior (e.g.,
defensive flights and vocalizations, standing up from a brooding position, and/or flying away from the nest). If buffer establishment is not possible, the qualified biologist shall have the authority to cease all construction work in the area until the young have fledged, and the nest is no longer active.

Cultural and Tribal Resources
CUL-1. Archaeological Resources Investigation
At the time of application for discretionary land use
permits that involve grading, trenching, or other ground disturbance in native soil with the potential for
encountering unknown archaeological resources, the
project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior standards in
archaeology to complete a Phase 1 cultural resources
The project applicant shall
hire a qualified professional
to investigate the potential
to disturb archaeological
resources on a project site.

A Phase 1 cultural
resources study shall be
performed by a qualified
The City shall
review and approve
the relevant Phase
1, 2, and/or 3
technical report
prior to
implementation of
recommendations.

Once City of
Watsonvillequalified
archaeologist.

30 Mitigation Measure
Action
Required
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency or Party
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
assessment of the development site. A Phase 1 cultural
resources assessment shall include an archaeological
pedestrian survey of the development site, if possible, and sufficient background archival research and field
sampling to determine whether subsurface prehistoric or historic remains may be present. Archival research shall include a current (no more than one-year old) records
search from the Northwest Information Center (NWIC)
and a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search conducted with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).

Identified prehistoric or historic archaeological remains shall be avoided and preserved in place where feasible.

Where preservation is not feasible, the significance of each resource shall be evaluated for significance and
eligibility for listing in the CRHR through a Phase 2
evaluation. A Phase 2 evaluation shall include any
necessary archival research to identify significant
historical associations as well as mapping of surface
artifacts, collection of functionally or temporally diagnostic tools and debris, and excavation of a sample of the
cultural deposit to characterize the nature of the sites, define the artifact and feature contents, determine
horizontal boundaries and depth below surface, and
retrieve representative samples of artifacts and other
remains.

Cultural materials collected from the sites shall be
processed and analyzed in the laboratory according to
standard archaeological procedures. The age of the
materials shall be determined using radiocarbon dating
and/or other appropriate procedures; lithic artifacts, faunal remains, and other cultural materials shall be identified and analyzed according to current professional
standards. The significance of the sites shall be evaluated according to the criteria of the CRHR. The results of the investigations shall be presented in a technical report following the standards of the California Office of Historic Preservation publication “Archaeological Resource
Management Reports: Recommended Content and
Format (1990 or latest edition)”
(http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/armr.pdf). Upon completion of the work, all artifacts, other cultural
remains, records, photographs, and other documentation
shall be curated an appropriate curation facility. All
professional meeting the
Secretary of the Interior’s
PQS for archaeology.

If necessary, a Phase 2
and/or 3 evaluation(s) shall
be conducted.

The City shall approve the
appropriate technical
report(s) and the project
applicant shall implement
the recommendations.

Prior to issuance of
building permits.

31 Mitigation Measure
Action
Required
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency or Party
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
fieldwork, analysis, report production, and curation shall be fully funded by the applicant.

If the resources meet CRHR significance standards, the
City shall ensure that all feasible recommendations for mitigation of archaeological impacts are incorporated into the final design and permits issued for development. If necessary, Phase 3 data recovery excavation, conducted
to exhaust the data potential of significant archaeological sites, shall be carried out by a qualified archaeologist meeting the SOI standards for archaeology according to a research design reviewed and approved by the City
prepared in advance of fieldwork and using appropriate
archaeological field and laboratory methods consistent
with the California Office of Historic Preservation Planning Bulletin 5 (1991), Guidelines for Archaeological Research Design, or the latest edition thereof.

As applicable, the final Phase 1 Inventory, Phase 2
Testing and Evaluation, and/or Phase 3 Data Recovery
reports shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of construction permit. Recommendations contained therein
shall be implemented throughout all ground disturbance
activities.

CUL-2. Archaeological Resources Construction
Monitoring
During construction of development envisioned in the
Specific Plan, construction activities involving ground disturbance such as grading or excavation shall be
monitored by a qualified archaeologist. Archaeological
monitoring shall be performed under the direction of an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology
(National Park Service, 1983). Should the construction
site be determined to have little if any potential to yield subsurface cultural resources deposits, the qualified
archaeologist may recommend that monitoring be
reduced or eliminated after consulting with the City and Native American representatives.

Ensure qualified
archaeologist is present to
monitor all ground
disturbing construction
activities.

Concurrent with the
start of project
construction.

Ongoing
throughout project
construction
involving ground
disturbance.

City of
Watsonvillequalified
archaeologist.

CUL-3. Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological
Cultural Resources
In the event that archaeological resources are
unexpectedly encountered during ground-disturbing
Stop work upon discovery
of archaeological
resources.

Concurrent with the
start of project
construction.

Ongoing
throughout project
construction
City of
Watsonvillequalified
archaeologist.

32 Mitigation Measure
Action
Required
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency or Party
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
activities, work within 50 feet of the find shall halt and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology
(National Park Service 1983) shall be contacted
immediately to evaluate the find. If the resource is
determined by the qualified archaeologist to be
prehistoric, then a Native American representative shall also be contacted to participate in the evaluation of the resource. If the qualified archaeologist and/or Native
American representative determines it to be appropriate, archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility shall be
completed. If the resource proves to be eligible for the CRHR and impacts to the resource cannot be avoided via
project redesign, a qualified archaeologist shall prepare a data recovery plan tailored to the physical nature and
characteristics of the resource, per the requirements of CCR Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C).

Ensure qualified
archaeologist evaluates the
discovery for significance.

If required, prepare a
treatment plan and
archaeological testing.

If resource is determined
significant, implement
additional mitigation
determined by qualified
archaeologist.
involving ground
disturbance.

Geology and Soils
GEO-1. Unanticipated Discovery of Paleontological
Resources
In the event an unanticipated fossil discovery is made
during project development, work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall be stopped, and a qualified professional paleontologist shall be retained to evaluate the discovery, determine its significance, and identify if mitigation or treatment is warranted. Significant paleontological
resources found during construction monitoring shall be prepared, identified, analyzed, and permanently curated in an approved regional museum repository. Work around
the discovery shall only resume once the find is properly documented and authorization is given to resume
construction work.

Stop work upon discovery
of fossils and contact
qualified paleontologist.

Ensure qualified
paleontologist evaluates the
fossils for significance
before work resumes.

If the fossil or fossils are
scientifically significant, the
find shall be recovered
under supervision of the
qualified paleontologist.

Ensure significant fossils
are identified, prepared for
curation, and curated in a
scientific institution with a
permanent paleontological
collection.

If determined necessary by
the qualified paleontologist,
implement and adhere to a
Paleontological Mitigation
and Monitoring Program.

Concurrent with the
start of project
construction and
during project
construction.

Ongoing
throughout project
construction
involving ground
disturbance.

City of
Watsonvillequalified
paleontologist.

33 Mitigation Measure
Action
Required
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency or Party
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1(a). Property Assessment – Phase I and II ESAs
Prior to the start of construction (demolition or grading) on a known hazardous site within the plan area, project
applicants shall retain a qualified environmental
professional (EP), as defined by ASTM E-1527, to
complete one of the following.

If the project is not listed in DTSC (GeoTracker) or
SWRCB (EnviroStor) resources or other database
comprising Government Code Section 65962.5, and
requires more than five feet of excavation, then the
proponent shall retain a qualified environmental
consultant, California Professional Geologist (PG) or
California Professional Engineer (PE), to prepare a Phase I ESA. If the Phase I ESA identifies recognized
environmental conditions or potential concern areas, a
Phase II ESA shall be prepared.

If the project site is currently listed, previously listed, or un-listed with a regulatory closure or no further action letter in DTSC (GeoTracker) or SWRCB (EnviroStor)
resources or other database comprising Government
Code Section 65962.5, then the project proponent shall
retain a qualified environmental consultant, California Professional Geologist (PG) or California Professional
Engineer (PE), to prepare a Phase II ESA to project
proponent shall test to confirm that there are no existing hazardous materials posing a risk to human health. The
Phase II ESA shall determine whether the soil,
groundwater, and/or soil vapor has been impacted at
concentrations exceeding regulatory screening levels for commercial/industrial land uses. All recommended
actions included in the Phase II ESA shall be followed.

This may include the preparation of a Soil Management
Plan (SMP) for Impacted Soils (see below) prior to project construction and/or completion of remediation at the
proposed project prior to onsite construction.

The completed ESAs shall be submitted to the lead
agency for review and approval prior to issuance of
building or grading permits.

Soil Management Plan Requirements: The SMP, or
equivalent document, shall be prepared to address onsite handling and management of impacted soils or other
impacted wastes, and reduce hazards to construction
workers and offsite receptors during construction. The
Ensure that for projects
located on known
hazardous sites, project
applicants retain a qualified
EP to complete a Phase I
and/or II ESA.

Ensure that the measures
specified in the ESA are
adhered to.

Prior to the start of
construction; prior
to issuance of
building or grading
permits; prior to
demolition and
grading activities;
prior to soil removal.

Once prior to
permit issuance;
then periodically
throughout
construction, as
needed.

City of Watsonville
– qualified
environmental
professional, as
defined by ASTM
E-1527.

34 Mitigation Measure
Action
Required
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency or Party
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
plan shall be submitted to the lead agency and must
establish remedial measures and/or soil management
practices to ensure construction worker safety, the health of future workers and visitors, and the off-site migration of contaminants from the site. These measures and
practices may include, but are not limited to:
 Stockpile management including stormwater pollution
prevention and the installation of BMPs
 Proper disposal procedures of contaminated materials
 Monitoring and reporting
 A health and safety plan for contractors working at the site that addresses the safety and health hazards of
each phase of site construction activities with the
requirements and procedures for employee protection
The health and safety plan shall also outline proper soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements
to minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous
materials during construction.

The lead agency shall review and approve the
development site Soil Management Plan for Impacted
Soils prior to demolition and grading (construction).

Soil Remediation Requirements: If soil present within
the construction envelope at the development site
contains chemicals at concentrations exceeding
hazardous waste screening thresholds for contaminants
in soil (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 22, Section 66261.24), the project proponent shall retain a qualified environmental consultant (PG or PE), to conduct additional analytical testing and recommend soil disposal recommendations, or consider other remedial engineering controls, as necessary.

The qualified environmental consultant shall utilize the development site analytical results for waste
characterization purposes prior to offsite transportation or disposal of potentially impacted soils or other impacted wastes. The qualified environmental consultant shall
provide disposal recommendations and arrange for
proper disposal of the waste soils or other impacted
wastes (as necessary), and/or provide recommendations
for remedial engineering controls, if appropriate.

Remediation of impacted soils and/or implementation of
remedial engineering controls, may require additional
delineation of impacts; additional analytical testing per

35 Mitigation Measure
Action
Required
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency or Party
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
landfill or recycling facility requirements; soil excavation; and offsite disposal or recycling.

The City shall review and approve the development site
disposal recommendations prior to transportation of
waste soils offsite and review and approve remedial
engineering controls, prior to construction.

HAZ-1(b). Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessment
If groundwater is encountered during construction on
properties included on a list compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 or through a Phase I
or Phase II ESA pursuant to Mitigation Measure HAZ-1,
an Environmental Professional shall be called to the site to determine safe handling procedures. The groundwater
shall be pumped into appropriate containers and samples shall be obtained for chemical analysis of the
Contaminants of Potential Concern in accordance with
the requirements of the waste disposal facility to which the material would be sent. If water sample analytical
results indicate the water is free of all detectable
concentrations of Contaminants of Potential Concern,
such water can be re-used at the site if deemed
appropriate by the RWQCB. If water sample analytical
results indicate the water contains concentrations of
Contaminants of Potential Concern above appropriate
RWQCB screening levels, such water shall not be reused at the site. The contractor and the Environmental Professional shall elect to: (a) treat the groundwater
onsite to render it free of detectable concentrations of Contaminants of Potential Concern (e.g., by activated
carbon filtration); or, (b) transport the groundwater to a local treatment or disposal facility for appropriate
handling.

Ensure that if groundwater
is discovered, it is handled
in accordance with the
requirements of the waste
disposal facility.

Verify that if groundwater is
determined to be
contaminated, it is treated
or transported from the site.

Prior to the
issuance of building
or grading permits.

Once. City of Watsonville
– qualified
environmental
professional, as
defined by ASTM
E-1527.

Noise
NOI-1(a). Conduct Construction Noise Analysis
The City shall require future projects that are subject to discretionary approval and that are not found to be
exempt from CEQA review to evaluate potential
construction noise impacts on nearby sensitive uses as
part of project-level CEQA analysis and implement
respective mitigation measures to minimize impacts on
Conduct a site-specific
Construction Noise
Analysis.

Pending outcome of sitespecific analysis, if noise
reduction is determined
necessary, implement noise
reduction actions, such as
 Prior to issuance
of grading or
building permits;
prior to
construction; and
as-needed
throughout
groundEnsure noise
reducing actions
are implemented
prior to
commencement of
construction and
then periodically
City of
Watsonville.

36 Mitigation Measure
Action
Required
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency or Party
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
these uses. Examples of mitigation measures to reduce
construction noise include, but are not limited to:
 Mufflers. During excavation and grading construction
phases, construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall
be operated with closed engine doors and shall be
equipped with properly operating and maintained
mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards.
 Stationary Equipment. Stationary construction
equipment shall be placed so that emitted noise is
directed away from the nearest sensitive receptors.
 Equipment Staging Areas. Equipment staging shall
be located in areas that will create the greatest
distance feasible between construction-related noise
sources and noise-sensitive receptors.
 Electrically-Powered Tools and Facilities. Electrical power shall be used to run air compressors and similar
power tools and to power any temporary structures,
such as construction trailers or caretaker facilities.
 Smart Back-up Alarms. Mobile construction
equipment shall have smart back-up alarms that
automatically adjust the sound level of the alarm in
response to ambient noise levels. Alternatively, backup alarms shall be disabled and replaced with human spotters to ensure safety when mobile construction
equipment is moving in the reverse direction.
 Signage. For the duration of construction, the
applicant or contractor shall post a sign in a
construction zone that includes contact information for individuals who desire to file a noise complaint.
 Temporary Noise Barriers. Where necessary to meet
the FTA criterion of 80 dBA Leq(8 Hr) for daytime
construction affecting residential uses, erect temporary noise barriers at a height of 12 feet minimum to block
the line-of-sight between construction equipment and
receptors. Barriers shall be constructed with a solid
material that has a density of at least 1.5 pounds per
square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of
the barrier.
 Noise Disturbance Coordinator. The project
applicant shall designate a “noise disturbance
coordinator” responsible for responding to any local
complaints about construction noise. The disturbance
coordinator shall determine the cause of any noise
complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) examples listed in
mitigation measures.
disturbing
activities and
project
construction.
throughout project
construction.

37 Mitigation Measure
Action
Required
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency or Party
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
and shall require that reasonable measures be
implemented to correct the problem. A telephone
number for the disturbance coordinator shall be posted
at the construction site.

The City shall confirm that these measures are
implemented during construction by monitoring the
project at least once per month.

NOI-1(b). Conduct Stationary Operational Noise
Analysis
The City shall require future development projects that are subject to discretionary approval to evaluate potential onsite operational noise impacts as part of project-level CEQA analysis on nearby noise-sensitive uses and to
implement any required mitigation measures to minimize
impacts on these uses. Examples of mitigation measures
to reduce onsite noise include, but are not limited to, operational restrictions, selection of quiet equipment, equipment setbacks, enclosures, silencers, and/or
acoustical louvers. The effectiveness of noise reducing measures shall be monitored to confirm effectiveness.

Conduct a site-specific
Stationary Operational
Noise Analysis.

Prior to issuance of
grading or building
permits.

Periodically
throughout project
construction.

City of
Watsonville.

NOI-2. Vibration Control Plan
Based on the attenuation distances of vibration from
standard construction equipment, prior to issuance of a building permit for a project requiring pile driving during construction within 135 feet of fragile structures such as historical resources, 100 feet of non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster); a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure; or a dozer or other heavy earthmoving equipment within
15 feet of any structure, the project applicant shall
prepare a vibration analysis to assess and mitigate
potential vibration impacts related to these activities. This vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The
vibration levels shall not exceed FTA architectural
damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 in/sec PPV for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for
engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels
would exceed this threshold, alternative uses such as
Prepare a Vibration Control
Plan which shall be
provided to the City upon
request.

Submit Statement of
Compliance signed by the
applicant and to the City
Building Department.

Prior to the
issuance of any
permits and prior to
construction.

Once. City of
Watsonville.

38 Mitigation Measure
Action
Required
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency or Party
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
drilling piles as opposed to pile driving, static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers, and lower horsepower
dozers shall be used. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure vibration
thresholds are not exceeded.

Where vibration monitoring is determined to be
necessary, a pre-construction baseline survey shall be
conducted at buildings and structures within the
screening distances by a licensed structural engineer.

The condition of existing potentially affected properties shall be documented by photos and description of
existing condition of building facades, noting existing cracks. A vibration monitoring and construction
contingency plan shall be developed to identify where
monitoring would be conducted, set up a vibration
monitoring schedule, and define structure-specific
vibration limits. Construction contingencies would be
identified for when vibration levels approach the limits. If vibration levels approach limits, the contractor shall
suspend construction and implement contingencies to
either lower vibration levels or secure the affected
structure.

Where historic structures are involved, the engineer shall provide a shoring design or other methods to protect such buildings and structures from potential damage. At the
conclusion of vibration causing activities, the qualified structural engineer hired by the applicant shall issue a follow-up letter describing damage, if any, to impacted buildings. The letter shall include recommendations for repair, as may be necessary, in conformance with the
Secretary of the Interior Standards. Repairs shall be
undertaken and completed by the contractor and
monitored by a qualified structural engineer in
conformance with all applicable codes including the
California Historical Building Code (Part 8 of Title 24).

A Statement of Compliance signed by the applicant and
owner is required to be submitted to the City of
Watsonville Building Division at plan check and prior to the issuance of any permit. The Vibration Control Plan, prepared as outlined above, shall be documented by a
qualified structural engineer, and shall be provided to the City upon request. A Preservation Director shall be
designated, and this person’s contact information shall be posted in a location near the project site that is clearly

39 Mitigation Measure
Action
Required
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency or Party
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
visible to the nearby receptors most likely to be disturbed.

The Director would manage complaints and concerns
resulting from activities that cause vibrations. The severity of the vibration concern should be assessed by the
Director, and if necessary, evaluated by a qualified noise and vibration control consultant.

Transportation
TRA-1. Transportation Demand Management Program
Each individual office and industrial development project in the DWSP plan area shall have a corresponding
transportation demand management (TDM) plan and
monitoring program developed by the applicant or
developer of the project. This plan shall identify the TDM reductions specific to their project. The monitoring
program shall establish goals and policies to ensure the efficient implementation of the TDM plan and
demonstrate its effectiveness at reducing VMT such that VMT is below the significance thresholds presented in
Table 4.8-2, above. Examples of TDM measures that
could be employed, depending on specific project
conditions and circumstances, include reduced parking
supply, new transit stops, emergency ride home
programs, bike-share programs, and traffic calming
improvements.

Ensure that office and
industrial development
project applicants develop a
TDM program which
reduces VMT below the
identified significance
threshold.

Prior to the final
inspections or
building occupancy.

Once. City of
Watsonville.

Tribal Cultural Resources
TCR-1. Suspension of Work In The Area of Potential
Tribal Cultural Resources
In the event that potential tribal cultural resources, such as archaeological resources of Native American origin or tribal traditional tangible spaces or artifacts (historic-era and pre-contact era), are identified during implementation of a development project within the DWSP plan area,
onsite project activities within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily suspended or redirected until either an
archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find (if archaeological) as a pre-contact or Native American-associated resource and an appropriate local
Native American representative is consulted, or an
appropriate local Native American representative is
consulted regarding the significance of the resource (if not archaeological). If the City of Watsonville, in
In the event that cultural
resources of Native
American origin are
encountered during project
construction, stop all work
in the vicinity of the find.

Ensure a Native American
representative is allowed
monitoring access if cultural
resources of or expected to
be of Native American
origin are found.

Concurrent with the
start of project
construction, and
throughout project
construction.

Ongoing
throughout project
construction
involving ground
disturbance.

City of
Watsonville.

40 Mitigation Measure
Action
Required
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency or Party
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
consultation with local Native Americans, determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus
significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be
prepared and implemented for the specific development
project in accordance with state guidelines and in
consultation with local Native American group(s). The
plan shall include avoidance of the resource or, if
avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan shall outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in
coordination with the appropriate local Native American tribal representative and, if applicable, a qualified
archaeologist. Examples of appropriate mitigation for
tribal cultural resources include, but are not limited to, protecting the cultural character and integrity of the
resource, protecting traditional use of the resource,
protecting the confidentiality of the resource or providing Tribal cultural sensitivity training about the resource to applicable City staff if it will be managed, appropriate public outreach regarding the resource, or heritage
recovery (recovering items of tribal cultural heritage
according to established tribal customs).

Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse No. 2022100602
prepared by
City of Watsonville
Community Development Department
250 Main Street
Watsonville, California 95076
Contact: Justin Meek, AICP, Principal Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
2511 Garden Road, Suite C-250
Monterey, California 93940
August 2023
Exhibit B
1 of 343

EXHIBIT B

Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse No. 2022100602
prepared by
City of Watsonville
Community Development Department
250 Main Street
Watsonville, California 95076
Contact: Justin Meek, AICP, Principal Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
2511 Garden Road, Suite C-250
Monterey, California 93940
August 2023
Exhibit B
2 of 343

This page intentionally left blank.

Exhibit B
3 of 343

Table of Contents
Final Environmental Impact Report i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction................................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Final EIR Contents...........................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Environmental Review Process.......................................................................................1-1

1.3 EIR Certification Process and Project Approval ..............................................................1-2

1.4 Draft EIR Recirculation Not Required..............................................................................1-2 2 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR..................................................................................2-1

2.1. Organization of Comment Letters and Responses .........................................................2-1

2.2 Comments Received .......................................................................................................2-1

2.3 Comments and Responses..............................................................................................2-2 3 Errata to the Draft EIR ................................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Revisions to the Draft EIR................................................................................................3-1 Appendices
Appendix 1 Comment Letters
Exhibit B
4 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
ii
This page intentionally left blank.

Exhibit B
5 of 343

Introduction
Final Environmental Impact Report 1-1
Introduction

1.1 Final EIR Contents
This Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) has been prepared by the City of Watsonville, Community Development Department (City) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan (“proposed project” or “DWSP”).

As prescribed by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15088 and 15132, the lead agency, the City, is required to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who have reviewed the Draft EIR and to prepare written responses to those comments. This document, together with the Draft EIR (incorporated by reference) comprise the Final EIR for this project. This Final EIR includes individual responses to each letter received during the public review period for the Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(c), the written responses describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised.

The City has provided a good faith effort to respond to all significant environmental issues raised by the comments. The Final EIR also includes amendments to the Draft EIR consisting of changes suggested by certain comments, as well as minor clarifications, corrections, or revisions to the Draft EIR. The Final EIR includes the following contents:
 Section 1: Introduction
 Section 2: Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR, which also includes a list of all commenters and public comment letters received
 Section 3: Errata to the Draft EIR
 Appendix 1: Comment Letters

1.2 Environmental Review Process
Pursuant to CEQA, lead agencies are required to consult with public agencies having jurisdiction over a proposed project and to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR.

The City of Watsonville distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Draft EIR and the Initial Study for a 30-day agency and public review period starting on October 27, 2022 and ending on November 25, 2022. Although the public review period for the NOP ended on November 25, the City chose to accept comments submitted as late as November 29 due to November 25 being the day after Thanksgiving holiday. The NOP was provided to public agencies, the State Clearinghouse, organizations, and individuals considered likely to be interested in the proposed project and its potential impacts. The NOP and Initial Study were also posted on the City’s website, and the NOP was published in the local newspaper (The Pajaronian). Comments received by the City of Watsonville on the NOP and Initial Study are provided in Appendix A of the Draft EIR and are summarized in Table 1-1 of the Draft EIR. These comments were considered during the preparation of the Draft EIR. The City also held a public scoping meeting on November 30, 2022, to hear and collect public input on the contents of the Draft EIR, especially as it relates to impacts and potential mitigation measures or alternatives to reduce impacts. No formal comments on the EIR were submitted during the scoping meeting.

Exhibit B
6 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
1-2
The Draft EIR was made available for public review on May 12, 2023 through June 26, 2023, meeting the minimum 45-day period required by CEQA. Copies of the Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR were mailed to a list of interested parties, groups and public agencies, as well as property owners and occupants of neighboring and nearby properties with potential interest in the project. The Draft EIR and an announcement of its availability were posted electronically on the City’s website, and a paper copy was available for public review at City Hall. The Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR was also posted at the office of the Santa Cruz County Clerk, and the Draft EIR was available for public review at the Watsonville Public Library. Additionally, the Notice of Availability, the Notice of Completion, and the Draft EIR itself were posted on the State Clearinghouse website.

The City of Watsonville received four comment letters on the Draft EIR. Copies of written comments on the Draft EIR received during the comment period are included as Appendix 1 to this Final EIR.

The responses to those comments are included in Section 2 of this Final EIR.

1.3 EIR Certification Process and Project Approval
Before approving a proposed project, the lead agency is required to certify that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the EIR, and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency.

Upon certification of an EIR, the lead agency may proceed to make a decision on the project analyzed in the EIR. A lead agency may: (a) disapprove a project because of its significant environmental effects; (b) require changes to a project to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects; or (c) approve a project despite its significant environmental effects, if the proper findings and statement of overriding considerations are adopted (State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15042 and 15043).

In approving a project, for each significant impact of the project identified in the EIR, the lead or responsible agency must find, based on substantial evidence, that either: (a) the project has been changed to avoid or substantially reduce the magnitude of the impact; (b) changes to the project are within another agency's jurisdiction and such changes have or should be adopted; or (c) specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives infeasible (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091). Per PRC Section 21061.1, feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account, economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.

If an agency approves a project with unavoidable significant environmental effects, it must prepare a written Statement of Overriding Considerations that sets forth the specific social, economic, or other reasons supporting the agency’s decision and explains why the project’s benefits outweigh the significant environmental effects (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093).

When an agency makes findings on significant effects identified in the EIR, it must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval to mitigate significant effects (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091[d]).

1.4 Draft EIR Recirculation Not Required
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires Draft EIR recirculation when comments on the Draft EIR or responses thereto identify “significant new information.” Significant new information is defined as including:

Exhibit B
7 of 343

Introduction
Final Environmental Impact Report 1-3
A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.

A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.

A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it.

The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

The comments, responses, and Draft EIR amendments presented in this document do not constitute such “significant new information;” instead, they clarify, amplify, or make insignificant modifications to the Draft EIR. For example, none of the comments, responses, and Draft EIR amendments disclose new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects of the proposed project, or new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different than those analyzed in the Draft EIR that would clearly lessen the proposed project’s significant effects.

Exhibit B
8 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
1-4
This page intentionally left blank.

Exhibit B
9 of 343

Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-1
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
This section presents a list of comment letters received during the public review period, a summary of those comments, and responses to those comments. The comment letters are provided as Appendix 1 to this Final EIR.

2.1 Organization of Comment Letters and Responses
The four letters are presented in the following order: State agencies (2) and individuals (2). No federal agencies and no local agencies or organizations provided written comments on the Draft EIR.

Each comment letter has been numbered sequentially and each separate issue raised by the commenter has been assigned a number. The responses to each comment identify first the number of the comment letter, and then the number assigned to each issue. For example, Response 1.1 indicates that the response is for the first issue raised in comment Letter 1.

2.2 Comments Received
The following letters were submitted to the City during the public review period:

Letter No. and Commenter Date.

State Agencies
1 Erin Chappell, Regional Manager Bay Delta Region, California Department of Fish and Wildlife June 15, 2023 2 Chris Bjornstad, Associate Transportation Planner, California Department of Transportation June 26, 2023 Individuals
3 Marven E. Norman June 26, 2023
4 Steve Trujillo May 31, 2023
Written responses to each comment letter received on the Draft EIR are provided in this section. All letters received during the public review period on the Draft EIR are provided in their entirety in Appendix 1 to this Final EIR.

Revisions to the Draft EIR necessary in light of the comments received and responses provided, or necessary to amplify or clarify material in the Draft EIR, are included in the responses. Underline (underlined) text represents language that has been added to the Draft EIR; text with strikeout (strikeout) has been deleted from the Draft EIR. All revisions are then compiled in the order in which they would appear in the Draft EIR (by page number) in Section 3, Errata to the Draft EIR, of this document. Page numbers cited in this section correspond to the page numbers of the Draft EIR.

When mitigation measure language has been changed, it has been changed in both the text on the stated Draft EIR page and the summary table (Table 1) in the Executive Summary of the Draft EIR.

2.3 Comments and Responses
The comment letters referenced in this section are provided in Appendix 1 to this Final EIR Exhibit B
10 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
2-2
Letter 1
COMMENTER: Erin Chappell, Regional Manager Bay Delta Region, California Department of Fish and Wildlife
DATE: June 15, 2023
Response 1.1
The commenter states that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has reviewed the Draft EIR and is providing comments.

This comment is noted and does not require revisions to the Draft EIR. Responses to individual comments submitted by CDFW are provided below in Response 1.2 through Response 1.10.

Response 1.2
The commenter summarizes CDFW’s role as trustee agency and responsible agency under CEQA.

The commenter’s summary of trustee and responsible agencies in the context of CEQA is accurate.

This comment does not pertain to the environmental analysis or contents of the Draft EIR. This comment is noted and does not require revisions to the Draft EIR.

Response 1.3
The commenter summarizes regulatory requirements that apply to the project including the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) or Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) Incidental Take Permit (ITP), Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Notification, raptor and nesting bird protections, and fully protected species.

The proposed project is a Specific Plan that establishes a vision for the downtown area of Watsonville and does not propose construction or other activities that would require the types of regulatory permits described by the commenter. The City concurs that individual projects envisioned in the Specific Plan, when proposed for construction in the future, could require one or more of the regulatory permits described by the commenter, depending on characteristics of the specific project. Future project applicants would be responsible for obtaining all regulatory permits and approvals, including permits and approvals from CDFW at that time. Regardless, this comment does not pertain to the environmental analysis or contents of the Draft EIR. This comment does not require revisions to the Draft EIR.

Response 1.4
The commenter states their understanding of the proposed project in the form of a summary.

The commenter’s understanding of the proposed project is an accurate summary of the project as proposed and evaluated in the Draft EIR. This comment does not require revisions to the Draft EIR.

Response 1.5
The commenter states CDFW offers comments and recommendations to assist the City in adequately identifying and/or mitigating project impacts.

Exhibit B
11 of 343

Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-3
This comment is a general introduction to a list of detailed comments provided later in the comment letter, which are addressed in Response 1.6 through Response 1.10 below. This comment does not require revisions to the Draft EIR.

Response 1.6
The commenter states states that Santa Cruz tarplant may be impacted by the project, but the proposed mitigation measures do not reference obtaining an Incidental Take Permit if there is the potential for take of Santa Cruz tarplant. The commenter provides two recommended mitigation measures for Santa Cruz tarplant, including a focused pre-construction survey and avoidance and minimization measures.

Obtaining permits is a regulatory requirement. Because permits are regulatory, project applicants must obtain the proper permits to be compliant with federal, state, and local laws. Accordingly, mitigation need not include regulatory requirements, because adherence to regulatory requirements in mandated by law regardless of whether they are required by CEQA mitigation measures. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 as provided in the Draft EIR includes pre-construction surveys for Santa Cruz tarplant. Nonetheless, to provide clarification and more closely match guidance from CDFW, in response to this comment, pages 4.3-7 and 4.3-8 of the Draft EIR are revised as follows:

BIO-1 Pre-Disturbance Santa Cruz Tarplant Survey and Mitigation Planting Prior to commencement of construction activities on property with undeveloped areas or unmaintained landscaping within the plan area, a focused survey for Santa Cruz tarplant shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in areas where a qualified biologist identifies suitable habitat. The survey shall be conducted during the species’ blooming period (MayNovember), and findings of the survey shall be submitted to the City of Watsonville for review and approval. an experienced 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 June to October. The surveys shall occur throughout the entire project area where potential Santa Cruz tarplant habitat has been identified, prior to the initiation of construction and the results shall be included in the project environmental document. Surveys shall be conducted according to CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special-Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities.

If Santa Cruz tarplant is detected or likely to occur 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, and/or site restoration. In the event that State-listed plants cannot be avoided during construction, the project proponent shall obtain an ITP pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081, subdivision (b) (See cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 783.4 & 786.9). If a population of Santa Cruz tarplant is found, mitigation for the loss of individuals shall be conducted. Mitigation shall be achieved by establishing a new population of Santa Cruz tarplant in an area approved by the USFWS and CDFW. This area shall not be developed and shall contain suitable habitat types for establishing a new population. Mitigation shall be a 1:1 ratio (impact mitigation) of plant establishment on an acreage basis.

The revisions to the Draft EIR, noted above with underline and strikethrough text, do not change the substance or action of the mitigation measures provided in the Draft EIR. Instead, the revisions merely provide clarification consistent with CDFW language. Accordingly, recirculation of the Draft Exhibit B
12 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
2-4
EIR is not required in response to this comment, including revisions to the Draft EIR made in response to this comment. No additional revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Response 1.7
The commenter states that Mitigation Measure BIO-2 does not indicate that baseline data would be collected if active nests are discovered or provide the qualified biologist with stop work authorization. The commenter provides two recommended mitigation measures for nesting birds, including a nesting bird survey and active nest protections. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 as provided in the Draft EIR requires pre-construction nesting bird surveys during the nesting season and protection of active nests. Nonetheless, to provide clarification and more closely match guidance from CDFW, in response to this comment, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 on page 4.3-8 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows:

BIO-2 Nesting Bird Avoidance
To the extent feasible, construction activities shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season.

The nesting season for most birds in Santa Cruz County extends from February 1 through August 31. If it is not possible to schedule construction activities between September 1 and January 31, then preconstruction surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no nests will be disturbed during project implementation. If Projectrelated work is scheduled during the nesting season (typically February 15 to August 30 for small bird species such as passerines; January 15 to September 15 for owls; and February 15 to September 15 for other raptors), a qualified biologist shall conduct two surveys for active nests of such birds within 14 days prior to the beginning of project construction, with a final survey conducted within 48 hours prior to construction. Appropriate minimum survey radii surrounding the work area are typically the following: i) 250 feet for passerines; ii) 500 feet for small raptors such as accipiters; and iii) 1,000 feet for larger raptors such as buteos.

Surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate times of day and during appropriate nesting times. These surveys shall be conducted no more than seven days prior to the initiation of construction activities and shall be conducted prior to tree removal, tree trimming, or other vegetation clearing. During the survey, the biologist shall inspect all trees and other potential nesting habitats, including trees, shrubs, ruderal grasslands, and buildings in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas for nests.

If the qualified biologist documents active nests within the project area or in nearby surrounding areas, a species appropriate buffer between the nest and active construction shall be established by the biologist. The buffer shall be clearly marked and maintained until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. Prior to construction, the qualified biologist shall conduct baseline monitoring of the nest to characterize “normal” bird behavior and establish a buffer distance which allows the birds to exhibit normal behavior.

The qualified biologist shall monitor the nesting birds daily during construction activities and increase the buffer if the birds show signs of unusual or distressed behavior (e.g., defensive flights and vocalizations, standing up from a brooding position, and/or flying away from the nest). If buffer establishment is not possible, the qualified biologist shall have the authority to cease all construction work in the area until the young have fledged, and the nest is no longer active. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the biologist shall determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically 300 feet for raptors and 100 feet for other Exhibit B
13 of 343

Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-5
species), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and CFGC shall be disturbed during project implementation.

The revisions to the Draft EIR, noted above with underline and strikethrough text, do not change the substance or action of the mitigation measures provided in the Draft EIR. Instead, the revisions merely provide clarification consistent with CDFW’s recommended language. Accordingly, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required in response to this comment, including revisions to the Draft EIR made in response to this comment. No additional revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Response 1.8
The commenter states that CEQA requires any special-status species and natural communities detected during environmental review to be incorporated into the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and provides a link to resources.

The proposed project is a Specific Plan that establishes a vision for the entire downtown area of Watsonville. Given the large size of the project site combined with the fact the Specific Plan is generalized and does not propose specific buildings or construction, no biological field surveys were required in preparation of the Draft EIR. The City concurs that individual projects envisioned in the Specific Plan, when proposed for construction in the future, could require field surveys to verify if special-status species and natural communities are present on that specific project site. If specialstatus species or natural communities are detected during these future surveys, the data will be provided to the CNDDB. Regardless, this comment is generalized and does not pertain to the adequacy of environmental analysis or contents of the Draft EIR. This comment does not require revisions to the Draft EIR.

Response 1.9
The commenter states that CDFW anticipates that the project will have impacts on fish and/or wildlife and thus will require filing fees.

The City concurs with the commenter and intends to pay the CDFW CEQA filing fee for an EIR when and if the City Council certifies the EIR and adopts the Specific Plan. This comment does not pertain to the environmental analysis or contents of the Draft EIR. This comment does not require revisions to the Draft EIR.

Response 1.10
The commenter states appreciation for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR and provides follow-up contact information for future coordination with CDFW.

This comment is noted and does not require revisions to the Draft EIR.

Exhibit B
14 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
2-6
Letter 2
COMMENTER: Chris Bjornstad, Associate Transportation Planner, California Department of Transportation
DATE: June 26, 2023
Response 2.1
The commenter states that the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 5, Developmental Review, has reviewed the Draft EIR and provides their understanding of the proposed project in the form of a summary.

The commenter’s understanding of the proposed project is an accurate summary of the project as proposed and evaluated in the Draft EIR. This comment does not require revisions to the Draft EIR.

Response 2.2
The commenter states that Caltrans looks forward to coordinating with the City on the feasibility of future transportation concepts and additional traffic studies for any operational changes on the state highway system.

The City is pleased to work with Caltrans on future transportation concepts in Watsonville. This comment does not pertain to the environmental analysis or contents of the Draft EIR. This comment does not require revisions to the Draft EIR.

Response 2.3
The commenter states that the the current performance metric used by the state to evaluate operational changes to the State Highway System is Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (DVHD). The proposed road diet within downtown would increase the amount of DVHD and Caltrans would need to know what the DVHD would be from a corridor wide approach in future studies.

Consistent with Senate Bill 743 and the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15064.3), the City of Watsonville evaluates transportation impacts using Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the metric for determining significance. As described on pages 4.8-14 through pages 4.8-16 of the Draft EIR, the proposed DWSP would generate VMT. The VMT generated by the DWSP would reduce existing regional VMT, including VMT per capita and VMT per employee. As shown in Table 4.8-2 on page

4.8-15 of the Draft EIR, implementation of the DWSP would reduce existing VMT per capita from 9.4 to 7.9 and existing VMT per office employee from 9.6 to 9.0. Existing VMT per industrial employee would be reduced from 14.2 to 13.5. The reduction to VMT per capita, a measurement of the VMT of residential land uses, would not exceed significance thresholds, nor would VMT from retail land uses. However, as shown in Table 4.8-2, the estimated reduction in VMT per employee for office and industrial development would not be below the City's threshold of significance. Although implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 should help reduce the number of vehicle trips and VMT, the EIR determined that the DWSP would have a significant and unavoidable transportationrelated impact.

Although VMT is used for assessing the significance of transportation impacts from land use projects under CEQA, the City understands that Caltrans still relies on operational data (i.e., DVHD) to ensure the State Highway System functions properly. The DWSP does not provide specific design standards for the road diet within downtown, rather it provides a more conceptual vision of a road diet.

Exhibit B
15 of 343

Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-7
Additional studies outside the scope and context of CEQA will be performed as the road diet is designed and engineered, at which time DVHD could be more accurately determined. This type of design-level data will be coordinated with Caltrans at that time. Additionally, the City prepared a Transportation Impact Analysis for the DWSP, which is included as Appendix E to the Draft EIR. The Transportation Impact Analysis does provide operational (delay) data along the state highway system. This includes all the study intersections listed in the Transportation Impact Analysis except for the intersection of Freedom Boulevard and Brennan Street. The Transportation Impact Analysis further includes a V/C analysis with and without a roundabout at the intersection of Freedom Boulevard and Main Street. Along with the queuing analysis and recommended turning movement restrictions at Main Street and Ford Street, the intersection of Freedom Boulevard and Main Street would improve substantially with a roundabout, as described in the Transportation Impact Analysis.

This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the VMT analysis or contents of the Draft EIR.

Operational data will be considered and coordinated with Caltrans at the time of road diet design.

Therefore, this comment does not require revisions to the Draft EIR.

Response 2.4
The commenter requests that the City provide a resolution or letter of support when complete street changes are proposed along the state highway system to reaffirm the concepts are still supported.

This comment does not pertain to the contents of the Draft EIR or CEQA. Accordingly, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment. For informational purposes, the DWSP does not provide specific design standards for complete streets within downtown, rather it provides a vision of complete streets as a way to increase the frequency and safety of active transportation modes, such as walking and bicycling. Nonetheless, since 2017, City and the State have collaborated on preparation of three plans to improve road user safety on State Routes 129 and 152. These embrace the concept of Complete Streets and were prepared with and partially funded by Caltrans. They include the Downtown Watsonville Complete Streets Plan (completed in 2019), the Complete Streets to Schools Plan (2020) and the Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan (currently being prepared). Last year, Caltrans proposed State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) Project No. 05-1P110 which includes a road diet on State Route 152 between Freedom Blvd and Beach Street. Prior to adding this project to the SHOPP, Caltrans requested that the City provide a resolution supporting the project. The Watsonville City Council held a study session on August 30, 2022 to allow the community to learn about and comment on the project. The Council adopted Resolution No. 195-22 (CM) in support of the project at its September 13, 2022 meeting.

Subsequently, the City assisted Caltrans staff in hosting a virtual community meeting on October 6, 2022 to allow State staff to discuss upcoming projects in the Watsonville area and receive feedback on the project on SR 152. City staff worked with the following Caltrans District 5 staff as part of these efforts: Senior Transportation Planner Gus Alfaro, Jr.; Project Manager Heidi Borders; Design Manager Kyle Birch; Transportation Planner Paul Guirguis; and Senior Transportation Planner John Olejnik.

Response 2.5
The commenter expresses support for Mitigation Measure TRA-1, which requires each individual office and industrial development project in the study area to incorporate a transportation demand management (TDM) plan and monitoring program.

Exhibit B
16 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
2-8
The City appreciates Caltrans’ support of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, which appears on pages 4.8-15 and 4.8-16 of the Draft EIR. This comment does not require revisions to the Draft EIR.

Response 2.6
The commenter states appreciation for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR and provides follow-up contact information for future coordination with Caltrans.

This comment is noted and does not require revisions to the Draft EIR.

Exhibit B
17 of 343

Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-9
Letter 3
COMMENTER: Marven E. Norman, Bike Santa Cruz County
DATE: June 26, 2023
Response 3.1
The commenter states that they have reviewed the Draft EIR and would like to provide comments.

This comment is a general introduction to a list of detailed comments provided later in the comment letter. This comment does not require revisions to the Draft EIR.

Response 3.2
The commenter states that the DWSP would remove the E Lake Avenue and E Beach Street couplet and create two-way streets. The commenter further states that this would upgrade bike facilities throughout downtown to provide a rudimentary bicycle network and “opportunity has been left on the table” regarding the visionary nature of the plan.

The commenter’s understanding of the proposed roadway and bicycle infrastructure improvements are an accurate summary of the project as proposed and evaluated in the Draft EIR. This comment pertains to the DWSP. This comment does not pertain to the Draft EIR and does not require revisions to the Draft EIR.

Response 3.3
The commenter states that the Draft EIR indicates traffic noise on Beach Street would increase because the amount of vehicle trips would increase, despite the DWSP envisioning the removal of Beach Street from SR 152. The commenter opines that traffic volumes would be better controlled if Beach Street be maintained as one-way for car traffic but alternate the one-way direction to be west and east from Alexander Street.

Consistent with Senate Bill 743 and the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15064.3), the Draft EIR evaluates transportation impacts using Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the metric for determining significance. Pursuant to Section 15064.3 of the State CEQA Guidelines, traffic congestion is not a significant impact for purposes of CEQA. Accordingly, the Draft EIR is not required to attempt to reduce vehicle traffic through mitigation or other means.

Although traffic congestion is not a significant impact for CEQA, the commenter is correct that vehicle trips on Beach Trip would increase with implementation of the DWSP, as shown in Table 4.6- 5 on page 4.6-12 of the Draft EIR. As shown in Table 4.6-5, the change in ambient noise levels along Beach Street resulting from these additional trips would range from 0.69 to 1.68 dBA CNEL. As described on page 4.6-1 of the Draft EIR, in general, a 3 dBA change in the ambient noise level is noticeable to the human ear, while 1-2 dBA changes generally are not perceived. Accordingly, the changes in ambient noise levels resulting from additional vehicle trips on Beach Street would not be noticeable or a significant impact, as described on page 4.6-11 of the Draft EIR. Therefore, this comment does not require revisions to the Draft EIR.

Exhibit B
18 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
2-10
Response 3.4
The commenter states that the DWSP does not propose any Level of Traffic Stress 1 or Level of Traffic Stress 2 bike facilities through the central portion of the plan area which would perpetuate hazards by design. The commenter suggests that a Class IV bikeway, running opposite the one-way restrictions, should be provided on Beach Street to improve connectivity for bicyclists and be more in-line with Caltrans recommendations. The commenter provides a link to a study prepared by San Jose State University and a nonfunctional link to 2020 Caltrans document.

This comment relates to the DWSP and does not pertain to the Draft EIR. This comment is noted and does not require revisions to the Draft EIR. For informational purposes, the Draft EIR evaluates the potential for the DWSP to result in significant impacts related to conflicts with policies, programs, and plans addressing bicycle facilities. Specifically, Impact TRA-1 beginning on page 4.8-13 of the Draft EIR describes how the DWSP would not conflict with such plans, programs, and policies because the DWSP would improve bicycle connectivity in the plan area. Additionally, as described on page 4.8-13 of the Draft EIR, a Class I bicycle facility currently exists on Main Street and Class II bicycle facilities currently exist on Rodriguez Street, Walker Street and Freedom Boulevard. These streets are in the central portion of the plan area, and the DWSP would expand these bicycle facilities.

Response 3.5
The commenter recommends a bicycle lane on Beach Street and preserving a portion of the vacated Union Street for bicyclists and pedestrians. The commenter provides links to examples of bicycle facilities in other cities.

The City recognizes the importance of reducing the dependency on single-occupancy vehicles and understands increasing active transportation modes, such as bicycling and walking, is an effective means at reducing vehicle use. For these reasons, the DWSP does envision a comprehensive bicycle network through the plan area, including the central portion of the plan area. As shown on Figure 4- 11 on page 116 of the DWSP, bicycle lanes would extend both north-south and east-west across the plan area on multiple streets. An east-west oriented bicycle lane would be provided on Union Street which would transition to Brennan Street. This bicycle lane would pass Watsonville Plaza, which is the central portion of the plan area. A bicycle lane would be present on 2nd Street in a north-south alignment, passing just east of Watsonville Plaza, as also shown on Figure 4-11. Accordingly, the DWSP does envision providing bicycle lanes in the central portion of the plan area in a such a way as to provide both east-west and north-south travel, as suggested by the commenter.

Because this comment pertains to the future bicycle network envisioned in the DWSP and does not pertain to the Draft EIR, revisions to the Draft EIR are not required in response to this comment.

Response 3.6
The commenter requests that the proposed Main Street/Freedom Boulevard roundabout be designed to meet the standards for vision impairments identified by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program as well as use the designs provided in the Massachusetts Department of Transportation bikeway guide for designing the bikeway around the roundabout.

This comment pertains to specific design standards for a roadway roundabout, as planned within the DWSP. The DWSP provides an overall vision for the downtown area of Watsonville and does not provide or propose design-level details. Individual projects in the plan area will be designed at various points in the future. When the Main Street/Freedom Boulevard roundabout is designed, the Exhibit B
19 of 343

Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-11
design and construction would be compliant with Caltrans standards, such as those provided in Chapter 400 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. Section 405.10 of Chapter 400 provides standards for roundabouts, including design standards to accommodate vision impairment. This comment is noted and does not require revisions to the Draft EIR.

Response 3.7
The commenter states appreciation for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR and provides follow-up contact information for any follow-up questions the City might have.

This comment is noted and does not require revisions to the Draft EIR.

Exhibit B
20 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
2-12
Letter 4
COMMENTER: Steve Trujillo
DATE: May 31, 2023
Response 4.1
The commenter asks if the EIR will measure the effect on air quality resulting from a lane reduction along Main Street, as envisioned in the DWSP.

Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines provides a list of environmental factors that lead agencies should consider evaluating in the CEQA documents. Among the environmental factors listed in Appendix G is air quality. Accordingly, consistent with the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR evaluates the potential air quality impacts that would result from implementation of the DWSP.

The analysis of air quality impacts in the Draft EIR does not include a separate calculation of air pollutant emissions associated with the road diet on Main Street that is envisioned in the DWSP.

Instead, as described on page 4.2-15 of the Draft EIR, operational emissions of the entire buildout of the DWSP, collectively, we estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod).

The number of vehicles trips anticipated in the plan area with implementation of the DWSP were input into CalEEMod to determine their emissions, which is referred to as mobile-source emissions.

The anticipated vehicle trips were based on a Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the DWSP by Kimley Horn in March 2023 (see Appendix E of the Draft EIR).

As discussed on pages 4.2-15 through 4.2-19 of the Draft EIR, the additional housing envisioned in the DWSP would contribute to population growth that conflicts with the growth assumptions in the Air Quality Management Plan and long-term operational impacts of the DWSP, including mobilesource emissions, would exceed the Monterey Bay Air Resources District’s significance thresholds.

The Draft EIR provides Mitigation Measure AQ-1 on page 4.2-16 to reduce operational emissions.

However, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, operational emissions would result in significant and unavoidable impacts, as described on pages 4.2-18 and 4.2-19 of the Draft EIR.

This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the analysis summarized above. Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required.

Response 4.2
The commenter asks if the EIR will examine the cooling effect of more trees downtown on temperature.

CEQA does not require an evaluation of cooling effect of more trees. It is commonly known that trees provide shade and can have a cooling effect. Generally, this would be a positive outcome for most land uses, especially in downtown settings where direct sunlight is less important than other non-urban land uses, such as agriculture. As noted in the DWSP, street trees are an important component of the public realm because of their ability to provide a consistent and uniform street character while also reducing the “heat island effect.” Although CEQA does not require an assessment of cooling from trees, there are other CEQA topics that pertain to trees. As discussed within Section 4.1, Aesthetics, the DWSP includes Policy 5.F which Exhibit B
21 of 343

Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-13
requires considerations for project appearance including the retention of trees (see Draft EIR page

4.1-5). Furthermore, Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR describes the City of Watsonville Tree Protection Policies which would require permits to be issued for removal or trimming of trees along public streets downtown.

This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis and therefore does not require revisions to the Draft EIR.

Response 4.3
The commenter asks if the EIR will measure the increase in water demand resulting from the proposed residential and commercial growth.

As discussed on page 1-12 of the Draft EIR and pages 66-68 of the Initial Study (Appendix A to the Draft EIR), future development envisioned in the DWSP would increase demand for water. However, water demand generated from the future development in the DWSP would be met with the existing water supply. The future development would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years, and impacts would be less than significant.

This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR water demand analysis. Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Response 4.4
The commenter asks if the EIR will evaluate the projected wastewater demand for the existing wastewater facilities.

As discussed on page 1-12 of the Draft EIR and pages 68-69 of the Initial Study (Appendix A to the Draft EIR), wastewater generated from development envisioned in the DWSP would be treated at the existing wastewater treatment facility, which has adequate capacity for the DWSP development and impacts would be less than significant.

This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR wastewater analysis. Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Response 4.5
The commenter asks if the EIR will measure the increased need for parking in downtown.

CEQA does not require an evaluation of parking standards or guidelines to be included within the EIR. However, as discussed within Chapter 2, Project Description, the DWSP includes several roadway improvements to support multimodal travel, increase safety, and improve access to local amenities and businesses. Table 2-2 on page 2-12 of the Draft EIR describes these improvements and the preservation of existing and on-street parking for various roadways within the plan area. In addition, the DWSP encourages shared parking and calls for prioritizing infill development of offstreet parking lots that are underutilized and not the highest and best use of land.

This comment is noted and does not require revisions to the Draft EIR.

Exhibit B
22 of 343

Errata to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-1
Errata to the Draft EIR
This chapter presents specific text changes made to the Draft EIR since its publication and public review. The changes are presented in the order in which they appear in the original Draft EIR and are identified by the Draft EIR page number. Text deletions are shown in strikethrough, and text additions are shown in underline. The information contained within this chapter clarifies and expands on information in the Draft EIR and does not constitute “significant new information” requiring recirculation. (See Public Resources Code Section 21092.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.)

3.1 Revisions to the Draft EIR
Pages ES-10 and ES-11 and also pages 4.3-7 and 4.3-8 of the Draft EIR are revised as follows:

BIO-1 Pre-Disturbance Santa Cruz Tarplant Survey and Mitigation Planting Prior to commencement of construction activities on property with undeveloped areas or unmaintained landscaping within the plan area, a focused survey for Santa Cruz tarplant shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in areas where a qualified biologist identifies suitable habitat. The survey shall be conducted during the species’ blooming period (MayNovember), and findings of the survey shall be submitted to the City of Watsonville for review and approval. an experienced 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 June to October. The surveys shall occur throughout the entire project area where potential Santa Cruz tarplant habitat has been identified, prior to the initiation of construction and the results shall be included in the project environmental document. Surveys shall be conducted according to CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special-Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities.

If Santa Cruz tarplant is detected or likely to occur 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, and/or site restoration. In the event that State-listed plants cannot be avoided during construction, the project proponent shall obtain an ITP pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081, subdivision (b) (See cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 783.4 & 786.9). If a population of Santa Cruz tarplant is found, mitigation for the loss of individuals shall be conducted. Mitigation shall be achieved by establishing a new population of Santa Cruz tarplant in an area approved by the USFWS and CDFW. This area shall not be developed and shall contain suitable habitat types for establishing a new population. Mitigation shall be a 1:1 ratio (impact mitigation) of plant establishment on an acreage basis.

Pages ES-11 and ES-12 and also page 4.3-8 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows:

BIO-2 Nesting Bird Avoidance
To the extent feasible, construction activities shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season.

The nesting season for most birds in Santa Cruz County extends from February 1 through Exhibit B
23 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
3-2
August 31. If it is not possible to schedule construction activities between September 1 and January 31, then preconstruction surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no nests will be disturbed during project implementation. If Projectrelated work is scheduled during the nesting season (typically February 15 to August 30 for small bird species such as passerines; January 15 to September 15 for owls; and February 15 to September 15 for other raptors), a qualified biologist shall conduct two surveys for active nests of such birds within 14 days prior to the beginning of project construction, with a final survey conducted within 48 hours prior to construction. Appropriate minimum survey radii surrounding the work area are typically the following: i) 250 feet for passerines; ii) 500 feet for small raptors such as accipiters; and iii) 1,000 feet for larger raptors such as buteos.

Surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate times of day and during appropriate nesting times. These surveys shall be conducted no more than seven days prior to the initiation of construction activities and shall be conducted prior to tree removal, tree trimming, or other vegetation clearing. During the survey, the biologist shall inspect all trees and other potential nesting habitats, including trees, shrubs, ruderal grasslands, and buildings in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas for nests.

If the qualified biologist documents active nests within the project area or in nearby surrounding areas, a species appropriate buffer between the nest and active construction shall be established by the biologist. The buffer shall be clearly marked and maintained until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. Prior to construction, the qualified biologist shall conduct baseline monitoring of the nest to characterize “normal” bird behavior and establish a buffer distance which allows the birds to exhibit normal behavior.

The qualified biologist shall monitor the nesting birds daily during construction activities and increase the buffer if the birds show signs of unusual or distressed behavior (e.g., defensive flights and vocalizations, standing up from a brooding position, and/or flying away from the nest). If buffer establishment is not possible, the qualified biologist shall have the authority to cease all construction work in the area until the young have fledged, and the nest is no longer active. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the biologist shall determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically 300 feet for raptors and 100 feet for other species), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and CFGC shall be disturbed during project implementation.

Exhibit B
24 of 343

Appendix 1
Comment Letters
Exhibit B
25 of 343

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
June 15, 2023
Mr. Justin Meek
City of Watsonville
250 Main Street
Watsonville, CA 95076
[email protected]
Subject: Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2022100602, City of Watsonville, Santa Cruz County Dear Mr. Meek:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has received and reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared by the City of Watsonville (City) for the Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan (Project), located in Santa Cruz County, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1 CDFW submits these comments on the draft EIR to inform the City, as the CEQA Lead Agency, of potentially significant impacts to biological resources associated with the Project.

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State. (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines, § 15386, subd. (a)). CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. (Id., § 1802). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW is also submitting these comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority over the Project pursuant to the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) regulatory authority. (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.).

Likewise, to the extent the Project may result in “take,” as defined by State law, of any 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.

LETTER 1

1.1 1.2
Exhibit B
26 of 343

Mr. Justin Meek
City of Watsonville
June 15, 2023

species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G.

Code, § 2050 et seq.) or Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) (Fish & G. Code, § 1900 et seq.), related authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code will be required.

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
California Endangered Species Act and Native Plant Protection Act Please be advised that a CESA or NPPA Incidental Take Permit (ITP) must be obtained if the Project has the potential to result in “take” of plants or animals listed under CESA or NPPA, either during construction or over the life of the Project. “Take” means “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” (Fish & G. Code, § 86). If the Project will impact CESA or NPPA listed species, early consultation with CDFW is encouraged, as significant modification to the Project and mitigation measures may be required to obtain an ITP. CDFW’s issuance of an ITP is subject to CEQA and to facilitate Permit issuance, any such project modifications and mitigation measures must be incorporated into the draft EIR’s analysis, discussion, and mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

CEQA requires a mandatory finding of significance if a Project is likely to substantially impact threatened or endangered species. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21001, subd. (c) & 21083; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15380, 15064 & 15065). In addition, pursuant to CEQA, the Lead Agency cannot approve a project unless all impacts to the environment are avoided or mitigated to less-than-significant levels, or the Lead Agency makes and supports Findings of Overriding Consideration (FOC) for impacts that remain significant despite the implementation of all feasible mitigation. FOC under CEQA; however, do not eliminate the Project proponent’s obligation to comply with the Fish and Game Code.

Lake and Streambed Alteration
CDFW requires an LSA Notification, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq., for Project activities affecting lakes, streams, rivers, or associated riparian habitat.

Notification is required for any activity that may 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, drainage ditches, washes, watercourses with a subsurface flow, and floodplains is generally subject to notification requirements. In addition, infrastructure installed beneath such aquatic features, such as through hydraulic directional drilling, is also generally subject to notification requirements. Therefore, any impact to the mainstems, tributaries, or floodplains or associated riparian habitat caused by the proposed Project will likely require an LSA Notification. CDFW may not execute a final LSA Agreement until it has considered the final EIR and complied with its responsibilities as a responsible agency under CEQA.

1.2 1.3
Exhibit B
27 of 343

Mr. Justin Meek
City of Watsonville
June 15, 2023

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

Migratory birds are also protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Fully Protected Species
Fully Protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time (Fish & G. Code, §§ 3511, 4700, 5050, & 5515).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: City of Watsonville
Objective: The Project consists of the Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan. The Project would establish new zones, overlays, and development standards and guidelines to guide development. The Project would help the City of Watsonville achieve its objective of incorporating higher density commercial and housing opportunities by accommodating residential uses in a compact and active mixed-use environment through both new construction and adaptive reuse of historic or existing buildings. The Project would incorporate the following: 1) addition of up to 3,886 new residential units; 2) 231,151 square feet of commercial development; 3) 376,827 square feet of industrial development; 4) 114,572 square feet of civic space within the downtown area over the next 25 years; and 5) provision of multi-modal transportation options in the downtown area, such as vehicle, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian mode options. It includes design concepts for downtown streets, as well as bicycle and pedestrian network improvements.

Timeframe: The plan will be implemented over the next 25 years.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND LOCATION
The Project is located in Downtown Watsonville in the southern area of Santa Cruz County. The Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan Area covers roughly 195.5 acres within Downtown Watsonville, with about 55.5 acres dedicated to streets and right-ofway. Downtown is centered on Main Street and extends west to the edge of existing neighborhoods and the industrial district, south to the Pajaro River, and several blocks east to the existing neighborhoods. State Route (SR) 152 runs through the center of the plan area and operates along portions of Main Street and as a one-way couplet along East Lake Avenue and East Beach Street. Riverside Drive on the south end of the plan

1.3 1.4
Exhibit B
28 of 343

Mr. Justin Meek
City of Watsonville
June 15, 2023

area is a part of SR 129. One of the major intersections within the plan area is the intersection of Main Street and SR 129.

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.

COMMENT 1: Santa Cruz Tarplant ITP
Issue: The draft EIR states that Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia) may be impacted by the Project, but the proposed mitigation measures do not reference obtaining an ITP if there is the potential for take of Santa Cruz tarplant.

Evidence the impact would be significant: 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 ITP (Fish & G. Code § 2081 (b)).

Santa Cruz tarplant is an annual species and 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 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 2014).

Generally, the seeds fall within the vicinity of the plant and do 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). 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 to determine the potential for take.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 1 – Focused Survey: Prior to commencement of construction activities on property with undeveloped areas or unmaintained landscaping, an experienced 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 June to October. The surveys shall occur throughout the entire Project where potential Santa Cruz tarplant habitat has been identified, 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 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.

1.4 1.5

1.6 Exhibit B
29 of 343

Mr. Justin Meek
City of Watsonville
June 15, 2023

Impacts to Special-Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFW 2018), available at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 2 – Santa Cruz Tarplant Avoidance and Mitigation: If Santa Cruz tarplant is detected or likely to occur 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, and/or site restoration. In the event that State-listed plants cannot be avoided during construction, the Project proponent shall obtain an ITP pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081, subdivision (b) (See cal.

Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 783.4 & 786.9). Information on the ITP process is available at https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/CESA/Permitting/Incidental-Take-Permits. In addition, CDFW recommends continued coordination to develop additional measures.

COMMENT 2: Nesting Bird Surveys
Issue: The draft EIR proposes to implement mitigation measure Bio-2: Nesting Bird Avoidance to mitigate for impacts to nesting birds; however, the measure does not state that baseline data will be collected if active nests are discovered or provide the qualified biologist with stop work authorization.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 3 – Nesting Bird Surveys. If Project-related work is scheduled during the nesting season (typically February 15 to August 30 for small bird species such as passerines; January 15 to September 15 for owls; and February 15 to September 15 for other raptors), a qualified biologist shall conduct two surveys for active nests of such birds within 14 days prior to the beginning of Project construction, with a final survey conducted within 48 hours prior to construction. Appropriate minimum survey radii surrounding the work area are typically the following: i) 250 feet for passerines; ii) 500 feet for small raptors such as accipiters; and iii) 1,000 feet for larger raptors such as buteos. Surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate times of day and during appropriate nesting times.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 4 – Active Nest Protections. If the qualified biologist documents active nests within the Project area or in nearby surrounding areas, a species appropriate buffer between the nest and active construction shall be established. The buffer shall be clearly marked and maintained until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. Prior to construction, the qualified biologist shall conduct baseline monitoring of the nest to characterize “normal” bird behavior and establish a buffer distance which allows the birds to exhibit normal behavior. The qualified biologist shall monitor the nesting birds daily during construction activities and increase the buffer if the birds show signs of unusual or distressed behavior (e.g., defensive flights and vocalizations, standing up from a brooding position, and/or flying away from the nest). If buffer establishment is not possible, the qualified biologist shall

1.6 1.7
Exhibit B
30 of 343

Mr. Justin Meek
City of Watsonville
June 15, 2023

have the authority to cease all construction work in the area until the young have fledged, and the nest is no longer active.

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 CNDDB 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 draft EIR. 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: Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (SCH No. 2022100602)

REFERENCES
[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.

1.7 1.8

1.9 1.10
Exhibit B
31 of 343

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” CALTRANS DISTRICT 5
50 HIGUERA STREET | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401-5415
(805) 549-3101 | FAX (805) 549-3329 TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
June 26, 2023
SCr/VAR
SCH#2022100602
Justin Meek, Principal Planner
City of Watsonville
Community Development Department
250 Main Street
Watsonville, CA 95076
COMMENTS FOR THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) – DOWNTOWN

WATSONVILLE SPECIFIC PLAN, WATSONVILLE, CA
Dear Mr. Meek:

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 5, Development Review, has reviewed the Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan DEIR which articulates a community vision and a planning framework for the downtown area that would serve as a guide for the city and other public agency decision makers, community members, and stakeholders over the next 20 to 30 years. Caltrans offers the following comments in response to the DEIR:

1. Caltrans looks forward to working with the City of Watsonville on the feasibility of future transportation concepts when the time presents itself. Additional traffic studies will be needed for any operational changes on the state highway system (SHS). For example, any proposed changes to the type of intersection control would require an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) to be performed.

2. Further, the current performance metric used by the state to evaluate operational changes to the SHS is Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (DVHD). The proposed road diet would increase the amount of DVHD and Caltrans will need to know what the DVHD would be from a corridor wide approach in future studies.

3. To move forward, Caltrans requests the City of Watsonville to provide a resolution or a letter of support at the appropriate time when complete street changes to the SHS are planned to reaffirm the concepts are still supported. Examples would include removing parking and lane reduction.

LETTER 2

2.1 2.2

2.3 2.4
Exhibit B
32 of 343

Justin Meek, Principal Planner
June 26, 2023

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

4. Caltrans supports Mitigation Measure TRA-1 which requires each individual office and industrial development project in the study area to incorporate a transportation demand management (TDM) plan and monitoring program. This measure will appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed project. If you have any questions, or need further clarification on items discussed above, please contact me at (805) 835-6543 or email [email protected].

Sincerely,
Chris Bjornstad
Associate Transportation Planner
District 5 Land Development Review

2.5 2.6
Exhibit B
33 of 343

Marven E. Norman
PO Box 1147
San Bernardino, CA 92402
26 June 2023
City of Watsonville
Attn: Justin Meek, AICP, Principal Planner
250 Main Street
Watsonville, CA 95076
Submitted via email to [email protected].

Re: Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2022100602) Dear Justin Meek,
This letter is to respond to the DEIR for the proposed Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan which has been made available for review. After looking over the documents, I would like to provide the following comments.

Based on the information provided in the DEIR and Transportation study, the Plan would remove the E Lake Avenue and E Beach Street couplet by (re)turning them from the present situation of one-way to two-way streets. Additionally, this would upgrade bike facilities on several thoroughfares in the downtown area, providing a rudimentary network of bike facilities. While these are welcome changes which will certainly improve the livability of downtown Watsonville, it appears that opportunity has been left on the table, particularly given the visionary nature of the Plan.

The first concern to address is the plan to convert Lake Avenue and Beach Street. to two-way operations. It is stated that there will be a goal of removing Beach St. from being part of SR-152 once the conversion is complete. However, Table 4.6-5 Traffic Noise Increase shows that traffic counts would still increase over present on Beach Street, drawing into question the benefit that would be achieved from that change. Instead, it would be preferable to maintain Beach Street as one-way for car traffic but alternate the one-way direction to be west and east from Alexander Street such that it is no longer usable as a through route. Doing so would help better control traffic counts and when combined with traffic calming elements on Beach Street, would keep speeds down and create a far more inviting environment commensurate with a revitalized downtown, particularly since there is also a high school located at Beach and Marchant.

At the same time, Figure 2-8 DWSP Future Bicycle Network (Figure 1) shows that at present, there is no plan to provide any LTS1 or LTS2 bike facilities1 through the central portion of the Plan area, potentially perpetuating hazards by design. To remedy that shortcoming, a Class IV bikeway in the opposite direction of the one-way restrictions should also be provided on Beach Street which would be more in line with Caltrans recommendations2 and go far toward improving connectivity for bicyclists. Additionally, the proposal to vacate a portion of Union Street and realign with Alexander Street must either preserve a portion of the vacated right-of-way for bicyclists and pedestrians or perhaps provide an easement for a connection through the development such as the passage in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam3 or the soon-to-be-completed Sherwin-Williams development in 1 https://transweb.sjsu.edu/research/Low-Stress-Bicycling-and-Network-Connectivity 2 Flournoy, M. (2020). Contextual guidance for bike facilities. Caltrans. Retrieved from https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/office-of-smart-mobility-andclimate-change/planning-contextual-guidance-memo-03-11-20-a11y.pdf. 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BbgdRdZI4o
LETTER 3

3.1 3.2

3.3 3.4

3.5 Exhibit B
34 of 343

2 Marven E. Norman
PO Box 1147
San Bernardino, CA 92402
Emeryville.4 This can be continued on the south side of realigned Union/Alexander to the Lake/Brennan intersection where a protected intersection would facilitate crossing.

Finally, it is encouraging to see that a roundabout is being planned for the intersection of Main Street and Freedom Boulevard, however, no mention was made of what measures would be taken to ensure that the roundabout remains safe for all users, including bicyclists and individuals with vision impairments. It is imperative that the roundabout be designed to meet the standards for vision impairments identified by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program5 as well as use the designs provided in the MassDOT bikeway guide for designing the bikeway around the roundabout,6 particularly since there is already a trail along Main Street north of Freedom Boulevard.

Thank you for your time and receiving these comments. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,
Marven E. Norman
CC: Bike Santa Cruz County
4 https://www.ci.emeryville.ca.us/1019/Sherwin-Williams 5 Schroeder, B. J. (2011). Crossing solutions at roundabouts and channelized turn lanes for pedestrians with vision disabilities (Vol. 674). Transportation Research Board. 6 Found online at https://www.mass.gov/doc/chapter-4-intersection-design-0/download.

3.5 3.6

3.7 Exhibit B
35 of 343

3 Figure 1: Figure 2-8 DWSP Future Bicycle Network taken from DWSP DEIR depicting a lack of low-stress bikeway connectivity through the core of the Plan area.

Exhibit B
36 of 343

6/1/23, 8:56 AM Mail - Justin Meek - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkADQ4MzRjNjI3LTlmZWQtNGIwMC1iMGE1LTA2N2Y3NGUzNDZhZgBGAAAAAAAKLD32pw%2FMQ… 1/1 Re: Notice of Availability of an EIR for the DWSP
steve trujillo <[email protected]>
Wed 5/31/2023 8:35 PM
To: Justin Meek <[email protected]>
questions;

1. will the EIR measure the effect of half as many lanes on air quality on Main street downtown?

2. will the EIR examine the cooling effect of more downtown trees on the temperature?

3. will the EIR measure the increase in water needs for a greater population and more food/beverage places?

4. will the EIR measure the amount of sewage produced for our waste treatment plant for increased number of people downtown ?

5. will the EIR measure the increased need for parking in downtown? and i can come up with more. but these need to be answered by the EIR.

Steve Trujillo
On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 02:25:51 PM PDT, Justin Meek <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Interested Party,
You are receiving this email because you expressed previously a wish to be informed of upcoming events or updates concerning the Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan (DWSP).

The environmental review for the DWSP is underway. A Notice of Availability (NOA) has been given that a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the DWSP is available for public review. Public comments pertaining to the Draft EIR may be submitted through June 26, 2023.

The purpose of the EIR is to evaluate the potential physical effects of the proposed DWSP would have on the environment. Here are some key highlights:

Through the Draft EIR process, the DWSP was determined to have significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality, cultural resources, noise, and transportation.

Impacts to biological resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources were found to be potentially significant but mitigable to less than significant.

Impacts to other resource areas and environmental topics evaluated in the EIR were found to be less than significant without mitigation.

The City of Watsonville is soliciting comments on the Draft EIR. Comments provided will be considered in the Final EIR in accordance with section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Best regards,
Justin Meek
P.S. If you received this email in error or do not wish to receive future emails concerning the DWSP, simply reply to this email and type "unsubscribe" in the subject line.

LETTER 4

4.1 4.2

4.3 4.4

4.5 Exhibit B
37 of 343

Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
Draft Environmental Impact Report
prepared by
City of Watsonville
Community Development Department
250 Main Street
Watsonville, California 95076
Contact: Justin Meek, AICP, Principal Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
2511 Garden Road, Suite C-250
Monterey, California 93940
May 2023
Exhibit B
38 of 343

Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
Draft Environmental Impact Report
prepared by
City of Watsonville
Community Development Department
250 Main Street
Watsonville, California 95076
Contact: Justin Meek, AICP, Principal Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
2511 Garden Road, Suite C-250
Monterey, California 93940
May 2023
Exhibit B
39 of 343

This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.

Exhibit B
40 of 343

Table of Contents
Draft Environmental Impact Report i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................................ES-1 Project Synopsis.........................................................................................................................ES-1 Project Objectives ......................................................................................................................ES-5 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................ES-5 Areas of Known Controversy .....................................................................................................ES-7 Issues to be Resolved.................................................................................................................ES-7 Issues Not Studied in Detail in the EIR.......................................................................................ES-7 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ES-7 1 Introduction................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Environmental Impact Report Background .................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Statement of Purpose and Legal Authority..................................................................... 1-5

1.3 Scope and Content.......................................................................................................... 1-7

1.4 Issue Areas Determined Not to be Significant................................................................ 1-8

1.5 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies..................................................................... 1-12

1.6 Environmental Review Process..................................................................................... 1-13 2 Project Description ..................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Project Title and Brief Description.................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Lead Agency Name, Address, and Contact Person ......................................................... 2-1

2.3 Project Location .............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.4 Existing Setting and Surrounding Land Uses................................................................... 2-4

2.5 Project Characteristics .................................................................................................... 2-8

2.5.1 DWSP Objectives ............................................................................................ 2-8

2.5.2 DWSP Vision.................................................................................................... 2-8

2.5.3 Proposed Zoning and Development Standards.............................................. 2-9

2.5.4 DWSP Buildout.............................................................................................. 2-11

2.5.5 Downtown Transportation and Mobility...................................................... 2-11

2.6 Relationship to Other Plans.......................................................................................... 2-15

2.7 Project Related Approvals, Permits, and Discretionary Actions................................... 2-17 3 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Regional Setting .............................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Project Site Setting.......................................................................................................... 3-1

3.3 Cumulative Development ............................................................................................... 3-2 4 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Aesthetics..................................................................................................................... 4.1-1

4.1.1 Setting.......................................................................................................... 4.1-1

4.1.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.1-2

4.1.3 Impact Analysis............................................................................................ 4.1-6

4.2 Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 4.2-1

4.2.1 Setting.......................................................................................................... 4.2-1

4.2.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.2-7

4.2.3 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................... 4.2-12 Exhibit B
41 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
ii

4.3 Biological Resources..................................................................................................... 4.3-1

4.3.1 Setting.......................................................................................................... 4.3-1

4.3.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.3-3

4.3.3 Impact Analysis............................................................................................ 4.3-6

4.4 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................... 4.4-1

4.4.1 Setting.......................................................................................................... 4.4-1

4.4.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.4-10

4.4.3 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................... 4.4-14

4.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................... 4.5-1

4.5.1 Setting.......................................................................................................... 4.5-1

4.5.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.5-3

4.5.3 Impact Analysis............................................................................................ 4.5-7

4.6 Noise ............................................................................................................................ 4.6-1

4.6.1 Setting.......................................................................................................... 4.6-1

4.6.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.6-4

4.6.3 Impact Analysis............................................................................................ 4.6-6

4.7 Population and Housing............................................................................................... 4.7-1

4.7.1 Setting.......................................................................................................... 4.7-1

4.7.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.7-1

4.7.3 Impact Analysis............................................................................................ 4.7-3

4.8 Transportation ............................................................................................................. 4.8-1

4.8.1 Setting.......................................................................................................... 4.8-1

4.8.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.8-4

4.8.3 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................... 4.8-11

4.9 Tribal Cultural Resources............................................................................................. 4.9-1

4.9.1 Setting.......................................................................................................... 4.9-1

4.9.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.9-2

4.9.3 Impact Analysis............................................................................................ 4.9-3 5 Alternatives................................................................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Selection of CEQA Alternatives....................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative.............................................................................. 5-2

5.2.1 Description...................................................................................................... 5-2

5.2.2 Impact Analysis............................................................................................... 5-2

5.2.3 Feasibility of Alternative 1 .............................................................................. 5-4

5.2.4 Relationship of Alternative 1 to Project Objectives........................................ 5-4

5.3 Alternative 2: Repurposed Walker Street Industrial Uses.............................................. 5-4

5.3.1 Description...................................................................................................... 5-4

5.3.2 Impact Analysis............................................................................................... 5-5

5.3.3 Feasibility of Alternative 2 .............................................................................. 5-7

5.3.4 Relationship of Alternative 2 to Project Objectives........................................ 5-7

5.4 Alternative 3: Reduced Density Alternative.................................................................... 5-7

5.4.1 Description...................................................................................................... 5-7

5.4.2 Impact Analysis............................................................................................... 5-8

5.4.3 Feasibility of Alternative 3 ............................................................................ 5-10

5.4.4 Relationship of Alternative 3 to Project Objectives...................................... 5-10

5.5 Alternatives Considered but Rejected .......................................................................... 5-11

5.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative .......................................................................... 5-11 Exhibit B
42 of 343

Table of Contents
Draft Environmental Impact Report iii
6 Other CEQA Required Discussions.............................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Growth Inducement........................................................................................................ 6-1

6.1.1 Population Growth ......................................................................................... 6-1

6.1.2 Removal of Obstacles to Growth.................................................................... 6-2

6.2 Irreversible Environmental Effects.................................................................................. 6-2

6.2.1 Land Use Changes Which Would Commit Future Generations...................... 6-2

6.2.2 Irreversible Changes from Environmental Actions......................................... 6-2

6.2.3 Consumption of Nonrenewable Resources.................................................... 6-3

6.3 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts.............................................................................. 6-3 7 References.................................................................................................................................. 7-1

7.1 Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 List of Preparers.............................................................................................................. 7-5 Tables
Table ES-1 DWSP Zoning Characteristics .......................................................................................ES-2 Table ES-3 DWSP Relationship to Other Plans...............................................................................ES-4 Table ES-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts....ES-8 Table 1-1 NOP Comments and EIR Response................................................................................ 1-1 Table 1-2 Summary of Issue Areas Determined Not to Be Significant.......................................... 1-8 Table 2-1 Maximum Growth Projections for Specific Plan Area ................................................. 2-11 Table 2-2 Summary of Key Roadway Improvements in the Plan Area........................................ 2-12 Table 3-1 Cumulative Projects List................................................................................................ 3-2 Table 4.2-1 Current Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards........................................ 4.2-2 Table 4.2-2 Attainment Status of the North Central Coast Air Basin............................................ 4.2-5 Table 4.2-3 Ambient Air Quality Data ........................................................................................... 4.2-6 Table 4.2-4 Estimated Construction Emissions........................................................................... 4.2-17 Table 4.2-5 Estimated Operational Emissions............................................................................. 4.2-18 Table 4.4-1 Known Designated Resources Within the DWSP Plan Area....................................... 4.4-5 Table 4.6-1 Criteria for Vibration Damage Potential..................................................................... 4.6-2 Table 4.6-2 Roadway Ambient Noise Level Conditions................................................................. 4.6-3 Table 4.6-3 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments.................................... 4.6-6 Table 4.6-4 Typical Noise Levels for Construction Equipment.................................................... 4.6-10 Table 4.6-5 Traffic Noise Increase ............................................................................................... 4.6-12 Table 4.6-6 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment.............................................. 4.6-14 Table 4.6-7 Cumulative Traffic Noise Increase............................................................................ 4.6-17 Table 4.7-1 City of Watsonville Population Growth...................................................................... 4.7-1 Table 4.7-2 2045 Population and Housing Forecast for Watsonville............................................ 4.7-4 Table 4.8-1 Summary of Existing Transit....................................................................................... 4.8-4 Table 4.8-2 VMT by DWSP Land Use........................................................................................... 4.8-15 Table 4.8-3 Cumulative VMT by DWSP Land Use........................................................................ 4.8-17 Table 5-1 Alternative 3 and DWSP Density Comparison............................................................... 5-8 Exhibit B
43 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
iv
Figures
Figure 1-1 Typical CEQA Process .................................................................................................. 1-15 Figure 2-1 Project Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-2 Plan Area Boundaries.................................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-3 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations................................................................ 2-5 Figure 2-4 Exisiting Zoning Districts................................................................................................ 2-6 Figure 2-5 Exisiting Plan Area Roadway Network........................................................................... 2-7 Figure 2-6 Proposed Zones and Overlays..................................................................................... 2-10 Figure 2-7 DWSP Roadway Network Improvements.................................................................... 2-14 Figure 2-8 DWSP Future Bicycle Network .................................................................................... 2-16 Figure 4.4-1 1892 Sanborn Map of City Plaza and Immediate Surroundings................................. 4.4-2 Figure 4.4-2 1935 Aerial Photograph of Downtown Watsonville................................................... 4.4-3 Appendices
Appendix A Initial Study, Notice of Preparation, and Notice of Preparation Comments Appendix B California Emissions Estimator Model Data
Appendix C Special-Status Species Potential Assessment
Appendix D Historic Resources Report
Appendix E Transportation Impact Analysis
Appendix F Native American Tribal Consultation Documentation Exhibit B
44 of 343

Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-1
Executive Summary
This document is an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzing the environmental effects of the proposed Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan Project (DWSP or proposed project). This section summarizes the characteristics of the DWSP, alternatives to the DWSP, and the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with implementation of the DWSP.

Project Synopsis
Project Applicant
City of Watsonville
250 Main Street
Watsonville, California 95076
Lead Agency Contact Person
Justin Meek, AICP, Principal Planner
City of Watsonville
250 Main Street
Watsonville, California 95076
(831) 768-3050
Project Description
This EIR has been prepared to examine the potential environmental effects of the DWSP. The following is a summary of the full project description, which can be found in EIR Section 2, Project Description.

Watsonville is located in the southern area of Santa Cruz County, approximately 14 miles southeast of the city of Santa Cruz, approximately 16 miles north of the city of Salinas, and approximately 22 miles northeast of the city of Monterey. The Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan Area (plan area) encompasses approximately 195.5 acres within Downtown Watsonville, located in the southeastern portion of the City. Downtown is centered on Main Street and extends west to the edge of existing neighborhoods and the industrial district, south to the community of Pajaro, and several blocks east to the existing neighborhoods. State Route (SR) 152 runs through the approximate center of the plan area and operates along portions of Main Street and as a one-way couplet along E Lake Avenue and E Beach Street. Riverside Drive on the south end of the plan area is a part of SR 129.

The plan area includes a mix of uses which include retail, commercial, civic, religious, industrial, and residential. City Hall and the Police Station, Civic Plaza with Council Chambers, Library and County Courthouse, U.S. Post Office, and Cabrillo College are the major civic and institutional anchors in the plan area. At the center of Downtown is Main Street, along which some historic and large mixed-use buildings are located with ground-floors consisting of local retail and services while the upper levels accommodate office and residential uses. Along Walker Street, single-story industrial buildings provide much of employment opportunities in the plan area. The existing roadway network in the Downtown area consists of a multitude of varying block lengths, several curvilinear streets, and Exhibit B
45 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
ES-2
some one-way streets. The Downtown roadway network accommodates local access through SR 152 and SR 129 while they also serve as conduits of regional travel which includes heavy truck use.

The General Plan land use designations in the plan area include Central Commercial, General Commercial, Industrial, Public/Quasi-Public, Residential High Density, and Residential Low Density.

According to the City of Watsonville Zoning Map, the plan area includes Central Commercial, Central Commercial Core Area, General Industrial, Institutional, Multiple Residential-High Density, Neighborhood Commercial, Office, Public Facilities, Single Family Residential-Low Density, and Thoroughfare Commercial zoning districts.

Project Characteristics
The overarching vision of the DWSP supported by the goals and policies of the plan, which demonstrate the intentions for the physical development, redevelopment, conservation, and growth of the Downtown. The vision of the DWSP is to facilitate housing production and preservation; increase retail entertainment activity; encourage higher-density mixed-use residential projects; add visitor-oriented uses; support a greater range of civic and cultural activities; improve the safety and comfort of pedestrians; enhance bicycle infrastructure and connections; and target uses and activities that appeal to a wide range of Watsonville’s residents and employees.

The DWSP would establish new zones, overlays, and development standards and guidelines to guide development and to achieve the physical outcomes envisioned for the plan area. Chapter 6 of the DWSP outlines proposed development standards and guidelines for the plan area; unless otherwise specified in the DWSP, the zoning outlined in Chapter 6 would replace existing zoning for all property within the plan area. The DWSP would establish four zoning districts and three zoning overlays within the plan area, which are summarized in Table ES-1, below.

Table ES-1 DWSP Zoning Characteristics
Zoning District or Overlay Brief Description
Downtown Core District Areas zoned as Downtown Core would be intended to be active, walkable environments, characterized by buildings of up to six stories. The Downtown Core would be the heart of the Downtown area, where the most active and intense development patterns and uses would be anticipated. Upper floors of development in the Downtown core could contain residential uses or office space, and buildings would be close to the sidewalk with little to no side setbacks.

Downtown Neighborhood District Downtown Neighborhood zones would be characterized by buildings smaller in scale than those in the Downtown Core zone and would generally include a similar mix of active and residential uses.

Downtown Industrial District Areas zoned as Downtown Industrial would allow existing industrial uses to continue to operate, while allowing for adaptive reuse of existing buildings and infill of mixed uses to occur over time. Pursuant to WMC Chapter 14-12, new industrial development would be subject to required findings of compatibility between adjacent uses related to traffic, noise, odors, visual nuisances, and other similar adverse effects.

Public Facilities District Development proposed for parcels zoned as Public Facilities would be subject to development and use standards established by WMC Section 14-16.800-803, which outlines permitted land uses and associated development requirements for Public Facilities zones.

Main Street Overlay The Main Street Overlay would be located in areas intended to have the most active ground floor uses. The Main Street Overlay would be contiguous so that the “main street” environment is concentrated, and not interrupted by areas containing less active environments.

Exhibit B
46 of 343

Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-3
Zoning District or Overlay Brief Description
Gateway Overlay The Gateway Overlay would extend some of the characteristics of the Main Street Overlay further down Main Street and onto select cross-streets, with some flexibility.

Neighborhood Transition Overlay Development within the Neighborhood Transition Overlay would provide a transition between the commercial and mixed-use areas of Downtown and surrounding predominantly residential areas next to Downtown. For example, within the Neighborhood Transition Overlay, buildings height and massing would be sized down in scale compared to the Downtown Core, to be consistent with and provide a transition into the adjoining residential neighborhoods, which typically have smaller structures.

The plan area is currently developed with primarily commercial buildings and established residential neighborhoods. Hence, future potential growth is likely to be directed to a limited number of vacant or under-utilized sites that could be redeveloped. As shown in Table ES-2, the Specific Plan envisions the maximum addition of approximately 231,151 square feet of commercial space, 376,827 square feet of industrial space, and 114,572 square feet of civic space to the plan area. In addition, the DWSP envisions the addition of up to 3,886 new residential units to the plan area over the next 25 years.

Table ES-2 Maximum Growth Projections for Specific Plan Area Land Use Residential (du) Commercial (sf) Industrial (sf) Civic (sf) Residential 3,886
Dining Establishment 150,248 7,537
Retail 57,788
Office/Research Development 23,115 94,207
Civic 114,572
Industrial 275,084
Total 3,886 231,151 376,827 114,572
Note: ‘du’ equal dwelling unit and ‘sf’ equals square feet, and values presented in table are approximate Source: City of Watsonville 2022
Downtown Transportation and Mobility
Chapter 4 of the DWSP contains the mobility and transportation vision and strategies for the plan area. The DWSP includes several roadway improvements to support multimodal travel, increase safety, and improve access to local amenities and businesses. The future improvements are designed to reduce potential conflict points between motorists, people who walk, and people who bike within the plan area. Key roadway improvements include:
 Reducing the number of travel lanes on Main Street from four to three with a center running left turn lane (or landscaped median) and one lane in each direction between Riverside Drive and Freedom Boulevards (aka “road diet”);
 Converting East Lake Avenue and East Beach Street, which currently operate as one-way couplets, into two-way streets;
 Squaring off the connection between Union Street and Alexander Street from East Lake Avenue to East Beach Street and vacating that portion of Union Street for private development; and Exhibit B
47 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
ES-4
 Installing a roundabout at Freedom Boulevard and Main Street.  Chapter 4 of the DWSP also contains a complete list of bicycle improvements within the plan area. Some examples of key bicycle improvements contained in the DWSP include: New signed bicycle route on Sudden Street between Freedom Boulevard and East Beach Street  New signed bicycle route on Brennan Street/Union Street between Freedom Boulevard and the Levee Trail
 Improved wider bicycle lanes, with an enhanced buffer between adjacent vehicular travel lanes and the bicycle lane, on Rodriguez Street between West Lake Avenue and West Beach Street  New bicycle lanes on Walker Street from West Riverside Drive to the Pajaro River  New shared-use path from West Front Street along Rodriquez Street to the Levee Trail  New signed bicycle route on Ford Street between Walker Street and Main Street  New signed bicycle route on West 5th Street between Walker Street and Rodriguez Street  New bicycle lanes on 5th Street between Rodriguez Street and Brennan Street Examples of pedestrian mobility standards provided in the DWSP include continuous sidewalks; design and maintenance of pedestrian facilities; complete streets; traffic calming measures; and tactile warning measures.

Relationship to Other Plans
The DWSP considers existing and adopted plans, policies, and regulations at the city, regional, state, and federal levels. The DWSP’s relationship to existing planning documents is summarized below in Table ES-3.

Table ES-3 DWSP Relationship to Other Plans
Planning Document Summary of Relationship
Watsonville 2005 General Plan The City of Watsonville’s 2005 General Plan, adopted in 1991, establishes land uses and policies for development in the City, including within the plan area. Pursuant to California General Plan law, specific plans must be internally consistent with the jurisdiction’s existing general plan. The City’s General Plan is being updated concurrently with the DWSP, and the General Plan shall be updated in instances where DWSP zoning is inconsistent with land uses established by the General Plan.

Watsonville General Plan Housing Element The City’s current Housing Element, prepared for the 5th planning cycle for the planning period of 2015 to 2023, is a required element of the City’s General Plan and includes citywide strategies to address housing.

The 6th cycle Housing Element, which would cover the planning period of 2023 to 2031, would plan for the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation of 2,053 housing units. Some or all these units could be built in Downtown Watsonville.

Watsonville Zoning Ordinance The land use and development standards established by the DWSP would supersede the land use and development standards established by the City’s Zoning Ordinance for properties within the Downtown area. Regulations not addressed in the DWSP, including but not limited to standards for specific land uses, would still be regulated by the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

Exhibit B
48 of 343

Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-5
Planning Document Summary of Relationship
Watsonville Complete Streets Plan The Complete Streets Plan, adopted in 2019, provides a vision of a multi-modal, revitalized Downtown area that is accessible by users of all modes of transportation, including pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders, and motorists. The recommendations in the Complete Streets Plan would be superseded by provisions of the DWSP.

Watsonville Urban Greening Plan The Urban Greening Plan, adopted in 2012, was developed to identify and facilitate the design of projects that address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or help residents adapt to challenges posed by climate change. Three of the Urban Greening Plan’s six elements, including the Citywide Street Tree Program, Landscape Guidelines and Policy, and Green Roof Design Report & Criteria, are referenced in the DWSP.

Watsonville Climate Change and Adaptation
Plan
The Watsonville Climate Action and Adaptation Plan was adopted in 2021 to reduce the community’s GHG emissions below certain targets.

As the transportation sector contributes the greatest amount of GHG emissions, the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan calls for implementing a range of strategies to reduce the number and length of vehicle trips, including facilitating smart growth, increasing multimodal transportation facilities, managing better available parking, and supporting passenger rail service. The DWSP would support these strategies through fostering high-density, infill development near transit, identifying pedestrian and bicycle enhancements, and revising parking and other development standards to reduce the transportation sector’s GHG contribution by reducing single-occupant vehicle driving and encouraging alternative modes of transportation.

Project Objectives
The DWSP establishes the following guiding principles and objectives for Downtown Watsonville:
 Preserve key elements that make Downtown unique
 Establish a varied choice of uses and experiences for our diverse community  Create diverse and inclusive housing opportunities
 Promote local economic prosperity
 Create a vibrant, safe, and active Downtown
 Foster a healthy, inclusive, and culturally connected community where all can thrive  Re-imagine and innovate mobility options and connections  Incorporate sustainable design elements to improve community health Alternatives
As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this EIR examines alternatives to the DWSP. Studied alternatives include the following three alternatives. Based on the alternatives analysis, Alternative 3 was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative.  Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
 Alternative 2: Repurposed Walker Street Industrial Uses Alternative  Alternative 3: Reduced Density Alternative
Exhibit B
49 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
ES-6
Alternative 1 (No Project Alternative) assumes that the proposed DWSP would not be adopted or implemented. Therefore, the City’s General Plan would not need to be amended to reflect the DWSP. Thus, any new development in the plan area would occur consistent with the existing land use designations and the allowed uses within each designation in the City’s General Plan.

Development under this alternative is anticipated to be less intensive and result in greater lowdensity development within the plan area compared with the DWSP, because the proposed DWSP envisions increased density compared to the General Plan. Specifically, under this alternative, the plan area would have approximately 64 housing units, approximately 1.6 million square feet of commercial space, and approximately 809,000 square feet of industrial space, all of which includes existing development already in the plan area. The transportation and mobility improvements envisioned in the DWSP would also not occur under this alternative.

Alternative 1, No Project Alternative, would result in either similar levels or reduced severity of the potentially significant and unavoidable impacts of the DWSP. For example, overall, Alternative 1 would reduce potentially significant impacts related to air quality and noise. Similar impacts would result to cultural resources and transportation. Alternative 1 would fulfill some objectives of the DWSP, but not all objectives. For example, Alternative 1 would not satisfy specific project objectives about the types and density of growth within the plan area. Because the DWSP would provide more density in the plan area compared with the General Plan, Alternative 1 could also fail to promote economic prosperity and a vibrant and active downtown when compared with the DWSP.

Additionally, because the General Plan does not envision the mobility improvements contained in the DWSP, Alternative 1 would also not meet the project objective to re-imagine and innovate mobility options in the plan area.

Alternative 2 (Repurposed Walker Street Industrial Uses Alternative) would phase out existing industrial uses on Walker Street within the plan area. Under Alternative 2, the Walker Street corridor would be changed into an active transit-oriented area. The transit-oriented area would include new housing in proximity to transit and new retail, galleries, breweries, coffee roasters, and coffee shops, as well some creative offices and makerspaces. The General Plan and zoning designations for this area would be Downtown Mixed Use and Downtown Neighborhood, respectively. These designations would allow for a mix of residential and retail uses, including within the same building. Under this alternative, other parts of the plan area would remain as envisioned in the proposed DWSP.

Alternative 2 would slightly reduce impacts only to air quality compared with the DWSP. Other impacts, such as cultural resources, noise, and transportation impacts would either be similar to, or increased severity compared with the DWSP. Alternative 2 could fulfill select objectives to a greater extent than the DWSP, such as establishing a varied choice of uses and experiences downtown and creating diverse and inclusive housing opportunities. However, Alternative 2 would fail to satisfy select objectives as well as the DWSP. For example, Alternative 2 could be less successful at promoting local economic prosperity, because it would remove much of the industrial development and employment from the plan area.

Alternative 3 (Reduced Density Alternative) would reduce the residential and non-residential development density facilitated by the proposed DWSP such that approximately 25 percent fewer new residential dwelling units and 25 percent less office, commercial, dining, and industrial development square footage would be created. Generally, this would be achieved by reducing the height of new residential buildings by a story and the overall size of other types of new buildings in the plan area compared with the heights or FAR proposed or envisioned in the DWSP.

Exhibit B
50 of 343

Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-7
Alternative 3 would reduce or slightly reduce impacts to air quality, cultural resources, and noise, compared to the DWSP. However, compared with the DWSP, Alternative 3 would result in a slightly more severe impact related to transportation. Alternative 3 be the most effective alternative to reduce the potentially significant impacts of the DWSP. For this reason, Alternative 3 is identified as the environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Alternative 3 would be feasible to implement; however, compared with the DWSP, Alternative 3 would fulfill several objectives to a lesser extent. For example, Alternative would not fulfill to the same or better level objectives related to creating inclusive housing opportunities, promoting local economic prosperity, or innovate mobility options and connections.

Refer to Section 5, Alternatives, for the complete alternatives analysis.

Areas of Known Controversy
The EIR scoping process did not identify any areas of known controversy for the proposed project.

Responses to the Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR and input received at the EIR scoping meeting held by the City are summarized in Section 1, Introduction.

Issues to be Resolved
Because the DWSP is a conceptual vision for the downtown area and not a formal site plan or construction application, no permits are needed for its adoption. However, the City of Watsonville City Council must formally certify the EIR and adopt the Specific Plan, and then implement the vision and changes identified in the Specific Plan. Implementation of the Specific Plan would also require an amendment to the City’s General Plan.

Issues Not Studied in Detail in the EIR
Table 1-2 in Section 1.4 summarizes issues from the environmental checklist that were addressed in the Initial Study (Appendix A). As indicated in the Initial Study, there is no substantial evidence that significant impacts would occur to the following issue areas: Agriculture/Forestry Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use/Planning, Minerals, Public Services, Recreation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. As indicated in the Initial Study, one or more impact was determined to be potentially significant in the following issue areas: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, Population and Housing, Transportation, and Tribal Cultural Resources. The potentially significant for these issue areas, as indicated in the Initial Study, are addressed and evaluated in this EIR.

Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table ES-4 summarizes the environmental impacts of the DWSP, proposed mitigation measures, and residual impacts (the impact after application of mitigation, if required). Impacts are categorized as follows:
 Significant and Unavoidable. An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project is approved per §15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Exhibit B
51 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
ES-8
 Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires findings under §15091 of the CEQA Guidelines.
 Less than Significant. An impact that may be adverse, but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily achievable.  No Impact: The proposed project would have no effect on environmental conditions or would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards.

Table ES-4 also summarizes potentially significant impacts that appear only in the Initial Study and include mitigation measures. Table 1-2 in Section 1.4 summarizes all issues from the environmental checklist that were addressed in the Initial Study, regardless of whether mitigation is required.

Table ES-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Aesthetics
Impact AES-1. Implementation of the
DWSP would have no substantial
adverse effects on scenic vistas. This
impact would be less than significant.

No mitigation is required. Less than
significant.

Impact AES-2. Implementation of the
DWSP would establish new zoning
and design standards that preserve
and improve scenic quality in the
plan. Impacts would be less than
significant.

No mitigation is required. Less than
significant.

Impact AES-3. Implementation of the
DWSP would create new sources of
light and glare, but new light and
glare would not be substantial.

Impacts would be less than
significant.

No mitigation is required. Less than
significant.

Air Quality
Impact AQ-1. The proposed project
would introduce additional housing
to the area and contribute to
population growth that conflicts with
the growth assumptions in the Air
Quality Management Plan. Impacts
would be significant and unavoidable.

AQ-1 Conduct Project Specific Air Quality Analysis. The City shall require future projects that are subject to
discretionary approval and that are not found to be
exempt from CEQA review to evaluate potential air quality impacts as part of project-level CEQA analysis and
implement respective mitigation measures to minimize
impacts that exceed MBARD project level thresholds.

Significant and
unavoidable.

Impact AQ-2. Construction and
operation of development envisioned
by the DWSP would result in the
temporary and long-term generation
of air pollutants, which would affect
local air quality and exceed MBARD
thresholds. Therefore, this impact is
significant and unavoidable.

Implementation of mitigation measure AQ-1 is required. Significant and unavoidable.

Exhibit B
52 of 343

Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-9
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Impact AQ-3. The development
envisioned in the DWSP would not
expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations.

Impacts would be less than significant
with implementation of mitigation
measures.

AQ-3(a) Construction Equipment. The project applicant
for individual developments or projects envisioned in the DWSP shall ensure the following requirements are
incorporated into applicable bid documents, purchase
orders, and contracts. Contractors shall confirm the ability to supply the compliant construction equipment prior to any ground-disturbing and construction activities:
 Mobile off-road construction equipment (wheeled or
tracked) greater than 50 hp used during construction
of the project shall meet the U.S. EPA Tier 4 final
standards. In the event of specialized equipment use
where Tier 4 equipment is not commercially available
at the time of construction, the equipment shall, at a
minimum, meet the Tier 3 standards. Zero-emissions
construction equipment may be incorporated in lieu of
Tier 4 final equipment. A copy of each equipment’s
certified tier specification or model year specification shall be available to the City upon request at the time of mobilization of each piece of equipment.
 Mobile off-road construction equipment less than 50
hp used during construction of the individual projects
shall be electric or other alternative fuel type. A copy of each unit’s certified tier specification or model year specification shall be available to the City upon
request at the time of mobilization of each applicable
unit of equipment.
 Electric hook-ups to the power gird shall be used
instead of temporary diesel- or gasoline-powered
generators, whenever feasible during construction of
development or projects envisioned in the DWSP. If
generators need to be used, the generators shall be
non-diesel generators.

AQ-3(b) Operational Health Risk Assessment. The City
shall require all applicants for development projects in the plan area that are within the buffer distances cited in the CARB’s Air quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community
Health Perspective April 2005, and incorporate any of the following features, to conduct an operational health risk assessment. The health risk assessment shall follow
MBARD and the Office of Environmental Health Hazards
Assessment guidelines. The health risk analysis shall
mitigate the risk in exceedance of regulatory thresholds to below the regulatory thresholds. The features that shall require an operational health risk analysis include:
 Incorporation of unpermitted sources (such as
industrial processes that emit TACs);
 Incorporation of diesel heavy duty-vehicles greater
than 100 trips per day; or
 Incorporation of more than 300 hours per week of
diesel transportation refrigeration unit operations.

Less than
significant.

Exhibit B
53 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
ES-10
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Impact AQ-4. The project has the
potential to create objectionable
odors that would affect neighboring
properties. Impacts related to odors
would be less than significant with
mitigation.

Implementation of mitigation measure AQ-1 is required. Less than significant.

Impact AQ-C1. The DWSP would have
a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant
cumulative impact related to
emissions of air pollution and
conflicts with an applicable air quality
management plan.

Implementation of mitigation measures AQ-1, AQ-3(a),
and AQ-3(b) are required.

Significant and
unavoidable.

Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1. Project activities could
disturb known special status species
or their associated habitat, including
migratory nesting birds. Impacts
would be less than significant with
implementation of mitigation.

BIO-1 Pre-Disturbance Santa Cruz Tarplant Survey and
Mitigation Planting. Prior to commencement of
construction activities on property with undeveloped
areas or unmaintained landscaping within the plan area, a focused survey for Santa Cruz tarplant shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in areas where a qualified biologist identifies suitable habitat. The survey shall be conducted during the species’ blooming period (May-November),
and findings of the survey shall be submitted to the City of Watsonville for review and approval.

If a population of Santa Cruz tarplant is found, mitigation for the loss of individuals shall be conducted. Mitigation shall be achieved by establishing a new population of
Santa Cruz tarplant in an area approved by the USFWS
and CDFW. This area shall not be developed and shall
contain suitable habitat types for establishing a new
population. Mitigation shall be a 1:1 ratio (impact
mitigation) of plant establishment on an acreage basis.

Monitoring of the new mitigation population shall occur annually. Annual monitoring shall include quantitative
sampling of the Santa Cruz tarplant population to
determine the number of plants that have germinated
and set seed. This monitoring shall continue annually or until success criteria have been met; once annual
monitoring has documented that a self-sustaining
population of this annual species has been successfully established on site, this mitigation measure shall be
determined to have been met and the project applicant
released from further responsibility.

Establishment of the plant population shall be subject to a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. To ensure the
success of mitigation sites required for compensation of permanent impacts on Santa Cruz tarplant, the project
applicant for specific development projects in the plan area for which this mitigation measure applies shall retain a qualified biologist to prepare a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. The Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan shall be submitted to the City of Watsonville for
review and approval prior to the start of construction. The Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall include, at a minimum, the following information:

Less than
significant.

Exhibit B
54 of 343

Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-11
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
 A summary of habitat and species impacts and the
proposed mitigation for each element
 A description of the location and boundaries of the
mitigation site(s) and description of existing site
conditions
 A description of any measures to be undertaken to
enhance (e.g., through focused management) the
mitigation site for special-status species
 Identification of an adequate funding mechanism for
long-term management
 A description of management and maintenance
measures intended to maintain and enhance habitat
for the target species (e.g., weed control, fencing
maintenance)
 A description of habitat and species monitoring
measures on the mitigation site, including specific,
objective performance criteria, monitoring methods,
data analysis, reporting requirements, monitoring
schedule, etc. Monitoring will document compliance
with each element requiring habitat compensation or
management. At a minimum, performance criteria will
include a minimum 1:1 mitigation ratio for the number
of plants in the impacted population (at least one
plant preserved for each plant impacted).
 A contingency plan for mitigation elements that do not meet performance or final success criteria within
described periods; the plan will include specific
triggers for remediation if performance criteria are not met and a description of the process by which
remediation of problems with the mitigation site (e.g., presence of noxious weeds) will occur
 A requirement that the project proponent will be
responsible for monitoring, as specified in the Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, for at least three (3)
years post-construction; during this period, annual
reporting will be provided to the City’s Supervising
Environmental Planner. At the request of CDFW or
USFWS, the annual reporting shall also be provided to
these agencies.

BIO-2 Nesting Bird Avoidance. To the extent feasible,
construction activities shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. The nesting season for most birds in Santa Cruz County extends from February 1 through August 31.

If it is not possible to schedule construction activities between September 1 and January 31, then
preconstruction surveys for nesting birds shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no nests will be disturbed during project implementation. These
surveys shall be conducted no more than seven days prior to the initiation of construction activities and shall be conducted prior to tree removal, tree trimming, or other vegetation clearing. During the survey, the biologist shall inspect all trees and other potential nesting habitats, Exhibit B
55 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
ES-12
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
including trees, shrubs, ruderal grasslands, and buildings in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas for nests.

If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the biologist shall
determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically 300 feet for
raptors and 100 feet for other species), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and CFGC shall be disturbed during project
implementation.

Impact BIO-3. The project would not
have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Impacts
would be less than significant.

No mitigation is required. Less than
significant.

Impact BIO-4. The project would not
have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands.

There would be no impact.

No mitigation is required. No impact.

Impact BIO-5. The project would not
substantially impede wildlife
movement areas or native wildlife
nursery sites. There would be no
impact.

No mitigation is required. No impact.

Impact BIO-6. Tree removal
associated with potential project
activities could result in damage or
destruction of protected trees.

However, compliance with the
Watsonville municipal code would
ensure that impacts would be less
than significant.

No mitigation is required. Less than
significant.

Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1. Development
envisioned in the DWSP could
adversely affect known and
previously unidentified historical
resources. Impacts to historical
resources would be significant and
unavoidable.

CUL-1(a) Historical Resources Evaluation. During the
planning phase for projects and development envisioned
in the DWSP, and prior to permit approval for said
projects and development, the City shall confirm the
presence of historical resources with the potential to be impacted by the particular project or development. If the property on which the project or development is
proposed is not currently designated but contains built environment features over 45 years of age, a historical resources evaluation shall be prepared by an architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the
Interior’s (SOI) Professional Qualification Standards (PQS) in architectural history or history (36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 61). The qualified architectural historian or historian shall conduct an intensive-level survey and perform the historical evaluation in accordance with the guidelines and best practices promulgated by the
Significant and
unavoidable.

Exhibit B
56 of 343

Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-13
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). Properties shall be evaluated within their historic context and
documented in a report meeting the California OHP
guidelines. All evaluated properties shall be documented on California Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms. The report with attached DPR forms shall be
submitted to the City for review and concurrence.

CUL-1(b) Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. If it is determined that a proposed project site located in the
DWSP plan area contains a historical resource, efforts
shall be made to avoid impacts as feasible. Any relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration of a resource shall be
implemented consistent with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatments of Historic
Properties (the Standards). Application of the Standards shall be overseen by a qualified architectural historian or historical architect meeting the SOI PQS in architectural history or history (36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 61). In conjunction with any development application that may impact a historical resource, a report identifying and specifying proposed construction activities and the
treatment of character-defining features shall be provided to the city for review and concurrence, in addition to the historical resources evaluation required by CUL-4.

CUL-1(c) Historical Resource Documentation. If historical resources are identified on a proposed project site located in the DWSP plan area and compliance with Mitigation
Measure CUL-1(b) and/or avoidance is not feasible, the
project applicant or developer shall provide a report
explaining why compliance with the Standards and/or
avoidance is not feasible for the City’s review and
approval. Site-specific mitigation measures shall be
established and undertaken, including, but not limited to, documentation of the historical resource in a Historic
American Buildings Survey (HABS) or HABS-like report. If a HABS or HABS-like report is proposed, it shall be
commissioned by the project applicant or their consultant to comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation (Federal Register Vol. 48, No. 190, pp. 44730-34) and shall
generally follow the Historic American Buildings Survey Level III requirements, including digital photographic
recordation, detailed historic narrative report, and
compilation of historical research. The documentation
shall be completed by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the SOI PQS in architectural history or history (36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 61) and submitted to the City prior to issuance of permits for the demolition or alteration of the historical resource.

Impact CUL-C1. The DWSP would
have a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant
cumulative impact on historic-era
cultural resources.

Implementation of mitigation measures CUL-1(a), CUL1(b), CUL-1(c), and mitigation measures identified for cultural resources in the Initial Study are required.

Mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study include CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3.

Significant and
unavoidable.

Exhibit B
57 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
ES-14
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Initial Study Impact for Cultural
Resources. Future development
facilitated by the DWSP would have
the potential to encounter subsurface
resources as excavation required for
construction could occur in
undisturbed soil. Damage or
destruction of archaeological
resources would be a potential
adverse change in the significance of
archaeological resources.

Accordingly, project impacts would
be potentially significant, and
mitigation is required.

CUL-1 Archaeological Resources Investigation. At the
time of application for discretionary land use permits that involve grading, trenching, or other ground disturbance in native soil with the potential for encountering unknown archaeological resources, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the
Interior standards in archaeology to complete a Phase 1 cultural resources assessment of the development site. A Phase 1 cultural resources assessment shall include an
archaeological pedestrian survey of the development site, if possible, and sufficient background archival research and field sampling to determine whether subsurface
prehistoric or historic remains may be present. Archival research shall include a current (no more than one-year old) records search from the Northwest Information
Center (NWIC) and a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search
conducted with the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC).

Identified prehistoric or historic archaeological remains shall be avoided and preserved in place where feasible.

Where preservation is not feasible, the significance of each resource shall be evaluated for significance and
eligibility for listing in the CRHR through a Phase 2
evaluation. A Phase 2 evaluation shall include any
necessary archival research to identify significant
historical associations as well as mapping of surface
artifacts, collection of functionally or temporally
diagnostic tools and debris, and excavation of a sample of the cultural deposit to characterize the nature of the sites, define the artifact and feature contents, determine
horizontal boundaries and depth below surface, and
retrieve representative samples of artifacts and other
remains.

Cultural materials collected from the sites shall be
processed and analyzed in the laboratory according to
standard archaeological procedures. The age of the
materials shall be determined using radiocarbon dating
and/or other appropriate procedures; lithic artifacts,
faunal remains, and other cultural materials shall be
identified and analyzed according to current professional standards. The significance of the sites shall be evaluated according to the criteria of the CRHR. The results of the investigations shall be presented in a technical report following the standards of the California Office of Historic Preservation publication “Archaeological Resource
Management Reports: Recommended Content and
Format (1990 or latest edition)”
(http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/armr.pdf).

Upon completion of the work, all artifacts, other cultural remains, records, photographs, and other documentation
shall be curated an appropriate curation facility. All
fieldwork, analysis, report production, and curation shall be fully funded by the applicant.

If the resources meet CRHR significance standards, the
City shall ensure that all feasible recommendations for mitigation of archaeological impacts are incorporated into Less than
significant.

Exhibit B
58 of 343

Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-15
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
the final design and permits issued for development. If necessary, Phase 3 data recovery excavation, conducted
to exhaust the data potential of significant archaeological sites, shall be carried out by a qualified archaeologist meeting the SOI standards for archaeology according to a research design reviewed and approved by the City
prepared in advance of fieldwork and using appropriate
archaeological field and laboratory methods consistent
with the California Office of Historic Preservation Planning Bulletin 5 (1991), Guidelines for Archaeological Research Design, or the latest edition thereof.

As applicable, the final Phase 1 Inventory, Phase 2 Testing and Evaluation, and/or Phase 3 Data Recovery reports
shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of
construction permit. Recommendations contained therein
shall be implemented throughout all ground disturbance
activities.

CUL-2 Archaeological Resources Construction
Monitoring. During construction of development
envisioned in the Specific Plan, construction activities involving ground disturbance such as grading or
excavation shall be monitored by a qualified
archaeologist. Archaeological monitoring shall be
performed under the direction of an archaeologist
meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualification Standards for archaeology (National Park
Service, 1983). Should the construction site be
determined to have little if any potential to yield
subsurface cultural resources deposits, the qualified
archaeologist may recommend that monitoring be
reduced or eliminated after consulting with the City and Native American representatives.

CUL-3 Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Cultural Resources. In the event that archaeological resources are unexpectedly encountered during ground-disturbing
activities, work within 50 feet of the find shall halt and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology
(National Park Service 1983) shall be contacted
immediately to evaluate the find. If the resource is
determined by the qualified archaeologist to be
prehistoric, then a Native American representative shall also be contacted to participate in the evaluation of the resource. If the qualified archaeologist and/or Native
American representative determines it to be appropriate, archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility shall be
completed. If the resource proves to be eligible for the CRHR and impacts to the resource cannot be avoided via
project redesign, a qualified archaeologist shall prepare a data recovery plan tailored to the physical nature and
characteristics of the resource, per the requirements of CCR Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C).

Exhibit B
59 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
ES-16
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Geology and Soils
Initial Study Impact for Geology and
Soils. Future development facilitated
by the DWSP would have the
potential to encounter subsurface
paleontological resources as
excavation required for construction
could occur in undisturbed soil.

Damage or destruction of
paleontological resources would be a
potentially significant impact, and
mitigation is required.

GEO-1 Unanticipated Discovery of Paleontological
Resources. In the event an unanticipated fossil discovery is made during project development, work in the
immediate vicinity of the find shall be stopped, and a
qualified professional paleontologist shall be retained to evaluate the discovery, determine its significance, and identify if mitigation or treatment is warranted. Significant paleontological resources found during construction
monitoring shall be prepared, identified, analyzed, and permanently curated in an approved regional museum
repository. Work around the discovery shall only resume once the find is properly documented and authorization is given to resume construction work.

Less than
significant.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1. Implementation of the
DWSP could accommodate
development on or near hazardous
materials sites pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5.

However, compliance with applicable
regulations and implementation of
mitigation measures would reduce
impacts to less than significant.

HAZ-1(a) Property Assessment – Phase I and II ESAs. Prior to the start of construction (demolition or grading) on a known hazardous site within the plan area, project
applicants shall retain a qualified environmental
professional (EP), as defined by ASTM E-1527, to complete one of the following.

If the project is not listed in DTSC (GeoTracker) or SWRCB (EnviroStor) resources or other database comprising
Government Code Section 65962.5, and requires more
than five feet of excavation, then the proponent shall
retain a qualified environmental consultant, California Professional Geologist (PG) or California Professional
Engineer (PE), to prepare a Phase I ESA. If the Phase I ESA identifies recognized environmental conditions or
potential concern areas, a Phase II ESA shall be prepared.

If the project site is currently listed, previously listed, or un-listed with a regulatory closure or no further action letter in DTSC (GeoTracker) or SWRCB (EnviroStor)
resources or other database comprising Government
Code Section 65962.5, then the project proponent shall
retain a qualified environmental consultant, California Professional Geologist (PG) or California Professional
Engineer (PE), to prepare a Phase II ESA to project
proponent shall test to confirm that there are no existing hazardous materials posing a risk to human health. The
Phase II ESA shall determine whether the soil,
groundwater, and/or soil vapor has been impacted at
concentrations exceeding regulatory screening levels for commercial/industrial land uses. All recommended
actions included in the Phase II ESA shall be followed. This may include the preparation of a Soil Management Plan
(SMP) for Impacted Soils (see below) prior to project
construction and/or completion of remediation at the
proposed project prior to onsite construction.

The completed ESAs shall be submitted to the lead agency for review and approval prior to issuance of building or grading permits.

Soil Management Plan Requirements: The SMP, or
equivalent document, shall be prepared to address onsite handling and management of impacted soils or other
Less than
significant.

Exhibit B
60 of 343