Watsonville City Council
October 10, 2023

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan

4.5-2
determine the degree of risk to human health or the ecosystem. For example, a high probability of exposure to a low toxicity chemical would not necessarily pose an unacceptable human health or ecological risk, whereas a low probability of exposure to a very high toxicity chemical could. Various regulatory agencies, such as USEPA, California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), State Water Resources Control Board, California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and federal and State Occupational Safety and Health Administrations (OSHA) are responsible for developing and/or enforcing risk-based standards to protect the public and the environment.

Existing Setting
Hazardous Materials
The DWSP plan area is currently developed with a range of residential, commercial, and industrial uses, including facilities that may use hazardous materials or generate hazardous wastes such as dry cleaners, gas stations, automotive repair/service facilities, machine shops, and industrial/construction supply businesses such as a farm equipment supplier and cold storage facility. Examples of hazardous materials that could be used or stored at these types of facilities or business include motor oil, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid, pesticides and herbicides, and perchloroethylene (dry cleaner substance).

Asbestos
Asbestos is a highly crumbly material often found in buildings constructed prior to 1979, typically used as insulation in walls or ceilings. It was formerly popular as an insulating material; however, it can pose a health risk when very small particles become airborne. Watsonville was incorporated in 1968, and some buildings in the plan date to at least 1979. Due to their age, buildings dating back to 1979 or earlier in the plan area could contain asbestos.

Pursuant to guidance issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, lead agencies are encouraged to analyze potential impacts related to naturally occurring asbestos. Naturally occurring asbestos can be released from serpentine and ultramafic rocks when the rock is broken or crushed. At the point of release, the asbestos fibers may become airborne, causing air quality and human health hazards. According to U.S. Geological Survey (2011), the project is not located in an area identified as having naturally occurring asbestos. However, there is potential for asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) to be present in downtown buildings.

Lead-Based Paint
Prior to the enactment of federal regulations limiting their use in the late 1970s, lead-based paint was sometimes used in residential construction. Lead is a highly toxic metal that was sometimes used in products found in and around homes and other places less relevant to the plan area, such as ships. Lead may cause a range of health effects, from behavioral problems and learning disabilities, to seizures and death. The primary source of lead exposure in residences is deteriorating lead-based paint. Lead dust can form when lead-based paint is dry scraped, dry sanded or heated. Dust also forms when painted surfaces bump or rub together. Lead-based paint that is in good condition is usually not a hazard. Due to the age of some buildings in the plan area, lead-based paint is considered present with the plan area.

Exhibit B
172 of 343

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-3
Hazardous Wastes
Hazardous waste is any hazardous material that is to be discarded, abandoned, or recycled. The criteria that define a material as hazardous also define a waste as hazardous. Specifically, materials and waste may be considered hazardous if they are poisonous (toxic); can be ignited by open flame (ignitable); corrode other materials (corrosive); or react violently, explode, or generate vapors when mixed with water (reactive). Soil or groundwater contaminated with hazardous materials above specified regulatory state or federal thresholds is considered hazardous waste if it is removed from a site for disposal. If handled, disposed, or otherwise handled improperly, hazardous materials and hazardous waste can result in public health hazards if released into the soil or groundwater or through airborne releases in vapors, fumes, or dust. Soil and groundwater having concentrations of hazardous constituents higher than specific regulatory levels must be handled and disposed of as hazardous waste when excavated or pumped from an aquifer. The California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Sections 66261.20‐24 contains technical descriptions of toxic characteristics that could cause soil or groundwater to be classified as hazardous waste.

4.5.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, adopted 1980, owners and operators of real estate where there is hazardous substance contamination may be held strictly liable for the costs of cleaning up contamination found on their property. No evidence linking the owner/operator with the placement of the hazardous substances on the property is required.

Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act, adopted 1972, governs the control of water pollution in the United States. This Act is implemented through the NPDES program, which requires that permits be obtained for point discharges of wastewater. This Act also requires that stormwater discharges be permitted, monitored, and controlled for various entities.

Lead-Based Paint Elimination Final Rule 24 Code of Federal Regulations Regulations for lead-based paint are contained in the Lead-Based Paint Elimination Final Rule 24 CFR 33, governed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which requires sellers and lessors to disclose known lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards to perspective purchasers and lessees. Additionally, all lead-based paint abatement activities must comply with California and Federal OSHAs and with the State of California Department of Health Services requirements. Only personnel trained and certified in lead-based paint abatement are allowed to perform abatement activities. All lead-based paint removed from structures must be hauled and disposed of by a transportation company licensed to move this type of material to a landfill or receiving facility licensed to accept the waste.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), adopted 1976, governs and regulates the disposal of solid and hazardous waste, and the management of underground storage tanks to protect human health and the environment from potential hazardous materials. Agricultural Exhibit B
173 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan

4.5-4
producers disposing of pesticide waste are exempt if they follow practice procedures in accordance with RCRA.

Toxic Substances Control Act
Toxic Substances Control Act, adopted 1976, provides the USEPA with authority to require reporting, testing, restrictions on chemical substances, and to regulate commercial chemicals when they pose an unreasonable health or environmental risk. b. State Regulations
Department of Toxic Substances Control
As a department of the CalEPA, DTSC is the primary agency in California that regulates hazardous waste, assumes authority for clean-up of the most serious existing contamination sites, and looks for ways to reduce the hazardous waste produced in California. DTSC regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the California Health and Safety Code.

DTSC also administers the California Hazardous Waste Control Law to regulate hazardous wastes.

While the Hazardous Waste Control Law is generally more stringent than the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, both State and Federal laws apply in California. The Hazardous Waste Control Law lists 791 chemicals and approximately 300 common materials that may be hazardous; establishes criteria for identifying, packaging, and labeling hazardous wastes; prescribes management controls; establishes permit requirements for treatment, storage, disposal, and transportation; and identifies some wastes that cannot be disposed of in landfills.

Government Code Section 65962.5 requires DTSC, the State Department of Health Services, the SWRCB, and the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to compile and annually update lists of hazardous waste sites and land designated as hazardous waste sites throughout the State. The Secretary for Environmental Protection consolidates the information submitted by these agencies and distributes it to each city and county where sites on the lists are located. Before the lead agency accepts an application for any development project as complete, the applicant must consult these lists to determine if the site at issue is included.

If soil is excavated from a site containing hazardous materials, it is considered a hazardous waste if it exceeds specific criteria in Title 22 of the CCR. Remediation of hazardous wastes found at a site may be required if excavation of these materials is performed, or if certain other soil disturbing activities would occur. Even if soil or groundwater at a contaminated site does not have the characteristics required to be defined as hazardous waste, remediation of the site may be required by regulatory agencies subject to jurisdictional authority, such as the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) or the County of Santa Cruz Environmental Health Division. Cleanup requirements are determined on a case-by-case basis by the agency taking jurisdiction.

The Hazardous Waste Control Act
The hazardous waste management program enforced by DTSC was created by the Hazardous Waste Control Act (California Health and Safety Code Section 25100 et seq.), which is implemented by regulations described in CCR Title 26. The State program is like the Federal program under RCRA, but more stringent. This regulation lists materials that may be hazardous and establishes criteria for their identification, packaging, and disposal. Environmental health standards for management of Exhibit B
174 of 343

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-5
hazardous waste are contained in CCR Title 22, Division 4.5. As required by California Government Code Section 65962.5, DTSC maintains a Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List for the state called the Cortese List.

Unified Program
CalEPA as established a unified hazardous waste and hazardous materials management regulatory program (Unified Program), as required by Senate Bill 1082 (1993). The Unified Program consolidates, coordinates, and makes consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities for the following environmental programs under CalEPA, the SWRCB and the RWQCB in each region of the State, State Office of Emergency Services, and the State Fire Marshal:
 Underground Storage Tank program;
 Hazardous materials release response plans and inventories;  California Accidental Release Prevention Program;
 Above ground Petroleum Storage Act requirements for spill prevention, control, and countermeasure plans; and
 California Uniform Fire Code hazardous material management plans and inventories.

Regional Water Quality Control Board
The Central Coast RWQCB is authorized by the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 to protect the waters of the State. The RWQCB provides oversight for sites where the quality of groundwater or surface waters is threatened. Extraction and disposal of contaminated groundwater due to investigation/remediation activities or due to dewatering during construction would require a permit from the RWQCB if the water were discharged to storm drains, surface water, or land.

California Department of Pesticide Regulations, Department of Food and Agriculture, and the Department of Public Health
The California Department of Pesticide Regulations (DPR), a division of CalEPA, in coordination with the California Department of Food and Agriculture, a division of Measurement Standards, and the California Department of Public Health have the primary responsibility to regulate pesticide use, vector control, food, and drinking water safety. CCR Title 3 requires the coordinated response between the County Agricultural Commissioner and County of Santa Cruz Environmental Health Division to address the use of pesticides used in vector control for animal and human health on a local level. DPR registers pesticides, and the County tracks pesticide use. Title 22 is used also to regulate small, district systems and larger, statewide water systems.

California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of OSHA The California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA), assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace safety regulations within the State. Cal/OSHA standards are more stringent than Federal OSHA regulations and are presented in CCR Title 8. Standards for workers dealing with hazardous materials include practices for all industries (General Industry Safety Orders); specific practices are described for construction, hazardous waste operations, and emergency response. Cal/OSHA conducts on site evaluations and issues notices of violation to enforce necessary improvements to health and safety practices.

Exhibit B
175 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan

4.5-6
California Air Toxic “Hot Spots” (AB 2588) Program
The Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act (AB 2588, Connelly, 1987: chaptered in the California Health and Safety Code Section 44300, et. al.) established a formal regulatory program for site-specific air toxics emissions inventory and health risk quantification that is managed by California air districts. Under this program, a wide variety of industrial, commercial, and public facilities are required to report the types and quantities of toxic substances their facilities routinely release into the air. The goals of the Air Toxics Hot Spots program are to collect emissions data, to identify facilities with potential for localized health impacts, to ascertain health risks, to notify nearby residents of risks that are determined to warrant such notification, and to reduce significant risks.
c. Local Regulations
City of Watsonville 2005 General Plan
The Public Safety Element of the Watsonville 2005 General Plan sets goals and policies to minimize risks to human lives and property from hazards and hazardous materials. Relevant policies direct the City to protect neighboring residential development from exposure to hazardous industrial materials and to enforce ordinances and regulations for the use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials. Other policies are intended to enforce fire prevention standards and minimize fire hazards. Applicable goals, policies and implementation measures from the General Plan include:

Public Facilities and Services Element
− Implementation Measure 11.G.2, Hazardous Wastes: The City shall regulate the disposal of hazardous wastes at the current landfill site, and comply with state, federal, and local regulations for the disposal of commercial and household hazardous wastes. − Implementation Measure 11.J.1, Project Review: The City shall continue to use Police and Fire Department project review to ensure that new development projects allow for built-in fire and police alarms and other public safety features, and to allow for review of potential traffic impacts on response time.

Public Safety Element
 Goal 12.1 Land Use Safety: Plan for and regulate the uses of land in order to provide a pattern of urban development which will minimize exposure to hazards from either natural or humanrelated causes.  Goal 12.4 Fire Safety/Protection: Ensure that all existing structures in the City are maintained at adequate levels of fire suppression standards, that new structures conform to current fire safety standards, and that coordination is maintained between urban and rural fire districts for the prevention and suppression of structural and wildland fires.  Goal 12.5 Hazardous Materials: Reduce the potential danger related to the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials to an acceptable level of risk for city residents.

Exhibit B
176 of 343

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-7

4.5.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
The DWSP is a planning document to guide development; it does not propose specific development projects. Therefore, the following discussions provide program-level review of the potential aesthetic impacts that could result from implementation of the DWSP.

In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would result in potentially significant environmental effects related to hazards and hazardous materials if it would:

Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment;
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25-mile of an existing or proposed school; Be located on a site which is included in a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create significant hazard to the public or the environment;
For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area; Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or
Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

As described in the Initial Study (Appendix A), implementation of the DWSP would have less than significant impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Similarly, as discussed in the Initial Study, impacts related to emissions of hazardous materials near schools would be less than significant. Therefore, impacts of the DWSP related to significance Thresholds 1 and 3 would be less than significant, and these thresholds are not discussed further in this section. Significant threshold 6, pertaining to impairment of interference of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, was also determined to be a less than significant impact in the Initial Study. Therefore, Threshold 6 is not discussed further in this section.

As describe in the Initial Study, portions of the plan area are within two miles of the Watsonville Municipal Airport, but the plan area is not included within an airport safety zone or airport noise contours. Therefore, the DWSP would have no impacts related to significance threshold 5, and Threshold 5 is not discussed further in this section. Threshold 7 is not discussed further in this section, because as described in the Initial Study, the proposed project is downtown and would have no wildfire hazard impact.

Thresholds 2 and 4 are discussed below.

Exhibit B
177 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan

4.5-8
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 2: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Threshold 4: Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 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.

As described above in Section 4.5.1, Setting, the plan area contains multiple sites included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The DWSP would not directly result in project development, because it is a policy and planning document.

However, some construction envisioned in the DWSP, especially excavation for new building foundations and buried utility connections, could disturb contaminated soils and groundwater, potentially exposing construction works to hazardous materials. Additionally, construction activities could cause soils to become airborne dust, which could blow off-site and expose people in the vicinity. Impacts would be potentially significant and require implementation of mitigation.

The DWSP envisions new development and redevelopment throughout the plan area. Demolition of existing uses on identified sites that could be necessary to facilitate future development could require site assessment and remediation. If buildings and structures were constructed prior to the 1970s, lead and asbestos could be present and released into the environment during demolition activities. The California Department of Public Health and Cal/OSHA regulate lead and asbestos abatement necessary for construction and redevelopment projects. CCR Section 1532.1 requires testing, monitoring, containment, and disposal of lead‐based materials such that exposure levels do not exceed Cal/OSHA standards. Under this rule, construction workers may not be exposed to lead at concentrations greater than 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air averaged over eight hours exposure must be reduced to lower concentrations if the workday exceeds eight hours. Similarly, CCR Section 1529 sets requirements for asbestos exposure assessments and monitoring, methods of complying with requirements related to exposure, personal protective equipment, communication of hazards, and medical examination of workers.

The control of asbestos during demolition or renovation of buildings is also regulated under the federal Clean Air Act. The federal Clean Air Act requires a thorough inspection for asbestos where demolition will occur and specifies work practices to control emissions, such as removing all asbestos‐containing materials, adequately wetting all regulated asbestos‐containing materials, sealing the material in leak tight containers, and disposing of the asbestos‐containing waste material as expediently as practicable (USEPA 2022). Compliance with the mandatory requirements of CCR and the federal Clean Air Act would reduce the potential hazards and risks associated with release of asbestos.

Demolition of existing structures require to facilitate construction of the development envisioned in the DWSP could also create and release dust of lead-based paint. Similar to asbestos containing materials, construction workers or other people in proximity to demolition activities could be Exhibit B
178 of 343

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-9
exposed to lead from dust. Dust could also become mobilized in stormwater runoff during construction and discharge to surface waters, resulting in lead contamination. While there are existing regulations pertaining to the proper and safe remediation of lead-based paint, it is possible that construction could occur without prior knowledge of the potential presence of lead-based paint at the project site within the plan area. This would also be a potential risk for asbestos-containing materials. Impacts would be potentially significant and require mitigation to be implemented.

Future development under the DWSP would be required to comply with State and local laws regarding ACMs and/or lead-based paint (LBP) sampling prior to the demolition of onsite building(s) and provide documentation to the City prior to the commencement of demolition activities. Future development would be required to comply with the National Emission Standards for Air Pollution guidelines prior to demolition or renovation activities that may disturb ACMs. All demolition activities would be in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards contained in Title 8, CCR, Section 1529, to protect workers from asbestos exposure. These conditions include, but are not limited to:
 Prior to commencement of demolition activities, a building survey, including sampling and testing, would be completed to identify and quantify building materials containing lead-based paint.
 During demolition activities, all building materials containing lead-based paint would be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, CCR, Section 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring and dust control.  Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings would be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the type of waste being disposed.

Furthermore, a registered asbestos abatement contractor would be retained to remove and dispose of ACMs identified in the asbestos survey performed for the site in accordance with the standards stated above in this mitigation measure.

It is also possible that underground storage tanks (USTs) in use prior to permitting and record keeping requirements may be present in the plan area. If an unidentified UST were uncovered or disturbed during construction activities, it would be removed; if such removal would potentially undermine the structural stability of existing structures, foundations, or impact existing utilities, the tank could be closed in place without removal. Tank removal activities could pose both health and safety risks, such as the exposure of workers, tank handling personnel, and the public to tank contents or vapors. Potential risks posed by USTs would be minimized by managing the tank according to existing standards contained in Division 20, Chapters 6.7 and 6.75 (Underground Storage Tank Program) of the California Health and Safety Code as enforced and monitored by the County of Santa Cruz Environmental Health Division.

The extent to which groundwater may be affected by an underground tank, if at all, depends on the type of contaminant, the amount released, the duration of the release, and depth to groundwater.

If groundwater contamination is present during construction, and construction reaches groundwater, there would be potential for construction workers to be exposed to contaminants.

Additionally, if dewatering excavations is required, improper discharge of the groundwater could release contamination into surface waters. This would be a potentially significant impact, and implementation of mitigation would be required.

Exhibit B
179 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan

4.5-10
Mitigation Measures
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 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).

Exhibit B
180 of 343

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-11
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 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 re-used 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.

Significance After Mitigation
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1(a) requires that any development that requires more than five feet of excavation would require a Phase I ESA, and a Phase II ESA if environmental concerns are discovered through the Phase I ESA. Additionally, this measure ensures that any potential development site location listed on DTSC, SWRCB or other database comprising Government Code Section 65962.5 conducts a Phase II ESA for soil sampling and environmental professional recommendations for remediation, as needed. Mitigation Measures HAZ-1(b) would reduce impacts related to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1(a) and HAZ-1(b) would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Exhibit B
181 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan

4.5-12
c. Cumulative Impacts
Impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials are generally site-specific. However, because hazardous sites could extend from a property or roadway in the plan area onto adjoining areas, the cumulative impact analysis area for hazards and hazardous materials consists of the plan area and properties adjoining the plan area boundary.

Development of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the vicinity of the site could cumulatively increase the potential for exposure of people to contamination from asbestos, lead-based paint, and other hazardous materials. This exposure could occur as a result of ground disturbance during construction or from demolition of buildings, or from accidental release or spills.

However, there are existing federal, state, and local regulations and oversight in place that would effectively reduce the inherent hazard associated with the release of hazardous materials.

Regulations and oversight, as outlined above in Section 4.5.2, Regulatory Setting, would also effectively reduce the potential for cumulative projects to create a hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions. Therefore, reasonably foreseeable future development would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts associated with the routine use and handling of hazardous materials, as well as from upset and accident conditions.

The reasonably foreseeable future projects listed in Table 3-1 are not on property or parcels listed in environmental databases pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Accordingly, the development of the reasonably foreseeable future projects would not create a substantial hazard to the public or the environment associated with Government Code Section 65962.5 hazardous sites.

The DWSP would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to hazardous materials or sites.

Furthermore, development of listed sites would be required to undergo remediation and comply with Mitigation Measures HAZ-1(a) and HAZ-1(b), above. With implementation of mitigation and mandatory compliance with regulations, the DWSP would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution associated with development on sites included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

Exhibit B
182 of 343

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-1

4.6 Noise
This section describes the existing or ambient noise sources and levels in the area and regulations and policies pertaining to noise. This section also evaluates the potential impacts of the DWSP to local noise conditions.

4.6.1 Setting
Fundamentals of Sound, Environmental Noise, and Sound Measurement Noise is defined as unwanted sound that disturbs human activity. Noise levels (or volumes) are generally measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The Aweighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels to be consistent with that of human hearing response, which is most sensitive to frequencies around 4,000 Hertz (about the highest note on a piano) and less sensitive to low frequencies (below 100 Hertz) (Caltrans 2013).

Sound pressure level is measured on a logarithmic scale with the 0 dBA level based on the lowest detectable sound pressure level that people can perceive (an audible sound that is not zero sound pressure level). Based on the logarithmic scale, a doubling of sound energy is equivalent to an increase of 3 dBA, and a sound that is 10 dBA less than the ambient sound level has no effect on ambient noise. Because of the nature of the human ear, a sound must be about 10 dBA greater than the ambient noise level to be judged as twice as loud. In general, a 3 dBA change in the ambient noise level is noticeable, while 1-2 dBA changes generally are not perceived. Quiet suburban areas typically have noise levels in the range of 40-50 dBA, while areas adjacent to arterial streets are typically in the 50-60 dBA range. Normal conversational levels are usually in the 60-65 dBA range, and ambient noise levels greater than 65 dBA can interrupt conversations (Caltrans, 2013).

According to Caltrans, a change of 5 dBA in noise levels is readily perceptible (8 times the sound energy); and an increase (or decrease) of 10 dBA sounds twice (half) as loud (10.5 times the sound energy) (Caltrans, 2013).

Noise levels typically attenuate, or drop off, at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance from point sources of noise, such as industrial machinery. Noise from lightly traveled roads typically attenuates at a rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise from heavily traveled roads typically attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures and other obstructions; generally, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA (Federal Transit Administration [FTA], 2006). The manner in which homes in California are constructed generally provides a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of about 25 dBA with closed windows (FTA, 2006).

In addition to the instantaneous measurement of sound levels, the duration of sound is important since sounds that occur over a long period of time are more likely to be an annoyance or cause direct physical damage or environmental stress. One of the most frequently used noise metrics that considers both duration and sound power level is the equivalent noise level (Leq). The Leq is defined as the single steady A-weighted level that is equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over a period of time. Leq is essentially the average noise level. Typically, Leq is summed over a one-hour period. Lmax is the highest root mean squared sound pressure level within the measuring period, and Lmin is the lowest root mean squared sound pressure level within the measuring period.

Exhibit B
183 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan

4.6-2
The time period in which noise occurs is also important since noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that which occurs during the day. Community noise is usually measured using Day-Night Average Level (Ldn), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a 10-dBA penalty for noise occurring during nighttime (10 PM to 7 AM) hours, or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a 5 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 7 PM to 10 PM and a 10 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 10 PM to 7 AM. Noise levels described by Ldn and CNEL typically do not differ by more than 1 dBA. In practice, CNEL and Ldn are often used interchangeably.

The relationship between peak hourly Leq values and associated Ldn values depends on the distribution of traffic over the entire day. There is no precise way to convert a peak hourly Leq to Ldn.

However, in urban areas near heavy traffic, the peak hourly Leq is typically 2-4 dBA lower than the daily Ldn or CNEL. In less heavily developed areas, such as suburban areas, the peak hourly Leq is often roughly equal to the daily Ldn or CNEL. For rural areas with little nighttime traffic, the peak hourly Leq will often be 3-4 dBA greater than the daily Ldn or CNEL value (Caltrans 2013).

Fundamentals of Groundborne Vibration
Vibration may be felt, may manifest as an audible low-frequency rumbling noise (referred to as groundborne noise), and may cause windows, items on shelves, and pictures on walls to rattle.

Although groundborne vibration is sometimes noticeable in outdoor environments, it is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors. The primary concern from vibration is that it can be intrusive and annoying to building occupants at vibration-sensitive land uses and may cause structural damage.

Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by manmade activities attenuates rapidly as distance from the source of the vibration increases. Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed in peak particle velocity (PPV). The PPV is normally described in inches per second (in/sec). PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal. PPV is often used as it corresponds to the stresses that are experienced by buildings (Caltrans, 2020).

High levels of groundborne vibration may cause damage to nearby building or structures; at lower levels, groundborne vibration may cause minor cosmetic (i.e., non-structural damage) such as cracks. These vibration levels are nearly exclusively associated with high impact activities such as blasting, pile-driving, vibratory compaction, demolition, drilling, or excavation. The FTA has determined vibration levels with potential to damage nearby buildings and structures; these levels are identified in Table 4.6-1.

Table 4.6-1 Criteria for Vibration Damage Potential
Building Category PPV (in/sec)
I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3
III. Nonengineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2
IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 in/sec = inches per second; PPV = peak particle velocity Source: FTA 2018
Exhibit B
184 of 343

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-3
Sensitive Receptors
Typically, noise sensitive land uses include single family residential, multiple family residential, churches, hospitals and similar health care institutions, convalescent homes, libraries, and school classroom areas. The predominant noise sensitive land uses in the DWSP plan area are residential uses.

Several noise-sensitive receptors are located adjacent to and within the plan area. Noise-sensitive receptors not within but closest to the plan area include single and multi-family residential uses adjacent to the northern boundary of the plan area, single family residential uses adjacent to the eastern boundary of the plan area, Watsonville High School located approximately 610 feet from the eastern boundary of the plan area, multi-family residential uses adjacent to the southern boundary of the plan area, and single and multi-family residential uses adjacent to the northwestern boundary of the project site.

Existing Noise Conditions and Sources
The 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 Pajaro, 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 area is a part of SR 129. The predominant noise sources contributing to ambient noise levels are transportation-related noise sources including vehicle traffic along highways, roadways and railroad.

Vehicle traffic along Main Street and Riverside Drive are primary contributors to ambient noise levels in the plan area. Major arterial roadways include Main Street, Riverside Drive, East Beach Street, and Walker Street. Table 4.6-2 summarizes ambient noise at various distances from the centerline of Main Street, East Beach Street, East Riverside Drive, and Walker Street (City of Watsonville, 2020). The ambient noise levels from these roadways were estimated using the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Day/Night Noise Level Calculator (HUD DNL Calculator) and are expressed as 24-hour average weighted noise levels (DNL). As shown in Table 4.6-2, noise levels that are conditionally acceptable for residential uses (70 CNEL) are achieved at approximately 64 feet from the centerlines of Main Street, approximately 40 feet from the centerline of East Beach Street, approximately 80 feet from the centerline of East Riverside Drive, and approximately 142 feet from the centerline of Walker Street (City of Watsonville, 2020).

Table 4.6-2 Roadway Ambient Noise Level Conditions
DNL (dB)
Distance from Roadway Centerline
Main Street East Beach Street East Riverside Drive Walker Street 60 315 feet 197 feet 385 feet 692 feet
65 140 feet 88 feet 170 feet 345 feet
70 64 feet 40 feet 80 feet 142 feet
75 30 feet 19 feet 39 feet 66 feet
80* 14 feet N/A 18 feet 31 feet
Source: Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan Existing Conditions Report * 80 DNL is within existing travel lanes of Main Street and East Riverside Street. Traffic noise does not reach 80 DNL on East Beach Street.

Exhibit B
185 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan

4.6-4
Existing railroad tracks coincide with a segment of the southwestern boundary of the plan area, adjacent to Walker Street. Rail operations in Watsonville are limited, and therefore have little impact on the daily level of noise in the plan area. Although sound levels generated by train travel have been measured at 86 dBA at 50 feet, and whistle blasts may be as high at 98 dBA, these sound levels are of very short duration and occur infrequently (City of Watsonville, 2012). Existing daily frequency of freight operations does not regularly generate sound levels that exceed desirable standards (i.e., 60 dBA) (City of Watsonville, 2012).

4.6.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
There are no federal noise requirements or regulations that apply directly to the DWSP. However, there are federal regulations that influence the audible landscape, especially for projects where federal funding is involved. For example, the Federal Highway Administration requires abatement of highway traffic noise for highway projects through rules in the Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR Part 772). Each agency recommends thorough noise and vibration assessments through comprehensive guidelines for highway, mass transit, or high-speed railroad projects that would pass by residential areas.
b. State Regulations
California regulates freeway noise, sets standards for sound transmission, provides occupational noise control criteria, identifies noise standards, and provides guidance for local land use compatibility. California law requires each county and city to adopt a General Plan that includes a Noise Element prepared based on guidelines adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. The purpose of the Noise Element is to limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels. CEQA requires known environmental effects of a project be analyzed, including environmental noise impacts.

California Building Code
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2 and the California Building Code codify the State noise insulation standards. These noise standards apply to new construction in California to control interior noise levels as they are affected by exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise-sensitive structures, such as residential buildings, schools, or hospitals, are developed near major transportation noise sources, and where such sources create an exterior noise level of 60 dBA CNEL or higher. Acoustical studies that accompany building plans for noise-sensitive land uses must demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to an acceptable level of 45 dBA CNEL.

California Green Building Code
California Green Building Standards Code 2019 (CalGreen) Section 5.507.4, Acoustical Control, regulates construction within the 65 dBA Ldn contour of an airport, freeway, expressway, railroad, industrial noise source, or other fixed source. According to Section 5.507.4.1.1 “buildings exposed to a noise level of 65 dB Leq(1-hr) during any hour of operation shall employ sound-resistant assemblies as determined by a prescriptive method (CalGreen Section 5.507.4.1) or performance method (CalGreen Section 5.507.4.2).

Exhibit B
186 of 343

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-5
 Projects may demonstrate compliance through the prescriptive method if wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source shall meet a composite Sound Transmission Class rating of at least 50 or a composite Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class rating of no less than 40, with exterior windows of a minimum Sound Transmission Class of 40 or Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class of 30.
 Projects may demonstrate compliance through the performance method if wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source shall be constructed to provide an interior noise environment that does not exceed 50 dB Leq-1-hour in occupied areas during hours of operations.

California General Plan Guidelines
The California General Plan Guidelines, published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, indicate acceptable, specific land use types in areas with specific noise exposure. The guidelines also offer adjustment factors that may be used to arrive at noise acceptability standards that reflect the noise control goals of the community, the particular community’s sensitivity to noise, and the community’s assessment of the relative importance of noise pollution. These guidelines are advisory, and local jurisdictions have the responsibility to set specific noise standards based on local conditions. See the discussion below, under Section c., Local Regulations, for the compatibility guidelines adopted by the City of Watsonville. c. Local Regulations
City of Watsonville 2005 General Plan
The Watsonville 2005 General Plan (City of Watsonville 2005) provides standards for exterior and interior ambient noise levels. The General Plan’s Public Safety Element provides comprehensive noise goals and objectives, as well as policies and standards for acceptable noise levels. The maximum exterior sound level acceptable in residential and noise-sensitive land uses is 60 dBA and the maximum allowable interior noise level is 45 dBA as stated in the 2005 General Plan. The noise section establishes land use compatibility guidelines for community noise environments, as shown in Table 4.6-3. The guidelines rank noise levels for various land use types as normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable based on CNEL levels.

Exhibit B
187 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan

4.6-6
Table 4.6-3 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Land Use Category
Community Noise Exposure (CNEL)
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
Residential – Single Family, Duplex,
Mobile Homes
50-60 55-70 70-75 75-85
Residential – Multi-family 50-65 60-70 70-75 70-85
Transient Lodging – Motel, Hotel 50-65 60-70 70-80 80-85 Schools, Libraries, Churches,
Hospitals, Nursing Homes
50-70 60-70 70-80 80-85
Auditoriums, Concert Halls,
Amphitheaters
N/A 50-70 N/A 65-85
Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator
Sports
N/A 50-75 N/A 70-85
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50-70 N/A 67.5-75 72.5-85 Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water
Recreation, Cemeteries
50-70 N/A 70-80 80-85
Office Buildings, Business Commercial,
and Professional
50-70 67.5-77.5 75-85 N/A
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities,
Agriculture
50-75 70-80 75-85 N/A
Notes: Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features have been included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice.

Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise-insulation features must be included in the design.

Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.

Source: City of Watsonville 2005.

City of Watsonville Municipal Code
To implement the City’s noise policies, the City adopted Title 5 Chapter 8 “Noise” of the Watsonville Municipal Code (WMC). WMC Chapter 5-8 prohibits specific types of noises, such as continuous or unusually loud noise which disturbs residential property or public ways within the City. WMC Section 5-8.02 prohibits noise that is louder than necessary and disturbs the quiet of residential properties and public ways between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM in such a manner as to be plainly audible at a distance of 50 feet from the sensitive receptor.

4.6.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
Significance Thresholds
The analysis of noise impacts considers the effects of both temporary construction-related noise and long-term noise associated with operation of the development envisioned in the DWSP. Impacts Exhibit B
188 of 343

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-7
would be significant if they would exceed the following thresholds of significance, based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines:
1) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; 2) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels;
3) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

The Initial Study (Appendix A) found that the DWSP would have no impacts related to excessive noise within airports or airport zones. Therefore, Threshold 3 is not analyzed further in this section.

Construction Noise
This section estimates construction noise from development envisioned in the DWSP based on reference noise levels for various pieces of construction equipment reported by the FTA’s Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Construction equipment may operate as close as 10 feet from nearby noise-sensitive receptors; however, over the course of a normal construction day, the equipment would typically move back and forth across a construction site and average a further distance from noise-sensitive receptors. For analysis purposes, a distance of 25 feet was used to demonstrate typical construction noise levels. Construction noise estimates do not account for the presence of intervening structures or topography, which could reduce noise levels at receptor locations. This is especially relevant in the plan area which is largely developed with buildings.

As the City does not define a quantitative construction noise threshold, for purposes of analyzing impacts from development facilitated by the project, the FTA construction criteria are applicable to construction noise generated by development facilitated under the project. The FTA provides reasonable criteria for assessing construction noise impacts based on the potential for adverse community reaction in their Transit and Noise Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA, 2018). For residential uses, the daytime noise threshold for an 8-hour period is 80 dBA Leq. Construction noise would have a significant impact if it exceeds this threshold.

Operational Stationary Source Noise
The City of Watsonville has adopted exterior and interior noise standards for residential land uses that state that residential and noise-sensitive land uses cannot be exposed to outdoor ambient noise levels exceeding 60 dBA. Interior ambient noise levels for residential land uses cannot exceed 45 dBA CNEL. The project would have a significant impact if it would expose existing sensitive receptors to noise levels in excess of these standards.

Operational Traffic Noise
For traffic-related noise, impacts would be significant if the project would result in exposure of sensitive receptors to an unacceptable increase in noise levels. As described under Section 4.6.1, Setting, above, a doubling of sound power (increase of 3 dBA) is considered ‘barely perceptible’ to the human ear, while an increase of 5 dBA is considered ‘readily perceptible.’ For purposes of this analysis, a significant impact would occur if project-related traffic increases the ambient noise Exhibit B
189 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan

4.6-8
environment of noise-sensitive locations by the stricter limit of 3 dBA CNEL or more (barely perceptible), since the existing noise levels surrounding the plan area occur near sensitive receptors (residential areas).

Groundborne Vibration
The City has not adopted a significance threshold to assess vibration impacts during construction and operation. Therefore, the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018) was used to evaluate potential construction vibration impacts related to potential building damage.

Construction vibration impacts from development facilitated by the project would be significant if vibration levels exceed the FTA criteria shown in Table 4.6-1. For example, impacts would normally be significant if vibration levels exceed 0.2 in./sec. PPV for residential structures and 0.3 in./sec. PPV for commercial structures. This is the limit where minor cosmetic (i.e., non-structural) damage may occur to these buildings. However, groundborne vibration would also have the potential to impact structures near a site with historic significance at much lower levels. Therefore, for a conservative analysis to these buildings, construction vibration impacts would be significant if vibration levels exceed 0.12 in./sec. PPV for extremely fragile historic buildings, as shown in Table 4.6-1.

Methodology
Construction Noise
Construction equipment can be considered to operate in two modes: stationary and mobile.

Stationary equipment operates in a single location for one or more days at a time, with either fixedpower operation (e.g., pumps, generators, and compressors) or variable-power operation (e.g., pile drivers, rock drills, and pavement breakers). Mobile equipment moves around a construction site with power applied in cyclic fashion, such as bulldozers, graders, and loaders (FTA 2018). Each phase of typical construction has its own noise characteristics due to specific equipment mixes; some will have higher continuous noise levels than others and some may have high-impact intermittent noise levels (FTA 2018). Therefore, construction noise levels may fluctuate depending on the type of equipment being used, construction phase, or equipment location. In typical construction projects on vacant sites, grading activities typically generate the highest noise levels because grading involves the largest equipment and covers the greatest area. For assessment purposes, potential construction noise impacts from construction activities were modeled at a reference distance of 25 feet to analyze potential construction noise levels due to setback distances between equipment and nearby sensitive receptors.

Heavy construction equipment during grading and site preparation for development facilitated by the project would typically include bulldozers, excavators, front-end loaders, dump trucks, and graders. It is assumed that diesel engines would power all construction equipment. Construction equipment would not all operate at the same time or location due to the different tasks performed by each piece of equipment. In addition, construction equipment would not be in constant use during the 8-hour operating day.

Impact devices such as pile drivers may be used for construction facilitated by the DWSP. A pile driver is used to drive foundation piles into the ground. Although use of pile drivers is uncommon during construction for the types of development facilitated by the project, this analysis considers the potential for use of this equipment as a conservative analysis as some terrain features or building height may require their use. These devices would typically operate separately from other equipment.

Exhibit B
190 of 343

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-9
Stationary Operational Noise
Stationary noise (i.e., onsite operational noise) was analyzed in context of typical mechanical equipment on commercial, industrial, residential and mixed-use development such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units, landscaping and maintenance activities, and loading docks.

Operational Traffic Noise Increases
The project’s vehicle trip noise impacts are analyzed based on transportation data provided in a Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the DWSP by Kimley Horn in March 2023. The report is included as Appendix E. The overall increase in traffic noise was estimated using roadway segment traffic volume for existing conditions and future conditions with development envisioned in the DWSP.

Groundborne Vibration
Development envisioned by the DWSP would not include substantial sources of vibration associated with operation because the DWSP largely envisions commercial and residential development. These uses typically do not generate substantial vibration because they do not involve use of heavy machinery. Therefore, construction activities have the greatest potential to generate groundborne vibration affecting nearby receptors, especially during grading, excavation, and paving.

Because groundborne vibration could cause physical damage to structures and is measured in an instantaneous period, vibration impacts are typically modeled based on the distance from the location of vibration-intensive construction activities, which is conservatively assumed to be the edge of a project site, to the edge of the nearest off-site structures. For assessment purposes, potential vibration impacts from construction activities were modeled at a reference distance of 25 feet to analyze potential vibration levels due to setback distances between equipment and off-site structures.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Impact NOI-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.

Construction
Construction noise from individual development projects envisioned by the DWSP would temporarily increase noise levels at nearby noise-sensitive receptors. At this stage of planning, project-level details are not available for future individual projects that could be carried out as development envisioned by the DWSP, it is not possible to determine exact noise levels, locations, or time periods for construction of such individual projects, or construction noise at adjacent Exhibit B
191 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan

4.6-10
properties. However, based on typical construction activities, development would generate noise from activities such as demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, and paving. Each phase or type of construction has a specific equipment mix and associated noise characteristics, depending on the equipment used during that phase or project. Construction noise would typically be higher during the more equipment-intensive phases of initial construction (i.e., demolition, site preparation, and grading work) and would be lower during the later construction phases (i.e., building construction and paving). Table 4.6-4 illustrates typical noise levels associated with construction equipment at distances of 25 feet, 50 feet, and 100 feet. Noise levels are shown to a maximum of 100 feet because the plan area is urbanized and developed, and existing sensitive noise receptors would generally occur within 100 feet or less of development within the plan area.

Table 4.6-4 Typical Noise Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment
Estimated Noise Levels at Standard Distances from Noise Source (dBA Leq) 25 feet 50 feet 100 feet
Air Compressor 86 80 74
Backhoe 86 80 74
Concrete Mixer 91 85 79
Dozer 91 85 79
Grader 91 85 79
Jack Hammer 94 88 82
Loader 86 80 74
Paver 91 85 79
Pile-drive (Impact) 107 101 95
Pile-driver (Sonic) 101 95 89
Roller 91 85 79
Saw 82 76 70
Scarified 89 83 77
Scraper 91 85 79
Truck 90 84 78
Source: FTA 2018.

As shown in Table 4.6-4, construction noise may exceed the FTA’s daytime noise limits of 80 dBA Leq, depending on the equipment used and the distance in which the equipment is operating compared to noise-sensitive receptors. Therefore, construction noise levels associated with future projects may exceed the daytime FTA construction noise threshold of 80 dBA Leq for an 8-hour period at residential uses and other noise sensitive receptors, and impacts would be potentially significant, and implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1(a) would be required.

Exhibit B
192 of 343

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-11
Operation

STATIONARY (ONSITE OPERATIONAL) NOISE
Stationary onsite sources of noises may occur on all types of land uses. Residential uses would generate noise from landscaping, maintenance activities, and mechanical equipment such as ground-level and rooftop HVAC systems. Commercial uses would generate stationary noise from HVAC systems, loading docks, and other sources. Industrial uses may generate noise from HVAC systems, loading docks, and possibly machinery. Noise generated by residential or commercial uses is generally short and intermittent. Industrial uses may generate noise on a more continual basis.

Nightclubs, outdoor dining areas, gas stations, car washes, fire stations, drive-throughs, swimming pool pumps, school playgrounds, athletic and music events, and public parks are other common noise sources. These land uses types and their associate noise types are already typical of the plan area.

Compliance with 2005 General Plan implementation measures 12.M.4 and 12.M.6 would reduce potential impacts associated with new noise-producing land uses. Implementation measure 12.M.4 calls for the City to use the development review process and provisions of the Uniform Building Code to ensure adequate levels of sound proofing in all new construction. Implementation measure

12.M.6 calls for the City to evaluate sire orientation and building design to decrease the potential for noise intrusion, using the noise contour map and compatibility guidelines. However, since at this stage of planning, project-level details are not available for future individual development projects that would be facilitated by the project, it is not possible to determine onsite operational noise levels and the locations of onsite operational noise generating sources. Onsite operational noise could exceed the City’s maximum exterior sound level of 60 dBA for residential and noise sensitive land uses. Therefore, onsite operational impacts from development facilitated by the project would be potentially significant, and implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would be required.

TRAFFIC NOISE
The DWSP would encourage higher-intensity, mixed-use neighborhoods than currently permitted, leading to additional vehicle trips on area roadways. As described in Section 2, Project Description, the project envisions the 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. In addition, the project envisions the addition of up to 3,886 new residential units. By generating new vehicle trips, new development would incrementally increase the exposure of land uses along roadways to traffic noise.

Table 4.6-5 summarizes the estimated traffic noise when the DWSP vehicle trips are added to existing traffic on key roadway segments in the plan area based on average daily traffic (ADT) volumes provided by Kimley Horn (Kimley Horn, 2023). As shown in Table 4.6-5, the maximum increase in traffic noise would be 2.34 dBA CNEL under cumulative plus project conditions along Lake Avenue west of Brennan Street. This would not exceed the significance threshold of 3 dBA CNEL identified in Significance Thresholds, discussed above. Therefore, impacts related to increases in traffic noise would be less than significant.

Exhibit B
193 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan

4.6-12
Table 4.6-5 Traffic Noise Increase
Roadway Segment
Existing ADT
(2022)
Existing + Project
ADT
Traffic Noise Increase
(dBA CNEL/Ldn)
Main Street - West of Rodriquez Street 26,929 30,800 0.58 Main Street - East of Rodriquez Street 21,153 22,730 0.31 Main Street - South of Freedom Boulevard 22,165 22,706 0.10 Main Street - North of Lake Avenue 20,165 23,153 0.60
Main Street - South of Lake Avenue 19,200 23,259 0.83
Main Street - South of Beach Street 18,235 24,306 1.25
Main Street - North of Riverside Drive 18,565 21,036 0.54 Main Street - South of Riverside Drive 35,706 37,212 0.18 Rodriguez Street - South of Main Street 6,624 8,495 1.08 Freedom Boulevard - East of Main Street 16,247 16,130 -0.03 Freedom Boulevard - East of Brennan Street 17,212 18,130 0.23 Brennan Street - South of Freedom Boulevard 7,788 9,059 0.66 Brennan Street - North of Lake Avenue 8,094 7,248 -0.48 Union Street - South of Lake Avenue 8,612 7,765 -0.45
Lake Avenue - East of Brennan Street 10,494 14,577 1.43 Lake Avenue - West of Brennan Street 8,729 14,977 2.34
Lake Avenue - West of Main Street 5,412 6,306 0.66
Beach Street - East of Alexander Street 8,400 10,542 0.99 Beach Street - West of Alexander Street 8,929 11,577 1.13 Beach Street - East of Main Street 9,565 11,224 0.69
Beach Street - West of Main Street 7,482 11,024 1.68
Riverside Drive - East of Main Street 20,376 21,236 0.18 Riverside Drive - West of Main Street 22,482 24,095 0.30 ADT: Average Daily Traffic.

Source: Kimley Horn 2023.

Mitigation Measures
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 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.

Exhibit B
194 of 343

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-13
 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, back-up 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.) 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.

Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1(a) would reduce construction noise impacts from development facilitated by the project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1(b) would reduce potential onsite noise impacts associated with development facilitated by the project by conducting stationary operational noise analyses for future projects. However, as exact details of future project-specific construction activities and stationary sources are unknown at this stage of planning, City noise standards could be exceeded. Therefore, construction and operational noise impacts from development facilitated by the DWSP would be significant and unavoidable.

Exhibit B
195 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan

4.6-14
Threshold 2: Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Impact NOI-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.

Construction Vibration
Construction of development envisioned by the DWSP would intermittently generate groundborne vibration, which could be felt or experienced at nearby sensitive receptors. Table 4.6-6 lists groundborne vibration levels from various types of construction equipment at various distances.

Due to typical setbacks from equipment size and off-site structures, it is assumed that 25 feet is the closest distance that the center of construction vibration is generated to sensitive receptors.

Although groundborne vibration is sometimes noticeable in outdoor environments, groundborne vibration is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors; the vibration level threshold for human perception is assessed at occupied structures (FTA 2018). Therefore, vibration impacts are assessed at the structure of an affected property.

Table 4.6-6 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Approximate Vibration Level (in/sec PPV)
Equipment
25 feet
from Source
50 feet
from Source
100 feet
from Source
200 feet
from Source
Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.042 0.019 0.009
Jackhammer 0.035 0.016 0.008 0.004
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.042 0.019 0.009
Loaded Truck 0.076 0.036 0.017 0.008
Pile Driver (impact) Upper range 1.519 0.709 0.331 0.154 Typical 0.644 0.300 0.140 0.065
Pile Driver (sonic) Upper range 0.734 0.342 0.160 0.075 Typical 0.170 0.079 0.037 0.017
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.0007 0.0003
Vibratory Roller 0.21 0.098 0.046 0.021
Source: FTA 2018
As shown in Table 4.6-6, sensitive receptors and buildings could experience the strongest vibration during the use of pile-drivers and vibratory rollers. Vibration levels from pile-drivers could approach

1.519 in/sec PPV at 25 feet from the source and 0.331 in/sec at 100 feet, and vibration levels from vibratory rollers could approach 0.21 in/sec PPV at 25 feet and 0.046 at 100 feet. As discussed under Significance Thresholds above, the most conservative level for structures is 0.12 in/sec for historical structures, and the level is higher for residential units at 0.2 in/sec, and at 0.3 in/sec for commercial uses.

Based on the attenuation distances of vibration from standard construction equipment, projects that require 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 Exhibit B
196 of 343

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-15
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 could result in potential damages to existing structures.

Vibration levels from vibratory rollers and pile driving equipment may exceed the FTA standards of limiting vibration levels to below 0.12 in/sec for historic structures to prevent architectural damage.

The 2005 General Plan and WMC do not include any policies addressing construction vibration or pile driving and mitigation measures to reduce the vibration impacts from construction.

Additionally, since at this stage of planning, project-level details are not available for individual development that could be carried out as envisioned in the DWSP, it is not possible to determine which individual development projects may use vibratory rollers and/or pile driving and their exact vibration levels, locations, or time periods for construction of such projects. Therefore, construction vibration levels may exceed FTA’s vibration levels for preventing damage, and impacts would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would be required.

Operation
Residential, commercial, industrial, and retail land use development facilitated by the project would not involve substantial new vibration sources associated with operation. Much of the plan area is developed with the same uses envisioned in the DWSP. Therefore, vibration impacts generated by the operation of the project would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
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 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.

Exhibit B
197 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan

4.6-16
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 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.

Significance After Mitigation
Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would reduce potential vibration impacts from a vibratory roller and/or pile driving activities in the plan area associated with development facilitated by the project.

However, as exact details of future individual development project-specific construction activities are unknown at this stage of planning, vibration could still exceed FTA vibration limits for building damage. Therefore, project construction vibration impacts would be significant and unavoidable. c. Cumulative Impacts
IMPACT NOI-C1: THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT ENVISIONED IN THE DWSP WOULD

HAVE A CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE CONTRIBUTION TOWARD A SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE IMPACT ON NOISE.

The cumulative impact assessment area for noise in the area within the city limits of Watsonville.

This is an appropriate geographical area for this cumulative impact assessment because the DWSP and other reasonably foreseeable future projects would occur entirely in the city limits. Noise from these projects would attenuate over distance, such as beyond the city limits. Likewise, noise originating from sources outside of the city limits would attenuate and not be substantial upon reaching the city limits.

The reasonably foreseeable future projects listed in Table 3-1 are a mix of land uses, such as commercial, office, and residential uses. Each of these uses would generate noise, such as HVAC equipment for buildings, noise from landscaping, or temporary noise during construction. Two or more reasonably foreseeable future projects located in proximity to each other and having overlapping construction schedules could contribute to noise levels exceeding City standards at nearby receptors. Construction noise generated by the development envisioned in the DWSP would, without mitigation, substantially increase noise levels in the vicinity of specific projects or developments in the plan area. Mitigation Measure NOI-1(a) would reduce noise from construction equipment from future projects or development envisioned in the DWSP. Therefore, unless construction of cumulative projects, including the development envisioned in the DWSP, occur in Exhibit B
198 of 343

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-17
proximity to each other and simultaneously, noise from individual construction projects have a small chance of combining to create significant cumulative impacts. Although this scenario is unlikely, and mitigation measures would be implemented to the extent feasible, the potential remains for a cumulatively considerable increase in construction noise from future development envisioned in the DWSP. Therefore, the construction noise resulting from development envisioned in the DWSP would have a cumulatively considerable contribution toward a significant cumulative impact.

Development facilitated by the project would introduce new stationary noise sources to the ambient noise environment in the vicinity of the plan area, including new mechanical ventilation equipment. These sources may combine with other nearby cumulative projects to result in higher noise levels. However, operational noise from these sources is localized and rapidly attenuates within an urbanized setting because of intervening structures and topography that block the line of sight and due to other noise sources closer to receptors that obscure project-related noise.

Therefore, cumulative impacts related to operational noise would be less than significant.

Implementation of the City’s noise standards would ensure that noise from new stationary sources as part of the development envisioned in the DWSP would be within acceptable levels. Therefore, the DWSP would not result in cumulatively considerable cumulative impact related to operational stationary noise.

The vehicle trips generated from reasonably foreseeable future projects and the development envisioned in the DWSP would combine on roadways within the cumulative impacts assessment area. The addition of these trips would contribute to traffic or roadway noise. Table 4.6-7 summarizes the estimated cumulative plus project traffic noise increase based on ADT volumes provided by Kimley Horn (Kimley Horn 2023). As shown in Table 4.6-5, the maximum increase in traffic noise would be 2.64 dBA CNEL under cumulative plus project conditions along Lake Avenue west of Brennan Street. This would not exceed the significance threshold of 3 dBA CNEL identified in Significance Thresholds, discussed above. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to increases in traffic noise would be less than significant.

Table 4.6-7 Cumulative Traffic Noise Increase
Roadway Segment
Existing ADT
(2022)
Cumulative +
Project ADT
Traffic Noise Increase
(dBA CNEL/Ldn)
Main Street - West of Rodriquez Street 26,929 32,847 0.86 Main Street - East of Rodriquez Street 21,153 24,071 0.56 Main Street - South of Freedom Boulevard 22,165 24,047 0.35 Main Street - North of Lake Avenue 20,165 24,494 0.84
Main Street - South of Lake Avenue 19,200 23,647 0.90
Main Street - South of Beach Street 18,235 25,941 1.53
Main Street - North of Riverside Drive 18,565 22,671 0.87 Main Street - South of Riverside Drive 35,706 41,000 0.60 Rodriguez Street - South of Main Street 6,624 9,976 1.78 Freedom Boulevard - East of Main Street 16,247 17,682 0.37 Freedom Boulevard - East of Brennan Street 17,212 18,506 0.31 Brennan Street - South of Freedom Boulevard 7,788 10,635 1.35 Brennan Street - North of Lake Avenue 8,094 7,447 -0.36 Union Street - South of Lake Avenue 8,612 8,412 -0.10
Lake Avenue - East of Brennan Street 10,494 16,071 1.85 Exhibit B
199 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan

4.6-18
Roadway Segment
Existing ADT
(2022)
Cumulative +
Project ADT
Traffic Noise Increase
(dBA CNEL/Ldn)
Lake Avenue - West of Brennan Street 8,729 16,024 2.64
Lake Avenue - West of Main Street 5,412 6,400 0.73
Beach Street - East of Alexander Street 8,400 11,424 1.34 Beach Street - West of Alexander Street 8,929 13,106 1.67 Beach Street - East of Main Street 9,565 12,541 1.18
Beach Street - West of Main Street 7,482 13,588 2.59
Riverside Drive - East of Main Street 20,376 22,000 0.33 Riverside Drive - West of Main Street 22,482 26,259 0.67 ADT: Average Daily Traffic.

Source: Kimley Horn 2023.

The potential for construction groundborne vibration and noise impacts is within relatively close distances (e.g., within approximately 25 feet for a vibratory roller), even though there could be other cumulative projects simultaneously under construction near a development project facilitated by the project. Since no two construction cumulative projects would both be within 25 feet of a given sensitive structure, cumulative groundborne vibration and noise impacts would be less than significant.

Exhibit B
200 of 343

Environmental Impact Analysis
Population and Housing
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-1

4.7 Population and Housing
This section evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed project in terms of population and housing.

4.7.1 Setting
Population
The City of Watsonville had an estimated population of 50,669 residents in 2022, representing approximately 19 percent of the Santa Cruz County population of 266,564 (California Department of Finance [DOF] 2022). While varying year to year, the City’s population has been generally stable over the last ten years; Watsonville had an estimated population of 51,847 a decade ago in 2012, approximately 2 percent greater than the current 2022 population (DOF 2021).

The City’s population change in 5-year increments from 2012 to 2022 is shown in Table 4.7-1. The City’s population grew by approximately 1.7 percent between 2012 to 2017 but decreased by 4 percent from 2017 to 2022.

Table 4.7-1 City of Watsonville Population Growth
2012 2017 2022
Population 51,847 52,744 50,669
Difference from Previous Five Years - 897 2,075
Percent Total Change from Previous Five Years - +1.7% -4% Source: DOF 2021, DOF 2022
Housing
As of January 1, 2022, there were 14,655 housing units in the city. The average household size in the city is 3.52 persons (DOF 2022). In the decade between 2012 and 2022, the number of housing units increased in the city by 534, including 262 single family units and 244 multi-family units (DOF 2021, 2022).

4.7.2 Regulatory Setting
a. State
Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330, Skinner)
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) seeks to speed up housing production in the next half decade by eliminating some of the most common entitlement impediments to the creation of new housing, including delays in the local permitting process and cities enacting new requirements after an application is complete and undergoing local review—both of which can exacerbate the cost and uncertainty that sponsors of housing projects face. In addition to speeding up the timeline to obtain building permits, the bill prohibits local governments from reducing the number of homes that can be built through down-planning or down-zoning or the introduction of new discretionary design guidelines. The bill is in effect as of January 1, 2020 and extends until 2030.

Exhibit B
201 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan

4.7-2
Relocation Assistance: California Government Code Section 7261(a) Section 7261(a) of the California Government Code requires that programs or projects undertaken by a public entity must be planned in a manner that (1) recognizes, at an early stage in the planning of the programs or projects and before the commencement of any actions which will cause displacements, the problems associated with the displacement of individuals, families, businesses, and farm operations, and (2) provides for the resolution of these problems in order to minimize adverse impacts on displaced persons and to expedite program or project advancement and completion. The displacing agency must ensure the relocation assistance advisory services are made available to all persons displaced by the public entity. If the agency determines that any person occupying property immediately adjacent to the property where the displacing activity occurs has caused substantial economic injury as a result of the displacement, the agency may also make the advisory services available to that person.
b. Regional
Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) serves as the Metropolitan Planning Organization and Council of Governments for Santa Cruz, Monterey, and San Benito counties.

AMBAG provides population growth estimates within its jurisdiction, and distributes the state Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) to each city and county within Santa Cruz, Monterey, and San Benito counties. AMBAG’s 2022 Regional Growth Forecast, adopted by the AMBAG Board of Directors in June 2022, provides population, housing, and employment forecasts for the AMBAG region through the year 2045.

AMBAG’s 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) consists of goals and strategies for how the Monterey Bay area jurisdictions can accommodate future growth and make the region more equitable and resilient in the face of unexpected challenges and achieve regional GHG emissions reduction targets established by the California Air Resources Board pursuant to Senate Bill 375.
c. Local
City of Watsonville 2005 General Plan
The City’s 2005 General Plan, adopted in 1994, was prepared pursuant to State law to guide future development and to identify the community’s environmental, social, and economic goals and functions as a blueprint that defines how the City will continue to evolve. The General Plan sets forth goals, objectives, and programs to provide a guideline for day-to-day land use policies and to meet the existing and future needs and desires of the community, while at the same time integrating a range of State-mandated elements. The Growth and Conservation Element of the 2005 General Plan contains goals and policies related to orderly growth and urban development in Watsonville.

The Housing Element of the General Plan is prepared pursuant to state law and provides planning guidance in meeting the housing needs identified in AMBAG’s RHNA. The Housing Element identifies the City’s housing conditions and needs, and establishes the goals, objectives, and policies that are the foundation of the City’s housing and growth strategy. The current 2015-2023 Housing Element Exhibit B
202 of 343

Environmental Impact Analysis
Population and Housing
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-3
(responsive to the 5th RHNA cycle) was adopted by the City Council in 2016 and identifies 700 dwelling units as the RHNA for Watsonville.

City of Watsonville Municipal Code
Zoning regulations provide for the types and densities of residential and other uses permitted in each of the City’s zoning districts. Zoning in the City establishes the maximum allowable development in a zoning district. Zoning also includes height limitations and other development standards which together regulate development standards, such as setbacks, building heights, floor area ratios, open space and parking for each parcel in the city, as applicable.

4.7.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
The DWSP is a planning document to guide development; it does not propose specific development projects. Therefore, the following discussions provide program-level review of the potential impacts related to population and housing that could result from implementation of the DWSP. The methodology used for the analysis below is based on calculating the growth that would reasonably occur from implementation of the DWSP and comparing that to established growth forecasts for the City.

In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant impact with respect to population and housing if it would:

Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure);
Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

The Initial Study (Appendix A) found impacts related to substantial displacement of people or housing would be less than significant because the DWSP would encourage a mix of housing types and increase the number of housing units in the plan area. Accordingly, Threshold 2 is not addressed further in this section.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Impact POP-1 THE DWSP IS A PLAN FOR POPULATION GROWTH IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA OF WATSONVILLE. THEREFORE, THE PROJECT WOULD NOT INDUCE UNPLANNED POPULATION GROWTH, AND IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

As described in Section 2, Project Description, the DWSP would facilitate the addition of 3,886 residential units and approximately 722,547 square feet of commercial, industrial, and civic uses over the 25-year planning horizon and beyond. Therefore, the project would directly induce growth in the downtown area. The average number of persons per household in Watsonville was 3.52 as of Exhibit B
203 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan

4.7-4
January 2022 (DOF 2022); using this rate, the 3,886 residential units facilitated by the project would support an estimated 13,679 residents in the downtown area.1 This analysis considers a conservative, maximum growth scenario in which every residential unit would be occupied by the existing average number of persons per household in Watsonville, and that all residents would be new residents who relocate to Watsonville. In reality, it is unlikely that residential development facilitated by the project would be occupied entirely by new residents who relocate to Watsonville; the residential units would likely support some mix of existing and new residents of Watsonville.

However, the conservative, maximum growth scenario of 13,679 additional residents in the downtown area will be used in this analysis.

The City’s 2005 General Plan does not provide growth projections beyond 2005; therefore, AMBAG population and housing projections were used to determine if growth facilitated by the DWSP would exceed anticipated growth in Watsonville. However, it can reasonably be assumed that a portion of the projected growth would likely occur without implementation of the DWSP since the City’s current General Plan envisions downtown development as well.

AMBAG’s 2022 Regional Growth Forecast provides growth projections for cities within Santa Cruz, Monterey, and San Benito counties. The City of Watsonville is anticipated to have a population of 56,344 people and 16,519 residential units by 2045, an increase of 5,675 residents and 1,864 residential units from 2022 (AMBAG 2022; DOF 2022). The growth envisioned in the DWSP is compared to AMBAG’s Regional Growth Forecast for Watsonville below in Table 4.7-2.

Table 4.7-2 2045 Population and Housing Forecast for Watsonville Category
Existing (2022)
Conditions
AMBAG 2045
Forecast
(2045 Conditions
without Project)
Net Increase
Anticipated by
Project
2045 Conditions
with Project
Net Exceedance
of AMBAG 2045
Forecast
Population 50,669 people 56,344 people 13,679 people 64,348 people 8,004 people Housing 14,655 units 16,519 units 3,886 units 18,541 units 2,022 units Source: AMBAG 2022; DOF 2022
As shown in Table 4.7-2, the project would facilitate an increase of 13,679 people and 3,886 units by 2045, which would represent 8,004 people and 2,022 housing units beyond what is forecasted by AMBAG.

Although the project would exceed existing population and housing forecasts, the project itself anticipates and plans for this growth in downtown Watsonville. Several chapters of the DWSP provide guidance for development and growth within the downtown area, including Chapter 4, Mobility and Transportation; Chapter 5, Public Realm Improvements; Chapter 6, Land Use and Zoning; and Chapter 8, Infrastructure. These chapters establish guiding policies and goals for orderly development, and aim to ensure that growth does not outpace the capacity of existing infrastructure, services, and facilities. Chapter 4, Mobility and Transportation, outlines the vision and framework for improving and growing the pedestrian, bicycle, vehicle, and transit network in Watsonville, and Chapter 5, Public Realm Improvements, describes recommended improvements in the downtown area to enhance the pedestrian experience and link various areas of downtown Watsonville together.
1 3.52 people per unit X 3,886 units = 13,679 people
Exhibit B
204 of 343

Environmental Impact Analysis
Population and Housing
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-5
Chapter 6, Land Use and Zoning, would directly facilitate orderly development in downtown Watsonville by establishing standards and guidelines to regulate future development on privatelyowned properties. Changes to existing land use and zoning designations are intended to deliver the physical outcomes envisioned for downtown Watsonville and would concentrate urban activity and intensity in the center of downtown while transitioning to lower-intensity uses at the edge of downtown. Finally, Chapter 8, Infrastructure, outlines recommended upgrades and improvements for the existing water, sewer, and stormwater systems in Watsonville to serve anticipated growth and development.

Overall, the project would facilitate an increase in population and housing units that exceeds existing growth projections. However, the DWSP anticipates and plans for this growth by establishing guiding policies and identifying recommended improvements to ensure the project facilitates orderly growth and development. Accordingly, the DWSP would not induce substantial unplanned growth, and this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation is not required.

Significance after Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. c. Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative impacts assessment area for population and housing is the area within the limits of the City of Watsonville. This is an appropriate cumulative impacts assessment area because the DWSP and the other reasonably foreseeable future projects listed in Table 3-1 would occur in the city limits and not contribute to growth beyond city limits.

The reasonably foreseeable future projects would include growth in the form of new structures and development as well as population growth from construction of new residential units. Some of the reasonably foreseeable future projects would not contribute to growth. For example, the Watsonville City Plaza Expansion and Revitalization Project would modify a plaza park, and not add development or people to Watsonville. However, other reasonably foreseeable future projects would increase population, such as the Hillcrest Subdivision project, which would add residential units to cumulative impacts assessment area. Another example, the Freedom Campus Master Plan project envisions up to 160 residential units on a parcel approximately 4,700 feet north-northwest of the plan area within the city limits. However, the City continues to refer to its General Plan and zoning ordinance to permit and plan development, including the reasonably foreseeable future projects. Additionally, the reasonably foreseeable future projects do not include development projects that would result in substantial growth, but rather are relatively small projects that would incrementally increase population. The reasonably foreseeable future projects also are generally on sites without existing housing units, and therefore, would not displace substantial numbers of people or housing. Cumulative impacts related to substantial unplanned growth or displacement would be less than significant.

Implementation of the DWSP would contribute to increasing population and housing units within the City. Because the DWSP plans for this growth it would not result in substantial unplanned growth, even when combined with the other reasonably foreseeable future projects. Therefore, the DWSP would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to unplanned growth.

Exhibit B
205 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan

4.7-6
This page intentionally left blank.

Exhibit B
206 of 343

Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-1

4.8 Transportation
This section evaluates the potential transportation impacts of the DWSP, including conflicts with existing programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system; conflicts with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b); increased hazards due to geometric design features; and inadequate emergency access.

Both the setting and the impacts analysis in this section are based on a Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the DWSP by Kimley Horn in March 2023. The report is included as Appendix E.

4.8.1 Setting
a. Roadway Network
Regional
The hierarchy of streets in Watsonville provide various levels of access and mobility, with regional highways accommodating the highest volumes and speeds, major cross-town arterial streets connecting to freeways and operating at moderate speeds and/or volumes, and local access roads that link neighborhoods, parks, and schools to the cross-town streets and to each other, with many of these serving adjacent development and neighborhoods. State Route (SR) 1, SR 129, and SR 152 are the primary routes connecting the City of Watsonville to the region and are identified as essential roadways for the country’s economy and mobility by the Federal Highway Administration.

State Route 1 is a major north-south state highway extending from Orange County to Mendocino County along California’s coastline. Near and through Watsonville, SR 1 has two to three lanes and generally travels north-south along the City’s western boundary.

State Route 129 is a generally east-west state highway extending from its interchange with SR 1 immediately southwest of Watsonville to its interchange with US Highway 101 north of San Juan Bautista. Near and through Watsonville, SR 129 travels generally southwest-northeast along the City’s southern boundary, following the Pajaro River.

State Route 152 is a generally east-west major state highway, extending from its interchange with SR 1 in western Watsonville to SR 99 near Merced. SR 152 provides regional access to US Highway 101 in Gilroy and Interstate 5 west of Los Banos. Within Watsonville, SR 152 connects to SR 1 near the western boundary of the city and travels southeast as Main Street. In the downtown area, SR 152 continues northwest as Lake Avenue and exits the city toward the community of Interlaken.

Plan Area
Major streets in the DWSP plan area are described below. Residential areas within the plan area are served by local roadways generally organized in grid patterns.

Main Street overlaps with SR 152 from its interchange with SR 1 in western Watsonville to its intersection with Freedom Boulevard, and then turns south. SR 152 pivots northwest while Main Street continues to the City’s southern boundary along the Pajaro River. Within downtown Watsonville, Main Street has two travel lanes in both directions and intermittently has a two-way left turn lane in the center of the roadway.

Exhibit B
207 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan

4.8-2
Riverside Drive is an east-west major arterial providing access to industrial, commercial, and residential uses within the plan area. Riverside Drive is part of the state highway system as SR 129 and spans from SR 1 to the west and SR 101 to the east. Riverside Drive is a four-lane roadway east of the SR 1 northbound ramp intersection and two-lane roadway west of the SR 1 southbound ramp intersection.

Beach Street extends from its terminus along the Pacific Ocean to the west to its intersection with Hushbeck Avenue in eastern Watsonville. Beach Street is known as West Beach Street west of Main Street and East Beach Street east of Main Street. West Beach Street is a two-way street with one travel lane in each direction and exits the city north of the SR 1 and SR 129 interchange. East Beach Street is a two-lane, one-way street that travels northeast until Hushbeck Avenue.

Lake Avenue extends from its intersection with Walker Street in southwestern Watsonville and travels northwest until its intersection with Carlton Road in the community of Interlaken northeast of Watsonville, where it becomes Hecker Pass Road. East Lake Avenue, as it is known east of Main Street is also SR 152. Within downtown Watsonville, East Lake Avenue is a two to three lane one way street traveling west, and West Lake Avenue (west of Main Street) becomes a two way street west of its intersection with Rodriguez Street.

Union Street is a north-south minor arterial providing access to residential uses, commercial uses and public building uses including the Watsonville Police Department. Union Street is one lane in each direction and spans from Front Street to the south and transitions into Brennan Street to the north at East Lake Avenue. Brennan Street then terminates at Gonzales Street just north of Freedom Boulevard.

Rodriguez Street is a north-south minor arterial providing access to residential uses to the north and commercial as well as building uses to the south including United States Postal Service, and the Superior Court of California County of Santa Cruz. The roadway connects to Front Street to the south and Main Street to the north. Within the plan area, Rodriguez Street is one lane in each direction, except between West Beach Street and West Lake Avenue where there are two lanes in each direction.

Brennan Street is a north-south collector providing access to residential uses to the east and commercial uses to the west. The roadway connects to Gonzales Street to the north and transitions into Union Street to the south. Within the plan area, Brennan Street is one lane in each direction. 5th Street is a discontinuous east-west local street providing access to mainly residential land uses with some commercial uses near Main Street. 5th Street is a two-lane roadway that connects to Walker Street to the west and extends just past Brewington Avenue to the east.

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES
Sidewalks are consistently available throughout the DWSP plan area along neighborhood streets and major streets such as Main Street, Beach Street, Lake Avenue, 5th Street, and others. These major streets have sidewalks on both sides of the roadway in the plan area and have sidewalks on at least one side of the roadway as they approach City boundaries, moving outward from the plan area. In addition to on-street facilities, the City of Watsonville maintains approximately 10 miles of slough and levee trails along Struve Slough, Watsonville Slough, the Pajaro River, and Salsipuedes Creek (City of Watsonville 2012).

Exhibit B
208 of 343

Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-3
Four categories of bikeways are specified in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual and Sections 885.1 et seq. of the California Streets and Highways Code. These categories are:
 Class I Bikeway (Bike Path): Bike paths provide a completely separate right-of-way and are designated for the exclusive use of people riding bicycles and walking with minimal cross-flow traffic.
 Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane): Bike lanes provide designated street space for bicyclists, typically adjacent to the outer vehicle travel lanes. Bike lanes include special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike lanes may be enhanced with painted buffers between vehicle lanes and/or parking, and green paint at conflict zones (such as driveways or intersections).  Class III Bikeway (Bike Route): Bike routes provide enhanced mixed-traffic conditions for bicyclists through signage, striping, and/or traffic calming treatments, and provide continuity to a bikeway network. Bike routes are typically designated along gaps between bike trails or bike lanes, or along low-volume, low-speed streets. Bicycle boulevards provide further enhancements to bike routes by encouraging slow speeds and discouraging non-local vehicle traffic, often through the use of traffic calming. Bicycle boulevards can also feature special wayfinding signage to nearby destinations or other bikeways.  Class IV Bikeway (Separated Bikeway): Separated Bikeways, also referred to as cycle tracks or protected bikeways, are bikeways for the exclusive use of bicycles which are physically separated from vehicle traffic. Separations may include grade separation, flexible posts, physical barriers, or on-street parking.

The plan area contains Class I, Class II, and Class III bikeways. Specifically, within the plan area, Class I, Class II, and Class III bikeways are provided along the following corridors:

Class I bikeways:
 Main Street from Pennsylvania Drive to Freedom Boulevard Class II bikeways:
 W. Beach Street from SR 1 to Walker Street
 Walker Street from Harkins Slough Road to Riverside Drive  Rodriguez Street from Main Street to Riverside Drive
 Freedom Boulevard from Main Street to High Street
Class III bikeways:
 Main Street from Freedom Boulevard to Riverside Drive  W. Beach Street from Walker Street to Lincoln Street
 Riverside Drive from Walker Street to Bronte Avenue
 Lincoln Street from Riverside Drive to Freedom Boulevard Existing bicycle facilities in the plan area are shown on Figure 2-8 in Section 2, Project Description, this EIR.

TRANSIT SERVICE
Santa Cruz Metro provides transit services in the plan area. In addition, the Monterey-Salinas Transit operates a bus line between the City of Salinas and Watsonville. Table 4.8-1 provides a summary of Exhibit B
209 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan

4.8-4
the existing transit in the plan area. A detailed description of each transit route in Table 4.8-1 is provided in the Transportation Impact Analysis (Appendix E).

Table 4.8-1 Summary of Existing Transit
Route Description
Weekdays Weekends
Operating Hours
Headway
(Minutes) Operating Hours
Headway
(Minutes)
Santa Cruz Metro
69W Capitola/Cabrillo 6:37 AM – 10:28 PM 60 7:50 AM – 7:40 PM 60 69A Capitola/Airport 6:20 AM – 6:56 PM 60 8:07 AM – 7:52 PM 60 71 Soquel Freedom 5:40 AM – 12:40 AM 30 5:58 AM – 12:40 PM 30-60 91X Cabrillo Express 5:50 AM – 5:22 PM 60-120 – –
72 Green Valley-Hospital 6:45 AM – 6:40 PM 60 – –
72W Green Valley-Corralitos – – 9:25 AM – 6:27 PM 120
74S PVHS/Hospital 7:00 AM – 8:02 AM
3:05 PM – 4:00 PM
– – –
75 Green Valley-Wheelock 5:15 AM – 7:15 PM 60 6:05 AM – 6:45 PM 70 79 East Lake/Crestview 7:25 AM – 6:00 PM 60 8:30 AM – 5:14 PM 120 WC Watsonville Circular 8:44 AM – 4:17 PM 60 8:44 AM – 4:14 PM 60 Monterey-Salinas Transit
27 Watsonville-Marina 6:53 AM – 7:48 PM 60 – –
28 Watsonville-Salinas
(via Castroville)
6:45 AM – 7:30 PM 120 6:45 AM – 7:30 PM 120
29 Watsonville-Salinas
(via Prunedale)
5:45 AM – 6:50 PM 120 7:34 AM – 8:00 PM 120
Source: Transportation Impact Analysis (Kimley-Horn 2023) (See Appendix E) Note: Headway is defined as the time between transit vehicles on the same route.

The Watsonville Transit Center, located on the corner of Rodriguez Street and West Lake Avenue in the plan area, provides inter- and intra-city transit connections for the plan area. The Transit Center is served by Santa Cruz METRO’s fixed-route and paratransit services, in addition to a limited number of Monterey-Salinas Transit fixed-route and Greyhound bus services.

4.8.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 provides comprehensive rights and protections to individuals with disabilities. The goal of the ADA is to assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for people with disabilities. To implement this goal, the United States Access Board, an independent Federal agency created in 1973 to ensure accessibility for people with disabilities, has created accessibility guidelines for public rights-of-way. While these guidelines have not been formally adopted, they have been widely followed by jurisdictions and agencies nationwide in the last decade. The guidelines, last revised in Exhibit B
210 of 343

Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-5
July 2011, address various issues, including roadway design practices, slope and terrain issues, pedestrian access to streets, sidewalks, curb ramps, street furnishings, pedestrian signals, parking, and other components of public rights-of-way.

Federal Highway Administration
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the agency of the United States Department of Transportation responsible for the federally funded roadway system, including the interstate highway network and portions of the primary State highway network. FHWA funding is provided through the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act. Federal funds can be used to fund eligible local transportation improvements in such as projects to improve the efficiency of existing roadways, traffic signal coordination, bikeways, pedestrian facilities, and transit system upgrades. b. State Regulations
Senate Bill 743
On September 27, 2013, the governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 743 into law. SB 743 changed the way transportation impact analysis is conducted as part of CEQA compliance. These changes eliminated automobile delay, level of service (LOS), and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts under CEQA.

Prior rules treated automobile delay and congestion as an environmental impact. SB 743 requires the CEQA Guidelines to prescribe an analysis that better accounts for transit and reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2018, Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released the final update to CEQA Guidelines consistent with SB 743, which recommends using vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate metric of transportation impact to align local environmental review under CEQA with California’s long-term greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals. The Guidelines require all jurisdictions in California to use VMT-based thresholds of significance no later than July 1, 2020.

At the same time as the release of the updated CEQA Guidelines, OPR also released a non-binding Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, which outlines potential VMT analysis methodologies and thresholds of significance for use by agencies in California based on substantial evidence developed by OPR related to achievement of the State’s greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets.1
Senate Bill 32 and Senate Bill 375
On September 8, 2016, the governor signed SB 32 into law, extending the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 by requiring the state to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged). On December 14, 2017, the CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap-and-Trade Program, and implementation of recently adopted policies and legislation.

The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375), signed in August 2008, enhances the state’s ability to reach GHG emissions goals by directing the California Air Resources 1 OPR. 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122- 743_Technical_Advisory.pdf (accessed March 2022).

Exhibit B
211 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan

4.8-6
Board to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from passenger vehicles by 2020 and 2035. SB 375 aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and affordable housing allocations.

California Department of Transportation Planning Documents Caltrans is responsible for planning, designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining the State highway system. Federal highway standards are implemented in California by Caltrans. Any improvements or modifications to the highway system, including ramps and access points, within the study area would need to be approved by Caltrans. The following Caltrans planning documents emphasize the State of California’s focus on transportation infrastructure that supports mobility choice through multimodal options, smart growth, and efficient development.  Smart Mobility 2010: A Call to Action for the New Decade (Smart Mobility Framework)  Complete Streets Implementation Action Plan
 Strategic Plan 2020-2024
 California Transportation Plan 2050
Smart Mobility Framework
The purpose of the Smart Mobility Framework, published in February 2010, is to address the State mandate to find solutions to climate change, reduce per capita VMT, and create a safe and equitable transportation system.2 The Smart Mobility Framework includes ten implementing themes to achieve its purpose, including integration into Caltrans and other transportation agencies’ policy and practice, collection of data and tools to implement the Smart Mobility Framework, undertaking of major cross-functional initiatives, and integration into local government land use and transportation planning.

Complete Streets Implementation Action Plan
On September 30, 2008, the California Complete Streets Act of 2008 was signed into law. AB 1358 requires any substantive revision of the circulation/mobility element of a city or county’s general plan to identify how they will safely accommodate the circulation of all users of the roadway including pedestrians, bicyclists, children, seniors, individuals with disabilities, and transit riders, as well as motorists.

Caltrans Deputy Directive 64-R1: Complete Streets – Integrating the Transportation System
In 2001, Caltrans adopted Deputy Directive 64; a policy directive related to non-motorized travel throughout the State. In October 2008, Deputy Directive 64 was strengthened to reflect changing priorities and challenges. Deputy Directive 64-R1 states:

The Department views all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access, and mobility for all travelers in California and recognizes bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral elements of the transportation system. Providing safe mobility for all users, including motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders, contributes to the Department's mission/vision: "Improving Mobility across California.” 2 Caltrans. 2010. Smart Mobility 2010. February 2010. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportationplanning/documents/office-of-smart-mobility-and-climate-change/smf-handbook-062210-a-a11y.pdf (accessed April 2022).

Exhibit B
212 of 343

Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-7
Successful long-term implementation of this directive is intended to result in more options for people to go from one place to another, less traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions, more walkable communities (with healthier, more active people), and fewer barriers for older adults, children, and people with disabilities.

Director’s Policy 22: Director’s Policy on Context Sensitive Solutions Director’s Policy 22, a policy regarding the use of “Context Sensitive Solutions” on all State highways, was adopted by Caltrans in November of 2001. The policy reads:

The Department uses “Context Sensitive Solutions” as an approach to plan, design, construct, maintain, and operate its transportation system. These solutions use innovative and inclusive approaches that integrate and balance community, aesthetic, historic, and environmental values with transportation safety, maintenance, and performance goals. Context sensitive solutions are reached through a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach involving all stakeholders.

The context of all projects and activities is a key factor in reaching decisions. It is considered for all State transportation and support facilities when defining, developing, and evaluating options. When considering the context, issues such as funding feasibility, maintenance feasibility, traffic demand, impact on alternate routes, impact on safety, and relevant laws, rules, and regulations must be addressed.

The policy recognizes that “in towns and cities across California, the State highway may be the only through street or may function as a local street,” that “these communities desire that their main street be an economic, social, and cultural asset as well as provide for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods,” and that “communities want transportation projects to provide opportunities for enhanced non-motorized travel and visual quality.” The policy acknowledges that addressing these needs will assure that transportation solutions meet more than just traffic and operational objectives.

Director’s Policy 37: Director’s Policy on Complete Streets Caltrans Director’s Policy 37, a policy calling for new transportation projects on State highways to include “complete street” features that provide safe and accessible options for people walking, biking and taking transit, was adopted by Caltrans in December 2021. The policy reads:

The Department recognizes that walking, biking, transit, and passenger rail are integral to our vision of delivering a brighter future for all through a world-class transportation network.

Additionally, Caltrans recognizes that streets are not only used for transportation but are also valuable community spaces. Accordingly, in locations with current and/or future pedestrian, bicycle, or transit needs, all transportation projects funded or overseen by Caltrans will provide comfortable, convenient, and connected complete streets facilities for people walking, biking, and taking transit or passenger rail unless an exception is documented and approved. When decisions are made not to include complete streets elements in capital and maintenance projects, the justification will be documented with final approval by the responsible District Director.

Opportunities for complete streets exist in all phases of project development from planning and design to construction, operations, and maintenance. Complete streets projects should prioritize underserved communities that have been historically harmed and segmented by the Exhibit B
213 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan

4.8-8
transportation network and should serve people of all ages and abilities. Furthermore, Caltrans commits to removing unnecessary policy and procedural barriers and partnering with communities and agencies to ensure projects on local and state transportation systems improve the connectivity to existing and planned pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities, and accessibility to existing and planned destinations, where possible.

This policy is intended to expand the availability of sustainable transportation options to help meet the state’s climate, health and equity goals.
3 Strategic Plan 2020-2024
Caltrans’ 2020-2024 Strategic Plan weaved sustainability principles through all of its goals. Goals of the Strategic Plan are related to safety, enhancing and connecting the multimodal transportation network, lead climate action, and advancing equity in all communities.4 California Transportation Plan 2050
Caltrans completed the California Transportation Plan to comply with Title 23, Code of Federal Regulation Section 450.214 and pursuant to California Government Code Title 7 Division 1 Chapter

2.3. The California Transportation Plan provides a roadmap for making effective, equitable, transparent, and transformational transportation decisions in California. The vision of the California Transportation Plan is: “California’s safe, resilient, and universally accessible transportation system supports vibrant communities, advances racial and economic justice, and improves public and environmental health,” which is supported by goals related to safety, climate, equity, accessibility, public health, economy, environment, and infrastructure.5 California Encroachment Permits
Work within the existing Caltrans right of way must comply with Caltrans permitting requirements.

This includes a traffic control plan that adheres to the standards set forth in the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). As part of these requirements, there are provisions for coordination with local emergency services, training for flagmen for emergency vehicles traveling through the work zone, temporary lane separators that have sloping sides to facilitate crossover by emergency vehicles, and vehicle storage and staging areas for emergency vehicles. MUTCD requirements also provide for construction work during off-peak hours and flaggers. c. Regional and Local Regulations
Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Plan
The 2045 Santa Cruz Regional Transportation Plan (Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission 2022) is a comprehensive planning document that provides guidance for transportation policy and projects through the year 2045. The goals of the 2045 Santa Cruz Regional Transportation Plan include:
3 Caltrans. 2021. News Release: Caltrans to Require ‘Complete Streets’ Features in Planning and Design of All New Projects. https://dot.ca.gov/news-releases/news-release-2021-039 (accessed April 2023) 4 Caltrans. 2021. Caltrans 2020-2024 Strategic Plan. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/risk-strategicmanagement/documents/sp-2020-16p-web-a11y.pdf (accessed April 2022). 5 Caltrans. 2021. California Transportation Plan 2050. February 2021. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportationplanning/documents/ctp-2050-v3-a11y.pdf (accessed April 2022).

Exhibit B
214 of 343

Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-9
 Establish livable communities that improve people’s access to jobs, schools, recreation, healthy lifestyles and other regular needs in ways that improve health, reduce pollution and retain money in the local economy;
 Reduce transportation related fatalities and injuries for all transportation modes; and  Deliver access and safety improvements cost effectively, within available revenues, equitably and responsive to the needs of all users of the transportation system and beneficial for the natural environment.

The 2045 Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Plan identifies measurable outcomes, called targets that are each linked to a sustainability goal. There are many targets in the Regional Transportation Plan. Examples of some targets include:
 Increase the length of urban bikeway miles relative to total urban arterial and collector roadway miles to 85 percent by 2030 and to 100 percent by 2045;  Reduce per capita VMT by 4 percent by 2030 and by 10 percent by 2045 compared to 2005 VMT;
 Decrease single occupancy commute trip mode share by 6.5 percent by 2030 and by 10 percent by 2045 compared to 2020; and
 Reduce the number of transit vehicles in “distressed” condition to 20 percent by 2030 and to 10 percent by 2045.

Analyzing Vehicle Miles Traveled for CEQA Compliance
The City adopted Analyzing Vehicle Miles Traveled for CEQA Compliance: SB 743 Implementation Guidelines for the City of Watsonville in September 2022. The document was developed to serve both as the basis of SB 743 implementation in Watsonville and VMT analysis within Watsonville. The document provides instruction and guidance on evaluating the VMT of both land-use development and transportation projects. The document also provides screening criteria for VMT impacts.

City of Watsonville Vision Zero Action Plan 2021
Vision Zero is a global strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries to ensure safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all. In January 2018, the Watsonville City Council adopted a resolution that outlines how the City can draw upon existing resources to successfully implement Vision Zero. Following that, the City adopted the City of Watsonville Zero Action Plan 2021 (City of Watsonville 2021). The City’s Vision Zero Action Plan acknowledges that traffic deaths and severe injuries are preventable. The goal is to eliminate both in a set time frame with clear, measurable, and timely strategies. The Action Plan sets forth action items to achieve this goal. There are many actions items. Examples of some action items include:
 Provide schools with bicycle safety equipment, such as bicycle helmets;  Work with State legislators to support reducing roadway speed limits;  Develop and incorporate Complete Streets into projects;  Prioritize the development of safe roadways and the highest level of safety for all road users through new policies, systems, and infrastructure improvements for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists; and
 Explore new approaches to infrastructure enhancements, including speed cameras, sidewalk decals, and pedestrian crosswalk flags.

Exhibit B
215 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan

4.8-10
City of Watsonville Trails & Bicycle Master Plan for the Watsonville Scenic Trails Network
The City of Watsonville Trails & Bicycle Master Plan for the Watsonville Scenic Trails Network (City of Watsonville 2012) includes designations of the routes along roadways that can be used by bicycling commuters and recreational riders for safe access to major employers, shopping centers and residential areas.

City of Watsonville 2005 General Plan
The Watsonville 2005 General Plan Land Use Element and Transportation and Circulation Element provide the following goals, policies, and implementation measures regarding transportation that are applicable to the project:
 Goal 10.1 Street and Highway Facilities: Plan and provide for a safe, efficient, and environmentally sensitive network of streets and highways for movement of people and goods.  Goal 10.2 Transit Facilities and Service: Promote the use of transit as an alternative to the automobile for all types of travel.
 Goal 10.4 Bicycle Circulation: Plan for and provide a safe, convenient network of bicycle facilities.
 Goal 10.5 Pedestrian Circulation: Recognize the importance of pedestrian travel, alone, or in combination with other travel modes, and to encourage walking.  Goal 10.7 Aesthetic Considerations: Plan and provide for a circulation network that preserves and enhances scenic amenities.
 Policy 10.A Street and Highway Improvements: The City shall pursue a program of regularly scheduled maintenance and street improvements, accompanied by the planned extension of roadways to serve new development.
 Policy 10.C Level of Service: The City shall maintain a minimum Level of Service D (LOS D) on all arterial and collector streets serving the City except for those accepted to operate at less than an LOS D in the 1988-2005 Major Streets Master Plan as updated in 1992.  Policy 10.K Bicycle Facilities Development: The City shall plan for and implement a comprehensive network of bicycle facilities in order to promote the bicycle as an alternative to the private automobile.
 Policy 10.M Bicycle Support Facilities: The City shall encourage bicycle facilities in new developments, as a commute alternative.
 Policy 10.N Pedestrian Travel: The City shall plan for and implement a comprehensive network of safe pedestrian facilities in order to promote pedestrian travel.  Policy 10.O Walkway Aesthetics and Safety: Pedestrian walkways should be designed to promote walking by providing a safe and aesthetically pleasing path of travel. − Implementation Measure 10.O.3, Accessible Pedestrian Areas: All parking lots and pedestrian pathways shall be constructed in compliance with the City and/or State's accessibility standards.
 Policy 10.P Pedestrian Access: Access for pedestrian travel shall be maintained where it already exists and provided where it does not, in order to prevent or eliminate barriers to pedestrian travel.

Exhibit B
216 of 343

Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-11
 Policy 10.W Transportation of Hazardous Materials: The City shall develop a process for ensuring that hazardous wastes being transported out of and through the city are carefully monitored.
 Policy 10.Y Emergency Access: The City shall ensure that emergency or secondary access is provided for all new development in the City’s service area. − Implementation Measure 4.I.6, Traffic Mitigations: The City shall place traffic impact mitigations on new development consistent with the policies of the Transportation and Circulation Element and City standards for access, parking, and roadway improvements.

4.8.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
Methodology
The DWSP is a planning document to guide development; it does not propose specific development projects. Therefore, the following discussions provide program-level review of the potential transportation impacts that could result from implementation of the DWSP.

The analysis presented herein is derived primarily from a Transportation Impact Analysis prepared by Kimley Horn for the proposed project, included as Appendix E to this EIR. The Transportation Impact Analysis, dated March 2023, assesses the transportation impacts of the project, including impacts to transit and active transportation facilities and VMT. The Transportation Impact Analysis also discloses the LOS, or traffic delay, that would result from the project at nearby roadway intersections. Pursuant to Section 15064.3 of the State CEQA Guidelines, traffic delay resulting from a land use project shall not constitute a significant environmental impact for purposes of CEQA.

Because this EIR is intended to identify and mitigate potentially significant impacts of the proposed project, LOS is not discussed in the impact analysis.

The Transportation Impact Analysis evaluates potential VMT impacts of the buildout or growth projections of the DWSP. In order to evaluate the potential VMT of the DWSP, the zoning for the DWSP, based on proposed land use designation, was entered into the Santa Cruz County Travel Demand Model. This dataset relied on land use growth projections developed as part of the DWSP and presented in Table 2-1 in Chapter 2, Project Description, of this EIR. While the Travel Demand Model uses dwelling units as its input, there is no differentiation between single-family and multifamily residential in terms of vehicle trip generation and distribution. Therefore, the trip generation and travel characteristics in the Travel Demand Model are not sensitive to the type of residential units. The Travel Demand Model also represents nonresidential land uses as number of jobs rather than square footage of development. Therefore, the non-residential growth envisioned in the DWSP was converted into number of jobs from building square feet using the rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition. As detailed in the Transportation Impact Analysis, the non-residential growth envisioned in the DWSP converts to approximately 1,416 jobs. Note that the growth between the base year of the Travel Demand Model (2019) and future year (2040) was replaced by the growth envisioned in the DWSP.

The VMT for the residential land uses was computed by combining the production VMT for all home-based trip purposes. VMT for non-residential land uses was computed from the attraction home-based work VMT. The external VMT for residential land uses was determined by multiplying the calibrated external trip distance by transportation analysis zone (TAZ) determined using big data (Teralytics) by the total internal-external (I-X) home-based trips for that TAZ. The external VMT for Exhibit B
217 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan

4.8-12
non-residential land uses was determined by multiplying the calibrated external trip distance by TAZ determined previously by the total internal-external (I-X) home-based work trips for that TAZ.

To determine the share of the non-residential VMT for the office and industrial land uses, the total number of trips attracted to each TAZ were calculated by multiplying the Travel Demand Model’s underlying trip generation rate for the home-based work trip purpose by employment type. The office land use share of the total VMT was then calculated by dividing the number of trips generated from office employment by the total number of home-based work trips calculated using the trip generation rates. The VMT for the office land uses was calculated by multiplying the office land use share by the total home-based work VMT (including External VMT). Similarly, the VMT for the industrial land uses was calculated by multiplying the industrial land use share by the total homebased work VMT (including External VMT).

Finally, residential VMT per capita and office/industrial VMT per employee for each TAZ were computed by dividing the residential and office/industrial VMT by TAZ by the total population or total office/industrial employees, respectively. A VMT per capita and VMT per employee weighted average was calculated for the TAZs comprising proposed DWSP based on population and employment, respectively.

Significance Thresholds
In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts related to transportation if it would:

1.) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities;

2.) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b);

3.) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment);

4.) Result in inadequate emergency access.

The Initial Study (Appendix A) found that the DWSP would have no impacts related to increased transportation hazards or inadequate emergency access. Therefore, Threshold 3 and Threshold 4 are not studied further in this section.

Section 15064.3 of State CEQA Guidelines, referenced in Threshold 3 above, pertains to VMT. Per the City’s VMT analysis guidelines, the significance threshold for residential- and employment-based VMT uses is set at 15 percent below the regional average VMT. For the purposes of this analysis, the region is defined as Santa Cruz County. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis provided as Appendix E to this EIR, the VMT thresholds by land-use type are:
 8.9 miles per capita for residential uses;
 7.4 miles per employee for office uses; and
 11 miles per employee for industrial uses.

Exhibit B
218 of 343

Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-13
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Impact TRA-1 THE DWSP WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH A PROGRAM, PLAN, ORDINANCE OR POLICY

ADDRESSING THE CIRCULATION SYSTEM, INCLUDING TRANSIT, ROADWAY, BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES SUCH THAT SUBSTANTIAL PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WOULD OCCUR. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Transit
The DWSP would not result in a disruption of existing transit; rather, it would locate more residents near transit facilities and thereby increase ridership. In addition, according to the Transportation Impact Analysis (Appendix E), transit is expected to be improved in the future by expanding the speed and frequency of fixed-bus routes and enhancing access from connecting pedestrian and bicycle improvements to bus stops, encouraging new developments near transit, and improving amenities at bus stops. The DWSP includes specific goals (Goal #12) related to transit that call for leveraging and supporting existing transit service to help realize downtown’s potential to become a multi-modal mixed-use district. Therefore, the DWSP would not conflict with the City’s adopted plans and policies as it relates to transit facilities. Impacts related to conflicts with transit access and circulation would be less than significant.

Roadway
The DWSP envisions modifications to the roadway network within the plan area, such as a road diet along Main Street6 and the elimination of the one-way couplet of East Beach Street and East Lake Avenue. As traffic flows increase and shift, it is common for traffic at intersections to experience lower travel speeds and increased delays, which, in part, is the purpose of implementing a road diet and eliminating one-way couplets. Vehicles traveling through the plan area would change their travel patterns based on the reconfiguration of the roadways and some spill over could occur on roadways parallel to these modifications, such as Rodriguez Street. The DWSP also envisions roadway improvements or modifications that would improve traffic circulation. For example, the DWSP envisions the installation of a roundabout at Freedom Boulevard and Main Street. According to Caltrans, roundabouts improve traffic flow by allowing vehicles to move through intersections without stopping, while also improving safety compared to a traditional intersection without a roundabout (Caltrans 2017). Accordingly, impacts related to conflicts with roadway access and circulation would be less than significant.

Bicycle
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 facilities are envisioned to expand as part of the DWSP. The DWSP does not envision features that would disrupt the existing and future bicycle facilities adjacent and near the plan area. The DWSP includes specific goals (e.g., Goal #10) that call for providing convenient access and circulation for all modes of transportation and 6 In response to Council support for integrating complete streets infrastructure on State Route 152 (Resolution No. 195-22), Caltrans will be including the "road diet" concept—i.e., reducing the number of travel lanes for Main Street from four to three with a center running left turn lane (or landscaped median) and one travel lane in each direction—and other complete streets recommendations into their upcoming State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) project no. 05-1P110.

Exhibit B
219 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan

4.8-14
enhancing bicycling in the plan area. Therefore, the DWSP would not conflict with the City’s adopted plans and policies as it relates to bicycle facilities. Impacts related to conflicts with bicycle access and circulation would be less than significant.

Pedestrian
The DWSP identifies opportunities to expand the pedestrian realm with parklets and curb extensions, and to increase the permeability of the Downtown street network with paseos. The DWSP includes pedestrian network improvements to address the need for safer, more visible crossings on high-speed, high-volume arterial streets and comfortable off-street facilities that provide alternative access routes to local amenities. Underutilized alleyways and spaces between buildings are recommended to be repurposed to create a paseo network, which would provide pedestrians alternative paths to travel around Downtown. Upgrades at major intersections such as Main Street and East Lake Avenue may include curb extensions, crosswalk visibility enhancements, and leading pedestrian intervals are recommended in the DWSP. The future pedestrian facilities improvements envisioned in the DWSP would not conflict with the existing or planned pedestrian facilities because they would either tie into or replace existing facilities. The DWSP includes specific goals (e.g., Goal #10) that call for improving pedestrian facilities to improve safe and efficient pedestrian circulation in the plan area. The DWSP includes roadway modifications that would improve pedestrian safety. For example, the DWSP envisions converting East Lake Avenue and East Beach Street, which currently operate as one-way couplets, into two-way streets. The existing coupled one-way configuration was designed to move vehicle traffic at consistent speeds in and out of the downtown area. The conversion to two-way streets would slow traffic, making it safer for pedestrians crossing East Lake Avenue and East Beach Street. The conversion of these streets would also add a central turning lane, which would also serve as pedestrian refuge when crossing these streets. Therefore, the DWSP would not conflict with the City’s adopted plans and policies as it relates to pedestrian facilities. Impacts related to conflicts with pedestrian access and circulation would be less than significant.

In summary, the DWSP would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities such that substantial physical environmental effects would occur. Impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold 2: Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Impact TRA-2 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.

The development envisioned in the DWSP would result in increased population and employment in the plan area. While people residing in the plan area would be in proximity to other land uses, such as retail and office, it is reasonable to assume some residents would use vehicles to travel to destinations outside of the plan area. Accordingly, the development envisioned in the DWSP would generate vehicles trips and VMT.

Using the methodology described in the Transportation Impact Analysis (see Appendix E) and summarized above in a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds, the VMT result from the DWSP was estimated. Table 4.8-2 summarizes the VMT per capita and the VMT per employee for the proposed DWSP. As shown in Table 4.8-2, for Existing Plus DWSP scenario, the residential land uses Exhibit B
220 of 343

Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-15
would result in a VMT per capita that is below the City’s established threshold. As shown in Table 4.8-2, development envisioned in the DWSP would result in a reduction of VMT per employee (office and industrial) compared to existing conditions. However, the amount of reduction would not reduce VMT below the City’s threshold of 15 percent below the regional average VMT. As shown in Table 7, the VMT per Employee (office and industrial) for Existing Plus DWSP would exceed the significance threshold. Accordingly, impacts would be potentially significant.

Table 4.8-2 VMT by DWSP Land Use
Scenario
VMT Per Capita
(Residential)
VMT Per Employee
(Office)
VMT Per Employee
(Industrial)
2019 Existing Conditions 9.4 9.6 14.2
2019 Existing Conditions Plus DWSP 7.9 9.0 13.5
Significance Threshold 8.9 7.4 11.0
Threshold Exceeded? No Yes Yes
Source: Kimley-Horn 2023 (see Appendix E)
As previously noted, the retail land uses envisioned in the DWSP were analyzed qualitatively. Local serving retail primarily serves pre-existing shopping needs in the community (i.e., they do not generate new trips because they meet existing demand). Because of this, local-serving retail uses can be presumed to reduce trip lengths when a new store is proposed. Essentially, the assumption is that someone would travel to a newly constructed local serving store, such as a coffee shop, restaurant, clothing store, or other type of commercial business because it is nearby. Proximity is the main factor, rather than a proposed retail store fulfilling an unmet need (i.e., the person has an existing need that was met by the retail located further away and is now traveling to the new retail use because it is closer to the person’s origin location). This results in a trip on the roadway network becoming shorter, rather than a new trip being added to the roadway network, which would result in new or more VMT. Conversely, residential and office land uses often drive new trips given that they introduce new participants to the transportation system. The City of Watsonville SB 743 Implementation Guidelines provides for a general threshold of 50,000 square-feet as an indicator as to whether a retail store can be considered local serving or not. Based on the understanding that no single store within the estimated 875,000 square feet of retail development envisioned in the DWSP would exceed 50,000 square feet, the envisioned retail development would not result in a net increase in VMT and would therefore not result in a significant impact. Retail stores exceeding 50,000 square feet are generally categorized as big-box retail shops which are not envisioned for the plan area or in the DWSP.

In summary, the residential and retail development envisioned in the DWSP would not exceed VMT significance thresholds. However, the office and industrial development envisioned in the DWSP would exceed VMT significance thresholds. Therefore, the DWSP would have a significant impact related to VMT and conflicts with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

Mitigation Measures
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 Exhibit B
221 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan

4.8-16
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.

Significance After Mitigation
The DWSP does not involve individual development projects and therefore is evaluated at a programmatic level in this EIR and in the Transportation Impact Analysis (Appendix E). Given the programmatic level data that is available for the DWSP, a detailed TDM plan typically required for each individual project cannot be developed at this stage. Therefore, the effect of project-level and specific TDM programs that could reduce VMT cannot be accounted for fully as part of this analysis.

For this reason, it cannot be guaranteed that VMT associated with future office and industrial development pursuant to the DWSP could be reduced below relevant significance thresholds. As such, the VMT impact of the DWSP would be significant and unavoidable.

It should be noted that the City has an established VMT banking program as part of its recently adopted VMT policy, which could be used to mitigate the VMT impacts of specific and individual projects. However, the VMT banking program is early in its development and implementation so the impact on VMT mitigation of such a program is still being determined by the City. Therefore, the use of the VMT banking programs as feasible mitigation for the VMT impacts of the DWSP would be reassessed over time.
c. Cumulative Impacts
IMPACT TRA-C1: 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).

The cumulative impact assessment area for transportation consists of two separate areas. The area for assessing impacts related to a conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities consists of the city limits of Watsonville. This is appropriate for this impact analysis because the potential conflicts of the DWSP and these types of programs and plans would be limited to local streets and facilities on these streets, such as sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and transit stops. The cumulative impact assessment area for VMT impacts related to a conflict or inconsistency with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) consists of Santa Cruz County. This is an appropriate area for this impact analysis because the Travel Demand Model used to model VMT is based on county-wide travel patterns and the City’s VMT thresholds are also based on regional averages (regional is the entire County).

The reasonably foreseeable future projects in the cumulative impact assessment area (see Table 3-1 in Section 3, Environmental Setting) would include new roadways, pedestrian facilities, and bicycle lanes. For example, the Hillcrest Estates project would involve new internal access roads and sidewalks that connect to the existing roadway and pedestrian network. As part of design review and the entitlement process, this project and other cumulative projects have or would be required to meet City roadway, sidewalk, and bicycle lane specifications and standards. The cumulative projects have generally been designed to either add to or blend into the existing pedestrian and bicycle lane network, consistent with City and State policies and guidance to reduce VMT and Exhibit B
222 of 343

Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-17
increase transportation safety. While some cumulative projects would be proximate to transit routes and stops, they would not require removal of transit stops. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to potential conflicts with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be less than significant.

The Transportation Impact Analysis (Appendix E) modeled the VMT of the DWSP in 2040 using the methodology described above in a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. Rather than modeling each of the reasonably foreseeable future projects in the cumulative impact assessment area, the analysis used the TDM which models buildout of Santa Cruz County in 2040. Table 4.8-3 summarizes the VMT per capita and the VMT per employee for the proposed DWSP under future cumulative conditions in 2040.

Table 4.8-3 Cumulative VMT by DWSP Land Use
Scenario
VMT Per Capita
(Residential)
VMT Per Employee
(Office)
VMT Per Employee
(Industrial)
2019 Existing Conditions 9.4 9.6 14.2
2040 Future Conditions Plus DWSP VMT 7.4 8.5 12.8
Significance Threshold 8.9 7.4 11.0
Threshold Exceeded? No Yes Yes
Source: Kimley-Horn 2023 (see Appendix E)
As shown in Table 4.8-3, VMT across all land use scenarios would decrease from cumulative development compared with existing conditions. However, with the exception of residential land uses, cumulative office and industrial development would still exceed VMT significance thresholds in 2040. Accordingly, cumulative VMT impacts related to a conflict or inconsistency with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) would be potentially significant. The DWSP would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to this significant cumulative impact because it would add VMT that exceeds thresholds, even in future cumulative conditions.

Exhibit B
223 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan

4.8-18
This page intentionally left blank.

Exhibit B
224 of 343

Environmental Impact Analysis
Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-1

4.9 Tribal Cultural Resources
This section describes the tribal cultural resources within the DWSP plan area and vicinity and assesses the potential impacts to these resources that could result from implementation of the proposed DWSP.

4.9.1 Setting
PRC Section 21074 (a)(1)(A) and (B) defines tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and is:

1. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or

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

Watsonville lies within an area traditionally occupied by the Ohlone, or Costanoan, people. Ohlone territory extends from San Pablo Bay to Point Sur, with the inland boundary most likely constituted by the interior Coast Ranges (Kroeber, 1925). The Ohlone language belongs to the Penutian family, with several distinct dialects throughout the region (Kroeber, 1925).

The pre-contact Ohlone were semi-sedentary, with a settlement system characterized by base camps of tule reed houses and specialized seasonal camps (Skowronek, 1998). Groups with higher populations occupied some sedentary villages, but used specialized seasonal camps (Levy, 1978).

Villages were divided into small polities, or tribelets, each of which was governed by a chief responsible for settling disputes, acting as a war leader during times of conflict, and supervising economic and ceremonial activities (Skowronek, 1998; Kroeber, 1925; Levy, 1978). Social organization appeared flexible to ethnographers and any sort of social hierarchy was not apparent to mission priests (Skowronek, 1998).

Ohlone subsistence was based on hunting, gathering, and fishing (Kroeber 1925; Skowronek, 1998).

Mussels provided a particularly important food resource (Kroeber, 1925). Sea mammals were also important. Sea lions and seals were hunted and beached whales were exploited (Kroeber, 1925:467). The Ohlone employed the tule balsa raft to exploit aquatic food sources. The acorn was also an important staple, as in the rest of California, and was prepared by leaching acorn meal both in openwork baskets and in holes dug into the sand (Kroeber, 1925; 1971). The Ohlone smoked tobacco and also practiced controlled burning to facilitate plant growth (Kroeber, 1925, 1971; Skowronek, 1998)
Seven Franciscan missions were built within Ohlone territory in the late 1700s, and members of the Ohlone group were eventually brought into the mission system (Kroeber, 1925; Skowronek, 1998).

After the establishment of the missions, the Ohlone population dwindled from roughly 10,000 people in 1770 to 1,300 in 1814 (Skowronek, 1998). In 1973, the population of people with Ohlone descent was estimated at fewer than 300 (Levy, 1978). The descendants of the Ohlone united in 1971 and have since arranged political and cultural organizations to revitalize aspects of their culture (Skowronek, 1998).

Exhibit B
225 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan

4.9-2
Given this history, there is potential for remnants of ancestral culture, gathering places, or traditional properties that may be considered Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) in the plan area.

4.9.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Assembly Bill 52 of 2014
Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) expanded CEQA by defining a new resource category, “tribal cultural resources.” AB 52 establishes that “A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC Section 21084.2). It further states that the lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource, when feasible (PRC Section 21084.3).

AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding those resources.

The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be adopted or certified.

Under AB 52, lead agencies are required to “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Native American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed within the jurisdiction of the lead agency. b. California Senate Bill 18 of 2004
California Government Code Section 65352.3 (adopted pursuant to the requirements of Senate Bill [SB] 18) requires local governments to contact, refer plans to, and consult with tribal organizations prior to making a decision to adopt or amend a general or specific plan. The tribal organizations eligible to consult have traditional lands in a local government’s jurisdiction, and are identified, upon request, by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). As noted in the California Office of Planning and Research’s Tribal Consultation Guidelines (2005): “The intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places.” SB 18 refers to PRC Section 5097.9 and 5097.995 to define cultural places as:
 Native American sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine (PRC Section 5097.9)
 Native American historic, cultural, or sacred site, that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources pursuant to Section 5024.1, including any historic or prehistoric ruins, any burial ground, any archaeological or historic site (PRC Section 5097.995).

The proposed DWSP is a specific plan. The City will consider the potential adoption of the DWSP.

Therefore, SB 18 is applicable to the proposed project. c. Consultation Results
As part of its tribal cultural resources consultation process under AB 52 and SB 18, the City of Watsonville sent letters via certified mail on October 4, 2022 to the following Native American tribes that that were identified by the NAHC as being traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area:
 Amah Mutsun Tribal Band
 Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista
Exhibit B
226 of 343

Environmental Impact Analysis
Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-3
 Costanoan Ohlone Rumsen-Mutsen Tribe
 Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan
 Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band
 Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area
 Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation
Copies of the consultation letters sent to these tribes are included as Appendix F to this EIR.

Under AB 52 and SB 18, Native American tribes typically have 30 days and 90 days, respectively, to respond and request further project information and formal consultation. On November 16, 2022, the City of Watsonville received a response via email from Kanyon Sayers-Roods of the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan requesting consultation. Because the 30-day window for a Tribe to request consultation under AB 52 ended on November 3, 2022, and the 90-day window for a tribe to request consultation under SB 18 ended Monday January 02, 2023, tribal consultation between the Tribe and the City was conducted under SB 18 nexus. The City received no responses from the other six Tribes contacted.

The City and Kanyon Sayers-Roods, representing the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, held a virtual consultation meeting on December 19, 2022. The City presented the goals of the DWSP, and asked the tribe what measures the City could take to lessen effects to tribal resources and tribal cultural resources. The tribe requested the following for the City’s consideration:
 Public outreach and community engagement about the rich and diverse history of the tribe, currently and since pre-contact times;
 Arts initiatives with public infrastructure plans to give the vibrancy of “truth and History” that can present and showcase layered history;
 Assure Native people have access to native plant and gathering spaces, ideally during harvest times;
 Fostering community knowledge about traditional gathering areas and traditional land maintenance;
 Give City and Public Parks maintenance staff a cultural sensitivity and competency training; and  A strong management plan for unanticipated discoveries of cultural tribal, and tribal cultural resources.

The City acknowledged the City would remain sensitive to the tribe’s primary concerns. Consultation between the City and the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan regarding DWSP pursuant to SB 18 will be closed prior to potential adoption of the DWSP.

4.9.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would result in potentially significant environmental effects on tribal cultural resources if it would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

Exhibit B
227 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan

4.9-4
1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or 2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
Threshold 2: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1?
IMPACT TCR-1 DEVELOPMENT ENVISIONED IN THE DWSP WOULD HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO ADVERSELY CHANGE TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION MEASURE TCR-1 WOULD REDUCE THE IMPACT TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

No specific tribal cultural resources were identified in the City of Watsonville as a result of consultation with the Tribes. Potential tribal cultural resources in the DWSP plan area are largely destroyed or obscured by over a century of development and Tribal displacement; however, remnants of these resources may be underground or otherwise obscured by buildings and structures. Tribal cultural resources could also be in small patches of undeveloped land, such as narrow strips of unpaved dirt or grass between parking lots or buildings. These resources could be revealed with demolition of existing buildings or construction of the development envisioned in the DWSP, when the ground surface and surrounding open spaces are exposed. For example, development of a new building in the plan area could require excavation for utility installation, at which time previously unknown or unidentified tribal cultural resources could be encountered.

Adherence to the requirements of AB 52 would require Tribal consultation with local California Native American Tribes prior to implementation of future project activities subject to CEQA or SB

35. In compliance with AB 52, a determination of whether project-specific substantial adverse effects on tribal cultural resources would occur along with identification of appropriate projectspecific avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures would be required. Due to the programmatic nature of the proposed DWSP it is not possible to fully determine impacts of specific projects on specific sites; however, no tribal cultural resources were identified during SB 18 consultation, and no AB 52 consultation occurred as a result of outreach as no tribes responded to offers to consult.

Nonetheless, projects associated with the proposed DWSP have the potential to significantly impact tribal cultural resources through ground disturbance. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1 is required.

Exhibit B
228 of 343

Environmental Impact Analysis
Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-5
Mitigation Measures
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 precontact 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 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).

Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would protect tribal cultural resources in the event of their discovery during implementation of the proposed project, reducing the potential impact on such resources to less than significant.
c. Cumulative Impacts
Tribal cultural resources are typically site specific. However, some tribal cultural resources have the potential to extend across project sites or multiple properties; therefore, the appropriate geographic scope for cumulative tribal cultural resources impacts includes parcels adjacent to the plan area as well as in the plan area. Projects listed in Table 3-1 in Section 3, Environmental Setting, were considered during the analysis of cumulative impacts, even though many of these projects are not within or directly adjacent to the plan area.

The reasonably foreseeable future projects in the cumulative impact assessment area and nearby (see Table 3-1 in Section 3, Environmental Setting) would involve construction activities that require ground disturbance. For example, these projects could require trenching for utility connections or grading to prepare the site for pouring foundations. These types of construction activities would therefore have potential to impact both known or previously unknown tribal cultural resources.

Because construction typically involves heavy machinery, such as dozers and trucks, encountering resources could cause substantial adverse changes to the resources. Accordingly, the potential cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources would be significant.

As described under Impact TCR-1, the proposed project would result in a significant impact without mitigation to unknown tribal cultural resources. Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would reduce projectExhibit B 229 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan

4.9-6
level impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources would not be cumulatively considerable.

Exhibit B
230 of 343

Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-1
5 Alternatives
As required by Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, this EIR examines a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project that would attain most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts.

As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, 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 As mentioned above, the CEQA Guidelines advise that an alternatives discussion in an EIR should be limited to alternatives that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and would achieve most of the project objectives. As discussed in Section 6, Other CEQA Required Discussions, the proposed DWSP would result in significant unavoidable impacts related to air quality, cultural resources, noise, and transportation. These impacts are primarily due to the increased density envisioned in the DWSP. As discussed in the respective sections of this EIR, with implementation of mitigation measures, the proposed project would not result in other significant and unavoidable impacts.

5.1 Selection of CEQA Alternatives
Included in this analysis are three alternatives, including the CEQA-required “no project” alternative, that involve changes to the project that may reduce the project-related environmental impacts as identified in this EIR. Alternatives have been developed to provide a reasonable range of options to consider that would help decision makers and the public understand the general implications of revising or eliminating certain components of the proposed project.

The following alternatives are evaluated in this EIR:
 Alternative 1: No Project
 Alternative 2: Repurposed Walker Street Industrial Uses  Alternative 3: Reduced Density Alternative
Detailed descriptions of the alternatives are included in the impact analysis for each alternative. The potential environmental impacts of each alternative are analyzed in Sections 5.2 through 5.4.

Exhibit B
231 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
5-2

5.2 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative

5.2.1 Description
Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a specific alternative of “no project” be evaluated in an EIR to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving a proposed project with the impacts of not approving that project. CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e)(3) describes the two general types of no project alternative: (1) when the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy or ongoing operation, the no project alternative would be the continuation of that plan; and (2) when the project is not a land use/regulatory plan, such as a specific development on an identifiable property, the no project alternative is the circumstance under which that project is not processed (i.e., no development occurs). Alternative 1 represents the former alternative type of no project and assumes the DWSP is not adopted or implemented, and instead there is continued implementation of the City’s current General Plan for the plan area.

Under this 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 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 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. For example, as describe in Table 2.2 in Section 2, Project Description, 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. Therefore, this improvement and the others described in Section 2, Project Description, would not occur under this alternative.

5.2.2 Impact Analysis
a. Air Quality
Alternative 1 would result in less dense development downtown, and it would also generally keep or maintain existing conditions in the plan area, which is developed and urbanized. Because less development would occur compared with the DWSP, Alternative 1 would result in less construction activity in the plan area. There are no specific development projects proposed within the plan area that are consistent with the General Plan at this time; therefore, it is not possible to model construction emissions of Alternative 1. However, based on how little new development would be expected under this alternative, Alternative 1 would have construction emissions likely below applicable MBARD thresholds. This is supported by the fact that the DWSP envisions much more development in the plan area than Alternative 1, and the construction emissions of the DWSP would be below applicable MBARD thresholds (see Table 4.2-4 in Section 4.2, Air Quality).

Operational emissions within the plan area would also be reduced under Alternative 1 compared with the proposed DWSP because there would be less residential, commercial, and industrial development. For example, under Alternative 1, there would be 64 housing units in the plan area, Exhibit B
232 of 343

Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-3
including those units that currently exist. The proposed DWSP would add approximately 3,886 housing units to the plan area. The far fewer housing units under Alternative 1 would result in a corresponding decrease in operational emissions within the plan area. However, though emissions generated within the plan area would be reduced under Alternative 1, emissions citywide or regionally could increase. The potential for this increase would be the result of less dense development downtown, meaning new development would occur farther from business centers and people would need to commute in vehicles more frequently.

Overall, Alternative 1 would result in less construction and development in the plan area compared to the DWSP. Alternative 1 would result in less than significant air quality impacts. Impacts of Alternative 1 would be reduced compared to the proposed DWSP. b. Cultural Resources
Alternative 1 is a continuation of the City’s General Plan, which applies land use designations to the plan area. Accordingly, Alternative 1 facilitates development within the plan area, only at a reduced density compared with the DWSP. Because Alternative 1 facilitates development in the plan area consistent with existing land use designations, Alternative 1 would have the potential to impact the same cultural resources as the proposed DWSP. Although Alternative 1 would provide less density in the plan area, the construction of these buildings under this alternative would still generally result in ground disturbance across the entire site given the relatively small parcel sizes in the downtown area. In other words, the increased density envisioned in the DWSP is generally from adding height to buildings rather than expanding buildings over large areas of land. Impacts would be potentially significant and unavoidable, and similar to the impacts of the DWSP on cultural resources. c. Noise
Alternative 1 would result in less dense development downtown. Therefore, compared with the DWSP, Alternative 1 would result in less construction activity in the plan area. There are no specific development projects proposed within the plan area that are consistent with the General Plan at this time; therefore, it is not possible to model construction noise levels of Alternative 1. However, based on how little new development would be expected under this alternative, Alternative 1 would result in less construction noise when compared with the proposed DWSP.

Because no specific projects are proposed downtown consistent with the General Plan at the time of preparation of this EIR, existing noise levels are reasonably expected to continue into the future, as an operational stage of Alternative 1. As described in Existing Conditions: Noise (Rincon Consultants 2020), ambient noise levels exceed City noise standards at numerous locations with the plan area. Accordingly, similar to the proposed DWSP, noise levels would exceed City standards under Alternative 1. However, ambient noise levels are an existing condition, and Alternative 1 would not substantially change existing conditions, but instead add incremental development with negligible increases in noise levels. Therefore, Alternative 1 would result in less than significant impacts on existing noise conditions, which would be reduced compared to the noise impacts of the DWSP.
d. Transportation
Alternative 1 would result in less dense development downtown compared with the DWSP. While the current General Plan does not prohibit redevelopment of developed sites, potential redevelopment in the plan area would be generally consistent with existing conditions because existing development is generally consistent with the General Plan and this alternative assumes Exhibit B
233 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
5-4
consistency with the General Plan. Accordingly, implementation of Alternative 1 would generally maintain existing conditions as they related to VMT. As described in the Transportation Analysis prepared for the DWSP (Appendix E), existing VMT in the plan area exceeds significance thresholds, which are based on regional VMT. Compared with the DWSP, Alternative 1 would exceed more VMT metrics, such as VMT per residential capita, which would not be exceeded by the proposed DWSP (see Existing Conditions VMT in the Transportation Impact Analysis; Appendix E). Therefore, Alternative 1 would result in greater VMT per capita in the plan area than the proposed DWSP.

Impacts for Alternative 1 would be significant and unavoidable, as they are for the DWSP.

5.2.3 Feasibility of Alternative 1
Alternative 1 is feasible to implement because it would consist of buildout of City’s adopted General Plan.

5.2.4 Relationship of Alternative 1 to Project Objectives The objectives of the proposed project center on encouraging and facilitating growth in the plan area, which consists of the downtown area of Watsonville. The City’s General Plan also facilitates growth in the 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 plan area. For example, Alternative 1 includes only 64 housing units in the 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 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.

5.3 Alternative 2: Repurposed Walker Street Industrial
Uses

5.3.1 Description
Currently, the Walker Street corridor within the plan area is characterized by factory and lightindustrial businesses that were once or originally serviced by rail. The vacant and underutilized industrial buildings in the Walker Street corridor are not in pristine condition but have the potential for adaptive reuse. The old rail depot is located at Walker Street and W. Lake Avenue, just outside the plan area boundary. In the future, the rail depot could potentially provide passenger rail access to Watsonville, making this area a new downtown gateway. For these reasons the proposed DWSP recognizes the Walker Street corridor as a good opportunity for new businesses to locate in and near downtown. Accordingly, the DWSP designates the Walker Street corridor as Downtown Industrial.

Under Alternative 2, Repurposed Walker Street Industrial Uses Alternative, 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 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 Exhibit B
234 of 343

Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-5
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 plan area would remain as envisioned in the proposed DWSP.

5.3.2 Impact Analysis
a. Air Quality
The DWSP would designate the Walker Street corridor as Downtown Industrial, which is generally consistent with the existing land uses along Walker Street within the plan area. Under Alternative 2, the Walker Street corridor would switch to residential and commercial space, over time. Therefore, Alternative 2 could require more demolition activities than the proposed DWSP. Similarly, because Walker Street already contains industrial buildings, redevelopment with other types of buildings, such as residential buildings, could result in more construction emissions compared with the DWSP.

This is because new residential buildings and mixed-use buildings would not be constructed in the Walker Street corridor under the DWSP. The additional residential units that would be constructed under this alternative would also introduce additional housing to the area and contribute to population growth inconsistent with the growth assumptions in the Air Quality Management Plan to a greater extent than the DWSP. Impacts related to conflicts with an applicable air quality management plan would be significant and unavoidable under both Alternative 2 and the DWSP.

Industrial land uses and processes typically generate air pollution. Alternative 2 would reduce the amount of space in the plan area where industrial processes could occur. However, Alternative 2 would increase the number of people residing in the plan area by replacing industrial development with residential and mixed-use development. As shown in Table 4.2-5 in Section 4.2, Air Quality, the most operational emissions of the DWSP result from mobile sources (i.e., vehicle trips). Locating more residents downtown with the plan area could reduce the need for vehicle travel by placing people in proximity to commercial uses. However, the reduction of industrial space could also result in reduced employment in the plan area, requiring residents to commute to jobs or employment.

The additional commuter trips that could occur under Alternative 2 would have corresponding mobile-source emissions that would not occur under the DWSP. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, described in Section 4.2, Air Quality, would be required for Alternative 2. With implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts related to net increases of criteria pollutants would be significant and unavoidable. This significant and unavoidable impact of Alternative 2 would be similar in severity as the DWSP.

This alternative would result in slightly less severe impacts related to odors because residential uses and mix-use development typically produce less adverse odors than industrial processes. This alternative would also result in less severe impacts related to exposure of people to pollutants for the same reason of less industrial emissions and air pollution. b. Cultural Resources
While the DWSP provides land use designations for the entire plan area, it focuses on infill development of vacant or under-utilized sites. The DWSP designates the Walker Street corridor as Downtown Industrial, which is consistent with the existing development within the corridor.

Therefore, implementation of the DWSP would result in minimal changes within the Walker Street Corridor. In contrast, Alternative 2 would redevelop the corridor with residential and mixed-use development. There are no known designated historic resources along Walker Street within the plan Exhibit B
235 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
5-6
area; however, several existing structures along Walker Street within the plan area are identified as potentially eligible for historic designation in the report (Rincon Consultants, 2021). Implementation of Alternative 2 could result in demolition of these structures, whereas the DWSP would be less likely to result in their demolition. Accordingly, Alternative 2 would have more severe impacts to historic resources than the proposed DWSP.

Other parts of the plan area would remain as envisioned in the proposed DWSP. There would be similar potential to impact unknown buried archaeological resources within the plan area or to impact other historic properties regardless of the potential implementation of Alterative 2 or the DWSP. This is because development under Alternative 2 would occur in the plan area, and the relatively small size of parcels in the downtown setting of the plan area typically require disturbance of the entire site or nearly the entire site regardless of the building type proposed on the site.

Implementation of all mitigation measures pertaining to cultural resources for the DWSP would also be required for Alternative 2. However, even with implementation of mitigation, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Impacts of Alternative 2 would be more severe compared to the DWSP due to the potential to impact potentially eligible structures on Walker Street. c. Noise
Under Alternative 2, the plan area would remain as envisioned in the proposed DWSP with the exception of the Walker Street corridor. Therefore, the noise impacts of the DWSP and Alternative 2 would be comparable across most of the plan area. However, Alternative 2 could result in more short-term construction noise and vibration because more demolition and subsequent construction activity would occur along Walker Street than under the DWSP. Implementation of mitigation measures required for the DWSP, including NOI-1(a), NOI-1(b), and NOI-2, would be required for Alternative 2. Similar to the DWSP, even with mitigation measures implemented, impacts of construction noise and vibration would remain significant and unavoidable, with the impact being slightly more severe under Alternative 2.

Implementation of Alternative 2 would reduce industrial process noise within the plan area, specifically within and near the Walker Street corridor. With less industrial development in the area, there could also be a decrease in truck trips, which tend to be louder than passenger vehicles, such as sedans and sports-utility vehicles. However, the reduction of industrial space within the plan area could result in more commuter vehicle trips within the plan area, as plan area residents commute to industrial employment elsewhere, outside of the plan area. Accordingly, operational noise and vibration impacts of Alternative 2 would be significant and unavoidable and similar to the proposed DWSP.
d. Transportation
Under Alternative 2, the plan area would remain as envisioned in the proposed DWSP apart from the Walker Street corridor. Redevelopment of the Walker Street corridor with residential and mixed-use development would increase the number of people residing within the plan area.

Therefore, compared with the DWSP, Alternative 2 would have the potential to further reduce VMT per capita. This is because Alternative 2 would add more residential units to the plan area, thereby increasing the number of people that VMT is distributed amongst.

However, the reduction of industrial space within the plan area could result in more commuter vehicle trips within the plan area, as plan area residents commute to industrial employment elsewhere, outside of the plan area. It is unknown where these residents would commute for industrial employment, and thus the VMT of these commuter trips cannot be calculated without Exhibit B
236 of 343

Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-7
speculation. However, the DWSP would exceed the threshold of VMT per industrial employee.

Therefore, it can be reasonable assumed that with even less industrial employment and added commute trips, VMT per industrial employee would increase under Alternative 2 compared with the proposed DWSP because there would be fewer employees to distribute VMT amongst. Impacts of Alternative 2 related to VMT per industrial employee would be significant and unavoidable and greater or more severe than the DWSP.

Overall, transportation impacts of Alternative 2 would be similar to the DWSP, with some impacts being slighter greater (VMT per employee) and others slightly reduced (VMT per capita).

5.3.3 Feasibility of Alternative 2
Alternative 2 is feasible to implement because it would consist of the DWSP with modifications to the type of land uses along Walker Street within the plan area.

5.3.4 Relationship of Alternative 2 to Project Objectives The objectives of the proposed project center on encouraging and facilitating growth in the plan area, which consists of the downtown area of Watsonville. Alternative 2 would also facilitate growth in the 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 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 plan area.

5.4 Alternative 3: Reduced Density Alternative

5.4.1 Description
Alternative 3 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. 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 plan area compared with the heights or FAR proposed or envisioned in the DWSP.

This alternative is similar to Alternative 1 in that overall density would be less compared to the proposed DWSP; however, unlike Alternative 1, Alternative 3 would require amendments to the existing General Plan and would increase density in the plan area compared to the continued implementation of the existing General Plan. Table 5-1 provides a comparison of the development that would occur within the plan area under Alternative 3 and the proposed DWSP.

Exhibit B
237 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
5-8
Table 5-1 Alternative 3 and DWSP Density Comparison
Plan Scenario
Land Use Type
Residential (du) Commercial (sf) Industrial (sf) Civic (sf) Alternative 3 2,915 173,363 282,620 85,929
Proposed DWSP 3,886 231,151 376,827 114,572
Note: ‘du’ equals dwelling unit and ‘sf’ equals square feet, and values presented in table are approximate Source: City of Watsonville 2022

5.4.2 Impact Analysis
a. Air Quality
As detailed in Section 4.7, Population and Housing, the current population of Watsonville is 50,669 and the average household size is approximately 3.52 persons per household. Alternative 3 would add an estimated 2,915 additional residential units, which would increase the City’s population by 10,261 to approximately 60,930. According to the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) population forecast, the City’s population would be 56,344 in 2045. Therefore, the estimated population of 60,930 with buildout of Alternative 3 would exceed AMBAG’s population forecasts for 2045 by approximately 4,586 people. This would be an improvement compared to the DWSP which would exceed forecasts by approximately 8,004 people (see Table 4.7-2 in Section 4.7, Population and Housing). However, because the anticipated increase in population would be inconsistent with long-term growth projections for the county, implementation of Alternative 3 would conflict with an air quality plan, and therefore Alternative 3 would result in a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would be required, similar to the proposed project. However, with implementation of mitigation, impacts related to conflict with an air quality plan would remain significant and unavoidable, as population growth would continue to exceed projections. Compared with the DWSP, the severity of this impact would be reduced under Alternative 3, because the DWSP exceeds population growth forecasts to a greater extent than Alternative 3.

Alternative 3 would result in approximately 25 percent less development in the plan area compared with the DWSP. Accordingly, construction activities and associated air pollutant emissions would also decrease under Alternative 3. Construction emissions of the DWSP would be below MBARD significance thresholds. Because Alternative 3 would result in less construction emissions than the DWSP, construction emissions of Alternative 3 would also be below MBARD significance thresholds.

Alternative 3 would also reduce the potential to expose sensitive receptors to construction dust.

Overall, air quality impacts resulting from construction activities under Alternative 3 would be less than significant, and construction emissions impacts would be reduced or less severe when compared to the DWSP.

Operational emissions within the plan area would also be reduced under Alternative 3 compared with the proposed DWSP because there would be less residential, commercial, and industrial development. For example, as shown in Table 5-1, there would be 2,915 housing units in the plan area, which is less than the 3,886 envisioned by the DWSP. The reduced density under Alternative 3 would result in a corresponding decrease in operational emissions within the plan area. Though Alternative 3 would reduce emissions generated within the plan area, emissions remain above MBARD thresholds. As shown in Table 4.2-5 in Section 4.2, Air Quality, some operational emissions of the DWSP, such as ROG emissions, would exceed MBARD thresholds by substantially more than Exhibit B
238 of 343

Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-9
25 percent. Therefore, assuming a 25 percent reduction in emissions resulting from a 25 percent reduction in development density, operational emissions could still exceed MBARD significant thresholds. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would be required under Alternative 3, similar to the proposed DWSP. However, impacts of Alternative 3 related to operational emissions of criteria pollutants would remain significant and unavoidable.

Alternative 3 would locate people in proximity to potential toxic air contaminants, as well as during construction of development that could occur under Alternative 3. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-3(a) and AQ-3(b) would be required. However, with implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts of Alternative 3 related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would remain significant and unavoidable. Impacts would be slightly reduced or less severe compared with the DWSP, because Alternative 3 would result in less residential development and therefore fewer receptors to toxic air contaminants. b. Cultural Resources
Alternative 3 would facilitate development within the same plan area as the DWSP. While density would be reduced under this alternative compared with the DWSP, the reduction would generally occur from removing a story of residential buildings. The footprint (or foundation) of commercial and industrial buildings could be reduced under this alternative, since these types of buildings are often a single story. However, the construction of these buildings would still generally result in ground disturbance across the entire site given the relatively small parcel sizes in the downtown area. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 3 would have the potential to encounter previously unknown or undiscovered buried cultural resources during construction. Implementation of mitigation measures pertaining to cultural resources in the Initial Study (Appendix A) would be required. With implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts to buried and undiscovered cultural resources would be less than significant and similar to the proposed DWSP.

Alternative 3 could result in the demolition or redevelopment of the same structures as the DWSP.

Therefore, Alternative 3 could impact the same historic buildings or buildings recommended as eligible for historic designation as the DWSP. Implementation of mitigation required for the DWSP, including Mitigation Measures CUL-1(a) and CUL-1(b), would be required for Alternative 3. With implementation of mitigation, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Compared with the DWSP, impacts would be slightly reduced or less severe. The reduced severity would be due to the reduced height of new residential buildings under Alternative 3. The reduced size of these new buildings would be slightly more consistent with the height of historic buildings in the plan area. c. Noise
Alternative 3 would result in approximately 25 percent less development in the plan area compared with the DWSP. Accordingly, construction activities and associated noise and vibration generated from construction would also decrease under Alternative 3. However, like the DWSP, Alternative 3 would include construction in proximity to sensitive receptors, such as existing schools or residences. Implementation of mitigation measures required for the DWSP, including NOI-1(a), NOI1(b), and NOI-2, would be required for Alternative 3. Similar to DWSP, even with mitigation measures implemented, impacts of construction noise and vibration would remain significant and unavoidable, with the impact being slightly less severe under Alternative 3 due to less construction.

Implementation of Alternative 3 would reduce density. However, the reduced density would not have substantial ramifications on operational noise levels. This is because the operational activities that generate noise would persist, such as HVAC units or vehicle travel. Accordingly, operational Exhibit B
239 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
5-10
noise and vibration impacts of Alternative 2 would be significant and unavoidable and similar to the proposed DWSP.
d. Transportation
Alternative 3 would result in approximately 25 percent less development in the plan area compared with the DWSP. This reduced density would generally not affect circulation patterns envisioned by the DWSP. Therefore, impacts related to conflicts with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system would be less than significant under Alternative 3 and similar to the DWSP. The impacts of Alternative 3 related to transportation hazards would be less than significant, and slightly less severe compared with the DWSP. Impacts related to safety hazards would be slightly less severe because Alternative 3 would result in less truck trips within the plan area due to reduced commercial and industrial development density. Generally, large trucks can create safety hazards or conflicts with traditional vehicles, such as sedans, as well as pedestrian and cyclists.

Compared with the DWSP, Alternative 3 would not change the types of development envisioned in the DWSP. Therefore, the VMT generated by these land uses types would be approximately the same under both Alternative 3 and the DWSP. However, Alternative 3 would reduce the population and employment, or number of jobs, within the plan area compared with the DWSP. Because there would be fewer people and jobs, total VMT would be distributed among fewer people and jobs.

Accordingly, the VMT per capita and VMT per job would increase under Alternative 3. The VMT per capita could exceed significant thresholds (see Section 4.8, Transportation), and VMT per employee would exceed significant thresholds. Therefore, Alternative 3 would have significant and unavoidable impacts related to VMT and CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3. Compared with the DWSP, the VMT impacts of Alternative 3 would be greater or more severe. Overall, transportation impacts of Alternative 3 would be more severe compared with the DWSP, with safety hazard impacts slightly reduced but VMT impacts greater.

5.4.3 Feasibility of Alternative 3
Alternative 3 is feasible to implement because it would consist of the DWSP with modifications to reduce development density.

5.4.4 Relationship of Alternative 3 to Project Objectives The objectives of the proposed project center on encouraging and facilitating growth in the plan area, which consists of the downtown area of Watsonville. Alternative 3 would also facilitate growth in the plan area, but development would occur at reduced density. Therefore, 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.

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.

Exhibit B
240 of 343

Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-11

5.5 Alternatives Considered but Rejected
Location 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 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 is not discussed further.

5.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative
The CEQA Guidelines specify that an EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative among those discussed. If the environmentally superior alternative is the “No Project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.

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 2 would potentially fulfill project objectives even better than the DWSP. However, implementation Alternative 2 would slightly reduce impacts only to air quality compared with the DWSP. Other impacts would either be similar to, or increased severity compared with the DWSP.

Because these impacts would remain similar or potentially become more severe, Alternative 2 is not the environmentally superior alternative.

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, as discussed above in Section 5.4.4, 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.

In summary, Alternative 3 is identified as the superior alternative among the other alternatives considered.

Exhibit B
241 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
5-12
This page intentionally left blank.

Exhibit B
242 of 343

Other CEQA Required Discussions
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-1
6 Other CEQA Required Discussions
This section discusses growth-inducing impacts and irreversible environmental impacts that would result from the proposed DWSP. This section also summarizes the significant and unavoidable impacts of the DWSP.

6.1 Growth Inducement
Section 15126(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of a proposed project’s potential to foster economic or population growth, including ways in which a project could remove an obstacle to growth. Growth does not necessarily create significant physical changes to the environment.

However, depending upon the type, magnitude, and location of growth, it can result in significant adverse environmental effects. The proposed project’s growth inducing potential is therefore considered significant if project-induced growth could result in significant physical effects in one or more environmental issue areas.

6.1.1 Population Growth
This EIR identifies a maximum buildout for the DWSP, which is a conservative assumption developed for this analysis and is not meant to be a predictor of future growth. Overall, maximum growth would be dependent on multiple factors, including local economic conditions, market demand, and other financing considerations. The following estimate of population growth is a conservative estimate based on the maximum buildout scenario. As discussed in EIR Section 2, Project Description, and Section 4.7, Population and Housing, maximum buildout of the DWSP could accommodate an estimated 3,886 additional housing units and approximately 722,547 square feet of commercial, industrial, and civic uses over the 25-year planning horizon and beyond. The 3,886 residential units envisioned by the project would support an estimated 13,679 residents in the downtown area and would directly induce growth in the city.

As discussed within Section 4.7, Population and Housing, the project would facilitate an increase of 13,679 people and 3,886 units by 2045, 8,004 people and 2,022 housing units greater than what was forecasted by AMBAG. Although the project would exceed existing population and housing forecasts, the project itself anticipates and plans for this growth in downtown Watsonville. Several chapters of the DWSP provide guidance for development and growth within the downtown area, including Chapter 4, Mobility and Transportation; Chapter 5, Public Realm Improvements; Chapter 6, Land Use and Zoning; and Chapter 8, Infrastructure. These chapters establish guiding policies and goals for orderly development, and aim to ensure that growth does not outpace the capacity of existing infrastructure, services, and facilities. Chapter 4, Mobility and Transportation, outlines the vision and framework for improving and growing the pedestrian, bicycle, vehicle, and transit network in Watsonville, and Chapter 5, Public Realm Improvements, describes recommended improvements in the downtown area to enhance the pedestrian experience and link various areas of downtown Watsonville together.

Chapter 6, Land Use and Zoning, would directly facilitate orderly development in downtown Watsonville by establishing standards and guidelines to regulate future development on privatelyowned properties. Changes to existing land use and zoning designations are intended to deliver the physical outcomes envisioned for downtown Watsonville and would concentrate urban activity and Exhibit B
243 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
6-2
intensity in the center of downtown while transitioning to lower-intensity uses at the edge of downtown. Finally, Chapter 8, Infrastructure, outlines recommended upgrades and improvements for the existing water, sewer, and stormwater systems in Watsonville to serve anticipated growth and development.

6.1.2 Removal of Obstacles to Growth
The land use plan and policies in the DWSP prioritize infill development, reuse of limited underutilized parcels, reimagined mobility options, mixed-use design, and preserve key elements that make downtown Watsonville unique while supporting growth in areas already well-served by existing public facilities and services. New development would occur where existing roads, water, and sewer and other utilities are in place and in a manner that minimizes the impact of development on existing infrastructure and services. Despite the proposed change in land use designations, the project would generally preserve the existing pattern of land uses in the City, particularly within the downtown area.

6.2 Irreversible Environmental Effects
An EIR must identify any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the proposed project being analyzed. Irreversible environmental changes may include current or future commitments to the use of non-renewable resources, or secondary or growth-inducing impacts that commit future generations to similar uses. In addition, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified. The CEQA Guidelines describe three categories of significant irreversible changes that should be considered, as further detailed below.

6.2.1 Land Use Changes Which Would Commit Future
Generations
As described throughout this EIR, the DWSP is long-range plan that focuses on revitalizing the traditional downtown center of Watsonville by allowing higher density infill development in areas with unbuilt and underutilized parcels of land and replacement of underutilized uses. Growth and development envisioned in the DWSP would occur as infill development of similar types as existing uses, though at occasionally higher densities than at present. Such growth and revitalization would not commit future generations to changes in land use which would be substantial.

6.2.2 Irreversible Changes from Environmental Actions
Irreversible changes to the physical environment could occur from accidental release of hazardous materials associated with development envisioned in the DWSP. However, compliance with hazardous materials regulations and policies, and the remediation of existing conditions within the project site, as outlined in the Initial Study (Appendix A) and Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, would reduce this potential impact to less than significant.

Other than the accidental release of hazardous materials, the development and land uses occurring in the plan area with implementation of the DWSP would be similar to those urban activities occurring in any metropolitan area.

Exhibit B
244 of 343

Other CEQA Required Discussions
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-3

6.2.3 Consumption of Nonrenewable Resources
Consumption of nonrenewable resources includes increased energy consumption, conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses, and lost access to mineral reserves. The DWSP envisions development within primarily vacant or underutilized parcels in the downtown area of Watsonville.

No agricultural lands would be converted and no access to mining reserves would be lost with implementation of DWSP because these resources do not exist in the plan area. While development envisioned in the DWSP would require additional energy of several types for construction and for on-going use, it would not require the construction of major new lines or infrastructure to deliver energy. Furthermore, to the extent that growth throughout Watsonville and southern Santa Cruz County is partly an expression of regional demand, development within the downtown area of Watsonville would represent a more efficient allocation of non-renewable resources than many other types or patterns of growth. For example, placing residential units downtown would locate people in proximity to other land uses, such as employment or shopping/retail. This proximity would allow people to walk or bicycle to these uses, as opposed to more rural or suburban development outside of the plan area, which would typically require a personal vehicle and consume fuel.

6.3 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
As discussed in Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis, of this EIR, implementation of the DWSP would result in the following significant unavoidable adverse impacts:
 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.  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.  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.
 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.
 Impact CUL-C1: The DWSP would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact on historic-era cultural resources.
 Impact NOI-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 on-site noise sources and contribute to increases in traffic noise. Construction and on-site operational noise could exceed standards. This impact would be significant and unavoidable even with mitigation.
 Impact NOI-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.  Impact NOI-C1: The construction activities for the development envisioned in the DWSP would have a cumulatively considerable contribution toward a significant cumulative impact on noise.

Exhibit B
245 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
6-4
 Impact TRA-2: 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.  Impact TRA-C1: 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).

Exhibit B
246 of 343

References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-1
7 References

7.1 Bibliography
Executive Summary
California Office of Historic Preservation. 1991. California Office of Historic Preservation Planning Bulletin 5: Guidelines for Archaeological Research Design. Retrieved on May 2, 2023, from https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/arch%20research%20design.pdf U.S. National Park Service. 1983. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology. Retrieved on May 2, 2023, from
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/historicpreservation/upload/standards-guidelinesarcheology-historic-preservation.pdf Project Description
Watsonville, City of. 2022. Downtown Watsonville. https://cityofwatsonville.org/406/DowntownWatsonville Environmental Setting
Watsonville, City of. 2023. Community Development and Planning Viewer [map database]. https://gis.cityofwatsonville.org/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=b76d21800af24 407ab0e6b1062273fc5 (accessed March 2023).

Aesthetics
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2022. State Scenic Highway Map [map database].
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e 8057116f1aacaa (accessed October 2022).

Watsonville, City of. 2001. Watsonville Livable Community Residential Design Guidelines. Retrieved on May 2, 2023, from
https://www.cityofwatsonville.org/DocumentCenter/View/2549/Livable-CommunitiesResidential-Design-Guidelines Watsonville, City of. 2005. 2005 General Plan.
https://www.cityofwatsonville.org/DocumentCenter/View/188/12-Public-Safety-PDF (accessed October 2022).

Watsonville, City of. 2022. Downtown Watsonville. https://cityofwatsonville.org/406/DowntownWatsonville Air Quality
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air quality Guidelines. https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmentalquality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines.

Exhibit B
247 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
7-2
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf (accessed August 2022).
______. May 4, 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available at https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf
______. November, 2022. Area Designations Map/State and National. Available at https://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm
______. 2023a. Inhalable Particulate Matter and Health (PM2.5 and PM10). https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/inhalable-particulate-matter-and-health (accessed February 2023).
______. 2023b. Top Four Summary. Available at
https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php
______. 2022c. Overview Diesel Exhaust & Health. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overviewdiesel-exhaust-and-health (accessed August 2022).

Kimley Horn. 2022. Transportation Impact Analysis Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan, October.

Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD). 2008a. Air Quality Management Plan. Available at http://mbuapcd.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/2008-AQMP-Combined.pdf ______. 2008b. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Available at http://www.mbuapcd.org/mbuapcd/pdf/mbuapcd/pdf/CEQA_full.pdf ______. 2013. Triennial Plan Revision 2009-2011. Adopted April 17, 2013. Available at http://mbard.org/pdf/Final_Triennial_Plan_Revision_041913.pdf ______. 2017. Planning: Air Quality Plans. 2012-2015 Air Quality Management Plan. Monterey, CA.

March 2017. Accessed May 2017, at http://mbard.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2012- 2015-AQMP_FINAL.pdf
Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2022. Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan Project Initial Study. October.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2003. 2003 Air Quality Management Plan. https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/2003-aqmp.

Unites States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2020. Health and Environmental Effects of Hazardous Air Pollutants. Last updated February 3, 2020. https://www.epa.gov/haps/health-and-environmental-effects-hazardous-air-pollutants (accessed November 2022).
______. 2022a. NAAQS Table. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table (accessed November 2022).

Biological Resources
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2022. California Natural Diversity Database [map database]. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB (accessed October 2022).

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2022. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. https://rareplants.cnps.org/ (accessed March 30, 2023).

Exhibit B
248 of 343

References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-3
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022a. Information for Planning and Consultation system [online database]. https://www.fws.gov/service/information-planning-and-consultation (accessed October 2022).
______. 2022b. Critical Habitat Mapper [map database].
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html (accessed October 2022).

Cultural Resources
California Office of Historic Preservation. 2006. California State Law and Historic Preservation:

Technical Assistance Series 10. Retrieved on May 2, 2023, from https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/10%20comb.pdf ______. 1995. Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Retrieved on May 2, 2023, from https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/manual95.pdf
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2011. Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in California. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1188/ (accessed October 2022).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2022. “Learn About Asbestos.” Available at: https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/learn-about-asbestos#effects (accessed October 2022).

Watsonville, City of. 2005. 2005 General Plan.
https://www.cityofwatsonville.org/DocumentCenter/View/188/12-Public-Safety-PDF (accessed October 2022).

Noise
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. (CT-HWANP-RT-13-069.25.2) September. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TeNS_Sept_2013B.pdf (accessed October 2022). ______. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020- a11y.pdf (accessed October 2022).

Crocker, Malcolm J. (Editor). 2007. Handbook of Noise and Vibration Control Book, ISBN: 978-0-471- 39599-7, Wiley-VCH, October.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual .pdf (accessed November 2022).
______. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. September. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/researchinnovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no0123_0.pdf (accessed October 2022).

Kimley Horn. 2022. Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis.

Exhibit B
249 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
7-4
Watsonville, City of. 2005. 2005 General Plan Public Safety Element. https://www.cityofwatsonville.org/DocumentCenter/View/188/12-Public-Safety-PDF (accessed October 2022).
______. 2012. City of Watsonville Draft 2030 General Plan – rescinded. https://www.cityofwatsonville.org/DocumentCenter/View/19981/Watsonville-VistaGeneral-Plan-Update---June-2012-rescinded. (accessed February 2023). ______. 2020. Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan Existing Conditions – Noise. https://www.cityofwatsonville.org/DocumentCenter/View/14010/DWSP-Existing-NoiseConditions-July-2020 (accessed December 2022).

Population and Housing
California Department of Finance (DOF). 2021. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020 with 2010 Census Benchmark. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates-e5-2010-2020/ (accessed October 2022).
______. 2022. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2022. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/ (accessed October 2022).

Transportation
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2017. Rounding Out a Traffic Strategy. Retrieved on April 21, 2023, from https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/risk-strategicmanagement/documents/mile-marker/mm-2017-q4-roundabout-a11y.pdf California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2020. Highway Design Manual. Seventh Edition.

December 31, 2020. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/design/documents/hdm-complete-12312020a11y.pdf (accessed October 2022).

Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation impacts in CEQA. April 2018. https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122- 743_Technical_Advisory.pdf (accessed October 2022).

Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. 2022. 2045 Regional Transportation Plan for Santa Cruz County. https://sccrtc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/06/Final%202045%20RTP.pdf (accessed March 2023).

Watsonville, City of. 2012. Trails & Bicycle Master Plan for the Watsonville Scenic Trails Network. https://www.cityofwatsonville.org/DocumentCenter/View/3207/Trails--Bicycle-MasterPlan-PDF?bidId= (accessed October 2022). ______. 2021. City of Watsonville Vision Zero Action Plan 2021. https://www.cityofwatsonville.org/DocumentCenter/View/16152/Vision-Zero-Action-Plan2021?bidId= (accessed March 2023) Tribal Cultural Resources
Kroeber, Alfred J. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bulletin 78, Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Reprinted 1976 by Dover Publications, Inc., New York.

Exhibit B
250 of 343

References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-5
______. 1971. Elements of Culture in Native California. In The California Indians: A Sourcebook, edited by R.F. Heizer and M.A. Whipple. 2nd ed. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Levy, Richard. 1978. Costanoan. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 485-495. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Skowronek, Russell K. 1998. Sifting the Evidence: Perceptions of Life at the Ohlone (Costanoan) Missions of Alta California. Ethnohistory 45: 675-708.

Alternatives
Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2020. Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan Existing Conditions: Noise. https://www.cityofwatsonville.org/DocumentCenter/View/14010/DWSP-Existing-NoiseConditions-July-2020 (accessed March 2023).

7.2 List of Preparers
This EIR was prepared by the City of Watsonville, with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Consultant staff involved in the preparation of the EIR are listed below.

RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

Megan Jones, MPP, Principal
George Dix, Project Manager
Gianna Meschi, Assistant Project Manager
Kayleigh Limbach, Environmental Planner
Virginia Dussell, Environmental Planner
Rachel Irvine, Environmental Planner
Hannah Bireschi, Environmental Planner
Heather Dubois, Senior Air Quality Specialist
Hayley Rundle, Environmental Planner
Will Lawton, Biologist
James Williams, MA, Architectural Historian
Chris Jackson-Jordan, GIS Analyst
Luis Apolinar, Publishing Specialist
Exhibit B
251 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan
7-6
This page intentionally left blank.

Exhibit B
252 of 343

Appendix A
Initial Study, Notice of Preparation, and Notice of Preparation Comments Download Appendix A:
https://www.cityofwatsonville.org/DocumentCenter/View/21328/Appendix-A---IS-NOP-Comments Exhibit B
253 of 343

Appendix B
California Emissions Estimator Model Data
Download Appendix B:
https://www.cityofwatsonville.org/DocumentCenter/View/21329/Appendix-B---CalEEMod Exhibit B
254 of 343

Appendix C
Special-Status Species Potential Assessment
Download Appendix C:
https://www.cityofwatsonville.org/DocumentCenter/View/21330/Appendix-C---Special-Status-Species Exhibit B
255 of 343

Appendix D
Historic Resources Report
Download Appendix D:
https://www.cityofwatsonville.org/DocumentCenter/View/21325/Appendix-D---Historic-Report Exhibit B
256 of 343

Appendix E
Transportation Impact Analysis
Download Appendix E:
https://www.cityofwatsonville.org/DocumentCenter/View/21326/Appendix-E---Transportation-Analysis Exhibit B
257 of 343

Appendix F
Native American Tribal Consultation Documentation
Download Appendix F:
https://www.cityofwatsonville.org/DocumentCenter/View/21327/Appendix-F---Tribal-Consultation Exhibit B
258 of 343

Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan Project
Initial Study
prepared by
City of Watsonville
Community Development Department
250 Main Street
Watsonville, California 95076
Contact: Justin Meek, Principal Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
2511 Garden Road, Suite C-250
Monterey, California 93940
October 2022
Exhibit B
259 of 343

Exhibit B
260 of 343

Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan Project
Initial Study
prepared by
City of Watsonville
Community Development Department
250 Main Street
Watsonville, California 95076
Contact: Justin Meek, Principal Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
2511 Garden Road, Suite C-250
Monterey, California 93940
October 2022
Exhibit B
261 of 343

This page has intentionally been left blank.

Exhibit B
262 of 343

Table of Contents
Initial Study i
Table of Contents
Initial Study.............................................................................................................................................1

1. Project Title.........................................................................................................................1

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

3. Project Location ..................................................................................................................1

4. General Plan Designation....................................................................................................1

5. Zoning..................................................................................................................................1

6. Existing Setting and Surrounding Land Uses.......................................................................6

7. Description of Project .........................................................................................................6

8. Project Related Approvals, Permits, and Agreements........................................................7

9. Have California Native American Tribes Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated with the Project Area Requested Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? ..........................................................................................................................8 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected...........................................................................................9 Determination ........................................................................................................................................9 Environmental Checklist.......................................................................................................................11 1 Aesthetics..........................................................................................................................11 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources..................................................................................13 3 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................15 4 Biological Resources..........................................................................................................17 5 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................19 6 Energy ...............................................................................................................................23 7 Geology and Soils..............................................................................................................27 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions...............................................................................................31 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials....................................................................................35 10 Hydrology and Water Quality ...........................................................................................41 11 Land Use and Planning......................................................................................................47 12 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................49 13 Noise .................................................................................................................................51 14 Population and Housing....................................................................................................53 15 Public Services...................................................................................................................55 16 Recreation.........................................................................................................................59 17 Transportation ..................................................................................................................61 18 Tribal Cultural Resources..................................................................................................63 19 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................65 20 Wildfire..............................................................................................................................73 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance..................................................................................75 References............................................................................................................................................77 Bibliography..................................................................................................................................77 List of Preparers............................................................................................................................79 Exhibit B
263 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan Project
ii
Tables
Table 1 Growth Projections for Specific Plan Area..........................................................................7 Table 2 Project Consistency with the Watsonville 2030 Climate Action & Adaptation Plan ........25 Table 3 Project Consistency with the City of Watsonville General Plan........................................25 Table 4 Project Consistency with the Watsonville 2030 Climate Action & Adaptation Plan ........32 Table 5 Historic Water Demand by Use in Watsonville.................................................................66 Table 6 Estimated Water Demand of Specific Plan Uses...............................................................67 Table 7 Projected Water Demand of the DWSP and the Urban Water Management Plan..........67 Table 8 Water Supply and Demand in Normal, Single, and Multiple Dry Years............................68 Table 9 Estimated Project Solid Waste Generation.......................................................................70 Table 10 Project Generated Solid Waste and Facility Capacity.......................................................70 Figures
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map............................................................................................................2 Figure 2 Plan Area Boundaries..........................................................................................................3 Figure 3 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations.....................................................................4 Figure 4 Existing Zoning Districts......................................................................................................5 Appendices
Appendix A Water Supply Assessment
Exhibit B
264 of 343

Initial Study
Initial Study 1
Initial Study

1. Project Title
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan Project

2. Lead Agency Name, Address, and Contact Person
City of Watsonville
Community Development Department
250 Main Street
Watsonville, California 95076
Justin Meek, Principal Planner
831-768-3050

3. Project Location
Downtown Watsonville is located in the southern area of Santa Cruz County, approximately 14 miles southeast of the city of Santa Cruz, 16 miles northwest of the city of Salinas, and 22 miles northeast of the city of Monterey. The Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan Area (plan area) covers roughly 195.5 acres within Downtown Watsonville, with about 55.5 acres (28 percent) 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 (SR) 152 runs through the 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 is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

4. General Plan Designation
According to the 2005 General Plan Land Use Diagram (City of Watsonville 2019), the plan area is designated Central Commercial, General Commercial, Industrial, Public/Quasi-Public, Residential High Density, and Residential Low Density. The General Plan land use designations within the plan area are shown Figure 3.

5. Zoning
The Watsonville Zoning Ordinance is found in Chapter 14-16 of the Watsonville Municipal Code.

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. The zoning districts within the plan area are shown Figure 4.

Exhibit B
265 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan Project
2 Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Exhibit B
266 of 343

Initial Study
Initial Study 3
Figure 2 Plan Area Boundaries
Exhibit B
267 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan Project
4 Figure 3 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations
Exhibit B
268 of 343

Initial Study
Initial Study 5
Figure 4 Existing Zoning Districts
Exhibit B
269 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan Project
6 6. Existing Setting and Surrounding Land Uses
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 downtown. The historic City Plaza is an important downtown public open space that supports civic and community activities. At the center of downtown is Main Street, along which many 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 employment.

The existing roadway network in the downtown area consists of a multitude of varying block lengths, several curvilinear streets, and 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.

7. Description of Project
The proposed Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan (DWSP, project) is a comprehensive land use and mobility plan which includes development and design regulations that support the DWSP’s goals and policies and guides future public and private development in the plan area. The plan is a community vision and planning framework which serves as a guide for the city and other public agency decision-makers, community members and stakeholders over the next 20 to 30 years. The DWSP is intended to inform future public and private actions relating to the plan area’s future development and ensure it is consistent with the community vision. The DWSP was developed in accordance with California planning law, City planning policies, and input from community members, property owners, decision-makers, and City staff. Along with the DWSP, the City’s General Plan would be amended to ensure consistency between the General Plan and Specific Plan.

The DWSP encourages the development of higher-intensity and mixed-use neighborhoods by building on the existing downtown area. The plan includes pedestrian-friendly and complete streets with a mix of retail, services, amenities, employment, and residential uses that in an effort to revitalize downtown. Similarly, the Specific Plan also encourages compact development near transit to decrease automobile dependency, reduce both local and regional traffic congestion and related greenhouse gas emissions, and increase multimodal access to and from the downtown area.

The plan area is currently developed with primarily historic 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 1, the Specific Plan estimates that roughly 231,151 square feet of commercial space, 376,827 square feet of industrial space, and 114,569 square feet of civic space would be added to the plan area as a result of the project. In addition, the DWSP anticipates that up to 3,886 new residential units would be added to the downtown area over the next 25 years.

Exhibit B
270 of 343

Initial Study
Initial Study 7
Table 1 Growth Projections for Specific Plan Area
Land Use Residential (du) 1 Commercial (sf)1 Industrial (sf) Civic (sf) Residential 3,886
Dining Establishments 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
1 du = dwelling unit; sf = square feet
Source: City of Watsonville 2022
Chapter 4 of the DWSP contains the mobility and transportation vision and strategies for the plan area. The DWSP provides standards, guidelines, and design concepts to implement the following in the plan area:
 Install improvements to enhance pedestrian safety and access, bicycle connectivity, and revitalize downtown streetscape.
 Provide bicycle infrastructure that connects downtown to key locations and provides a low stress environment for bicycle riding.
 Provide widened and enhanced facilities for walking.
 Enhance parking, travel demand, and curb management to support an environmentally and fiscally sustainable downtown that increases quality of life in Watsonville.

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. For example, the DWSP envisions converting the existing couplet portion of SR 152 from a one-way street into a two-way street. Another example of mobility and transportation improvements included in the DWSP is a road diet on Main Street. The road diet would convert Main Street from a multi-lane roadway to a roadway with a single travel lane in each direction. The existing other travel lanes would be converted to parallel parking for vehicles and for expanded or new pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

8. Project Related Approvals, Permits, and Agreements
Because the Specific Plan 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.

Exhibit B
271 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan Project
8 Individual projects pursuant to the DWSP would require permits and approvals such as, but not limited to, City of Watsonville demolition and building permits and design review. Future approvals from the City of Watsonville may require additional environmental review with the City of Watsonville as the lead agency.

9. Have California Native American Tribes Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated with the Project Area
Requested Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21080.3.1?
In accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18, the City of Watsonville sent a notification letter to six tribes and invited them to participate in consultation. The tribes that were sent a notification letter include: Amah Mutsun Tribal Band; Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista; Costanoan Ohlone Rumsen-Mutsun Tribe; Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan; Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area; and the Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation. The City of Watsonville prepared and mailed letters on October 4, 2022. Under AB 52, Native American tribes have 30 days to respond and request further project information and request formal consultation. SB 18 provides 90 days for Native American tribes to respond to advise the City if they are interested in further consultation.

Exhibit B
272 of 343

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
Initial Study 9
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at least one impact that is “Potentially Significant” or “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
■ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
■ Air Quality
■ Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources □ Energy
□ Geology/Soils □ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
■ Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
□ Hydrology/Water Quality □ Land Use/Planning □ Mineral Resources ■ Noise ■ Population/Housing □ Public Services
□ Recreation ■ Transportation ■ Tribal Cultural Resources □ Utilities/Service Systems □ Wildfire ■ Mandatory Findings of Significance
Determination
Based on this initial evaluation:
□ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
■ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “less than significant with mitigation incorporated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

Exhibit B
273 of 343

City of Wolsonville
Downtown Wotsonville Specific Plan Project
[1 | find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potential significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequatelyin an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
(91W Io/W/aw Signatur Date
Ju5tin Meek Pnncrpal Planner
Printed Name Title
Exhibit B
274 of 343

Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 11
Environmental Checklist
1 Aesthetics
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? ■ □ □ □
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? □ □ □ ■
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from a publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is
in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality? ■ □ □ □
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare that would adversely affect daytime
or nighttime views in the area? ■ □ □ □
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? c. Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
Portions of Downtown Watsonville contain views of the Gabilan Mountain Range, Pajaro River, and Watsonville Slough. The plan area is currently developed with a mix of land uses including residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The character of Downtown Watsonville is distinguished by historic structures. As future planning and development efforts proceed under implementation of the DWSP, there is a potential for impacts to historical resources to occur which Exhibit B
275 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan Project
12 could alter the existing visual character of the downtown area. In addition, future development under the DWSP would introduce new sources of light or glare which could adversely affect views.

As a result, future development may affect visual character and quality, affect current scenic views, and create new sources of substantial light or glare. Impacts of the DWSP could be potentially significant and will be evaluated further in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Highway 1 and SR 152, which runs through the center of the plan area, are both eligible for state scenic highway designation. However, neither roadway is an officially designated state scenic highway. There are no other designated state scenic highways within or visible from the plan area (Caltrans 2019). Therefore, the DWSP would have no impact on scenic resources within a state scenic highway

NO IMPACT
Exhibit B
276 of 343

Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 13
2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? □ □ □ ■
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use or a Williamson Act contract? □ □ □ ■
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 12220(g));
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))? □ □ □ ■
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use? □ □ □ ■
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
Exhibit B
277 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan Project
14 d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
The plan area includes the following zoning districts: 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. The plan area is not zoned for agricultural use, forest land, timberland, or timberland production.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning or cause the rezoning of agriculture or timberland property. According to the California Department of Conservation, the plan area is “urban and built-up land” and is not Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance (DOC 2018). In addition, there are no forest or agricultural uses or farmland adjacent to the plan area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have no impacts on Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance, and would not result in the conversion of forest land or farmland.

NO IMPACT
Exhibit B
278 of 343

Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 15
3 Air Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan? ■ □ □ □
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? ■ □ □ □
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? ■ □ □ □
d. Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people? ■ □ □ □
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The proposed project would result in increased emissions within the downtown area which could result in a cumulatively considerable increase of criteria pollutants or odors associated with traffic and industrial uses. In addition, the plan area includes potentially sensitive receptors which could be exposed to increased pollutant concentrations. The project could exceed significance thresholds as determined by the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD). Impacts could be potentially significant and will evaluated further in the EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Exhibit B
279 of 343

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

Exhibit B
280 of 343

Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 17
4 Biological Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ■ □ □ □
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ■ □ □ □
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means? ■ □ □ □
d. Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites? ■ □ □ □
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? ■ □ □ □
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan? □ □ □ ■
Exhibit B
281 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan Project
18 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Development facilitated by the DWSP would require demolition and construction of new residential and commercial structures, which could result in impacts to sensitive biological resources. The plan area consists of primarily urbanized land uses but is located within 250 feet of the Pajaro River.

Future development facilitated by the DWSP could result in impacts to these areas or other biological resources in the area. Impacts of the proposed project could be potentially significant and will be evaluated further in the EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans applicable to the plan area. The proposed project would not conflict with such plans. There would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
Exhibit B
282 of 343

Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 19
5 Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5? ■ □ □ □
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5? □ ■ □ □
c. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
In October 2021, Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared a Historic Research Survey Report which included research and a reconnaissance-level survey that identified three resource types within the survey area: designated resources, potentially eligible individual resources, and groupings of resources which may constitute a historic district or overlay/conservation zone pending further study. Future development pursuant to the DWSP could result in demolition or alteration of potentially historic structures, thereby causing a substantial adverse change in the significance of the resource. Impacts of the proposed project could be potentially significant and will be evaluated further in the EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
The plan area is approximately 250 feet from the Pajaro River. Given the proximity to the river, the area has high sensitivity for archaeological resources, as prehistoric populations often congregated near water. Development facilitated by the Specific Plan would require excavation and grading below the existing ground surface. During these construction activities there would be potential for construction equipment to encounter and potentially damage or destroy subsurface archaeological resources. Future development facilitated by the Specific Plan would have the most 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. Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3 would apply to construction facilitated by the project. With implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts to archaeological resources would be reduced to less than significant.

Exhibit B
283 of 343

City of Watsonville
Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan Project
20 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 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.

Exhibit B
284 of 343

Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 21
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).

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
The plan area is currently developed as an urbanized downtown center. There are no known cemeteries or burial sites on the plan area. However, there is potential for unknown human remains to be buried on the plan area, outside of known cemeteries. If any human remains are found during grading or other project construction activities, all provisions of California Health and Safety Code Sections 7054 and 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.9 through 5097.99, as amended per Assembly Bill 2641, must be followed in accordance with state law. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, specifically, states that:
“In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined, in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 27460) of Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the Government Code, that the remains are not subject to the provisions of Section 27491 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. The coroner shall make his or her determination within two working days from the time the person responsible for the Exhibit B
285 of 343