Agenda packet — Scotts Valley City Council, June 21, 2023 (part 2 of 4)

13. That the project site is physically suitable for the density of the land division. The project meets the requirement of this finding in that the 1.04-acre site is sufficient in size to accommodate the ten-lot subdivision and related improvements including two-car garages and private yard areas for each unit. The ten-lot subdivision is consistent with both the General Plan and Zoning density ranges. Public services are available, and utilities are of adequate capacity to accommodate the project.

14. That the design of the land division or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The project meets the requirements of this finding in that the MND determined that there were no potentially significant adverse environmental impacts, and the project will not degrade the quality of the environment or impact fish wildlife or habitat with the implementation of identified standard conditions of approval

15. That the design of the land division or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The project will not generate hazardous emissions nor be a storage facility for hazardous/ combustible materials. During project grading and construction, to reduce dust generation to minimal levels and to prevent sedimentation and discharge of contaminants offsite, standard conditions of approval require the grading and construction contractors to implement best management practices (BMPs). The MND evaluated that the project is not expected to cause serious public health problems.

16. That the design of the land division will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large (for access through or use of property within the land division). The project meets the requirement of this finding in that there are no conflicts with easements known to affect the project site. A common lot provides a private access road and utilities and maintenance easement benefitting the ten lots. A road easement and maintenance agreement are required for access to seven of the homes the from a new 24” wide private road. A public access easement is required on the new private road to MacDorsa Park from Erba Lane for pedestrians. There is no plan in place to provide access at this time, the easement will allow for access at a future date and such access will require additional review and approval by the City. The Public Works Department has reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to conditions.

SECTION 6: Approve Design Review based on the following findings, subject to Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A) attached hereto and incorporated herein:

17. The siting of any structure on the property as compared to the siting of other structures in the immediate neighborhood is appropriate. The project meets the requirements of this finding in that the proposed single-family dwellings will be sited appropriately in relation to the existing neighborhood and fronting on Erba lane and on a private road. The site gently slopes towards Scotts Valley Drive and retaining walls are required for level building pads. After the biologist determined the riparian woodland boundary, the project was redesigned to avoid development in the riparian area. Avoiding development in the riparian area created a physical constraint resulting in very irregularly shaped lots and reduced front, side, and rear yard setbacks. The physical constraints of the site require exceptions from the 074

Page 134 of 585 ends

development standards as allowed in a PD district, which are common on infill developments in the area such as the private access road and requirements for on-site stormwater retention. As proposed the single-family dwellings are suited to the property, setting, and zoning context.

18. The materials, colors, proportion, mass, and detail of all structures shall be in good proportion, have simplicity of mass and detail and be compatible in appearance with surrounding structures. There shall be an appropriate use of materials. Colors shall be appropriate within the context of use and should blend with surrounding structures. The project is consistent with this finding in that the buildings incorporate conventional horizontal siding on one of the stories and board and batt siding on the other. The front elevations include a stone veneer base with natural stone brown/gray/ buff colors, and a front porch with a gable roof and wood timber details. The roof forms include gable, hip, and shed roof forms with shingles or lap siding under the gables and wood bracket details. The roofs are conventional in design with a 6:12 pitch and medium dark brown color composition shingles. The proposed windows are off-white color vinyl or wood frame, single hung with single or double windows with multiple lights and wood trim. The proposed colors will be unique for each home and include shades of medium and light browns and greens and the trim, trellises, deck railings and wood knee braces are a dark brown color. The two-story homes are approximately 28 to 30-feet in height feet similar to other nearby homes in the neighborhood. The variety of quality materials, exterior treatments, finish details and exterior colors are appropriate and consistent with the City’s design review criteria.

19. Landscaping and irrigation plans shall be required on the site. Landscaping shall be in keeping with the character or design of the building. Existing trees shall be preserved wherever possible. The project, with tree and landscape design and plantings as depicted and described in the plans dated September 8, 2020 would meet the requirements of this finding in that the project will provide new landscaping including replacement trees, shrubs, and ground cover. Two protected oak trees are proposed to be removed and four additional trees may be impacted by construction. With the implementation of standard conditions of approval and mitigation measures the remaining trees will be preserved. Replacement trees are required at a 2:1 ratio and 22 trees are proposed including 11 street trees on the landscape plan. Preliminary landscaping and irrigation details have been reviewed. A condition of approval requires that final landscape and irrigation plans be submitted for staff review and approval by the Community Development Director.

20. The size, location and arrangement of on-site parking and paved areas shall be appropriate. The project meets the requirements of this finding in that each proposed single-family home has an attached two-car garage and exceeds the single-family parking requirements by providing a two-uncovered parking spaces on a 20-foot deep driveway. No parking would be allowed in the private road and ten off-site public parking spaces will be created on Erba Lane. Common Lot A provides a shared road for vehicle access serving seven of the proposed homes.

The front half of Lot A common parcel incorporates pervious pavers and contains sub-surface on-site stormwater retention infrastructure.

21. For ingress, egress, and internal traffic circulation, all the above factors shall be related to the setting or established character of the neighborhood 075

Page 135 of 585 ends

or surrounding area. The project meets the requirement of this finding in that vehicle access to the site from Erba Lane and access to seven of the homes driveways is through a shared, common, private road (Lot A).

22. For fences and walls over eight feet tall or fences over three feet tall in front yards when across from Hwy 17, consider height and access to sunlight, setbacks, landscaping and use of materials for articulation and visual relief.

The project site slopes towards Scotts Valley Drive to the southeast. To accommodate the site grades and create level building pads the project requires extensive retaining walls to be constructed along the property lines in the southeast, south, northwest corner and between most of the lots. The tan color concrete block retaining walls will be topped with solid plank redwood privacy fences. Along Erba Lane on the front left half of Lot 1, a retaining wall would be below grade and topped by a six-foot in height redwood fence. Also, along the Erba Lane side of Lot 10 would be an above grade retaining wall varying in height from up to 5’-8” topped by a 42” to six-foot in height redwood fence. The rear property line of Lots 7 to 10 would have a retaining wall vary from 5’8” to 6’-6” in height topped by a six-foot redwood fence.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, after careful consideration of the application and related materials, plans, maps, facts, exhibits, staff report, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, and incorporated herein by this reference, the Planning Commission of the City of Scotts Valley recommends City Council certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration MND20-001, approve a Planned Development Overlay and Permit PD10-001, a Land Division LD19-001, Design Review DR19-005, for the Bay Village planned development to subdivide a 1.04-acre site into ten lots and two common lots to construct ten units (six detached single-family dwellings and two attached duet/ duplexes), and related site improvements, located at Erba Lane (no situs) / APN 022-481-18 and 22 subject to Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A), and project development plans which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING RESOLUTION was duly and regularly passed by the Planning Commission of the City of Scotts Valley at a meeting held on the 13th day of May 2021, by a vote of as follows:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Approved: ____________________
Planning Commission Chair
Attest: _____________________
Taylor Bateman
Community Development Director
076

Page 136 of 585 ends

Exhibit A
Legal

1. The developer has agreed to and shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Scotts Valley, its officers, agents and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its officers, agents or employees to attach, set aside, void or annul any action of the City in connection with approvals under the California Environmental Quality Act or with respect to approval of the project, which action is brought within the time period(s) prescribed by law. The City shall promptly notify the developer of any such claim, action or proceeding and shall fully cooperate in defense.

2. After City Council action of the project the developer/applicant shall sign the Conditions of Approval agreeing to the Conditions of Approval prior to issuance of any grading/building permits, transfer of title, or within 30 days of approval of these planning permits, whichever occurs first.

3. The developer shall obtain all required demolition, grading, improvement plans, and building permits and pay all required development and impact fees before starting any grading/earth disturbance or construction on the property.

Planning Department

4. The approved planning permits include a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Planned Development Overlay and Permit, Land Division, and Design Review for a ten-lot subdivision, for ten single-family dwellings and a detached two-car garage for the existing single family dwelling to be consistent with the parking requirements and related site improvements on a 1.04-acre site located at Erba Lane. The two-story, single-family dwellings and site improvements shall be constructed substantially as shown in the plans prepared by David B. Zulim, received 9/10/20 and 12/17/20 and Gregory Lewis, Landscape Designer, dated September 8, 2020, and as described in writing on the project’s technical reports, which are on file in the PlanningDepartment.

5. All site improvements shall be in conformance with the plans stamped approved, unless otherwise conditioned in this Exhibit to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director (CDD) and City.

6. Any future changes to the approved plans that the developer and/or other reviewing agencies initiate and/or propose, shall require prior review and approval by the CDD/City and CDD confirmation regarding the level of environmental review and planning permits. As determined by the CDD, minor changes may be approved by the CDD while major changes may require review and approval by the Planning Commission and/or City Council, paid by the developer.

7. Prior to removal of trees or a grading permit issuance submit a mitigation and monitoring compliance fee deposit for ten hours of staff time at the current hourly rate. Any unused deposit fee will be refunded prior to final inspection. 077

Page 137 of 585 ends

8. To ensure that the Mitigation and Monitoring measures are communicated and complied with a preconstruction meeting shall be conducted prior to the start of any construction and the following shall attend: the developer, grading contractor supervisor, project planner, Building Official, Public Works Director, project biologist and arborist, with exception of installing temporary construction fencing demarcating the disturbance area, siltation and tree protection fencing. Temporary construction protective measures and tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to the meeting and inspected at that time by the biologist and arborist.

Provide an attendance list to the project planner.

Cultural Resources
Archaeological Resources

9. The developer shall submit a copy of a contract with a qualified/registered archaeologist to conduct monitoring of all earth disturbing activities and inspections for review and approval by the Community Development Director, before grading permit issuance. The developer shall include this requirement in the contract forall contractors involved with grading and subsurface work. The qualified/registered archaeologist shall monitor all earthwork activity as describedbelow. a. An archaeologist shall monitor the grading or excavation of soils at the development site in order to determine if important cultural remains are present.

Such monitoring shall begin before and occur during subsurface earth moving activities.
b. The duration and period of archaeological monitoring of project development activities shall be at the discretion of the professional archaeologist. At a minimum, however, any activity that initially displaces or removes original soil from its present context shall be monitored by an archaeologist on a continuous basis.
c. Monitoring activities such as replacing soils in trenches, redistributing displaced soil elsewhere on the development site, or removing stockpiled excavated soil may not require monitoring.
d. Monitoring may include the periodic sampling and screening of soils in order to better determine if cultural remains are present.

10. If any cultural resources are discovered, the project contractor shall immediately stop all earth disturbing work within a 150-foot radius of the discovery to allow for inspection, evaluation, and potential recovery of resources by the supervisingproject archaeologist, before resuming any earth-disturbing construction activities. The developer shall also contact the Planning Department and Building Official as soon as work has been stopped. It may be necessary to resume grading or excavation activities under the direction of the supervising archaeologist in order to locate or expose cultural remains.

11. If human remains are unexpectedly encountered during project grading the actions required as identified in the previous condition shall be implemented to effectively preserve any human remains until the Santa Cruz County Coroner determines the 078

Page 138 of 585 ends

appropriate course of action concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b).

Paleontological Resources

12. Provide the project paleontologist with a copy of the final grading plans for review prior to any project grading.

13. Provide for daily monitoring during grading activities by the project paleontologist to determine if paleontological resources are encountered in excavated areas.

14. Allow for the recovery of any discovered paleontological resources according to a recovery plan/method specified by the project paleontologist, including the donation of the recovered resources to a suitable repository (museum, school, etc.).

15. If recovery occurs, ensure that the project paleontologist prepare a recovery report that details the type of resources recovered and the repository locations where they were taken.

16. Specify in the construction contract with the project grading contractor(s), that grading personnel are to cooperate with and assist the project paleontologist during monitoring and any recovery activities, including assisting with recovery efforts if necessary.

17. The applicant and construction contractor shall ensure that paleontological resources are not destroyed during project grading.

18. The developer shall submit a copy of a contract with a qualified/registered paleontologist to conduct monitoring of all earth disturbing activities for review and approval by the Community Development Director, before grading permit issuance.

The developer shall include this requirement in the contract forall contractors involved with grading and subsurface work.

19. The qualified/registered paleontologist shall monitor all earthwork activity as described in conditions 19-23, below.

20. The applicant/contractor shall provide the project paleontologist with a copy of the final grading plans for review prior to any projectgrading.

21. Provide for daily monitoring during grading activities by the project paleontologist to determine if paleontological resources are encountered in excavated areas.

22. Allow for the recovery of any discovered paleontological resources according to a recovery plan/method specified by the project paleontologist, including thedonation of the recovered resources to a suitable repository (museum, school,etc.).

23. If recovery occurs, ensure that the project paleontologist prepare a recovery report that details the type of resources recovered and the repository locations where they were taken.

24. Specify in the construction contract with the project grading contractor(s), that grading personnel are to cooperate with and assist the project paleontologist during monitoring and any recovery activities, including assisting with recovery efforts if necessary. 079

Page 139 of 585 ends

Fences and Walls

25. All fence and retaining wall design details shall be included on plans submitted for building permit and subject to Planning Department review and approval, prior to issuance of a building permits
Trees
Standard

26. All recommendations in the Arborist Report Preliminary Tree Inventory & Assessment was prepared for the previous site plan in November 2017 (Kurt Fouts, 11/30/2017). A Preliminary Arborists Report, Preliminary Tree Inventory and Assessment (the Revised Arborists Report) was prepared in March 2020 based on the revised site plan (Kurt Fouts, March 27, 2020) are incorporated as conditions of project approval. This report includes an exhibit (grading plan) showing replacement tree locations.

27. Tree removal shall not occur until a grading or building permit has been issued for the project.

28. The final grading plans and improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the project Arborist prior to any grading and if deemed necessary additional tree preservation measures shall be applied to the project.

29. The project arborist shall place a monetary value on trees preserved on development sites and a surety bond in an amount equal to the value of the preserved trees shall be deposited with the city prior to issuance of a grading/building permit for the project. If damage occurs to the preserved trees during development and/or construction, funds will be drawn from the deposited amount. Funds remaining in the account will be returned to the applicant upon final inspection of the project.

30. During the pre-construction phase of development, the project arborist shall inspect tree protection fencing and the completion of pre-construction treatments. This inspection shall be completed prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits

31. The project arborist shall routinely inspect the development site through the term of the project.

32. Upon completion of construction activities, the project arborist shall submit written documentation stating that all recommended tree preservation measures have been completed prior to Building Permit final for the project.

33. The cost of the project arborist review and implementation of conditions, site inspection and related work shall be borne by the applicant.

34. The project developer shall place a surety bond in an amount equal to the value of the preserved trees as shown in the project Arborist Report. The surety bond shall be deposited with the city prior to issuance of a grading/building permit for the project. The monetary value shall be reviewed and approved by the CDD. If damage occurs to the preserved trees during development and/or construction, funds will be 080

Page 140 of 585 ends

drawn from the deposited amount. Funds remaining in the account will be returned to the developer upon final inspection of the project.

Project Specific

35. The arborists recommendations for tree preservation shall be printed on the demolition, grading and construction drawings including: “1) After grading stakes are placed, the project arborist, the grading equipment operator and the tree service company shall meet to review the extent of pruning required to achieve clearance from grading operations; 2) Plant 4 15-gallon cost live oak replacement trees as mitigation for the removal of four coast live oak trees, T39 and T40, in the locations recommend on the grading exhibit; 3) If either T35 or T38 requires removal plant two 15-gallon coast live oak for each tree removed, in the location identified on the attached grading exhibit. Once final plan sets are complete, a tree protection plan, containing tree protection specifications will be required. T

36. The arborist shall monitor and observe hand grading and trenching near the protected trees.

37. If any protection is removed, the arborist shall verify that the fencing and other tree protection measures were correctly reinstalled. The arborist report included a sign to show the tree protection zone, this sign(s) should remain posted in a visible location during construction.

38. Provide a copy of a contract for services for the Community Development Department Director review and approval prior to issuance of a demolition or grading permit.

Landscaping
Standard

39. The landscaping improvements shall be permanently maintained and irrigated.

40. The materials and locations of the landscape retaining walls shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of grading or building permit.

41. Landscaping shall comply with State of California Government Code Section 65596 Water Conservation in Landscaping and associated Model Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance for landscaping equal or greater than 2,500 square feet. If not applicable the project is required to be consistent with the City Water Conservation Ordinance.

Project Specific

42. The arborists recommended tree replacement locations shown on the exhibit dated 4/29/20, (grading plan) attached to the arborist report, dated 3/27/20, shall be included in the final landscape drawings to be approved by the Community Development Department Director.

43. A final landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted and shall include the name, number, size, and location for all planting materials, trees and ground covers and tree replacement locations shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of grading or building permits. 081

Page 141 of 585 ends

44. Landscape plans submitted to the City shall include a minimum of four replacement trees. If additional trees are required to be removed or are damaged due to construction impacts, these trees shall also require replacement at a 2:1 ratio prior to occupancy and as part of the landscaper’s warranty. All new tree species shall be selected in consultation with the project arborist, based on the specific tree location, soil type, and water and solar needs.

Lighting

45. All exterior lighting shall be the minimum necessary for security and all lighting shall be down shining with the light source not directly visible from adjacent properties. Where deemed necessary by the Community Development Director light cutoffs/shields shall be installed.

CC&R’s

46. CC&R’s for the ongoing management and maintenance of the site improvements including perimeter fencing, on-site stormwater facilities, landscaping, driveways, retaining walls, and any other shared facilities, for the project shall be approved by the City and executed by the property owner prior to the approval of the final map.

The CC&R’s shall be recorded prior to building permit final, or the sale or lease of the first unit or within 30 days of the final map recording, whichever comes first.

The property owner shall pay recording costs.

Joint Maintenance Agreement

47. Applicant shall provide a Joint Landscape Maintenance Agreement for review and approval by the Community Development Director and Public Works Director for the maintenance of off-site landscaping prior to approval of the Final Map.

48. The curbs along the private ace road and the emergency vehicle turnaround shall be painted red indicating no parking except for emergency vehicles and no parking signs installed pursuant to Fire Department standards. This condition shall be included in the CCRs.

Affordable Housing

49. Pursuant to Section 14 of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code the project shall comply with all applicable affordable housing requirements including the dedication of units and payment of in-lieu fees.

Public Access Easement

50. To provide for public access to MacDorsa Park from Erba Lane a public access easement is required over Lot A private access road. The City Attorney shall review and approve the public access easement prior to approval of the final map and it shall be recorded concurrently
082

Page 142 of 585 ends

51. If a future owner would like to make improvements in their rear yard resulting in a greater lot coverage than 55%, this can be allowed with the review and approval of the Director of the Community Development Department.

Public Art

52. The proposed public art will be a custom Bay Photo design mural located on the face of the retaining wall of Lot 6 and Erba Lane. It will be approximately ten feet wide by four feet high. The Community Development Director will review and approve the final design.

Building Department
Standard
The developer shall obtain any required grading and/or building permit(s) and pay applicable fees

53. The developer shall pay all applicable City development impact fees before grading and/or building permit issuance.

54. The developer shall pay school impact fees to the Scotts Valley Unified School District before building permit issuance.

55. All trades of electrical, plumbing, and mechanical will be issued under one building permit for said project (General Contractor permittee). All subcontractors shall provide their contractor’s license number and their workers compensation insurance information to the Building Department.

56. All buildings shall be designed to comply with the current California Building Code, California Mechanical Code, California Electrical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Energy Code and California Green Building Code, in effect at the time of building permit application.

57. The building permit plans must comply with the current California Plumbing and Green Building Code for water-conserving fixtures and fittings and with the CA Energy Commission Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which includes energysaving fixtures and appliances to be used throughout the building.

58. All new construction shall comply with the California Green Building Code and the City’s current Green Building Guidelines, which requires various low-impactdevelopment and resource efficient techniques, to the satisfaction of the CDD.

59. Structural calculations shall be submitted and wet-signed by the Engineer of record.

60. A Special Inspection form shall be submitted and the names of Special Inspectors with certifications as required shall be provided.

61. A soils report by a qualified professional) engineer shall be submitted with the application for any building permits. The developer shall submit a plan review letter from the project Geotechnical Engineer confirming that the construction documents comply with the project geotechnical engineer’s recommendations. 083

Page 143 of 585 ends

62. The developer shall comply with the City’s standard erosion control measures. The plans submitted for a building permit must include best management practices (e.g. erosion control practices and procedures) during construction, which include complying with Regional Air Quality Control Board emissions for construction equipment.

63. Site drainage erosion control and foundation plans must be reviewed and approved by the soils engineer of record.

64. To ensure that City requirements are met, the developer shall specify to the Building Official the off-site disposal location of any exported soil material at a preconstruction meeting or before grading permit issuance. If the disposal site is located outside the City, the site shall be a legal facility such as a licensed landfill or permitted fill site.

65. Developer shall submit a plan showing temporary (during construction) and permanent erosion control measures will need to be submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the agency that administers NPDES, and the City Building Department for review and approval.

66. A completed City of Scotts Valley Construction and Waste Management Plan form shall be submitted with the Building permit application.

Grading

67. The limits of grading shall be clearly marked on the site prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit.

68. If grading in the rainy season (October 15th to April 15th) is necessary all necessary, approvals from the Building Department shall be obtained.

69. The location of all soil to be exported shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official prior to issuance of a grading or building permit.

70. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the Director of Public Works and the Building Official shall confirm that the grading permit and specifications stipulate that all off‐road construction vehicles/equipment shall comply with the California Air Resources Board’s In‐Use Off‐Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation.

71. Air Quality
The following BMPs shall be included in the construction contract for the project and be implemented during site grading:
a. Excavation of the site shall be done in phases by grading only those areas where immediate activity will take place, leaving the remaining areas in their original condition with ground cover.
b. A water truck, using recycled water, shall be available on a repeated basis each day throughout the grading phase of the project to spray exposed earth surfaces.
c. In addition to regular water spraying, a biodegradable chemical palliative shall be sprayed on any graded areas that will remain exposed without additional grading for three or more days in succession.
084

Page 144 of 585 ends

d. The site entrance shall be base rocked to avoid or minimize tracking mud on roadways by construction vehicles.
e. Roadway(s) along the project frontage shall be mechanically swept at the end of each workday when any dirt or mud has been tracked on the street. f. No grading activities shall occur during days of high wind velocity. g. Finished graded areas that are designated as open space and landscape areas of project, shall be covered with an accepted erosion control substance such as straw mulch or hydro mulch with a tackifier.
h. Construction staff shall monitor daily all areas that have received a chemical palliative spray or application of mulch to determine if these areas remain in a dust-free condition and take corrective action as needed to maintain a dust-free environment.
i. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the Director of Public Works and the Building Official shall confirm that the grading permit and specifications stipulate that all off‐road construction vehicles/equipment shall comply with the California Air Resources Board’s In‐Use Off‐Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation.

Hazardous Materials and Hydrology

72. Stationary equipment such as motors, pumps, welding equipment shall be placed over drip pans or other containment apparatus.

73. Construction materials shall not be stockpiled or stored where they could be accidently discharged downslope or into Scotts Valley Drive.

74. Any petroleum, lubricants or other hazardous materials used during; and, construction shall be stored in a special storage location equipped with double containment and this location shall be shown on the erosion control plan and approved by the agencies that review this plan.

City Public Works Department- Engineering Division

75. A final subdivision or parcel map in conformance with the California Government A final subdivision or parcel map in conformance with the California Government Code, Section 66410 ET seq, and with the City Subdivision Ordinance, and including the conditions of the tentative subdivision map, shall be filed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director/City Engineer.

76. All required documents, final or parcel map sheets, covenants, developer and city improvement agreements and bonds, shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director/City Engineer prior to the recordation of any final map or application for any building permit. (Applicant should be advised that officials of Santa Cruz County, such as the Auditor-Controller, Recorder and Clerk of the Board have requirements, such as payment of taxes and present title guarantee, which precede recordation of the map.)

77. Engineered Improvement Plans shall be submitted for all on-site and off-site work and will be approved by the Public Works Director/City Engineer. On-site and offsite (encroachment) civil engineering permits must be issued by the City prior to commencing any work. Improvement Plans shall include any necessary grading, 085

Page 145 of 585 ends

drainage, masonry retaining walls, driveway, utilities, utility pole relocation, frontage improvement and/or repair of sidewalk, curb and gutter or similar facilities required satisfying tentative map conditions to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director/City Engineer. All improvements shall conform to the design standards contained in text and illustration in the "City of Scotts Valley Standard Details", latest revision adopted by the City Council.

78. Engineered improvement plans for all work, signed, and prepared under the direction of a registered civil engineer, shall be approved by the Public Works Director/City Engineer prior to commencing work.

79. All work in the public right-of-way will require an encroachment permit application made to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director/City Engineer. The civil onsite work, as plan reviewed by the Public Works Department, will require an onsite civil engineering permit and inspection.

80. All public improvements shall be guaranteed by written Agreement with the city, Faithful Performance Bond, and Labor and Material men's Bond, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director/City Engineer.

81. All signing and striping shall be approved and completed as required by the Public Works Department, and shall be in conformance with current editions of Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and the State Department of Transportation "Standard Specifications".

82. The project shall connect to the sanitary sewer system and existing septic systems, if any, shall be properly abandoned.

83. Applicant shall construct storm drain facilities in conformance with data and analysis in the adopted City of Scotts Valley Storm Drain Master Plan, December 1989 and in accordance with the city’s SWMP Ordinance No. 184.1.

84. Stormwater Management Plan:

A registered civil engineer shall provide storm (hydrologic and hydraulic) calculations for appropriate storm drain facilities to control on-site drainage and mitigate off-site impacts. The design shall follow the criteria contained in the City of Scotts Valley Standard Details and the data and analysis contained in the latest adopted City of Scotts Valley Storm Drainage Master Plan.

Development shall not increase the rate of flow (cubic feet per second) or velocity (feet per second) of site run-off water to any off-site drainage areas beyond the measured or calculated pre-project rate and velocity.

See the Stormwater Technical Guide on the Scotts Valley City website for requirements and formatting under Public Works.

85. Impervious area must be shown on coversheet.

86. Dedication of land for Park and Recreational Purposes:
086

Page 146 of 585 ends

Applicant shall comply with be aware of Muni Code Chapter 16.35 – Dedication of land for Park and Recreation Purposes. Applicant can find the Code of Ordinance on the City of Scotts Valley Website, under Municipal Code.

87. Applicant shall pay the cost to accomplish the utility design and construction to underground the telephone, electric power, and television cables in each project contained easement, private or public road frontage. This under grounding of utilities to remove utility poles comes in addition to the state required under grounding of transmission for the project and any new service connections.

88. The final map shall be submitted to the City's Public Works Department on an AutoCAD drawing version 2018 LT or earlier electronic version prior to recording.

89. Applicant shall submit electric files for all civil plans for review and As-Builts when project is completed in both paper and electronic file.

90. Applicant shall submit a completed "segregation of assessment" form for each assessment district in which the subdivision participates.

91. Prior to the filing of the final/parcel map, applicant shall contact the Santa Cruz County Assessor's Office or the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to ensure that the subdivided property is within a single tax code.

92. The applicant shall repair any damage caused to the City streets [or the private roadway] by applicant or its contractors, consultants, and/or employees prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. A videotape log, DVD format, clearly showing the existing condition of [the applicable street] to the project site shall be presented to the Department of Public Works prior to the start of construction.

Applicant is advised that, absent clear video evidence to the contrary, road damage must be repaired to the satisfaction of the City prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Damage assessment will be at the sole discretion of the City.

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS -PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION The developer shall comply with SVMC chapter 16.35, dedication of land for parks and recreational purposes. Any fees shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading and/or building permit.

FIRE DEPARTMENT

54. This project shall comply with the California Fire Code as amended by the Scotts Valley Fire Protection District

55. The emergency vehicle turnaround shall be clearly marked with red curbs and no parking signs pursuant to Fire Department standards.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Name and Signature of Property Owner Date
087

Page 147 of 585 ends

QUIEN SABE RD

KELSEY CT

OAK CREEK BLVD SCOTTS VALLEY DR

LA ESCUELA

JOLLY WY

TRAMMEL WY

BLAKE LN

CHRISTEL OAKS DR
OAK LN

WEIBLE DR

CATHY LN

CIVIC CENTER

KENT CT

WOODHILL
DR

BALL DR

SCOTTS VALLEY DR

DISC DR

TERRACE

VIEW DR

ERBA LN

TERRACE VIEW CT

RIDGECREST DR

RIDGECREST LN
104
293
288
121
117
105
285
281
113
109
289
292
125
136
108
100
101
120
112
104
112
120
16 124
116
108
116
137
129
101
132
133
128
100
284
280
2 B
4575
134
17 50
4444
4736
7A,B
4729
59 34
A-F
15A
B
C
B
D
A
B
1 A
A
A
140
920
136
4115
5 19
19B
41A,B,C
30 C2
4121
19,19B
4525
11 16
15 17
19A,B
8 61
11 17
15 4665
4602
4604A
4656
4650
4421
4652
3 32
138
32 9A,B
10 4604B
4637
55 4203
15 4600
4615
4301
4303A
51 220
11 13
12 16
4253
4113
F3
F1
C1
B1
10 13
14 18
146
4729
4303
4803
4303B
A&B
4556
21 38
28 61
3 103
4255
21 F2
4110
53 E4
E1
D3
4425
E3
E2
4663
4257
13 19C,D
F4
B2
102
4738
57 18
900
127
73 105
107
56 58
205
216
114
122-124
D1
20 132
149
141
54 60
121
125
125
110-112

71.5 4585
15 114-116
121
129
130-132
201
115
25 118
59 61.5
106
23 21
D2
52 104
143

69.5 67.5
103
203
123
106-108
102
126
110
117
113
116
109
67 23
22 63
147
108
112
71 A&B
21 29
31 120
210
5 15
39 13
123
118-120
124
69 111
102-104
11 101
27 23
9 49
7 25
19 72
17 13
41 59
66 79
70 114
122
11 15
17 75-COMMON
118
116
34 211
322
412
521
14 13
16 15
18 11
20 111
100
421
511
422
512
311 312
711
612
212
411
522
221 222
621
622
722
712
611
121
17 321
721
20 18
1 110
4654
101.5
103
300
210
206
200
194
12A
12B
4200
29-35
37-43
300
21-27
105
104
106
4402
4340
4401
4305
108
110
112
114
318
320
322
324
319
317
315
309
A
116
4446
4494
104
307
105

J I H G F
E D
305
109
107
101
195
24 22
C B
321
4623
202-204
206
77 81
68 119
120
122
4548-4550
940
101
102
103
¯ 0 0.125 0.25
Miles
Project Location
Erba Lane Bay Village / APN 022-491-18 & 22
Project Site
088

Page 148 of 585 ends

089

Page 149 of 585 ends

24'-0" 20'-0"
40'-0"
18'-0"
TYP.

BACKYARD
7'+/-
3 0
'
-
3 "
3 0
'
-
3 "
5 '
5 '
3 0
'
-
3 "
3 0
'
-
3 "
20'-0"
6'+/-
20-0"'

SETBACK

ERBA LANE

TOP OF BANK PER CITY
DEFINITION, AND 100 YEAR

STORM FLOOD BOUNDARY
25' SETBACK FROM

TOP OF BANK

FLOW LINE(DRY) CREEK
TYP. EXIST. TREE
L.S.

L.S.

TYPICAL 2 CAR

PARKING AREA IN FRONT OF EACH
2 CAR GARAGE

EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT
EXIST. 12" RCP
EXISTING 24" RCP
EXIST. 36" RCP

STANDPIPE

PROPERTY LINE
EXIST. VALLEY GUTTER

EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
6' FENCE
L.S.

YARD
6' FENCE
6' FENCE
6' FENCE
PORCH

PORCH PORCH
4 P
O
R
C
H
P
O
R
C
H
P
O
R
C
H
P
O
R
C
H
3 '
6' FENCE
6' F.
6' FENCE
6' F.
6' FENCE
6' FENCE
6' FENCE
L.S.

L.S.

DRIVE 24'-0"
5 '
5 '
2 8
'
-
0 "
5 '
5 '
2 8
'
-
0 "
20'-0"
51'-0"
51'-0"
20'-0"
20'-0"
5'
40'-0"

22.0' 5' 5' 46'-0" 5' 5' 46'-0" 5'
7'-6"
12'-0" 12'-0" 6' 9' 6'

LANE LANE WIDE
20-0"'
20-0"'
5' SIDEWALK
6' LANDSCAPE STRIP L.S. 6' LANDSCAPE STRIP 6' LANDSCAPE STRIP 6' LANDSCAPE STRIP 5' SIDEWALK
50' WIDE

ERBA LANE
RIGHT-OF-WAY20'-0" TYP.
9'-0"
TYP.

L.S.

L.S.
5' SIDEWALK

YARD YARD
DECK
25'-0"
24'-0"
5'
10'
10'-0"
10'-0"
32'-0"
32'-0"
3 SPACES 4 SPACES 3 SPACES
L.S. L.S.
3'-6" HIGH
OPEN SPLIT RAIL FENCE (S.R.F.)

ALONG BOUNDARY OF OAK

RIPARIAN WOODLAND
N 22° 52' W 399.42'
S 40° 00' 57" E 326.29'
S
60 °
0 0
'
0 0
"
W
55 6
.
5'
S 22° 52' 00" E 80.05'
N
6 1
°
3 9
'
5 0
"
E
1 5
2 1
.
5 '
6'
10' +/-
24'-0"
YARD
YARD
YARD
8'
8'
8'
3 6
'
-
6 "
P
O
R
C
H
6'-6"
TYPICAL 2 CAR

PARKING AREA

IN FRONT OF
EACH 2 CAR
GARAGE
LOT B
LOT A
6' F.

YARD
YARD
YARD
YARD
12'
5 '
YARD
8'+/-
18'

NO PARKING
NEW 2' VALLEY CURB/GUTTER

FULL LENGTH FENCE ON
TOP OF RETAINING WALL.
6'-0" HIGH FENCE AS
MEASURED IN BACKYARD.RETAINING WALL HEIGHT
VARIES FROM 5'-8" TO 6'-6".

EXISTING PARKING LOT ON

ADJACENT PROPERTY
EXIST. EDGE OF PAVEMENT

OAK RIPARIAN WOODLAND
PER 2019 BIOTIC REPORT
12'
B
B B
L.S.
25' SETBACK FROM

METERS
8 3 / 2 / 2
1,944 SF HOME
494 SF GARAGE
3 / 2 / 2 DESIGNATES
# BEDROOMS / # BATHROOMS / 2 CAR GARAGE
3 3 / 2 ½ / 2
2 3 / 2 ½ / 2
2,108 SF HOME
529 SF GARAGE
2,108 SF HOME
529 SF GARAGE
6 3 / 2 / 2
4 / 2 ½ / 2
1 2,236 SF HOME
532 SF GARAGE
A2
X

PUBLIC ART LOCATION
ON FACE OF RETAINING WALL.

CUSTOM MURAL FROM BAY PHOTO.

APPROX. 10' WIDE x 4' HIGH.
42" HIGH GUARDRAIL (GR.)
ON TOP OF RETAINING WALL.
6 '
F
. 6' FENCE
6 '
F
E
N
C
E
6 '
F
E
N
C
E
6 '
F
E
N
C
E
6 '
F
E
N
C
E
6' F.
1' R.W.
18'-0"

BACKYARD
6' F.
6' F.
6' F.
6 '
F
.
6 '
F
.

L.S.
6' FENCE
3' R.W.
6' F.
3' R.W.
66' FENCE
6' F. ' FE
N
C
E
42" GR.
42" HIGH GUARDRAIL FENCE.

S.R.F.

S.R.F. S.R.F.

S.R.F.

S.R.F.
6' F. 42" GR. 42" GR.

S
R
.

F
.
.
42" GR.
42" GR.
13'-0"
13'-0"
11'-0"
10' +/- 15'-0" +/- 22' +/- 16'-0" +/- LOT AREAS LOT 1234567 3,329 8 2,750 9 2,750 10 3,037 SITE AREA = 45,244 S.F. ±
= 1.04 ACRES
A
B
3,4413,0803,116
3,6913,235
2,772
3,562
10,483

SQUARE FOOTAGE
LOT

COVERAGE
36%
44%44%
42%
40%42%42%
35%
40%
35%
10'-0"
FENCES ON TOP OF RETAINING WALL.
6'-0" HEIGHT FROM
RETAINED GRADE.
3'
-4"
+/-
4'
-6"
+/-
4'
-4"
+/-
3' F.

NO FENCE
NO
FENCE
6' FENCE

NO FENCE
4'-5"
4'-5"
6"
6"
6"
3'-8"
6"
3'
6"3'-8"
3'-0"
6"
6"
7'-8"
5'-6"
6"
4'-8"
6"
6'-6"
6"
1'
5'-8"
6"
L.S.
2 TREES TO BE REMOVED
PER ARBORIST REPORT.

T40 - 14" OAKT39 - 14" OAK
2x6 CAP RAIL
6'-0" HIGH
FENCE
2x4
2x10 TYP.2x4 TYP.

NO GAPS
4x4 POST
2x4
3'-6" ±
14" O.C.14" O.C.
2x6 CAP RAIL
6' -0" OVERALL

HEIGHT AS MEASURED FROM RETAINED GRADE
2x4
2x10 TYP.2x4 TYP.

NO GAPS
4x4 POST
2x4

HEIGHT PER
CIVIL PLANS 8"x8"x16" TAN

SPLIT FACE

CONCRETE BLOCK

RETAINING WALL
USE 42" HIGH AT
GUARDRAIL (GR.)

LOCATIONS
Sheet
Of Sheets
Job
Drawn
Scale 1" = 20'
Date
DAVIDB.ZULIMINC.

PLANNING

ENGINEERING
DESIGN
831-425-8769
SANTACRUZ, CALI FORNIA95060
150FELKERST. SUITEF

DAVIDZUL IM
P . E . 31047CAL I FORN I A

REVISIONS BY
Construction contractor and his subcontractors agree that in accordance with generally accepted construction practices, construction contractor and his subcontractors will be required to assume sole and complete responsibility for job site conditions during the course of construction of the project, including safety of all persons and property, that this requirement shall be made to apply continuously and not limited to normal working hours, and construction contractor and his subcontractors further agree to defend, indemnify and hold design professional and owner harmless from any and all liability, real or alleged, in connection with the performance of work on this project.

SITE PLAN
1" = 20'
NORTH
NOTE: BOUNDARY LINES, 100 YEAR STORM FLOOD
BOUNDARY/TOP OF BANK, 25' SETBACK FROM

TOP OF BANK, EXISTING TREE LOCATIONS,

EXISTING TOP OF BANK WERE OBTAINED
FROM BOWMAN & WILLIAMS SURVEY PLAN.

L.S. =
F. =R.W. =
S.R.F. =GR. =

BAY VILLAGE

A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF
6 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND
2 DUET HOMES FOR A
TOTAL OF 10 HOMES
1/4" = 1' - 0"

NEIGHBOR FENCE
ALONG BOUNDRY OF OAK 1/4" = 1' - 0"

RIPARIAN WOODLAND
- 6' HIGH SPLIT RAIL FENCE (S.R.F.)
Site Plan
Bay Village
Erba Lane, Scotts Valley, California

ERBA LANE, SCOTTS VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
Roofing:Roof Fascias and Gutters, Wood Trellises, Wood Knee Braces, Window and Door Trims, Deck Railings, Beams and Columns:Window and Door Frames:

Medium Dark Brown Heavy Tab Comp ShingleMission Brown
Off-White
Lot NumberWall Color:

Garage Door Color:

Stone Veneer
at Base:
1 Curly
Willow
Meadowland
Saratoga
2 Burnt
Almond
MedievalWineYukon
3 Incognito
Gladiator Gray
Sierra
4 Rugged
Tan
Nut
BrownYukon
5 Livingston
Adventurer
Saratoga
6 Curly
Willow
LagoonMoss
Yukon
Lot NumberWall Color:

Garage Door Color:

Stone Veneer
at Base:
7 FrontierBrownMoose
Trail
Saratoga
8 Curly
Willow
Sandalwood
Tan
Saratoga
9 Livingston
GladiatorGray
Sierra
10 Artisan
Crafts
Split
Rail
Sierra
Paint colors are BEHR Paints.

Stone Veneer at Base: Eldorado Stone
Pattern: Mountain Ledge, Colors: Yukon and SierraPattern: Rustic Ledge, Color: Saratoga

EXTERIOR COLOR SCHEDULE
1/4" = 1' - 0"

FENCE ON TOP OF

RETAINING WALL
5/12/20
DZ/LC
632-20A
A1 VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE
ERBA
LANE
VALLEY

HIGHWAY
17 TERRACE
VIEW
DRIVE
OAK CREEK BLVD.

WELLS ROAD CARBONERO WAY
EL
PUEBLO
ROAD
GREEN
HILLS
ROAD

KELLY WAY

TERRACE VIEW
COURT
CIVIC
CENTER
DRIVE
ACORN
COURT
BLAKE
LANE

TRAMELL
WAY

CHRISTEL

OAKS DRIVE

DISC DRIVE
D
I
S
C
D
R
I
V
E
SCOTTS
DRIVE

KENT COURT
N
O
R
T
H

PROJECT
SITE

CITY HALL
R
I
D
G
EC
R
EST
LAN
E
JOLLEY
WAY

PROJECT DATA
LANDSCAPE.

FENCE. HEIGHT AS NOTED.RETAINING WALL. SHOWN ASHEIGHTS ARE APPROXIMATE. SHOWN AS SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR GRADES.SPLIT RAIL FENCE.
42" HIGH GUARDRAIL FENCE
ON TOP OF RETAINING WALL.

DZLC #1 9/8/20
( 3'-0" in portion of front yard
between Lots 5 and 6. )
X'-X"
090

Page 150 of 585 ends

091

Page 151 of 585 ends

092

Page 152 of 585 ends

093

Page 153 of 585 ends

16-0 x 8-0 GARAGE DOOR
D/W
5-0 x 4-0
SLDR.
6-0 x 8-0 SLDR. DOOR
8-0 x 8-0 SLDR. DOOR
36"
RANGE
REF.

FIREPLACE
WH
FUR.

DR. WA.

GREAT ROOM
17'-5" x 19'-9"
DINING
14'-10" x 11'-2"
2 CAR GARAGE
21'-4" x 20'-1"
PATIO
12'-0" x 4'-6"
PANTRY
1/2 BATH
3/0
CLO.
2/2SINK STEP 2/8
2/4
2/6
3-0 x 6-0
S.H.
2/8
SINK
3-0 x 6-0 S.H.

TOYOTA
RAV 4

FORDFOCUS
COLUMN
UP
3'-5"
4'-0" 24'-0"
28'-0"28'-0"
12'-0" 16'-0"
4'-6"
19'-0"
8'-6" 10'-6" 1'-6"

WALKWAY

LANDSCAPE
22'-2"
51'-0"

KITCHEN
9'-0" x 11'-0"
5'-0"

HOOD &MICROWAVE

OPEN UNDER STAIRS

HIGH CEILING

WITH CLERESTORYWINDOWS ABOVE
9'-0" CEILING
STAIRS:
16 R. @ 7.56" = 10'-1"15 T. @ 10.5" = 13'-1 1/2"

OVERHANG
STEP

ELECTRIC METER
GAS
METER
GATE

FENCE PROPERTY LINE
18"x18" BASE
2-0 x 6-0
S.H.

FENCE ON LOT 4
HVAC

CONDENSER
8-0 x 8-0
SLDR. DOOR

MASTER BEDROOM
15'-0" x 14'-4"
BEDROOM #2
11'-5" x 12'-8"
BEDROOM #3
11'-10" x 10'-6"
CLOSET
MASTER
BATH
BATH #2
CLOSET
CLOSET
LINEN
CLOSET
3/0
2/8
2/8
2/8
2/8
POCKET
2/6 CARRIAGE
DOOR
2/6 CARRIAGE
DOOR

DISPLAY NICHE
2-0 x 3-0
S.H.
2-0 x 3-0
S.H.

PAIR 3-0 x 5-0 S.H.

SILL @ +36"
3-0 x 5-0 S.H.

PAIR 3-0 x 5-0 S.H.

SILL @ +36"
3-0 x 5-0 S.H.

POWERED

CLERESTORY

WINDOWSABOVE

OPEN TO GREAT

ROOMBELOW

SLOPING

CEILING INCLOSET
4'-0"

GUARDRAIL
DOWN3'-10"
1'-6"
4'-6" 27'-6" 12'-6" 6'-6"
12'-0" 16'-0"
28'-0"
9'-0"

VAULTED
CEILINGS @ SECOND
FLOOR
22'-2" 6'-8" 22'-2"
11'-0"
4'-0" 24'-0"
28'-0"
13'-0"

LAUNDRY
CHUTE
2-6 x 1-6
SLIDER
AT LOT 5 AT LOT 4

ORNAMENTAL

IRON GUARDRAIL
RIDGE
GABLE

GABLERIDGE
RIDGE
VALLEY
HIP
VALLEY
GABLE
RIDGE
HIP

TYPICAL GUTTER
2ND FLOOR

GROUND FLOOR
10'- 1"
TYP. STONE VENEERTYP. GUTTER FASCIA

ROOFS DESIGNED FOR FUTURE

SOLAR PANELS
ROOFING:

TYPICAL HEAVY TAB

COMPOSITION SHINGLE

TYPICAL WOOD

KNEE BRACKETS
28'-6" ±
10 12

TYPICAL

BOARD & BATT
SIDING

TYPICAL

SHINGLESIDING
TYP. WINDOWS:

DOUBLE PANE LOW-E

GLASS, VINYL OR

WOOD FRAMES WITH WOOD TRIM

GARAGE DOOR

CEILING
CEILING AT 9'-0"
9'- 0"

TOP OF WALL PLATE
19'- 1"

NATURAL GRADE

NATURAL
GRADE
TYP. ORNAMENTAL

IRON GUARDRAIL

CLERESTORY

WINDOWS INTO

GREAT ROOM

TYPICAL RIM BOARD

GROUND FLOOR
2ND FLOOR
10'- 1"

CLERESTORY

WINDOWS INTO

GREAT ROOM

NATURAL
GRADE
RIDGE
GABLE

GABLERIDGE
RIDGE
VALLEY
HIP
VALLEY
GABLE
RIDGE
HIP

TYPICAL GUTTER
ROOFING:

TYPICAL HEAVY TAB

COMPOSITION SHINGLE

TYPICAL BOARD &

BATT SIDING

TYPICAL

HORIZONTAL SIDING

TYPICAL WOOD

KNEE BRACKETS
TYP. STONE VENEER

GARAGE DOOR
TYPICAL WINDOWS:

DOUBLE PANE LOW-E

GLASS, VINYL OR

WOOD FRAMES WITH WOOD TRIM

ROOFS DESIGNED FOR FUTURE

SOLAR PANELS
10 TYPICAL
12 TYP. GUTTER FASCIA

GROUND FLOOR
10'- 1"
2ND FLOOR
CEILING AT 9'-0"

CEILINGTOP OF WALL PLATE
19'- 1"
28'-6" ±
9'- 0"
Sheet
Of Sheets
Job
Drawn
Scale
Date
DAVIDB.ZULIMINC.

PLANNING

ENGINEERING
DESIGN
831-425-8769
SANTACRUZ, CALI FORNIA95060
150FELKERST. SUITEF

DAVIDZUL IM
P . E . 31047CAL I FORN I A

REVISIONS BY
Lots 4 & 5
Bay Village
Construction contractor and his subcontractors agree that in accordance with generally accepted construction practices, construction contractor and his subcontractors will be required to assume sole and complete responsibility for job site conditions during the course of construction of the project, including safety of all persons and property, that this requirement shall be made to apply continuously and not limited to normal working hours, and construction contractor and his subcontractors further agree to defend, indemnify and hold design professional and owner harmless from any and all liability, real or alleged, in connection with the performance of work on this project. LOT 4 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1/8" = 1' - 0"

SECOND FLOOR

GROUND FLOOR
LIVING S.F.

GARAGE S.F.
====

SQUARE FOOTAGE
967 S.F.
799 S.F.
1,766 S.F.
486 S.F.

ALL ROOM SIZES APPROXIMATE
PATIO S.F. = 54 S.F.

LOT 4 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
1/8" = 1' - 0"
LOT 4

ROOF PLAN
1/8" = 1' - 0"
LOT 4

GROUND FLOOR PLAN
ALL ROOM SIZES APPROXIMATE 1/8" = 1' - 0"
LOT 5 IS MIRROR IMAGE FLOOR PLAN LOT 5 IS MIRROR IMAGE FLOOR PLAN LOT 5

ROOF PLAN
1/8" = 1' - 0"
LOT 4

RIGHT ELEVATION
1/8" = 1' - 0"
LOT 4LEFT SIDE ELEVATION FACING ERBA LANE
1/8" = 1' - 0"
LOT 4

REAR ELEVATION
1/8" = 1' - 0"
LOT 4FRONT ELEVATION
1/8" = 1' - 0"
LOT 5

FRONT ELEVATION
1/8" = 1' - 0"
LOT 5 IS MIRROR IMAGE OF
LOT 4 WITH SIDING CHANGES.

Erba Lane, Scotts Valley, California
3/31/20
1/8" = 1'-0"
DZ/LC
632-20A
A5
#1 8/15/20 LCDZ
094

Page 154 of 585 ends

095

Page 155 of 585 ends

3/0
16-0 x 8-0 GARAGE DOOR

FULL SIZE

JEEP GRAND

CHEROKEE
SUV
2/8 2/8
2/8
2/4
2/8
UP
UP

DRY WASH
CHEVY
VOLT
BEDROOM #2
10'-2" x 13'-4"
BEDROOM #3
10'-2" x 12'-4"
CLOSET

CLOSET BATH
#2
STOR. 2 CAR GARAGE
21'-0" x 22'-5"
STEP
6-0 x 8-0
SLDR. DOOR
2-6 x 1-0
FIXED
ABOVE
SHELF
3-0 x 6-0
S.H.
3-0 x 6-0
S.H.

SHELF
ABOVE
CLOSET @ +7'-4"
ACCENT
NICHE

SHELF W/

PINLIGHT
OPEN
UNDER
STAIRS
STAIRS:
16 T. @ 10.5" = 14'-0"17 R. @ 7.08" = 10'-0 3/8"

SHELF ABOVE
CLOSET@ +7'-4"

SHELF ABOVE
CLOSET @ +7'-4"

PROPERTY LINE
8'-0"
7'-0"
40'-0" 18'-0"
30'-3"
22'-0" 8'-3"
5'-6"
3'-3"
3'-9" 4'-6"
23'-0"
2'-8"
2'-4"

EQUAL EQUAL
3-8"
WH FUR. SINK
2-0 x 3-0
S.H.

ELECT. METER

GAS METER
GATE
FENCE
3'-0" WIDE

PLANTER
6-0 x 8-0
SLDR. DOOR
10"x 10" COLUMN
ABOVE
16"x 16"
BASE

LAUNDRY CHUTE
3/0
16-0 x 8-0 GARAGE DOOR

FULL SIZE

JEEP GRAND

CHEROKEE SUV
2/8 2/8
2/4
2/8
2/8
UP
UP

WASH DRY
CHEVY
VOLT
BEDROOM #2
10'-2" x 13'-4"
BEDROOM #3
10'-2" x 12'-4"
CLOSET

CLOSET BATH
#2
STOR. 2 CAR GARAGE
STEP 21'-0" x 22'-5"
6-0 x 8-0
SLDR. DOOR
2-6 x 1-0
FIXED
ABOVE
SHELF
3-0 x 6-0
S.H.
3-0 x 6-0
S.H.

SHELF
ABOVE
CLOSET @ +7'-4"
ACCENT
NICHE

SHELF W/

PINLIGHT
OPEN
UNDER
STAIRS
STAIRS:
16 T. @ 10.5" = 14'-0"17 R. @ 7.08" = 10'-0 3/8"

PIPE POST

SHELF ABOVE
CLOSET@ +7'-4"
SHELF ABOVE CLOSET @ +7'-4"
8'-0"
7'-0"
30'-3"
8'-3" 22'-0"
5'-6"
3'-3"
4'-6" 3'-9"
2'-8"
2'-4"

EQUAL EQUAL
3-8"
SINK FUR. WH
2-0 x 3-0
S.H.

ELECT. METER

GAS METER
GATE
FENCE
6-0 x 8-0
SLDR. DOOR
10"x 10"

COLUMN ABOVE
16"x 16"
BASE

LAUNDRY CHUTE
9'-0" CEILING HT. @ GROUND FLOOR

PIPE POST
FENCE

PORCH PORCH
LOT 7 LOT 8
HVAC

CONDENSER
HVAC

CONDENSER
TYP. STONE VENEER

TYPICAL BOARD &
BATT SIDINGTYPICAL WINDOWS:

DOUBLE PANE LOW-E

GLASS, VINYL OR

WOOD FRAMES WITH WOOD TRIM

TYPICAL GUTTER

TYPICAL WOOD

KNEE BRACKETS

ROOFS DESIGNED

FOR FUTURE

SOLAR PANELS

TYPICAL

LAP SIDING
ROOFING:

TYPICAL HEAVY TAB

COMPOSITION SHINGLE

TYPICAL TRELLIS ABOVE

GARAGE DOORS

TYPICAL ORNAMENTAL

IRON GUARDRAIL AT

BALCONIES & SLIDERS

TYPICAL
LAP
SIDING
12 6
12 6

TYPICAL

SHINGLE SIDING

TYPICAL
GARAGE
DOOR
LOT 7 LOT 8

NATURAL
GRADE

NATURAL GRADE
LOT 8 LOT 7
29'-10" ±
34'- 2" ±

NATURAL GRADE
4 12

TYPICAL TRELLIS ABOVE

GARAGE DOORS
12 6
12 6

NATURAL GRADE
2ND FLOOR

CEILING
10'- 0"

GROUND FLOOR
10'- 1"
CEILING AT 9'-0"

VAULTED CEILING

IN GREAT ROOM
& KITCHEN

NATURAL GRADE
20'- 1"

TOP OF WALL PLATE
8-0 x 8-0
SLDR. DOOR
DOWN
DOWN
2/6
3/0
2/6
2/4
12-0 x 8-0
SLDR. DOORS
REF.
36"
RANGE

GREAT ROOM
18'-2" x 22'-5"

MASTER BEDROOM
13'-3" x 16'-0"

MASTER BATH
MASTER
CLOSET
SHOWER

JACUZZI
STOR.

PANTRY

KITCHEN
9'-0" x 12'-6"
DECK
20'-2" x 8'-0"
4-0 x 4-6 SLDR.
3-0 x 4-0
S.H.
3-0 x 4-0

GLASS BLOCK
5-0 x 5-0
SLDR.
3-6 x 1-6
FIXED
3-0 x 8-0
3-0 x 8-0

LAUNDRY
CHUTE

FIREPLACE

PROPERTY LINE
11'-0" 4'-6"
5'-0"
8'-0"
2'-0"
9'-0" NOM.
30'-3"
VEG.

SINK
D/W 4'-0"
FARM
SINK

DOUBLE OVEN

DISPLAY NICHE

DISPLAY
NICHE

ORNAMENTAL

IRON GUARDRAIL
8-0 x 8-0
SLDR. DOOR
DOWN
DOWN
2/6
3/0
2/6
2/4
12-0 x 8-0
SLDR. DOORS
REF.
36"
RANGE

GREAT ROOM
18'-2" x 22'-5"

MASTER BEDROOM
13'-3" x 16'-0"

MASTER BATH
MASTER
CLOSET
SHOWER

JACUZZI
STOR.

PANTRY

KITCHEN
9'-0" x 12'-6"
DECK
20'-2" x 8'-0"
4-0 x 4-6 SLDR.
3-0 x 4-0
S.H.
3-0 x 4-0

GLASS BLOCK
5-0 x 5-0
SLDR.
3-6 x 1-6
FIXED
3-0 x 8-0
3-0 x 8-0

LAUNDRY
CHUTE

FIREPLACE
11'-0" 4'-6"
5'-0"
2'-0"
9'-0" NOM.
30'-3"
VEG.

SINK
D/W 4'-0"
FARM
SINK

DOUBLE OVEN

DISPLAY NICHE

DISPLAY
NICHE

ORNAMENTAL

IRON GUARDRAIL
10'-0" CEILING HT.
@ SECOND FLOOR

WITH COFFERS
TO 10'-8"
10'-0" CEILING HT.
@ SECOND FLOOR

WITH COFFERS
TO 10'-8"
LOT 7 LOT 8

VAULTED CEILING VAULTED CEILING
RIDGE

RIDGE RIDGE

RIDGE RIDGE VALLEY VALLEY VALLEY VALLEY
RIDGE

GABLEGABLE
GABLE

HIP HIP

HIP HIP
GABLE
RIDGE
RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY
GABLE

GUTTER GUTTER
GUTTER
LOT 7 LOT 8
Sheet
Of Sheets
Job
Drawn
Scale
Date
DAVIDB.ZULIMINC.

PLANNING

ENGINEERING
DESIGN
831-425-8769
SANTACRUZ, CALI FORNIA95060
150FELKERST. SUITEF

DAVIDZUL IM
P . E . 31047CAL I FORN I A

REVISIONS BY
Lots 7 & 8
Bay Village
Construction contractor and his subcontractors agree that in accordance with generally accepted construction practices, construction contractor and his subcontractors will be required to assume sole and complete responsibility for job site conditions during the course of construction of the project, including safety of all persons and property, that this requirement shall be made to apply continuously and not limited to normal working hours, and construction contractor and his subcontractors further agree to defend, indemnify and hold design professional and owner harmless from any and all liability, real or alleged, in connection with the performance of work on this project. LOTS 7 AND 8 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1/8" = 1' - 0"

SECOND FLOOR

GROUND FLOOR
LIVING S.F.

GARAGE S.F.
====
SQUARE FOOTAGE - LOT 7
1,228 S.F.
716 S.F.
1,944 S.F.
494 S.F.

ALL ROOM SIZES APPROXIMATE
DECK S.F. = 161 S.F.

LOTS 7 AND 8 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
1/8" = 1' - 0"
LOTS 7 AND 8

GROUND FLOOR PLAN
ALL ROOM SIZES APPROXIMATE 1/8" = 1' - 0"
LOT 8

RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION
1/8" = 1' - 0"
LOT 7LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
1/8" = 1' - 0"
LOTS 7 AND 8REAR ELEVATION
1/8" = 1' - 0"
LOTS 7 AND 8FRONT ELEVATION
1/8" = 1' - 0"
Erba Lane, Scotts Valley, California
LOTS 7 AND 8

ROOF PLAN
1/8" = 1' - 0"

SECOND FLOOR

GROUND FLOOR
LIVING S.F.

GARAGE S.F.
====
SQUARE FOOTAGE - LOT 8
1,228 S.F.
716 S.F.
1,944 S.F.
494 S.F.

DECK S.F. = 161 S.F.

A7
632-20A
DZ/LC1/8" = 1'-0"
3/31/20
#1 8/22/20 LCDZ
096

Page 156 of 585 ends

PROPERTY LINE
23'-0"
3/0
16-0 x 8-0 GARAGE DOOR

FULL SIZE

JEEP GRAND

CHEROKEE SUV
2/8 2/8
2/4
2/8
2/8
UP
UP

WASH DRY
CHEVY
VOLT
BEDROOM #2
10'-2" x 13'-4"
BEDROOM #3
10'-2" x 12'-4"
CLOSET

CLOSET BATH
#2
STOR. 2 CAR GARAGE
STEP 21'-0" x 22'-5"
6-0 x 8-0
SLDR. DOOR
2-6 x 1-0
FIXED
ABOVE
SHELF
3-0 x 6-0
S.H.
3-0 x 6-0
S.H.

SHELF
ABOVE
CLOSET @ +7'-4"
ACCENT
NICHE

SHELF W/

PINLIGHT
OPEN
UNDER
STAIRS
STAIRS:
16 T. @ 10.5" = 14'-0"17 R. @ 7.08" = 10'-0 3/8"

PIPE POST

SHELF ABOVE
CLOSET@ +7'-4"
SHELF ABOVE CLOSET @ +7'-4"
8'-0"
7'-0"
30'-3"
8'-3" 22'-0"
5'-6"
3'-3"
4'-6" 3'-9"
2'-8"
2'-4"

EQUAL EQUAL
3-8"
SINK FUR. WH
2-0 x 3-0
S.H.

ELECT. METER

GAS METER
GATE
FENCE
6-0 x 8-0
SLDR. DOOR
10"x 10"

COLUMN ABOVE
16"x 16"
BASE

LAUNDRY CHUTE

PIPE POST

PROPERTY LINE
8'-0"
8-0 x 8-0
SLDR. DOOR
DOWN
DOWN
2/6
3/0
2/6
2/4
12-0 x 8-0
SLDR. DOORS
REF.
36"
RANGE

GREAT ROOM
18'-2" x 22'-5"

MASTER BEDROOM
13'-3" x 16'-0"

MASTER BATH
MASTER
CLOSET
SHOWER

JACUZZI
STOR.

PANTRY

KITCHEN
9'-0" x 12'-6"
DECK
20'-2" x 8'-0"
4-0 x 4-6 SLDR.
3-0 x 4-0
S.H.
3-0 x 4-0

GLASS BLOCK
5-0 x 5-0
SLDR.
3-6 x 1-6
FIXED
3-0 x 8-0
3-0 x 8-0

LAUNDRY
CHUTE

FIREPLACE
11'-0" 4'-6"
5'-0"
2'-0"
9'-0" NOM.
30'-3"
VEG.

SINK
D/W 4'-0"
FARM
SINK

DOUBLE OVEN

DISPLAY NICHE

DISPLAY
NICHE

ORNAMENTAL

IRON GUARDRAIL
2/6
2/4
REF.

D/W
4-0 x 4-6 SLDR.
3-0 x 4-0
S.H.
5'-6"
36"

COOKTOP
FARM
SINK
8-0 x 8-0
SLDR. DOOR
2'-0"
5-0 x 5-0
SLDR.
3-6 x 1-6
FIXED
9'-0" NOM.
30'-3"

MASTER BEDROOM
13'-3" x 16'-0"
MASTER
CLOSET
3-0 x 8-0
3-0 x 8-0 SHOWER

JACUZZI
3/0DISPLAY NICHE

LAUNDRY
CHUTE 2/6
DOWN
PANTRY

GREAT ROOM
20'-3" x 22'-5"

FIREPLACE
12-0 x 8-0
SLDR. DOORS
DECK
20'-2" x 8'-0"
DOWN
10'-0" CEILING HT.
@ SECOND FLOOR

WITH COFFERS
TO 10'-8"

MASTER BATH
3-0 x 4-0

GLASS BLOCK
STOR.
4'-6"
11'-0"

DISPLAY NICHE

KITCHEN
10'-0" x 12'-6"
VEG.

SINK

DOUBLE OVEN
4'-6"

ORNAMENTAL

IRON GUARDRAIL
3/0
2/8
2/8
2/8

DRY WASH
CLOSET
STEP
3-0 x 6-0
S.H.
8'-0"
3'-3"

EQUAL EQUAL
3-8"
WH FUR. SINK
2-0 x 3-0
S.H.
3'-0" WIDE

PLANTER
30'-3"
22'-0"
16-0 x 8-0 GARAGE DOOR
8'-3"
10"x 10" COLUMN
ABOVE
16"x 16"
BASE
21'-0" x 22'-5"
2 CAR GARAGE

ACCENT NICHE

SHELF W/

PINLIGHT
6-0 x 8-0
SLDR. DOOR
6-0 x 8-0
SLDR. DOOR
BEDROOM #2
13'-0" x 11'-4"
BEDROOM #3
13'-0" x 12'-6"
UP
BATH
#2
CHEVY
VOLT

FULL SIZE

JEEP GRAND

CHEROKEE
SUV
STAIRS:
16 T. @ 10.5" = 14'-0"17 R. @ 7.08" = 10'-0 3/8"
7'-0"
40'-0"
UP
3'-9" 4'-6"
3-0 x 6-0
S.H.

CLOSET
18'-0"
3'-0"
CLOSET
SHELF
2/8
2/2
2/6
2/6

LAUNDRY CHUTE
LINEN

CABINET
18'-0" 22'-0"
18'-0"
FENCE

VAULTED CEILING VAULTED CEILING
LOT 9 LOT 10 LOT 9 LOT 10

PORCH PORCH
9'-0" CEILING HT. @ GROUND FLOOR
HVAC

CONDENSER
HVAC

CONDENSER

GAS METER
ELECT.

METER
6' FENCE
G
AT
E

ROOFS DESIGNED

FOR FUTURE

SOLAR PANELS

TYPICAL BOARD &

BATT SIDING

TYPICAL GUTTER
TYPICAL WINDOWS:

DOUBLE PANE LOW-E

GLASS, VINYL OR

WOOD FRAMES WITH WOOD TRIM
TYP. STONE VENEER

TYPICAL TRELLIS ABOVE

GARAGE DOORS

TYPICAL
GARAGE
DOOR

TYPICAL

LAP SIDING
12 6
ROOFING:

TYPICAL HEAVY TAB

COMPOSITION SHINGLE

TYPICAL WOOD

KNEE BRACKETS
12 6

TYPICAL BOARD &

BATT SIDING

TYPICAL ORNAMENTAL

IRON GUARDRAIL AT

BALCONIES & SLIDERS
LOT 9 LOT 10

NATURAL GRADE NATURAL GRADE
LOT 10 LOT 9 NATURAL GRADE
29'-10" ±
33'- 8" ±
4 12

TYPICAL TRELLIS ABOVE

GARAGE DOORS

NATURAL GRADE

VAULTED CEILING

IN GREAT ROOM
& KITCHEN

NATURAL GRADE
2ND FLOOR

CEILING
10'- 0"

GROUND FLOOR
10'- 1"
CEILING AT 9'-0"
20'- 1"

TOP OF WALL PLATE
RIDGE

RIDGE RIDGE

RIDGE RIDGE VALLEY VALLEY VALLEY VALLEY
RIDGE
GABLE
GABLE
GABLE
GABLE
RIDGE
GUTTER

HIP HIP

HIP HIP
RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY
GUTTER
GUTTER
LOT 9 LOT 10
Sheet
Of Sheets
Job
Drawn
Scale
Date
DAVIDB.ZULIMINC.

PLANNING

ENGINEERING
DESIGN
831-425-8769
SANTACRUZ, CALI FORNIA95060
150FELKERST. SUITEF

DAVIDZUL IM
P . E . 31047CAL I FORN I A

REVISIONS BY
Lots 9 & 10
Bay Village
Construction contractor and his subcontractors agree that in accordance with generally accepted construction practices, construction contractor and his subcontractors will be required to assume sole and complete responsibility for job site conditions during the course of construction of the project, including safety of all persons and property, that this requirement shall be made to apply continuously and not limited to normal working hours, and construction contractor and his subcontractors further agree to defend, indemnify and hold design professional and owner harmless from any and all liability, real or alleged, in connection with the performance of work on this project. LOTS 9 AND 10 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1/8" = 1' - 0"

SECOND FLOOR

GROUND FLOOR
LIVING S.F.

GARAGE S.F.
====
SQUARE FOOTAGE - LOT 9
1,228 S.F.
716 S.F.
1,944 S.F.
494 S.F.

ALL ROOM SIZES APPROXIMATE
DECK S.F. = 161 S.F.

LOTS 9 AND 10 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
1/8" = 1' - 0"
LOTS 9 AND 10

GROUND FLOOR PLAN
ALL ROOM SIZES APPROXIMATE 1/8" = 1' - 0"
LOT 10RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION FACING ERBA LANE
1/8" = 1' - 0"
LOT 9

LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
1/8" = 1' - 0"
LOTS 9 AND 10

REAR ELEVATION
1/8" = 1' - 0"
LOTS 9 AND 10

FRONT ELEVATION
1/8" = 1' - 0"
Erba Lane, Scotts Valley, California
LOTS 9 AND 10

ROOF PLAN
1/8" = 1' - 0"

SECOND FLOOR

GROUND FLOOR
LIVING S.F.

GARAGE S.F.
====
SQUARE FOOTAGE - LOT 10
1,282 S.F.
770 S.F.
2,052 S.F.
494 S.F.

DECK S.F. = 161 S.F.
3/31/20
1/8" = 1'-0"
DZ/LC
632-20A
A8
#1 8/22/20 LCDZ
097

Page 157 of 585 ends

SETBACK

ERBA LANE

TOP OF BANK PER CITY
DEFINITION, AND 100 YEAR

STORM FLOOD BOUNDARY
25' SETBACK FROM

TOP OF BANK

FLOW LINE(DRY) CREEK
TYP. EXIST. TREE
L.S.

L.S.

EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT
EXIST. 12" RCP
EXISTING 24" RCP
EXIST. 36" RCP

STANDPIPE

PROPERTY LINE
EXIST. VALLEY GUTTER

EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
6' FENCE
L.S.

YARD
6' FENCE
6' FENCE
6' FENCE
PORCH

PORCH PORCH
4 P
O
R
C
H
P
O
R
C
H
P
O
R
C
H
P
O
R
C
H
6' FENCE
6' F.
6' FENCE
6' F.
6' FENCE
6' FENCE
6' FENCE
L.S.

L.S. L.S.

L.S.

L.S.
5' SIDEWALK
6' LANDSCAPE STRIP L.S. 6' LANDSCAPE STRIP 6' LANDSCAPE STRIP 6' LANDSCAPE STRIP 5' SIDEWALK
L.S.

L.S.
5' SIDEWALK

YARD YARD
DECK
L.S. L.S.

N 22° 52' W 399.42'
S 40° 00' 57" E 326.29'
S
60 °
0 0
'
0 0
"
W
55 6
.
5'
S 22° 52' 00" E 80.05'
N
6 1
°
3 9
'
5 0
"
E
1 5
2 1
.
5 '
YARD
YARD
YARD
P
O
R
C
H
LOT B
LOT A
6' F.

YARD
YARD
YARD
YARD
YARD

NO PARKING

EXISTING PARKING LOT ON

ADJACENT PROPERTY
EXIST. EDGE OF PAVEMENT

OAK RIPARIAN WOODLAND
PER 2019 BIOTIC REPORT
B
B B
L.S.
25' SETBACK FROM

TOP OF BANK
SA
M
S
LA
N
E
3 / 2 ½ / 2
1,766 SF HOME
486 SF GARAGE
5 3 / 2 ½ / 2
1,766 SF HOME
486 SF GARAGE
1,784 SF HOME
519 SF GARAGE
7 3 / 2 / 2
1,944 SF HOME
494 SF GARAGE
9 3 / 2 / 2
1,944 SF HOME
494 SF GARAGE
10 3 / 2 / 2
2,052 SF HOME
494 SF GARAGE
8 3 / 2 / 2
1,944 SF HOME
494 SF GARAGE
3 3 / 2 ½ / 2
2 3 / 2 ½ / 2
2,108 SF HOME
529 SF GARAGE
2,108 SF HOME
529 SF GARAGE
6 3 / 2 / 2
4 / 2 ½ / 2
1 2,236 SF HOME
532 SF GARAGE
6 '
F
. 6' FENCE
6 '
F
E
N
C
E
6 '
F
E
N
C
E
6 '
F
E
N
C
E
6 '
F
E
N
C
E
6' F.
1' R.W. 6
'
F
.
6 '
F
.

L.S.
6' FENCE
6' F.
66' FENCE
6' F. ' FE
N
C
E
42" GR.
6' F. 42" GR. 42" GR.

S
R
.

F
.
.
42" GR.
42" GR.
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
OPEN SPLIT RAIL FENCE (S.R.F.)

ALONG BOUNDARY OF OAK

RIPARIAN WOODLAND
6' F. 3' F. L.S.
6' F.

S.R.F.

S.R.F. S.R.F.

S.R.F.

S.R.F.
8'-0" NOMINAL
6'-8" AT SIDE GARAGE DOORS

BETWEEN NEIGHBORS
FLOOR
WALL

EXTERIOR
GRADE
Sheet
Of Sheets
Job
Drawn
Scale 1" = 20'
Date
DAVIDB.ZULIMINC.

PLANNING

ENGINEERING
DESIGN
831-425-8769
SANTACRUZ, CALI FORNIA95060
150FELKERST. SUITEF

DAVIDZUL IM
P . E . 31047CAL I FORN I A

EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN
1" = 20'
NORTH
Exterior Lighting Plan
Bay Village
Erba Lane, Scotts Valley, California
8/29/20DZ/LC
632-20A
A9

LITHONIA LED LIGHTING BOLLARDFULLY CUTOFF ILLUMINATION
8" DIAMETER x 42" HIGH
MODEL KBA8LED - 16C SYM - 30K - DARK BRONZE
B

EXTERIOR LIGHTING SCHEDULE

WALL MOUNTED LED LIGHT

WITH GLARE CUTOFF, AND DARK SKY FRIENDLY CERTIFIED
BY INTERNATIONAL DARK-SKY ASSOCIATION. WAC 'SODOR' OUTDOOR WALL SCONCE, 3000K MODEL # WS-W15708, 8", BRONZE FINISH,
9 WATTS, 315 DELIVERED LUMENS, DIMMABLE. RATED LIFE = 56,000 HOURS. HEIGHT - SEE SECTION. LIGHT ON SECOND FLOOR, FOR SECOND FLOOR DECKS AND EXTERIOR STAIRS. 2
RECESSED 6" LED DOWNLIGHT IN CEILING SOFFIT. HALO #HLBSL 6 INCH, WHITE FINISH, 900 LUMENS, DIMMABLE, 12 WATTS. 3 SELECTABLE COLORS. 3000K, 4000K OR 5000K. RATED LIFE = 35,000 HOURS. 1/2" = 1' - 0"

SECTION -

WITH GLARE CUTOFF &

DARK SKY FRIENDLY RATED

WALL MOUNTED LED LIGHT
L.S. =
F. =R.W. =
S.R.F. =GR. =
LANDSCAPE.

FENCE. HEIGHT AS NOTED.RETAINING WALL. SHOWN AS
SPLIT RAIL FENCE.
42" HIGH GUARDRAIL FENCE
ON TOP OF RETAINING WALL.
098

Page 158 of 585 ends

BACKYARD

TOP OF BANK PER CITY
DEFINITION, AND 100 YEAR
STORM FLOOD BOUNDARY 25' SETBACK FROM

TOP OF BANK

FLOW LINE
(DRY) CREEK
TYP. EXIST. TREE
TYPICAL 2 CAR

PARKING AREA INFRONT OF EACH
2 CAR GARAGE

EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT
EXIST. 12" RCP
EXISTING 24" RCP
EXIST. 36" RCP

STANDPIPE

PROPERTY LINE
EXIST. VALLEY GUTTER

EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
F.

Gate

FENCE FENCE
F.

YARD
FENCE
FENCE
FENCE
FENCE
FENCE
PORCH

PORCH PORCH
PORCH
PORCH
PORCH
PORCH
FENCE
F. F.

FENCE
FENCE
FENCE
FENCE
DRIVE
5' SIDEWALK 5' SIDEWALK 5' SIDEWALK

YARD YARD
5' BALCONY
10'
FENCE
3 SPACES 4 SPACES 3 SPACES

OPEN SPLIT RAIL FENCE ALONG

BOUNDARY OF OAK RIPARIAN WOODLAND
1
:

6
(

6
:

6
(

YARD
YARD
YARD
PORCH
TYPICAL 2 CAR PARKING AREA IN FRONT OF EACH 2 CAR
GARAGE
LOT B
LOT A
F.

TYP. GAS &

ELECTRIC
METERS
YARD
YARD
YARD
YARD
YARD

NO PARKING
NEW 2' VALLEY GUTTER

RETAINING WALL
WITH 6' FENCE ON TOP.

SEE CIVIL PLANS.

EXISTING PARKING LOT ON

ADJACENT PROPERTY
EXIST. EDGE OF PAVEMENT

OAK RIPARIAN WOODLAND
PER 2019 BIOTIC REPORT
Gate
Gate
Gate
Gate
Gate
Gate
GateGate Gate
TYPICAL 2 CAR PARKING AREA IN FRONT OF EACH 2 CAR
GARAGE
1"=20'-0"
0' 20' 40'
#2176 GREGORY LEWIS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
736 Park Way Santa Cruz, CA 95065 (831) 359-0960
Planting Plan
[email protected]
AH 5 Arctostaphylos Howard McMinn Howard McMinn Manzanita Site Plan
Bay Village
Erba Lane, Scotts Valley, California
099

Page 159 of 585 ends

BACKYARD

TOP OF BANK PER CITY
DEFINITION, AND 100 YEAR
STORM FLOOD BOUNDARY 25' SETBACK FROM

TOP OF BANK

FLOW LINE
(DRY) CREEK
TYP. EXIST. TREE
TYPICAL 2 CAR

PARKING AREA INFRONT OF EACH
2 CAR GARAGE

EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT
EXIST. 12" RCP
EXISTING 24" RCP
EXIST. 36" RCP

STANDPIPE

PROPERTY LINE
EXIST. VALLEY GUTTER

EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
F.

Gate

FENCE FENCE
F.

YARD
FENCE
FENCE
FENCE
FENCE
FENCE
PORCH

PORCH PORCH
PORCH
PORCH
PORCH
PORCH
FENCE
F. F.

FENCE
FENCE
FENCE
FENCE
DRIVE
5' SIDEWALK 5' SIDEWALK 5' SIDEWALK

YARD YARD
5' BALCONY
10'
FENCE
3 SPACES 4 SPACES 3 SPACES

OPEN SPLIT RAIL FENCE ALONG

BOUNDARY OF OAK RIPARIAN WOODLAND
1
:

6
(

6
:

6
(

YARD
YARD
YARD
PORCH
TYPICAL 2 CAR PARKING AREA IN FRONT OF EACH 2 CAR
GARAGE
LOT B
LOT A
F.

TYP. GAS &

ELECTRIC
METERS
YARD
YARD
YARD
YARD
YARD

NO PARKING
NEW 2' VALLEY GUTTER

RETAINING WALL
WITH 6' FENCE ON TOP.

SEE CIVIL PLANS.

EXISTING PARKING LOT ON

ADJACENT PROPERTY
EXIST. EDGE OF PAVEMENT

OAK RIPARIAN WOODLAND
PER 2019 BIOTIC REPORT
Gate
Gate
Gate
Gate
Gate
Gate
GateGate Gate
TYPICAL 2 CAR PARKING AREA IN FRONT OF EACH 2 CAR
GARAGE
1"=20'-0"
0' 20' 40'
#2176 GREGORY LEWIS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
736 Park Way Santa Cruz, CA 95065 (831) 359-0960
[email protected]
Site Plan
Bay Village
Erba Lane, Scotts Valley, California
Irrigation Concept
100

Page 160 of 585 ends

BACKYARD

TOP OF BANK PER CITY
DEFINITION, AND 100 YEAR
STORM FLOOD BOUNDARY 25' SETBACK FROM

TOP OF BANK

FLOW LINE
(DRY) CREEK
TYP. EXIST. TREE
TYPICAL 2 CAR

PARKING AREA INFRONT OF EACH
2 CAR GARAGE
EXIST. 12" RCP

PROPERTY LINE
EXIST. VALLEY GUTTER
F.

Gate

FENCE FENCE
F.

YARD
FENCE
FENCE
FENCE
FENCE
FENCE
PORCH

PORCH PORCH
PORCH

PORCH PORCH
PORCH
FENCE
F. F.

FENCE
FENCE
FENCE
FENCE
DRIVE
5' SIDEWALK 5' SIDEWALK 5' SIDEWALK

YARD YARD
5' BALCONY
10'
FENCE
3 SPACES 4 SPACES 3 SPACES

OPEN SPLIT RAIL FENCE ALONG

BOUNDARY OF OAK RIPARIAN WOODLAND
1
:

6
(

6
:

6
(

YARD
YARD
YARD
PORCH
TYPICAL 2 CAR

PARKING AREA
IN FRONT OF EACH 2 CAR GARAGE
LOT B
LOT A
F.

TYP. GAS &

ELECTRIC METERS
YARD
YARD
YARD
YARD
YARD

NO PARKING
NEW 2' VALLEY GUTTER

RETAINING WALL
WITH 6' FENCE ON TOP.

SEE CIVIL PLANS.

EXISTING PARKING LOT ON

ADJACENT PROPERTY

OAK RIPARIAN WOODLAND
PER 2019 BIOTIC REPORT
Gate
Gate
Gate
Gate Gate
Gate
GateGate Gate
TYPICAL 2 CAR

PARKING AREA
IN FRONT OF EACH 2 CAR GARAGE
#2176 GREGORY LEWIS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
736 Park Way Santa Cruz, CA 95065 (831) 359-0960
[email protected]
Site Plan
Bay Village
Erba Lane, Scotts Valley, California
1"=20'-0"
0' 20' 40' Hydrozone Plan
All landscape areas are irrigated by individual houses using their potable water meter water Areas noted are planted and don't include artificial lawn, rear yards or bark paths. See civil drawings for total landscape area sq.ft. 101

Page 161 of 585 ends

102

Page 162 of 585 ends

103

Page 163 of 585 ends

104

Page 164 of 585 ends

105

Page 165 of 585 ends

106

Page 166 of 585 ends

107

Page 167 of 585 ends

108

Page 168 of 585 ends

ROOF FASCIAS A
ROOFING: MED

ERBA LA
COLOR BOARD FOR:

BAY VILLAGE
109

Page 169 of 585 ends

MRAB U Anchor bolts for KBA8 LED 8
Accessories
Ordered and shipped separately.

NOTES
1 Only available in the 12C, ASY version.
2 Only available in the 16C, SYM version.
3 Only available with 450 AMBLW version.
4 Not available with ELCW.
5 MVOLT driver operates on any line voltage from 120-277V (50/60 Hz). Specify 120, 208, 240 or 277 options only when ordering with fusing (SF, DF options), or photocontrol (PE option).
6 Not available with 347V. Not available with fusing. Not available with 450 AMBLW.
7 Single fuse (SF) requires 120, 277, or 347 voltage option. Double fuse (DF) requires 208 or 240 voltage option.
8 MRAB U not available with L/AB4 option.
9 Striping is available only in the colors listed.

H
D
KBA8 LED
LED Specification Bollard
Specifications
Catalog
Number
Notes
Type
Introduction
The KBA8 Bollard is a stylish, fully integrated
LED solution for walkways. It features a sleek,
modern design and is carefully engineered to
provide long-lasting, energy-efficient lighting
with a variety of optical and control options for
customized performance.

With an expected service life of over 20 years of
nighttime use and up to 70% in energy savings
over comparable 100W metal halide luminaires,
the KBA8 Bollard is a reliable, low-maintenance
lighting solution that produces sites that are
exceptionally illuminated.
8” Round
(20.3 cm)
Height: 42”
(106.7 cm)
Weight
(max):
27 lbs
(12.25 kg)
One Lithonia Way • Conyers, Georgia 30012 • Phone: 800.279.8041 • www.lithonia.com © 2012-2018 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved.

Hit the Tab key or mouse over the page to see all interactive elements.

KBA8 LED
Series LEDs Drive current Color temperature Distribution Voltage Control options Other options Finish (required) KBA8 LED Asymmetric
12C 12 LEDs 1
Symmetric
16C 16 LEDs 2
350 350 mA
450 450 mA 3,4
530 530 mA
700 700 mA
30K 3000 K
40K 4000 K
50K 5000 K
AMBPC Amber
phosphor
converted
AMBLW Amber limited
wavelength 3,4
ASY Asymmetric 1
SYM Symmetric 2
MVOLT 5
120 5
208 5
240 5
277 5
347 4
Shipped installed
PE Photoelectric
cell, button
type
DMG 0-10v
dimming
wires pulled
outside
fixture (for
use with an
external
control,
ordered
separately)
ELCW Emergency
battery
backup 6
Shipped installed
SF Single fuse
(120, 277,
347V) 4,7
DF Double fuse
(208, 240V) 4,7
H24 24” overall
height
H30 30” overall
height
H36 36” overall
height
FG Ground-fault
festoon outlet
L/AB Without
anchor bolts
(3 bolt base)
L/AB4 4 bolt retrofit
base without
anchor bolts 8
DWHXD White
DNAXD Natural
aluminum
DDBXD Dark
bronze
DBLXD Black
DDBTXD Textured
dark
bronze
DBLBXD Textured
black
DNATXD Textured
natural
aluminum
DWHGXD Textured
white
Striping 9
SDDB Dark
bronze
SDWH White
SDBL Black
SDNA Natural
aluminum
SDTG Tennis
green
SDBR Bright red
SDBUA Dark blue
SDYLB Yellow
Ordering Information EXAMPLE: KBA8 LED 16C 700 40K SYM MVOLT DDBXD 110

Page 170 of 585 ends

Lumen values are from photometric tests performed in accordance with IESNA LM-79-08. Data is considered to be representative of the configurations shown, within the tolerances allowed by Lighting Facts.

Performance Data

FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS

INTENDED USE
The rugged construction and clean lines of the KBA bollard is ideal for illuminating building entryways, walking paths, and pedestrian plazas, as well as any other location requiring a low mounting height light source with fully cutoff illumination.

CONSTRUCTION
One-piece 8-inch round extruded aluminum shaft with thick side walls for extreme durability, a high-impact clear acrylic lens and welded top cap. Die-cast aluminum mounting ring allows for easy leveling even in sloped locations and a full 360-degree rotation for precise alignment during installation. Three ½” x 11” anchor bolts with double nuts and washers and 3 ¾” bolt circle template ensure stability.

Overall height is 42” standard.

FINISH
Exterior parts are protected by a zinc-infused super durable TGIC thermoset powder coat finish that provides superior resistance to corrosion and weathering for maximum retention of gloss and luster. A tightly controlled multi-stage process ensures a minimum 3-mil thickness for a finish that can withstand the elements without cracking or peeling. Available in both textured and non-textured finishes.

OPTICS
Two fully cutoff optical distributions are available: symmetrical and asymmetrical.

IP66 sealed LED light engine provides smoothly graduated illumination without any uplight. Light engines are available in standard 4000 K (>70 CRI) or optional 3000 K (>80 CRI) or 5000 K (67 CRI). Limited-wavelength amber LEDs are also available.

ELECTRICAL
Light engines consist of high-efficacy LEDs mounted to metal-core circuit boards to maximize heat dissipation and promote long life (L95/100,000 hours at 700mA at 25°C). Class 2 electronic drivers are designed for an expected life of 100,000 hours with < 1% failure rate. Electrical components are mounted on a removable power tray.

LISTINGS
CSA certified to U.S. and Canadian standards. Light engines are IP66 rated.

Rated for -40°C minimum ambient. Cold-weather emergency battery backup rated for -20°C minimum ambient.

WARRANTY
5-year limited warranty. Complete warranty terms located at:
www.acuitybrands.com/CustomerResources/Terms_and_conditions.aspx.

Note: Actual performance may differ as a result of end-user environment and application.

All values are design or typical values, measured under laboratory conditions at 25 °C.

Specifications subject to change without notice.

Projected LED Lumen Maintenance
Data references the extrapolated performance projections for the platforms noted in a 25°C ambient, based on 10,000 hours of LED testing (tested per IESNA LM-80-08 and projected per IESNA TM-21-11).

To calculate LLF, use the lumen maintenance factor that corresponds to the desired number of operating hours below. For other lumen maintenance values, contact factory.

Operating Hours 0 25,000 50,000 100,000
Lumen Maintenance Factor 1.00 0.98 0.97 0.95
Current (A)
Light
Engines
Drive Current
(mA)
System
Watts 120 208 240 277 347
12C
350 16W 0.158 0.118 0.114 0.109 0.105
530 22W 0.217 0.146 0.136 0.128 0.118
700 31W 0.296 0.185 0.168 0.153 0.139
Amber 450 16W 0.161 0.120 0.115 0.110 0.106
16C
350 20W 0.197 0.137 0.128 0.121 0.114
530 28W 0.282 0.178 0.162 0.148 0.135
700 39W 0.385 0.231 0.207 0.185 0.163
Amber 450 20W 0.199 0.139 0.130 0.123 0.116
Photometric Diagrams To see complete photometric reports or download .ies files for this product, visit Lithonia Lighting’s KBA8 Bollard homepage.

Isofootcandle plots for the KB LED Bollards. Distances are in units of mounting height (3’). Test No. LTL24482 tested in accordance with IESNA LM-79-08. 4 3
2 1
0 -4
-3
-2
-1
4 3 2 1 0 4321
Test No. LTL24474 tested in accordance with IESNA LM-79-08. 4 3
2 1
0 -4
-3
-2
-1
4 3 2 1 0 4321
LEGEND

0.1 fc

0.5 fc

1.0 fc

3.0 fc

6.0 fc
12C 700 40K ASY 16C 700 40K SYM
Note: Available with phosphor-converted amber LED’s (nomenclature AMBPC). These LED’s produce light with 97+% >530 nm. Output can be calculated by applying a 0.7 factor to 4000 K lumen values and photometric files.

Electrical Load
LEDs Drive Current
(mA)
System
Watts
Dist.

Type
30K 40K 50K 50K
Lumens B U G LPW Lumens B U G LPW Lumens B U G LPW Lumens B U G LPW 12C
350mA 16 ASY 1,126 1 1 1 70 1,210 1 1 1 76 1,217 1 1 1 76 530 mA 22 ASY 1,622 1 1 1 74 1,741 1 1 1 79 1,752 1 1 1 80 700mA 30 ASY 2,050 1 1 1 68 2,201 1 1 1 73 2,215 1 1 1 74 Amber 450 16 ASY 324 0 1 0 20
16C
350mA 20 SYM 1,527 1 0 0 76 1,640 1 0 0 82 1,650 1 0 0 83 530 mA 28 SYM 2,186 1 0 0 78 2,348 1 0 1 84 2,362 1 0 1 84 700mA 39 SYM 2,744 1 0 1 70 2,947 1 0 1 76 2,965 2 0 1 76 Amber 450 20 SYM 374 0 0 0 19
One Lithonia Way • Conyers, Georgia 30012 • Phone: 800.279.804 • www.lithonia.com © 2012-2018 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved.

KBA8-LED
Rev. 10/30/18
111

Page 171 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development Project Mitigated Negative Declaration | Page 1
3/22/21
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Name of Project
Bay Village Planned Development Project
Lead Agency
City of Scotts Valley
One Civic Center Drive
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
Contact
Paula Bradley, MCP, AICP
Contract Planner
831 345-5482
[email protected]
Project Applicant
Charlie Eadie
Eadie Consultants
P O Box 1647
Santa Cruz, CA 95061-1647
831 431-3396
[email protected]
Project Location
The project site is on two parcels (APN 22-481-18 and 22) on Erba Lane (no situs – vacant) in the City of Scotts Valley.

Project Description
The proposed Bay Village Planned Development Project (the project) would construct 10 residential units comprised of six single-family homes and two duplex/duets on a 1.04 acre (45,245 square feet (sf)) parcel. The project site consists of two existing lots that would be subdivided into ten lots and two common lots. The residential lots would range in size from 2,750 sf to 3,691 sf, with a common lot area where the riparian woodland area is located (Lot B – 10,681 sf) and a common lot for a new roadway for access to seven of the new residences (Lot A – 3,557 sf).
112

Page 172 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development Project Mitigated Negative Declaration | Page 2
3/22/21
The project includes nine 3-bedroom homes, which range in size from 1,766 sf to 2,108 sf, and one 2,236 sf 4-bedroom unit. Each unit would include a 2-car garage and a 20-foot deep driveway.

To protect an existing oak riparian woodland habitat that extends along the eastern boundary of the project site, a split rail fence would be constructed outside of the riparian boundary.

Retaining walls would be constructed along the property lines in the southeast, south, northwest corner and between most of the lots to create level building pads on the sloped lot.

The retaining walls would be topped with wood.

Fronting Erba Lane, the project includes a five-foot sidewalk and six-foot landscaped planting strip. The project would construct a new 24 foot-wide private roadway, extending from Erba Lane, providing access to seven of the residential units (Lots 4 through 10).

Public Review and Comment Period
March 30, 2021 through April 30, 2021
Comme n
Any individual, group, or agency disagreeing with this determination or wishing to comment on the project may submit written comments to the City of Scotts Valley at the address listed above or by email to the project planner listed above. All comments received by 5:00 PM on April 30, 2021 will be considered by the City of Scotts Valley.

Findings and Reasons
Apart from biological resources, and the implementation of identified Standard Conditions of Approval, the Initial Study did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment. The project would not have the potential to significantly degrade the environment; would have no significant impact on long-term environmental goals; would have no significant cumulative effect upon the environment; and would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

With respect to biological resources, the Initial Study identified potentially significant impacts to sensitive natural communities. Implementation of MM BIO-1: Oak Riparian Woodland - Project Construction and MM BIO-2: Oak Riparian Woodland Post-Construction would reduce these impacts to less than significant.

The following reasons support these findings:

1. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the City of Scotts Valley General Plan, and the City of Scotts Valley Municipal Code.

2. City staff independently reviewed the Initial Study, and this mitigated negative declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City of Scotts Valley. 113

Page 173 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley
Bay Village Planned Development Initial Study
114

Page 174 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development Initial Study Table of Contents | Page i
3/22/21
Table of Contents
Background & Project Description ............................................................................................. 1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................................... 3 Environmental Checklist ............................................................................................................ 3 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................... 3 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ........................................................................................... 5 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................. 7 Biological Resources ................................................................................................................. 11 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................... 20 Energy ...................................................................................................................................... 22 Geology and Soils ..................................................................................................................... 23 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................................................... 26 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................... 27 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................................. 30 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................. 34 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................... 34 Noise ........................................................................................................................................ 35 Population and Housing ........................................................................................................... 38 Public Services .......................................................................................................................... 39 Recreation ................................................................................................................................ 40 Transportation ......................................................................................................................... 41 Tribal Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 43 Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................................... 45 Wildfire ..................................................................................................................................... 47 Mandatory Findings of Significance ......................................................................................... 48 Determination .......................................................................................................................... 50 115

Page 175 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development Initial Study Table of Contents | Page ii
3/22/21
List of Figures
Figure 1: Regional Location
Figure 2: Project Vicinity
Figure 3: Site Plan
Figure 4: Project Rendering
Figure 5: Street View from Erba Lane
Figure 6: Grading Plan
Figure 7: Exterior Lighting Plan
Figure 8: Vegetation Types
Figure 9: Oak Riparian Woodland Habitat
Note: All figures are inserted at the end of the document.

List of Tables
None.
116

Page 176 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 1
3/22/21
Initial Study
Background & Project Description
Project Title
Bay Village Planned Development
Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Scotts Valley
One Civic Center Drive
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
Contact Person and Phone Number
Paula Bradley, MCP, AICP
Contract Planner
831 345-5482
[email protected]
Project Location
As shown in Figure 1: Regional Location, and Figure 2: Project Vicinity, the project site is on two parcels (APN 22-481-18 and 22) on Erba Lane in the City of Scotts Valley.

Project Applicant/Sponsor
Charlie Eadie
Eadie Consultants
General Plan Designation
Residential High Density (R-H)
Zoning
Residential High Density (R-H)
Project Description
The proposed Bay Village Panned Development project (the project) would construct 10 residential units comprised of six single-family homes on a 45,245 sf parcel. As shown in Figure 3: Site Plan, the project site’s two existing lots that would be subdivided into ten lots and two common lots. The lots would range in size from 2,750 to 3,691 square feet (sf), with a common area for the riparian setback (Lot B – 10,681 sf) and a new lane (Lot A – 3,557 sf). 117

Page 177 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 2
3/22/21
The project includes nine 3-bedroom homes, which range in size from 1,766 sf to 2,108 sf, and one 2,236 sf 4-bedroom unit. Each unit would include a two-car garage and a 20-foot deep driveway. A rendering of the subdivision is shown in Figure 4: Project Rendering.

To protect an existing oak riparian woodland habitat that extends along the eastern boundary of the project site, a split rail fence would be constructed outside of the riparian boundary.

Retaining walls would be constructed along the property lines in the southeast, south, northwest corner and between most of the lots to create level building pads on the sloped lot.

The retaining walls would be topped with wood.

As shown in Figure 6: Grading Plan, grading for the project would require a cut of 1,155 cubic yards of soil (maximum cut of 4.9 feet), and fill of 1,870 cubic yards (maximum fill of 5.2 feet), for a net import of 715 cubic yards. Consistent with current conditions, stormwater would flow generally north to south across the project site.

Storm drainage from constructed impervious surfaces (e.g. roofs, driveways) would be conveyed via a series of collector storm drain pipes to underground (Stormtech) chambers located on Sam Lane where it would be retained and treated. Stormwater from Erba Lane fronting the project site would be collected via drainage inlets and directed to a newly constructed 18-inch storm drain for channel overflow along the southern boundary of the project site. A channel emergency overflow catch basin with riprap apron would be constructed on the southeast corner of the project site to control storm drain flows that would ultimately flow into the adjacent dry creek located in the existing oak riparian woodland corridor.

Water and sewer services would connect to an existing six-inch sanitary sewer and eight-inch water main located on Erba Lane.

Project-Related Approvals, Agreements and Permits
 Planned Development Permit PD19-004
 Minor Land Division MLD19-002
 Design Review DR19-014
 Environmental Assessment EA19-010
 Environmental Review ND20-001
 Cultural Resources Report Permit CR20-001
118

Page 178 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 3
3/22/21
Other public agencies whose approval is required
None.

Environmental Setting
Background and Intent
The purpose of the project is to allow for the subdivision of the project site (Lots A and B and Lots 1 through 10) and the construction of 10 residential units as part of a Planned Development.

Project Site and Existing Facilities
The project site is currently vacant with partially paved surface parking. The General Plan designation is Residential High Density (R-H) and the zoning designation is Residential High Density (R-H).

Surrounding the project site is the Scotts Valley Fire Department and single-family residential to the west, Scotts Valley City Hall, and MacDorsa Park to the north and east, and office buildings to the east between the project site and Scotts Valley Drive. The corner of Erba Lane and Scotts Valley Drive is a landscape supply company.

Environmental Checklist
The discussion below analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the project per the criteria as described in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. For convenience, this analysis uses the Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines as a framework. Different from the standard CEQA checklist included in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines are the impact options included in this analysis.

Aesthetics

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
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?
X
a) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to trees, rock
X
119

Page 179 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 4
3/22/21

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
b) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is
in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
X
c) Create a new source of substantial light
or glare which would adversely affect day
or nighttime views in the area?
X
Discussion
Scenic Vista
The project site is currently used as a partially paved parking lot and is surrounded by a combination of commercial, industrial, office, and residential uses. The project site is relatively flat and would not block any scenic vista nor substantially change an important view from a scenic vantage point, and therefore there would be no impact.

Scenic Resources and Visual Character
The project site is not located along a state scenic highway or designated scenic corridor.

Although the project would represent a visual change from the existing conditions, it would be consistent with the type of development planned for this area in the General Plan. Additionally, the project is subject to design review, which would provide an opportunity for further evaluation that the project would not adversely impact the visual character of the area.

Because there are no scenic resources and the visual character would not be substantially altered, there would be no impact.

Light and Glare
Existing ambient sources of nighttime lighting include neon and fluorescent signs, lighting of building exteriors and architectural accents, illumination through windows, landscape lighting, 120

Page 180 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 5
3/22/21
street lighting, parking lot lighting, and vehicle headlights. The project would include outdoor lighting on the site typical to a residential development. As shown in Figure 7: Exterior Lighting Plan, project plans provide details for exterior lighting for the proposed homes that include: 42- inch tall lighting bollards, wall mounted lights, and recessed 6-inch LED downlights. All fixtures would utilize light-emitting diode (LED) lighting with glare cutoffs and be dark sky-friendly certified by the International Dark-Sky Association.

Site and architectural lighting is subject to the City design review process which would provide an opportunity for further evaluation so that levels of luminance do not adversely affect the adjacent properties. To further minimize lighting effects on the surrounding area, a projectspecific conditions would require the project applicant to use no pole lights, and utilize downdirected fixtures on building exteriors with concealed light sources, consistent with City policies and design guidelines for lighting to be at the lowest level and carefully controlled for security, aesthetics, safety, and identification without interfering with nearby land uses. Implementation of these standard conditions of approval would reduce potential off-site light intrusion impacts to a less than significant level.

Findings
The project would not generate affect a scenic vista or scenic resource, would not change the visual character of the project area, and therefore there would be no impact. The project would not result in a substantial change to light and glare and therefore impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Agriculture and Forestry Resources

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
X
121

Page 181 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 6
3/22/21

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
X
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))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
X
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?
X
Discussion
The property is not located on land that is classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resource Agency, and therefore no agricultural impacts would occur as a result of the project.

Findings
As described above, there would be no impact on agricultural resources. Therefore, no mitigation is required.
122

Page 182 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 7
3/22/21
Air Quality

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
X
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?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
X
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
X
Discussion
Air Quality Plan and Air Quality Standards
The project site is located within the North Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB), which includes Monterey County, San Benito County, and Santa Cruz County, comprising an area of approximately 5,159 square miles along the central California coast. The Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) is responsible for local control and monitoring of criteria air pollutants throughout the NCCAB.

MBARD has developed the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan for the Monterey Bay Region (2012 AQMP) The 2012 AQMP is a transitional plan shifting focus of MBARD’s efforts from achieving the 1-hour component of the State ozone AAQS to achieving the 8-hour ozone requirement. The Plan includes an updated air quality trends analysis, which reflects both the 1- and 8-hour standards, as well as an updated emission inventory, which includes the latest information on stationary, area and mobile emission sources. 123

Page 183 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 8
3/22/21
In March 2017, MBARD adopted the 2012-2015 Triennial Plan Revision, which assesses and updates elements of the 2012 AQMP, including the air quality trends analysis, emission inventory, and mobile source programs. The 2017 AQMP Revision only addresses attainment of the State ozone standard. In 2012, EPA designated the NCCAB as in attainment of the current national 8-hour ozone standard of 0.075 ppm1.

The following MBARD rules would limit emissions of air pollutants from construction and operation of residential development pursuant to the project:
 Rule 400 (Visible Emissions) – Discharge of visible air pollutant emissions into the atmosphere from any emission source for a period or periods aggregating more than 3minutes in any 1 hour, as observed using an appropriate test method, is prohibited.  Rule 402 (Nuisances) - No person shall discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other materials which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public; or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public; or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.
 Rule 425 (Use of Cutback Asphalt) – The use of cutback asphalt (asphalt cement that has been blended with petroleum solvents) is restricted.
 Rule 426 (Architectural Coatings) – This rule limits the emissions of ROGs from the use of architectural coatings.

The MBARD’s 2008 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provides criteria for determining cumulative impacts and consistency. The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines note that a project which is inconsistent with an Air Quality Plan would have a significant cumulative impact on regional air quality. Any emissions sources that would be generated as part of the project would be subject to the MBARD rules and regulations. The proposed development (the point source) does not include any processes or activities that would emit air pollutants. Therefore, the proposed use does not have the potential for significant impacts that would conflict with the AQMP.

Therefore, the project would be consistent with the AQMP for the Monterey Bay Region. Thus, the project would not make a considerable contribution to this existing, cumulatively significant impact. Impacts would be less than significant.

Construction
MBARD CEQA Guidelines state that construction activities (e.g., excavation, grading, on-site vehicles) that emit 82 pounds per day or more of PM10 would have a significant impact on local 1 On October 1, 2015, U.S. EPA adopted a new 8-hour ozone standard of 0.070 ppm. However, U.S. EPA has not yet reviewed recent NCCAB emissions to determine attainment with the current 0.070 ppm standard. Therefore, this attainment status is based upon U.S. EPA’s prior 0.075 ppm standard. 124

Page 184 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 9
3/22/21
air quality when they are located nearby and upwind of sensitive receptors. Based on this emissions threshold, construction activity occurring on more than 2.2 acres per day may result in significant PM10 emissions (MBARD, 2015). Because development of the project would not result construction activity occurring on more than 2.2 acres per day, impacts would be less than significant.

However, grading activities during construction could cause dust accumulation in the project area. Implementation of the following standard conditions of approval would be required to ensure potential impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level for all construction activities on the project site.

Furthermore, standard conditions of approval require that development projects reduce dust generation from project grading and construction to minimal levels, the project proponent shall require the grading contractor to implement best management practices (BMPs) for dust control, including watering down exposed earth surfaces each non-rainfall day at intervals that attenuate dust problems. Any dirt tracked on to adjacent roadways shall be removed daily in a manner that does not create substantial airborne dust. The following BMPs shall be included in the construction contract for the project and be implemented during site grading:
 Excavation of the site shall be done in phases by grading only those areas where immediate activity will take place, leaving the remaining areas in their original condition with ground cover.
 A water truck, using recycled water, shall be available on a repeated basis each day throughout the grading phase of the project to spray exposed earth surfaces.  In addition to regular water spraying, a biodegradable chemical palliative shall be sprayed on any graded areas that will remain exposed without additional grading for three or more days in succession.
 The site entrance shall be base rocked to avoid or minimize tracking mud on roadways by construction vehicles.
 Roadway(s) along the project frontage shall be mechanically swept at the end of each work day when any dirt or mud has been tracked on the street.  No grading activities shall occur during days of high wind velocity.  Finished graded areas that are designated as open space and landscape areas of project, shall be covered with an accepted erosion control substance such as straw mulch or hydro mulch with a tackifier.
 Construction staff shall monitor daily all areas that have received a chemical palliative spray or application of mulch to determine if these areas remain in a dust-free condition and take corrective action as needed to maintain a dust-free environment. 125

Page 185 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 10
3/22/21
Operational
The project would result in new long-term operational emissions from mobile sources (burning of fossil fuels in cars); energy sources (cooling, heating, and cooking); and area sources (landscape equipment and household products). Mobile source emissions constitute most operational emissions from this type of land use development project. However, emissions associated with buildout of this type of project is not expected to exceed any applicable MBARD thresholds. No stationary sources would be constructed that would be long-term permanent sources of emissions. Therefore, the project would not generate a significant level of operational emissions and impacts would be less than significant.

Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors in the vicinity include residents and patrons of nearby commercial/office establishments, located approximately 30 feet from the property boundaries of the proposed development.

Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generates diesel exhaust which is a known toxic air containment (TAC). The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has identified diesel exhaust particulate matter as a toxic air contaminant, and assessment of toxic air contaminant cancer risks is typically based upon a 70‐year exposure period. Project grading and construction activities that would utilize diesel‐powered equipment would expose receptors to possible diesel exhaust for a very limited number of days (approximately 10 days). Because exposure to diesel exhaust would be well below the 70‐year exposure period, and given the limited and short‐term duration of activities that would use diesel equipment, construction‐ related diesel emissions are not considered significant. Furthermore, the State is implementing emission standards for different classes of on‐ and off‐road diesel vehicles and equipment that applies to off‐road diesel fleets and includes measures such as retrofits. Additionally, Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations (section 2485(c)(1)) prohibits idling of a diesel engine for more than five minutes in any location.

Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Potential exposure of sensitive receptors to diesel emissions and associated risks is considered a less‐than‐significant impact, and no mitigation measures are required.

However, standard conditions of approval require that prior to issuance of any grading permit, the Director of Public Works and the Building Official shall confirm that the grading permit and specifications stipulate that all off‐road construction vehicles/equipment shall comply with the California Air Resources Board’s In‐Use Off‐Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation.

Odors
During construction activities, temporary odors from vehicles exhaust and construction equipment engine would occur. However, construction-related odors would be short-term and would cease upon completion. Therefore, no objectionable odors are anticipated from construction activities associated with the project and there would be no impact. 126

Page 186 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 11
3/22/21
Land uses typically producing objectionable odors include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The project does not include any uses that would be associated with objectionable odors. Odor emissions from the project would be limited to odors associated with vehicle and engine exhaust and idling cars. The project does not include any known sources of objectionable odors associated with the long-term operational use and therefore there would be no impact.

Findings
A significant air quality impact is defined as any violation of an ambient air quality standard, any substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation, or any exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. As discussed above, the MBARD thresholds of significance have not been exceeded. Therefore, there would be no significant air quality impacts and no mitigation is required in addition to the City's standard conditions of approval for construction dust control at the time of development.

Biological Resources

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
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 Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or
by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
127

Page 187 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 12
3/22/21

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
X
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?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
X
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?
X
Discussion
A Biological Assessment was prepared for the project site in May of 2019 (Biotic Resources Group, May 2019), which was based on a previous site plan consisting of six single-family homes and three duplex homes (total of 12 units) (Erba Lane Housing, Site Plan, David Zulim, Inc. dated 8-3-18). An Addendum to the Biological Assessment was prepared in May 2020 based on a revised site plan which represents the proposed project (Biotic Resources Group, May 2020).

Similarly, a Preliminary Tree Inventory & Assessment was prepared for the previous site plan in November 2017 (Kurt Fouts, November 2017). A Preliminary Arborists Report, Preliminary Tree Inventory and Assessment (the Revised Arborists Report) was prepared in March 2020 based on the revised site plan (Kurt Fouts, March 2020).
128

Page 188 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 13
3/22/21
The analysis below is based on the findings of these assessments, as revised.

Environmental Setting
The project area is located along an unnamed creek. The USGS map (Felton quadrangle) does not identify a stream at this location; however, the field inspection documented a defined bed and bank and evidence of seasonal water flow at the site.

As shown in Figure 8: Vegetation Types (which
shows the previous site plan), two plant
communities occur on the project site. Coast live
oak riparian woodland grows along the eastern
property line and this woodland extends further
eastward along the creek corridor on the City of
Scotts Valley property. The woodland is closely
associated with the creek, with many trees rooted
on the slope and along the top-of-bank. Mature
trees of coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) dominant
the woodland, with their canopies extending
outward from top-of-bank. Figure 9: Oak Riparian
Woodland Habitat illustrates the extent of the oak
riparian woodland in relation to the revised site
plan (May 12, 2020).

According to the arborists report (Kurt Fouts,
November 2017), 14 oak trees grow on the project
site; 26 oak trees are rooted on the adjacent Cityowned property. Within the woodland, native and non-native plant species are present, including
California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), poison oak
(Toxicodendron diversilobum), curly dock (Rumex
crispus), velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), French
broom (Genista monspessulana), sword fern
(Polystichum munitum), and young willows. The riparian woodland on the City property also supports willows (Salix sp.), which grow along the wetted channel.

In general, oak woodlands provide a high value habitat type for wildlife because acorns are important forage, the natural cavities in the oaks provide nesting opportunities for some birds and mammals, and downed decaying logs and limbs add to structural complexity of a moist microclimate and invertebrate food supply. The value of the oak riparian woodland to wildlife at this site is enhanced by the presence of water in the creek, which provides seasonal water sources for wildlife. Common wildlife expected to occur in this small patch of oak woodland include scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens), acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), chestnut-backed chickadee (Poecile rufescens), bushtit 129

Page 189 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 14
3/22/21
(Psaltriparus minimus), spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus), and western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus).

The second plant community is non-native grasses and forbs dominate the southeast portion of the Erba Lane property, abutting the existing paved area. Evidence of previous fill/base rock materials was observed, suggesting previous disturbances to this area. Plant species are typical of such areas, with wild radish (Raphanus sativa), wild oat, Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), velvet grass, black mustard (Brassica nigra.), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), filaree (Erodium botrys), and rose clover (Trifolium repens) being common. Native plant species in this area are limited to California poppy (Eshscholzia californica) and telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora).

The use by wildlife of the grassland area is expected to include common species, such as mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), California towhee (Pipilo crissalis), white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), and house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus). Western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus), and Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) are also likely to occur in the grass habitat.

Applicable Regulations
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDFW classifies and ranks the State’s natural communities to assist in the determining the level of rarity and imperilment. Vegetation types are ranked between S1 and S5. For vegetation types with ranks of S1-S3, all associations within the type are considered to be highly imperiled.

If a vegetation alliance is ranked as S4 or S5, these alliances are generally considered common enough to not be of concern; however, it does not mean that certain associations contained within them are not rare (CDFW, 2007 and 2010). The oak-willow riparian woodland (CaCode

71.060.47) is ranked S4, yet some associations are of high priority (CDFW, 2010).

City of Scotts Valley Zoning Code
Streams and Drainage Courses
The City of Scotts Valley Zoning Code contains several references to streams and drainage courses. Section 17 requires structures to be located outside a 25-foot creek setback (measured outward from the top-of-bank). This review found the top of bank to be the break in slope from the flat terrace to the creek. Most of the oak trees are rooted at or just below this top-of-bank location, with the tree canopies extending into, and in some cases beyond, this 25-foot setback.

Page 190 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 15
3/22/21
riparian zone. All streams, floodplains, channels, bodies of standing water, or other riparian areas shall be identified and delineated on the development plans and vegetative removal, land disturbances, or other development activities shall be conducted at a time, and in a manner that will provide and maintain an undisturbed vegetative filter strip. The code also states if it is determined that certain development activities in or near the riparian zones would be detrimental, those activities may be prohibited.

Tree Protection
The City of Scotts Valley Zoning Ordinance Section 17.44.080 regulates the removal of protected trees. Section 17.44.080 includes tree protection regulations. Protected trees are defined as:
 Any tree having a main stem or trunk at least 8 inches or greater diameter at breast height (DBH) (25 inches in circumference), located in a hillside residential zone where the slope within 20 feet of where the tree is located exceeds 20 percent;  Any single-trunk oak tree with a main stem or trunk at least 8 inches DBH (25-inch circumference), or any multi-trunk oak tree with an individual trunk over 4 inches DBH (12 inch circumference);
 Any street tree (defined as any tree within five feet of a public or private street or right of way), regardless of size;
 Any single-trunk tree with a 13-inch or greater DBH (40-inch circumference);  Any multi-trunk tree with any trunk greater than or equal to 8-inch DBH (25-inch circumference);
 Any tree, regardless of size, required to be planted or preserved as part of a permit approved by the Planning Department, Planning Commission or City Council, or required as a replacement tree for a removed tree; or
 Any Heritage Tree, defined as a tree identified, because of unique quality and/or size, as among the most significant and noteworthy in the city and formally designated by the City Council.

Per SVMC Section 17.44.080(E)(4), tree removal request shall be included as part of the development application, including an arborist's report, and shall be approved by the planning commission or city council. The development review process shall seek to preserve healthy trees, trees that contribute to the overall aesthetic quality of an area, and to preserve significantly sized trees that are important to the overall landscape of an area.

Sensitive Natural Communities
A biological survey of the project site was conducted in May 2019 to determine the presence of special status plant and animal species. No special status plant species were observed and none are expected. The only special status wildlife species that may occur within or immediately adjacent to the project work area is the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat. 131

Page 191 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 16
3/22/21
The project was evaluated as to potential direct and indirect impacts to sensitive biological resources. Examples of direct impacts are the removal of oak trees for construction of housing and associated lot development, and pathway construction in the riparian corridor. Examples of indirect impacts include potential disturbance to the oak riparian woodland and wildlife utilization of these areas from increased human uses on the property (e.g., residential uses, landscaping, lighting, pathway uses).

Based on the revised site plan dated May 12, 2020, the revised grading plan preserves most of the oak riparian woodland on the project site. The footprint of the residential buildings are located outside of the dripline of the oak riparian woodland and 25 feet from the “top of bank” of the 100-year storm flood boundary. Two Coast live oaks (T39 and T40), which are located outside of the oak riparian woodland on the southeast corner of Lot 7, would be removed, as discussed below. Additionally, some limited grading would occur within the dripline of oak trees that are to be retained. Some trees would require targeted clearance pruning for grading equipment and hand grading may be required near them to minimize impacts. Two additional protected oaks near lot 6 (T35 and T38) may not be retained.

To reduce construction and post-construction-period impacts to the riparian woodland, the Biological Assessment, as revised, the following mitigation measures would reduce impacts to the oak riparian woodland to a less than significant level.

MM BIO-1: Oak Riparian Woodland -Project Construction
Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City compliance with the following:

1.1 The outer edge of the riparian setback area should be demarcated by the placement of six-foot high plastic construction fencing (during the construction period) and a permanent six-foot high fence (after construction). The fence should have an opening to allow access to the existing pathway that crosses the intermittent drainage channel.

Fencing should be placed along the outside edge of the dripline of the tree or grove of trees. The construction fencing should be maintained in a functional manner throughout the site construction period and should be inspected periodically by the contractor and City of Scotts Valley personnel for damage and proper functioning. No equipment staging, vehicle parking or other activities shall occur within the protected riparian area.

1.2 To minimize sediments entering the intermittent creek, the project should implement best management practices, including:
 Conduct construction activities within 20 feet of the riparian woodland during the dry season;
 Incorporate measures to filter and entrap pollutants prior to their discharge into the creek or other downstream drainage features that lead to Carbonera Creek.  Stabilize disturbed soils to minimize erosion and sediment input to the creek; 132

Page 192 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 17
3/22/21
 Implement erosion control measures to prevent sediment from entering the creek channel, including the use of silt fencing or fiber rolls to trap sediments;  Conduct erosion control seeding of all disturbed areas as soon as practicable after disturbance following construction;
 Monitor the effectiveness of the erosion control measures during the first year’s rainy season and implement remedial measures (e.g., reseeding, repair of silt fencing) if sedimentation or erosion is noted.

1.3 Occurrences of invasive, non-native plant species (i.e., French broom, bull thistle) should be removed from the riparian woodland prior to project completion.

MM BIO-2: Oak Riparian Woodland Post-Construction
Prior to issuance of the building permit, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City compliance with the following:

2.1 All lighting features shall be directed away from the oak riparian woodland, such that the woodland is not illuminated. Homeowners/tenants shall not be allowed to install night lighting that illuminates the riparian woodland.

2.2 Future landowners/tenants should not utilize invasive, non-native plant species for landscaping. Plant species that should not be used on the property include all plants recognized as exotic pest plants by Cal-IPC (see Exotic Pest Plants of Greatest Ecological Concern in California, www.cal-ipc.org). This list includes: all brooms (i.e., French broom, Spanish broom and Scotch broom), periwinkle (Vinca sp.), Cape (or German) ivy, English ivy, Algerian ivy, acacia (all kinds), eucalyptus (all kinds), all pines, cotoneaster, and pyracantha. If evidence of the fungus responsible for Sudden Oak Death (Phytophthora sp.) is detected on the property, the homeowners should implement measures to prevent/control the spread of this fungus both on and off-site. The homeowners should be responsible for implementing the most current disease-preventing measures for the use, storage and/or transporting of oak firewood as a means of minimizing the spread of the disease within the City, the County and the State of California. Preventative and treatment measures should also be implemented as recommended. Current information on this disease and recommended treatments is available through the California Oak Mortality Task Force, University of California Cooperative Extension, Sudden Oak Death website (http://cemarin.ucdavis.edu).

State and Federal Regulated Waterways and Federal Wetlands Development of the project would occur adjacent to regulated waterway. The project is located near California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) and Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (RWQCD) regulatory jurisdiction, however, proposed residential development is located outside of the oak riparian woodland dripline. As shown in Figure 9: Oak Riparian Woodland Habitat, construction would not require the removal of vegetation in the streambank, nor on 133

Page 193 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 18
3/22/21
the top of the bank of the dry creek, within regulated areas by the CDFW and RWQCD.

Therefore, there would be no impact associated with regulated waterways.

Special Status Species, Wildlife Corridors, and Nursery Sites The only special status wildlife species that may occur within or immediately adjacent to the project site is the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat. The woodrats may be present in aboveground stick nests. Additionally, nesting birds may occur in or adjacent to the project work area.

No other special status wildlife species occur within the project area.

Because most nesting birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the project would implement the mitigation measure listed below to avoid potential impacts if any active bird nests are present during vegetation removal. The mitigation measure below would also reduce potential impacts to the woodrats and nesting birds. While none were identified during the May 2019 survey, the project site is suitable habitat for the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat. Therefore, implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce impacts associated with special status species and nursery sites to a less than significant level.

MM BIO-4: Protection of Sensitive Animal Species
Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City the following:

1. The landowner shall hire a qualified biologist to search for San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests. If any are found and impacts to the nests cannot be avoided, the applicant shall seek written approval from CDFW to implement a trapping and relocation program. Wood rat nests shall not be disturbed without prior written approval from CDFW.

2. If construction is scheduled to begin between March 1 and August 15 of any given year, the landowner shall hire a qualified biologist to conduct a search for active bird nests in the vicinity of the work site (following CDFW survey protocols). If active bird nests are observed, the work shall be postponed until the biologist determines that all chicks have fledge the nest(s).

Conflict with Local Polices, HCP or NCCP, or Other Conservation Plan As shown in Figure 6: Grading Plan, which reflects the revised site plan dated 5/12/2020, the revised Grading Plan preserves most of the oak riparian woodland on the property. The footprint of the buildings are located outside of the dripline of the oak riparian woodland and all but two oak trees (T39 and T40, located on the southeast corner of Lot 7) would be retained.

Some grading would occur within the dripline of oak trees that are to be retained. The Revised Arborists Report analyzed the revised grading plan relative to trees and found that up to six trees may be affected by the project. Some trees would still require targeted clearance pruning for grading equipment (T29 and T30) and hand grading may be required near them. Impacts to 134

Page 194 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 19
3/22/21
two trees (T35 and T38), adjacent to Lot 6 may be greater, and would likely need to be removed. The Revised Arborists Report also indicated that the future growing conditions for most of the oaks would slightly improve, as more soil would be retained allowing for a larger rooting area.

The Revised Arborists Report recommended tree replacement to compensate for the removal and limbing of the identified trees at a 2:1 tree replacement using 15-gallon or 24-inch box size trees and identifies an open area east of Lot 7 be used for the tree replacement plantings. This recommendation is consistent with City regulations, as described above.

Standard conditions of project approval require the project applicant to implement all measures contained within the Revised Arborists Report for the protection of existing trees to remain, including but not limited to the required procedures and sequence, required tree replacement, tree preservation and protection, and appraised value of preserved trees in the report.

A habitat survey report for the endangered Mount Hermon June Beetle and Zayante Band Wing grasshopper was prepared by Entomological Consulting Services, Ltd., dated July 14, 2005. Due to the absence of indigenous sand parkland vegetation and sunlight, barren Zayante sandy soils, and habitat conditions, the report concluded that the project site was not suitable for the Zayante Band Wing grasshopper. Similarly, due to the absence of Ponderosa pines and Zayante sands, habitat conditions are not suitable for the Mount Hermon June Beetle.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or applicable HCP’s and there would be no impact.

Findings
The project would comply with the City’s standard conditions of approval wherein protected tree removals are compensated at a minimum of 2:1 ratio. Additionally, through implementation of MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2, impacts associated with vegetation, wildlife, riparian woodland, and other biological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.
135

Page 195 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 20
3/22/21
Cultural Resources

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
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 in § 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to
§ 15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries?
X
Discussion
Cultural Resources
The Scotts Valley 1994 General Plan, Figure OS-2 ("Archeological Sensitivity Zones"), indicates that the project site is located within areas of moderate and high archaeological sensitivity.

An Extended Phase I Archeological Assessment (Albion Environmental, Inc., March 2020) was prepared for the project site in 2020 (Albion Environmental, Inc., March 2020). After reviewing the record search results, Albion conducted an intensive pedestrian survey and limited trenching and auguring of the project area. Visual inspection surface and small-scale subsurface excavations revealed no evidence of intact prehistoric or historic-era archaeological deposits.

However, due to the proximity of archeological site SCR-177/H, it was recommended that archeological and Native American monitoring occur during all ground-disturbing activities.

Standard conditions of approval for development require that the project applicant and construction contractor ensure that any cultural resource, including archaeological, paleontological, or human remains are not destroyed if discovered during project grading or other subsurface work.

As part of the standard conditions of approval, the project applicant shall submit a copy of a contract with a qualified/registered archaeologist to conduct monitoring of all earth disturbing activities for review and approval by the Community Development Director, before grading 136

Page 196 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 21
3/22/21
permit issuance. The project applicant shall include this requirement in the contract for all contractors involved with grading and subsurface work. The qualified/registered archaeologist shall monitor all earthwork activity as described below:

1. An archaeologist shall monitor the grading or excavation of soils at the development site in order to determine if important cultural remains are present. Such monitoring shall begin before and occur during subsurface earth moving activities;

2. The duration and period of archaeological monitoring of project development activities shall be at the discretion of the professional archaeologist. At a minimum, however, any activity that initially displaces or removes original soil from its present context shall be monitored by an archaeologist on a continuous basis;

3. Monitoring activities such as replacing soils in trenches, redistributing displaced soil elsewhere on the development site, or removing stockpiled excavated soil may not require monitoring;

4. Monitoring may include the periodic sampling and screening of soils in order to better determine if cultural remains are present; and,

5. If any cultural resources are discovered, the project contractor shall immediately stop all earth disturbing work within a 150-foot radius of the discovery to allow for inspection, evaluation, and potential recovery of resources by the supervising project archaeologist, before resuming any earth-disturbing construction activities. The project applicant shall also contact the Planning Department and Building Official as soon as work has been stopped. It may be necessary to resume grading or excavation activities under the direction of the supervising archaeologist in order to locate or expose cultural remains.

Standard conditions of approval require that the project applicant and construction contractor ensure that paleontological resources are not destroyed during project grading by implementing following measures:
1) Provide the project paleontologist with a copy of the final grading plans for review prior to any project grading;
2) Provide for daily monitoring during grading activities by the project paleontologist to determine if paleontological resources are encountered in excavated areas; 3) Allow for the recovery of any discovered paleontological resources according to a recovery plan/methods specified by the project paleontologist, including the donation of the recovered resources to a suitable repository (museum, school, etc.); 4) If recovery occurs, ensure that the project paleontologist prepare a recovery report that details the type of resources recovered and the repository locations where they were taken; and,
5) Specify in the construction contract with the project grading contractor(s), that grading personnel are to cooperate with and assist the project paleontologist during monitoring and any recovery activities, including assisting with recovery efforts if necessary. 137

Page 197 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 22
3/22/21
Human Remains
No known human remains are located on the project site. Pursuant to section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, if human remains are discovered, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the discovery site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the project applicant has complied with the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e).

Findings
As discussed above, due to the proximity of archeological site SCR-177/H, archeological and Native American monitoring during all ground-disturbing activities would be required as a standard condition of approval, which would reduce any potential impacts associated with cultural resources to a less than significant level.

Energy

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or
operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
X
Discussion
Energy consumption associated with construction of the project would be temporary and shortterm. Project design and operation would comply with State Building Energy Efficiency Standards, appliance efficiency regulations, and green building standards. Additionally, the project includes other design features including efficient low-energy lighting, and natural ventilation systems.

The project would also be required to be built according to City and State energy efficiency standards. The project would be required to comply with existing regulations, including 138

Page 198 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 23
3/22/21
applicable measures from the City’s General Plan. Vehicle trips and energy consumption would be less carbon intensive as compared to historic levels due to statewide compliance with future low carbon fuel standard amendments and increasingly stringent Renewable Portfolio Standards).

Findings
The project would comply with existing State energy standards and would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. There would be no impact to energy.

Geology and Soils

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:

X
i) Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued
by the State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence
of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.

X
ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking?
X
iii) Seismic-related ground
failure, including liquefaction?
X
iv) Landslides? X
139

Page 199 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 24
3/22/21

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
X
Discussion
Earthquake Faults, Landslides, and Seismic Ground Shaking Project construction would subject the buildings and their inhabitants to periodic seismic shaking associated with the San Andreas Fault and other active faults within the Monterey Bay area. As part of any future Planned Development application submitted to the City of Scotts Valley, the project applicant would be required to submit plans that are in compliance with the latest California Building Code (CBC) standards consistent with Title 15 – Buildings and Construction of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code.

Prior to approval of any entitlements, City staff is required to review project plans and verify that the CBC Seismic requirements are printed on the plans. Building Division staff shall verify 140

Page 200 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 25
3/22/21
that CBC standards are met prior to issuance of Building Permits. Building inspectors shall conduct site inspections to assure that construction occurs consistent with approved plans.

The Scotts Valley 1994 General Plan, Figure S-3 ("Liquefaction Potential") indicates that the project site is not in an area for liquefaction. Figure S-4 ("Landslide Deposits") indicates that the site is in an area containing landslide deposits. Figure S-5 ("Slopes"), indicate that the project site is not located within any mapped geological hazard areas. Per the earthquake hazard zones defined by the Alquist-Priolo map, the risk of earthquake-induced ground rupture occurring across the project site is moderately low.

A geotechnical investigation was prepared by Haro, Kasunich and Associates, Inc. (Haro, Kasunich & Associates, November 2005) determined that given the project site is generally level, the potential for seismically induced landslides are low. As a standard condition of approval, an updated geotechnical report would be required for review and approval by the City prior to issuance of a building permit.

Because compliance with Title 15 – Buildings and Construction of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code is required for all future project, potential impacts associated with earthquake-related ground rupture would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Soil Erosion
The project would involve the removal of landscape vegetation and grading activities associated with the construction of buildings, infrastructure, and roads. Grading would largely be limited to the project site, which would limit the amount of exposed soil area that would be subject to erosion. Measures to control erosion would be incorporated into the construction specifications pursuant to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements for construction. In addition, to comply with the NPDES requirements for construction, projects involving construction on sites that are one acre or more are required to prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that specifies how the discharger would protect water quality during construction activities. Compliance with the erosion control ordinances and acquisition of the NPDES General Permit for construction activities would ensure that soil erosion impacts associated with development pursuant to the project would be less than significant.

Sewage Disposal
The project would involve disposal of wastewater through the City’s existing sanitary sewer system, and there would be no septic systems constructed as part of the project. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

Unique Geological Features and Paleontological Resources There are no known paleontological resources on the project site. However, development of the project could result in the discovery and disturbance of previously unknown or undiscovered paleontological resources. Should evidence of paleontological resources be 141

Page 201 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 26
3/22/21
encountered during grading and construction, adherence to City, State, and Federal historic preservation laws, regulations, and codes related to archaeological and paleontological resources would ensure the adequate protection of historic and pre-historic resources. With implementation of existing regulations, the impact would be less than significant.

Findings
Compliance with Title 15 – Buildings and Construction of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code and NPDES requirements would reduce any potential impacts associated with geological and soil resources to a less than significant impact. Therefore, no mitigation is required.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
X
Discussion
Construction
Construction of the project would result in direct emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4 from the operation of construction equipment and the transport of materials. MBARD does not have a threshold for construction GHG emissions, which would be one-time, short-term emissions and therefore would not significantly contribute to long-term cumulative GHG emissions impacts of the project. In the absence of quantitative significance thresholds in CEQA guidance, this analysis turns to other programs. For example, the CARB Mandatory Reporting program requirements are triggered for sources of GHG emissions exceeding 2,500 MTCO₂e) per year.

AB 32 requires California agencies to take actions that reduce GHG emissions by 2020 to the levels of 1990, and then substantially further reduce emissions by 2050. Most individual projects do not generate sufficient GHGs to create a project-specific impact to significantly influence climate change; therefore this impact typically involves an analysis to determine if a 142

Page 202 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 27
3/22/21
project’s GHG emissions are cumulatively considerable (significant cumulative impact). Once construction is complete, the generation of construction-related GHG emissions would cease.

The project is not expected to exceed the CARB Mandatory Reporting applicability level of 2,500 MTCO2e per year. As a result, the short‐term emission of GHG during construction would be less than significant
Operational
Operational or long-term emissions would occur over the project’s life. GHG emissions would result from direct emissions such as project generated vehicular traffic, on-site combustion of natural gas, and operation of any landscaping equipment. Operational GHG emissions would also result from indirect sources, such as off-site generation of electrical power over the life of the project, the energy required to convey water to, and wastewater from the project site, the emissions associated with solid waste generated from the project site, and any fugitive refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators. The project would meet CalGreen and CBC standards for energy efficiency standards including passive solar design and natural ventilation and natural lighting.

Additionally, the project includes water-efficient landscape, water-reducing features, and lowimpact development practices to reduce water use. The project is an example of “smart growth” strategies based on infill, density, and unit types. Energy use of the completed residential units would be less than similar units constructed in previous years because their construction is required to comply with the energy efficiency standards of the California Building Code. All these factors result in a project that would not significantly contribute to a cumulative GHG impact. Thus, impacts would be considered less than significant.

Findings
While some GHGs would be generated as a result of development of the project, its contribution to GHGs would not be cumulatively considerable and there would not be any significant impacts associated with GHGs. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Page 203 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 28
3/22/21

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on
a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
144

Page 204 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 29
3/22/21

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
X
Discussion
Hazardous Substances
Regarding on-site hazards, the project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No records of the project site were found pertaining to open cases of LUSTs, toxic releases, or site cleanup requirements. The project site is located adjacent to a known hazardous materials site at 7 Erba Lane (southwest of the project site) due to diesel contamination2. Given the distance from the project site and the propensity for diesel to migrate downward and not laterally in sandy soils, impacts from the known hazardous site to the subject parcel and the proposed use are unlikely.

It is likely that oils, lubricants, and similar materials may be used to maintain and/or fuel construction vehicles and machinery during the construction phase of the project. Standard conditions of approval require the project applicant to have the construction contractor implement a best management practice/hazardous materials containment plan during the entire time construction activities are occurring. The hazardous materials containment plan shall contain the following elements:
 Stationary equipment such as motors, pumps, welding equipment shall be placed over drip pans or other containment apparatus.
 Construction materials shall not be stockpiled or stored where they could be accidently discharged downslope or in to Scotts Valley Drive.
 Any petroleum, lubricants or other hazardous materials used during; and, construction shall be stored in a special storage location equipped with double containment and this location shall be shown on the erosion control plan and approved by the agencies that review this plan.
2 County of Santa Cruz, Environmental Health Department. Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Service files:

Search by Address. Accessed at
https://sccdocs.santacruzcounty.us/ENV/CustomSearch.aspx?SearchName=AllPrograms&repo=EnvironmentalHeal th. Accessed on February 9, 2021.
145

Page 205 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 30
3/22/21
The project’s residential uses may involve use and storage of some materials that are considered hazardous, although these materials are typically limited to everyday use solvents, paints, chemicals used for cleaning and building maintenance, and landscaping supplies. These materials would not be substantially different from household chemicals and solvents already in use throughout the City. Therefore, impacts associated with hazardous substances would be considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Release of Substances Near Schools
The project is located within one-quarter mile of the Scotts Valley Unified School, approximately 700 feet south of the project site. However, project construction and operation would not involve the emission of hazardous materials, therefore impacts would be considered less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Emergency Response
General Plan Safety Element Figure S-6 “Evacuation Routes” shows Scotts Valley Drive as a primary evacuation route in the City’s Emergency Response Plan. Construction of the project would not change the function of Scotts Valley Drive as a primary evacuation route. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on emergency response.

Public Airport or Private Airstrip
The project site is not located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Wildland Fire
Refer to the Wildfire Section below for further discussion.

Findings
The project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites, nor would the residential use involve the use of hazardous materials that would require permitting by the Santa County Health Department and therefor impacts would be less than significant. The project would not impact the City’s primary evacuation routes, nor is it located within two miles of an airport, and therefore there would be no impacts. No mitigation is required.

Hydrology and Water Quality

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
146

Page 206 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 31
3/22/21

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of
a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:

X
i. Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site?
X
ii. Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite?
X
iii. Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
X
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? X
147

Page 207 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 32
3/22/21

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X
Discussion
Groundwater Demand
According to the project plans, the project would use approximately 1,485 gallons per day (or two acre-feet of water per year) of water. The Scotts Valley Water District has reviewed the application and has determined that existing water resources would support the proposed development (SVWD Will Serve Letter, dated March 5, 2020). Therefore, there would be no impact.

Groundwater Recharge
The project is located in an area designated on the Scotts Valley General Plan Hydrological Resources Map, Figure OS-5, as a Potential Groundwater Recharge Area. Per the Open Space and Conservation Policy OSA-343 of the Scotts Valley General Plan, all proposed construction in a Potential Groundwater Recharge Area requires a detailed hydrological evaluation to mitigate the loss of recharge.

According to the Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan (Bowman & Williams, September 2018), the existing paved project site contains 32,280 sq. ft. of impervious surface area.

Redevelopment would reduce the amount of impervious surface area to 25.924 sq. ft. resulting in a net addition of impervious surface area by 4,345 sq. ft., resulting in an improvement to groundwater recharge as compared to existing conditions. Additionally, the project would incorporate various low impact development design strategies such as the use of permeable pavements, dispersal of runoff of pervious areas, and stormwater control measures that would assist in improving groundwater conditions. Therefore, there would be no impact and no mitigation is required.

Stormwater Runoff
The project applicant prepared a Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan (PSCP) (Bowman & Williams, 9/10/2018) to address potential impacts from stormwater runoff. The PSCP described 148

Page 208 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 33
3/22/21
project site-specific best management practices (BMPs) to control erosion and sedimentation and maintain water quality in accordance with the current edition of the City of Scotts Valley Stormwater Technical Guide. The BMPs address the construction and maintenance of storm drain inlets, irrigation and use of pesticides, maintenance of hardscapes, and maintenance of underground stormwater facilities.

Furthermore, standard conditions of approval require the developer and construction contractor to implement best management practices to prevent sedimentation and discharge of contaminants off-site during project construction, including hazardous materials containment plan during the entire time construction activities are occurring. The hazardous materials containment plan shall contain the following elements:
 Stationary equipment such as motors, pumps, welding equipment shall be placed over drip pans or other containment apparatus.
 Construction materials shall not be stockpiled or stored where they could be accidently discharged downslope or in to Scotts Valley Drive.
 Any petroleum, lubricants or other hazardous materials used during; and, construction shall be stored in a special storage location equipped with double containment and this location shall be shown on the erosion control plan and approved by the agencies that review this plan.

Implementation of recommendations as described in the PSCP and preparation of a SWPPP for review and approval prior to construction activities would ensure that impacts from stormwater runoff would be less than significant.

Floodplains, Seiche, Tsunami and Mudflow Related Hazards The property is not located within a floodplain. There is no possibility of a seiche or tsunami occurring that could affect the project. The project is not located on or near a lake or ocean coastline. Therefore, the project would have no impacts.

Findings
Implementation of recommendations as described in the PSCP and preparation of a SWPPP would reduce impacts on hydrology and water resources to a level of less than significant.

Therefore, no mitigation is required.
149

Page 209 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 34
3/22/21
Land Use and Planning

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
X
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
X
Discussion
Surrounding the project site is the Scotts Valley Fire Department and single-family residential to the west, Scotts Valley City Hall, and MacDorsa Park to the north and east, and office buildings to the east between the project site and Scotts Valley Drive. The corner of Erba Lane and Scotts Valley Drive is a landscape supply company.

The project site is currently zoned Residential High Density (R-H). Additionally, the project site is designated under the City of Scotts Valley General Plan as Residential High Density (R-H), which allows for 9 to 15 residential units. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the existing zoning and General Plan land use designations.

Findings
The proposed future residential use of the site would be in keeping with surrounding land uses and the development pattern of the neighborhood. The project would have no impact and therefore no mitigation is required.

Mineral Resources

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
150

Page 210 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 35
3/22/21

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
X
Discussion
The Scotts Valley 1994 General Plan, Figure OS 4, indicates that there are no significant mineral deposits on the project site. The project is not located in an area known to contain regionally significant mineral resources and would not result in the loss of the availability of a known mineral resource of regional value. Additionally, the project site is not located in an area that has been identified by the City of Scotts Valley as a locally important mineral resource recovery site.

Findings
The project would have no impact and therefore no mitigation is required.

Noise

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary
or permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the
X
151

Page 211 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 36
3/22/21

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
X
c) For a project located within the vicinity
of a private airstrip or an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
X
Discussion
Short Term Noise Levels
Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase of construction (e.g. land clearing, grading, excavation, paving). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels. During construction, exterior noise levels could affect the residential neighborhoods surrounding the construction site. Project construction would occur adjacent to existing single-family residences on Erba Lane. However, construction activities would occur throughout the project site and would not be concentrated at a single point near sensitive receptors.

Project construction would comply with the City’s Municipal Code Section 17.46.160, which states that all construction activity shall be limited to the hours between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9 a.m. through 5 p.m. on Saturday. No construction activity is allowed on Sunday. These permitted hours of construction are included in the code in recognition that construction activities undertaken during daytime hours are a typical part of living in an urban environment and do not cause a significant disruption. Construction would occur throughout the project site and would not be concentrated or confined in the area directly adjacent to sensory receptors. Therefore, construction noise would be acoustically dispersed throughout the project site and impacts would be less than significant. 152

Page 212 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 37
3/22/21
Long Term Noise Levels
The Noise Contour Map for the City indicates that the project site is in an area of less than 60dBA. The Noise Element of the Scotts Valley General Plan specifies that "exterior noise levels measured at the property line of proposed new residential developments shall be limited to or below an average annual day-night level of 60 dBA" (NA-454).

Implementation of the project would create new sources of noise in the project vicinity from residential sources, mechanical equipment, and landscape maintenance. These noise sources would similar to those generated in other residential neighborhoods throughout the City. Such noise would primarily occur during the “daytime” activity hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Furthermore, the residences would be required to comply with the noise standards set forth in the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code. Per General Plan Policies LP-38, NA-457, NO-441, and NA-444 land uses which include residential uses should not be allowed in areas with excessive noise. Therefore, there would be no impact from long-term noise levels.

Exposure to Groundborne Vibrations
Because the project would not require the use of heavy construction equipment, the residences located approximately 30 feet from the project’s construction area would not be exposed to vibrations levels exceeding the FTA’s 0.20 in/sec PPV significance threshold vibrations.

Therefore, there would be no vibration impacts.

Future project residents may experience occasional groundborne vibrations from nearby traffic on Scotts Valley Drive when large trucks use the roadway. But this vibration is not expected to be frequent nor at high levels. This impact is less than significant.

Airport or Private Airstrip Noise
The project site is not located within any airport noise impact contours and not located within the vicinity of any private air strip, and therefore there would be no impact.

Findings
The project would not expose future residential uses to short-term construction nor long-term operational noise levels in excess of City standards. Noise generated during the construction phase is temporary and would be limited to Monday-Saturday daytime hours per compliance with the City’s Municipal Code Section 17.46.160. Therefore, no mitigation is required. 153

Page 213 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 38
3/22/21
Population and Housing

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or
other infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
Discussion
The project would result in a relatively small increase in population (27 persons 3) that is well within the land use buildout capacity projections identified within the City of Scotts Valley General Plan (1994) as well as the Association of Monterey Bay Area Government’s 2018 Regional Growth Forecast for the City of Scotts Valley population of 12,418 by 2040. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Findings
There is no potential for a significant impact due to substantial growth either directly or indirectly. Therefore, the project would have a no impact and no mitigation is required. 3 . The average household size for Scotts Valley is 2.67 persons which estimates 27 persons for a project with 10 units
154

Page 214 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 39
3/22/21
Public Services

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in:
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection? X
ii) Police protection? X
iii) Schools? X
iv) Parks? X
v) Other public facilities? X
Discussion
Fire Services
The project is located in an existing urban area that is currently served by the Scotts Valley Fire Protection District. The closest fire station is located across the street from the project site.

Therefore, there would be no impact.

Police Services
The project would add new residents to the City who would occasionally need police services.

This type of additional service would not generate a demand beyond what the police department can accommodate. The Scotts Valley Police department is located west and adjacent to the project site at City Hall. Therefore, there would be no impact. 155

Page 215 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 40
3/22/21
Schools
The project would add approximately 27 new residents to the City, some of whom would be students attending schools within the Scotts Valley Unified School District. These additional students would not generate a significant demand on the area school system and therefore there would be no impact.

Parks
The project would add approximately 27 new residents to the City who would occasionally utilize City parks and recreational programs; however, this additional use would not generate a demand beyond what the City Parks Department can accommodate and no new additional park facilities would be required. Additionally, as a standard condition of the approval, the project would be required to pay a parks and recreation in-lieu fee as part of their building permit.

Therefore, there would be no impact.

Other Public Facilities
The project does not have the potential to affect other public facilities, in excess of that previously considered by the General Plan. Therefore, there would be no impact Findings
The project would have no impact on public services and therefore no mitigation is required.

Recreation

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
X
156

Page 216 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 41
3/22/21
Discussion
Scotts Valley has a total of seven parks, ranging in size from a half-acre to 7.5 acres.

Recreational facilities are also available at local schools, the Scotts Valley Senior Center, and Scotts Valley Community Center. The proposed project would not require the construction of new or expanded recreational facilities and therefore there would be no impact. Additionally, standard conditions require the developer pay an in-lieu park fee.

Finding
No significant impacts to recreation and open space resources are expected. Thus, the thresholds of significance have not been exceeded. Payment of Park Impact fees would mitigate the incremental increase created by the project.

Transportation

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards due
to a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access? X
157

Page 217 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 42
3/22/21
Discussion
Conflict with City Policies or Programs, Increase Hazards, Impair Emergency Access The project would involve the construction of a new 24 foot-wide private roadway that would provide access to six of the residential units. The design of the roadway would be consistent with City standards and subject to design review to ensure there is adequate emergency vehicle access. The frontage along Erba Lane would be improved with a sidewalk, curb and gutter landscaped buffer, and on-street parking; consistent with City standards. Therefore, there would be no impact
Increase Vehicle Miles Travelled
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is a measure of total vehicular travel that accounts for the number of vehicle trips and the length of those trips. Because the City of Scotts Valley has not formally adopted VMT significance criteria, this CEQA analysis uses guidance per the City of Scotts Valley’s VMT Implementation Guidelines (Kimley-Horn and Associates, July 2020).

The VMT Implementation include screening criteria to avoid unnecessary analysis and findings for non-significant transportation impacts. Small projects that generate less than 110 trips per day are exempt from VMT analysis.

Project trip generation was estimated by applying the proposed type of development to the appropriate trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition (2012). The ITE estimated rate for single-family housing is

10.67 average daily trips per household (ITE Code 210). This would result in 106.7 trips per day for the project, which is less than the City’s VMT Implementation Guidelines and as such, the project is exempt from further VMT analysis.

Furthermore, because the project would not generate more than 50 peak hour trips, it is exempt from preparing a traffic impact analysis per the City’s Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (2003).

Findings
The project would not conflict with City policies or programs regarding the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The project would not cause a hazard nor impair emergency access. The project is considered a “small project” per the City VMT Implementation Guidelines and is exempt to further analysis. Therefore there would be no impacts to transportation and no mitigation is required. 158

Page 218 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 43
3/22/21
Tribal Cultural Resources

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) 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:

X
i) 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)?
X
ii) A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural
X
159

Page 219 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 44
3/22/21

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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: i) Listed or eligible for listing in
the California
Discussion
Section 21080.3.1(b) of the California Public Resources Code (AB 52) requires a lead agency formally notify a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated within the geographic area of the discretionary project when formally requested.

As of this writing, no California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Santa Cruz County region have formally requested a consultation with the City of Scotts Valley (as Lead Agency under CEQA) regarding Tribal Cultural Resources. As a result, no Tribal Cultural Resources are known to occur in or near the project area.

Findings
No California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Santa Cruz County region have formally requested a consultation with the City of Scotts Valley. Therefore, no impact to the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource is anticipated and no mitigation is required.
160

Page 220 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 45
3/22/21
Utilities and Service Systems

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental
effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition
to the provider’s existing commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State
or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
X
161

Page 221 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 46
3/22/21
Discussion
Water Treatment Facilities
The 10 proposed residential units would result in a daily water demand of 1,485 gallons per day or approximately two-acre feet per year (AFY).4 Therefore, the proposed residential use would cause only a minimal increase on the demand for water and wastewater service. The Scotts Valley Water District has reviewed the application and has determined that existing water resources would support the proposed development. Thus, impacts are be considered less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Wastewater Treatment Facilities
The Wastewater Department has reviewed the proposed development and has determined that the existing wastewater treatment facilities would support the proposed development.

The project would not generate solid waste in excess of that typically generated by 10 residential units. Thus, impacts would be considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Electric Power, Natural Gas, or Telecommunications
The project would require new connections to PG&E for electricity and natural gas. In addition, the project would require new telecommunication connections with the respective service providers. The project site is surrounded by commercial development to the south, and east and single-family residential to the west, which are serviced by various dry utility providers.

Because these utilities would be readily extended from existing infrastructure adjacent to the project site, impacts from the project would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Solid Waste
The project would generate approximately 122 pounds of daily solid waste.5 The 122 pounds of daily solid waste generated by the project would represent less than one percent of the daily permit capacities of Buena Vista and Monterey Peninsula landfills6, respectively. Therefore, both landfills have adequate capacity. Thus, impacts would be considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4 Daily Water Use Factor for High Density Residential is 55 (gallons per capita/day). (27 residents x 55 gallons/day) = 1,485 (gallons/day)
5 Daily Solid Waste Generation Rate for Residential Use is 12.23 pounds per day/unit (CalRecycle, 2019). (10 residential units x 12.23 pounds/day) = 122.3 pounds/day 6 The Buena Vista Sanitary Landfill is permitted to receive 838 tons of solid waste per day (CalRecycle, 2019). The Monterey Peninsula Landfill is permitted to receive 3,500 tons of solid waste per day. 162

Page 222 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 47
3/22/21
Findings
Existing utilities and service systems are available to serve the project and no new facilities would be required to be constructed. Therefore, the project would have less than significant or no impacts associated to utilities and service systems, and no mitigation is required.

Wildfire

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks,
and thereby expose project occupants
to, pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance
of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities)
that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
X
163

Page 223 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 48
3/22/21
Discussion
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has mapped the relative wildfire risk in areas of large population by intersecting residential housing density with proximate fire threat according to three risk levels, namely Moderate, High, and Very High.

Wildfires are large-scale brush and grass fires in undeveloped areas. The project is within an urbanized area and not within a Very-High Fire Hazard Severity Zone as mapped by CALFIRE.

Additionally, the project would incorporate all applicable fire safety code requirements, including fire protection devices in all residential units and appropriate fire-resistant landscaping on the project site, as required by the Scotts Valley Fire District, and therefore there would be no impact.

Findings
The project would not affect emergency response/evacuation plans, would not expose residents or structures to a wildfire risk, and would not exacerbate fire risk. Therefore, the project would have no impact to wildfires, and no mitigation is required.

Mandatory Findings of Significance

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Does the project:
a) Have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major
periods of California history or
prehistory?
X
164

Page 224 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 49
3/22/21

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
X
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
X
Discussion
As discussed in the individual sections, the project would not degrade the quality of the environment with the implementation of identified Standard Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures. As discussed in Biological Resources, mitigation measures MM BIO-1: Oak Riparian Woodland -Project Construction and MM BIO-2: Oak Riparian Woodland -Post Construction would reduce impacts to less than significant.

As described in the environmental resource sections of this Initial Study, the project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

The project would result in temporary air quality and noise impacts during construction. With the implementation of the identified Standard Conditions of Approval, and consistency with adopted City policies, construction impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level.

As described above, these impacts would be temporary and the project would not have cumulatively considerable impacts on air quality and noise impacts in the project area.

The project would have a less than significant impact or no impact on the remaining environmental resources and would not contribute to cumulative impacts to these resources.

Therefore, the project would not cause a cumulatively considerable impact and no mitigation is required.
165

Page 225 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 50
3/22/21
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

X
I find that the project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the project MAY have a potentially significant or a potentially significant unless mitigated 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.

I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in 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 project, nothing further is required. _________________________________ _____________________________ Paula Bradley, MCP, AICP Date
Contract Planner
166

Page 226 of 585 ends

Not to scale
Bay Village Planned Development Project
Source: Google Earth, 2021
Figure 1: Regional Location
167

Page 227 of 585 ends

Not to scale
Bay Village Planned Development Project
Source: Nearmaps, 2021
Figure 2: Project Vicinity
Legend
Project Site
MacDorsa Park
Scotts Valley City Hall
Erba Lane
Scotts Valley Drive
Civic Center Drive
Scotts Valley Fire Department
168

Page 228 of 585 ends

Not to scale
Bay Village Planned Development Project
Figure 3: Site Plan
Source: Bowman & Williams, 2020
24'-0" 20'-0" 40'-0" 18'-0"
TYP. BACKYARD 7'+/-
30'-3" 30'-3" 5' 5' 30'-3" 30'-3"
20'-0"
6'+/-
20-0"'

SETBACK
 

TOP OF BANK PER CITY
DEFINITION, AND 100 YEAR

STORM FLOOD BOUNDARY
25' SETBACK FROM

TOP OF BANK

FLOW LINE
(DRY) CREEK
TYP. EXIST. TREE
L.S.

L.S.

TYPICAL 2 CAR

PARKING AREA IN

FRONT OF EACH
2 CAR GARAGE

EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT
EXIST. 12" RCP
EXISTING 24" RCP
EXIST. 36" RCP

STANDPIPE

PROPERTY LINE
EXIST. VALLEY GUTTER

EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
6' FENCE
L.S.

YARD
6' FENCE
6' FENCE
6' FENCE

PORCH PORCH PORCH


PORCH PORCH PORCH PORCH
3'
6' FENCE
6' F.6' FENCE
6' F.6' FENCE
6' FENCE
6' FENCE
L.S.

L.S.

DRIVE
24'-0"
5' 5' 28'-0" 5' 5' 28'-0"
20'-0" 51'-0"
51'-0" 20'-0"
20'-0"
5'
40'-0"

22.0' 5' 5' 46'-0" 5' 5' 46'-0" 5'
7'-6"
12'-0" 12'-0" 6' 9' 6'

LANE LANE WIDE
20-0"'20-0"'
5' SIDEWALK
6' LANDSCAPE STRIP L.S. 6' LANDSCAPE STRIP 6' LANDSCAPE STRIP 6' LANDSCAPE STRIP 5' SIDEWALK
50' WIDE

ERBA LANE

RIGHT-OF-WAY
20'-0"
TYP.9'-0"
TYP.

L.S.L.S.
5' SIDEWALK

YARD YARD DECK
25'-0"
24'-0"
5'
10'
10'-0"10'-0"
32'-0"32'-0"
3 SPACES 4 SPACES 3 SPACES
L.S. L.S.
3'-6" HIGH
OPEN SPLIT RAIL FENCE (S.R.F.)

ALONG BOUNDARY OF OAK

RIPARIAN WOODLAND
N 22 52' W 399.42'
S 40 00' 57" E 326.29'
S 60 00' 00" W 55 6. 5'
S 22 52' 00" E 80.05'
N 61 39' 50" E 152.
15'
6'
10' +/-
24'-0"
YARD
YARD
YARD
8'
8'
8'
36'-6"
PORCH 6'-6"
TYPICAL 2 CAR

PARKING AREA

IN FRONT OF
EACH 2 CAR
GARAGE
LOT B
LOT A
6' F.

YARD
YARD
YARD
YARD
12'
5'
YARD
8'+/-
18'

NO PARKING
NEW 2' VALLEY CURB/GUTTER

FULL LENGTH FENCE ON
TOP OF RETAINING WALL.
6'-0" HIGH FENCE AS
MEASURED IN BACKYARD.

RETAINING WALL HEIGHT
VARIES FROM 5'-8" TO 6'-6".

EXISTING PARKING LOT ON

ADJACENT PROPERTY
EXIST. EDGE OF PAVEMENT

OAK RIPARIAN WOODLAND
PER 2019 BIOTIC REPORT
12'
B
B B
L.S.
25' SETBACK FROM

TOP OF BANK

METERS

3 / 2 / 2
1,944 SF HOME
494 SF GARAGE
3 / 2 / 2 DESIGNATES
# BEDROOMS / # BATHROOMS / 2 CAR GARAGE

3 / 2  / 2

3 / 2  / 2
2,108 SF HOME
529 SF GARAGE
2,108 SF HOME
529 SF GARAGE

3 / 2 / 2
4 / 2  / 2

2,236 SF HOME
532 SF GARAGE
A2
X

PUBLIC ART LOCATION
ON FACE OF RETAINING WALL.

CUSTOM MURAL FROM BAY PHOTO.

APPROX. 10' WIDE x 4' HIGH.
42" HIGH GUARDRAIL (GR.)
ON TOP OF RETAINING WALL.
6' F.
6' FENCE
6' FENCE 6' FENCE 6' FENCE 6' FENCE
6' F.
1' R.W.
18'-0"

BACKYARD
6' F.
6' F.
6' F.
6' F.
6' F.

L.S.
6' FENCE
3' R.W.
6' F.
3' R.W.
6 6' FENCE
6' F.
' FENCE
42" GR.
42" HIGH GUARDRAIL FENCE.

S.R.F.

S.R.F. S.R.F.

S.R.F.

S.R.F.
6' F.
42" GR. 42" GR.

S.R.F.
42" GR. 42" GR.
13'-0"13'-0"
11'-0"
10' +/-
15'-0" +/-
22' +/-
16'-0" +/-

LOT AREAS
LOT
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 3,329
8 2,750
9 2,750
10 3,037
SITE AREA = 45,244 S.F. 
= 1.04 ACRES
A
B
3,441
3,080
3,116
3,691
3,235
2,772
3,562
10,483

SQUARE FOOTAGE
LOT

COVERAGE
36%
44%
44%
42%
40%
42%
42%
35%
40%
35%
10'-0"

FENCES ON TOP OF
RETAINING WALL.
6'-0" HEIGHT FROM
RETAINED GRADE.
3'-4" +/-
4'-6" +/-
4'-4" +/-
3' F.

NO FENCE
NO
FENCE
6' FENCE

NO FENCE
4'-5"
4'-5"
6"
6"
6"
3'-8"
6"
3'
6"
3'-8"
3'-0"
6"
6"
7'-8"
5'-6"
6"
4'-8"
6"
6'-6"
6"
1'
5'-8"
6"
L.S.
2 TREES TO BE REMOVED
PER ARBORIST REPORT.

T40 - 14" OAK
T39 - 14" OAK
169

Page 229 of 585 ends

Not to scale
Bay Village Planned Development Project
Figure 4: Proposed Project Rendering
Source: Bowman & Williams, 2020
170

Page 230 of 585 ends

Not to scale
Bay Village Planned Development Project
Figure 5: Proposed Street View
Source: Bowman & Williams, 2020
Z m )> -;
0 < :::0 :r
-1 0 m - r v, ;;o < "tl 0 ► m :::o %1 Bi O � )> � � � :E ;::o O � Z
Ool> G)
.,,m:om
► < -< :l:: z m -I OJ
-< 5 0 0 -;;o "tl )> C, Gi m Z iii
:;r:OOVl
-I .,, 0 - Vl Q <'. CJ
--; ;;o < m
I C Z l:; m IJ'\ m �
;;orr,00 m u, o:,m b o-< !::2
- ::;:; 0 Ci)
vi r- ►Z 2-< :$ yi
-I - 0 ►
m z "
z n !'.D :,:i
oON► mzCZ oz!::G)
o m s m
" cl - ;::
m-z m
.,,o 0 Z � z. � n � ► � -; - z -a
0 � 0 s;: m-t::'E�
-< I :r,: --
0 m - .,...
m vi n z r--o�O
<m:Ev,
m Q m ,:;r :::ti.,, ::ti m
-< iii m 0
:r O O :!! m -o m n :::0 ;::a Vl ► m O - -I o- c, 0-
�mz
· nm z -a O V, . ;-, =<
,, :i: m
)> n
-a :i:
m
-"
rJ'1

..,
�
�

<
...
�
Q
�
=i=
Q
3 �
r:,i
�
Q
3 t"f'j
..,
0-
�
:::. r a, �
II=
- �
,
I
"' 1"
'l" t
\!\l" ;A J �
ti
.!:,
f
t I" �i "'
)- \
1i
(\'\
� �
�
\
-
.....
\I\
"'
'
t
1-l ot••"['\1 f>IZ<-f" �l' 1, IN�
rt
I�
l
I
r
r i
I
ap i .r' i I;! i I •
i I t ' l I + '
I P'�/1111/f �\
r �I
�'--u
; l +-3'!' ;i :ii I, i
I· , \ , . I 1 I : I l ! , I I ' " ' I, l ,/1 I I \ i;ill� \ , ,1 ' \
<1 !� !
� I ./
{
)
-
1 I - 11
I� -
� --1 �1
-
I !
'S'
�
I -
�-
'4'<: \S' 'Fi -
\f(,
� "'-
it_
'
�a
u;,!'
ISl "'' -
\I\, \I\ �J_ -
f_
•
�
�-.'i
� \1\1 - • .,.
�
'
� � 1
I_
I�
�
I 3,_ I \l!
I
l,
'
I;}
+
\ 'sl � .'.}.. l' 1. \ti� 3. ·1 �
'7'--\ t �-
�-
z.
z..
.<:,
t
l=
"'
'
]:µ 1
'I ffl/111 � : r: i : �d §��'rf� �I _:j 1ib\
"'
�
- �
�
�I� i
t
.-
Q: ! -i
·
·.' .. - � J;di
"' f
�
II'
:J -i ��-
o/' c>t.1 -rll flU PW<-< l., IN �
f
--\
\)
X
w
c6
(1)
M"
f,?
0 M'
5·
:::,
@
r-
-" 0
"- M'
CD
� I I\)
-"
�-
�-
�
\'I_
t
� ,,�
-
z:
.1'
i� , •1
"'
- Ii\
J.f � _ __
f
� r,;f"y I, 11,J e.
l,o t?,;; E, ,:,f f'" µ1'� r'I'
t"rj
"'I
O'
�
r
�
=
�
� I \)_
1"
.:
4 0
1\
I""
... _ .. - A "
p""'"�
t --C,r-JE- t \S\ I. i
�� i
ll' 3.. ! � y.. I -
t �:
�
I.\_
_J "
-,□
blcdll-1D
WIIWJJ mmn
l I I I I
-.1□
--�
if� '- -
�
'
f?'�f . � I ,-Jr.-
� \ 4
1��1 �f
��
171

Page 231 of 585 ends

Not to scale
Bay Village Planned Development Project
Figure 6: Exterior Lighting Plan
Source: Bowman & Williams, 2020

SETBACK
 

TOP OF BANK PER CITY
DEFINITION, AND 100 YEAR

STORM FLOOD BOUNDARY
25' SETBACK FROM

TOP OF BANK

FLOW LINE
(DRY) CREEK
TYP. EXIST. TREE
L.S.

L.S.

EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT
EXIST. 12" RCP
EXISTING 24" RCP
EXIST. 36" RCP

STANDPIPE

PROPERTY LINE
EXIST. VALLEY GUTTER

EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
6' FENCE
L.S.

YARD
6' FENCE
6' FENCE
6' FENCE

PORCH PORCH PORCH


PORCH PORCH PORCH PORCH
6' FENCE
6' F.6' FENCE
6' F.6' FENCE
6' FENCE
6' FENCE
L.S. L.S. L.S.

L.S.

L.S.
5' SIDEWALK
6' LANDSCAPE STRIP L.S. 6' LANDSCAPE STRIP 6' LANDSCAPE STRIP 6' LANDSCAPE STRIP 5' SIDEWALK
L.S.L.S.
5' SIDEWALK

YARD YARD DECK
L.S. L.S.

N 22 52' W 399.42'
S 40 00' 57" E 326.29'
S 60 00' 00" W 55 6. 5'
S 22 52' 00" E 80.05'
N 61 39' 50" E 152.15'
YARD
YARD
YARD
PORCH
LOT B
LOT A
6' F.

YARD
YARD
YARD
YARD
YARD

NO PARKING

EXISTING PARKING LOT ON

ADJACENT PROPERTY
EXIST. EDGE OF PAVEMENT

OAK RIPARIAN WOODLAND
PER 2019 BIOTIC REPORT
B
B B
L.S.
25' SETBACK FROM

TOP OF BANK

SAMS LANE
3 / 2  / 2
1,766 SF HOME
486 SF GARAGE

3 / 2  / 2
1,766 SF HOME
486 SF GARAGE
1,784 SF HOME
519 SF GARAGE

3 / 2 / 2
1,944 SF HOME
494 SF GARAGE

3 / 2 / 2
1,944 SF HOME
494 SF GARAGE

3 / 2 / 2
2,052 SF HOME
494 SF GARAGE

3 / 2 / 2
1,944 SF HOME
494 SF GARAGE

3 / 2  / 2

3 / 2  / 2
2,108 SF HOME
529 SF GARAGE
2,108 SF HOME
529 SF GARAGE

3 / 2 / 2
4 / 2  / 2

2,236 SF HOME
532 SF GARAGE
6' F.
6' FENCE
6' FENCE 6' FENCE 6' FENCE 6' FENCE
6' F.
1' R.W.
6' F.
6' F.

L.S.
6' FENCE
6' F.
6 6' FENCE
6' F.
' FENCE
42" GR.6' F.
42" GR. 42" GR.

S.R.F.
42" GR. 42" GR.
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
OPEN SPLIT RAIL FENCE (S.R.F.)

ALONG BOUNDARY OF OAK

RIPARIAN WOODLAND
6' F. 3' F. L.S.
6' F.

S.R.F.

S.R.F. S.R.F.

S.R.F.

S.R.F.
8'-0" NOMINAL
6'-8" AT SIDE GARAGE DOORS

BETWEEN NEIGHBORS
FLOOR
WALL

EXTERIOR
GRADE

   
  
    
         


   
       
   
    
     
     
    
   
   
      

      
     
    
     
    
    
 
   
   
   
L.S. =
F. =
R.W. =
S.R.F. =
GR. =
LANDSCAPE.

FENCE. HEIGHT AS NOTED.

RETAINING WALL. SHOWN AS
SPLIT RAIL FENCE.
42" HIGH GUARDRAIL FENCE
ON TOP OF RETAINING WALL.
172

Page 232 of 585 ends

Not to scale
Bay Village Planned Development Project
Figure 7: Grading Plan
Source: Bowman & Williams, 2020 --/C
I
I
I
I
I_
I
I
•
-
/
I
LO A
'1.71
to
\
57'
�-
:;;
in
in
LEGEND
I
I
-. .
. .
. .........

D
----
-580--
--580--

INDICATES PERMEABLE PAVER ROAD SURFACE

INDICATES CONCRETE DRIVEWAYS, SIDEWALKS

AND WALKWAYS

INDICATES ASPHALT CONCRETE ROAD SURFACE

INDICATES RETAINING WALL

INDICATES PROPERTY LINE

INDICATES PROPOSED CONTOUR

INDICATES EXISTING CONTOUR

X INDICATES EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED

ABBREVIATIONS
•
BW
EG
EL
FF
FW
GS
HT
TW

INDICATES BACK OF WALL ELEVATION

INDICATES EXISTING GRADE ELEVATION

INDICATES ELEVATION

INDICATES FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION

INDICATES FACE OF WALL ELEVATION

INDICATES GARAGE SLAB ELEVATION

INDICATES HEIGHT OF WALL

INDICATES TOP OF WALL ELEVATION

EARTHWORK QUANTITIES
SITE
IMPORT

CUT (CUBIC YARDS)
1,155

FILL (CUBIC YARDS)
1,870 \
\
� • s:
57 574.41
. 0.
� • "
715*
*NOTE IMPORTED FILL QUANTITY DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR
MATERIAL SHRINKAGE DUE TO RE-COMPACTION. QUANTITIES

SHOWN ARE BASED ON COMPARISON OF MODELED EXISTING
GRADES AND FINISH GRADES ONLY.
570.05 567.2B
1 567.01

Page 233 of 585 ends

173
-------~
Not to scale
Bay Village Planned Development Project
Figure 8: Vegetation Types
Source: Biotic Resources Group, 2019
*Note: Previous site
plan shown below*
174

Page 234 of 585 ends

Not to scale
Bay Village Planned Development Project
Figure 9: Oak Riparian Woodland Habitat
Source: David B. Zulim Inc., 2019
175

Page 235 of 585 ends

City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development Initial Study 3/25/21
Bay Village Planned Development Initial Study Reports

1. Biological Assessment, by Biotic Resources Group, dated 5/31/2019

2. Addendum to Biological Assessment, by Biotic Resources Group, dated 5/31/19

3. Arborists Report Tree Appraisal & Inventory, by Kurt Fouts, dated 11/30/2017

4. Summary Arborist’s Report Revisions to Preliminary Tree Inventory & Assessment, by Kurt Fouts, dated 3/27/2020

5. Appendix C - Tree Appraisal & Inventory, dated 4/29/20)

6. Entomological Report, by Entomological Conservation Resources, dated 7/14/2005, and letter, dated 2/06/2006

7. Extended Phase I Archaeological Assessment, by Albion, dated 3/04/2020

8. Geotechnical Report, by Haro Kasunich, dated 11/2005

9. Preliminary Stormwater Management Report, by Bowman & Williams, dated 9/10/2018 176

Page 236 of 585 ends

ERBA LANE HOUSING PROJECT
Biological Assessment
177

Page 237 of 585 ends

Biotic Resources Group
Biotic Assessments ⬧ Resource Management ⬧ Permitting
2551 S. Rodeo Gulch Road, #12 Soquel California ⬧ (831) 476-4803 ⬧ [email protected]

ERBA LANE HOUSING PROJECT
Biological Assessment

Prepared for:

SV Housing LLC
Prepared by:

Biotic Resources Group
Kathleen Lyons
May 31, 2019
178

Page 238 of 585 ends

Erba Lane Housing Project, SV Housing LLC
Biological Assessment 1 May 31, 2019

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This property is located on Erba Lane in the City of Scotts Valley. The site is located on the east side of Erba Lane, north of Scotts Valley Drive (Figure 1). The property encompasses approximately 0.76-acre and abuts an unnamed intermittent creek/drainage channel. The creek is located on an adjacent parcel owned by the City of Scotts valley; however, some riparian trees and riparian tree canopy extends onto the Erba Lane property. The property is currently undeveloped and the property owner has proposed a planned residential development consisting of 6 single-family homes and 3 duplex homes (total of 12 units) (Erba Lane Housing, Site Plan, David Zulim, Inc. dated 8-3-18).

The Biotic Resources Group assessed the biotic resources on the Erba Lane property and the creek area on the adjacent City-owned property in May 2019. This work supplements a previous biotic assessment conducted for the area in August 2005 (Erba Lane Project, Biological Assessment, Biotic Resources Group, dated October 2005). The focus of the 2019 assessment was to review and document sensitive biological resources and evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed residential project on such resources.

Specific tasks conducted for this study include:
• Characterize and map the major plant communities on the property; • Identify sensitive biotic resources, including species of concern, and • Evaluate the potential effects of the proposed land uses on sensitive botanical resources and recommend measures to avoid or reduce such impacts.

1.1 Intended Use of this Report
The findings presented in this report are intended for the sole use of the SV Housing LLC and the City of Scotts Valley in evaluating proposed residential land uses on the subject parcel. The findings presented by the Biotic Resources Group in this report are for information purposes only; they are not intended to represent the interpretation of any State, Federal or City laws or ordinances pertaining to permitting actions within sensitive habitat or endangered species. The interpretation of such laws and/or ordinances is the responsibility of the applicable governing body.

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

2.1 Methodology
The biological resources of the Erba Lane property and the creek area on the adjacent City-owned property were assessed through literature review and field observations. The site was surveyed on May 27, 2019.

The major plant communities within the project area, based on the classification system developed by California Terrestrial Natural Communities (California Department of Fish and Game, 2003 and 2007) and A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995) and as amended to reflect site conditions, were identified during the field surveys. Modifications to the classification system’s nomenclature were made, as necessary, to accurately describe the site’s resources. The plant communities were mapped onto the engineer’s base map (Figure 2). All plant species observed were recorded and identified to a level sufficient to determine their rarity; all species observed at listed in the narrative section of this report. Plant nomenclature follows The Jepson Manual (2012); the Annotated Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Santa Cruz County, California (CNPS, 2013) was also reviewed. 179

Page 239 of 585 ends

Erba Lane Housing Project, SV Housing LLC
Biological Assessment 2 May 31, 2019
The vegetation types were documented and recorded in a field notebook. To assess the potential occurrence of special status biological resources, two electronic databases were accessed to determine recorded occurrences of sensitive plant communities and sensitive species. Information was obtained from the California Native Plant Society's (CNPS) Electronic Inventory (2019), and California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) RareFind database (CDFW, 2019) for the Felton U.S.G.S. quadrangle and surrounding quadrangles.

This report summarizes the findings of the biological assessment. The potential impacts of the proposed development (i.e., establishment of residential land use on the Erba Lane property) on sensitive resources are discussed below. Measures to reduce significant impacts to biological resources to a level of less-thansignificant are recommended, as applicable.

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

2.2.1 Geographic Setting
The Erba Lane property is located on Erba Lane, a public street reached from Scotts Valley Drive. The site is located approximately 0.5 mile east of the intersection of Scotts Valley Drive and Mt. Hermon Road within the City of Scotts Valley (see Figure 1). The property is located near an unnamed creek; the creek centerline is located between 15 and 40 feet from the Erba Lane property line. The creek flows in a northwest to southeast direction, travels under Scotts Valley Drive, then flows into Carbonera Creek. The creek had surface flow at the time of the May 2019 site visit. Carbonera Creek is a perennial waterway which empties into Branciforte Creek and then into the San Lorenzo River before entering Monterey Bay in the City of Santa Cruz. Urban residences, commercial business and public facilities (e.g., fire station, City Hall, police station) are located adjacent to the subject property.

2.2.2 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitats
Two plant communities occur on the Erba Lane property. Coast live oak riparian woodland grows along the eastern property line and this woodland extends further eastward along the creek corridor on the City of Scotts Valley property. Small areas of annual grassland occur outward of the riparian woodland. The western portion of the property is a paved (asphalt) parking area. The distribution of the plant communities on the property is depicted on Figure 2. The distribution of vegetation types in 2019 is similar to conditions documented in 2005.

The majority of property is mapped as Soquel loam, 2 to 9 percent slope (171) (Soil Survey of Santa Cruz County, USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey, 2019). This soil type corresponds to areas shown as grassland and wooded areas in the 1974 soil survey aerial photo. A small area of Zayante coarse sand, 5-30 percent slopes (182) is mapped along the western property line in an area that is currently paved.

Coast Live Oak Riparian Woodland
Coast live oak riparian woodland occurs along the eastern property line. The woodland is closely associated with the creek, with many trees rooted on the slope and along the top-of-bank. 180

Page 240 of 585 ends

Erba Lane Housing Project, SV Housing LLC
Biological Assessment 3 May 31, 2019
Figure 1: Location of Project on USGS Quadrangle (Felton quadrangle) Project Location
181

Page 241 of 585 ends

Erba Lane Housing Project, SV Housing LLC
Biological Assessment 4 May 31, 2019
Figure 2: Distribution of Vegetation Types on Proposed Site Plan 182

Page 242 of 585 ends

Erba Lane Housing Project, SV Housing LLC
Biological Assessment 5 May 31, 2019
Mature trees of coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) dominant the woodland, with their canopies extending outward from top-of-bank. According to the arborists report (Kurt Fouts, November 2017), 14 oak trees grow on the Erba Lane property; 26 oak trees are rooted on the adjacent City-owned property. Figure 3 shows the character of the woodland on the Erba Lane property.

Figure 3: Character of Oak Riparian Woodland on Erba Lane Property The riparian woodland on the City property also supports willows (Salix sp.), which grow along the wetted channel. Within the woodland, native and non-native plant species are present, including California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), curly dock (Rumex crispus), velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), French broom (Genista monspessulana), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), and young willows. Figure 4 shows the character of the woodland on the Erba Lane property.

Figure 4: Character of Oak Riparian Woodland on City-owned Property Beneath the oak canopy on the Erba Lane property, the understory is comprised of non-native annual grasses and forbs, such as rattlesnake grass (Briza maxima), wild oat (Avena sp.), dogtail grass (Cynosurus 183

Page 243 of 585 ends

Erba Lane Housing Project, SV Housing LLC
Biological Assessment 6 May 31, 2019
echinatus), wild lettuce (Sonchus asper), Mediterranean clover (Trifolium angustifolium), and foxtail (Hordeum leporinum). Native California blackberry is also present.

Non-Native Grassland
Non-native grasses and forbs dominate the southeast portion of the Erba Lane property, abutting the existing paved area. Evidence of previous fill/base rock materials was observed, suggesting previous disturbances to this area. Plant species are typical of such areas, with wild radish (Raphanus sativa), wild oat, Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), velvet grass, black mustard (Brassica nigra.), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), filaree (Erodium botrys), and rose clover (Trifolium repens) being common. Native plant species in this area are limited to California poppy (Eshscholzia californica) and telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora).

2.3 SENSITIVE BIOTIC RESOURCES

2.3.1 Regulated Habitats
The project area is located along an unnamed creek. The USGS map (Felton quadrangle) does not identify a stream at this location; however, the field inspection documented a defined bed and bank and evidence of seasonal water flow at the site.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is a trustee agency that has jurisdiction under Section 1600 et seq. of the CDFW Code. Under Sections 1600-1603 of the California Fish and Game Code, CDFW regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel or bank of any river, stream or lake which supports fish or wildlife. CDFW also regulates alterations to ponds and impoundments. CDFW jurisdictional limits typically extend to the top of bank or to the edge of riparian habitat if such habitat extends beyond top of bank (outer drip line), whichever is greater. The proposed project is located within CDFW’s regulatory jurisdiction, as a portion of the proposed residential development is located within the dripline of the oak riparian woodland and on the creek bank. Alteration of riparian vegetation on the Erba Lane property and the adjacent City property to accommodate the residential development as well as construction of a new pathway to the creek will occur within CDFW’s jurisdiction and may be subject to a Streambed Alteration Agreement with this agency (pending confirmation by this agency).
184

Page 244 of 585 ends

Erba Lane Housing Project, SV Housing LLC
Biological Assessment 7 May 31, 2019
Water quality in California is governed by the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and certification authority under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, as administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Section 401 water quality certification program allows the State to ensure that activities requiring a Federal permit or license comply with State water quality standards.

Water quality certification must be based on a finding that the proposed discharge will comply with water quality standards which are in the regional board’s basin plans. The Porter-Cologne Act requires any person discharging waste or proposing to discharge waste in any region that could affect the quality of the waters of the state to file a report of waste discharge. The RWQCB issues a permit or waiver that includes implementing water quality control plans that take into account the beneficial uses to be protected. Waters of the State subject to RWQCB regulation extend to the top of bank (and riparian vegetation if it extends outward from the top-of-bank), as well as isolated water/wetland features and saline waters. Should there be no Section 404 nexus (i.e., isolated feature not subject to USACE jurisdiction), a report of waste discharge (ROWD) is filed with the RWQCB. The RWQCB interprets waste to include fill placed into water bodies. The proposed project is located within RWQCB’s regulatory jurisdiction, as a portion of the proposed residential development is located within the dripline of the oak riparian woodland and on the creek bank. Alteration of riparian vegetation on the Erba Lane property and the adjacent City property to accommodate the residential development as well as construction of a new pathway (a portion on City property) to the creek will occur within RWQCB’s jurisdiction and may be subject to a water quality certification with this agency (pending confirmation by this agency). The RWQCB also has guidelines for habitat compensation for permanent and temporary impacts to creek and riparian zones and has established tree replacement ratios based on the species and diameter of the tree removed.

The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates activities within waters of the United States pursuant to congressional acts: Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (1977, as amended). Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act requires a permit for any work in, over, or under navigable waters of the United States. Navigable waters are defined as those waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide to the Mean High Water mark (tidal areas) or below the Ordinary High Water mark (OHWM) (freshwater areas). The proposed pathway to the creek may enter the USACE’s jurisdiction if pathway/bridge construction occurs below the OHWM of the creek. In May 2019, the OHWM was estimated to be 6 inches above the thalweg. The channel bed averages 2 feet wide.

2.3.2 Sensitive Habitats
Sensitive habitats are defined by local, State, or Federal agencies as habitats that support special status species, provide important habitat values for wildlife, represent areas of unusual or regionally restricted habitat types, and/or provide high biological diversity.

CDFW classifies and ranks the State’s natural communities to assist in the determining the level of rarity and imperilment. Vegetation types are ranked between S1 and S5. For vegetation types with ranks of S1-S3, all associations within the type are considered to be highly imperiled. If a vegetation alliance is ranked as S4 or S5, these alliances are generally considered common enough to not be of concern; however, it does not mean that certain associations contained within them are not rare (CDFW, 2007 and 2010). The oak-willow riparian woodland (CaCode 71.060.47) is ranked S4, yet some associations are of high priority (CDFW, 2010).

The City of Scotts Valley Zoning Code contains several references to streams and drainage courses. Section 17 requires structures to be located outside a 25-foot creek setback (measured outward from the top-ofbank). This review found the top of bank to be the break in slope from the flat terrace to the creek. Most of 185

Page 245 of 585 ends

Erba Lane Housing Project, SV Housing LLC
Biological Assessment 8 May 31, 2019
the oak trees are rooted at or just below this top-of-bank location, with the tree canopies extending into, and in some cases beyond, this 25-foot setback.

City Zoning Code 15.06 also addresses drainage facilities, requiring disturbances to natural drainageways be kept to a minimum and existing drainage courses shall not be obstructed or obliterated without mitigating measures installed that have been approved by the building official. Grading equipment is not to disturb or cross flowing streams unless absolutely necessary and only with prior approval from the building official. The code also states no construction materials or construction byproducts shall be discarded in any drainageway or riparian zone. All streams, floodplains, channels, bodies of standing water, or other riparian areas shall be identified and delineated on the development plans and vegetative removal, land disturbances, or other development activities shall be conducted at a time, and in a manner that will provide and maintain an undisturbed vegetative filter strip. The code also states if it is determined that certain development activities in or near the riparian zones would be detrimental, those activities may be prohibited.

In addition, the City typically requires tree replacement plantings if tree removal is unavoidable. Please refer to the arborist’s report on the existing trees and the City’s requirements for tree replacement.

In 2001, the California Oak Woodland Conservation Act was passed. This act formally recognizes the role of oak woodlands as wildlife habitat, erosion control, and sustaining water quality. The Act encourages voluntary, long-term private stewardship and conservation of oak woodland by landowners and provides financial incentives, through the Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB), to protect and promote biologically functional oak woodlands (Sierra Foothill Research & Extension Center, 2004). The WCB is authorized to award cost-share incentives to private landowners who enter into long term agreement to implement management practices that benefit oak woodlands. Funds can be used for the purchase of easements, restoration activities or enhancement projects. In a related action, effective January 2005, the State amended CEQA with the addition of Public Resources Code 21083.4. This code requires that counties consider the significance of oak woodland conversions under CEQA and adopt an oak woodland management plan pursuant to the Oak Woodlands Conservation Act that contains measures to minimize impacts to oak woodlands along riparian zones, near wetlands and those that contain snags or other features used by wildlife. If significant impacts are determined under CEQA, mitigation alternatives may include conserving oaks through the use of conservation easements (2:1 ratio, conserved to impacted), restoration of former oak woodland area (2:1 ratio), contribution to the Oak Conservation Fund established under CDFW, or other mitigation measures developed by the county. If a planting program is implemented, replanting shall be at a 3:1 ratio (tree replacement) with requirements for planting maintenance and monitoring for seven years.

2.3.3 Special Status Plant Species
Plant species of concern include those listed by either the Federal or State resource agencies as well as those identified as rare by CNPS (List 1B). The search of the CNPS and CNDDB inventories identified the special status plant species with potential to occur in the project area. No special status plant species have been recorded in the CNDDB as occurring within the immediate project area. All species evaluated for potential occurrence within the proposed project area as per CNDDB and CNPS records (Felton quadrangle and surrounding quadrangles) are listed on Table 1.

The May 2019 survey was conducted during the blooming/identification period for many plant species, including the identification period for spineflower species (Chorizanthe ssp.), Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia), and Scotts Valley polygonum (Polygonum hickmanii). Due to the habitat conditions on the site the potential for the occurrence of other special status plant species is considered very 186

Page 246 of 585 ends

Erba Lane Housing Project, SV Housing LLC
Biological Assessment 9 May 31, 2019
low. This is due to the lack of ponderosa pine forest (on site or in the immediate vicinity), manzanita chaparral, native grassland and/or rocky outcrops. No special status plant species were observed in the project area and none are expected.

Table 1. Special Status Plant Species and Their Predicted Occurrence Within the Erba Lane Housing Project Area, May 2019
Common
Name
Scientific Name Status General Habitat
Description
Habitat
Present/
Absent
Rationale
Bent-flowered
fiddleneck
Amsinckia lunaris CNPS List 1B.2 Grassland, scrub A Area lacks suitable habitat; not observed.

Santa Cruz
manzanita
Arctostaphylos
andersonii
CNPS List 1B.2 Broadleaf upland
forest, chaparral,
coniferous forests;
open sites
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

Hooker’s
manzanita
Arctostaphylos
hookeri ssp.
hoookeri
CNPS List 1B.2 Broadleaf upland
forest, chaparral,
coniferous forests;
open sites
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

Pajaro
manzanita
Arctostaphylos
pajaroensis
CNPS List 1B.1 Broadleaf upland
forest, chaparral,
open sites
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

Bonny Doon
manzanita
Arctostaphylos
silvicola
CNPS List 1B.2 Chaparral, closed
cone coniferous
forests; restricted
to Zayante sands
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

Marsh
sandwort
Arenaria
paludicola
CE
FE
CNPS List 1B.1
Marshes and
swamps
A Site lacks suitable habitat.

Santa Cruz
Mtns.
pussypaws
Calyptridium
parryi var.
hesseae
CNPS List 1B.1 Zayante Sandhills
chaparral and pine
forest
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

Swamp
harebell
Campanula
californica
CNPS List 1B.2 Bogs and marshes A Creek lacks suitable habitat.

Deceiving
sedge
Carex saliniformis CNPS List 1B.2 Mesic sites in
coastal prairie
A Site lacks suitable habitat.

Congdon’s
tarplant
Centromadia
parryi ssp.
congdonii
CNPS List 1B.1 Grassland, moist
areas
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

Ben Lomond
spineflower
Chorizanthe
pungens var.
hartwegiana
FE
CNPS List 1B.1
Ponderosa pine
and maritime
chaparral within
Zayante sands
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

Monterey
spineflower
Chorizanthe
pungens var.
pungens
FT
CNPS List 1B.2
Oak woodland,
chaparral, scrub;
sandy substrate
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

Scotts Valley
spineflower
Chorizanthe
robusta var.
hartwegii
FE
CNPS List
1B.1
Grasslands with
mudstone and
sandstone
outcrops
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.
187

Page 247 of 585 ends

Erba Lane Housing Project, SV Housing LLC
Biological Assessment 10 May 31, 2019
Table 1. Special Status Plant Species and Their Predicted Occurrence Within the Erba Lane Housing Project Area, May 2019
Common
Name
Scientific Name Status General Habitat
Description
Habitat
Present/
Absent
Rationale
Robust
spineflower
Chorizanthe
robusta var.
robusta
FE
CNPS List
1B.1
Coastal dunes,
grassland, and
scrub with loose
sandy soils
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

Mt. Hamilton
thistle
Cirsium fontinale
var. campylon
CNPS List 1B.1 Serpentine seeps,
moist grassland
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

San Francisco
collinsia
Collinsia
multicolor
CNPS List 1B.2 Moist shady
woodland
A Site lacks suitable
microhabitat.

Tear drop moss Dacryophyllum
falcifolium
CNPS List 1B.3 Redwood forest
on limestone
outcrops
A Site lacks suitable
microhabitat; no suitable
outcrop conditions in area
Santa Clara
dudleya
Dudley abramsii
ssp. setchellii
FE
CNPS List 1B.1
Serpentine
outcrops
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

Ben Lomond
buckwheat
Eriogonum nudum
var. decurrens
CNPS List 1B.1 Ponderosa pine
woodland,
sandhills
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

Sand loving
wallflower
Erysimum
ammophilum
CNPS List 1B.2 Openings in
chaparral, sand
dunes; sand
substrate
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

Santa Cruz
wallflower
Erysimum
teretifolium
FE
CE
CNPS List 1B.1
Openings in
chaparral,
ponderosa pine
forest; Zayante
sands
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

Minute pocket
moss
Fissidens
pauperculus
CNPS List 1B.2 Redwood forest
on limestone
outcrops
A Site lacks suitable
microhabitat; no suitable
outcrops.

Fragrant
fritillary
Fritillaria liliacea CNPS List 1B.2 Ultramafic talus in chaparral and
foothill woodland
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

Monterey gilia Gilia tenuiflora
ssp. arenaria
FE
CT
CNPS List 1B.2
Openings in
chaparral, sand
dunes; sand
substrate
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

Santa Cruz
cypress
Hesperocyparis
abramsiana var.
abramsiana
FE
CE
CNPS List 1B.2
Coniferous forest
and chaparral on
sandstone and
granitic derived
soils
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

Loma Prieta
hoita
Hoita strobilina CNPS List 1B.1 Chaparral,
cismontane
woodland,
riparian woodland
with serpentine
soils and mesic
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.
188

Page 248 of 585 ends

Erba Lane Housing Project, SV Housing LLC
Biological Assessment 11 May 31, 2019
Table 1. Special Status Plant Species and Their Predicted Occurrence Within the Erba Lane Housing Project Area, May 2019
Common
Name
Scientific Name Status General Habitat
Description
Habitat
Present/
Absent
Rationale
conditions
Santa Cruz
tarplant
Holocarpha
macradenia
FT
CE
CNPS List 1B.1
Coastal prairie and
grasslands with
sandy soil types
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

Kellogg’s
horkelia
Horkelia cuneata
ssp. sericea
CNPS List 1B.1 Openings on old
dunes and coastal
sandhills
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

Point Reyes
horkelia
Horkelia
marinensis
CNPS List 1B.2 Coastal dunes,
prairies, scrub
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

Smooth
lessingia
Lessingia
micradenia var.
glabrata
CNPS List 1B.2 Serpentine soils in
chaparral and
grasslands
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

Indian Valley
bush-mallow
Malacothamnus
aboriginum
CNPS List 1B.2 Riparian scrub,
chaparral,
woodland
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

Arcuate bushmallowMalacothamnus
arcuatus
CNPS List 1B.2 Serpentine
chaparral
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

Halls bushmallowMalacothamnus
hallii
CNPS List 1B.2 Riparian scrub,
chaparral,
woodland
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

Marsh
microseris
Microseris
paludosa
CNPS List 1B.2 Coastal grassy
habitats (mesic)
A No suitable habitat on site.

Northern curlyleaved
monardella
Monardella
sinuate ssp.
nigrescens
CNPS List 1B.2 Openings in
chaparral,
ponderosa pine
forest; Zayante
sands
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

Woodland
woolythreads
Monolopia
gracilens
CNPS List 1B.2 Openings in
redwood and
mixed evergreen
forests
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

Dudley’s
lousewort
Pedicularis dudleyi CR
CNPS List 1B.2
Redwood forest,
moist areas near
streams
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

Santa Cruz
Mountains
beardtongue
Penstemon
rattanii var. kleei
CNPS List 1B.2 Sandy shale slopes
in chaparral,
coniferous forests
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

White-rayed
pentachaeta
Pentachaeta
bellidiflora
FE
CE
CNPS List 1B.1
Valley and foothill
grassland, open
dry rocky slopes,
often on
serpentine
bedrock
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

Whiteflowered rein Piperia candida CNPS List 1B.2 North coast coniferous forest,
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.
189

Page 249 of 585 ends

Erba Lane Housing Project, SV Housing LLC
Biological Assessment 12 May 31, 2019
Table 1. Special Status Plant Species and Their Predicted Occurrence Within the Erba Lane Housing Project Area, May 2019
Common
Name
Scientific Name Status General Habitat
Description
Habitat
Present/
Absent
Rationale
orchid lower montane
coniferous forest,
broadleaved
upland forest, on
serpentine, mossy
banks, rock
outcrops
Choris’
popcornflower
Plagiobothrys
chorisianus var.
chorisianus
CNPS List 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal
scrub, coastal
prairie (mesic
areas)
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

San Francisco
popcornflower
Plagiobothrys
diffusus
CE
CNPS List 1B.1
Grassland, coastal
prairie (mesic
areas)
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

Hairless
popcornflower
Plagiobothrys
glaber
CNPS List 1A Grassland, coastal
prairie (mesic
areas)
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

Scotts Valley
polygonum
Polygonum
hickmanii
FE
CE
CNPS List 1B.1
Grassland with
sandstone or
mudstone
outcrops
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

Pine rose Rosa pinetorum CNPS List 1B.2 Closed cone (pine) coniferous forest
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

San Francisco
campion
Silene verecunda
ssp. verecunda
CNPS List 1B.2 Sand hills and
rocky soils in
coastal prairie and
scrub
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

Metcalf
Canyon
jewelflower
Streptanthus
albidus ssp.
albidus
FE
CNPS List 1B.2
Serpentine soils in
chaparral and
grasslands
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

Most beautiful
jewelflower
Streptanthus
albidus ssp.
peramerous
CNPS List 1B.2 Serpentine soils in
chaparral and
grasslands
A Area lacks suitable habitat;
not observed.

Santa Cruz
clover
Trifolium
buckwestiorum
CNPS List 1B.1 Moist grasslands A Area lacks suitable habitat; not observed.

Absent [A] - No habitat present and no further work needed.

Habitat Present [HP] - Habitat is, or may be present. The species may be present.

Present [P] - Species is present
Critical Habitat [CH] - Project footprint is located within a designated critical habitat unit, but does not necessarily mean that appropriate habitat is present.

Status: -Federal Endangered (FE); Federal Threatened (FT); Federal Proposed (FP, FPE, FPT); Federal Candidate (FC), Federal Species of Concern (FSC); California State Endangered (CE); California State Threatened (CT); California Native Plant Society (CNPS)

2.3.3 Special Status Wildlife Species
Special status wildlife species include those listed by either the Federal or State resource agencies as well 190

Page 250 of 585 ends

Erba Lane Housing Project, SV Housing LLC
Biological Assessment 13 May 31, 2019
as those identified as State species of special concern. In addition, all raptor nests are protected by Fish and Game Code, and migratory birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. One special status wildlife species may occur on site: San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat. Table 2 below lists special status wildlife species that are known from the general vicinity of Scotts Valley, and a brief explanation of why they are not expected to occur on site. In 2005 the property was evaluated by Dr. Richard Arnold for Mt. Hermon June beetle and Zayante band-winged grasshopper, and that study found that suitable habitat for these insects was absent on the property. Site conditions remain the same in 2019.

Table 2. Special Status Wildlife Species and Their Predicted Occurrence Within the Erba Lane Housing Project Area, May 2019.

SPECIES STATUS1 HABITAT POTENTIAL OCCURRENCE ON
SITE
Invertebrates
Ohlone tiger beetle
Cicindela ohlone
FE Coastal terrace prairie with
sparse vegetation and openings,
Watsonville loam soils
None, no suitable habitat on site.

Mt. Hermon June beetle
Polyphylla barbata
FE Chaparral and ponderosa pine
with Zayante sandy soils
None, no suitable habitat on site.

Zayante band-winged grasshopper
Trimerotropis infantilis
FE Openings in sand hills parkland
habitat with Zayante sandy soils
None, no suitable habitat on site.

Smith’s blue butterfly
Euphilotes enoptes smithi
FE Coastal dunes and coastal sage
scrub with buckwheat plants
None, no suitable habitat on site.

Fish
Coho salmon
Oncorhynchus kisutch
FE, SE Perennial creeks and rivers with
gravels for spawning
No suitable habitat in project area.

Steelhead
Oncorhynchus mykiss
FT Perennial creeks and rivers with
gravels for spawning
No suitable habitat in project area.

Amphibians
Santa Cruz black salamander
Aenides flavipunctatus niger
CSC Mesic forests of fog belt;
terrestrial, lives under logs, rocks,
etc.

None, no suitable habitat on site.

California giant salamander
Dicamptodon ensatus
CSC Wet coastal forests near streams
and seeps; breed in streams
None, small creek not suitable
habitat.

California red-legged frog
Rana draytonii
FT, CSC Riparian, marshes, estuaries and
ponds with still water at least into
June.

None, small creek not suitable
habitat.

Foothill yellow-legged frog
Rana boylii
CSC Creeks and rivers with cobble
substrate
None, small creek not suitable
habitat.

Reptiles
Western pond turtle
Emys marmorata
CSC Creeks and ponds with water of
sufficient depth for escape cover,
and structure for basking;
grasslands or bare areas for
nesting.

None, no suitable habitat on site.

Birds
Osprey
Pandion haliaetus
None Nests in tall trees adjacent to
reservoirs and rivers
None, no suitable habitat on site.

White-tailed kite
Elanus leucurus
FP Nests in tall riparian trees
adjacent to open lands for
foraging
None, no suitable habitat on site.

Mammals
Pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus
CSC Roosts in caves, hollow trees,
mines, buildings, bridges, rock
No suitable tree hollows in oaks on
site were observed
191

Page 251 of 585 ends

Erba Lane Housing Project, SV Housing LLC
Biological Assessment 14 May 31, 2019
Table 2. Special Status Wildlife Species and Their Predicted Occurrence Within the Erba Lane Housing Project Area, May 2019.

SPECIES STATUS1 HABITAT POTENTIAL OCCURRENCE ON
SITE
outcroppings
Santa Cruz kangaroo rat
Dipodomys venustus
None Manzanita chaparral with sandy
soils
None. No suitable habitat on site.

San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat
Neotoma fuscipes annectens
CSC Woodlands including oaks, willow
riparian, Eucalyptus
None observed within project area;
yet possible in riparian woodland
American badger
Taxidea taxus
CSC Grasslands with friable soils None, no suitable habitat on site. 1 Key to status: FE=Federally listed as endangered species; FT=Federally listed as threatened species; SE=State listed endangered; FP=Fully protected species by State; CSC=California species of special concern

3.0 IMPACT AND MITIGATION DISCUSSION

3.1 IMPACT CRITERIA
The thresholds of significance presented in the CEQA Guidelines, updated December 2018, were used to evaluate project impacts and to determine if implementation of the proposed Project would pose significant impacts to botanical resources. For this analysis, significant impacts are those that substantially affect, either directly or through habitat modifications:
a) A species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS;
b) Riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by CDFW or USFWS;
c) 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.

3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT
The proposed residential development was evaluated as to potential direct and indirect impacts to sensitive biological resources. Examples of direct impacts are the removal of oak trees for construction of housing and associated lot development, and pathway construction in the riparian corridor. Examples of indirect impacts include potential disturbance to the oak riparian woodland and wildlife utilization of these areas from increased human uses on the property (e.g., residential uses, landscaping, lighting, pathway uses).

Measures are recommended to reduce impacts to biological resources from the proposed residential development, including measures to compensate for impacts to sensitive habitats (i.e., oak riparian woodland) and to reduce the potential spread of invasive, non-native plant species into sensitive habitat. 192

Page 252 of 585 ends

Erba Lane Housing Project, SV Housing LLC
Biological Assessment 15 May 31, 2019
The proposed project identifies construction of 12 homes, with vehicular access from Erba Lane. A new pathway is proposed from Erba Lane to the creek and to the City property on the east side of the creek.

An open split rail fence is proposed at the rear of the homes, abutting the creek. These proposed construction activities will occur within the dripline of the riparian woodland, requiring removal of 22 oak trees within the riparian woodland. Pathway construction will also require vegetation removal within the riparian woodland. If a creek crossing is needed, the crossing may be placed will occur within the limits of the OHWM of the creek. The Site Plan does not depict any new stormwater features (drainage outlets) into the creek.

The Arborist Report identifies the removal of all 14 oak trees on the Era Lane property and the removal of 8 oak trees on the City property. Removal of these trees will remove approximately 13,000 square feet of riparian woodland tree canopy.

3.2.1 Special Status Species (federal and non-federal)
The only special status wildlife species that may occur within or immediately adjacent to the project work area is the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat. The woodrats may be present in above-ground stick nests. Nesting birds may also be present. Measures are given below to avoid impacts to woodrats and nesting birds. No other special status wildlife species occur within the project area.

3.2.2 Sensitive Natural Communities
The project is located along an unnamed creek, which supports oak riparian woodland, a sensitive habitat.

On the Erba Lane property, the proposed project would remove all of the oak trees (14 oaks) from the woodland. Mature oaks are also present on the City property, wherein 8 oak trees are proposed for removal. Woody understory vegetation is also present on the City property; some of this vegetation would be disturbed during tree removal. Pathway construction will also affect riparian woodland.

Table 3 outlines the temporary and permanent impacts from project actions, including impacts to sensitive habitats (riparian corridor).

3.2.3 State and Federal Regulated Waterways and Federal Wetlands Residential development will occur in regulated waterways, as work will require the removal of vegetation on the streambank and along the top of bank of the creek, within regulated areas by CDFW and RWQCB, pending confirmation by regulating agencies. Pathway work may occur within the flow line (below OHWM) of the intermittent creek within regulated areas by USACE, CDFW and RWQCB.

Table 3 outlines the components of the project and where permanent and temporary impacts will occur in the streambed (below OHWM) and within the riparian zone (above OHWM). Pathway work may affect federally designated wetlands, depending upon site design.

3.2.4 Wildlife Corridors and Nursery Sites
The proposed residential project will remove 22 mature (greater than 4-inch diameter) oak trees, that encompass approximately 13,000 square feet of woodland canopy. Nesting birds may occur in or adjacent to the project work area. Because most nesting birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, measures are listed below to avoid potential impacts if any active bird nests are present during vegetation removal.

3.2.5 Conflict with Local Policies
The project will be located within the riparian corridor of a creek, an area regulated by the City of Scotts Valley Zoning Codes. Work within the corridor and the City’s creek setback areas will require 193

Page 253 of 585 ends

Erba Lane Housing Project, SV Housing LLC
Biological Assessment 16 May 31, 2019
approval from the City. The proposed project may conflict with City Zoning code in that development will be allowed within a riparian woodland, pending confirmation by the City.

3.2.6 Conflict with HCP or NCCP, or Other Conservation Plan The project has a small area of Zayante sands soil, as per the soil survey; however, the area is covered in pavement. The property is not located in an area subject to the Interim Programmatic HCP for the Zayante sandhills (Mt. Hermon June Beetle and Ben Lomond Spineflower) The property is located east of the Scotts Valley West Parcels, as outlined in the IPHCP.

3.2 RECOMMENDED MEASURES
The following measures are recommended to avoid or mitigate potentially significant impacts to vegetation and wildlife, to a less-than significant level:

Recommendation BIO-1. The following measures are recommended to reduce impacts to the riparian woodland to a less-than significant level.

1.1 To preserve the value of the oak riparian woodland habitat for biological resources, the project design should be revised such that development activities on the Erba Lane property are located outside the dripline of the riparian trees. There should be a minimum setback of 25-feet from the retained riparian woodland dripline and residential development. The setback area should be landscaped with plant materials that are native to the local riparian woodland. Structures, including grading and rear/backyard spaces and fences should be located outside of the riparian woodland dripline and 25-foot setback area.

1.2 If the project cannot be redesigned to avoid direct impacts to the riparian woodland and riparian trees are proposed to be removed for the project, the applicant shall confer with State regulatory agencies regarding permit requirements. In addition, the applicant should confer with the City on the establishment of a setback areas between the retained woodland and the proposed development.

There should be a minimum setback of 25-feet from the retained riparian woodland dripline and residential development. The setback area should be landscaped with plant materials that are native to the local riparian woodland. To compensate for direct impacts to the woodland, a riparian woodland mitigation program should be developed and implemented, wherein permanent impacts are compensated at a minimum 2:1 ratio (i.e., two square feet replanted for each square foot removed) and temporary impacts are replaced at a 1:1 ratio. Based on the current site plan, approximately 13,000 square feet (0.31 acre) of riparian woodland vegetation will be permanently impacted to accommodate the proposed project. To meet the 2:1 compensation ration, an area of

0.62 acre would be needed for mitigation. Within the mitigation area revegetation of riparian woodland would be implemented, including tree replacement. Tree replacement ratios shall follow guidelines developed by the City or by the RWQCB, whichever is greater.

Recommendation BIO-2. The following measures are recommended to reduce construction-period impacts to the riparian woodland to a less-than significant level.

2.1 The outer edge of the riparian setback area should be demarcated by the placement of 6-foot high plastic construction fencing (during the construction period) and a permanent 6-foot high fence (after construction). The fence could have an opening to allow access to the existing pathway that crosses the intermittent drainage channel. Fencing should be placed along the outside edge of the dripline of the tree or grove of trees. The construction fencing shall be maintained in a functional 194

Page 254 of 585 ends

Erba Lane Housing Project, SV Housing LLC
Biological Assessment 17 May 31, 2019
manner throughout the site construction period and should be inspected periodically by the contractor and City of Scotts Valley personnel for damage and proper functioning. No equipment staging, vehicle parking or other activities should occur within the protected riparian area.

2.2 To minimize sediments entering the intermittent creek, the project should implement best management practices, including
o Conduct construction activities within 20 feet of the riparian woodland during the dry season;
o Incorporate measures to filter and entrap pollutants prior to their discharge into the creek or other downstream drainage features that lead to Carbonera Creek. o Stabilize disturbed soils to minimize erosion and sediment input to the creek; o Implement erosion control measures to prevent sediment from entering the creek channel, including the use of silt fencing or fiber rolls to trap sediments; o Conduct erosion control seeding of all disturbed areas as soon as practicable after disturbance following construction;
o Monitor the effectiveness of the erosion control measures during the first year’s rainy season and implement remedial measures (e.g., reseeding, repair of silt fencing) if sedimentation or erosion is noted.

2.3 Occurrences of invasive, non-native plant species (i.e., French broom, bull thistle) should be removed from the riparian woodland prior to project completion.

Recommendation BIO-3. The following measures are recommended to reduce post-construction-period impacts to the riparian woodland to a less-than significant level.

3.1 All lighting features shall be directed away from the oak riparian woodland, such that the woodland is not illuminated. Homeowners/tenants shall not be allowed to install night lighting that illuminates the riparian woodland.

3.2 Future landowners/tenants shall not utilize invasive, non-native plant species for landscaping. Plant species that should not be used on the property include all plants recognized as exotic pest plants by Cal-IPC (see Exotic Pest Plants of Greatest Ecological Concern in California, www.cal-ipc.org).

This list includes: all brooms (i.e., French broom, Spanish broom and Scotch broom), periwinkle (Vinca sp.), Cape (or German) ivy, English ivy, Algerian ivy, acacia (all kinds), eucalyptus (all kinds), all pines, cotoneaster, and pyracantha. If evidence of the fungus responsible for Sudden Oak Death (Phytophthora sp.) is detected on the property, the homeowners shall implement measures to prevent/control the spread of this fungus both on and off-site. The homeowners shall be responsible for implementing the most current disease-preventing measures for the use, storage and/or transporting of oak firewood as a means of minimizing the spread of the disease within the City, the County and the State of California. Preventative and treatment measures should also be implemented as recommended. Current information on this disease and recommended treatments is available through the California Oak Mortality Task Force, University of California Cooperative Extension, Sudden Oak Death website (http://cemarin.ucdavis.edu).

Recommendation BIO-4. The following measures are recommended to reduce impacts to special status wildlife and nesting birds to a less-than significant level.

4.1 The landowner shall hire a qualified biologist to search for woodrat nests. If any are found and impacts to the nests cannot be avoided, the applicant shall seek written approval from CDFW to implement a trapping and relocation program. Wood rat nests shall not be disturbed without prior written approval from CDFW.
195

Page 255 of 585 ends

Erba Lane Housing Project, SV Housing LLC
Biological Assessment 18 May 31, 2019

4.2 If construction is scheduled to begin between March 1 and August 15 of any given year, the landowner shall hire a qualified biologist to conduct a search for active bird nests in the vicinity of the work site (following CDFW survey protocols). If active bird nests are observed, the work shall be postponed until the biologist determines that all chicks have fledge the nest(s).

Table 3. Summary of Permanent and Temporary Impacts of Erba Lane Housing Project Resource Type Impact Permanent Impact (approx.) Temporary Impact Intermittent Stream
Channel
(below OHWM)
Pathway Improvements
in stream channel
(City Property)
Possible, yet no specific
design plan reviewed
Possible, yet no specific
design plan reviewed
Total Impacts to Stream Channel Possible, yet no specific design plan reviewed
Possible, yet no specific
design plan reviewed
Riparian Zone
(above OHWM)
Pathway Improvements on
creek bank
(City Property)
500 square feet
50 linear feet
Possible, yet no specific
design plan reviewed
Removal of Riparian
Woodland
(22 oak trees)
(Erba Lane Property and City
Property)
13,000 square feet Possible, yet no specific
design plan reviewed
Total Impacts to Riparian Zone 13,500 square ft.
(0.31 acre)
260 linear feet
Possible, yet no specific
design plan reviewed
196

Page 256 of 585 ends

Erba Lane Housing Project, SV Housing LLC
Biological Assessment 19 May 31, 2019

4.0 LITERATURE CITED AND REFERENCES
Baldwin, B., D. Goldman, D. Keil, R Patterson, T Rosatti and D. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual:

Vascular Plants of California. 2
nd edition. University of California Press. Berkeley
Barbour & Major, 1988. Terrestrial Vegetation of California. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA
California Native Plant Society. 2019. Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. CNPS, Sacramento CA.

California, State of, Department of Fish & Wildlife. 2010. The Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by the CNDDB. December 2010.

California, State of, Department of Fish & Wildlife. 2019. Natural Diversity DataBase, Natural Communities. Rarefind 5 Program
Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.

CDFW Unpublished report, October 1986.

Sawyer & Keller-Wolf, 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA
USDA, 1974. Soil Survey of Santa Cruz County, California. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with University of California Agricultural Experiment Station. 197

Page 257 of 585 ends

198

Page 258 of 585 ends

ARBORIST REPORTPreliminary Tree Inventory & Assessment for:

Erba Lane Housing – Scotts Valley
ERBA LANE -– APN 022-081-34 &35
November 30th,2017
Prepared for:

Larry Abitol
Scotts Valley Housing LLC
505 Ironwood Drive
Soquel, CA 95
199

Page 259 of 585 ends

Table of Contents

Introduction and Overview………………………………………………..………2
Assignment/Scope of Services……………………………………………...…...3
Summary of Findings & Resources……………………………………………...4
Subject Tree Removals & Species List………………………………………….5
Protected Trees in the City of Scotts Valley…………………………………….6 Tree Evaluations & Recording Methods………………………….……………..7 Summary Tree & Site Description………………………………………..….8 - 9 Tree Protection Zones ……………………………………………………………9
Tree Protection Guidelines & Restrictions…………………………..…...10 - 11 Project Arborist Duties & Inspection Schedule………………….…………….11 Tree Work Standards & Qualifications…………………………………………12
Tree Replacement Recommendations……………………………………...…12
Development Site Tree Health Care Measures…………………………........13 Appendix A – Tree Assessment Chart
Appendix B – Criteria for Tree Assessment Chart
Attachments:
- Tree Protection Plan – Sheet T1
- Subject Tree Images
- Tree Inventory Aerial Image
- Tree Protection Fencing Example
- Tree Protection Signage Example
- Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
200

Page 260 of 585 ends

Preliminary Tree Inventory & Assessment
Erba Lane Housing Development
Erba Lane, Scotts Valley/ APN 022-081-34 & 35

Page 2 ends

INTRODUCTION and OVERVIEW

Scotts Valley Properties LLC is proposing to develop a property currently utilized as a parking lot. The property is located along Erba Lane in Scotts Valley. As an element of the development, the developers requested certified arborist services for a preliminary tree inventory and assessment. The purpose of this report is to inventory and evaluate the health and structural condition of the trees and access their suitability for preservation.

A “tree resource evaluation", sometimes called a "tree inventory", or "tree survey report" is the first step in documenting the existing trees on a proposed development or building project site.

This survey is used to aid in planning and project review, for the identification and location of existing trees on the site during the design of the project, placement of structures, driveways, utilities, and landscape components.

It also is used to identify trees of designated size and species that are protected under the municipal or county code that is applicable for the site location.

Suitability for preservation of individual trees is included in this evaluation, with the criteria for retention based on an evaluation of the heath, structural condition and the specific development features impacting each tree.

Preliminary development parameters such as grading, paving, retaining walls, building construction footprint, and the proposed distance each of these elements are to be located from individual trees is evaluated.

Tree protection zones based on tree species, size and condition are prescribed for those trees recommended for retention.

When final plan sets have been completed, protective fencing and tree protection treatments will be prescribed by the arborist consultant. Tree replacement numbers will be calculated when a final tree removal count is established.

201

Page 261 of 585 ends

Preliminary Tree Inventory & Assessment
Housing Development
Erba Lane, Scotts Valley/ APN 022-081-34 & 35

Page 3 ends

ASSIGNMENT/SCOPE OF SERVICES

Kurt Fouts an independent certified arborist, has been contracted by Mr. Larry Abitol, to inventory and evaluate the condition of the existing trees on the proposed development site, including trees located on adjacent parcels with canopies that overhang the project site.

Additionally, to make recommendations to retain or remove each tree, based on tree condition and anticipated construction impacts. The inventory is oriented to trees that are protected under the City of Scotts Valley Municipal Code – Section 17.44.080 Tree Protection Regulations & Section 17.44.080(7) “Protected Tree”.

To complete this assignment, the following services were performed:
 Plan Review: Reviewed provided plans including: Preliminary Design for Erba Lane Housing by: David Zulim Inc., dated 7/11/17 & 100 Year Flood Boundary Exhibit by:

Boman & Williams, dated,11/18/17
 Ordinance Review: Reviewed the City of Scotts Valley Municipal Code – Section

17.44.080 Tree Protection Regulations & Section 17.44.080(7) “Protected Tree” (applicable sections).
 Tree Preservation Evaluation: Site visit by the arborist for orientation and tree inspection. Visually examining each tree and measuring as necessary to confirm City of Scotts Valley, ‘protected’ tree status. Measuring and evaluating each tree for health and structural condition. Assessing each tree for suitability for preservation.  Mapping: Trees were numbered and tagged with embossed metal tags in the field.

Each numbered tree was plotted, and specific preservation or removal information was included on the attached Tree Location and Protection Plan sheet. Base map for Protection Plan sheet is: Preliminary Design for Erba Lane Housing by: David Zulim Inc., dated 7/11/17. Accuracy of trees plotted is limited to plans provided.

Unless expressed otherwise, the information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection. The inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the trees in questions may not arise in the future.

202

Page 262 of 585 ends

Preliminary Tree Inventory & Assessment
Housing Development
Erba Lane, Scotts Valley/ APN 022-081-34 & 35

Page 4 ends

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

 Twelve new single family, two-story homes are proposed for the site where a parking lot currently exists.
 The subject trees consist of existing trees within the vicinity of the proposed development and included within the Site Plan.
 The subject trees total forty (40) individuals consisting of one species.  All the subject trees are “protected” size trees according to the City of Scotts Valley Municipal Code.
 More than half of the subject trees are located on the adjacent City of Scotts Valley property.
 Three trees have trunks close to the property line and may be located on either, (1) the proposed site parcel, (2) City of Scotts Valley parcel or (3) located on both parcels.  I have found that 22 (22) protected size trees will require removal due to poor condition or because of anticipated construction impacts from the proposed development.  I have found that 17 (17) protected size trees will be preserved for the proposed development.
 I have found that 1 (1) protected size tree will require a field evaluation during the construction phase of the project to determine if removal is required or alternatively, if the tree can be retained.
 All protected size trees as designated by the City of Scotts Valley Municipal Code require approval from the Community Development Director, if they are proposed for removal.

RESOURCES

All information within this report is based on preliminary site plans as of the date of this report.

Resources are as follows:
 Preliminary Design for Erba Lane Housing by: David Zulim Inc., dated 7/11/17.  100 Year Flood Boundary Exhibit by: Boman & Williams, dated,11/18/17  Site visits to access tree condition on 11/15/17 & 11/18/17.  Site visit with David Zulim, project designer and Dean Bustichi project builder on 11/28/17. Using the preliminary design plan sheet, distance from individual subject trees to proposed new home locations was measured in the field, to help determine the anticipated construction impacts to each tree.

203

Page 263 of 585 ends

Scotts Valley City CouncilJune 21, 2023

Scotts Valley City Council
June 21, 2023