Scotts Valley City Council
June 28, 2023

H O U S I N G
C - 2 6 | A P P E N D I X C
 A description of the basis by which the accommodation is reasonable and necessary for the needs of the affected disabled person(s);
 Copies of plans, drawings, pictures, and/ other supporting data that provide sufficient information to render a decision (plans and drawings will be to standard scale);
 Other reasonable requests for information requested by the city to facilitate the rendering of a decision, consistent with fair housing laws If the project for which the request for reasonable accommodation is being made also requires some other discretionary approval, then the applicant shall submit the reasonable accommodation application for determination at the same time with the other applications.

Any fee required for an application for reasonable accommodation shall be set by resolution of the City Council.

Review Procedure
The Community Development Director or Designee has the authority to review and decide upon requests for reasonable accommodation, including whether the applicant is a disabled person as defined by Scotts Valley Zoning Code. The Community Development Director or Designee may refer the matter to planning commission at his or her discretion when a reasonable accommodation request includes the following items, but not limited to: any encroachment into the setback areas, results in a building size increase above what is permitted in the applicable zoning district with respect to height, site coverage, or whenever a reduction in required parking is requested. The planning commission has the authority to review and decide upon requests for reasonable accommodation when referred by the Community Development Director.

A public hearing is not required for a reasonable accommodation request reviewed and decided upon by the Community Development Director. Upon deeming the application complete, the planning department shall send a notice to the applicant, property owner, the owners and tenants of property of the five parcels located closest to the subject property, and to all members of the planning commission. The notice shall indicate the date upon which the community development director will act on the permit and the intended action to be taken by the community development director. Such notices shall be mailed, via first class mail, a minimum of fifteen days prior to date that action is to be taken. Requests for reasonable accommodation subject to review and decision by the planning commission shall require a public hearing pursuant to the advance noticing requirements of Chapter 17.50 of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code.

Findings and Decision
The written decision to grant or deny a request for reasonable accommodation will be consist with the Acts and shall be based on consideration of the following factors:

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X C | C - 2 7
 Whether the housing or housing related facilities will be used by an individual with a disability under the Federal Fair Housing Amendment Act (FHAA) and the California Fair Employment and Housing Acts;
 Whether the requested accommodation is necessary to make specific housing available to an individual with a disability under the Federal Fair Housing Amendment Act (FHAA) and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act;  Whether the requested accommodation would impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the city; and
 Whether the requested accommodation does not negatively affect the character of the zoning district and intent of adopted city, policies, regulations, programs or laws.

If the decision for the request of reasonable accommodation is by the Community Development Director, then the Community Development Director shall render a decision within 30 days after the planning department determines the application is complete. The City shall notify the application of the decision and a written decision shall explain the basis of the decision.

If the application for reasonable accommodation is referred to, or reviewed by, the Planning Commission, a decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application shall be decided at the scheduled public hearing.

Appeal of Determination
An applicant or any party with interest may appeal any determination of the Community Development Director to the Planning Commission. The appeal shall be made by filing a notice of appeal clearly identifying the determination or decision and stating the grounds for the appeal. The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by the payment of a filing fee in such amount as established by resolution of the City Council. The notice of an appeal to the Planning Commission shall be filed with the Secretary of the Planning Commission. The appellant shall file the notice of appeal and pay the filing fee within fourteen calendar days after the date of the decision. Upon receipt of the notice of appeal and payment of the filing fee by the secretary of the planning commission, the Planning Commission may review by scheduling of hearing, a de novo review, or decision by Planning Commission.

An applicant or any party with interest may appeal any determination of the Planning Commission or other reviewer to the City Council. Upon receipt of the notice of appeal and payment of the filing fee, the City Clerk shall schedule the matter for hearing at the next available regular meeting of the City Council to be held within thirty calendar days after the date on which the notice of appeal is filed. The City Council may conduct a schedule of hearing, de novo review, or decision by City Council.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
C - 2 8 | A P P E N D I X C

6. Planned Development Zones
The Planned Development Zones (PD), also referred to as Planned Development District, are individually designed to meet the needs of the property zoned. PD Zones are intended to encourage a mixture of uses and shall be combined with an alternative base zoning district or districts. PD Zones are adopted by zoning ordinance, which incorporates by reference a general development plan for the entirety of the subject property. A PD Zone becomes effective if any of the following occur:
 A valid tentative map in compliance with the PD district is approved;  A building permit is issued in compliance with a duly issued PD permit; or  Institution of a use consistent with a duly issued PD permit.

The development regulations shall be specified within the regulations adopted for the specific PD zone. Deviation from those regulations shall be permitted only through a zoning amendment or the granting of a variance.

7. Local Ordinances
An ordinance is a law passed by a municipal government. Local ordinances are enacted to maintain or improve public safety, health, and general welfare. Locally adopted ordinances such as inclusionary ordinances or short-term rental ordinances may directly impact the cost and supply of residential development. Impacts may create governmental constraints to the development of housing and may hinder the City from meeting its share of the RHNA and the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters.

Density Bonus Ordinance
In accordance with California State Government Code Section 65915, a housing development may increase the number of units above the maximum permitted and/or receive reductions in development standards in exchange for reserving units for very low-, low-income, and/or moderate-income households or for seniors. These units must be restricted to their level of affordable for at least 30 years through a deed-restricted affordable housing covenant. All Density Bonus information is available to the public and can be found in the Zoning Code Chapter 17.62 Density Bonus. According to the City’s Zoning Code, qualifying housing developments which satisfy at least one of the following categories or land dedication provisions listed below will be granted a density bonus:
 At least 10 percent of the total units of a housing development for lower income households;
 At least 5 percent of the total units of a housing development for very low or DRAFT
extremely low-income households;

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X C | C - 2 9
 At least 10 percent of the total dwelling units in a common interest development, as defined in Civil Code Section 1351, are for households of moderate income, provided that all units are offered to the public for purchase;
 A senior citizen project or a mobile home park that limits residency based on age requirements for housing older persons in compliance with Civil Code Section 51.2,

51.3, 798.76, or 799.5. (Senior citizen projects shall be restricted to occupancy by senior citizens in perpetuity.);
 When an applicant for a residential development agrees to donate land to the city for very low-income households;
 When a development is the conversion of an existing rental apartments to condominiums, at least 33 percent of the total units of the proposed condominium are for families of low- or moderate-income income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or at least 15 percent of the total units of the proposed condominium project to low-income households as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and if the applicant agrees to pay for the administrative costs.

Tables C-7 through C-10 provide the breakdown of density bonuses that may be granted to eligible projects. Until 2021, under Government Code Section 65915, known as the Density Bonus Law, the maximum bonus was 35 percent. California State Law AB 2345 states that all jurisdictions in California are required to process projects proposing up to 50 percent additional density as long as those projects provide the additional Below Market Rate units (BMR) in the “base” portion of the project, unless the locality already allows a bonus above 35 percent. The bill also lowered the BMR thresholds for concessions and incentives for projects with lowincome BMRs. As of 2021, Government Code Section 65915 authorizes an applicant to receive two incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 17 percent of the total units for lower income households, at least 10 percent of the total units for very low-income households, or at least 20 percent for persons or families of moderate income in a common interest development. It also allows an applicant to receive three incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 24 percent of the total units for lower income households, at least 15 percent of the total units for very low-income households, or at least 30 percent for persons or families of moderate income in a common interest development.

The City’s density bonus ordinance currently allows a maximum of 35 percent density increase; however, AB 2345 requires an allowance of up to 50 percent density bonus when the base BMR is proposed. A program is included in Chapter 2: Housing Plan to update the City’s Zoning Code in compliance with state legislation.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
C - 3 0 | A P P E N D I X C
Table C-7: Very Low-Income Density Bonus Calculations
Percentage Low-Income Units Percentage Density Bonus
5 20
6 22.5
7 25
8 27.5
9 30
10 32.5
11 35
Source: City of Scotts Valley Municipal Code, Chapter 17.62 Density Bonus, Table 17.62.030.C.1 Table C-8: Low-Income Density Bonus Calculations
Percentage Very Low-Income
Units Percentage Density Bonus
10 20
11 21.5
12 23
13 24.5
14 26
15 27.5
17 30.5
18 32
19 33.5
20 35
Source: City of Scotts Valley Municipal Code, Chapter 17.62 Density Bonus, Table 17.62.030.C.2 Table C-9: Moderate-Income Density Bonus Calculations
Percentage Moderate-Income
Units Percentage Density Bonus
10 5
11 6
12 7
13 8
14 9
15 10
16 11
17 12
18 13
19 14
20 15
21 16
22 17
23 18
24 19
25 20
26 21
27 22
28 23
DRAFT
29 24

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X C | C - 3 1
Percentage Moderate-Income
Units Percentage Density Bonus
30 25
31 26
32 27
33 28
34 29
35 30
36 31
37 32
38 33
39 34
40 35
Source: City of Scotts Valley Municipal Code, Chapter 17.62 Density Bonus, Table 17.62.030.C.3 Table C-10: Additional Very Low-Income Density Bonus Calculations on Donated Land Percentage of
Very Low-Income Units that
can be Accommodated on
Donated Land
Percentage Density Bonus
10 15
11 16
12 17
13 18
14 19
15 20
16 21
17 22
18 23
19 24
20 25
21 26
22 27
23 28
24 29
25 30
26 31
27 32
28 33
29 34
30 35
Source: City of Scotts Valley Municipal Code, Chapter 17.62 Density Bonus, Table 17.62.040.C DRAFT

H O U S I N G
C - 3 2 | A P P E N D I X C
In addition to density bonuses, the Zoning Code Chapter 17.62.080 allows for the incentives and concessions listed below:
 One incentive or concession for a project that includes 5 percent of the total units are for very low-income households, ten percent of the total units are for lowincome households, or ten-percent of the total units in a common interest development are sold to moderate-income households; or,  Two incentives or concessions for a project that includes: at least twenty percent of the total units affordable to low-income households, at least ten percent of the total units affordable to very low-income households, at least five percent of the total units affordable to extremely low-income households, or at least twenty percent of the total units affordable to households of moderate income in a common interest development; or,
 One additional incentive for a project that is affordable to low-income households and provides any of the following: at least twenty-five percent of the units as threeor four-bedroom units, at least twenty-five percent of the units accommodate disabled persons and are set-aside for occupancy by disabled persons, or at least ten percent of the units are affordable to extremely low-income households.

A qualifying project shall be entitled to at least one but no more than three of the following incentives:
 A reduction in the site development standards that results in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. The reduction may include, but is not limited to:
 Reduced minimum lot size;
 Reduced minimum lot width;
 Reduced minimum setback;
 Increased maximum building height;
 Reduced onsite open-space requirement;
 Increased maximum site coverage;
 Increased floor area ratio; or
 Reduced parking requirement.
 Approval of mixed-use zoning in conjunction with the housing project if nonresidential land uses will reduce the cost of the housing project, and the nonresidential land uses are compatible with the housing project;  Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the applicant or the city that DRAFT
will result in identifiable, financially sufficient and actual cost reductions.

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X C | C - 3 3
In accordance with Zoning Code Chapter 17.62 Density Bonus, the following density bonus calculations in Table C-11 will be applied to housing developments that meet the above criteria:

Table C-11: Density Bonus Incentives and Concessions Summary Affordable Housing Types Percent of Affordable Units
Very Low-Income 5% 10% 15%
Low-Income 10% 20% 30%
Moderate-Income 10% 20% 30%
Maximum incentive(s)/
concessions 1, 2, 3
1 2 3
1 An incentive or concession may be requested only if an application is also made for a density bonus. 2 Incentives or concessions may be selected from only one category (very low-, low-, or moderate). 3 No incentives or concessions are available for land donation.

Source: City of Scotts Valley Municipal Code Section 17-62.080

8. Specific Plans
The purpose of a Specific Plan is to implement the goals and objectives of a City’s General Plan in a more focused and detailed manner that is area and project specific. Specific Plans promotes consistent and an enhanced aesthetic levels throughout the project community. They also contain their own development standards and requirements that may be more restrictive than those defined for the City as a whole.

Scotts Valley Town Center Specific Plan
The Scotts Valley Town Center Specific Plan (The Plan) is a document designed to guide the development of a mixed-use node that will become the heart of the city. The planning and design of the Town Center Plan Area has been through multiple iterations. The Plan is the culmination of an effort led by the City of Scotts Valley to develop and intensify the Plan Area by developing a unique balance of commercial, civic, and residential uses that will attract visitors both locally and regionally. The Plan area encompasses approximately 58 total acres which includes 15 acres of vacant land centrally located on the site, surrounded by a mix of retail and civic uses. The Plan area is generally bounded by Mt. Hermon Road to the south, Skypark Drive to the west, Blue Bonnet Lane to the north, and a residential development just west of Scotts Valley Drive to the east.

Residential development is limited to higher densities, such as townhomes, apartments and condominiums. Although residential uses are an important component to the success of the Plan, it is considered a secondary use intended to support the predominantly retail and community serving focus of the area. Figure C-10 illustrates the preferred land uses.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
C - 3 4 | A P P E N D I X C
Figure C-10: Town Center Specific Plan – Preferred Land Use Plan Source: Scotts Valley Town Center Specific Plan
An important objective of this Specific Plan is to spell out the desired mix of land uses and location of these uses. The intent is to customize the land use requirements to encourage reinvestment and revitalization of the Town Center Plan Area consistent with The Plan vision.

The entire plan area is within the City of Scotts Valley’s Redevelopment Agency which requires a minimum of 15 percent of all residential units built be affordable. Allowable land uses detailed within the Plan include:
 Mixed-Use/Town Center Core (Commercial/Office/Residential) The core of the planning area will be mixed-use, with retail and commercial on the ground floor and residential or office above. Diversity and character can be achieved with a mix of uses both vertically (residential over commercial), horizontally (residential next to commercial), and unit types (affordable and market rate) within the Plan area. The appropriate mix of land uses is critical to achieving a successful town center environment. A mixing of uses can add variety and vitality to commercial centers, neighborhoods, and streets. The addition of residential over DRAFT
commercial provides “eyes on the streets” and movement throughout the day and

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X C | C - 3 5
night creating safe and defensible spaces. A vertical and horizontal mix of uses in the Plan Area will help achieve the vision for a dynamic center. The Plan proposes new commercial development (retail and office), residential development, visitor services, and civic uses. With the intent of encouraging pedestrian activity within the mixed-use zone, residential and office will not be allowed on the ground floor at street frontage or along the paseo of any building except for the entry door for offices. Residential and office may be located at the back of a building on the first floor, or on the upper floors, but the street frontage is reserved for more pedestrianoriented uses.  Residential (Stand Alone)
Residential will be allowed both as a standalone product and as part of an integrated mixed-use project concept. Stand Alone residential is located on the periphery of the Plan Area adjacent to existing residential on Skypark Drive to Blue Bonnet Lane and adjacent to the park. There needs to be a balance of residential units that will support the retail development and will help create a lively daytime and evening environment.

Table C-12: Town Center Specific Plan Development Standards Category Development Standards
Mixed-Use, Office Commercial, and Civic
Max Mixed-Use Residential Density 15-20 DU/acre
Setbacks (minimum to maximum)
 Front
 Side
 Rear
15-20 feet from curb edge
0-15 feet
0 feet
Max Mixed-Use Height 55 feet
Max Building Coverage 100%
Parking Ratios
 Stand Alone Residential
 Mixed-Use Residential
2 enclosed spaces/unit, and 1 guest space/5 units
1 space/studio or 1-bed, 2 spaces/2- or 3-bed
Medium Density Residential
Max Stand Alone Residential Density 15-20 DU/acre
Setbacks (minimum to maximum)
 Front
 Side
 Rear
15-20 feet from curb edge to building face, 15 feet minimum from curb edge to front porch
0-26 feet
10 feet
Max Height 35 feet (greater heights may be granted through a PD Permit) Max Building Coverage 55%
Parking Ratios
 Residential
 Senior Housing
1 enclosed space/studio or 1-bed, 2 spaces/2- or 3-bed (1 enclosed), plus 1 guest space/5 units

0.5 space/unit
Source: Scotts Valley Town Center Specific Plan (December 2008) DRAFT

H O U S I N G
C - 3 6 | A P P E N D I X C
Gateway South Specific Plan
The Gateway South Specific Plan is intended to address a need for commercial/office development to provide employment, housing opportunities for all income levels, and preserve the hillsides. The following lists the land use designations, number of parcels, and acreage found in the Plan and illustrated in Figure C-11:
 Very High Density – 4 parcels and 5.99 acres
 Medium High Density – 1 parcel and 0.58 acres
 High Density – 4 parcels and 8.31 acres
 PD/Service Commercial – 2 parcels and 9.59 acres
 Public/Quasi Public – 1 parcel and 1.49 acres
 Service Commercial/Open Space – 1 parcel and 17 acres Residential uses are predominantly located within Planning Area A, with only one parcel located in Planning Area B. The Specific Plan establishes access for these residences to nearby urban services and park facilities.

All proposed projects in the Specific Plan area must go through design review procedures and be reviewed by the Planning Commission to ensure the projects are consistent with the site and architectural design policies and standards set forth in the Plan.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X C | C - 3 7
Figure C-11: Gateway South Specific Plan Land Use Plan
Source: Gateway South Specific Plan Amendment
DRAFT

H O U S I N G
C - 3 8 | A P P E N D I X C

9. Local Processing and Permit Procedures
The development community commonly cites the permit processing time as a contributor to the high cost of housing. Depending on the magnitude and complexity of the development proposal, the time that elapses from application to project approval may vary considerably.

Factors that can affect the length of development review of a proposed project include the completeness of the development application and the responsiveness of developers to staff comments and requests for information.

Approval times are substantially lengthened for projects that are not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), require rezoning or general plan amendments, or encounter community opposition. Applicants for all permits or reviews are recommended to request a preapplication meeting with the respective department to: 1) confirm City requirements as they apply to the proposed project; 2) review the City’s review process, possible project alternatives or revisions; and 3) identify information and materials the City will require with the application, and any necessary technical studies and information relating to the environmental review of the project.

All permit applications are reviewed by City staff for completeness. Various applications may also include public noticing and a public hearing. Single- and multi-family developments are subject to the following submittal requirements, depending on what type of development the project is:

1. Submittal of application including the following information:
a. A legal description of the property;
b. A location map showing the project site and the general vicinity of the site; c. A completed environmental information form as prescribed by the City; d. Site plans, elevation plans, floor plans and other maps and data as may be necessary to describe the existing conditions on and surrounding the property and the proposed plans for the future development of the property. The planning commission shall by resolution, maintain a listing of the minimum documentation necessary for submittal in support of each type of application; and
e. Such other information specified in this title for the particular entitlement requested.

2. Payment of fees for permit plan check.

3. Plan check completed by all applicable departments and agencies. Timeline and number of reviews can vary.

4. Permit issued once all comments are satisfied.

Table C-13 provides a list of the Planning applications and the reviewing body for each.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X C | C - 3 9
Table C-13: Decision-Making Body with Final Approval Authority Type of Project Public Hearing -
Action
Approving
Authority
Time Frame
for Review
Annexation Planning
Commission
Appeal Planning
Commission
Cultural Resource
Alteration City Council
Design Review City Council
General Plan
Amendment
Planning
Commission
New Condominium/
Townhomes
Planning
Commission 3 to 6 months
New Apartments Planning
Commission 3 to 6 months
Planned Development Planning
Commission
Sign Permit – Design
Review Application
Planning
Commission/
City Council
Tentative Parcel Tract
Map
Planning
Commission
Use Permit
Variance
Zone Change Planning
Commission
Source: City of Scotts Valley – Planning Department

10.Development Fees
Residential developers are subject to a variety of permitting, development, and impact fees in order to access services and facilities as allowed by State law. The additional cost to develop, maintain, and improve housing due to development fees result in increased housing unit cost, and therefore is generally considered a constraint to housing development. However, fees are necessary to provide planning and public services in Scotts Valley. All information regarding the City’s development fees is available on the City’s website as pursuant to Government Code §65940.1 (a)(1)(B).

The location of projects and housing type result in varying degrees of development fees. The presumed total cost of development is also contingent on the project meeting City policies and regulations and the circumstances involved in a particular development project application. The majority of the City planning fees operate on a deposit account basis where time and materials are charged against the established account as the project is processed. Table C-14 provides the planning fees and Table C-15 provides the development impact fees.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
C - 4 0 | A P P E N D I X C
Table C-14: Planning Processing Fees
Application Type Fee
Permit Applications
Amendment $3,548
Design Review
 Residential with Hillside
 Residential
 Commercial/Industrial
 $7,096
 $3,548
 $3,548
Development Agreement $12,418
Environmental Assessment $355
Environmental Impact Report, Administration $26,255
General or Specific Plan Amendment $12,418
Land Divisions
 Subdivision (5 lots or more)
o Map Entitlement
o Map Recordation/Approval
 Minor (4 lots or less)
o Parcel Map – Tentative
o Parcel Map – Final
 $12,418
 $7,096
 $12,418
 $3,548
Lot Line Adjustment $707
Mitigated Negative Declaration $14,192
Negative Declaration $7,096
Planned Development $8,870
Preliminary Review $8,837
Public Hearing and Radius Noticing $531
Use Permit
 Major (excluding residential)
 Minor
 $7,077
 $3,538
Variance $7,096
Zoning Change/Ordinance Amendment $9,225
Plan Check $355
Source: City of Scotts Valley – Fee Schedule FY 2022-2023 DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X C | C - 4 1
Table C-15: Development Impact Fees
Development Fees Cost per Unit by Residential Zoning District R-MT-5 R-R-2.5 R-1-40 R-1-20 R-1-10 R-M-6/8 R-H
General Facilities and
Equipment $529 $529 $529 $529 $529 $529 $529
Streets and Thoroughfares $6,961 $6,961 $6,961 $6,961 $6,961 $4,131 $4,131 Wastewater Treatment
Facilities $7,385 $7,385 $7,385 $7,385 $7,385 $5,343 $5,343 Storm Drainage Facilities:
 Carbonero Creek
 West Branch
 Camp Evers Tributary
 Bean Creek
$0.30/impervious square-foot
$0.27/impervious square-foot
$0.14/impervious square-foot
$0.19/impervious square-foot
Library Facilities $1,497 $1,405 $1,313 $1,174 $1,035 $1,035 $899 Law Enforcement Facilities $1,221 $1,221 $1,221 $1,221 $1,221 $1,221 $1,221 Parks and Recreation Facilities $12,363 $12,363 $12,363 $12,363 $9,566 $9,626 $6,426 Mount Hermon Road Fair
Share Trips:
 Mt. Hermon and SV Drive
 Mt. Hermon and La
Madrona
$535
$1,047
Scotts Valley Unified School
District $3.14/square-foot $3.48/square-foot
Source: City of Scotts Valley Schedule of Fees FY 2022-2023, Scotts Valley Unified School District The development fees associated with each project is dependent on the housing type, density, intensity of use, and location. In addition to these direct fees, the total cost of development is contingent on the project meeting the City’s policies and standards, as well as the project applicant submitting necessary documents and plans in a timely manner.

Estimated total development and impact fees for a typical single-unit residential project, assuming it is not part of a subdivision and is consistent with existing city policies and regulations can range from $68,837 to $78,576. Estimated total development and impact fees for a typical multi-unit residential project with 20 units, assuming it is consistent with existing City policies and regulations range from $525,258 to $544,417.

Both estimates are illustrative in nature and actual costs are contingent upon unique circumstances of individual development project applications. Considering the cost of land in Scotts Valley, and the International Code Council (ICC) estimates for cost of labor and materials, the combined costs of permits and fees range from approximately 10.2 percent to 11.6 percent of the direct cost of development for a single-unit residential project and 8.8 percent to 9.1 percent for a multi-unit residential project. Direct costs do not include, landscaping, connection fees, on/off-site improvements, shell construction or amenities, therefore the percentage of development and impact fees charged by the City may be smaller if all direct and indirect costs are included.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
C - 4 2 | A P P E N D I X C

11.On-/Off-Site Improvements
Site improvements in the City consist of those typically associated with development for on-site improvements (street frontage improvements, curbs, gutters, sewer/water, and sidewalks), and off-site improvements caused by project impacts (drainage, parks, traffic, schools, and sewer/water). Because residential development cannot take place without the addition of adequate infrastructure, site improvement requirements are considered a regular component of development of housing within the City and may also influence the sale or rental price of housing. Majority of cost associated with on and off-site improvements is undertaken by the City and recovered in the City’s development and impact fees.

For single-family residential development on vacant land, examples of typical on-site improvements might include stormwater detention facilities (required by the Clean Water Act), roads, sidewalks, perimeter walls, fire hydrants, emergency access drives, and recreational trails. Multifamily developments may also include common open space and recreation areas, as well as lockable storage areas.

Typical off-site improvements for both single-family and multi-family developments might include: new curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, recreational trail facilities, road improvements and traffic control needed to serve the development, street trees, and landscaping. Utilities may need to be updated or installed to serve the development, including water mains, sewer mains, stormwater pollution prevention measures, and undergrounding of electric utilities.

Infill residential projects may be required to install any of the improvements listed above, depending on site-specific circumstances and neighborhood needs.

Scotts Valley has standard improvements required for subdivision that can be found in the City’s Municipal Code. General improvements include the following:
 Improvement requirements on subdivisions will generally be specified as conditions of approval of the tentative map. The criteria for the design of the improvements shall be those that are adopted from time to time by the City Council.  Streets and highways shall intersect one another at angles as near to a right angle as is practical in each specific case, and no intersections shall be at angles of less than thirty degrees.
 Streets intersecting at an angle other than ninety degrees may require the use of setback lines, special rounding of corners, traffic circle of other device to assure desirable results as to traffic movement, visibility, and safety.  If the centerlines of two streets, intercepting the same street from opposite directions are offset from each other, said offset shall be a minimum distance of two DRAFT
hundred feet measured along the centerline of the street intercepted.

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X C | C - 4 3
 If the improvements specified for a subdivision for which a final map is required have not been completed prior to filing the final map, the subdivider shall, concurrent with the acceptance of the final map, enter into an agreement with the council agreeing to have the work completed within a specified time. Standard agreement forms are available upon demand from the city engineer.

Specific design standards for streets can be found in Master Plans and Specific Plans on the City’s website.

On- and off-site improvements are consistent with requirements of other cities in the region.

While these improvements may influence the cost of development, they are not considered a constraint to the development of housing in Scotts Valley.

12.Building Codes and Code Compliance
The City has adopted the 2022 California Building Code, including the ancillary information within the tables, attachments, addendums, and footnotes. This would include the California Administrative Code, Building Code, Residential Code, Electrical Code, Mechanical Code, Plumbing Code, Energy Code, Historical Building Code, Fire Code, Existing Building Code, Green Building Standards Code, and California Referenced Standards Code. The adoption California Building Code therefore ensures a consistent development standard that would be promoted throughout the State. The Code’s intent is to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment and to provide safety to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.

I N F R A S T R U C T U R E C O N S T R A I N T S
Another factor that could constrain new residential construction is the requirement and cost to provide adequate infrastructure (major and local streets; water and sewer lines; and street lighting) needed to serve new residential development. In most cases, where new infrastructure is required, it is funded by the developer and then dedicated to the City, which is then responsible for its maintenance. Because the cost of these facilities is generally borne by developers, it increases the cost of new construction, with much of that increased cost often “passed on” in as part of home rental or sales rates.

1. Dry Utilities
Dry utilities include electric, telephone, TV, internet, and gas service in a community. The various utility providers are responsible for providing these necessary resources to new housing units.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
C - 4 4 | A P P E N D I X C
Electrical
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) is responsible for providing service to all existing and future development in Scotts Valley. Electrical infrastructure is located aboveground on utility poles as well as belowground. PG&E continues to provide energy to customers through a series of methods including oil and natural gas, renewable energy resources and alternative diverse supplies. The power mix delivered to customers includes the following greenhouse gas-free technologies:
 Non-emitting nuclear generation (43 percent)
 Large hydroelectric facilities (10 percent)
 Eligible renewable resources, such as wind, geothermal, biomass, solar and small hydro (31 percent)
 Natural gas (16 percent)
Natural Gas
PG&E also provides natural gas services for Scotts Valley. Natural gas pipelines are located underground. As a public utility, PG&E is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) which regulates natural gas rates and natural gas services, including in state transportation over the utilities’ transmission and distribution pipelines system, storage, procurement, metering, and billing. PG&E is responsible for providing service to residential, industrial, and commercial customers in Scotts Valley.

2. Water Supply
Water is provided by the Scotts Valley Water District and the San Lorenzo Valley Water District (SLVWD). The Scotts Valley Water District serves a population of approximately 10,700 within a service area of six square miles, including a portion of unincorporated land to the north of the City. The water service generally follows the boundary of the City with the exceptions of Mt.

Hermon Road, Pasatiempo Pines and Manana Woods subdivisions, Valley Gardens Golf Course, and Vista Del Lago and Spring Lakes Mobile Home Parks. The District is responsible for providing a safe and reliable source of water to Scotts Valley households. The District serves an average demand of almost 370 million gallons of water a year. The following provides general information on water throughout the City; however, more in depth details are available in the Conservation Element.

The San Lorenzo Valley Water District (SLVWD) also supplies water in the San Lorenzo Valley, including Scotts Valley. SLVWD supplies water service to approximately 500 customers in the Pasatiempo Pines and Manana Woods area of Scotts Valley from three wells located near the Santa Cruz Probation Center. Within the Scotts Valley portion of the SLVWD there are three major facilities with a combined storage capacity of 390,000 gallons, and approximately 4.5- mile transmission and distribution system.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X C | C - 4 5
Scotts Valley Water Source
The City receives its water supply from groundwater. The District’s groundwater is stored in Santa Margarita Groundwater Basin, which is comprised of the Santa Margarita Sandstone, Monterey Shale, Lompico and Butano formations. Rainfall is the main source of refilling the basin. The City’s main supply of drinking water is supplied primarily through groundwater collected through local rainfall. The Santa Margarita Groundwater Basin (SMGB) is the primary source of overall water supply for Scotts Valley and covers over 30 square miles in the Santa Cruz mountains.

Water Maintenance and Repair
The Scotts Valley Water District operates, maintains, and disinfects the water supply. The water distribution system includes wells that vary from 350 feet to 1,750 feet deep. Pumped water is filtered through a pressurized system of sand, gravel, and anthracite to remove iron, manganese, and hydrogen sulfide from the water. Chemicals are introduced before and after filtration to oxidize the iron and disinfect the water.

Water Production
Groundwater collected from local rainfall supplies the City’s drinking water. There are three water treatment plants that serve the Water District: Orchard Run Water Treatment with a capacity of 1.08 million gallons per day, El Pueblo Water Treatment Plant with a capacity of 547,000 gallons per day, and Well 10 with a capacity of 432,000 gallons per day.

Water Quality
The Water District is responsible for providing residents with reliable, safe, clean, and potable and domestic water supply. The Water District is required to test the quality of the water it serves in order to guard the health of our customers and the general public. Federal, state and local agencies all have a role to play in setting water quality standards. Water quality samples results are compiled in a monthly report and forwarded to the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water.

Water Demand
In 2020, the Water District provided service to approximately 4,330 connections. Residential customers represent 80 percent of the District’s customer base and consume approximately 67 percent of the potable water produced annually by the Department. The Department currently has a total of six production wells with a maximum capacity of 1,400 gallons per minute.

Approximately 1,100-to-1,200-acre feet per year (AFY) of potable water is delivered to customers.

Wastewater
The Scotts Valley Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) regularly maintains and improves the City’s public sanitary sewer system. The WRF consistently meets the steadily increasing demand for recycled water to irrigate local parks, schools, residences, landscape medians, and businesses.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
C - 4 6 | A P P E N D I X C
Due to the increased use of recycled water, the WRF has been able to decrease the amount of treated effluent that is discharged to Monterey Bay during dry weather periods. According to WRF, in 2021, the total recycle water produced in the City’s wastewater recycle filter plant was

64.13 million gallons. The City of Scotts Valley owns and operates seven lift stations at various locations throughout the City. The City’s sanitary sewer collection system is made up of approximately 40 mile of pipeline.

3. Fire and Emergency Services
The Scotts Valley Fire District includes two fire stations to serve nearly 20,000 residents within a 24 square mile boundary. The District has 28 full-time employees, one part-time employee, and seven paid-call firefighters which provide a variety of services which include fire suppression, emergency medical services, administration, technical rescue, hazardous materials mitigation, public education, fire investigation, and fire prevention. Daily emergency response consists of 7 firefighters and one Battalion Chief. Additionally, the Fire District has Mutual Aid Agreements with neighboring fire suppression organizations to further strengthen the emergency services available to residents in case of emergency.

The Fire District provides the following emergency services:
 Structure Fire Suppression
 Wildland Fire Suppression
 Emergency Medical Services
 Hazardous Materials Incident
Response
 Disaster Response and Education
Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
The Scotts Valley Fire District is responsible for keeping up with emergency medical mandates, equipment, and program development for both advanced and basic life support education and training. Every firefighter in the district has some level of EMS training which requires recertification and continued education. Through cooperative agreements within the Santa Cruz County EMS system, the District can also provide mutual EMS aid for large scale incidents within the County.

4. Police Services
The Scotts Valley Police Department (SVPD) acts as the City’s enforcement agency to provide general law enforcement. The SVPD has one Chief of Police, two captains, four sergeants, ten officers, seven dispatchers, and one administrative secretary and is organized into two divisions, the Operations Division and the Administrative Services Division. The Operations Division consists of the Patrol Unit, Explorer Unit, Reserve Unit, Traffic Unit, SWAT- Special Weapons and Tactics, and the K9 Unit. The Administrative Services Division consists of Emergency Dispatch, Records, Investigations and Citizen Volunteers.

DRAFT

The City of Scotts Valley provides a variety of
Housing Resources and services to assist the
community in accessing housing which meets their
needs and income levels. This Appendix provides a
summary of those resources and services.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
D - 2 | A P P E N D I X D

R E S O U R C E S F O R S P E C I A L N E E D S G R O U P S

1. Seniors
Seniors (persons 65 years of age and older) typically prefer to stay in their own homes as long as possible. If family members are nearby, they can also assist with basic care needs, enabling seniors to remain in their homes longer. However, this is not always possible. As such, the City provides information online about the Senior Center and its services for residents. The Senior Center’s purpose is to provide a social network with educational, recreational, and craft activities for Scotts Valley senior residents.

Scotts Valley Senior Life Association (SVSLA) is a local non-profit organization established to provide education and health support to senior residents. Examples of SVSLA’s projects and programs include a new performing arts center and Senior Life Online workshops that include guest speaks, such as artists, council members, and Fire District staff.

The following resources are provided County-wide and available to Scotts Valley seniors:
 Senior Network Services: Non-profit agency providing senior citizens and persons with disabilities with information, guidance, and assistance in coordinating existing resources.
 Adult and Long-Term Care Division (ALTC): Managed by the County of Santa Cruz Human Services Department, ALTC provides case work services and resource programs that offer community service and care options. Adult Protective Services provides intervention services to protect elderly or dependent adults from abuse, neglect, or exploitation. Additionally, ALTC provides In-Home Supportive Services (HSS) to support safe independent living for low-income elderly adults and disabled persons of all ages.  Meals on Wheels: Meals on Wheels for Santa Cruz County provides meals at five dining sites through Santa Cruz County as well as home delivered meal for older adults over 60 who struggle to meet their own nutritional needs. Meals are delivered once a week, frozen and ready to re-heat in order to accommodate varying meal schedules. The Scotts Valley dining site is located at the Scotts Valley Senior Center on Wednesdays at 11:30am.
 Senior Citizens Legal Services (SCLS): SCLS provides free legal services to elderly residents to defend the rights of the elderly to quality housing, government benefits, and protection from exploitation and discrimination.
 Advocacy, Inc.: Independent non-profit agency that manages two main programs:

Patients’ Rights Advocates and Long-Term Care Ombudsman. The Patients’ Rights Advocate Program is a state mandated program charged with rights protection and advocacy for all mental health consumers residing in Santa Cruz County, and to assist recipients of mental health services to exercise their human and civil rights. Patients’ DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X D | D - 3
Rights Advocates represent a client's expressed desire as defined by the client as long it’s within the bounds of the law and achievable within the Advocate’s resources.

Advocates do not determine what is most appropriate for the client, or what may be in the client’s best interest. Rather, Advocates advise clients about their options, and the implications of those options, and assist the client to make an informed choice.  Scotts Valley Senior Life Association (SVSLA): A non-profit organization established to provide education and support relating to health and welfare of senior citizens living in Scotts Valley. They seek to enhance and add enjoyment to lives of seniors in the community, provide educational opportunities with a focus on healthy living habits, and provide access to facilities that help seniors create their own healthy and fulfilling lives.

2. Persons with Disabilities
Access Santa Cruz County lists social services for persons with disabilities in the County of Santa Cruz on its website. The following are social services available to Scotts Valley residents with disabilities:
 Advocacy Inc.: Free services to protect patients’ rights and free advocacy services for residents of nursing homes and residential care facilities. The Ombudsman Program is charged with advocating for seniors and disabled individuals living in residential care facilities for the elderly and skilled nursing facilities.  Hospice of Santa Cruz County: Non-profit community-based health project that provides health care to individuals of all ages facing the advanced stages of any lifethreatening illness.  San Andreas Regional Center: A non-profit that serves individuals with developmental disabilities and their families who reside within Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz Counties. The County of Santa Cruz Human Resources Agency coordinates federal, state, and county government funding for programs and services for disabled populations in the City of Scotts Valley.
 The Central Coast Center for Independent Living (CCCIL): A community-based, crossdisability, non-profit organization that is designed and operate with people with disabilities. The organization provides a variety of programs from peer support, housing assistance, and independent living skill training.

3. Persons Experiencing Homelessness
Given its location, Scotts Valley sees much lower occurrences of homelessness than other jurisdictions in Santa Cruz County. However, the City still takes part in a countywide collaboration with Santa Cruz County, its cities, and nonprofit organizations to prevent and end homelessness through the provision of housing and services to persons experiencing and those at immediate risk of homelessness. A wide range of homeless assistance programs are implemented to form a coordinated, countywide Continuum of Care (CoC) system, which works DRAFT

H O U S I N G
D - 4 | A P P E N D I X D
to resolve the crisis of homelessness, to house people as quickly as possible, and meet service needs along the way.

The City also participates in the Housing for Health Partnership (H4HP), which serves as the federally designated CoC for Santa Cruz County. HUD provides over $4 million per year to the Santa Cruz County community through the work of the H4HP.

F I N A N C I A L R E S O U R C E S
Providing an adequate supply of decent and affordable housing requires funding from various sources, the City has access to the following funding sources.

1. Section 8 Housing Vouchers
The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program is a Federal government program to assist very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled with rent subsidy payments in privately owned rental housing units. Section 8 participants are able to choose any housing that meets the requirements of the program and are not limited to units located within subsidized housing projects. They typically pay 30 to 40 percent of their income for rent and utilities. The Santa Cruz Housing Authority administers and manages the Section 8 Housing Choice vouchers within Scotts Valley. The Santa Cruz Housing Authority website lists a comprehensive list of affordable rental units in Santa Cruz County.

2. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program provides annual grants on a formula basis to cities to develop viable urban communities by providing a suitable living environment and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-income persons (up to 80 percent AMI).

CDBG funds can be used for a wide array of activities, including:
 Housing rehabilitation;
 Lead-based paint screening and abatement;
 Acquisition of buildings and land;
 Construction or rehabilitation of public facilities and infrastructure, and  Public services for low-income households and those with special needs.

Each year, the City receives CDBG funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The City and Scotts Valley Chamber of Commerce are responsible for administering these funds. The funds must be used to develop viable communities by promoting integrated approaches that provide items such as decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expand economic opportunities for low- and moderate-income persons.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X D | D - 5

3. Home Investment Partnership Program
The HOME program provides federal funds for the development and rehabilitation of affordable rental and ownership housing for households with incomes not exceeding 80 percent of area median income. The program gives local governments the flexibility to fund a wide range of affordable housing activities through housing partnerships with private industry and non-profit organizations. HOME funds can be used for activities that promote affordable rental housing and homeownership for low-income households.

4. Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) Grant
The City applied for and received a total of $65,000 of LEAP grant funding from HCD. LEAP Grants provide funding opportunities for jurisdictions to update their planning documents and implement process improvements that will facilitate or accelerate housing productions to meet the 6th Cycle RHNA.

5. SB 2 Grant
To supplement the cost of the City’s effort to update the streamlining process of affordable housing, the City has been awarded an SB 2 Planning Grant Program grant from HCD. The SB 2 program includes improvements to expedite local planning processes. In 2019, the City received $160,000 from the SB 2 Grant.

6. Affordable Housing Programs
The City of Scotts Valley provides the following affordable housing programs: First Time Homebuyer/Silent Second Mortgage, Security Deposit, Mortgage Credit Certificates, and Density Bonus. HouseKeys serves as the City’s Affordable Housing Administrator for the City’s Below Market Rate Housing Program.

The purpose of the affordable housing programs is to:
 Enhance the public welfare and assure that further housing development contributes to the attainment of the City’s housing goals as described in the Housing Element of the General Plan, by creating, preserving, maintaining, and protecting housing affordable for households of very low-, low- and moderate-income;
 Assure that the remaining developable land in the City’s planning area is utilized in a manner consistent with the City’s housing policies and needs;  Increase the number of affordable housing units in Scotts Valley in recognition of the insufficient number of existing affordable housing units in relation to the community’s current and future needs; and
 Assure that new affordable housing units that are constructed are distributed throughout the City as part of mixed-income developments in order to obtain the DRAFT

H O U S I N G
D - 6 | A P P E N D I X D
benefits that flow from economically diverse communities, increase access to opportunity, and affirmatively further fair housing.

O P P O R T U N I T I E S F O R E N E R G Y C O N S E R V A T I O N

1. Energy Use and Providers
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and Central Cost Community Energy (CCCE) provide electricity and natural gas services for the City. Natural gas is a “fossil fuel” and is a nonrenewable resource. The natural gas transmission pipelines within the City are owned and operated by PG&E. Pacific Gas and Electric Company has the capacity and resources to deliver gas except in certain situations that are noted in state law. As development occurs, PG&E will continue to extend its service to accommodate development and supply the necessary gas lines. Electricity is provided on an as-needed basis to customers within existing structures in the City. Every year CCCE expands and improves on existing facilities according to demand.

PG&E offers programs to promote the efficient energy use and assist lower-income customers.

This includes participation in the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program and Energy Savings Assistance Program to help homeowners and renters conserve energy and control costs. Eligible customers receive no-cost weatherization, including attic insulation, energy efficient refrigerators, energy-efficient furnaces, weather stripping, caulking, low-flow showerheads, water heater blankets, and door and building envelope repairs which reduce air infiltration.

2. Energy Conservation
The primary uses of energy in urban areas are for transportation lighting, water heating, and space heating and cooling. The high cost of energy demands that efforts be taken to reduce or minimize the overall level of urban energy consumption. Energy conservation is important in preserving non-renewable fuels to ensure that these resources are available for use by future generations. There are also a number of benefits associated with energy conservation including improved air quality and lower energy costs.

Energy conservation strategies can help reduce consumptions of energy which would reduce monthly costs to homeowners and renters. Examples of energy conservation strategies include weatherization such as installation of more efficient appliances, and solar energy systems.

Buildings can also be designed to incorporate energy conservation strategies such as cooling materials and building orientation. The City encourages energy conservation strategies in the zoning code (17.36.020).

DRAFT

AB 686 established new requirements for all
California jurisdictions to ensure that local laws,
programs, and activities Affirmatively Further Fair
Housing (AFFH). Under State law, affirmatively
furthering fair housing means “taking meaningful
actions, in addition to combatting discrimination,
that overcome patterns of segregation and foster
inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict
access to opportunity based on protected
characteristics.” These characteristics can include,
but are not limited to, race, religion, sex, marital
status, ancestry, national origin, color, familiar
DRAFT
status, or disability.

H O U S I N G
E - 2 | A P P E N D I X E

A S S E S S M E N T O F F A I R H O U S I N G I S S U E S

1. TCAC/HCD Opportunity Scores
The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) developed the TCAC Opportunity Maps to provide research and evidence-based policy recommendations to further HCD’s fair housing goals.

These goals include: (1) avoiding further segregation and concentration of poverty and (2) encouraging access to opportunity through land use policy and affordable housing, program design, and implementation. Overall, opportunity maps are intended to display which areas, according to research, offer low-income children and adults the best chance at economic advancement, high educational attainment, and good physical and mental health. The opportunity maps also help inform the TCAC to distribute funding more equitably to affordable housing in areas with the highest opportunity through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program.

Figure E-1 shows the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Scores for the City and surrounding neighborhoods. The map uses a regional index score to determine categorization of resource levels, as detailed below:
 Highest Resource – Top 20 percent highest-scoring census tracts in the region.

Residents have the best outcomes in terms of health, economic attainment, and educational attainment.
 High Resource – Top 40 percent highest-scoring census tracts in the region.

Residents have access to highly positive outcomes in terms of health, economic attainment, and educational attainment.
 Moderate Resource – Top 30 percent of remaining census tracts in the region.

Residents have access to somewhat positive outcomes in terms of health, economic attainment, and educational attainment, or a mix of high and low outcomes in certain areas.
 Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing) – Moderate resource-scoring census tracts that are nearing High Resource status and are experiencing rapid increase in certain areas such as housing prices, median income, proximity, etc.  Low Resource – Bottom 30 percent of remaining census tracts in the region.

Residents may have a lack of access to positive environmental, economic, and educational opportunities that results in negative outcomes or perpetuated outcomes.

Figure E-1 shows the City is categorized as High to Highest Resource. This is generally consistent with the region, aside from the mostly undeveloped region to the west that shows with High Resource Scores.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X E | E - 3
Figure E-1: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer DRAFT

H O U S I N G
E - 4 | A P P E N D I X E

2. Patterns of Integration and Segregation
To inform priorities, polices, and actions, this section contains an analysis of integration and segregation, including patterns and trends, relating to people with protected characteristics.

Segregation is defined as the separation or isolation of a race/ethnic group, national origin group, individuals with disabilities, or other social group by enforced or voluntary residence in a restricted area, by barriers to social connection or dealings between persons or groups, by separate educational facilities, or by other discriminatory means.

It is important to note that segregation is a complex topic, difficult to generalize, and is influenced by many factors. Individual choices can be a cause of segregation, with some residents choosing to live among people of their own race or ethnic group. For instance, recent immigrants may depend on nearby relatives, friends, and ethnic institutions to help them adjust to a new country. Alternatively, when White residents leave neighborhoods that become more diverse, those neighborhoods can become segregated. Other factors, including housing market dynamics, availability of lending to different ethnic groups, availability of affordable housing, and discrimination can also cause residential segregation.

Race and Ethnicity

NEIGHBORHOOD SEGREGATION AND DIVERSITY
As discussed in the Housing Needs Assessment (Table B-3), the City is made up of a majority White population at about 76 percent, followed by a smaller Hispanic or Latino population at

10.8 percent.

Figure E-2 illustrates displacement risk for Scotts Valley and the surrounding communities. As shown, all of Scotts Valley reports low displacement risk. Comparatively, Santa Cruz has two areas of higher risk. A number of displacement factors are detailed in Table E-1 for the City’s three census tracts (the census tracts cover area outside of the City’s limits). Scotts Valley is generally made up of high median incomes. Census tract 06087120800, south of Mount Hermon Road, has the highest percent of low-income households at 27.6 percent but it also has the highest median rent and lowest percent of renter-occupied households. Census 06087120900, west of Green Hills Road and north of Mount Hermon Road, reports the largest percent of persons who speak English less than very well and the largest percent of renter occupied-households.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X E | E - 5
Table E-1: Neighborhood Segregation Household Data
Census Tracts Median
Income
Low-Income
Households
Speak
English Less
than Very
Well
Renter
Occupied Hot Market Median Rent
06087120900 $107,500 22.9% 3.5% 28.4% Yes $1,905
06087121200 $159,643 18.9% 0.4% 20.3% Yes $1,765
06087120800 $124,000 27.6% 0.5% 19.7% No $2,528
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer; 2019 ACS data Figures E-3a and E-3b map diversity and neighborhood segregation. Figure E-3a illustrates the diversification of the City between 2010 and 2018. Over the eight-year period, the City experienced an increase in diversity in the Skypark area of the City with the Diversity Index score increasing from “Lower Diversity” to a score of 40-55. Figure E-3b maps neighborhood segregation by race and ethnicity. The City has one census tract that reports “Latinx-White” populations and two remaining census tracts that report “Mostly White.” The first census tract is located west of Route 17 and north of Mount Hermon Road. The second census tract is located east of Route 17 and the third census tract is located south of Mount Hermon Road.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
E - 6 | A P P E N D I X E
Figure E-2: Displacement Risk
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X E | E - 7
Figure E-3a: Diversity Index (2010-2018)
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 2010
2018
DRAFT

H O U S I N G
E - 8 | A P P E N D I X E
Figure E-3b: Neighborhood Segregation
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X E | E - 9

RACIALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF POVERTY (R/ECAP)
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) are geographic areas with significant concentrations of poverty and minority populations. HUD developed a census-tract based definition of R/ECAP that relies on a racial and ethnic concentration threshold and a poverty test. The threshold states that an area with a non-White population of 50% or more would be identified as a R/ECAP; the poverty test defines areas of extreme poverty as areas where 40% or more of the population live below the federal poverty line or where the poverty rate is three times the average poverty rate for the metropolitan area (whichever is lower).

Thus, an area that meets either the racial or ethnic concentration and the poverty test would be classified as a R/ECAP. There are no R/ECAPs in the City, nor in the surrounding communities. The closest R/ECAPs are located within the City of San Jose.

RACIALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF AFFLUENCE (RCAA)
R/ECAPs are a long-standing, contributing factor to segregation. However, patterns of segregation in the United States show that of all racial groups, the White population is the most separated from other racial groups. Research also identifies segregation of affluence to be greater than the segregation of poverty. Racial and economic segregation can have significant effects on respective communities, including but not limited to, socioeconomic disparities, educational experiences and benefits, exposure to environmental conditions and crime, and access to public goods and services.

Data used in the analysis of Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) comes from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey and measured at the census tract level. HCD has created an RCAA metric to reflect California's relative diversity and regional conditions, and to aid local jurisdictions in their analysis pursuant to AB 686 and AB 1304. HCD's RCAA metric is first calculated using a Location Quotient (LQ) for each census tract that represents the percentage of total White population (White Alone, Not Hispanic or Latino) per census tract compared to the average percentage of total White population for all census tracts in a given Council of Governments (COG). For example, a census tract with an LQ of 1.5 has a percentage of total White population that is 1.5 times higher than the average percentage of total White population in the given COG region. To determine RCAAs, census tracts with an LQ of more than

1.25 and a median income 1.5 times higher than the COG Area Median Income (AMI), or 1.5 times the State AMI, whichever is lower, are assigned a numeric score of 1. A score of 1 indicates that a census tract is an RCAA. Census tracts that did not meet this criterion are assigned a score of 0.

The nationwide RCAA analysis identifies the following:
 RCAA tracts have more than twice the median household income of the average tract in their metro area.
 Poverty rates in RCAAs are significantly lower and are, on average, about 20 percent DRAFT
of a typical tract.

H O U S I N G
E - 1 0 | A P P E N D I X E
 RCAAs tracts are more income homogenous than R/ECAPs.  The average RCAA is about 57 percent affluent, whereas the average R/ECAP had a poverty rate of 48 percent.

The typical RCAA tract has a rate of affluence 3.2 times that of a typical tract, whereas R/ECAPs on average had a poverty rate 3.2 times of that of a typical tract. Overall, RCAAs may represent a public policy issue to the extent that they have been created and maintained through exclusionary and discriminatory land use and development practices.

Table E-2 below displays the RCAA data for the City. The data shows these RCAAs have significantly higher percentage of white residents and median household incomes.

Table E-2: Median Household Income and White Population of RCAAs Census Tract Percent White Population Median Income
06087121200 85.28% $112,877
06087120900 78.12% $105,020
06087120800 85.21% $107,014
Source: (U.S. Census Bureau) from HCD AFFH Data Viewer, Accessed December 6, 2022.

Table E-3: Median Household Income by Race and Geography Race Scotts Valley Santa Cruz County
Median Income Population Median Income Population
White (Not Hispanic
or Latino) $107,971 88.8% $100,259 56.9%
All Households $108,289 -- $89,986 --
Notes: Median income in the past 12 months (in 2019 inflation-adjusted dollars) Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X E | E - 1 1
Figure E-4: Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer DRAFT

H O U S I N G
E - 1 2 | A P P E N D I X E

HATE CRIMES
Hate crimes are violent acts against people, property, or organizations because of the group to which they belong or identify. The Federal Fair Housing Act makes it illegal to threaten, harass, intimidate, or act violently toward a person who has exercised their right to free housing choice.

As shown in Table E-4, between 2015 and 2021, a total of two hate crimes were reported in Scotts Valley. The hate crimes reported were based on Race/Ethnicity/Ancestry and Sexual Orientation.

Table E-4: FBI Hate Crimes by Bias (2015-2021)
Year
Race/
Ethnicity/
Ancestry
Religion Sexual
Orientation Disability Gender Identity
Multiple
Bias Total
2015 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2018 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2021 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime Data Explorer, 2015-2021.

Income
Household income level plays a significant role in housing choice. The City has experienced a relatively small increase in median income over the past decade. Census data reports a 2.1 percent increase in median income between 2010 and 2020, with the largest growth occurring in the last five years. In comparison, the County experienced a 37.9 percent increase, and the State experienced a 29.2 percent increase from 2010 to 2020 in median income.

Table E-5: Median Income by Year and Geography
Median Income
by Year City of Scotts Valley Santa Cruz County California 2020 $103,783 $89,986 $78,672
2015 $101,475 $67,256 $61,818
2010 $101,673 $65,253 $60,883
Percent Change 2.1% 37.9% 29.2%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2010, 2015, 2020.

Regarding household income, the City had a higher median household income than the County and the State from 2010 to 2020. As Table E-6 shows, a large portion of the City’s households are higher earning; in total, over 51 percent of households in Scotts Valley earn more than the State median-income. Additionally, 23 percent of households in Scotts Valley earn $200,000 or more annually. Just under 22 percent of the City residents earn less than $50,000 annually, compared to 28.6 percent and 32.6 percent for the County and State, respectively.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X E | E - 1 3
Table E-6: Households by Median Income by Geography
Households Income City of Scotts Valley Santa Cruz County California Less than $10,000 5.6% 4.4% 4.7%
$10,000-$14,999 0.8% 3.6% 3.9%
$15,000-$24,999 4.0% 6.3% 6.9%
$25,000-$34,999 5.9% 5.5% 7.1%
$35,000-$49,999 5.7% 8.8% 10.0%
$50,000-$74,999 11.2% 12.8% 15.3%
$75,000-$99,999 15.6% 12.9% 12.3%
$100,000-$149,999 12.9% 16.9% 17.1%
$150,000-$199,999 15.2% 12.1% 9.4%
$200,000 or More 23.0% 16.8% 13.3%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2020.

To calculate projected housing needs for extremely low-income (ELI) households, the City assumes 50 percent of its very low-income RHNA are ELI households. As the City was allocated 392 very low-income units, approximately 192 units are projected for ELI households. Some ELI households could face other housing challenges depending on the age of the householder, tenure status, or household characteristics (mental or physical disabilities, household size, language proficiency, etc.) that could exacerbate housing problems.

Figure E-5 shows the median income change from 2014 to 2019 for Scotts Valley and the surrounding region. In 2014, all block groups in the City had a median income range greater than $125,000. Median income has diversified in 2019 through Block Groups 1 and 3. Block Group 1/Census Tract 12081, located west of Whispering Pines Drive and south of Mount Hermon Road, had a median income of less than $125,000, while Block Group 3/Census Tract 1209, located west of Scotts Valley Drive, had a median income of less than $87,100. 1 Block groups are a subdivision of a census tract – it is the smallest geographic unit for which the Census Bureau tabulates sample data. Census tracts are a small subdivision of a county delineated by a local committee of census data users for the purpose of presenting data.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
E - 1 4 | A P P E N D I X E
Figure E-5: Median Income (2014-2019)
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 2014
2019
DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X E | E - 1 5
Disability
In 1988, Congress added protections against housing discrimination for persons with disabilities through the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), which protects against intentional discrimination and unjustified policies and practices with disproportionate effects. The FHA also includes the following unique provisions to persons with disabilities: (1) prohibits the denial of requests for reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities, if necessary, to afford an individual equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; and (2) prohibits the denial of reasonable modification requests. With regards to fair housing, persons with disabilities have special housing needs because of the lack of accessible and affordable housing, and the higher health costs associated with their disability. In addition, many may be on fixed incomes that further limit their housing options.

Table E-6 displays the data for persons with disabilities in the City, County, and State. Overall, about 10.6 percent of the California population reported having at least one disability. In the City, about 12.6 percent of persons reported at least one disability. The City reported higher than the County at 11.5 percent. Of the 12.6 percent of Scotts Valley residents who reported a disability, the most common disabilities were ambulatory difficulties and independent living, which could be tied with the City’s senior population. Ease of reasonable accommodation procedures and opportunity for accessible housing can provide increased housing security for the population with disabilities.

Table E-6: Population by Disability Type, Compared by Geography, 2020 Disability City of Scotts Valley Santa Cruz County California Total with a Disability 12.6% 11.5% 10.6%
Hearing Difficulty 3.5% 3.4% 2.9%
Vision Difficulty 4.9% 2.4% 2.0%
Cognitive Difficulty 3.4% 4.9% 4.3%
Ambulatory Difficulty 6.3% 5.0% 5.8%
Self-care Difficulty 3.5% 2.3% 2.6%
Independent Living 6.2% 5.0% 5.5%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2020.

The data in Figure E-6 below displays data for disability status in Scotts Valley by census tract.

The data shows that in the City, all three of the census tracts report 10 to 20 percent of the population to have at least one disability. This is consistent with the surrounding region.

Although there is no significant concentration of the population to have at least one disability, it is the policy and practice of the City to take all reasonable steps to ensure its services, programs and activities are accessible to all members of the public including persons with disabilities. Approximately 45.1 percent of jobs are located within a half-mile of transit.

Appendix A and Appendix D provide detailed description of services and resources provided for persons with disabilities.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
E - 1 6 | A P P E N D I X E
Figure E-6: Population with a Disability
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X E | E - 1 7
Familial Status
Under the FHA, housing providers (e.g., landlords, property managers, real estate agents, or property owners) may not discriminate because of familial status. Familial status refers to the presence of at least one child under 18 years old, pregnant persons, or any person in the process of securing legal custody of a minor child (including adoptive or foster parents).

Examples of familial status discrimination include refusing to rent to families with children, evicting families once a child joins the family (through birth, adoption, or custody), enforcing overly restrictive rules regarding children’s use of common areas, requiring families with children to live on specific floors, buildings, or areas, charging additional rent, security deposit, or fees because a household has children, advertising a preference for households without children, and lying about unit availability.

Families with children often have special housing needs due to lower per capita income, the need for affordable childcare, the need for affordable housing, or the need for larger units with three or more bedrooms. Single parent households are also protected by fair housing law. Of particular consideration are female-headed households, who may experience greater housing affordability challenges due to typically lower household incomes compared to two-parent households. Often, sex and familial status intersect to compound the discrimination faced by single mothers.

Table E-7 displays household type for the State, County, and City. Overall, Scotts Valley has the largest percentage of married-couple households (55.4 percent) in comparison to the County and State. The City also has the largest percentage (49.2 percent) of households with at least one person over the age of 60. Different household types have varying housing needs – senior households may benefit from reasonable accommodation procedures and being located near medical facilities, single-parent households may benefit from affordable housing options due to limited income, and family households may benefit from larger housing units located near community areas and schools.

Table E-7: Population by Familial Status by Geography
Familial Status City of Scotts Valley Santa Cruz County California Total Households 4,799 96,275 13,103,114
Married-Couple Family
Households 55.4% 48.1% 49.7%
With Children 17.5% 17.8% 17.8%
Non-Family Households 32.5% 36.8% 31.4%
Households with one or more
people 60 years+ 49.2% 44.3% 39.9%
Female Headed Households, No
Spouse Present with Children 5.5% 10.1% 12.9%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2020.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
E - 1 8 | A P P E N D I X E

3. Access to Opportunities
Access to opportunity is a concept to approximate the link between place-based characteristics (e.g., education, employment, safety, and the environment) and critical life outcomes (e.g., health, wealth, and life expectancy). Ensuring access to opportunity means both improving the quality of life for residents of low-income communities, as well as supporting residents’ mobility and access to ‘high resource’ neighborhoods.

Mobility
Access to public transit is of paramount importance to households affected by low-incomes and rising housing prices, especially because lower income households are often transit dependent.

Public transit should strive to link lower income persons, who are often transit dependent, to major employers where job opportunities exist. Access to employment via public transportation can reduce welfare usage and increase housing mobility, which enables residents to locate housing outside of traditionally low-income neighborhoods.

Transportation opportunities are depicted by two indices: (1) the transit trips index and (2) the low transportation cost index. The transit trips index measures how often low-income families in a neighborhood use public transportation. The index ranges from 0 to 100, with higher values indicating a higher likelihood that residents in a neighborhood utilize public transit. The low transportation cost index measures cost of transportation and proximity to public transportation by neighborhood. It too varies from 0 to 100, and higher scores point to lower transportation costs in that neighborhood.

AllTransit explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. According to the data shown in Table E-8 and Figure E-9, Scotts Valley scored a 4.4 AllTransit performance score, illustrating a low combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible that enable a moderate number of people to take transit to work. In total, 29,207 jobs are accessible within a 30-minute trip from Scotts Valley, and 1.42 percent of commuters use transit. Additionally, AllTransit identified the following transit related statistics for Scotts Valley:
 45.1% of jobs in Scotts Valley are located within a half-mile of transit.  44.8% of low-income households (earning less than $50,000) live within a half-mile of transit.
 1.17% of workers who commute by walking live within a half-mile of transit.  0.34% of workers who commute by bicycle live within a half-mile of transit.

By comparison, Scotts Valley scored lower than neighboring jurisdictions of Watsonville (6.1) and Santa Cruz (7.0). Overall, Scotts Valley has a lower AllTransit score than the Santa Cruz County average (4.4 in Scotts Valley and 4.8 in the County).

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X E | E - 1 9
Table E-8: AllTransit Index
Jurisdiction
AllTransit
Performance
Score
Transit Trips
Per Week
within ½ Mile
Jobs Accessible
within 30-
minute trip
Commuters
Who Use
Transit
Transit Routes
within ½ Mile
Scotts Valley 4.4 1,147 29,207 1.42% 3
Santa Cruz County 4.8 1,269 33,599 2.99% 6
Source: AllTransit, Transit Scores. Accessed November 29, 2022.

Figure E-9: AllTransit Performance Score (2022)
Source: AllTransit Face Sheet, 2022.

Economic and Employment Opportunities
The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps illustrates opportunity levels based on the following five economic factors:
 Poverty – Percent of population with income above 200 percent of federal poverty line.
 Adult Education – Percent of adults with a bachelor's degree or above.  Employment – Percent of adults aged 20-64 who are employed in the civilian labor force or in the armed forces.
 Job Proximity – Number of jobs filled by workers with less than a Bachelor of Arts degree that fall within a given radius (determined by the typical commute distance of low-wage workers in each region) of each census tract population-weighted centroid.
 DRAFTMedian Home Value - Value of owner-occupied units.

H O U S I N G
E - 2 0 | A P P E N D I X E
Figure E-10 shows economic opportunity scores for Scotts Valley and the surrounding region.

Overall, the City has a more positive economic outcome rating of 0.75 to 1 compared to the surrounding region.

When comparing economic opportunity scores to proximity to jobs (Figure E-11), Scotts Valley residents generally live near employment opportunities. Scotts Valley residents that live closer to the City limit line have further proximity to jobs than those who live in the center. However, the economic opportunity score is positive for all census tracts in the City. Overall, Scotts Valley residents have moderate access to positive economic opportunities. Future housing development will add to opportunities for existing and future residents.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X E | E - 2 1
Figure E-10: Economic Opportunity Scores
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer DRAFT

H O U S I N G
E - 2 2 | A P P E N D I X E
Figure E-11: Jobs Proximity Index
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data DRAFT
Viewer

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X E | E - 2 3
Education Opportunities
The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Maps include education data, as illustrated in Figure E-12. This data represents opportunity levels based on the following four factors:
 Math proficiency – Percentage of fourth graders who meet or exceed math proficiency standards.
 Reading proficiency – Percentage of fourth graders who meet or exceed literacy standards.
 High school graduation rates – Percentage of high school cohort that graduated on time.
 Student poverty rate – Percentage of students not receiving free or reduced-price lunch.

Figure E-12 shows educational scores for the City and the surrounding region. As shown, the City scored the highest positive education outcomes. This is consistent with the surrounding region, as the surrounding region scored most positive to second most positive education outcomes. Overall, Scotts Valley provides good opportunities for education achievement and in return Scotts Valley residents show high educational achievements and successes in achieving college degrees. Overall, future housing developments within the City will benefit from access to high levels of resources, bringing additional opportunities for existing and future residents.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
E - 2 4 | A P P E N D I X E
Figure E-12: Education Opportunity Scores
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data DRAFT
Viewer

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X E | E - 2 5
Environmental Health
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) developed a screening methodology to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution, called the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen). In addition to environmental factors (pollutant exposure, groundwater threats, toxic sites, and hazardous materials exposure) and sensitive receptors (seniors, children, persons with asthma, and low birth weight infants), CalEnviroScreen also takes into consideration socioeconomic factors. These factors include educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment. Research has shown a heightened vulnerability of people of certain ethnicities and lower socioeconomic status to environmental pollutants.

The CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Model is made up of a suite of 20 statewide indicators of pollution burden and population characteristics associated with increased vulnerability to pollution’s health effects. The model uses the following analysis and calculation to identify areas of health risk:
 Uses a weighted scoring system to derive average pollution burden and population characteristics scores for each census tract.
 Calculates a final CalEnviroScreen score for a given census tract relative to the other tracts by multiplying the pollution burden and population characteristics components together.
 Measures the relative pollution burdens and vulnerabilities in one census tract compared to others; the score is not a measure of health risk.

Figure E-12 displays mapped results of the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 for the City and surrounding region. The City has low levels of pollution burdens. As shown on Figure E-12, census tract 6087120900 reports a higher pollution burden than the other two census tracts in the City but is still considered a low CalEnviroScreen 4.0 score. In general, new housing opportunities throughout the City would have access to low levels of pollution burdens.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
E - 2 6 | A P P E N D I X E
Figure E-12: CalEnviroScreen 4.0
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data DRAFT
Viewer

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X E | E - 2 7

4. Disproportionate Housing Need and Displacement
The analysis of disproportionate housing needs within Scotts Valley evaluated existing housing need, need of the future housing population, and units within the community at-risk of converting to market-rate.

Disproportionate housing needs refer to disparities in cost burden, overcrowding, substandard housing, and displacement risk for special needs populations in comparison to the rest of the population. Housing needs are assessed by the HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), based on ACS data. Housing problems and severe housing problems include the following elements:

Housing Problems
 Incomplete kitchen facilities
 Incomplete plumbing facilities
 1+ person per room
 Cost burden greater than 30
percent
Severe Housing Problems
 Incomplete kitchen facilities
 Incomplete plumbing facilities
 1.5+ person per room
 Cost burden greater than 50
percent
Overcrowding
Additionally, Table E-9 displays data for overcrowding in the State, County, and City over time.

Overcrowding is defined as between 1.01 and 1.5 persons per room in a household, and severe overcrowding is defined as more than 1.51 persons per room. Overcrowding often occurs when nonfamily members combine incomes to live in one household, such as college students and roommates, it also occurs when there are not enough size appropriate housing options for large or multigenerational families. The City experiences a lower rates of overcrowding In comparison to the County and the State. According to the data, overcrowding occurs more frequently in renter households than in owner households. In Scotts Valley, owner households that are overcrowded represent 0.5 percent of all households, and overcrowded renter households represent 0.2 percent. In Scotts Valley, owner households have seen a slight increase in overall overcrowding while renter households have seen a drop in overcrowding and a slight increase in severe overcrowding since 2010.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
E - 2 8 | A P P E N D I X E
Table E-9: Overcrowding Change Over Time by Geography
Overcrowding and Tenure City of Scotts Valley Santa Cruz County State of California 2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020
Owner Households
Overcrowded
(1.01 to 1.5 persons per room) 0.0% 0.5% 1.5% 1.7% 1.8% 1.7% Severely Overcrowded
(1.51+ persons per room) 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6%
Renter Households
Overcrowded
(1.01 to 1.5 persons per room) 0.8% 0.2% 2.3% 2.5% 3.5% 3.5% Severely Overcrowded
(1.51+ persons per room) 0.0% 0.4% 1.6% 2.3% 2.2% 2.4%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2010 and 2020.

Cost Burden
Housing cost burden, or overpayment, is defined as households paying 30% or more of their gross income on housing expenses, including rent or mortgage payments and utilities. Renters are more likely to overpay for housing costs than homeowners. Housing cost burden is considered a housing need because households that overpay for housing costs may have difficulty affording other necessary expenses, such as childcare, transportation, and medical costs.

Table E-10 and E-11 shows households that experience cost burden by tenure. In Scotts Valley,

37.2 percent of all households experience cost burden. Similar to Santa Cruz County, renters experience higher rates of cost burdens than owners (51.8 percent to 31.4 percent in Scotts Valley).

Table E-10: Households that Experience Cost Burden by Tenure in Scotts Valley Total Number of Households
Cost burden Percentage of Households that
Experience Cost Burden >30% to < 50% > 50%
Owners Only 3,165 625 370 31.4%
Renters Only 1,255 235 415 51.8%
All Households 4,420 860 785 37.2%
Source: HUD, 2015 - 2019
Table E-11: Households that Experience Cost Burden by Tenure in Santa Cruz County Total Number of Households
Cost burden Percentage of Households that
Experience Cost Burden >30% to < 50% > 50%
Owners Only 57,560 9,855 7,660 30.4%
Renters Only 38,255 9,140 11,460 53.8%
All Households 95,820 18,995 19,120 39.8%
Source: HUD, 2015 - 2019
DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X E | E - 2 9
Substandard Housing
Incomplete plumbing or kitchen facilities can be used to measure substandard housing conditions. Substandard housing is defined by the U.S. Census as:
 Housing without hot and cold piped water, a flush toilet and a bathtub or shower; and
 Households with kitchen facilities that lack a sink with piped water, a range or stove or a refrigerator.

Table E-13 below shows substandard housing within Scotts Valley, Santa Cruz County, and the State of California. The City of Scotts Valley has the highest percent of occupied housing units without complete kitchen facilities when compared to the County and State.

Table E-13: Substandard Housing
Jurisdiction Total Occupied Housing
Units
Without Complete Plumbing
Facilities
Without Complete Kitchen
Facilities
Scotts Valley 4,779 0.0% 1.9%
Santa Cruz County 96,275 0.35% 1.0%
California 13,103,114 0.41% 1.2%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2020 The current distribution of the age of homes in Scotts Valley also indicates that a majority of homes in the City were built prior to the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which may result in a lack of accessible homes for those residents experiencing a disability. The City’s older housing stock also reflects a rapidly gaining need to rehabilitate housing to meet minimum livability and quality requirements, which is a barrier to many homeowners and residents in Scotts Valley who have a lower income or a fixed income.

Displacement Risk
Displacement occurs when housing costs or neighboring conditions force current residents out and rents become so high that lower-income people are excluded from moving in. UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project (UDP) states that a census tract is a sensitive community2 if the proportion of very low-income residents was above 20 percent in 2018 and the census tracts meets two of the following criteria: (1) Share of renters above 40 percent in 2018; (2) Share of Non-White population above 50 percent in 2018; (3) Share of very lowincome households (50 percent AMI or below) that are also severely rent burdened households 2 Sensitive communities are vulnerable communities concerned about exacerbated displacement pressures as “sensitive communities” – place that would receive five years for community planning to guide potential up zones towards more equitable outcomes.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
E - 3 0 | A P P E N D I X E
above the county median in 2018; or (4) Nearby areas have been experiencing displacement pressures.

The potential for economic displacement risk can result from a variety of factors, including large-scale development activity, neighborhood reinvestment, infrastructure investments, and changes in local and regional employment opportunities. Economic displacement can be an inadvertent result of public and private investment, where individuals and families may not be able to keep pace with increased property values and market rental rates.

The U.C. Berkeley Urban Displacement Project developed a neighborhood change database to map neighborhood transformations and identify areas vulnerable to gentrification and displacement. This data was developed to assist local decision makers and stakeholders better plan for existing communities and provide additional resources to areas in need or at-risk of displacement and gentrification.

Figure E-13 shows the City has lower displacement risk. Overall, the City is surrounded by areas that are at lower displacement risk. Communities are considered sensitive communities if the neighborhoods with a high proportion of residents are vulnerable to displacement in the case of rising housing costs and market-based displacement pressures present in and/or near the community. Low displacement risk means that the population isn’t vulnerable to increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost.

In addition to displacement and gentrification data, the UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project also analyzes the occurrence of anti-displacement policies, as defined below:
 Just Cause Eviction Ordinance. Just cause eviction statutes are laws that allow tenants to be evicted only for specific reasons. These “just causes” can include a failure to pay rent or violation of the lease terms.
 Rent Stabilization or Rent Control. Rent Control ordinances protect tenants from excessive rent increases, while allowing landlords a reasonable return on their investments. Such ordinances limit rent increase to certain percentages, but State law allows landlords to raise rents to the market rate once the unit becomes vacant.  Rent Review Board and/or Mediation. Rent review boards mediate between tenants and landlords on issues related to rent increases and encourage them to come into voluntary agreement. As mediators, the board normally does not make binding decisions.
 Mobile Home Rent Control. Mobile home rent control places specific rent increase restrictions on the land rented by mobile homeowners, or the mobile homes themselves.
 SRO (Single-Room Occupancy) Preservation. Single room occupancies, also called DRAFT
residential hotels, house one or two people in individual rooms. Tenants typically

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X E | E - 3 1
share bathrooms and/or kitchens. These are often considered a form of permanent residence affordable for low-income individuals. SRO Preservation Ordinances help to preserve or create new SRO units.
 Condominium Conversion Regulations. In addition to state laws regulating the conversion of multi-family rental property into condominiums, many cities have enacted condominium conversion ordinances. These impose procedural restrictions and/or substantive restrictions on the ability to convert apartment units into condominiums to protect the supply of rental housing.
 Foreclosure Assistance. Many cities and counties have local programs that assist homeowners when they are at risk of foreclosure. These programs may be funded with federal grants.
 Jobs-Housing Linkage Fee or Affordable Housing Impact/Linkage Fee. Affordable housing impact/linkage fees are charges on developers of new market-rate, residential developments. They are based on the square footage or number of units in the developments and are used to develop or preserve affordable housing.  Commercial Linkage Fee/Program. Commercial linkage fees are charged to developers per square foot of new commercial development. Revenues are used to develop or preserve affordable housing.
 Housing Trust Fund. A housing trust fund is a designated source of public funds— generated through various means—that is dedicated to creating affordable housing.  Inclusionary Zoning/Housing (Below Market Rate Housing). Inclusionary housing policies require market-rate developers of rental or for-sale housing to rent or sell a certain percentage of units at affordable prices. Some policies include a provision for developers to pay “in-lieu fees” in place of building the housing; this revenue is used to develop affordable units elsewhere.
 Density Bonus Ordinance. Density bonuses allow developers of market-rate housing to build higher-density housing, in exchange for having a certain portion of their units offered at affordable prices. In this inventory, we only include a city as having this policy if they allow an additional density bonus beyond that mandated by the State.
 Community Land Trusts. Community land trusts are nonprofit, community-based organizations (supported by the city or county) whose mission is to provide affordable housing in perpetuity by owning land and leasing it to those who live in houses built on that land.
 First Source Hiring Ordinances. First Source hiring ordinances ensure that residents are given priority for new jobs created by municipal financing and development DRAFT
programs

H O U S I N G
E - 3 2 | A P P E N D I X E
Table E-14 identifies which of these policies the City has adopted, according to the Urban Displacement Project as specified as above. The city is at a low risk for displacement as a result of the anti-displacement policies in place.

Table E-14: Anti-Displacement Policies
Anti-Displacement Measures Scotts Valley
Policy Measure
Just Cause Eviction Ordinance No
Rent Stabilization or Rent Control No
Rent Review Board and/or Mediation No
Mobile Home Rent Control Yes
SRO Preservation No
Condominium Conversion Regulations Yes
Foreclosure Assistance No
Jobs-Housing Linkage Fee No
Commercial Linkage Fee No
Housing Trust Fund No
Inclusionary Zoning Yes
Density Bonus Ordinance Yes
Community Land Trusts No
First Source Hiring No
Source: Urban Displacement Project, University of California Berkeley (2018), and the City of Scotts Valley.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X E | E - 3 3
Figure E-13: Displacement Risk
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer DRAFT

H O U S I N G
E - 3 4 | A P P E N D I X E

AFFORDABLE UNITS AT-RISK OF CONVERTING TO MARKET RATE
Jurisdictions are required by State Housing Element Law to analyze government-assisted housing that is eligible to convert from lower income to market rate housing over the next ten years. State law identifies housing assistance as a rental subsidy, mortgage subsidy or mortgage insurance to an assisted housing development. Government assisted housing may convert to market rate housing for several reasons, including expiring subsidies, mortgage repayments, or expiration of affordability restrictions. Affordable covenants help to ensure that certain housing units remain affordable for an extended period of time. Covenants help balance the housing market in a community and provide lasting affordable options to low and very low-income households. This section will provide:
 An inventory of assisted housing units that are at risk of converting to market-rate housing,
 An analysis of the costs of preserving and/or replacing these units,  Resources that could be used to preserve at-risk units,  Program efforts for preservation of at-risk housing units, and  Quantified objectives for the number of at-risk units to be preserved during the Housing Element planning period.

Table E-15 below identifies deed-restricted, assisted rental properties within Scotts Valley, of which 22 units are at-risk of converting from affordable to market-rate units between 2023 and 2033. Consistent with the requirements to analyze impacts of potential conversion of these units to market-rate units, this section provides an analysis to preserve these at-risk units. The City is committed to working with property owners and utilizing appropriate funds, as available, to review covenants set to expire for renewal.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X E | E - 3 5
Table E-15: Assisted Affordable Housing and At-Risk Units in Scotts Valley Project Name Assisted
Units Type Funding Source
Agreement
Executed Term Units At-Risk
Rental Units
Acorn Court
Apartments 4 4 - 2 bed 10/20/1999 30 years – 2029 4
Bay Tree Apartments 9 8 - 2 beds
1 - 1 bed
RDA monthly
subsidy 4/7/1999 30 years – 2029 9
Brookdale 20 All studios 6/3/1987 Indefinite 0
Emerald Hill
Apartments 46
1 - 1 bed
7 - 2 bed
13 - 3 bed
1 - 4 bed

CDBG, HOME,
City 11/22/1996 55 years – 2051 0
Markell Mixed-Use
Apartments* 3 3 - 1 bed RDA monthly subsidy 7/20/2005 55 years – 2060 0 Oak Lane
Apartments 1 1 - 2 bed 11/17/2004 55 years – 2059 0
San Augustine Way
Apartments 1 1 - 2 bed Silent Second 11/20/1996 33 years - 2029 1 Rental Units At-Risk 14
For-Sale Units
Acorn Commons 6 2 - 2 bed
4 - 3 bed 3/20/2019 55 years - 2074 0
Blue Bonnet Lane 5 5 - 2 bed 11/4/2003 45 years – 2048 0 Cathy Lane Condos 8 8 - 2 bed 10/16/1996 33 years - 2029 8 Kelly Court 1 1 - 3 bed 4/16/2003 50 years - 2053 0
2 MacLeod Way 1 1 - 3 bed 5/18/2005 45 years - 2050 0
Torrey Oaks Condos 2 2 - 3 bed 4/24/2003 33 years - 2036 0 Town Center 5 4 - 4 bed
1 - 3 bed RDA 11/7/2012 45 years - 2057 0
The Cove 3 3 - 3 bed 5/25/2018 55 years - 2073 0
The Grove 7 7 - 3 bed Silent Second 6/28/2016 45 years - 2061 0 The Manor 1 1 - 3 bed 4/22/2015 45 years - 2060 0
The Terrace 2 2 - 3 bed 3/20/2018 45 years - 2063 0
Windward Place 2 2 - 2 bed 9/3/2003 45 years - 2048 0
Woodside 7 7 - 4 bed 6/20/2012 45 years - 2047 0
Ownership Units At-Risk 8
TOTAL AT-RISK UNITS 22
*1-bedroom units rented at studio-level rents.

Source: City of Scotts Valley, Affordable Housing Action Plan Brochure While there are many options to preserve at-risk units including providing financial incentives to property owners to extend lower income use restrictions, purchasing affordable housing units by a non-profit or public agency, or providing local subsidies to offset the difference between the affordable and market rate units, the strategy considered below, for analysis purposes, is to provide local rental subsidy to residents. Rent subsidy would provide financial assistance to residents if their affordable units converted to market-rate units. To determine the subsidy needed, fair market rents were compared to market-rate rents. Table E-16 DRAFT
below

H O U S I N G
E - 3 6 | A P P E N D I X E
outlines an estimated monthly subsidy that would be required to preserve these at-risk units.

This analysis is not suggestion the City will provide rental subsidy, but it is used to assess the difference in cost between potential subsidy and direct replacement of lost affordable units.

The analysis in Table E-16 shows that it would cost about $1,524 annually to subsidize the at risk-units.

Table E-16: Estimated Monthly Subsidy to Preserve At-Risk Units Unit Size
Monthly Rents Number of
Units
At-Risk*
Difference Monthly
Subsidy
Annual
Subsidy Fair Market
Rents1
Market Rate
Rents 2
Efficiency $2,212 $1,900 0 - - -
1-Bedroom $2,502 $2,375 1 ($127) N/A N/A
2-Bedroom $3,293 $3,300 21 $7 $127 $1,524
3-Bedroom $4,077 $2,800 0 - - -
4-Bedroom $4,568 $3,698 0 - - -
Total $1,524
Source: HUD FY 2023 Fair Market Rent Documentation System – Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA HUD Metro FMR Area.

Kimley-Horn and Associates Analysis.

In comparison, if the at-risk units are converted to market rate, they would need replacing with new construction. Construction cost estimates include all hard and soft cost associated with construction in addition to per unit land costs. The analysis assumes the replacement units are apartments with concrete block with steel frame buildings and parking provided on-site. Square footage estimates are based on estimated size of units to be replaced and assume housing units are developed on multi-family zoned properties. Land costs have been determined on a per unit basis. Table E-17 below estimates that approximately $3,455,863would be required to replace the at-risk units.

Table E-17: Replacement Cost of At-Risk Units
Unit Size Cost per
Square Foot1
Average
Square Foot
per Unit2
Replacement
Cost per Unit
Number of
Units At-Risk*
Total
Replacement
Cost
Efficiency $160.35 N/A N/A - -
1-Bedroom $160.35 699 $112,084.65 1 $112,084.65
2-Bedroom $160.35 993 $159,227.55 21 $3,343,778.55
3-Bedroom $160.35 1,199 $192,259.65 - -
4-Bedroom $160.35 1,737 $278,527.95 - -
Total $3,455,863.20
Source: International Code Council – August 2022; Kimley-Horn and Associates Analysis.

A variety of programs exist to help cities acquire, replace, or subsidize at-risk affordable housing units. The following summarizes financial resources available:
 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) - CDBG funds are awarded to cities on a formula basis for housing activities. The primary objective of the CDBG program is the development of viable communities through the provision of decent housing, a suitable living environment and economic opportunity for principally low- and DRAFT
moderate-income persons. Eligible activities include administration, fair housing,

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X E | E - 3 7
energy conservation and renewable energy sources, assistance for economic development, public facilities and improvements, and public services.  HOME Investment Partnership - Local jurisdictions can receive funds by formula from HUD to increase the supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing to lower-income households. Eligible activities include housing acquisition, rehabilitation, development, homebuyer assistance, and rental assistance.  Section 8 Rental Assistance Program - The Section 8 Rental Assistance Program provides rental assistance payments to owners of private, market-rate units on behalf of very low-income tenants, senior citizens, disabled persons, and other individuals for securing affordable housing.
 Section 202/811 Program - Non-profit and consumer cooperatives can receive nointerest capital advances from HUD under the Section 202 Program for construction of very low-income rental housing with the availability of supportive services for seniors and persons with disabilities. These funds can be used in conjunction with Section 811 funds, which can be used to develop group homes, independent living facilities, and immediate care facilities. The capital advance funding can also provide project rental assistance for the properties developed using the funds. Eligible activities include acquisition, rehabilitation, new construction, and rental assistance.  California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) Multifamily Programs - CalHFA’s Multifamily Programs provide permanent financing for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of new construction of rental housing that includes affordable rents for low- and moderate-income families and individuals. One of the programs is the Preservation Loan program which provides acquisition/rehabilitation and permanent loan financing designed to preserve or increase the affordability status of existing multifamily housing projects.
 Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) - This program provides tax credits to individuals and corporations that invest in low-income rental housing. Tax credits are sold to those with high tax liability and proceeds are used to create housing.

Eligible activities include new construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of properties.
 California Community Reinvestment Corporation (CCRC) - The California Community Reinvestment Corporation is a multi-family affordable housing lender whose mission is to increase the availability of affordable housing for low-income families, seniors, and residents with special needs by facilitating private capital flow from its investors for debt and equity to developers of affordable housing. Eligible DRAFT
activities include new construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of properties.

H O U S I N G
E - 3 8 | A P P E N D I X E
The following organizations have the experience and capacity to potentially assist in preserving future at-risk units:
 Eden Housing
 Mercy Housing
 Habitat for Humanity
 Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition
 Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz
State law requires that jurisdictions establish the maximum number of units that can be preserved over the planning period. The City’s objective is to preserve the 22 affordable units at-risk of converting to market-rate units as outlined in the Housing Plan.

F A I R H O U S I N G E N F O R C E M E N T A N D O U T R E A C H

C A P A C I T Y
Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach
Fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity refers to the ability of a locality and fair housing entities to disseminate information related to fair housing laws and rights and provide outreach and education to community members. Enforcement and outreach capacity also includes the ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints, obtaining remedies, and engaging in fair housing testing.

California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has statutory mandates to protect the people of California from discrimination pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Ralph Civil Rights Act, and Unruh Civil Rights Act (with regards to housing). The FEHA prohibits discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions), gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, military or veteran status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, and genetic information, or because another person perceives the tenant or applicant to have one or more of these characteristics.

The Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, §51) prohibits business establishments in California from discriminating in the provision of services, accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges to clients, patrons and customers because of their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status. The Ralph Civil Rights Act (Civ.

Code, § 51.7) guarantees the right of all persons within California to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X E | E - 3 9
political affiliation, or on account of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, immigration status, or position in a labor dispute, or because another person perceives them to have one or more of these characteristics.

Fair Housing Enforcement
The Consumer Affairs and Environmental Protection Division of the District Attorney’s Office provides a variety of fair housing services. These services include:
 Telephone counseling and referrals to other agencies that deal with consumer issues;
 Landlord- tenant information, assistance and mediation efforts; and  Information and referral service to other agencies.

Approximately 100 to 200 calls are received each month from tenants, landlords, and roommates. The most common complaints are about security deposits, evictions, and/or housing conditions. The Office primarily provides legal information and self-help advice to inquiring clients and makes referrals to other legal and nonprofit agencies. Because of a persistent lack of funding, the Office does not have a database that can provide more detailed information on the type of calls received. One volunteer is responsible for handling the majority of landlord-tenant questions and referrals; no paid staff members are involved in this effort.

The City refers fair housing discrimination activities to the Civil Rights Department (CRD); previously referred to as the State Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Violations of the anti-discrimination law include:
 Refusal to sell, rent, or lease rooms, apartments, condos or houses to protected individuals;
 Refusal to negotiate for the sale, rental, or lease of housing;  Representation that a housing accommodation is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when it is in fact available;
 Denial of a home loan or homeowner’s insurance;
 Cancellation or termination of a sale or rental agreement;  Policies, practices, terms, or conditions that result in unequal access to housing or housing-related services;
 Offering inferior terms, conditions, privileges, facilities or services in connection with the housing accommodation;
 Sexual harassment involving unwanted sexual advances or requiring sexual favors for housing rights or privileges;
DRAFT

H O U S I N G
E - 4 0 | A P P E N D I X E
 Refusal to permit, at a disabled tenant’s expense, reasonable modifications when necessary to accommodate a disability;
 Refusal to make reasonable accommodations in housing rules, policies, practices, or services where necessary to afford a disabled person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling;
 Retaliation against someone filing a complaint; and,
 Overly restrictive rules limiting the activities of daily life for families with children, including where children are allowed to play.

Fair Housing and Civil Rights Findings, Lawsuits, Enforcement, Settlements, or Judgements The City’s Planning Department works closely with residents, property owners, outside agencies, and other City departments to resolve health, safety, and public nuisance conditions that adversely affect the quality of life in Scotts Valley. The Planning Department is primarily responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the Building Department is primarily responsible for enforcing the provisions of the California Building Codes, the Scotts Valley Municipal Code, and the Uniform Housing Code.

In 2021, the City processed 20 code enforcement complaints relating to housing. These complaints addressed issues relating to property maintenance, access to heating and air conditioning, construction without building permits, and complete kitchen and plumbing facilities. None of the code enforcement complaints received by the City related to fair housing issues. During the 5th Cycle Housing Element, the City was not involved in any fair housing lawsuits, settlements, or judgments.

Fair Housing Laws
The City is in compliance with existing fair housing laws. There have been no findings against the City of Scotts Valley from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO), or from the CRD.

The following lists State and local fair housing laws and specifies how the City complies:

State
 California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA): The City continues to implement and update programs that promote fair and equal access to housing. The City also continues to review standards and requirements that may constrain equal access to housing and the development of affordable housing.  Government Code Section 65008: The City continues to implement programs that encourage affordable housing development. Programs are included in the Housing Plan to ensure compliance with the State’s requirement for fair review of affordable DRAFT
housing development.

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X E | E - 4 1
 Government Code Section 8899.50: The City implements programs and actions in compliance with State law that affirmatively furthers fair housing. As detailed in the Housing Plan, the City administers programs to promote equal housing access and affordable resources.
 Government Code Section 11135: The City promotes state-funded programs, such as the First-Time Homebuyer Loan Program, on the City’s website and at the public counter. The City continues to implement and encourages programs that promote full and equal access to all programs and activities.
 Density Bonus Law: The City has an adopted Density Bonus Ordinance consistent with State Density Bonus Law. The City provides incentives to developers to produce affordable housing to very low-income households, low-income households, moderate-income households, senior citizens, transitional foster youth, disabled veterans, and persons experiencing homelessness, as well as for the development of childcare facilities.
 No-Net-Loss Law: The Housing Plan and Appendix F detail how the City maintains adequate sites to meet its RHNA.
 Excessive Subdivision Standards: The City continues to update its Zoning Ordinance, waive certain development fees, and offer incentive packages to facilitate housing development.
 Housing Element Law: The City identifies and includes an analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs.

Local
 Local Ordinances: The City has multiple local ordinances that establish procedures for rezoning, development permit processing, affordable housing fees, and other programs that encourage fair housing practices.
 Chapter 2: Housing Plan details the City’s goals, policies, programs, and objectives.

The City addresses the need to provide additional housing opportunities, remove constraints to affordable housing, improve the existing housing stock, and provide equal opportunities for current and future residents of Scotts Valley.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
E - 4 2 | A P P E N D I X E

C O N T R I B U T I N G F A C T O R S
Locally derived knowledge and contributing factors were developed in response to community participation in outreach events and through analysis conducted in Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing development and analysis of sites inventory and feedback and comments on the draft Housing Element’s data, analysis, and policy program. The contributing factors listed below were identified as creating, perpetuating, and/or increasing the severity of fair housing issues in Scotts Valley:
 Housing Conditions and Senior Housing. Affordability, design, and discrimination limit the supply of housing for persons with disabilities. Amendments to the Fair Housing Act, as well as State law, require ground-floor units of new multi-family construction with more than four units to be accessible to persons with disabilities.

Units built prior to 1989 are not required to be accessible to persons with disabilities.
 Access to Affordable Housing. The City’s average income is the highest in the County and median home prices are also high. This may lead to lower income households being priced out. When paired with lower affordable housing options, lower income households and local employees may not be able to find adequate housing within the City and have to commute in from other jurisdictions.

The City recognizes the fair housing issues that exist within the community and is committed to reducing barriers to affordable housing to all persons. The Housing Plan provides goals, policies, and programs to increase housing opportunities, remove constraints to affordable housing, improve the existing housing stock, and provide equal opportunities for all current and future residents of Scotts Valley.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X F | F - 1
The Housing Element is required to identify a
Candidate Sites Inventory by income category to
meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA). The sites identified within the 2023-2031
Housing Element represent the City’s ability to
accommodate housing at the designated income
levels during the 6th Cycle. All sites have been
assessed for the highest potential for residential
development during the Planning Period.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
F - 2 | A P P E N D I X F
A . C A N D I D A T E S I T E S I N V E N T O R Y
The Housing Element is required to identify sites by income category to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The sites identified within the 2023-2031 Housing Element represent the City’s ability to accommodate housing at the designated income levels during the 2023-2031 planning period. For the 6th Cycle, the City of Scotts Valley was allocated a total of 1,220 units to plan for, as detailed in Table F-1.

Table F-1: City of Scotts Valley 6th Cycle RHNA by Income Category Income Category Percent of Area Median Income
(AMI) RHNA
Very Low-Income 0-50% AMI 392
Low-Income 51-80% AMI 257
Moderate-Income 81-120% AMI 154
Above Moderate-Income >120% AMI 417
TOTAL RHNA 1,220
*The Santa Cruz County AMI is $119,300 for a family of four, according to 2022 HCD Income Limits.

Table F-2 shows the City’s ability to accommodate the 6th Cycle RHNA by income category through a variety of methods, including those listed below. Figure F-1 illustrates the location of the sites throughout Scotts Valley.
 Current capacity on residentially-zoned sites;
 Projects currently in the City’s review pipeline;
 Accessory dwelling unit (ADU) projections; and,
 Rezone strategies to accommodate the remaining RHNA.

Table F-2: 6th Cycle RHNA Sites Inventory Analysis
Strategies Very Low
Income
Low
Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
TOTAL
6 th Cycle RHNA 392 257 154 417 1,220
Existing Residential Capacity 12 2 58 72
Pipeline Projects 51 13 353 417
Projected ADUs 24 12 4 40
Town Center Specific Plan 427 39 191 657
Rezones
Residential 76 19 96 191
Mixed Use 316 83 397 796
TOTAL 906 168 1,099 2,173
DRAFT
Percent Over RHNA 40% 9% 164% 78%

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X F | F - 3
Figure F-1: 6th Cycle Housing Element Sites Inventory – All Sites DRAFT

H O U S I N G
F - 4 | A P P E N D I X F

1. General Plan Consistency
The City’s current General Plan was adopted in 1994. As of May 2023, efforts are currently underway to update the General Plan.

2. Zoning Consistency
Candidate housing sites identified in this Appendix propose rezoning options. The City’s Zoning Code will, as such, be amended accordingly. The Chapter 2: Housing Plan establishes programs and actions to guide these rezones.

3. CEQA Streamlining
Candidate housing sites that are consistent with the existing zoning and the City’s objective design standards are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Candidate housing sites that require discretionary review (e.g., a rezone) are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated concurrent with each development application.

4. Access to Transportation
Current transportation programs, services, and improvements support the proposed units of this 6th Cycle Housing Element. The City will continue to work with Santa Cruz METRO to ensure that new residential developments are adequately served.

5. Infrastructure and Public Services Capacity
Candidate housing sites identified in this Appendix are located in areas that adequately served by existing and planned infrastructure and public services. The Policy Plan establishes requirements for adequate infrastructure and public services for developments that include affordable housing units.

B . P R O J E C T E D D E V E L O P M E N T

1. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has supported a strategy to estimate future ADU development based on the average number of ADUs permitted in recent years. Table F-3 displays the City’s past performance in permitting ADUs from 2018 through 2022. The average over these five years is 3; however, year-by-year, the applications submitted and approved have been on the rise.

The City recognizes ADUs as a cost-effective way of not only adding to the City housing stock, but also to provide affordable units in existing single-family neighborhoods. As such, a program is included in the Housing Plan with the goal of bolstering ADU development throughout the 6th Cycle. The program includes the following actions:

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X F | F - 5
 Amend the current “Secondary Dwelling Unit Program” in compliance with State ADU laws. Submit revised ordinance to HCD in compliance with State law.  Establish and promote permit-ready ADU plans to minimize design costs, expedite permit processing, and provide development certainty.
 Establish and maintain an ADU Manual guiding applicants through the permitting and construction of an ADU.
 Establish and maintain an ADU webpage informing the community on ADU related codes, processes, and incentives.
 Establish an incentive program for deed-restricted affordable ADUs such as waived permitting fees and/or priority processing.
 Establish an ADU monitoring program, and biennially review, for development trends for potential gaps. If gaps are identified, implement changes within one year.

Given these efforts, the City has applied a development projection of 150 percent of the average ADUs permitted since 2018. The City anticipates a total of 40 new ADUs between 2024 and 2031, with approximately 5 ADUs permitted annually. A percentage of ADUs are projected to develop at affordable rates based on the Using ADUs to Satisfy RHNA Technical Memo produced by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). ABAG’s analysis consisted of the following steps:

1. Calculated maximum rent limits for RHNA income categories for one-person and two-person households by county;

2. Surveyed rents for ADUs in the ABAG region;

3. Used survey data to determine proportion of ADUs within each income category; and,

4. Created assumptions of how many persons will occupy each ADU.

While Scotts Valley is located in the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG), this methodology from ABAG is comparable and can be used for projection purposes. Table F-4 shows the ADU projections by income category. As established in the Housing Plan’s ADU program, the City will establish an ADU monitoring program and will assess trends biennially; if gaps are identified between what is anticipated in this analysis and what is built, the City will implement changes within a year.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
F - 6 | A P P E N D I X F
Table F-3: ADU Projections
Year ADUs Permitted
2018 1
2019 2
2020 1
2021 6
2022 4
2023 N/A
Projection Years 5 units per year
2024 5
2025 5
2026 5
2027 5
2028 5
2029 5
2030 5
2031 5
PROJECTED TOTAL 40
Table F-4: ADU Projections
Income Category Percentage Units
Low- and Very Low-Income 60% 24
Moderate-Income 30% 12
Above Moderate-Income 10% 4
TOTAL 40
Per Government Code section 65852.2, ADUs must be permitted in any residential or mixed-use zone – any zone where residential uses are permitted by-right or by conditional use.

Additionally, State law states that local governments cannot preclude the creation of ADUs, and any limitations should be accompanied by detailed findings of fact explain why ADU limitations are required and consistent with these factors. The City has a total of 3,856 parcels which currently permit residential uses (C-S, OS, P, R-1-10, R-1-20, R-1-40, R-H, R-M-6, R-M-8, R-MT-5, R-R-2.5, R-VH) – this adds up to a total of 2,621.21 acres. As such, the City has an abundance of sites with potential to accommodate the total projected 40 ADUs over the following eight years.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X F | F - 7

2. Pipeline Projects
HCD guidance states that residential projects that are in review, approved, permitted, or receive a certificate of occupancy after the beginning of the RHNA period may be credited towards meetings the RHNA. Table F-5 provides a list of current pipeline projects (only projects with proposed affordable units are listed for the purposes of this analysis). The projects are also illustrated in Figure F-2.

Table F-5: Pipeline Projects
Pipeline Project Acreage Net Units Lower Moderate Above Moderate
Erba Lane
(APN: 022-481-18)

0.77 10 1 1 8
Currently a vacant parking lot near residential neighborhoods. Proposed 10-unit single-family development/duets.

Oak Creek Park
(APN: 022-162-76)

3.56 52 6 2 44
Currently vacant parcel proposing a mixed-use development with 52 units and 25,000 squarefeet of commercial space.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
F - 8 | A P P E N D I X F
Pipeline Project Acreage Net Units Lower Moderate Above Moderate
Valley Gardens
(APNs: 021-231-07, 021-221-
02, 021-231-08, 021-231-04,
021-231-02)

18.36 171 25 0 144
The parcels currently include an old, unused, golf course. The mixed-use project currently proposes 171 units with 12,000 square-feet of commercial space. The project is subject to the City’s 15% Inclusionary Ordinance.

La Madrona – Gateway South
(APN: 021-141-05)

17.6 184 19 10 155
Currently vacant parcel zoned open space proposing a mixed-use development with 184 units, a hotel, and 3,500 square-feet of commercial space. The project is subject to the City’s 15% Inclusionary Ordinance.

PIPELINE PROJECTS UNIT TOTAL:

DRAFT
417 51 13 353

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X F | F - 9
Figure F-2: Pipeline Projects
DRAFT

H O U S I N G
F - 1 0 | A P P E N D I X F
C . E X I S T I N G R E S I D E N T I A L C A P A C I T Y

1. Residentially Zoned Land
The City has identified five parcels currently zoned for residential with the capacity to accommodate additional housing units. Four of these sites are considered underutilized and have a land value that is higher than the improvement value; the sites also have common ownership and are considered due to their ability to consolidate to develop a multi-family housing development with affordable units. The fifth parcel is a mostly vacant site with a structure previously used for a flooring company that is no longer open.

The projecting out development of these sites, the City assumes a realistic capacity of 70 percent. This conservative assumptions results in a development capacity of 72 potential units – 12 affordable to lower income households, 2 to moderate-income households, and 58 to above moderate-income households.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X F | F - 1 1
Figure F-3: Existing Residential Capacity
DRAFT

H O U S I N G
F - 1 2 | A P P E N D I X F

2. Town Center Specific Plan
The Town Center Specific Plan is designed to be the heart of the city and offer convenient proximity between commercial and residential uses near community resources. The Plan area encompasses approximately 58 acres, including 15 acres of vacant land, and is surrounded by a mix of retail and civic uses. The Plan area is made up of multiple parcels with multiple property owners.

Historically, project applications have been submitted for the Plan, but development was not successful. Interest in developing the Town Center area has increased over recent years. Figure F-4 shows new developments within the Plan area. In addition, surface soil contamination has been an obstacle to development. The City is currently under contract to remediate the soil, which should be complete by Spring 2024.

Figure F-4: Town Center Specific Plan – Recent Developments New Faultline
Brewing Company
New Starbucks Coffee
New Theatre and
renovated City
Library
DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X F | F - 1 3
As part of the candidate housing sites analysis, the City has identified three City-owned parcels, one METRO-owned parcel (the transit center), and one privately-owned parcel part of the Kings Village Shopping Center. The remaining parcels are owned by City of Santa Cruz and other public and private owners. The goal in identifying these City-owned parcels is to directly ensure affordable housing development – the City will coordinate the development of the parcels with affordable housing developers. Regarding the METRO- and privately-owned parcel, the City will coordinate with both to facilitate and promote affordable housing development. Table F-6 provides details on each parcel identified.

Table F-6: Town Center Specific Plan
Town
Center SP
Parcels
Acreage Density Realistic
Capacity Net Units Lower Moderate Above Moderate
022-721-06 2 40 80% 64 64 0 0
This vacant, City-owned parcel currently covers the Skypark Dog Park and the Scotts Valley Pump Track, as well as part of the Skypark Skate Park parking lot. The City anticipates developing the property in coordination with an affordable housing developer to create a fully-affordable housing development centrally located near public transit, community resource, and open space.
022-212-19 1.07 40 80% 32 32 0 0
This vacant, City-owned parcel is adjacent to the Scotts Valley Public Library and the new theatre. The City anticipates developing the property in coordination with an affordable housing developer to create a fully-affordable housing development centrally located near public transit, community resource, and open space.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
F - 1 4 | A P P E N D I X F
Town
Center SP
Parcels
Acreage Density Realistic
Capacity Net Units Lower Moderate Above Moderate
022-601-01 2.9 40 80% 92 92 0 0
This vacant, City-owned parcel is adjacent to the post office and vacant land, and it is currently being used for trailer storage. The City anticipates developing the property in coordination with an affordable housing developer
to create a fully-affordable housing development centrally located near public transit, community resource, and open space.
022-212-16 2.77 40 80% 86 86 0 0
This parcel contains the METRO Cavallero transit center and the Scotts Valley Park and Ride center. The City has been in discussions with METRO about converting the site to affordable residential units with workforce components. Redevelopment of the site would result in parking being moved underground or provided through a parking structure. This would allow for Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) to occur in partnership with the transit center. As mentioned above, the area offers much for community resources, open space, and commercial needs.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X F | F - 1 5
Town
Center SP
Parcels
Acreage Density Realistic
Capacity Net Units Lower Moderate Above Moderate
022-601-18 13.69 40 80% 383 153 39 191
This parcel contains the Kings Village shopping center and is owned by the Ow family. The center includes a Goodwill Thrift Store, CineLux, Nob Hill Foods, Ace Hardware, UPS Store, Walgreens, various restaurant, smaller retail stores, and surface parking. The site has been identified as a candidate site with the vision of redeveloping the northern portion of the sites into residential uses. Development is anticipated to include a mix of affordable and market rate units.

D . R E Z O N E S T R A T E G I E S
The City cannot fully accommodate the entirety of its RHNA through existing capacity. As such, two rezone strategies have been identified to expand the City’s existing mixed-use zoning on identified sites and rezone particular parcels to accommodate high density residential development.

The intent of these rezones are to create additional residential development opportunities along Scotts Valley Drive and Mount Hermon Road – in areas that provide convenient access to community resources and public transportation, and in areas that have development interest.

The City of Scotts Valley covers a small 4.61 square-miles in the Santa Cruz Mountains with steep hillsides and creeks. As such, adequate land suitable for higher density developments are minimal and result in more feasible sites requiring redevelopment of existing parcels. The following sections detail the City’s plan to accommodate the remaining RHNA.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
F - 1 6 | A P P E N D I X F

1. Residential Rezones
The City has identified three parcels totaling 1.81 acres to be rezoned to allow high density residential at an expected density of 40 dwelling units per acre. In total, the parcels identified for rezoning have potential to accommodate 76 very low- and low-income units, 19 moderateincome units, and 96 above moderate-income units.

Table F-7: Residential Rezones
Residential
Rezone
Parcels
Acreage Density Realistic
Capacity Net Units Lower Moderate Above Moderate
024-152-30,
024-152-25,
024-152-27,
024-152-28,
024-152-29

1.32 40 80% 54 22 5 27
These five vacant parcels are located within a single-family neighborhood and have potential to be consolidated to allow for a higher density residential development. 022-801-17 0.24 40 80% 96 38 10 48
This parcel has an existing two-story building with small offices and current vacancies. The site is considered underutilized with the lot value exceeding the development value. The location of the parcel along Scotts Valley Drive, near commercial needs, community resources, and existing residential neighborhoods make it an ideal location for higher density residential.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X F | F - 1 7
Residential
Rezone
Parcels
Acreage Density Realistic
Capacity Net Units Lower Moderate Above Moderate
023-102-15 1.32 40 80% 41 16 4 21
This parcel contains an offices and has received redevelopment interest. The site is adjected to Vine Hill Elementary School across Tabor Drive, as well as residential uses to the north.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
F - 1 8 | A P P E N D I X F
Figure F-5: Residential Rezones
DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X F | F - 1 9

2. Mixed-Use Rezones
The City currently allows for mixed-use developments with a maximum residential component of 50 percent. The City has identified 33 parcels totaling 40.35 acres to be rezoned to allow for higher density, mixed-use residential at an expected density of 40 dwelling units per acre and residential components up to 70 percent. Parcels identified for mixed-use rezoning have potential to accommodate 316 very low- and low-income units, 83 moderate-income units, and 397 above moderate-income units.

These sites were identified for a variety of reasons, including being considered underutilized (the land value exceeds the development value), property owner/developer stated interest, potential for lot consolidation with adjacent parcels, and/or the site was considered to be in an appropriate location in comparison to community resources.

Increasing the residential components of these sites will create additional opportunities for the properties to develop. Property owners along Scotts Valley Drive voiced interest in developing residential uses along the corridor and also noted the current 50 percent residential maximum was too low and restrictive to allow for worthwhile development. Given the size of Scotts Valley and the importance of its two main corridors (Scotts Valley Drive and Mount Hermon Road), the City believes it remains important to allow for commercial development to benefit existing neighborhoods. As such, increasing the density and allowable residential percentage was considered the most appropriate solution.

Figure F-5 below maps the mixed-use rezone areas in the City.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
F - 2 0 | A P P E N D I X F
Figure F-5: Mixed-use Rezones
DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X F | F - 2 1
E . A D E Q U A C Y O F S I T E S

1. Availability of Water, Sewer, and Dry utilities
The City has existing and planned water, sewer, and dry utilities that can accommodate potential residential development identified for the 2023-2031 Housing Element. More information on utilities is provided in Appendix C.

Each candidate housing site has been evaluated to ensure there is adequate access to utility services and connections, including water, sewer, and dry utilities. Each site is situated with a direct connection to a public street that has the appropriate water and sewer mains and other infrastructure services.

2. Larger and Smaller Parcels
AB 1397 identifies parcels measuring between half-an-acre and 10 acres to be appropriate for the development of affordable housing. Parcels that are less than half-an-acre (“smaller”) or above 10 acres (“larger”) are not deemed adequate to accommodate lower income housing units unless past performance shows a tendency for affordable housing projects to develop on these types of parcels. The candidate sites inventory includes affordable units on sites that fall outside the size requirements.

Smaller Parcels
A total of 15 smaller parcels have been identified with assumed potential to develop lower income units. These sites were identified as they are adjacent to one another and may be consolidated into a parcel greater than 0.5 acres for the development purposes of a higher density residential project. Parcels that are located to one another also have the same property owners – facilitating their consolidation.

The Housing Plan includes a program to facilitate lot consolidation for these parcels.

Larger Parcels
A total of two parcels have been identified with assumed potential to develop lower income units. One of these parcels includes the Lockhart Gulch storage center. Another parcel includes the Kings Village shopping center. As mentioned in its analysis, the entirety of the shopping center parcel is unlikely to develop; the vision for the site is the redevelopment of the northern half past Nob Hill Foods.

The Housing Plan includes a program to facilitate parcelization of these two larger sites to facilitate development. Additionally, the City will work with the property owners and developers in facilitating development. As the list of pipeline project shows, the City is currently reviewing two projects on sites that are over 10 acres (18.36 and 17.6 acres, respectively). As such, the City is able to show development interest in these types of parcels.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
F - 2 2 | A P P E N D I X F

3. City-Owned Parcels
Three parcels identified in the candidate site inventory are owned by the City of Scotts Valley.

All three of these parcels are part of the Town Center Specific Plan and have been identified at fully affordable assumptions. The City anticipates selling the properties to affordable housing developers to create opportunity for fully affordable housing projects. In total, these Cityowned parcels would allow for 188 total affordable units over 5.97 acres.

4. Vacant Parcels
A total of 12 vacant parcels have been identifies as part of the candidate sites inventory with potential to accommodate 336 lower income units. This represents 52 percent of the lower income RHNA for Scotts Valley.

5. Non-Vacant Parcels
The City has identified 38 non-vacant parcels. These sites were identified for a variety of reasons including property owner and developer interest, underutilized uses, and appropriateness of the site location in relation to other uses and community resources.

Lease Analysis
Existing lease agreements on infill and non-vacant parcels may present potential impediments that may prevent residential development, particularly affordable residential development, within the planning period. The City made diligent efforts to review existing lease terms in evaluating the uses on non-vacant parcels; however, the City does not have access to private party lease agreements or other contractual agreement amongst private parties. While the City does not have access to lease structures, only sites that showed characteristics indicating they are likely to redevelop within the planning period were included. This includes sites that are considered underutilized and have not had recent structural improvements. Sites with property owner interest were also included.

6. 5
th and 4th Cycle Housing Element Parcels
State law limits a jurisdiction’s ability to re-use sites from the prior RHNA cycle. Vacant sites identified in the last two Housing Element cycles and non-vacant sites identified in the last Housing Element cycle may not be counted towards the lower income RHNA unless the sites are zones at the “default density” of 20 dwelling units per ace and the sites allow residential use by-right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households. A “by-right” use in this case refers to permitted residential development which does not require a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or any other discretionary local government review or approval.

A total of ten parcels were identified in this 6th Cycle inventory which were also identified in the 4 th and 5th Cycles. Two of these sites are pipeline projects, three are City-owned parcels in the Town Center Specific Plan area, and five are considered existing residential capacity parcels.

DRAFT

APN Additional APNs Street Address Property Owner Existing Units Vacancy Acreage 5th/4th Cycles Zoning GPLU Realistic Capcity Expected Density Net Potential Units Assumed Income Category Category Subcategory Existing Use and Additional Information Low Moderate Above Moderate
021-321-04 27 MT HERMON RD COAST 1031 EXCHANGE INC 1 2.03 Yes - 4th and 5th R-VH Very High 0.7 17.55 24 4 1 19 Low/Very Low Existing Residential Capacity Underutilized Residential Sites This site is considered underutilized, the land value exceeds the improvement value of the residential structures on the parcel. Apporximately 70% of the lot is vacant. This parcel is adjacent to other residential units.
022-151-03 78 MT HERMON RD 1 JAEGER THEODORE L & GARNET L H/W JT2 1.12 Yes - 4th and 5th R-VH Very High 0.7 17.55 13 2 0 11 Low/Very Low Existing Residential Capacity Underutilized Residential Sites This site is considered underutilized, the land value exceeds the improvement value of the residential structures on the parcel. Apporximately 70% of the lot is vacant. This parcel is adjacent to other residential units enabling the possiblity of consolidation and can be feasible be redeveloped into higher intensity residential use. 022-151-04 68 MT HERMON RD DONATO JAMIE QUINN 1 0.57 Yes - 4th and 5th R-M-8 Med High 0.7 7 2 0 0 2 Above Moderate Existing Residential Capacity Underutilized Residential Sites This site is considered underutilized, the land value exceeds the improvement value of the residential structures on the parcel. Apporximately 60% of the lot is vacant. This parcel is adjacent to other residential units enabling the possiblity of consolidation and can be feasible be redeveloped into higher intensity residential use. 022-151-05 58 MT HERMON RD WARD JONATHAN Z 1 1.69 Yes - 4th and 5th R-VH Very High 0.7 17.55 20 4 1 15 Low/Very Low Existing Residential Capacity Underutilized Residential Sites This site is considered underutilized, the land value exceeds the improvement value of the residential structures on the parcel. Apporximately 80% of the lot is vacant. This parcel is adjacent to other residential units enabling the possiblity of consolidation and can be feasible be redeveloped into higher intensity residential use. 022-151-11 3535 GLEN CANYON RD GREEN VALLEY CORPORATION 1 1.11 Yes - 4th and 5th R-VH Very High 0.7 17.55 13 2 0 11 Low/Very Low Existing Residential Capacity Underutilized Residential Sites This site is considered underutilized, the land value exceeds the improvement value of the residential structures on the parcel. Apporximately 90% of the lot is vacant. This parcel is adjacent to other residential units enabling the possiblity of consolidation and can be feasible be redeveloped into higher intensity residential use. 022-481-18 022-481-22 SV HOUSING LLC 0 Vacant 0.77 Yes - 4th and 5th R-H High N/A N/A 10 1 1 8 Low/Very Low Pipeline Project Currently a vacant parking lot near residential neighborhoods. Proposed 10-unit singlefamily development/duets as part of the Erba Lane pipeline project. 022-162-76 3640 GLEN CANYON RD NMSBPCSLDHB 0 Vacant 3.56 Yes - 4th and 5th C-S C-S N/A N/A 52 6 2 44 Low/Very Low Pipeline Project Currently vacant parcel proposing a mixed-use development with 52 units and 25,000 square-feet of commercial space. The City Council approved the project proposal for this site in 2022.
021-231-07 021-231-02, 021-231-04, 021-231-08, 021-221-02 263 MT HERMON RD VALLEY GARDENS GOLF COURSE 0 18.36 C-P C-P N/A N/A 171 25 0 146 Low/Very Low Pipeline Project The parcels currently include an old, unused, golf course. The Valley Gardens mixed-use, pipeline project currently proposes 171 units with 12,000 square-feet of commercial space.

The project is subject to the City’s 15% Inclusionary Ordinance. 021-141-05 LE GARDEN HOUSE LLC 0 Vacant 17.60 C-S C-S N/A N/A 184 19 10 155 Low/Very Low Pipeline Project Currently vacant parcel zoned open space parcel. The La Madrona pipeline project proposes a mixed-use development with 184 units, a hotel, and 3,500 square-feet of commercial space. The project is subject to the City’s 15% Inclusionary Ordinance. 022-721-06 SCOTTS VALLEY CITY OF 0 Vacant 2.00 Yes - 4th and 5th C-S C-S 0.8 40 64 64 0 0 Low/Very Low Town Center The site is currently used as a dog park as an interim use. The site is part of the larger Town Center Specific Plan Area, an area where the City envisions a mix of residential and retail uses.
022-212-19 209 BEAN CREEK RD SCOTTS VALLEY CITY OF 0 Vacant 1.07 Yes - 4th and 5th C-S C-S 0.8 40 32 32 0 0 Low/Very Low Town Center The site is currently vacant. The parcel is adjacent to other candidate sites to the 6th Cycle enabling the possibility of consolidation and can be feasible be redeveloped into a higher intensity residential use.
022-601-01 CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY 0 Vacant 2.90 Yes - 4th and 5th C-S C-S 0.8 40 92 92 0 0 Low/Very Low Town Center The site is currently used as a SV Boat & RV Storage. The parcel is adjacent to other candidate sites identified in the 6th Cycle enabling the possibility of consolidation and can be feasible be redeveloped into a higher intensity residential use. 022-212-16 SANTA CRUZ METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DISTRICT ETAL 0 Vacant 2.77 P P 0.8 40 86 86 0 0 Low/Very Low Town Center The site is currently used as a surface parking lot for the Santa Cruz Metro. The site is part of the larger Town Center Specific Plan Area, an area where the City envisions a mix of residential and retail uses.
022-601-18 216 MT HERMON RD A OW DAVID L TRUSTEE ETAL 1 13.69 C-SC C-SC 0.7 40 383 153 39 191 Low/Very Low Town Center There is an existing shopping center on this parcel. Approximately 50% of the lot is dedicated towards parking. The site is adjacent to other residential units enabling the possibility of consolidation and can be feasible be redeveloped into higher intensity residential use.
024-152-30 024-152-25, 024-152-27, 024-152-28, 024-152-29 BERGMAN MARLYN J 0 Vacant 1.32 R-1-10 Medium 0.8 40 54 22 5 27 Low/Very Low Rezone Residential This site consists of multiple vacant parcels under common ownership. This parcel is adjacent to other residential units enabling the possibility of consolidation. 022-801-17 4404 SCOTTS VALLEY DR MARKELL RODNEY E 6 0.24 C-S C-S 0.8 40 96 38 10 48 Low/Very Low Rezone Mixed-Use There is an existing two story mixed use building with three residential units on this parcel.

Approximately 60% of the lot is vacant and majority of it is dedicated to surface parking.

The site is consoidered underutililized, the land value exceeds the improvement value of the office structure on the parcel. This parcel is also adjacent to other residential units enabling the possibility of consolidation and can be feasible be redeveloped into higher intensity residential use.
022-031-14 5311 SCOTTS VALLEY DR BLADAT LLC 1 0.67 C-S C-S 0.7 40 19 8 2 9 Low/Very Low Rezone Mixed-Use This site is considered underutilized, the land value exceeds the improvement value of the structures on the parcel. Apporximately 40% of the lot is vacant. This parcel is adjacent to other residential units enabling the possiblity of consolidation and can be feasible be redeveloped into higher intensity residential use.
022-031-13 5297 SCOTTS VALLEY DR LEE JAMES J & RELLA S TRUSTEES 3 0.33 C-S C-S 0.7 40 8 3 1 4 Low/Very Low Rezone Mixed-Use Approximately 60% of this parcel is vacant. This parcel is adjacent to other residential units enabling the possibility of consolidation and can be feasible be redeveloped into higher intensity residential use.
022-031-16 5271 SCOTTS VALLEY DR ST PHILIP THE APOSTLE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN SCOTTS VALLEY 0 1.20 C-S C-S 0.7 40 33 13 3 17 Low/Very Low Rezone Mixed-Use There is an existing church on this parcel. Approximately 70% of the site is dedicated towards surface parking. The site can feasible be redeveloped into a higher residential use. 022-031-01 5163 SCOTTS VALLEY DR BFD HOLDINGS 1 LLC 1 1.01 C-S C-S 0.7 40 28 11 3 14 Low/Very Low Rezone Mixed-Use Approximately 60% of this parcel is vacant. This parcel can be feasible be redeveloped into higher intensity residential use.
022-031-09 5215 SCOTTS VALLEY DR A BFD HOLDINGS 1 LLC 13 0.48 C-S C-S 0.7 40 13 5 1 7 Low/Very Low Rezone Mixed-Use Approximately 60% of this parcel is vacant. This parcel is adjacent to another candidate site identified for the 6th Cycle enabling the possibility of consolidation can be feasible be redeveloped into higher intensity residential use.
022-031-12 5275 SCOTTS VALLEY DR PERRY KAREN A 1 0.20 C-S C-S 0.7 40 5 2 1 2 Low/Very Low Rezone Mixed-Use Approximately 50% of this parcel is vacant. This parcel is adjacent to another candidate site identified for the 6th Cycle enabling the possibility of consolidation can be feasible be redeveloped into higher intensity residential use.
022-491-06 4408 SCOTTS VALLEY DR DOUBLE-O DEVELOPMENTS INC 0 Vacant 0.24 C-S C-S 0.7 40 6 2 1 3 Low/Very Low Rezone Mixed-Use This site is currently vacant. The parcel is adjacent to other residential units enabling the possiblity of consolidation and can be feasible be redeveloped into higher intensity residential use.
022-491-04 4444 SCOTTS VALLEY DR DOUBLE-O DEVELOPMENTS INC 9 0.90 C-S C-S 0.7 40 25 10 3 12 Low/Very Low Rezone Mixed-Use There is an existing office building on this parcel. The parcel is adjacent to another candidate site enabling the possibility of consolidation and can be feasible be redeveloped into higher intennsity residential use.

Net Units by Income Category
DRAFT

022-491-27 4402 SCOTTS VALLEY DR FONTANA FAMILY INVESTMENTS LLC 0 0.49 C-S C-S 0.7 40 13 5 1 7 Low/Very Low Rezone Mixed-Use There is an existing restuarant on this parcel. This parcel is considered underutilized, the land value exceeds the improvement value of the structure on this parcel. This parcel is adjacent to other residential units enabling the possibility of consolidation and can be feasible be redeveloped into higher intensity residential use. 023-113-31 257 GLENWOOD DR ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF MONTEREY1 4.44 P P 0.8 4062 1 3 Low/Very Low Rezone Mixed-Use There is an existing church on this parcel. Approximately 70% of the site is dedicated towards surface parking. The site can feasible be redeveloped into a higher residential use. 022-491-07 4548 SCOTTS VALLEY DR LUZZI ADRIAN J TRUSTEE ETAL 1 2.40 C-S C-S 0.7 40 67 27 7 33 Low/Very Low Rezone Mixed-Use This site is considered underutilized, the land value exceeds the improvement value of the residential structures on the parcel. Apporximately 80% of the lot is vacant. This parcel is adjacent to other residential units enabling the possiblity of consolidation and can be feasible be redeveloped into higher intensity residential use. 022-491-05 4446 SCOTTS VALLEY DR HOFFMAN EDWARD L TRUSTEE ETAL 1 0.40 C-S C-S 0.7 4062 1 3 Low/Very Low Rezone Mixed-Use There is an existing structure on this parcel. Approximately 70% of the lot is vacant. This parcel is underutilized, the land value exceeds the improvement value of the structure on the parcel.
022-871-01 SHADOW OAKS PROFESSIONAL CENTER OWNERS ASSOC 0 1.32 C-S C-S 0.7 40 36 14 4 18 Low/Very Low Rezone Mixed-Use There is a variety of offices and retail shops on this parcel. Approximately 60% of the parcel is vacant. This parcel is adjacent to another candidate site enabling the possibility of consolidation and can feasibly be redeveloped into a higher intensity use. 022-491-09 4402 SCOTTS VALLEY DR TAYLOR ERIC T & ELAINE M0 Vacant 0.12 C-S C-S 0.7 4021 0 1 Low/Very Low Rezone Mixed-Use The site is currently vacant. The parcel is adjacent to other candidate sites to the 6th Cycle enabling the possibility of consolidation and can be feasible be redeveloped into a higher intensity residential use.
022-491-08 4550 SCOTTS VALLEY DR A TAYLOR ERIC T & ELAINE M3 1.75 C-S C-S 0.7 40 50 20 5 25 Low/Very Low Rezone Mixed-Use There are existing residential units on this parcel. The parcel is adjacent to other candidate sites to the 6th Cycle enabling the possibility of consolidation and can be feasible be redeveloped into a higher intensity residential use.
022-491-12 4602 SCOTTS VALLEY DR 1 SAN LORENZO HOMES LLC6 0.56 C-S C-S 0.7 40 156 2 7 Low/Very Low Rezone Mixed-Use There is an existing two apartment buildings on this parcel. Approximately 60% of the lot is vacant and majority of it is dedicated to surface parking. The site is consoidered underutililized, the land value exceeds the improvement value of the structures on the parcel. This parcel is also adjacent to other residential units enabling the possibility of consolidation and can be feasible be redeveloped into higher intensity residential use. 022-491-23 4600 SCOTTS VALLEY DR SHAFFER WAYNE & JO H/W CP RS AS TC ETAL 0 0.75 C-S C-S 0.7 40 21 8 2 11 Low/Very Low Rezone Mixed-Use There are existing residential units on this parcel. Approximately 60% of the lot is vacant and majority of it is dedicated to surface parking. The site is consoidered underutililized, the land value exceeds the improvement value of the office structure on the parcel. This parcel is also adjacent to other residential units enabling the possibility of consolidation and can be feasible be redeveloped into higher intensity residential use. 022-491-24 4556 SCOTTS VALLEY DR A SHAFFER WAYNE & JO H/W CP RS AS TC ETAL 1 1.11 C-S C-S 0.7 40 31 12 3 16 Low/Very Low Rezone Mixed-Use There are existing residential units on this parcel. The parcel is adjacent to other candidate sites to the 6th Cycle enabling the possibility of consolidation and can be feasible be redeveloped into a higher intensity residential use.
022-072-33 4865 SCOTTS VALLEY DR FRANICH JOHN ANTHONY & NANCY KATHERINE TRUSTEES 6 0.46 C-S C-S 0.7 40 125 1 6 Low/Very Low Rezone Mixed-Use There is an existing commercial building. Parcel has surface parking lot and the structure takes up approximately 40% of the property.
022-351-13 4901 SCOTTS VALLEY DR FRANICH JOHN ANTHONY & NANCY KATHERINE 1 0.47 C-S C-S 0.7 40 135 1 7 Low/Very Low Rezone Mixed-Use There is an existing residential unit on this parcel. The parcel is considered underutilized, the land value exceeds improvement value of the residential structure. 022-072-41 4859 SCOTTS VALLEY DR ROSS LAWRENCE A R & RUTH J 6 0.29 C-S C-S 0.7 4083 1 4 Low/Very Low Rezone Mixed-Use Large parcel with retail store, surface parking lot, store takes up approximately 022-481-06 4425 SCOTTS VALLEY DR BOWERS ROBERT HOWARD & JANICE KATHLEEN 0 0.89 C-S C-S 0.7 40 24 10 2 12 Low/Very Low Rezone Mixed-Use The parcel is large and approximately 20% of the building takes up the lot. The parcel is adjacent to other residential units enabling the possibility of consolidation and can be feasible be redeveloped into a higher intensity residential use. 023-102-15 125 BETHANY DR HERITAGE REAL ESTATE VENTURES LLC 0 1.32 C-P C-S 0.8 40 41 16 4 21 Low/Very Low Rezone Residential There is an existing office building on this parcel. The parcel is considered underutilized, the land value exceeds the improvement value of the office structure. The parcel is adjacent to another candidate site enabling the possibility of consolidation and can be feasible be redeveloped into higher intennsity residential use.
022-231-18 90 LOCKHART GULCH RD STORAGE DEPOT II LLC 780 12.05 C-S C-S 0.8 40 139 56 14 69 Low/Very Low Rezone Mixed-Use The parcel is large and is used as a self-storage with dual zoning and a developable area of approximately 4.35 acres.
021-271-04 75 MT HERMON RD 100 KONTOUDAKIS JOHN & BARBARA H/W JT4 1.90 C-S C-S 0.7 40 53 21 5 27 Low/Very Low Rezone Mixed-Use This parcel is considered underutilized, land value exceeds the improvement value of the commercial structures on the parcel. The parcel is adjacent to other residential units enabling the possibility of consolidation and can be feasible be redeveloped into a higher intensity residential use.
021-281-07 LEXERTUS LLC0 Vacant 0.54 C-S C-S 0.7 40 156 2 7 Low/Very Low Rezone Mixed-Use This parcel is vacant and adjacent to other residential units. This enables the possibility of consolidation for a residential use.
021-281-08 69 MT HERMON RD LEXERTUS LLC1 0.30 C-S C-S 0.7 4083 1 4 Low/Very Low Rezone Mixed-Use There is an existing residential unit on this parcel. The parcel is adjacent to other residential units enabling the consolidation of sites.
021-281-09 69 MT HERMON RD LEXERTUS LLC0 Vacant 0.49 C-S C-S 0.7 40 135 1 7 Low/Very Low Rezone Mixed-Use The parcel is vacant and adjacent to other residential units enabling the possibility of consolidation and can be feasible be redeveloped into a higher intensity residential use. 021-281-15 59 MT HERMON RD BEI-SCOTT COMPANY LLC1 0.62 C-S C-S 0.7 40 177 2 8 Low/Very Low Rezone Mixed-Use The parcel is adjacent to other candidate sites to the 6th Cycle enabling the possibility of consolidation and can be feasible be redeveloped into a higher intensity residential use. 021-281-14 57 MT HERMON RD BEI-SCOTT COMPANY LLC1 0.44 C-S C-S 0.7 40 125 1 6 Low/Very Low Rezone Mixed-Use This site is considered underutilized, the land value exceeds the improvement value of the residential structures on the parcel. Apporximately 60% of the lot is vacant. This parcel is adjacent to other residential units enabling the possiblity of consolidation and can be feasible be redeveloped into higher intensity residential use. 022-571-02 2 BEAN CREEK RD SE-CAMP EVERS LLC1 0.55 C-S C-S 0.7 40 156 2 7 Low/Very Low Rezone Mixed-Use There are existing structures on this parcel. Majority of these structures are in need of rehabilitation. The site is considered underutilized, the land value exceeds the value of the improvement value of the resdiential structures on the parcel. 022-571-03 50 MT HERMON RD SE-CAMP EVERS LLC0 0.98 C-S C-S 0.7 40 27 11 3 13 Low/Very Low Rezone Mixed-Use There are existing retail structures on this parcel. This site is considered underutilized, the land value exceeds the improvement value of the residential structures on the parcel. This parcel is adjacent to other residential units enabling the possiblity of consolidation and can be feasible be redeveloped into higher intensity residential use. 022-571-05 3101 SCOTTS VALLEY DR SE-CAMP EVERS LLC0 1.49 C-S C-S 0.7 40 41 16 4 21 Low/Very Low Rezone Mixed-Use There are existing retail structures on this parcel. This site is considered underutilized, the land value exceeds the improvement value of the residential structures on the parcel. This parcel is adjacent to another candidate site enabling the possiblity of consolidation and can be feasible be redeveloped into higher intensity residential use. 022-571-01 6 BEAN CREEK RD SE-CAMP EVERS LLC1 0.55 C-S C-S 0.7 40 156 2 7 Low/Very Low Rezone Residential This site is considered underutilized, the land value exceeds the improvement value of the residential structures on the parcel. Apporximately 80% of the lot is vacant. This parcel is adjacent to other residential units enabling the possiblity of consolidation and can be DRAFT feasible be redeveloped into higher intensity residential use.

Section 65583 of the Government Code states, “local
government shall make diligent effort to achieve
public participation of all economic segments of the
community in the development of the housing
element, and the program shall describe this effort.”
Meaningful community participation is also required
in connection with the City’s Assessment of Fair
Housing (AF). As such, a Summary of Community
Engagement is included within this Appendix.

DRAFT

HOUSING
G - 2 | APPENDIX G

SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Beginning of 2023, the City conducted a variety of outreach and engagement efforts detailed in this Appendix. As required by government Code Section 65585 (b)(2), all written comments regarding the Housing Element made by the public have been provided to each member of the City Council.

1. Community Workshop #1
On January 26, 2023, the City held its first virtual community workshop to introduce the Housing Element update process and provide details on how the community could stay engaged through adoption and certification. The workshop and presentation were made available in both English and Spanish, and the recordings for both are available on the City’s webpage.

Participants were able to
provide thoughts and input in
real-time through live polling
activities and a Q&A. Feedback
received noted the high cost of
housing in Scotts Valley and the
lack of housing choices.

Additionally, participants
shared that the high cost of
rent and property costs makes
it too expensive to live in Scotts
Valley.

When it came down to the
selection of housing types,
workshop participants noted a
greater need for affordable
housing units and multi-family
housing. As shown below,
Townhomes, Duplex/Triplex,
and Housing for Persons with
Disabilities were also tied as a
need in housing types within
the City.

Lastly, workshop participants were asked about what they valued about Scotts Valley’s existing neighborhoods. They emphasized the importance of schools, walkability, proximity of resources, open space, parks, and low crime.

DRAFT

HOUSING
APPENDIX G | G - 3

2. Joint Study Session
On April 5th, 2023, Staff presented to City Council, Planning Commission, and members of the public during a joint Study Session. The presentation provided introductory information on the Housing Element Update process, details on the City’s RHNA allocation, and strategies for addressing the 6th Cycle RHNA. The Study Session was organized to solicit input and recommendations from Planning Commission, City Council, and members of the public.

Recordings of the meeting is available on the Housing Element Update webpage.

3. Housing Element Update Webpage
The City maintains a Housing Element Update webpage that was created to provide background information and guide the public to outreach events and resources throughout the course of the update process. The website provides information about the update process, key features of the housing element, recorded meetings, a project timeline, resources, and contact information.

The website is available at: https://tinyurl.com/th67rbyn All outreach materials, reports, and Drafts are available to the public through the Housing Element Update webpage.

DRAFT

HOUSING
G - 4 | APPENDIX G
Public Comments
This section contains all public comments submitted throughout the Housing Element Update process.

DRAFT

DRAFT

DRAFT

DRAFT

DRAFT

DRAFT

DRAFT

DRAFT

DRAFT

DRAFT

The Glossary appendix provides definitions of terms
and a list of acronyms used throughout the Housing
Element.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
H - 2 | A P P E N D I X H

G L O S S A R Y
Above Moderate-Income Household. A household with an annual income usually greater than 120 percent of the area median income adjusted by household size, as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest available legibility limits established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program.

Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). A smaller, independent residential dwelling unit located on the same lot as a standalone single-family home. The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes a local agency to provide, by ordinance, for the creation of accessory dwelling units in single-family and multifamily residential zones and requires such an ordinance to impose standards on accessory dwelling units, including, among others, lot coverage. Existing law also requires such an ordinance to require the ADU to be either attached to, or located within, the living area of the proposed/existing primary dwelling, or detached from the proposed/existing primary dwelling and located on the same lot as the proposed or existing primary dwelling.

Agricultural Housing. Dwellings and/or living quarters for farm laborers, or other types of dwellings determined to be substantially similar to the above by the Director of Community Development.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). Taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. The duty to affirmatively further fair housing extends to all of a public agency’s activities and programs relating to housing and community development.

Affordable Housing Cost. For lower-income households is defined in State law as not more than 30 percent of gross household income with variations (Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5).

Area Median Income (AMI). The midpoint of a geographic area’s income distribution, to account for regional differences in cost of living.

Assisted Housing. Generally multi-family rental housing, but sometimes single-family ownership units, whose construction, financing, sales prices, or rents have been subsidized by federal, state, or local housing programs. These types of units include, but are not limited to Federal Section 8 (new construction, substantial rehabilitation, and loan management setasides), Federal Sections 213, 236, and 202, Federal Sections 221 (d) (3) (below-market interest rate program), Federal Sections 101 (rent supplement assistance), CDBG, FMHA Sections 515, multi-family mortgage revenue bond programs, local redevelopment and in lieu fee programs, and units developed pursuant to local inclusionary housing and density bonus programs.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X H | H - 3
Below-Market-Rate (BMR). Any housing unit specifically priced to be sold or rented to low- or moderate income households for an amount less than the fair-market value of the unit. Both the State of California and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development set standards for determining which households qualify as “low income” or “moderate income.” The financing of housing at less than prevailing interest rates.

Build-Out. That level of urban development characterized by full occupancy of all developable sites in accordance with the General Plan; the maximum level of development envisioned by the General Plan. Build-out does not assume that each parcel is developed to include all floor area or housing units possible under zoning regulations.

Building Height. The vertical distance from the highest point of a structure to either the natural grade or the finished grade of the structure pad, whichever is greater, excluding basements or crawl spaces around the structure which are below grade and not created by a fill; provided, however, that for the purposes of measuring height, chimneys, flagpoles, and radio and television aerials shall not be considered a part of the structure.

California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The State Department responsible for administering State-sponsored housing programs and for reviewing housing elements to determine compliance with State housing law.

Community Care Facility. A 24-hour residential facility providing care for persons, including: the elderly, persons in an alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility, persons in a facility for mentally disordered, handicapped persons or dependent and neglected children, persons in an intermediate care facility/developmentally disabled-habilitative, intermediate care facility/developmentally disabled-nursing, and congregate living health facilities. A Community Care Facility may be located in any type of residence.

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). A grant program administered by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on a formula basis for entitled communities and administered by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for non-entitled jurisdictions. This grant allots money to cities and counties for housing rehabilitation and community development, including public facilities and economic development.

Condominium. A multi-family building where the units are individually owned, and the common space is owned collectively by condominium unit owners. A condominium structure may have two or more units.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). A term used to describe limitations that may be placed on property and its use, and which usually are made a condition of holding title or lease.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
H - 4 | A P P E N D I X H
Density Bonus. A density increases for residential units over the otherwise allowed residential density under the applicable zoning and land use designation when a percentage of the units provided are for lower income households on the date an application is deemed complete.

Deed. A legal document which affects the transfer of ownership of real estate from the seller to the buyer.

Developable Land. Land that is suitable as a location for structures and that can be developed free of hazards to, and without disruption of, or significant impact on, natural resource areas.

Discretionary Action. An action or approval which requires the exercise of judgment or deliberation when the City decides to approve or disapprove a project.

Down Payment. Money paid by a buyer from his own funds, as opposed to that portion of the purchase price which is financed.

Dwelling. Any building or portion thereof, designed or used as the residence or sleeping place of one or more persons.

Dwelling, Multifamily. Building, or portion thereof, designed or used for residence purposes by two or more families or housekeeping units.

Dwelling, Single-Family. Detached building designed or used for residence purposes by one family or housekeeping unit.

Dwelling Unit. Any building, or portion thereof, designed or used as the residence or sleeping place of one or more persons.

Emergency Shelters. Housing with minimal supportive services that is limited to occupancy of six months or less.

Extremely Low-Income Household. A household with an annual income that is less than 30 percent of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program.

Family. A person or persons related by blood, marriage or adoption or a group of not more than five persons, excluding servants, not related by blood, marriage or adoption, living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit.

Fair Market Price. The rent, including utility allowances, determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for purposed of administering the Section 8 Program.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X H | H - 5
General Plan. The General Plan is a legal document, adopted by the legislative body of a City or County, setting forth policies regarding long-term development. California law requires the preparation of seven elements or chapters in the General Plan: Land Use, Housing, Circulation, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety. Additional elements are permitted, such as Economic Development, Urban Design and similar local concerns.

Goal. A general, overall, and ultimate purpose, aim, or end toward which the City will direct effort.

Gross Monthly Income (GMI). Total income before any deductions.

HAMFI. HUD Area Median Family Income. This is the median family income calculated by HUD for each jurisdiction, in order to determine Fair Market Rents (FMRs) and income limits for HUD programs.

Housing and Community Development Department (HCD). The State agency that has principal responsibility for assessing, planning for, and assisting communities to meet the needs of lowand moderate-income households.

Housing Choice Voucher Program. (See “Section 8 Rental Assistance Program.”) Housing Cost. Commonly includes rent or mortgage payments, utilities (gas, electricity, water, sewer, garbage, recycling, green waste), and property taxes and insurance on owner-occupied housing.

Housing Element. One of the seven State-mandated elements of a local general plan, it assesses the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community, identifies potential sites adequate to provide the amount and kind of housing needed, and contains adopted goals, policies, and implementation programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. Under State law, Housing Elements must be updated every five years.

Housing Unit. The place of permanent or customary abode of a person or family. A housing unit may be a single-family dwelling, a multi-family dwelling, a condominium, a modular home, a mobile home, a cooperative, or any other residential unit considered real property under State law.

HUD (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development). An executive departments of the U.S. federal government which administers federal housing and urban development laws. Infill Development. Refers to building within unused and underutilized lands within existing development patterns, typically but not exclusively in urban areas.

Jobs-Housing Balance. A ratio used to describe the adequacy of the housing supply within a defined area to meet the needs of persons working within the same area. The General Plan DRAFT

H O U S I N G
H - 6 | A P P E N D I X H
uses SCAG’s definition which is a job total equal to 1.2 times the number of housing units within the area under consideration.

Land Use Classification. A system for classifying and designating the appropriate use of properties.

Live-Work Units. Buildings or spaces within buildings that are used jointly for commercial and residential purposes where the residential use of the space is secondary or accessory to the primary use as a place of work.

Low Barrier Navigation Centers (LBNC). A “Housing First,” low barrier, temporary, serviceenriched shelter that helps homeless individuals and families to quickly obtain permanent housing.

Lot. Parcel of land consisting of a single parcel of record.

Lot Coverage. The maximum lot area which may be covered with buildings and structures.

Buildings and structures include all land covered by principal buildings, garages and carports, accessory structures, covered decks and gazebos, and other enclosed and covered areas; but not standard roof overhangs, cornices, eaves, uncovered decks, swimming pools, paved areas such as walkways, driveways, patios, uncovered parking areas or roads. All areas of coverage are computed in terms of net lot area at ground level.

Low-Income Household. A household with an annual income usually between 51 and 80 percent of the area median income adjusted by household size, as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program.

Low-Income Housing Tax Credits. Tax reductions provided by the federal and State governments for investors in housing for low-income households.

Mixed Use. Development that contains both commercial (retail or office) uses and residential uses.

Mobile Home. A vehicle designed and equipped for human habitation, and for being drawn behind a vehicle. Such mobile home must either be constructed after September 15, 1971 and issued an insignia of approval by the California Department of Housing and Community Development and permanently located on a permanent foundation system, or be constructed after July 15, 1976, and issued an insignia of approval by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and permanently located on a permanent foundation system, or other type of housing determined to be substantially similar to the above.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X H | H - 7
Mobile Home Park. A development or subdivision of an existing parcel, or contiguous parcels, of land for the purpose of separate sale, lease, or financing to allow the installation of mobile homes or manufactured homes.

Moderate-Income Household. A household with an annual income usually between 81 and 120 percent of the area median income adjusted by household size, as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program.

Multi-Family Residence. A building or a portion of a building used and/or designed as residences for two or more families living independently of each other. This Includes: duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes (detached buildings under one ownership with two, three, or four residential units (respectively) in the same building); and apartments (five or more units under one ownership in a single building); attached unit projects such as condominiums and townhouses; and Boarding House. This use type may include other residential types determined to be substantially similar to the above by the City of Scotts Valley Director of Community Development, or designee.

Ordinance. A law or regulation set forth and adopted by a governmental authority, usually a city or county.

Overcrowding. The U.S. Census defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room. Units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. Overcrowding increases health and safety concerns and stresses the condition of the housing stock and infrastructure. Overcrowding is strongly related to household size and the availability of suitably sized housing. Overcrowding impacts both owners and renters; however, renters are generally more significantly impacted. In 2000, renter households were three times more likely than owners to be overcrowded, regardless of household size.

Parcel. A lot or tract of land.

Person with a Disability. Any individual (1) with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; (2) with a record of such impairment; or (3) who is regarded as having such an impairment. A physical or mental impairment includes, but is not limited to, conditions such as orthopedic, visual, speech and hearing impairments, cerebral palsy, autism, epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), developmental disabilities, mental illness, drug addiction, and alcoholism.

Planning Area. The area directly addressed by the general plan. A city’s planning area typically encompasses the city limits and potentially annexable land within its sphere of influence.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
H - 8 | A P P E N D I X H
Planned Unit Development (PUD). Form of development usually characterized by a unified site design for a number of housing units, clustered buildings and the provision of common open space, density increases and a mix of building types and land uses.

Planning Commission. Planning Commission of the City of Scotts Valley.

Policy. A specific statement of principle or of guiding action that implies clear commitment but is not mandatory. A general direction that a governmental agency sets to follow, in order to meet its objectives before undertaking an action program. (See “Program.”) Poverty Level. As used by the U.S. Census, families and unrelated individuals are classified as being above or below the poverty level based on a poverty index that provides a range of income cutoffs or “poverty thresholds” varying by size of family, number of children, and age of householder. The income cutoffs are updated each year to reflect the change in the Consumer Price Index.

Program. An action, activity, or strategy carried out in response to adopted policy to achieve a specific goal or objective. Policies and programs establish the “who,” “how” and “when” for carrying out the “what” and “where” of goals and objectives.

Quasi-Public Uses. Uses owned or operated by a nonprofit, religious or philanthropic institution and providing educational, cultural, recreational, religious or similar types of public programs.

Recreation, Commercial. Clubs or recreation facilities operated as a business which may or may not be open to the general public for a fee.

Recreation, Private. Clubs or recreation facilities of a noncommercial nature operated by a nonprofit organization and open only to bona fide members of such nonprofit organizations.

Residential. Land designated in the General Plan and zoning ordinance for building consisting of dwelling units. May be improved, vacant, or unimproved. (See “Dwelling Unit.”) Residential Care Facility. A facility that provides 24-hour care and supervision to its residents Retail Service. Use engaged in providing retail sale or rental of items primarily intended for consumer or household use, including but not limited to the following: groceries, meat, vegetables, dairy products, baked goods, candy and other food products; liquor and bottled goods; household cleaning and maintenance products; drugs; cards, stationery, notions, tobacco products, cosmetics and specialty items; flowers, plants and garden products; hobby materials; toys; handcrafted items; clothing, shoes, apparel, jewelry, fabrics and like items; cameras and photography equipment; furniture, furnishings, appliances, antiques, art objects, paint and wallpaper, floor coverings and lighting fixtures; office supplies; musical instruments; hardware and building supplies; and bicycles, mopeds and automotive parts and accessories.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X H | H - 9
Rezoning. An amendment to the map to effect a change in the nature, density, or intensity of uses allowed in a zoning district and/or on a designated parcel or land area.

Section 8 Rental Assistance Program. A federal (HUD) rent-subsidy program, which is one of the main sources of federal housing assistance for low-income households, operates by providing “housing assistance payments” to owners, developers, and public housing agencies to make up the difference between the “Fair Market Rent” of a unit (set by HUD) and the household’s contribution toward the rent, which is calculated at 30 percent of the household’s adjusted gross monthly income (GMI). “Section 8” includes programs for new construction, existing housing, and substantial or moderate housing rehabilitation. Now referred to as Housing Choice Voucher Program.

Senior Housing. Typically, one- and two-bedroom apartments or condominiums designed to meet the needs of persons 62 years of age and older or, if more than 150 units, persons 55 years of age and older, and restricted to occupancy by them.

Shared Living Facility. The occupancy of a dwelling unit by persons of more than one family in order to reduce housing expenses and provide social contact, mutual support, and assistance.

Shared living facilities serving six or fewer persons are permitted in all residential districts by Section 1566.3 of the California Health and Safety Code.

Single-Family Dwelling, Attached. A dwelling unit occupied or intended for occupancy by only one household that is structurally connected with at least one other such dwelling unit. (See “Townhouse.”)
Single-Family Dwelling, Detached. A dwelling unit occupied or intended for occupancy by only one household that is structurally independent from any other such dwelling unit or structure intended for residential or other use.

Single Housekeeping Unit. A residence with two or more members, whose members are a nontransient interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit, including but not limited to the joint use of common areas and sharing household activities and responsibilities such as meals, chores, and expenses.

Single Room Occupancy (SRO). A building or buildings constructed or converted for residential living consisting of one-room dwelling units, where each unit is occupied by a single individual or two persons living together as a domestic unit, and where the living and sleeping space are combined. A one-room dwelling unit is not required to contain a bathroom or a kitchen except that if a bathroom or kitchen is not provided within the unit such common facilities shall be provided on-site for residents. A unit that contains both a bathroom and kitchen shall be considered a studio unit and not a Single Room Occupancy Unit. Common facilities for laundry may or may not be provided on-site.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
H - 1 0 | A P P E N D I X H
Site Coverage. Percentage of site area covered by impervious surfaces, including all structures, opened, or enclosed or projections of structures.

Special Needs Group. Government Code Section 65583 (a)(7) defines special housing needs includes the elderly; persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability, as defined in Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code; large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter.

Substandard Housing. Residential dwellings that, because of their physical condition, do not provide safe and sanitary housing.

Supportive Housing. Housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population, and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community; as defined by Section 50675 of the California Health and Safety Code.

Target Population. Target population refers to people with low incomes who have one or more disabilities, including mental illness, HIV or AIDS, substance abuse, or other chronic health condition, or individuals eligible for services provided pursuant to the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 4500) of the Welfare and Institutions Code) and may include, among other populations, adults, emancipated minors, families with children, elderly people, young adults aging out of the foster care system, individuals exiting from institutional settings, veterans, and people experiencing homelessness.

Tenure. If a unit is owner occupied or renter occupied.

Townhouse. A single-family unit constructed in a group of three or more attached units in which each unit extends from the foundation to the roof and with its own front and rear access to the outside. A townhouse unit can be individually owned.

Transitional Housing. Temporary rental housing intended for occupancy by target populations transitioning to permanent housing that is operated under program requirements calling for the termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at some predetermined future point in time, which shall be no less than six months as defined in Section 50675.2 of the California Health and Safety Code.

Use. Purpose for which a site or structure is arranged, designed, intended, constructed, erected, moved, altered or enlarged or for which either a site or structure(s) may be occupied or maintained.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
A P P E N D I X H | H - 1 1
Zone or Zoning district. Portion of the territory of the city within which certain uniform regulations and requirements or various combinations thereof, apply under the provisions of Scotts Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 17.

Zoning Map. Official zoning map or maps of the City of Scotts Valley, adopted by the city council and effective upon the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title, together with all amendments thereto hereafter made.

Zoning Permit. Document signed by the building inspector, as required in this title, as a condition precedent to the commencement of a use or the erection, construction, reconstruction, restoration, alteration, conversion or installation of a structure or building which acknowledges that such use, structure or building complies with the provisions of this title.

DRAFT

H O U S I N G
H - 1 2 | A P P E N D I X H

A C R O N Y M S
AMBAG: Association of Monterey Bay Area
Governments
ACS: American Community Survey.

ADU: Accessory Dwelling Unit
ACS: American Community Survey
ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act
AFFH: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
AMI: Area Median Income
BMR: Below Market Rate
CAR: California Association of Realtors
CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act
CCCE: Central Cost Community Energy
CCCIL: Central Coast Center for
Independent Living
CDDS: California Department of
Developmental Services
CDBG: Community Development Block
Grant
CHAS: Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy
CPCU: California Public Utilities Commission
DFEH: Department of Fair Employment and
Housing
ELI: Extremely Low-Income
FHEO: Office of Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity
FAR: Floor Area Ratio
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management
Agency
FMR: Fair Market Rate
GMI: Gross Median Income
HAMI: HUD Area Median Income
HAMFI: HUD Area Median Family Income
HCD: Housing and Community
Development
HUD: Development Housing and Urban
Development
HCVP: Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
HH: Household
HMDA: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act
HOA: Homeowners Association
ICC: International Code Council
LBNC: Low-Barrier Navigation Center
LEAP: Local Early Action Planning
LIHTC: Low Income Housing Tax Credit
MCC: Mortgage Credit Certificate
MHI: Median household Income
MSA/MD: Metropolitan Statistical Area/
Metropolitan Division
OEHHA: Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment
PIT: Point-in-Time
PG&E: Pacific Gas and Electric Company
RMCC: Reissued Mortgage Credit Certificate
R/ECAP: Racially Concentrated Areas of
Poverty
RCAA: Racially Concentrated Areas of
Affluence
RHNA: Regional Housing Needs Assessment
ROI: Regional Opportunity Index
SRO: Single-Room Occupancy Unit
SVSLA: Scotts Valley Senior Life Association
SVMC: Scotts Valley Municipal Code
SB: Senate Bill
TCAC: California Tax Credit Allocation
Committee
DRAFT
UC: University of California

City of Scotts Valley Summary of Public Comments on the Public Review Draft Housing Element 6/22/2023 Page 2-1
Attachment 2 –Public Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element (May 19-June 22)
Public Comment
Author Comment
Housing
Choices
Affirmatively Further Fair Housing by Producing More Extremely Low-Income Housing.

Not only is disability the highest-ranked source of Fair Housing complaints in Santa Cruz County, a growing body of Santa Cruz County data indicates that Black, Indigenous and other People of Color (BIPOC) with disabilities experience higher rates of severe rent burden than either BIPOC without disabilities or whites with disabilities. Such disparities in the experience of severe rent burden, housing instability and displacement from the City of Scotts Valley are attributable to the shortage of housing priced to be affordable to Extremely Low Income (ELI) households with incomes below 30% of Area Median Income. Multiple barriers including high land and construction costs and limited funding make it difficult for developers to produce Extremely Low Income units that would help to reduce such disparities. Local zoning and other policies that lead to increased production of Extremely Low Income units, as well as city staff dedicated to implementing and overseeing those policies, will Affirmatively Further Fair Housing in the City of Scotts Valley and decrease displacement and homelessness for the most at-risk residents, including people with developmental disabilities.

Suggested Language from Commenter: The City of Scotts Valley’s plans to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing for Black, Indigenous and other People of Color, particularly those with disabilities, shall include policies designed to increase the production of Extremely Low Income units, as well as adequate staff capacity to implement and monitor the impact of these policies.

Establish and monitor a quantitative goal.

Tracking the City’s success in housing people with developmental disabilities is essential to determine whether policies and programs are having an effect in overcoming historic patterns of discrimination and exclusion of people with developmental disabilities from affordable housing. A goal of 20 new Extremely Low-Income housing units for City of Scotts Valley residents with developmental disabilities over the period of the 2023-2031 Housing Element would represent meaningful progress towards the total unmet housing need of this special needs group.

Suggested Language from Commenter: The City of Scotts Valley shall monitor progress towards a quantitative goal of 20 new Extremely Low Income housing units that are subject to a preference for people with developmental disabilities needing the coordinated services provided by San Andreas Regional Center to live inclusively in affordable housing.

Target City-Owned Land, Land Dedicated to Affordable Housing and City Housing Funds to Achieve City-Specific Priorities.

City-owned land, land dedicated to affordable housing development through a land trust or under an inclusionary housing ordinance, and city housing funds are often essential to the development of affordable housing that is financially feasible. In creating guidelines for the scoring of any competitive proposals for these scarce resources, the City should grant additional points to affordable housing projects that address the housing needs of the residents who are most difficult to house under existing state and federal housing finance programs--for example, by prioritizing proposals with a higher number of Extremely Low Income units or that make a percentage of units subject to a preference for identified categories of special needs people who would benefit from coordinated onsite services, including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities who

City of Scotts Valley Summary of Public Comments on the Public Review Draft Housing Element 6/22/2023 Page 2-2
Public Comment
Author Comment
benefit from services of the San Andreas Regional Center. Example: City of San Jose Housing Department NOFA; San Mateo County Affordable Housing Fund NOFA Suggested Language from Commenter: In publishing requests for competitive proposals for any city-owned land, land dedicated to affordable housing or city housing funds, the City of Scotts Valley shall grant additional points to proposals that address the city’s most difficult to achieve housing priorities, by, for example, providing a greater number of Extremely Low-Income units or committing to make a percentage of the units subject to a preference for people with special needs who will benefit from coordinated onsite services, such as people with developmental disabilities who receive services from the San Andreas Regional Center.

Amend Density Bonus Program.

Like many state and federal housing finance programs, the state density bonus program incentivizes the production of housing at the Low and Very Low Income level. But in counties like Santa Cruz County, with one of the highest Area Median Incomes in the state, these incentives have the effect of making much of the available affordable housing out of reach for residents on fixed incomes (including seniors and persons with disabilities) or who are working in low wage jobs and are thus unable to meet minimum income requirements to afford the rent assigned to the Very Low Income category. The City of Scotts Valley should update its density bonus program to conform with current state density bonus law which has increased the maximum density bonus allowed. In addition, the city should include in its updated density bonus program incentives which go above and beyond the state density bonus law to make it more responsive to the impact of Santa Cruz County’s high Area Median Income on the affordability of housing for Scotts Valley residents who are Extremely Low Income. The city should also include additional incentives for projects that make a percentage of units subject to a preference for identified categories of special needs populations who experience the greatest barriers to housing access including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities who benefit from services of the Golden Gate Regional Center.

Suggested Language from Commenter: In addition to implementing the California density bonus statute, the City shall provide an additional local density bonus, incentives, and/or concessions for housing projects that include at least 5% of the units for people at the Extremely Low-Income affordability level or commit to make a percentage of the units subject to a preference for people with special needs who will benefit from coordinated onsite services, such as people with developmental disabilities who receive services from the Golden Gate Regional Center.

Amend Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to Apply Restrictions to Rental Housing.

California law (AB 1505, the “Palmer Fix”) explicitly allows cities to adopt inclusionary housing ordinances that address a range of income levels from moderate-income to extremely low-income. The City should take advantage of this authority to make its ordinance more responsive to local needs by offering developers of rental housing a menu of options for including affordable units, for example, by setting a higher percentage of units priced for moderate income and a lower percentage of units priced for extremely low income or targeted to special needs populations. Such a menu would address a broader range of the City of Scotts Valley’s housing needs, while giving developers more options for meeting the inclusionary requirement. Example: San Mateo County Inclusionary Affordable Housing Ordinance; Redwood City Affordable Housing Ordinance
Suggested Language from Commenter: The City of Scotts Valley shall revise its inclusionary housing ordinance to require developers of rental housing units to restrict some units to moderate, low, very low, and/or extremely low-income households. In

City of Scotts Valley Summary of Public Comments on the Public Review Draft Housing Element 6/22/2023 Page 2-3
Public Comment
Author Comment
addition developers will be offered a menu of options for achieving affordability, adjusting the percentage of units required to be affordable depending on the degree of affordability achieved (moderate-income, low income, very low income, and extremely low income) or special needs groups targeted, including, for example, people with developmental disabilities who will benefit from coordinated onsite services provided by the San Andreas Regional Center.

Extremely Low-Income Accessory Dwelling Units. As part of a larger plan to increase the supply
of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), the City should consider creating a financing program for homeowners who build ADUs and rent them for at least 15 years at Extremely Low Income rent levels or that are subject to a preference for identified categories of special needs people who would benefit from coordinated onsite services, including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities who benefit from services of the San Andreas Regional Center. Example: Portland System Development Charge Exemptions; LA Backyard Homes Project
Suggested Language from Commenter: Subject to funding availability, the City shall devise a program of financing for Accessory Dwelling Units subject to rent restrictions for at least 15 years at Extremely Low-Income rent levels and/or that target special needs populations, such as people with developmental disabilities who will benefit from coordinated services provided by the San Andreas Regional Center.

Reduce Parking Requirements for People with Developmental and Other Disabilities.

Because most adults with developmental disabilities do not drive or own a car, the City should revise its ordinances to limit parking required for affordable units for people with developmental disabilities to 0.5 space for each affordable studio or 1 bedroom unit and 1 space for an affordable 2 bedroom unit or larger. A similar reduction is recommended for affordable, physically accessible units. Example: Sunnyvale Parking Requirements for Special Housing Developments
Suggested Language from Commenter: The City of Scotts Valley shall encourage the inclusion of people with developmental and other disabilities in affordable housing by recognizing their transit dependence and establishing lower parking ratios for units targeted to people with developmental and other disabilities than would otherwise be required for affordable housing.

Affirmative Marketing of Physically Accessible Units:

Developers are allowed to affirmatively market accessible units to disability-serving organizations in Santa Cruz County (i.e. San Andreas Regional Center, Housing Choices Coalition for Persons with Developmental Disabilities, Central Coast Center for Independent Living and others) but rarely take this step. Affirmative marketing is particularly needed by people with developmental disabilities who, because of cognitive, communication and social impairment, often rely on housing navigation services funded by the San Andreas Regional Center to learn about and apply for affordable housing.

Suggested Language from Commenter As a condition of the disposition of any cityowned land, the award of city financing, any density bonus concessions, or land use exceptions or waivers for any affordable housing project, the City of Scotts Valley shall require that the housing developer implement an affirmative marketing plan for statemandated physically accessible units which, among other measures, provides disabilityserving organizations adequate prior notice of the availability of the accessible units and a process for supporting people with qualifying disabilities to apply.

City of Scotts Valley Summary of Public Comments on the Public Review Draft Housing Element 6/22/2023 Page 2-4
Public Comment
Author Comment
Letter
from
Michael
Shulman
It is rather confusing that there is identical numbering for the Policies and the Programs, as (for example) Policy H-1.1 speaks to housing variety in general while Program H-1.1 is specific to the 6th cycle RHNA. Since this document will be used for the next 10 years, there could be some benefit to having some nomenclature distinction between these two classes (“PoH-1.1” v “PrH-1.1”, for example).

Program H-1.1 (RHNA): Table F-2 shows very encouraging numbers that bely publicly expressed concerns over the RHNA assigned to SV. Table F-6 takes an appropriately expanded view of the housing opportunities at the Town Center, recognizing the potential to redevelop certain existing parcels beyond their current singularly commercial purpose.

The re-zoning opportunities along SV Drive, in addition to offering housing sites, can also generate long-needed economic revitalization along this corridor. But it is not clear why the rezoning is being proposed for only 33 identified parcels. An overlay zone that allows all property owners an ability to participate avoids the potential trap of the City attempting to pick winners-and-losers based on the ephemeral and potentially transient reasons offered on Page F-19. Identifying just these 33 parcels also creates unjustified inequitable development opportunities between adjacent parcels that may put the City on tenuous legal footing. We can’t know who will want to redevelop or who will constructively engage in lot consolidation; properties can change hands and zoning-based advantages can simply raise the perceived value of a parcel rather than necessarily lead to its prompt development.

There should also be more consideration given to allow 100% residential along at least some portions of this corridor rather than insist on minimum 30% commercial development. There simply may not be a viable market for commercial anytime soon and the encumbrance on all properties is counterproductive. The City’s economic viability no longer relies on the sales and business tax generation that was the basis for the nonresidential legacy zoning of SV Drive. A high density residential overlay combined with PD (planned development) regulations along SV Drive, from Mt. Hermon all the way to Victor Square, could simplify and stimulate redevelopment, make great strides towards fulfilling our RHNA, and provide more resident wallets that will drive economic growth in our existing retail and employment centers.

Program H-1.4 (ADU) – ADUs are perceived as an easy fix to affordable housing challenges because their small size makes them inherently more affordable, and by spreading them out within existing neighborhoods it can diffuse the opposition often associated with larger residential developments. But we should not overlook the adverse impacts they can have on fully developed neighborhoods by introducing more cars and traffics without any commensurate expansion of infrastructure, the loss of vegetation and open space (which matters, even when on individual parcels), and the crowding of structures and potential loss of privacy (depending on how the ADU is sited). ADUs should be accommodated where they work well in a particular neighborhood but we should be cautious about incentivizing them (as per H-2.2, Design Review). We can achieve our RHNA through commercial rezoning and undeveloped residential properties without reliance on one-off ADUs that warrant selective support and individual consideration; they are essentially a neighborhood-level ‘remodel’ and the incentives should focus on retaining the positive qualities of that neighborhood rather than be driven by quantity of units. The total number of projected ADUs shown in Table F-2 (40) speak to their near irrelevance to meeting SV’s RHNA. Some actions proposed are contrary to good planning and pose enforcement challenges -- permit ready ADU plans may conflict with the character of a property or neighborhood, and affordability deed restrictions on individual property owners are intrusive, difficult to effectively regulate, and can generate conflict when the property changes hands.

City of Scotts Valley Summary of Public Comments on the Public Review Draft Housing Element 6/22/2023 Page 2-5
Public Comment
Author Comment
Program H-1.5 (removal of constraints) – This program needs more substance; it only says we’ll talk about it and conduct research. Yet despite this ambiguity, it seems to have concluded that parking
requirements are a fair target. Everyone hates parking except when it is a challenge for them or their guests / customers to find a space. In MF and commercial developments, minimum parking requirements exist for clear and valid reasons. SV has other legacy development constraints (building heights, densities, commercial v residential percentages, etc.) that do not necessarily have such clear rationale, at least in a broad, one-size-fits-all sense; see also my comment on page C-3 below. The concept behind this program is worthwhile but the text is insufficiently ambitious. To say “if constraints are identified, adopt changes with(in) two years” will not lead to changes if those who have maintained the constraints are those who are now supposed to identify them. The Actions should identify both the process (who, how, and when) and specific objectives for the program. For example, the Planning Commission could be charged with identifying the nexus between the residential development standards and our planning objectives, and then making recommendations (within one year) for balancing these with our affordable housing goals.

Program H-1.7 (affordable housing) – Applying the inclusion ordinance City-wide doesn’t change the financial realities associated with creating lower-cost housing from high-cost land. It simply creates a new constraint (see Program H-1.5) on hillside properties or existing neighborhoods whose development future is more likely to consist of replacement rather than additional housing. Instead, we might consider associating the inclusionary ordinance with zoning density and/or project scale, having it apply for all MF zones and developments exceeding 5 units where it is much more practical to create affordable units.

Policy H-2.1 (property maintenance) – The Policy (and Program) statements refer to property maintenance standards, but it is not clear that local government has an enforceable role beyond issues associated with health and safety codes. Zoning and building codes are generally applied only during the permitting process. The H-2.1 Policy and Program (and its underlying actions) text may need clarification. The City does not want neighbors with different aesthetic preferences to drag the City into squabbles over paint colors, landscaping, and similar conflicts that can arise and really need to be resolved between the parties.

Policy H-3.1 (special needs groups) – It is not clear whether the expansive identification of these groups (as discussed on pages B-15 through B-24) is defined by the State or just reflects the opinion of the authors. Large families, single parents, and college students have housing affordability challenges that seem quite similar to those of the general population. Identifying them as a “special needs group” dilutes our ability to focus on the unique affordability challenges of those dependent on special housing accommodations (such as seniors, disabled, and extremely low income). While page B23 cites 2020 ACS data showing 1,267 college or grad school students living in SV (a full 10% of our population), it is likely that most live in their family home and have simply not yet reached financial independence. That doesn’t make them a special needs group. This policy should perhaps be less ambitious so the associated programs and actions can have better focus.

Policy H-3.3 (equal housing opportunity) – housing discrimination is blatantly illegal and the City should refer any such matters to the District Attorney rather than just “discourage” it. The City’s housing plan shouldn’t soft-pedal such behavior.

City of Scotts Valley Summary of Public Comments on the Public Review Draft Housing Element 6/22/2023 Page 2-1
Attachment 2 –Public Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element (May 19-June 22)
Public Comment
Author Comment
Housing
Choices
Affirmatively Further Fair Housing by Producing More Extremely Low-Income Housing.

Not only is disability the highest-ranked source of Fair Housing complaints in Santa Cruz County, a growing body of Santa Cruz County data indicates that Black, Indigenous and other People of Color (BIPOC) with disabilities experience higher rates of severe rent burden than either BIPOC without disabilities or whites with disabilities. Such disparities in the experience of severe rent burden, housing instability and displacement from the City of Scotts Valley are attributable to the shortage of housing priced to be affordable to Extremely Low Income (ELI) households with incomes below 30% of Area Median Income. Multiple barriers including high land and construction costs and limited funding make it difficult for developers to produce Extremely Low Income units that would help to reduce such disparities. Local zoning and other policies that lead to increased production of Extremely Low Income units, as well as city staff dedicated to implementing and overseeing those policies, will Affirmatively Further Fair Housing in the City of Scotts Valley and decrease displacement and homelessness for the most at-risk residents, including people with developmental disabilities.

Suggested Language from Commenter: The City of Scotts Valley’s plans to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing for Black, Indigenous and other People of Color, particularly those with disabilities, shall include policies designed to increase the production of Extremely Low Income units, as well as adequate staff capacity to implement and monitor the impact of these policies.

Establish and monitor a quantitative goal.

Tracking the City’s success in housing people with developmental disabilities is essential to determine whether policies and programs are having an effect in overcoming historic patterns of discrimination and exclusion of people with developmental disabilities from affordable housing. A goal of 20 new Extremely Low-Income housing units for City of Scotts Valley residents with developmental disabilities over the period of the 2023-2031 Housing Element would represent meaningful progress towards the total unmet housing need of this special needs group.

Suggested Language from Commenter: The City of Scotts Valley shall monitor progress towards a quantitative goal of 20 new Extremely Low Income housing units that are subject to a preference for people with developmental disabilities needing the coordinated services provided by San Andreas Regional Center to live inclusively in affordable housing.

Target City-Owned Land, Land Dedicated to Affordable Housing and City Housing Funds to Achieve City-Specific Priorities.

City-owned land, land dedicated to affordable housing development through a land trust or under an inclusionary housing ordinance, and city housing funds are often essential to the development of affordable housing that is financially feasible. In creating guidelines for the scoring of any competitive proposals for these scarce resources, the City should grant additional points to affordable housing projects that address the housing needs of the residents who are most difficult to house under existing state and federal housing finance programs--for example, by prioritizing proposals with a higher number of Extremely Low Income units or that make a percentage of units subject to a preference for identified categories of special needs people who would benefit from coordinated onsite services, including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities who

City of Scotts Valley Summary of Public Comments on the Public Review Draft Housing Element 6/22/2023 Page 2-2
Public Comment
Author Comment
benefit from services of the San Andreas Regional Center. Example: City of San Jose Housing Department NOFA; San Mateo County Affordable Housing Fund NOFA Suggested Language from Commenter: In publishing requests for competitive proposals for any city-owned land, land dedicated to affordable housing or city housing funds, the City of Scotts Valley shall grant additional points to proposals that address the city’s most difficult to achieve housing priorities, by, for example, providing a greater number of Extremely Low-Income units or committing to make a percentage of the units subject to a preference for people with special needs who will benefit from coordinated onsite services, such as people with developmental disabilities who receive services from the San Andreas Regional Center.

Amend Density Bonus Program.

Like many state and federal housing finance programs, the state density bonus program incentivizes the production of housing at the Low and Very Low Income level. But in counties like Santa Cruz County, with one of the highest Area Median Incomes in the state, these incentives have the effect of making much of the available affordable housing out of reach for residents on fixed incomes (including seniors and persons with disabilities) or who are working in low wage jobs and are thus unable to meet minimum income requirements to afford the rent assigned to the Very Low Income category. The City of Scotts Valley should update its density bonus program to conform with current state density bonus law which has increased the maximum density bonus allowed. In addition, the city should include in its updated density bonus program incentives which go above and beyond the state density bonus law to make it more responsive to the impact of Santa Cruz County’s high Area Median Income on the affordability of housing for Scotts Valley residents who are Extremely Low Income. The city should also include additional incentives for projects that make a percentage of units subject to a preference for identified categories of special needs populations who experience the greatest barriers to housing access including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities who benefit from services of the Golden Gate Regional Center.

Suggested Language from Commenter: In addition to implementing the California density bonus statute, the City shall provide an additional local density bonus, incentives, and/or concessions for housing projects that include at least 5% of the units for people at the Extremely Low-Income affordability level or commit to make a percentage of the units subject to a preference for people with special needs who will benefit from coordinated onsite services, such as people with developmental disabilities who receive services from the Golden Gate Regional Center.

Amend Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to Apply Restrictions to Rental Housing.

California law (AB 1505, the “Palmer Fix”) explicitly allows cities to adopt inclusionary housing ordinances that address a range of income levels from moderate-income to extremely low-income. The City should take advantage of this authority to make its ordinance more responsive to local needs by offering developers of rental housing a menu of options for including affordable units, for example, by setting a higher percentage of units priced for moderate income and a lower percentage of units priced for extremely low income or targeted to special needs populations. Such a menu would address a broader range of the City of Scotts Valley’s housing needs, while giving developers more options for meeting the inclusionary requirement. Example: San Mateo County Inclusionary Affordable Housing Ordinance; Redwood City Affordable Housing Ordinance
Suggested Language from Commenter: The City of Scotts Valley shall revise its inclusionary housing ordinance to require developers of rental housing units to restrict some units to moderate, low, very low, and/or extremely low-income households. In

City of Scotts Valley Summary of Public Comments on the Public Review Draft Housing Element 6/22/2023 Page 2-3
Public Comment
Author Comment
addition developers will be offered a menu of options for achieving affordability, adjusting the percentage of units required to be affordable depending on the degree of affordability achieved (moderate-income, low income, very low income, and extremely low income) or special needs groups targeted, including, for example, people with developmental disabilities who will benefit from coordinated onsite services provided by the San Andreas Regional Center.

Extremely Low-Income Accessory Dwelling Units. As part of a larger plan to increase the supply
of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), the City should consider creating a financing program for homeowners who build ADUs and rent them for at least 15 years at Extremely Low Income rent levels or that are subject to a preference for identified categories of special needs people who would benefit from coordinated onsite services, including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities who benefit from services of the San Andreas Regional Center. Example: Portland System Development Charge Exemptions; LA Backyard Homes Project
Suggested Language from Commenter: Subject to funding availability, the City shall devise a program of financing for Accessory Dwelling Units subject to rent restrictions for at least 15 years at Extremely Low-Income rent levels and/or that target special needs populations, such as people with developmental disabilities who will benefit from coordinated services provided by the San Andreas Regional Center.

Reduce Parking Requirements for People with Developmental and Other Disabilities.

Because most adults with developmental disabilities do not drive or own a car, the City should revise its ordinances to limit parking required for affordable units for people with developmental disabilities to 0.5 space for each affordable studio or 1 bedroom unit and 1 space for an affordable 2 bedroom unit or larger. A similar reduction is recommended for affordable, physically accessible units. Example: Sunnyvale Parking Requirements for Special Housing Developments
Suggested Language from Commenter: The City of Scotts Valley shall encourage the inclusion of people with developmental and other disabilities in affordable housing by recognizing their transit dependence and establishing lower parking ratios for units targeted to people with developmental and other disabilities than would otherwise be required for affordable housing.

Affirmative Marketing of Physically Accessible Units:

Developers are allowed to affirmatively market accessible units to disability-serving organizations in Santa Cruz County (i.e. San Andreas Regional Center, Housing Choices Coalition for Persons with Developmental Disabilities, Central Coast Center for Independent Living and others) but rarely take this step. Affirmative marketing is particularly needed by people with developmental disabilities who, because of cognitive, communication and social impairment, often rely on housing navigation services funded by the San Andreas Regional Center to learn about and apply for affordable housing.

Suggested Language from Commenter As a condition of the disposition of any cityowned land, the award of city financing, any density bonus concessions, or land use exceptions or waivers for any affordable housing project, the City of Scotts Valley shall require that the housing developer implement an affirmative marketing plan for statemandated physically accessible units which, among other measures, provides disabilityserving organizations adequate prior notice of the availability of the accessible units and a process for supporting people with qualifying disabilities to apply.

City of Scotts Valley Summary of Public Comments on the Public Review Draft Housing Element 6/22/2023 Page 2-4
Public Comment
Author Comment
Letter
from
Michael
Shulman
It is rather confusing that there is identical numbering for the Policies and the Programs, as (for example) Policy H-1.1 speaks to housing variety in general while Program H-1.1 is specific to the 6th cycle RHNA. Since this document will be used for the next 10 years, there could be some benefit to having some nomenclature distinction between these two classes (“PoH-1.1” v “PrH-1.1”, for example).

Program H-1.1 (RHNA): Table F-2 shows very encouraging numbers that bely publicly expressed concerns over the RHNA assigned to SV. Table F-6 takes an appropriately expanded view of the housing opportunities at the Town Center, recognizing the potential to redevelop certain existing parcels beyond their current singularly commercial purpose.

The re-zoning opportunities along SV Drive, in addition to offering housing sites, can also generate long-needed economic revitalization along this corridor. But it is not clear why the rezoning is being proposed for only 33 identified parcels. An overlay zone that allows all property owners an ability to participate avoids the potential trap of the City attempting to pick winners-and-losers based on the ephemeral and potentially transient reasons offered on Page F-19. Identifying just these 33 parcels also creates unjustified inequitable development opportunities between adjacent parcels that may put the City on tenuous legal footing. We can’t know who will want to redevelop or who will constructively engage in lot consolidation; properties can change hands and zoning-based advantages can simply raise the perceived value of a parcel rather than necessarily lead to its prompt development.

There should also be more consideration given to allow 100% residential along at least some portions of this corridor rather than insist on minimum 30% commercial development. There simply may not be a viable market for commercial anytime soon and the encumbrance on all properties is counterproductive. The City’s economic viability no longer relies on the sales and business tax generation that was the basis for the nonresidential legacy zoning of SV Drive. A high density residential overlay combined with PD (planned development) regulations along SV Drive, from Mt. Hermon all the way to Victor Square, could simplify and stimulate redevelopment, make great strides towards fulfilling our RHNA, and provide more resident wallets that will drive economic growth in our existing retail and employment centers.

Program H-1.4 (ADU) – ADUs are perceived as an easy fix to affordable housing challenges because their small size makes them inherently more affordable, and by spreading them out within existing neighborhoods it can diffuse the opposition often associated with larger residential developments. But we should not overlook the adverse impacts they can have on fully developed neighborhoods by introducing more cars and traffics without any commensurate expansion of infrastructure, the loss of vegetation and open space (which matters, even when on individual parcels), and the crowding of structures and potential loss of privacy (depending on how the ADU is sited). ADUs should be accommodated where they work well in a particular neighborhood but we should be cautious about incentivizing them (as per H-2.2, Design Review). We can achieve our RHNA through commercial rezoning and undeveloped residential properties without reliance on one-off ADUs that warrant selective support and individual consideration; they are essentially a neighborhood-level ‘remodel’ and the incentives should focus on retaining the positive qualities of that neighborhood rather than be driven by quantity of units. The total number of projected ADUs shown in Table F-2 (40) speak to their near irrelevance to meeting SV’s RHNA. Some actions proposed are contrary to good planning and pose enforcement challenges -- permit ready ADU plans may conflict with the character of a property or neighborhood, and affordability deed restrictions on individual property owners are intrusive, difficult to effectively regulate, and can generate conflict when the property changes hands.

City of Scotts Valley Summary of Public Comments on the Public Review Draft Housing Element 6/22/2023 Page 2-5
Public Comment
Author Comment
Program H-1.5 (removal of constraints) – This program needs more substance; it only says we’ll talk about it and conduct research. Yet despite this ambiguity, it seems to have concluded that parking
requirements are a fair target. Everyone hates parking except when it is a challenge for them or their guests / customers to find a space. In MF and commercial developments, minimum parking requirements exist for clear and valid reasons. SV has other legacy development constraints (building heights, densities, commercial v residential percentages, etc.) that do not necessarily have such clear rationale, at least in a broad, one-size-fits-all sense; see also my comment on page C-3 below. The concept behind this program is worthwhile but the text is insufficiently ambitious. To say “if constraints are identified, adopt changes with(in) two years” will not lead to changes if those who have maintained the constraints are those who are now supposed to identify them. The Actions should identify both the process (who, how, and when) and specific objectives for the program. For example, the Planning Commission could be charged with identifying the nexus between the residential development standards and our planning objectives, and then making recommendations (within one year) for balancing these with our affordable housing goals.

Program H-1.7 (affordable housing) – Applying the inclusion ordinance City-wide doesn’t change the financial realities associated with creating lower-cost housing from high-cost land. It simply creates a new constraint (see Program H-1.5) on hillside properties or existing neighborhoods whose development future is more likely to consist of replacement rather than additional housing. Instead, we might consider associating the inclusionary ordinance with zoning density and/or project scale, having it apply for all MF zones and developments exceeding 5 units where it is much more practical to create affordable units.

Policy H-2.1 (property maintenance) – The Policy (and Program) statements refer to property maintenance standards, but it is not clear that local government has an enforceable role beyond issues associated with health and safety codes. Zoning and building codes are generally applied only during the permitting process. The H-2.1 Policy and Program (and its underlying actions) text may need clarification. The City does not want neighbors with different aesthetic preferences to drag the City into squabbles over paint colors, landscaping, and similar conflicts that can arise and really need to be resolved between the parties.

Policy H-3.1 (special needs groups) – It is not clear whether the expansive identification of these groups (as discussed on pages B-15 through B-24) is defined by the State or just reflects the opinion of the authors. Large families, single parents, and college students have housing affordability challenges that seem quite similar to those of the general population. Identifying them as a “special needs group” dilutes our ability to focus on the unique affordability challenges of those dependent on special housing accommodations (such as seniors, disabled, and extremely low income). While page B23 cites 2020 ACS data showing 1,267 college or grad school students living in SV (a full 10% of our population), it is likely that most live in their family home and have simply not yet reached financial independence. That doesn’t make them a special needs group. This policy should perhaps be less ambitious so the associated programs and actions can have better focus.

Policy H-3.3 (equal housing opportunity) – housing discrimination is blatantly illegal and the City should refer any such matters to the District Attorney rather than just “discourage” it. The City’s housing plan shouldn’t soft-pedal such behavior.

City of Scotts Valley Summary of Public Comments on the Public Review Draft Housing Element 6/22/2023 Page 2-6
Public Comment
Author Comment
Program H-3.2 (fair housing) – The first sentence of the second paragraph is a bit garbled. The entire RCAA discussion (pages E-9 and E-10) tries to discuss patterns of discrimination but it just doesn’t work on the scale of SV. The data used here seems to have been gleaned from the 2015-2019 ACS which, as noted on B-24 (below), had some serious accuracy problems in this timeframe. The statement (page E-10) that “RCAAs may represent a public policy issue to the extent that they have been created and maintained through exclusionary and discriminatory land use and development practices” is a charged accusation that seems reflective of our fraught political environment but it does nothing to help SV meet its housing goals. Appendix E overall fails to identify “racially concentrated areas of affluence” in SV, and there’s no reason given to “establish specific incentives for the development of affordable units in the RCAAs” rather than just city-wide. While some of this content may be legally required, it reads as an unnecessary and pointless distraction that looks to sound politically correct but is indecipherable in practice.

Also under this program, the first action on page 2-15 suggests the City should “provide home repair and rehabilitation assistance for at least 20 households.” Any such assistance should be specifically targeted to those needing economic assistance and where the repair/rehab has a health or safety component; the City does not have the resources to just help everyone with their home improvement projects.

Program H-3.3 (childcare facilities) – The phrasing here is misleading as the City does not “make” these services available, affordable, or accessible. The first sentence should be rephrased to “The City shall continue to support the availability of high quality childcare services that are affordable and accessible …”.

Program H-3.6 (housing for lower income households) – This is the core issue and it’s unfortunate to find it buried on page 27, with so little discussion and no tangible actions. “Coordinate” and “meet with” do not move the ball forward. Relevant actions that are cited elsewhere (such as rezoning, incentivizing lot consolidation, removal of development constraints, and density bonuses) should at least be referenced here.

Program H-3.9 (emergency shelters) – the last bulleted action item may be overly ambitious and conflicts with our need to prioritize funding and incentives for affordable housing writ large. As noted in the Program text, the homeless population in Scotts Valley is quite small and prioritizing those housing needs will inherently deprioritize others. It should also be clarified as to whether the “projects” referred to in this action are separate emergency shelter facilities or programs to support emergency shelter functions at existing multi-purpose facilities.

Program H-3.10 (density bonus) – Along with H-3.6, this program has a potentially large role to play in the City’s attainment of its RHNA. But it also can and should be coordinated with the otherwise underlying permitted zoning densities, proposed elsewhere (Program H-1.1) to permit up to 40 units per acre. Automatically applying PD zoning wherever density bonuses are offered can help address site and neighborhood compatibility.

Program H-3.12 (condominium conversion) – Such an ordinance may have value for cities with centrally managed buildings full of condominiums; in SV, condominiums are individually owned and it is not practical or reasonable to prevent someone from selling their property when they no longer wish to maintain it as a rental unit. There is no rational means for the city to establish “a maximum percent … that can be converted over a certain period of time” nor is there even a suggestion of evidence that this is a problem in need of a solution. Table B-29 in fact shows a significant increase (from 2010 – 2020) of multifamily homes being rented rather than owned. The trend across the region is of

City of Scotts Valley Summary of Public Comments on the Public Review Draft Housing Element 6/22/2023 Page 2-7
Public Comment
Author Comment
wealthier individuals (and corporations) purchasing properties for investment and income generation purposes, and not taking them out of the rental market. There is simply no need for this ordinance in SV.

Program H-4.3 (water and sewer service) – Since the City itself is the sewer provider, this text should be simplified by removing reference to providing coordination with the sewer service provider as if they are a separate entity.

Page B-7 (economic characteristics) – This page has a typo where it states “The County of Santa Cruz’s median income for a household of four is $199,300, according to the 2022 State of California Income Limits for Santa Cruz County.” That correct number is $119,300 in accordance with https://www.hcd.ca.gov/docs/grants-andfunding/inc2k22.pdf.

Page B-24 (housing stock characteristics) – The acknowledged inaccuracy of the Table B-27 data, which suggests a significant decrease in housing units from 2010 (4661) to 2015 (4390) raises a question as to the accuracy of other estimates from the ACS surveys. It might be worthwhile for the City (or its consultant) to take careful stock of other numbers associated with these surveys to ensure that decisions and program choices are not being made based on bad or suspect data.

Tables C-3 (permitted residential densities) and C-5 (development standards) – these are the key constraints impacting SV’s ability to meet its diverse and affordable housing needs. The ‘very high density residential’ cap of 20 units per acre, 2100 sq ft/unit, and 35 ft building height have been in place since prior to the 1994 General Plan, when land was cheap and the driving force behind increased density was developer profitability. These constraints on multifamily developments promote two story, nicely spaced structures with plentiful recreational and landscape amenities, which are very nice. But such developments are quite low density relative to what is otherwise possible and palatable.

We can and should allow significantly higher unit densities along the SV Drive and Mt.

Hermon corridors, recognizing their more urban aesthetic along transportation corridors, the different needs of today’s younger, older, and non-traditional households, and the financial realities of providing housing for those with lower incomes.

Page C-44 (water supply) – The top of page C-46 cites only the decreased amount of effluent flowing to Monterey Bay as a result of the water reclamation facility (WRF), but that fact has only a modest relationship to increasing our housing stock. It would be of more value for this document to mention the significant decrease in potable water demand since the WRF came online and the positive impacts of various water conservation measures that have been implemented (including building code requirements for water efficient appliances). A frequent concern cited by those opposed to more housing in SV is the potential adverse impact to our sole-source water supply.

Presenting the data showing how aquifer water levels have recovered since the early 2000s and discussing the relative water use rates between SF (with landscaping) vs MF units would go a long way towards making those discussions more rational and factbased.

Letter
from C2G
Analysis included in the letter suggests that developers and property owners will not be able to meet the number of units assumed on each Mixed-Use Rezone parcel with the 30% commercial requirement given parking requirements for both commercial and residential. The letter suggests that an increase in the residential component at minimum to 90 percent, with 100% residential preferred, would be required for the development to be feasible.

City of Scotts Valley Summary of Public Comments on the Public Review Draft Housing Element 6/22/2023 Page 2-8
Public Comment
Author Comment
With Scotts Valley being a transit corridor, these [mixed-use rezone] properties would be able to implement the State’s Density Bonus Law. This could allow the density to increase by 35% with the affordable housing components required for these sites. This could increase the number of units to 54/Acre!
The Density Bonus Law also reduces the parking requirements. Instead of relying on the State Density Bonus Law, it would make more sense for the City to reduce the parking requirements for these mix-use zoning areas with the new Housing Element.

To the last topic, Residential Rezoning. When examining Table F-2 in the Housing Element, the RHNA hosing goal is almost achieved without the rezoning of the three (3) suggested properties. If the Density Bonus Law was encouraged for the mix-use sites, the residential re-zoning would not be needed.

Also, SB9 and ADU laws should be encouraged by the City Planning staff and proactively reach out to the community via social media, local newspapers and local service community meetings. This approach would look better (than randomly picking properties to rezone with higher density) for the City in our professional opinion.

Letter
from
Charlie
Eadie
Add to your mixed use inventory of potential sites two parcels at 4627 Scotts Valley Drive, APNs 022-082-34.35. This site consists of just under an acre and would be a prime candidate for high density and/or mixed use high density housing.

Be explicit about the ratio of commercial to residential in mixed use projects in the Housing Element. The past policy in the General Plan (not the zoning ordinance) interpreted to require a 50/50 ratio (the "50 percent rule" so called), however wellintended, had the effect of killing numerous proposals for housing/commercial mixed use projects. Other jurisdictions are facilitating mixed use by either eliminating floor area ratio standards altogether, or setting the mix in a way that makes projects at least theoretically possible. For example, the County of SC now has proposed an 80/20 housing/commercial mix in their Housing Element.

Address processing issues. In particular, SV processing times have been extraordinarily long, and the Housing Element consultants should look into the history of that for various projects. One suggestion would be to reduce the high level of detailed engineering and other work now required by the City just to get to hearing on land use/design approval.

This adds significant time and costs to getting a "complete" application, and can leave decision-makers frustrated because the project is essentially a "finished product" when they finally see it which inhibits their willingness/ability to make changes. Better to have the use and design considered and worked out before requiring the nth degree of detail in the plans.

Letter
from
Affordable
Housing
Now
While the HE must address housing needs for all income levels, one of the greatest challenges is meeting the goals for very-low and low-income housing units. The density bonus law provides developers with powerful incentives to build lower income housing units. In the City of Santa Cruz, incentivizing the density bonus system has facilitated housing production, especially for very-low and low units, as the State law intended. The HE recommends updating to AB 2345 requirements (raising maximum bonus from 35% to 50%) and increasing the concessions. The reality is that Scots Valley has to compete with other jurisdictions to attract developers to deliver units, so it should entice them with density bonus incentives. With very few empty large lots available for new housing projects, bonus density applications including concessions and incentives will be critically important to help the City meets its 6th cycle HE housing goals.

One incentive successfully used in other jurisdictions that has not been formally used as an incentive in Scotts Valley is Section 8 Housing Vouchers. Since for years landlords

City of Scotts Valley Summary of Public Comments on the Public Review Draft Housing Element 6/22/2023 Page 2-9
Public Comment
Author Comment
have shunned using vouchers, the Housing Authority has been aggressive in securing dedicated voucher units in new projects and it is even doing its own project in the City of Santa Cruz. Both Santa Cruz and Watsonville allow for 5% of their inclusionary unit requirement to be met using housing vouchers, although at 20% their inclusionary rates are 5% higher than Scotts Valley's. This is a win-win as the developer gets market rate rents, but the voucher tenants who are the most needy, help deliver very-low and low housing units.

Affordable Housing NOW is concerned that too many of the RHNA units are tied to the Town Center. The HE indicates that 427 of the 649 very-low and low-income units would be built at the Town Center, and 657 of the total 1,220 units would be built there.

Modifying the Town Center Specific Plan is vital. As we have argued before, standalone residential units are important, but for affordable housing units trading land for inclusionary requirements might yield more. However, the density bonus system would need to be employed for that and 100% affordable housing projects would have the highest bonuses and concessions.

The programs and policies included in the HE makes the city well-positioned to pursue the California Department of Housing and Community Development's Pro housing Designation. The benefit to receiving the prohousing designation includes being given preference and additional points when pursuing state grant funds for affordable housing projects. Funding for affordable housing is one of the greatest challenges to overcome and this designation could give the city a competitive edge when pursuing state funding for Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities and Infill Infrastructure Grants.

Working to obtain the Prohousing designation will take time, but the payoff would be worth it for both funding and the increased production of affordable housing units.

The city should also not overlook new state laws that have been enacted, or may be passed this year, to facilitate construction of affordable housing projects. Reduction of parking requirements, ministerial approvals, construction of projects on church property, and streamlining permitting and project approvals can all help move projects along and reduce the amount of time it takes to complete construction and make affordable units available to individuals and families in need of housing. Laws that allow ministerial approvals can help the city move forward with much needed larger housing projects that can provide workforce housing for our community and help the City reach its RHNA housing goals.

We support the city's plan to meet annually with the development community, although more often might be better. Improved communication with developers can help the city identify regulations that constrain or create barriers to the construction of new affordable housing, especially for extremely low and low income units. Amending ordinances and regulations that impede projects from going forward will facilitate increased production of those much needed housing units. We also encourage working in collaboration with developers in the early stages of project development to maximize potential for housing units in the very-low and low-income categories.

Letter
from Eli
May
Requesting the 125 Bethany site be removed due to:

Current redevelopment efforts at this property.

We have been working toward obtaining approvals to redevelop this property for over 3 years. We have applied for and paid for all application fees in excess of $40,000 as well as over $100,000 in additional reports requested by the city. We have been fully engaged in an ongoing and responsive exchange with city staff to move forward on the redevelopment of this property. This has involved serious and continuous community engagement. We have responded to over 100 items from public works and the planning

City of Scotts Valley Summary of Public Comments on the Public Review Draft Housing Element 6/22/2023 Page 2-10
Public Comment
Author Comment
department over the course of several redesigns and resubmittals. In fact, we will be entering environmental review for our redevelopment application this month. We have engaged in an incredibly lengthy, expensive, and involved process and we don’t feel it’s appropriate to include this property on a list to be rezoned for residential while in the middle of the application process to be redeveloped. This is particularly true when the “community engagement” process employed by consultants for the housing element has been seriously lacking in transparency and invalid by comparison to the process we have engaged in for a single redevelopment application and taken extensive time to seriously implement. We feel that we are legally entitled to proceed with processing our application under CEQA and welcome environmental review of our incredibly thoughtful and positive redevelopment plan. We are joined by our tenants and neighbors in looking forward to an approval for a new building that benefits the community and reduces - not increases - impacts.

Current Uses.

The current zoning of our property is commercial professional. It currently has ~ 14,000 gross sq ft, which is 100% occupied by businesses that serve the community. The current redevelopment plan would replace the existing amount of office space and create more opportunities for local businesses to operate and grow. As part of our resubmission in April 2022 we included half a dozen letters from businesses (existing and potential tenants) imploring the city to approve our redevelopment. These uses are an important part of the local economy and its loss would be a detriment to the community.

Neglected impacts of the draft designated use
In the process of applying to redevelop our property, the city asked us to perform a number of professional reports to study the impacts of the proposed redevelopment, which we did. This included extensive and expensive studies regarding noise, traffic and parking, as well as an arborist study and an archeologist study. The results of the studies showed that our proposed redevelopment would actually reduce impacts; it does not appear any similar studies have been performed to study the impacts of 41 residential units for this draft report.

Parking & Traffic
The traffic studies we had completed for our redevelopment show a delicate balance of parking on this property. 41 residential units at this site would make trip generations skyrocket and it would simply not be possible to park all of these units at this site.

Furthermore, the site is a relative island with a noisy freeway on one side with no other parking available in the immediate area, which would be a huge issue. It does not appear that our existing study has been reviewed or that a similar study has been conducted for the specific use designated in the draft housing plan. Also, this property is at the same intersection as Vine Hill Elementary, which already causes significant congestion at the intersection during school drop-off and pick-up times. A 41-residential unit site at this intersection would further exacerbate traffic in this area, Neighbors who live on Tabor and Bethany would face far worse congestion and traffic than they already do.

Noise
This site sits along HWY 17, which creates significant noise that would not be acceptable for the 41 units without significant noise-barrier walls, and the site simply does not have the space for this. It does not appear that a study has been performed on the noise at this site for residential use, as we have done for our proposed use.

Arborist
We performed an arborist study for our redevelopment and the city has mandated that we keep existing mature trees and add more shade trees to the parking area. This condition has further inhibited the number of parking spaces we can fit. It does not seem that an

City of Scotts Valley Summary of Public Comments on the Public Review Draft Housing Element 6/22/2023 Page 2-11
Public Comment
Author Comment
arborist study has been performed for the use of 41 residential units at this site as we had been tasked with doing, as it would show a lack of necessary parking and the consequent elimination of mature trees. These studies would show that the site is simply not equipped for this type of residential use.

Community Engagement
During the process of our redevelopment efforts, we held meetings with many stakeholders in the city including a comprehensive community engagement plan. We built a website detailing the redevelopment and sent direct mail to all of our neighbors to communicate with them about the project and point them toward the website along with contact information. It appears there has been very little community engagement around the process to create the housing element draft plan. I was not informed in writing as an owner of one of the three properties identified for rezoning. The Scotts Valley Press Banner noted the same issue in its article “Scotts Valley Housing Element workshop features little community input”.

Numerous opportunities elsewhere not identified
It is clear from the many public comments at the April 5th planning commission meeting that there are many property owners along Scotts Valley Dr that would be more than willing to build more dense residential projects, but are unable to because they would need to match 50/50 commercial to residential, which makes the projects not feasible.

Allowing these property owners to build dense residential projects would create more foot traffic for the businesses along Scotts Valley Dr thus attracting more businesses and more revenue for the city. Instead, the Draft Housing Report identified only three parcels in the entire city for rezoning. We believe the city needs to look closer at other commercial parcels along Scotts Valley Dr and beyond to meet its plan. The draft housing element failed entirely to aggregate the 50/50 requirement on a larger basis - and did not assume anything for the assemblage of parcels. This is an abject failure on the part of the consultants to recognize and move on to an obvious solution.

Furthermore, we believe the draft report missed multiple appropriate and obvious opportunities elsewhere. This includes ADUs. Last year, California passed SB9 which allows for any single-family residence to build at least one ADU and in many cases more than one. Scotts Valley is truly unique in that the city contains numerous older and larger residential parcels that can take advantage of SB9 - and do so appropriately within existing residential neighborhoods. This would not only capitalize on existing infrastructure but will also significantly disperse any impacts from this incremental approach. Yet the public draft report used historic ADU origination numbers from the last 8 years of only 3 ADUs being built per year, without taking into account the tremendous growth in ADU construction which is just now occurring from this landmark legislation.

There are also many other opportunities to account for more housing such as mobile home parks, which would be an obvious choice for more dense and affordable housing.

In conclusion, rezoning the property at 125 Bethany is not appropriate for a myriad of reasons, and I formally request this property be immediately removed from the draft plan.

Letter
from
Santa
Cruz
YIMBY
Probability of Meeting Low Income Targets
“The City of Scotts Valley has facilitated the building of market rate housing in recent years, but has made little effort to develop housing for low income workers.” According to the site inventory Scotts Valley is expecting that all sites identified for rezoning will set aside roughly 50% of their units for very-low, low, or moderate income families, while providing little evidence that this level of affordability will be realistically produced. Meanwhile, the city’s four pipeline projects consist of only 18% affordable units. We would like the city to explain why it expects to achieve this 50% target, and how it will enable the development of additional housing if this target is

City of Scotts Valley Summary of Public Comments on the Public Review Draft Housing Element 6/22/2023 Page 2-12
Public Comment
Author Comment
not being met. For comparison, the City of Santa Cruz is projecting a 20% affordability rate for most parcels in its site inventory.

If the city misses its target of 50% affordability, it faces the daunting task of identifying other sites to make up the difference under No Net Loss law. With nearly half of its very-low and low income units planned for through the Town Center Specific Plan, this single project not producing as many units as expected would subject the city to this law. Additionally, there is only a 9% buffer for moderate income units, HCD recommends a buffer of between 15 and 30 percent.

In order for Scotts Valley to meet the needs of its most vulnerable residents, it is essential that plans for affordable housing not only sound good, but are workable and realistic.

Pipeline Projects
A significant source of new units for the city during the 6th cycle will be from pipeline projects. For jurisdictions relying heavily on pipeline projects, HCD recommends6 that “…the element should include programs with actions that commit to facilitating development and monitoring approvals of the projects, including the number of units and affordability (e.g., coordination with applicants to approve remaining entitlements, supporting funding applications, expediting approvals and monitoring of project progress, including rezoning or identification of additional sites, if necessary).”
In order to meet this recommendation by HCD, the city should create policies to monitor the progress of pipeline projects. This could include automatic entitlement extensions until midway through the 6th cycle and proactively reaching out to all pipeline project developers to confirm that there is still development interest.

In recent public meetings, local leaders said that they were contacting developers of existing pipeline projects to gauge their interest in resubmitting plans at a higher density or with additional units. The La Madrona and Valley Gardens projects together represent a vast majority of the city’s pipeline units. We urge the city to work with the project developers to increase the amount of multifamily and missing middle housing, especially in those areas of the project site closest to Mt Hermon Road. The number of units in these two projects alone represents nearly 30%8 of the city’s RHNA, and could easily fulfill more if they were revised to have majority multifamily units. These sites offer an opportunity for Scotts Valley to demonstrate leadership in building mixed density neighborhoods that bring people of different income levels together.

Goal H-1 – Housing Production
With the city’s RHNA increasing nearly tenfold from the 5th cycle, we see significant need for policies and programs which enable, not restrict, development. We applaud the city for identifying significant commercial and parking requirements as constraints to development but strongly disagree with the assertion that “...the City’s standards for lot size, setbacks, height, and site coverage are not considered [constraints]...”
As mentioned, the city has accurately identified its limit of 50% residential in mixed-use developments to be a constraint and is rezoning select parcels along main corridors to increase this cap to 70%.10 We would like to see the city go further and either remove this limitation entirely or allow for mixed-use development with an option for ground floor commercial only rather than as a percentage of total square footage. Additionally, granting this flexibility to all mixed-use projects in the city would incentivize development and allow developers to better respond to Scotts Valley’s housing shortage.

We would like to see the city commit to allowing more residential square footage in

City of Scotts Valley Summary of Public Comments on the Public Review Draft Housing Element 6/22/2023 Page 2-13
Public Comment
Author Comment
mixed-use developments if the proposed rezoning does not result in developer interest.

With regards to parking requirements, the city should go much further in reducing or even eliminating requirements and the existing programs should have stronger language. Currently, program H-1.5 does not commit to lowering parking requirements and has a timeline of 2027. We would like to see this timeline moved up and a commitment to lowering requirements to no more than half a space per unit, uncovered.

Creation of missing middle housing isn’t mentioned within the policy plan - the city should adopt zoning regulations that would incentivize this form of housing.

Examples include reducing minimum lot size, setbacks, and lot coverage restrictions.

In Redwood City’s compliant 6th cycle housing element11 amendments such as these are anticipated to result in an increase of at least 80 homes. Currently, duplexes are not conditionally or principally permitted in any of Scotts Valley’s zoning districts.12 The City of Scotts Valley should seek to allow a wide variety of housing types including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and other multifamily project types throughout the City. Much of this could be achieved without an EIR thanks to Senate Bill 10.

Unaddressed Constraints
Along with the commercial and parking constraints discussed in the prior section, there are other constraints that we believe the city should address to ensure that housing can be built.

We expect projects to make use of State Density Bonus law for feasibility of development of affordable housing. Currently, Scotts Valley zoning code includes constraints and limitations that could limit affordable multifamily or mixed-use housing from achieving assumed base densities. These include but are not limited to building height, FAR, and parking requirements.

The city should better explore to what extent its density restrictions are a constraint to development. With the city’s highest density residential zoning district capped at 20 du/acre, this is likely a significant barrier. We recommend the city expand its rezoning efforts to all ‘Very High Residential’ parcels at a minimum and allow up to 40 du/acre on such parcels.

There are a number of small sites on the inventory which fall outside of the parcel size requirements set forth by AB 1397. These sites may still be included for a variety of reasons, in Scotts Valley’s case “…a program to facilitate lot consolidation.” There is no such program in the policy plan.

Town Center
One of the largest projects projected for Scotts Valley’s 6th cycle will be further development of the Town Center Specific Plan, encompassing 58 acres in the heart of the city. This area is well situated to accommodate a significant amount of housing and associated amenities. While we are pleased that the city anticipates 657 units to be built on these sites we would like to see more in the housing element to indicate that the city is determined to see this housing come to fruition.

This plan has been in the works since at least 2008 and has not seen a significant amount of the proposed housing be built in that time. According to the city, “...project applications have been submitted for the Plan, but development was not successful. Interest in developing the Town Center area has increased over recent years.” Despite these failed developments and increased interest, there is no mention or analysis of the reasons for these failures or why development has not moved forward for this area in the housing element.

City of Scotts Valley Summary of Public Comments on the Public Review Draft Housing Element 6/22/2023 Page 2-14
Public Comment
Author Comment
Additionally, we would like the city to provide more detail on the affordability projections for the Kings Village parcel17 as part of the Town Center plan. While the other four parcels are publicly owned (by METRO or the city) this shopping center is privately owned. The city estimates that this parcel will produce a 50% affordable project, but provides no indication that there is interest from the owner, a developer, or any other type of agreement that would be required for housing production to happen.

Mid-cycle Review
To ensure the city makes appropriate progress towards its 6th cycle goals we would like to see a commitment to a mid-cycle review and adjustment (if needed). Tying this review to programs to increase housing production such as rezoning, ADU incentives, or removing development constraints would allow the city to quickly make up lost ground and minimize impacts of falling behind in the 6th cycle. This would also be a time to review pipeline projects which have not progressed.

Additional mid-cycle programs could include:
• Ministerial approval process for all site inventory projects • SB10 upzoning of small sites to 10 units per parcel
• Tracking commercial occupancy, and if vacancy is too high, relaxing commercial requirements in favor of more residential, including live/work units Transit Oriented Development
Despite being home to the Cavallaro Transit Center (CTC), Scotts Valley lacks any current or planned high quality transit stops. In the 2040 MTP/SCS the CTC was identified as such a site, however, it was subsequently removed in the 2045 MTP/SCS19. We encourage the city to commit to working with AMBAG in the 2050 MTP/SCS (scheduled for June 2026) to designate the CTC as a planned high quality major transit stop. This designation would incentivise more sustainable, affordable, and equitable development in an area identified for a significant amount of new housing in the 6th RHNA cycle.

Scotts Valley is currently not a pedestrian and bike friendly community. The transit center is a key connector for jobs and opportunities for low income people that do not own cars. Further investment in housing around transit stops has been shown to increase ridership on public transit. Denser housing and investments in walking and biking infrastructure between the Valley Gardens, Town Center, and the CTC could together make great strides in helping Scotts Valley achieve its housing, climate, and safety goals while also making it easier for people of all ages, abilities, and incomes to access the city.

Tenant Protections
As a city with a growing percentage of renters, it is important to have strong tenant protections. The housing element notes that “[a]bout 51.8 percent of renters are cost burdened, and 33.1 percent are severely cost burdened.” There are a number of programs we would like to see implemented or expanded in the city including:
• Elimination of or cap on rental application fees
• Creation of a rental registry. This was recently passed by both Salinas and Monterey
• Local preference for people employed in the county COPA and TOPA programs • Conduct a disparate impact analysis of non-high(est) resource areas and apply a live-work preference if if it matches county demographics Online Feedback Form
Comment
from This is regarding the mixed-use rezones.

City of Scotts Valley Summary of Public Comments on the Public Review Draft Housing Element 6/22/2023 Page 2-15
Public Comment
Author Comment
David
Duquette
I own a one acre parcel (5163 Scotts Valley drive) that is being considered for a rezone.

The increase in the residential component from 50% to 70% is not enough to encourage development.

If I imagine a building with 28 units averaging 850 square feet per unit, that would amount to 23,800 square feet. Under the 70% rule I would need an additional 10,200 square feet of commercial space. Adding more commercial space to an already saturated market will only add more "FOR LEASE" signs to the existing ones up and down Scotts Valley Drive.

The parking requirements for the commercial space alone would be more than our lot could handle. At the standard 1 parking space for every 250 square feet for business/professional services, that would be 41 parking spaces for just the commercial.

Relaxing the parking requirements won't help. I have owned commercial/retail buildings with inadequate parking and they are extremely difficult to rent.

Tastefully designing 28 units on one acre is going to be very difficult by itself.

This rezone makes Scotts Valley’s housing problem worse. By increasing the density to 40 units per acre, it forces the property owners to go all in with an unprofitable and much larger commercial/retail investment. To make matters worse, we are expected to provide 50% of the units for low income. I don't see how this formula will make sense for any property owner.

I strongly encourage the city to be more realistic about their needs regarding the amount of commercial space on Scotts Valley Drive, as well as the financial viability of asking property owners to shoulder such a large portion of affordable housing.

Under this new zoning change, I will be unable to move forward on any future development.

Comment
from
Jeanette
Cook
Chapter 2: I do not see environmental sustainability included in any of the policies. Given the amount of growth encompassed in this plan, there should be specific actions related to mitigating and adapting to climate change. For example, requiring solar panels for new buildings. Although covered somewhat by policy Policy H-3.1, given the large number of seniors in the City, perhaps a specific goal could be included for new over-55 communities that are not mobile homes. Some of the larger sites (Valley Gardens, Avisa) could be targeted for a higher end senior community like The Villages.

Appendix B: The projected growth in population does not seem to be aligned with the increased number of residences. Increase of 1.5% in population by 2040 (175 people) compared to the proposed addition of 1220-2000 new residences. Is the goal to attract a lot of new residents to the City and if not would not these units be vacant? Some perspective on where the people to fill these residences would come from would be helpful in understanding the plan and goals. Is it likely that there would be increased numbers of people coming from "over the hill" who would purchase single family homes? Do you anticipate a growth in jobs with local workers residing in the multi-family rental properties?
Appendix F: Why is the former Avisa site not included in this plan? More ADU's could be included and encouraged. Most parcels have room for them. The sites that contain existing buildings/use seem unlikely to be converted. Taking half of the Nob Hill shopping

City of Scotts Valley Summary of Public Comments on the Public Review Draft Housing Element 6/22/2023 Page 2-16
Public Comment
Author Comment
center? Removing the parking from the Transit Center? What would be required to make this actually happen? Bank of America on Scotts Valley Drive has a huge underutilized site. Why was it not included along with the other unlikely sites? The Lockhart Gulch Storage Locker site is problematic from the perspective of the residents of Lockhart Gulch and associated roads. Adding 139 new residential units to this already impacted intersection will require substantial upgrades to the infrastructure.

Additional comments: The fact that the state is requiring the City to plan for 1,220 new units is utterly ridiculous. It does not take into account environmental factors such as terrain, access to water, wildfire risk, etc. I haven't been able to read the entire plan, but would like to see more of a push back. This could be particularly important should it actually be impossible to implement what is in this plan. I do not see traffic issues addressed anywhere. What upgrades to roads will be required to accommodate this many new drivers and trips? This aggressive growth plan will change the character of the City profoundly. Lots of good things have been implemented over the past 40+ years that I have lived here. Could there be some explicit goals that aim to retain the positive aspects that we currently enjoy? For example, including some allocation for new parks (like Skypark) and green space.

Attachment 3 – Complete Map of Candidate Housing Sites

Attachment 4 – Map of Candidate Housing Sites for Rezoning – Mixed-Use

Attachment 5 – Map of Candidate Housing Sites for Rezoning – Residential

Attachment 6 – Relevant Updates to State Housing Law
 Adequate Housing Element Sites (AB 1397) - Strengthens local governments’ obligation to identify a supply of adequate sites available to meet their share of regional housing needs at all income levels.
 Accelerating By-Right Rezoning Requirement for Noncompliant Housing Elements (AB 1398) - Requires that, if a city cannot identify sufficient sites adequate to accommodate its regional housing need, the Housing Element must commit to rezone properties within three years to allow "by right" development of 20 percent BMR projects. AB 1398 requires a locality that fails to adopt a housing element that the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has found to be in substantial compliance with state law within 120 days of the statutory deadline to complete this required rezoning no later than one year from the deadline for adoption of the housing element – and prohibits the Housing Element from being found in substantial compliance until that rezoning is completed.
 Housing Crisis Act (SB 330) - Makes changes to land use and zoning law to encourage housing production, by limiting the scope of local review of housing projects to objective design standards only for qualifying projects; limiting the ability of cities to change the general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning to a less intensive use or reduce the intensity of land use within an existing general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning district below that which was in effect on January 1, 2018; limiting the number of public hearings for projects; and shortening review timeframes.  Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process (SB 35) - Requires a streamlined ministerial approval process for development in cities that have not yet made sufficient progress towards their allocation of their RHNA. Eligible developments must include a specified level of affordability, be on an infill site, comply with existing residential and mixed-use general plan or zoning provisions, and comply with other requirements.
 Accessory Dwelling Units (Multiple bills) – In recent years, the State has facilitated the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by adopting and updating laws limiting local regulation of this housing type. These may be counted toward a local agency’s RHNA through the processes established by HCD.
 Commercially-Zoned Land (AB 2011) – Allows for ministerial, by-right approval for affordable housing on commercially-zoned land, and also allows such approvals for mixed-income housing along commercial corridors, as long as the projects meet specified affordability, labor, and environmental criteria. The bill also requires that all projects seeking approval under its provisions ensure all construction workers earn prevailing wages and receive health benefits.  Middle Class Housing Act (SB 6) – Deems a housing development project an allowable use on a parcel that is within a zone where office, retail, or parking are a principally permitted use if specified conditions are met, including requirements relating to density, public notice, comment, hearing, or other procedures, site location and size, consistency with sustainable community strategy or alternative plans, prevailing wage, and a skilled and trained workforce.  Parking Near Public Transit (AB 2097) – Prohibits local jurisdictions from imposing minimum parking requirements in a certain proximity to public transit, as defined. (The City of Scotts Valley does not have frequent enough transit service for developments to qualify for this provision.)  No Net Loss (SB 166) - Requires jurisdictions to maintain adequate sites to always accommodate its remaining regional housing needs allocation throughout the housing element planning period, rather than only at adoption.
 Housing Element Enforcement (AB 72) - Allows HCD to review any action or lack of action by a jurisdiction that is allegedly inconsistent with its housing element. HCD can revoke housing element compliance and notify the California Office of the Attorney General.