Scotts Valley City Council
November 29, 2023

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 55
 It is associated with the lives of persons important to the nation or to California’s past.  It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
 It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the state and the nation.

In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, a significant property must also retain integrity. Properties eligible for listing in the CRHR must retain enough of their historic character to convey the reason(s) for their significance. Integrity is judged in relation to location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

Analysis Methodology
For cultural resources, impact assessment is based on a comparison of known resource locations with the placement of ground disturbing project activities that have the potential to remove, relocate, damage, or destroy the physical evidence of past cultural activities. If such ground disturbance overlaps recorded site locations, then a direct impact may occur. Historical buildings and structures may be directly impacted if the nearby setting and context is modified substantially, even if the building or structure itself is not physically affected. Indirect impacts may occur if activities occur near, but not directly on, known cultural resources.

Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
None.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact CUL-1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? This considered a potentially significant impact.

As described in the Open Space & Conservation Element, in 1990, in cooperation with the Scotts Valley Historical Society (SVHS), the City completed a survey of all potential historic structures within the City limits. At present, the only historic structure in the City is the Scott House, which is located in MacDorsa Park, next to the Scotts Valley Civic Center. Over time, additional historic structures may be identified consistent with Section 17.44.140 – Historic Landmark Preservation of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code. Should future development have a potential impact on a designated landmark, or property that becomes suitable for landmark designation, the landmark would be subject to protection consistent with Section 17.44.140.

The City maintains a map that identifies designated areas of high and moderate archaeological sensitivity. This map is kept confidential to avoid potential impacts to know or unknown

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 56 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
archaeological site. Consistent with Section 17.44.130 – Cultural Resource Protection, all future development would be subject to City review to protect the interest of the public by providing for the identification, protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of archaeological resources and sites within the City that reflect special elements of the City's prehistoric and historic archaeological heritage.

Furthermore, the Open Space & Conservation Element contains Goal OSC-4 and related policies designed to protect historic and archeological resources. In particular:

Policy OSC-4.5 Protect Archaeological Resources requires that the City use the environmental review process to determine potential impacts to archaeological resources of project proposals.

The City’s archaeological sensitivity zone map shall be used, along with other appropriate data, to evaluate whether archaeological resources are threatened by new development.

Policy OSC-4.6 Development on Known Archeological Resources requires all new development located on a parcel(s) containing an existing or former historic structure shall require an archaeological field reconnaissance report prior to project consideration by the decisionmaking body.

Policy OSC-4.7 Historic Structure Destruction prohibits the destruction of designated historical resources without a prior public hearing and consideration given to preservation alternatives.

Furthermore, the City would be required to consult with local tribal groups as part of the CEQA process for any future development, consist with SB 18.

Implementation of the above goal and policies, as well as enforcement of the respective City’s Municipal Code provisions and State requirements described above, would effectively mitigate potential cultural and historic resource impacts to less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Impact CUL-2: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? This considered a potentially significant impact.

Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, if human remains are discovered as part of a future development project, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the discovery site, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the project applicant has complied with the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e).

In general, these provisions require that the County Coroner be notified immediately. If the remains are found to be Native American, the County Coroner is required to notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The most likely descendant of the deceased Native American is notified by the Commission and given the chance to make recommendations

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 57
for the remains. If the Commission is unable to identify the most likely descendent, or if no recommendations are made within 24 hours, remains may be reinterred with appropriate dignity elsewhere on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. If recommendations are made and not accepted, the Native American Heritage Commission will mediate the problem.

With implementation of existing regulations, the impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 58 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN

GEOLOGY & SOILS
Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act's main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act only addresses the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. The law requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones (known as Earthquake Fault Zones) around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. The maps are distributed to all affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in planning and controlling new or renewed construction. Local agencies must regulate most development projects within the zones.

Projects include all land divisions and most structures for human occupancy. Single-family wood-frame and steel-frame dwellings up to two stories not part of a development of four units or more are exempt. However, local agencies can be more restrictive than state law requires.

Before a project can be permitted, cities and counties must require a geologic investigation to demonstrate that future development would not be constructed across active faults. An evaluation and written report of a specific site must be prepared by a licensed geologist. If an active fault is found, a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back from the fault (generally 50 feet) (California Geologic Survey 2007).

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA) of 1990 (Public Resources Code, Chapter 7.8, Section 2690-2699.6) directs the Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey to identify and map areas prone to earthquake hazards of liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides and amplified ground shaking. The purpose of the SHMA is to reduce the threat to public safety and to minimize the loss of life and property by identifying and mitigating these seismic hazards.

The SHMA was passed by the legislature following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act addresses geo-seismic hazards, other than surface faulting, and applies to public buildings and most private buildings intended for human occupancy.

Uniform Building Code
The Uniform Building Code (UBC) was first enacted by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) on October 18-21, 1927. Revised editions of this code are published

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 59
approximately every three years. The UBC includes provisions associated with engineering design and building requirements.

California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC) requires, among other things, seismically resistant construction and foundation and soil investigations prior to construction. The CBC also establishes grading requirements that apply to excavation and fill activities and requires the implementation of erosion control measures. The County is responsible for enforcing the CBC in the case of the proposed Project.

The CBC is based on the International Building Code, which is published by the International Code Council (ICC). The scope of this code as used by the CBC covers major aspects of construction and design of structures and buildings, except for one-and two‐family dwellings, efficiency dwelling units, and townhomes up to three stories in height (which are covered by the California Residential Code). The International Building Code contains provisions for structural engineering design and addresses the design and installation of structures and building systems through requirements that emphasize performance. The International Building Code includes codes governing structural as well as fire‐ and life‐safety provisions covering seismic, wind, accessibility, egress, occupancy, and roofs.

Local
Scotts Valley Municipal Code
Title 15 Buildings and Construction of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code “sets forth rules, regulations and minimum standards to control excavation, grading, erosion, and sediment; requires control of all existing and potential conditions of accelerated erosion...” The grading ordinance states that “No person shall cause or allow the persistence of a condition on any site that could cause accelerated erosion.”
Per Section 15.06 Excavation, Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations, a permit is required for grading activities, and approval of the permit “shall require the abatement of any existing human-induced or accelerated erosion problems on the property.” The ordinance sets forth design standards for cuts and fills, including limits on slopes and heights, provisions for stockpiles, vegetative protection, ground preparation for fills, requirements for the use of keys, and requirements for compaction (among others). The ordinance also includes standards for cut and fill setbacks, for drainage and terraces, and for erosion and sediment control. Sections

15.06.090 and 15.06.100 require approval from the Planning Commission for any cut or fill slopes steeper than 3:1, and City Council approval for any cuts and/or fills in excess of 40 feet vertical height.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 60 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
Impacts of the Project
Significance Criteria
An impact of the proposed Project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it would meet one of the following criteria:
 Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
o Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42
o Strong seismic ground shaking?
o Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? o Landslides?
 Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?  Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
 Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?  Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Analysis Methodology
The evaluation of geology, soils and geologic hazards located within the proposed Planning Area was based on the Health & Safety Element Background & Context section, and a review of previous geotechnical reports prepared for individual projects in Scotts Valley.

Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
Extraction of Mineral Resources
There are no active mines, quarries, or known mapped oil or gas fields within the Planning Area.

Therefore, there would be no impact.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 61
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact GEO-1: Cause substantial adverse effects due to rupture of a known earthquake fault, landslides, or strong seismic ground shaking, expansive soils, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? This considered a potentially significant impact.

Relevant areas of known or suspected geologic hazards, as shown in Figure SN-3: Fault Zones, Figure SN-4: Liquefaction Potential and Figure SN-5: Landslide Deposits of the Safety & Noise Element, indicate that subsurface soil conditions in some locations of the Planning Area could be susceptible to geologic and soil impacts.

Lateral Spreading and Liquefaction
Lateral spreading of the ground surface can occur where liquefaction occurs in areas of sloping ground or at a creekbank or riverbank. Liquefaction is a process whereby ground shaking causes saturated granular soils to become liquid-like. This type of phenomenon occurs when saturated rocks are vibrated, which increases the pore pressure and separates the grains.

Subsidence
Subsidence is the sudden sinking or gradual downward settling and compaction of soil and other surface material with little or no horizontal motion. Subsidence may be caused by a variety of human and natural activities, including earthquakes.

Landform alteration impacts that may result from future development within the Planning Area include grading for the construction of roads, building pads, parking areas and other permanent improvements. These improvements would result in alterations to soils from physical development and construction equipment.

A seismic or geologic (soils) event is considered likely during the useful life of any structures planned in the future. This can potentially jeopardize public safety, including safety both to structures and people within the project area. Besides the direct physical damage to structures caused by the ground shaking, marginally stable landslides, slopes, and inadequately compacted fill material could move and cause additional damage. Gas, water, and electrical lines can be ruptured during the ground shaking or broken during movement of earth caused by the earthquake, which can jeopardize public safety.

Goal SN-3 and associated policies of the Safety & Noise Element are designed to protect human life and prosperity and to minimize injury, economic damage, and social dislocation resulting from disasters related to geologic and seismic events. In particular, Policy SN-3.10 Geotechnical Evaluations requires future development in a geologic hazard area, development shall be approved only after a geotechnical evaluation is completed by a registered geologist as part of the environmental review process.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 62 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
Furthermore, as part of any future application submitted to the City of Scotts Valley, the project applicant would be required to submit plans that are in compliance with the latest California Building Code (CBC) standards, consistent with Title 15 – Buildings and Construction of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code.

Prior to approval of any entitlements for a specific project, City staff is required to review project plans and verify that the CBC seismic requirements are printed on the plans. The City also requires that CBC standards are met prior to issuance of Building Permits. Building inspectors conduct site inspections to assure that construction occurs consistent with approved plans.

Implementation of the above goal and policies, as well as enforcement of the respective City’s Municipal Code provisions and State requirements described above, would effectively mitigate potential seismic impacts to a less than significant level and no mitigation is required.

Impact GEO-2: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? This considered a potentially significant impact.

Some future development associated with buildout of the General Plan would involve the removal of landscape vegetation and grading activities associated with the construction of buildings, infrastructure, and roads. The loosening and exposure of soil makes it susceptible to erosion by rainfall and wind. Future development would also increase the amount of impervious surfaces, which may affect the natural drainage pattern. During unusually high rainfall over a short duration, excessive erosion may occur. Soil particles may be carried by stormwater to receiving water bodies, such as Camp Evers Creek and Carbonera Creek, resulting in sedimentation. The effects of increased sediment loading could include increased turbidity and reduced light penetration.

Policy SN-2.4 Flood Control Facilities requires future construction or expansion of existing flood control facilities to protect individual properties shall be permitted only when it can be determined that such measures do not substantially increase the flood or erosion hazards to other properties.

In addition, to comply with the NPDES requirements for construction, future development involving construction on sites that are one acre or more are required to prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that specifies how the discharger would protect water quality during construction activities. These measures include, but not be limited to; design and construction of cut and fill slopes in a manner that would minimize erosion, protection of exposed slope areas, control of surface water flows over exposed soils, use of wetting or sealing agents or sedimentation ponds, limiting soil excavation in high winds, construction of beams and runoff diversion ditches, and use of sediment traps, such as hay bales. (Also see Hydrology & Water Quality section, below.)

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 63
Implementation of the above policy, as well as enforcement of the respective City’s Municipal Code provisions and State requirements including acquisition of the NPDES General Permit for construction activities, would effectively mitigate potential soil erosion impacts associated with future development to a less than significant level and no mitigation is required.

Impact GEO-3: Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems for the disposal of wastewater? This is considered a less than significant impact.

Development within the City limits would largely involve disposal of wastewater through the City’s existing sanitary sewer system and therefore there would be no impacts.

In areas not served by the City’s existing sanitary sewer system, development would be limited to very low-density residential development, predominantly located outside of the City limits in Santa Cruz County.

Where septic service is required for future development, projects would be subject to Chapter

13.08 Sewage Disposal System Regulation of the City’s Municipal Code. This chapter is intended as a temporary solution to the existing sewage problems within the City as it is the City's intention to require all residents of the City to hook up to the City's sewer system when the capacity to do so is available. Where permitted, an individual sewage disposal system shall be provided for a building(s) designed for human habitation. Requirements for permitting and constructing sewage disposal systems are described in Chapter 13.08. Construction, or major repair of an individual sewage disposal system shall be made by a contractor with a C-42 Contracting License, or an equivalent certificate issued by the Department of Professional and Vocational Standards.

Compliance with the respective City’s Municipal Code provisions would effectively mitigate potential associated with septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal system associated with future development to a less than significant level and no mitigation is required.

Impact GEO-4: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? This is considered a potentially significant impact.

Future development could result in the discovery and disturbance of previously unknown or undiscovered paleontological resources. As described in Impact CUL-1, should evidence of paleontological resources be encountered during grading and construction, adherence to City, State, and federal historic preservation laws, regulations, and codes related to archaeological and paleontological resources would ensure the adequate protection of paleontological resources.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 64 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
Compliance with the respective City, State, and federal regulations would effectively mitigate potential impacts to paleontological resources associated with future development to a less than significant level and no mitigation is required.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 65

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
Federal
To date, national standards have not been established for nationwide GHG reduction targets, nor have any regulations or legislation been enacted specifically to address climate change and GHG emissions reduction at the project level. Various efforts have been promulgated at the federal level to improve fuel economy and energy efficiency to address climate change and its associated effects.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Endangerment Finding The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate GHG emissions stems from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). The Supreme Court ruled that GHGs meet the definition of air pollutants under the existing Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and must be regulated if these gases could be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Responding to the Court’s ruling, the EPA finalized an endangerment finding in December 2009. Based on scientific evidence, it found that six GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) constitute a threat to public health and welfare. Thus, it is the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the existing FCAA and the EPA’s assessment of the scientific evidence that form the basis for the EPA’s regulatory actions.

Clean Power Plan and New Source Performance Standards for Electric Generating Units On October 23, 2015, the EPA published a final rule (effective December 22, 2015) establishing the carbon pollution emission guidelines for existing stationary sources: electric utility generating units (80 Federal Register [FR] 64510–64660), also known as the Clean Power Plan (CPP). These guidelines prescribe how states must develop plans to reduce GHG emissions from existing fossil-fuel-fired electric generating units. The guidelines establish CO2 emission performance rates representing the best system of emission reduction for two subcategories of existing fossil-fuel-fired electric generating units: one fossil-fuel-fired electric utility steamgenerating unit and two stationary combustion turbines. Concurrently, the EPA published a final rule (effective October 23, 2015) establishing standards of performance for GHG emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed stationary sources: electric utility generating units (80 FR 64661–65120). The rule prescribes CO2 emission standards for newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed affected fossil-fuel-fired electric utility generating units. The U.S. Supreme Court stayed implementation of the CPP pending resolution of several lawsuits. Additionally, in March 2017, the federal government directed the EPA Administrator to review the CPP to determine whether it is consistent with current executive policies concerning GHG emissions,

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 66 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
State
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for the coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control programs in California. Various statewide and local initiatives to reduce California’s contribution to GHG emissions have raised awareness about climate change and its potential for severe long-term adverse environmental, social, and economic effects.

The State of California legislature has enacted a series of bills that constitute the most aggressive program to reduce GHGs of any state in the nation. Some legislation, such as the landmark AB 32 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, was specifically enacted to address GHG emissions. Other legislation, such as Title 24 building efficiency standards and Title 20 appliance energy standards, were originally adopted for other purposes such as energy and water conservation, but also provide GHG reductions. This section describes the major legislation related to GHG emissions reduction.

Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) AB 32 instructs the CARB to develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 also directed CARB to set a GHG emissions limit based on 1990 levels, to be achieved by 2020. It set a timeline for adopting a scoping plan for achieving GHG reductions in a technologically and economically feasible manner.

Senate Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Emissions Limit Signed into law in September 2016, SB 32 codifies the 2030 GHG reduction target in Executive Order B-30-15 (40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030). The bill authorizes CARB to adopt an interim GHG emissions level target to be achieved by 2030. CARB also must adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum, technologically feasible, and cost-effective GHG reductions.

With SB 32, the Legislature passed companion legislation, AB 197, which provides additional direction for developing the Scoping Plan. On December 14, 2017, CARB adopted a second update to the Scoping Plan (CARB, 2017b). The 2017 Scoping Plan details how the State will reduce GHG emissions to meet the 2030 target set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. Other objectives listed in the 2017 Scoping Plan are to provide direct GHG emissions reductions; support climate investment in disadvantaged communities; and support the Clean Power Plan and other Federal actions.

SB 375 (The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008) Signed into law on September 30, 2008, SB 375 provides a process to coordinate land use planning, regional transportation plans, and funding priorities to help California meet the GHG reduction goals established by AB 32. SB 375 requires metropolitan planning organizations to include sustainable community strategies in their regional transportation plans for reducing

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 67
GHG emissions, aligns planning for transportation and housing, and creates specified incentives for the implementation of the strategies. The applicable sustainable community strategy in the Bay Area is Plan Bay Area 2040.

AB 1493 (Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards) AB 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, required CARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Implementation of the regulation was delayed by lawsuits filed by automakers and by the EPA’s denial of an implementation waiver. The EPA subsequently granted the requested waiver in 2009, which was upheld by the by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2011. The regulations establish one set of emission standards for model years 2009–2016 and a second set of emissions standards for model years 2017 to 2025. By 2025, when all rules will be fully implemented, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer CO2e emissions and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions.

SB 1368 (Emission Performance Standards)
SB 1368 is the companion bill of AB 32, which directs the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to adopt a performance standard for GHG emissions for the future power purchases of California utilities. SB 1368 limits carbon emissions associated with electrical energy consumed in California by forbidding procurement arrangements for energy longer than 5 years from resources that exceed the emissions of a relatively clean, combined cycle natural gas power plant. The new law effectively prevents California’s utilities from investing in, otherwise financially supporting, or purchasing power from new coal plants located in or out of the state.

The CPUC adopted the regulations required by SB 1368 on August 29, 2007. The regulations implementing SB 1368 establish a standard for baseload generation owned by, or under longterm contract to publicly owned utilities, for 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour.

SB 1078 and SBX1-2 (Renewable Electricity Standards)
SB 1078 required California to generate 20 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2017. This goal was accelerated with SB 107, which changed the due date to 2010 instead of 2017. On November 17, 2008, Executive Order S-14-08 established a Renewable Portfolio Standard target for California requiring that all retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020. Executive Order S-21-09 also directed CARB to adopt a regulation by July 31, 2010, requiring the state’s load serving entities to meet a 33 percent renewable energy target by 2020. CARB approved the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010, by Resolution 10-23. SB X1-2 codified the 33 percent by 2020 goal.

SB 350 (Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015) Signed into law on October 7, 2015, SB 350 implements the goals of Executive Order B-30-15.

The objectives of SB 350 are to increase the procurement of electricity from renewable sources from 33 percent to 50 percent (with interim targets of 40 percent by 2024, and 45 percent by 2027) and to double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses of

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 68 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
retail customers through energy efficiency and conservation. SB 350 also reorganizes the Independent System Operator to develop more regional electricity transmission markets and improve accessibility in these markets, which will facilitate the growth of renewable energy markets in the western United States.

SB 150 (Regional Transportation Plans)
Signed on October 10, 2017, SB 150 aligns local and regional GHG reduction targets with State targets (i.e., 40 percent below their 1990 levels by 2030). SB 150 creates a process to include communities in discussions on how to monitor their regions’ progress on meeting these goals.

The bill also requires the CARB to regularly report on that progress, as well as on the successes and the challenges regions experience associated with achieving their targets. SB 150 provides for accounting of climate change efforts and GHG reductions and identify effective reduction strategies.

SB 100 (California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program: Emissions of Greenhouse Gases) Signed into Law in September 2018, SB 100 increased California’s renewable electricity portfolio from 50 to 60 percent by 2030. SB 100 also established a further goal to have an electric grid that is entirely powered by clean energy by 2045.

Executive Orders Related to GHG Emissions
California’s Executive Branch has taken several actions to reduce GHGs using executive orders.

Although not regulatory, they set the state’s tone and guide the actions of state agencies.

Executive Order S-3-05
Executive Order S-3-05 was issued on June 1, 2005, which established the following GHG emissions reduction targets:
 By 2010, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels.  By 2020, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels.  By 2050, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

The 2050 reduction goal represents what some scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that will stabilize the climate. The 2020 goal was established to be a mid-term target. Because this is an executive order, the goals are not legally enforceable for local governments or the private sector.

Executive Order S-01-07
Issued on January 18, 2007, Executive Order S-01-07 mandates that a statewide goal shall be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. The executive order established a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 69
directed the Secretary for Environmental Protection to coordinate the actions of the California Energy Commission, CARB, the University of California, and other agencies to develop and propose protocols for measuring the “life-cycle carbon intensity” of transportation fuels. CARB adopted the LCFS on April 23, 2009.

Executive Order S-13-08
Issued on November 14, 2008, Executive Order S-13-08 facilitated the California Natural Resources Agency development of the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. Objectives include analyzing risks of climate change in California, identifying and exploring strategies to adapt to climate change, and specifying a direction for future research.

Executive Order S-14-08
Issued on November 17, 2008, Executive Order S-14-08 expands the state’s Renewable Energy Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. Additionally, Executive Order S-21-09 (signed on September 15, 2009) directs CARB to adopt regulations requiring 33 percent of electricity sold in the state come from renewable energy by 2020. CARB adopted the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010, which requires 33 percent renewable energy by 2020 for most publicly owned electricity retailers.

Executive Order S-21-09
Issued on July 17, 2009, Executive Order S-21-09 directs CARB to adopt regulations to increase California's RPS to 33 percent by 2020. This builds upon SB 1078 (2002), which established the California RPS program, requiring 20 percent renewable energy by 2017, and SB 107 (2006), which advanced the 20 percent deadline to 2010, a goal which was expanded to 33 percent by 2020 in the 2005 Energy Action Plan II.

Executive Order B-30-15
Issued on April 29, 2015, Executive Order B-30-15 established a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and directs CARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of million metric tons of CO2e (MMTCO2e). The 2030 target acts as an interim goal on the way to achieving reductions of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, a goal set by Executive Order S-3-05. The executive order also requires the state’s climate adaptation plan to be updated every three years and for the state to continue its climate change research program, among other provisions. With the enactment of SB 32 in 2016, the Legislature codified the goal of reducing GHG emissions by 2030 to 40 percent below 1990 levels.

Executive Order B-55-18
Issued on September 10, 2018, Executive Order B-55-18 establishes a goal to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter. This goal is in addition to the existing statewide targets of reducing GHG emissions. The executive order requires CARB to work with relevant state agencies to develop a

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 70 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
framework for implementing this goal. It also requires CARB to update the Scoping Plan to identify and recommend measures to achieve carbon neutrality. The executive order also requires state agencies to develop sequestration targets in the Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan.

California Regulations and Building Codes
California has a long history of adopting regulations to improve energy efficiency in new and remodeled buildings. These regulations have kept California’s energy consumption relatively flat, even with rapid population growth.

Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Regulations
The appliance efficiency regulations (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 20, Sections 1601-1608) include standards for new appliances. Twenty-three categories of appliances are included in the scope of these regulations. These standards include minimum levels of operating efficiency, and other cost-effective measures, to promote the use of energy- and water-efficient appliances.

Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (CCR Title 24, Part 6) was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions. The 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards approved on January 19, 2016, went into effect on January 1, 2017. The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards were adopted on May 9, 2018, and will take effect on January 1, 2020.

Under the 2019 standards, residential dwellings will be required to use approximately 53 percent less energy and nonresidential buildings will be required to use approximately 30 percent less energy than buildings under the 2016 standards.

Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code
The California Green Building Standards Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11 code) commonly referred to as CALGreen, is a statewide mandatory construction code developed and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and the Department of Housing and Community Development. The CALGreen standards require new residential and nonresidential buildings to comply with mandatory measures under the topics of planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency/conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality. CALGreen also provides voluntary tiers and measures that local governments may adopt that encourage or require additional measures in the five green building topics. The most recent update to the 2016 CALGreen Code, went into effect January 1, 2017. Updates to the 2016 CALGreen Code will take effect on January 1, 2020 (2019 CALGreen).

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 71
The 2019 CALGreen standards will continue to improve upon the existing standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings. The new 2019 CALGreen standards require residential buildings are required to be solar ready through solar panels (refer to Section 110.10 in the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for more details).

Impacts of the Project
Significance Criteria
An impact of the project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it would meet one of the following criteria:
 Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Determining significance follows available guidelines from State or local air quality management agencies, where available. However, there is no legally adopted threshold to guide City of Scotts Valley decision‐makers in determining what emission levels constitute a significant amount. Rules and policies being developed by CARB are used here, although they are evolving in response to the serious threat of climate change effects and subsequent legislation.

MBARD does not yet recommend any method or threshold for determining significance of climate change impacts or greenhouse gas emissions from a project and its operation.

Nonetheless, GHG emissions caused by any project subject to CEQA must be described for a lead agency to determine the significance of impacts. The 2010 State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15064.4) provide the following direction for the assessment and mitigation of GHG emissions:
 A lead agency should make a good‐faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project.
 A lead agency should consider the extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting.  A lead agency should consider the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 72 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
In the absence of quantitative significance thresholds in CEQA guidance, this analysis turns to other programs. For example, the CARB Mandatory Reporting program requirements are triggered for sources of GHG emissions exceeding 2,500 MTCO₂e) per year. AB 32 requires California agencies to take actions that will reduce GHG emissions by 2020 to the levels of 1990, and then substantially further reduce emissions by 2050.

The MBARD drafted potential quantitative thresholds for projects undergoing CEQA review in February 2014. The draft thresholds include an annual threshold of 10,000 metric tons for stationary sources and a tiered approach for land use projects, whereby one of the following is applied: a bright-line (numeric) threshold of 2,000 metric tons annually; or compliance with an adopted climate action plan. Although MBARD has adopted a GHG threshold for stationary source projects that rely on operational processes and equipment that are subject to MBARD permitting requirements, land use projects do not have a formally adopted policy recommending any specific threshold.

Analysis Methodology
For CEQA analyses, project related GHG impacts can be categorized as either direct or indirect.

Direct emissions refer to those emitted by stationary sources at the project site or caused by project activity on‐site, and these emissions are normally within control of the project sponsor or applicant. Indirect emissions include those emissions that are not within the direct control of the project sponsor or applicant, but may occur as a result of the project, such as the motor vehicle emissions induced by the project. Indirect emissions include emissions from any off‐site facilities used for project support as a result of the construction or operation of a project, and these emissions are likely to occur outside the control of the project far off‐site or even outside of California.

The effects of the project are also considered based on whether the project implements reduction strategies identified in AB 32, the Governor’s Executive Order S‐14‐08, or other strategies to help reduce GHGs to the level proposed by the Governor. If so, it could reasonably follow that the project would not result in a significant contribution to the cumulative impact of global climate change.

GHG emissions contribute, on a cumulative basis, to the significant adverse environmental impacts of global climate change. The analysis of GHG emissions impacts is, by its nature, a cumulative impact analysis, as no one project can influence climate by its own GHG emissions added to the environmental baseline. It is the combined contribution of all GHG sources globally that results in increased concentrations of GHGs that have climate change potential.

Also, unlike other air pollutants, there is no local or regional existing environmental setting of GHG concentrations to use as a baseline for environmental effects, as the greenhouse effects of GHGs take place in the upper atmosphere and GHG emissions, regardless of where initially emitted, disperse and mix in the atmosphere globally.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 73
That the GHG emissions of past, present and future projects are resulting in cumulative impacts globally is recognized in the CEQA statute and the CEQA Guidelines. As noted above, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 the question then becomes whether the emissions of a project (in this case implementation of a citywide General Plan) would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the acknowledged cumulative effects of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
None.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact GHG-1: Generate cumulative greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. This is considered a potentially significant impact.

The City’s greenhouse gas reduction strategies are included as General Plan principles, goals and policies that are designed to help the City sustain its natural resources, grow efficiently, and meet state legal requirements for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction.

The State of California has developed various policies, programs and regulations aimed at achieving the State’s emissions reduction goals under AB 32. Many of these statewide actions will result in emissions reductions at the local level. Pavley I (California Clean Car Standards) and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard were considered when the original emissions estimates were made.

On the local level, future growth would be accommodated through infill development resulting in new greenhouse gas emissions. Multiple aspects of the General Plan have greenhouse gas implications, including land use, housing, transportation, water usage, and solid waste generation and recycling.

No one project (including implementation of the City’s General Plan over an approximately 25- year period) can influence climate to the extent it can be traced as a cause and effect of the individual project, especially to the local or regional environment. Global emissions, annually and cumulatively, would not be substantially different considering the GHG emissions from Scotts Valley due to implementation of the General Plan.

While emissions from a city the size of Scotts Valley may be relatively small compared to cumulative emissions globally, it is recognized that efforts are needed at the local level all over the world to reduce community contributions to GHG emissions and global climate effects. The State of California has adopted a Climate Change Scoping Plan that considers that California’s population and employment will grow at the same time emissions statewide are targeted to be reduced. It identifies measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation,

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 74 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
energy, agriculture, water, waste and other sectors and these reductions, as well as population and employment growth, would not be spread evenly across the state.

As described in the Open Space & Conservation Element, Goal OSC-5 and associated policies require integrated air quality, land use and transportation planning and promote the increased use of renewable energy sources to reduce the emission of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases from mobile sources; and to promote building techniques that increase energy efficiency.

Relevant policies include:

Policy OSC-5.4 Renewable Energy Strategies encourages the implementation of energy strategies to increase the local use and production of renewable energy.

Policy OSC-5.6 Reduce Automobile Pollution requires the City to promote the implementation of circulation system improvements that can reduce local consumption of fossil fuels.

Policy OSC-5.7 Concentration of Higher-Density Land Uses encourages the City concentrate commercial, mixed-use, and high-density residential development along transit corridors, at major intersections, and near activity centers that can be served efficiently by public transit and alternative transportation modes.

Policy OSC-5.9 Reduction in GHG Emissions encourages reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, including alternatives to use of gas-powered vehicles. Such alternatives include public transit, alternatively fueled vehicles, bicycle and pedestrian routes, and bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly development design.

Policy OSC-5.21 Energy-Efficient Design Features encourages new development to incorporate energy-efficient design features for HVAC, lighting systems, and insulation that exceed Title 24 standards.

Given the size of Scotts Valley and the relatively low amount of future development activity (which is essentially unchanged from the previous 1994 General Plan), the magnitude of the increase in annual emissions from Scotts Valley are not anticipated to interfere with the State of California in meeting their future long-term for GHG emissions as long as Scotts Valley grows in an efficient manner, which is well within the assumptions for regional (AMBAG) and statewide growth.

Given the fact that the City is largely built out, and there are a number of relevant General Plan goals and polices that would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, implementation of the General Plan would not exceed the criteria for a making a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative greenhouse gas emissions impacts and global climate change, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 75
Impact GHG-2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. This is considered a potentially significant impact.

As described in the Open Space & Conservation and Safety & Noise Elements, there are a number of polices that require the City work with relevant local, state, and federal agencies to implementing air quality management plans which are designed in part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Relevant policies include:

Policy OSC-5.1 Maintain and Improve Air Quality encourages cooperation with regional agencies – including the Monterey Bay Air Resources Board (MBARD), the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (SCCRTC), and the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) in developing and implementing air quality management plans.

Policy OSC-5.2 State and Regional Collaboration encourages participation in regional, state, and federal efforts addressing renewable energy sources, energy efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions, and reduced consumption of natural resources.

Policy OSC-5.3 Renewable Energy Research and Education requires the City to support State and federal legislation promoting research and education on renewable energy and other technologies.

Action SN-4.2 Coordination with the Monterey Bay Air Resources Board requires the City to work with the Monterey Bay Air Resources Board, the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) and, to the extent feasible, meet federal and State air quality standards for all pollutants; and to ensure that new measures can be practically enforced in the region, participate in future amendments and updates of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the Monterey Bay Region.

Given the fact that the City is largely built out, and there are a number of relevant General Plan polices that require the City to work in cooperation with relevant agencies regarding plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, implementation of the General Plan would not exceed the criteria for a making a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative greenhouse gas emissions impacts and global climate change, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 76 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN

HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
Definition of Hazardous Materials
A material is considered hazardous if it appears on a list of hazardous materials prepared by a federal, state, or local agency, or if it has characteristics defined as hazardous by such an agency. A hazardous material is defined in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) as:
“…a substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may either (1) cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of or otherwise managed (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section 66260.10).”
Chemical and physical properties cause a substance to be considered hazardous, including the properties of toxicity, ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity. These terms are defined in the CCR, Title 22, Sections 66261.20-66261.24. Factors that influence the health effects of exposure to hazardous material include the dose to which the person is exposed, the frequency of exposure, the exposure pathway, and individual susceptibility.

Federal Regulations
Federal Toxic Substances Control Act
Congress enacted the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 1976, to become effective January 1, 1977. The act authorizes EPA to secure information on all new and existing chemical substances and to control any of these substances determined to cause an unreasonable risk to public health or the environment. TSCA also includes requirements for the storage, use, and disposal of PCB containing materials.

Clean Water Act/SPCC Rule
The Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq., formerly the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972), was enacted with the intent of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States. The CWA requires states to set standards to protect, maintain, and restore water quality through the regulation of point source and certain non‐point source discharges to surface water. Those discharges are regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process (CWA Section 402). In California, NPDES permitting authority is delegated to, and administered by, the

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 77
nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The proposed project is within the jurisdiction of the Central Coast RWQCB.

Section 402 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to issue NPDES General Construction Storm Water Permit (Water Quality Order 99‐08‐DWQ), referred to as the “General Construction Permit.” Construction activities can comply with and be covered under the General Construction Permit provided that they:
 Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would prevent all construction pollutants from contacting stormwater and with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off‐site into receiving waters;
 Eliminate or reduce non‐stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters of the nation; and
 Perform inspections of all BMPs.
 Projects that disturb one or more acres are required to obtain NPDES coverage under the Construction General Permits.

Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Act of 1985 The California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, known as the Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Act or the Business Plan Act, requires businesses using hazardous materials to prepare a plan that describes their facilities, inventories, emergency response plans, and training programs.

Hazardous Waste Control Act
The Hazardous Waste Control Act (HWCA) created the State hazardous waste management program, which is similar to but more stringent than the federal RCRA program. HWCA is implemented by regulations contained in Title 26 of the CCR, which describes the following required aspects for the proper management of hazardous waste: identification and classification; generation and transportation; design and permitting of recycling, treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; treatment standards; operation of facilities and staff training; and closure of facilities and liability requirements.

Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC)
DTSC is a department of Cal EPA and is the primary agency in California that regulates hazardous waste, cleans up existing contamination, and looks for ways to reduce the hazardous waste produced in California. DTSC regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the authority of the federal RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code (primarily Division 20, Chapters 6.5 through 10.6, and Title 22, Division 4.5). Other laws that affect hazardous waste

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 78 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
are specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning. Government Code §65962.5 (commonly referred to as the Cortese List) includes DTSC-listed hazardous waste facilities and sites, California Department of Health Services (DHS) lists of contaminated drinking water wells, sites listed by the SWRCB as having UST leaks and which have had a discharge of hazardous wastes or materials into the water or groundwater, and lists from local regulatory agencies of sites that have had a known migration of hazardous waste/material.

Regional Water Quality Control Board
The RWQCB enforces laws and regulations governing releases of hazardous substances and petroleum pursuant to pursuant to Division 20, Chapters 6.7, 6.75, and 6.8 of the California Health and Safety Code (Sections 25100, 25200 and 25300 et seq.), and the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Division 7, Section 13100 et seq. of the California Water Code) and CCR Title 23. In particular, the RWQCB focuses on all petroleum releases and those hazardous substance releases that may impact groundwater or surface water.

California Office of Emergency Services (OES)
To protect the public health and safety and the environment, the California OES is responsible for establishing and managing statewide standards for business and area plans relating to the handling and release, or threatened release, of hazardous materials. Basic information on hazardous materials handled, used, stored, or disposed of (including location, type, quantity, and the health risks) needs to be available to firefighters, public safety officers, and regulatory agencies. This information must be included in business plans to prevent or mitigate the damage to the health and safety of persons and the environment from the release or threatened release of these materials into the workplace and environment.

These regulations are covered under Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code Article 1– Hazardous Materials Release Response and Inventory Program (Sections 25500 to 25520) and Article 2– Hazardous Materials Management (Sections 25531 to 25543.3). CCR Title 19, Public Safety, Division 2, Office of Emergency Services, Chapter 4–Hazardous Material Release Reporting, Inventory, and Response Plans, Article 4 (Minimum Standards for Business Plans) establishes minimum statewide standards for Hazardous Materials Business Plans (HMBPs).

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
OSHA’s mission is to ensure the safety and health of workers by setting and enforcing standards; providing training, outreach, and education; establishing partnerships; and encouraging continual improvement in workplace safety and health. OSHA standards are listed in Title 29 CFR Part 1910.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 79
State Regulations
California Health and Safety Code
Santa Cruz County is currently responsible for implementing Chapter 6.95 of Division 20 of the California Health and Safety Code (Section 25500 et seq.), relating to hazardous materials release response plans and inventory.

California Water Code
California Water Code Section 231 requires the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to develop well standards to protect California’s ground water quality. DWR Bulletin 74- 90 (Supplement to Bulletin 74-81), California Well Standards, Water Wells, Monitoring Wells, Cathodic Protection Wells, June 1991, contains the minimum requirements for constructing, altering, maintaining, and destroying these types of wells. The standards apply to all water well drillers in California and the local agencies that enforce the standards.

Local Regulations
City of Scotts Valley Emergency Operations Plan (2015)
The City of Scotts Valley Emergency Operations Plan addresses the City’s responsibilities in emergencies associated with natural disaster, human-caused emergencies and technological incidents. It provides a framework for coordination of response and recovery efforts within the City in coordination with local, State, and federal agencies. The Plan establishes an emergency organization to direct and control operations during a period of emergency by assigning responsibilities to specific personnel. The plan is an extension of the California Emergency Plan and is revised periodically as conditions warrant. The Plan meets the requirements of The State’s policies on Emergency Response and Planning, the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) Operational Area response and defines the primary and support roles of City personnel and departments in post-incident damage assessment and After-Action reporting requirements.

Santa Cruz County Hazardous Materials Program
The Santa Cruz County Health Environmental Health Division manages and regulates the storage, use and disposal of hazardous wastes through the Hazardous Materials Program. This Program provides measures for hazardous waste on-site treatment, spill prevention control and countermeasures for aboveground and underground storage tanks, site mitigation and risk management and prevention.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 80 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
Impacts of the Project
Significance Criteria
An impact of the project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it would meet one of the following criteria:
 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
 Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.  Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.  For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.  Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
 Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. (Addressed in the Wildfire analysis below).

Analysis Methodology
This analysis of hazards, human health and risk of upset included the review of existing documentation, including applicable local, state, and federal regulations.

Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
The Planning Areas is not located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip and therefore there would be no impacts.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 81
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact HAZ-1: Implementation of the General Plan may result in the discovery of known and unknown hazardous material contamination in areas proposed for development under the General Plan. This is considered a potentially significant impact.

Implementation of the General Plan may result in known and unknown hazardous materials being discovered or encountered at specific project sites. Historically, much of the land outside the City limits but within the Planning Area is forest land and contains dispersed rural residential development. In addition, urban land uses (e.g., commercial and industrial uses) also can result in hazardous materials contamination. It is common on rural residential and industrial parcels to find sheds and vehicle repair areas with evidence of stored or spilled fluids, pesticides/herbicides and other chemicals.

There are a number of electrical transformers throughout the Planning Area that may contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). PCB transformers may be located within the existing City limits and outlying areas. There are no known leaking PCB transformers in the existing City limits that pose a threat to human health or safety. However, the City and PG&E must comply with federal and state EPA regulations regarding the maintenance, storage, operation, or disposal of PCB-containing equipment.

Until 1980, numerous types of building materials, such as roofing paper, shingles, drywall, drywall texturing, linoleum, and mastic, contained considerable amounts of asbestos. Many of the existing structures in the Planning Area were built prior to 1980, and therefore may have friable asbestos containing materials (ACMs). Many of these buildings may be demolished and/or removed due to development associated with the General Plan. Based on the age of the structures, removal or disturbance of these structures may result in the airborne release of asbestos from ACMs.

In 1978, EPA regulations were adopted prohibiting the use of lead in paints and other construction materials. There are several buildings and structures located in the Planning Area that were constructed prior to 1978. Therefore, it is likely that many of the older structures contain lead-based paint materials. Implementation of the General Plan may include the demolition and removal of some of these structures.

Scotts Valley Dry Cleaners
As described in the Revised Remedy Optimization Report by Arcadis (June 2015), beginning in 1999, the presence of PCE was detected migrating from the Scotts Valley Dry Cleaners (SVDC), located north of Mount Hermon Road within the Town Center Specific Plan area. A release resulting in PCE and TCE impacts to groundwater at the SVDC occurred sometime after 1985.

PCE has been detected in groundwater up to a concentration of 29,000 µg/L.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 82 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
Groundwater remediation has focused on the groundwater beneath the SVDC. Several remedial technologies have been employed for shallow soil and groundwater including soil vapor extraction, air sparge, carbohydrate solution injection, high vacuum dual phase extraction, groundwater extraction, and permanganate injection, resulting in improvements in perched groundwater quality.

On-going comprehensive groundwater monitoring and sampling, including wells at the SVDC, is being carried out to support the delineation of the extent of the PCE plume. Additionally, pump and operating equipment has been installed to capture the SVDC PCE plume in wells with concentrations above clean-up standards.

As described in the Safety & Noise Element, Goal SN-4 and associated policies seek to protect human life and prosperity and to minimize injury, economic damage, and social dislocation resulting from disasters related to hazardous materials. Relevant policies include:

Policy SN-4.9 Hazardous Material Program requires the City to continue to administer through the County Comprehensive Hazardous Materials Program, pursuant to Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code.

Policy SN-4.12 Site Assessments requires site assessments for hazardous and toxic soil contamination prior to approving development project applications.

Implementation of the above goal and policies, as well as enforcement of the local, State and federal regulations described above, would effectively mitigate potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts to a less than significant level and no mitigation is required.

Impact HAZ-2: Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. This is considered a less than significant impact.

Implementation of the General Plan would not conflict with the City of Scotts Valley Emergency Operations Plan nor other emergency plans as prepared by relevant agencies including the Scotts Valley Fire District and Santa Cruz County. As described in the Safety & Noise Element, the General Plan requires the City to coordinate emergency operations on a local and regional basis. In particular:

Policy SN-4.1 County Coordination requires the City to coordinate with the Santa Cruz County Department of Environmental Health Services on enforcement of State and local statutes and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials and waste storage, use, and disposal.

Policy SN-4.2 Storage and Handling Hazardous Materials requires the City, in coordination with the County Department of Environmental Health Services, to control the use storage and handling of hazardous materials. It also requires that the control of hazardous materials waste

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 83
and disposal of hazardous materials shall be consistent with Santa Cruz County Hazardous Materials Program, and state requirements.

Implementation of the above policies, as well as enforcement of the local, State and federal regulations described above, would ensure that the City is consistent with local and state emergency plans. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 84 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN

HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
Federal
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.), formerly the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, was enacted with the intent of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States. The CWA establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States (U.S.) and has given the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) the authority to implement pollution control programs. The CWA requires states to set standards to protect, maintain, and restore water quality through the regulation of point source and certain non‐point source discharges to surface water. Those discharges are regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process (CWA Section 402). In California, NPDES permitting authority is delegated to, and administered by, the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The proposed project is within the jurisdiction of the Central Coast RWQCB.

Section 402 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to issue NPDES General Construction Storm Water Permit (Water Quality Order 99‐08‐DWQ), referred to as the “General Construction Permit.” Construction activities can comply with and be covered under the General Construction Permit if they:
 Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would prevent all construction pollutants from contacting storm water and with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off-site into receiving waters.
 Eliminate or reduce non‐storm water discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters of the nation.
 Perform inspections of all BMPs.

Section 401 of the CWA requires that any activity—including river or stream crossing during road, pipeline, or transmission line construction—that may result in discharges into a State waterbody be certified by the RWQCB. This certification ensures that the proposed activity does not violate State and/or federal water quality standards. The limits of non‐tidal waters extend to the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM), which is defined as the line on the shore established by the fluctuation of water and indicated by physical characteristics, such as natural line impressed on the bank, changes in the character of the soil, and presence of debris. The

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 85
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) may issue either individual, site‐specific permits or general, nationwide permits for discharge into US waters.

Section 404 of the CWA requires a permit for construction activities involving placement of any kind of fill material into waters of the U.S. or wetlands. A Water Quality Certification pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA is required for Section 404 permit actions. If applicable, construction would also require a request for Water Quality Certification (or waiver thereof) from the RWQCB.

When an application for a Section 404 permit is made, the applicant must show it has:
 Taken steps to avoid impacts to wetlands or waters of the U.S. where practicable;  Minimized unavoidable impacts on waters of the U.S. and wetlands; and  Provided mitigation for unavoidable impacts.

Section 303(d) of the CWA (CWA, 33 USC 1250, et seq., at 1313(d)) requires states to identify “impaired” water bodies as those which do not meet water quality standards. States are required to compile this information in a list and submit the list to U.S. EPA for review and approval. An affected waterbody, and associated pollutant or stressor, is then prioritized in a list of impaired water bodies known as the 303(d) List. The CWA further requires the development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for each listing.

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
The NFIP, implemented by the Congress of the United States in 1968, enables participating communities to purchase flood insurance. Flood insurance rates are set according to flood‐ prone status of property as indicated by FIRMs developed by the FEMA. FIRMs identify the estimated limits of the 100‐year floodplain for mapped watercourses, among other flood hazards. As a condition of participation in the NFIP, communities must adopt regulations for floodplain development intended to reduce flood damage for new development through such measures as flood proofing, elevation on fill, or floodplain avoidance.

State
Senate Bill (SB) 610
SB 610 was passed on January 1, 2002, amending California state law to require detailed analysis of water supply availability for large development projects. An SB 610 Water Supply Assessment (WSA) must be prepared if the following three conditions are met: 1) the proposed project is subject to CEQA under Water Code Section 10910; 2) the proposed project meets criteria to be defined as a “Project” under Water Code Section 10912; and 3) the applicable water agency’s current Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) does not account for the

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 86 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
water supply demand associated with the proposed project. A proposed project would meet the definition of “Project” per Water Code Section 10912 if it is:
 A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units;  A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space;  A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space;
 A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms;  A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area;
 A mixed‐use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision; or
 A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500-dwelling unit project (DWR, 2003).

Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Control Act
SWRCB regulates water quality through the Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Act of 1969, which contains a complete framework for the regulation of waste discharges to both surface waters and groundwater of the state. On the regional level, the proposed project falls under the jurisdiction of the Central Coast RWQCB, Region 3, which is responsible for the implementation of state and federal water quality protection statutes, regulations and guidelines.

California Department of Fish & Wildlife Code
Section 1602 of the California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Code protects the natural flow, bed, channel, and bank of any river, stream, or lake designated by the CDFW in which there is, at any time, any existing fish or wildlife resources, or benefit for the resources. Section 1602 applies to all perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral rivers, streams, and lakes in the state, and requires any person, state or local governmental agency, or public utility to notify the CDFW before beginning any activity that will:
 Substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream or lake;  Substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake; or
 Deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 87
A Streambed Alteration Agreement is required prior to any construction if CDFW determines that a project could substantially adversely affect an existing fish and wildlife resource. The Agreement includes measures to protect fish and wildlife resources while conducting the project. CDFW must comply with CEQA before it may issue a final Agreement; therefore, CDFW must wait for the lead agency to fully comply with CEQA before it finalizes the Agreement.

California Water Code §13050-§13260
California Water Code §13050. California Water Code §13050(e) defines “waters of the state” as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” California Water Code §13260 requires that any person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the quality of the waters of the State, other than into a community sewer system, must submit a report of waste discharge to the applicable RWQCB.

Central Coast RWQCB Post-Construction Stormwater Management Requirements In July 2013, the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) adopted Order R3-2013-0032, which requires new and more stringent Post-Construction Requirements (PCRs) for proposed development projects. The PCRs mandate that development projects use Low Impact Development (LID) features and facilities to detain, retain, and treat site runoff. LID incorporates and conserves on-site natural features, together with constructed hydrologic controls to more closely mimic pre-development hydrology and watershed processes. Projects that receive their first discretionary approval after March 6, 2014, are subject to the PCRs if they create or replace 2,500 sf or more of impervious area.

The PCR tiers range from Tier 1 to Tier 4, with requirements strengthened for each additional tier. Tier 4 projects have the most stringent requirements. For these projects which create or replace 22,500 sf or more of impervious surface, post-development peak flows discharged from the project site must not exceed pre-project peak flows for the 2-year through 10-year storm events. This requirement is in addition to other requirements for Tier 1-3 projects.

Impacts of the Project
Significance Criteria
An impact of a project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it would meet one of the following criteria.
 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, create any substantial new sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise degrade surface water or groundwater quality.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 88 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
 Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would
o Result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or offsite. o Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on‐ or offsite.
o Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
o Impede or redirect flood flows
 In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.
 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

Analysis Methodology
The programmatic hydrology and water quality analysis is based on the City of Scotts General Plan and Zoning Code; published information and technical reports regarding local and regional hydrology, climate, and geology; and letters received from Responsible Agencies during the Notice of Preparation review period.

Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
The Planning Area is not subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Therefore, these thresholds are not evaluated further as there would be no impact.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact HYD-1: Contribute to the depletion of local groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge causing a cumulatively considerable impact. This is considered a potentially significant impact.

The project could substantially deplete local and regional (cumulative) groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge if it:
 Caused the groundwater basin to be in overdraft;

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 89
 Caused substantial and permanent groundwater level drawdowns;  Negatively affected the quality of the groundwater; or  Substantially reduced the natural recharge of the basin through reduction of stream flows or reduction of infiltration.

Groundwater Demand
As described in the Open Space & Conservation Element and shown in Figure OSC-2:

Watersheds, the Santa Margarita Groundwater Basin (SMGB) is a primary water supply source for Scotts Valley. Two public water agencies, the Scotts Valley Water District (SVWD or District) and the San Lorenzo Valley Water District (SLVWD) serve the Scotts Valley area.

The SLVWD’s boundaries comprise approximately 60 square miles and 190 miles of pipeline.

The District currently provides service to approximately 7,900 residential, commercial, and institutional connections. The District relies on both surface water and groundwater resources, including nine currently active stream diversions, one groundwater spring, and eight active groundwater wells. The District owns, operates, and maintains two water systems from separate water sources. These sources are derived solely from rainfall within the San Lorenzo River watershed.

The SVWD in partnership with other local agencies has actively managed groundwater in the area since the early 1980s in an effort to increase water supply reliability and to protect local water supply sources. In June of 2017 SVWD, SLVWD and the County of Santa Cruz formed the Santa Margarita Groundwater Agency (SMGWA), which is responsible for ensuring the sustainable groundwater management in the SBGB. The SMGMA is currently preparing a Groundwater Sustainability Plan to manage the long-term supply and use of groundwater in the basin. The SVWD formally adopted its Groundwater Management Plan in 1994 under Assembly Bill 3030 (AB3030). Annual reports describing the groundwater conditions in the Scotts Valley area and the District’s management programs have been prepared since 1994.

As described in the most recent annual report (SVWD 2020), District groundwater pumping continues to be substantially less than historical pumping. Groundwater pumped by SVWD in Water Year (WY) 2019 was 1,215 acre-feet, which is similar to the previous three year’s pumping. The District’s groundwater pumping is now just under 885 acre-feet less than the historical maximum pumping from 1997. In WY2020, approximately 64% of SVWD’s groundwater production was from the Lompico aquifer and 36% was from the Butano aquifer.

The District has no wells pumping from the Santa Margarita aquifer or Monterey formation.

SVWD maintains a number of ongoing activities to support the sustainable management of the groundwater resource including water use efficiency, a recycled water program, and water audit and loss control program. In WY2020, recycled water deliveries were approximately 178 acre-feet. Since WY2002, approximately 2,670 acre-feet of recycled water has been delivered

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 90 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
for use. Cumulative recycled water deliveries equate to banking more than twice the volume of groundwater that was pumped by SVWD in WY2020. The following discussion of groundwater conditions is summarized from the District’s Groundwater Management Plan Annual Report – WY2020.

Santa Margarita Aquafer and Monterey Formation Groundwater Levels The two shallowest formations in the Scotts Valley area, the Santa Margarita aquifer and Monterey Formation, have stable and increasing groundwater level trends, respectively. The District does not pump groundwater from the Santa Margarita aquifer but continues to monitor its groundwater levels. In general, the Santa Margarita aquifer in the District’s service area has stable groundwater levels with temporary increases in response to wet years. For example, WY2017 was a very wet year that caused a temporary increase in groundwater levels, which has since declined slightly. The Monterey Formation is not a major aquifer in the Scotts Valley area and is pumped minimally by the District (12 acre-feet over the past three years) and has experienced an overall gradual increase in groundwater levels since WY2014. In WY2019, Monterey Formation groundwater levels in the southern portion of the District service area (at SVWD Well #9) increased almost five feet.

Lompico Aquifer Groundwater Levels
Even though the Lompico aquifer is the District’s primary producing aquifer, over the past two years there has been an overall increasing trend in groundwater levels in the main pumping areas around SVWD Well #10, and Wells #11A and #11B where the 150–200-foot decline in groundwater levels historical occurred. Static groundwater levels in WY2019 rose between nine and 18 feet at these production wells. At SVWD Well #10 in the southern portion of the District’s service area there has been an approximately 25-foot increase in levels over the past two years. Increases at SVWD Wells #11A and #11B in the central portion of the District’s service area, have also been observed over the past year. These increases likely resulted from reduced pumping but also the cumulatively above-average rainfall since the end of the drought in WY2015. Cumulatively greater than average rainfall has recharged the Lompico aquifer particularly in the area of SVWD Well #10A where the Lompico aquifer is directly beneath the Santa Margarita aquifer.

Butano Aquifer Groundwater Levels
Despite the increase in Butano aquifer pumping in WY2019 due to the Orchard Well coming online as a replacement for SVWD Well #7A, groundwater levels within the Butano aquifer pumping center (Orchard Well and Well #3B) have only shown a very slight decline of a foot or two. However, it is difficult to measure accurately from the hydrographs due to fluctuating data measured during pumping. In the northernmost portion of the District, at the Stonewood Well located approximately two miles north of the Butano aquifer pumping center, Butano aquifer groundwater levels have increased around four feet over the past six years.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 91
Recycled Water Use
The Recycled Water Program has issued 56 permits in total, with four new connections issued in WY2020 (Figure 9). From WY2002 through WY2020, approximately 2,670 acre-feet of recycled water has been delivered to customers (Table 2). The cumulative use of recycled water since 2002 is equivalent to 220% of the District’s groundwater pumping in WY2020. Since recycled water is used in-lieu of pumped groundwater, it is assumed that an equivalent volume of groundwater remains in the SMGB and is available to support future water supply needs.

Recycled water deliveries have increased annually from the program’s inception through WY2013. Since 2013, deliveries have not increased much, but have fluctuated between 160 and 199 acre-feet per year. Deliveries in WY2020 increased slightly to approximately 178 acre-feet from 174 acre-feet in WY2019.

There is a strong correlation between rainfall and recycled water deliveries, with wet years such as Water Years 2017 and 2019 having reduced recycled water demand (Figure 9 and Table 2).

Other reasons for decreased demand could be due to recycled water customers replacing their landscapes or improving their irrigation practices as a consequence of the drought and associated efforts to use water more efficiently.

As shown in Table ER-HYD-1: WY2011 to WY2020 SVWD Groundwater Pumping by Aquifer and Recycled Water Usage, total water supply has been generally the same over the last 10 years.

Table ER-HYD-1: WY2011 to WY2020 SVWD Groundwater Pumping by Aquifer and Recycled Water Usage
Aquifer
Historic
Maximum 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Groundwater 2,100
(1997) 1,292 1,351 1,400 1,376 1,133 1,139 1,242 1,211 1,215 1,215 Recycled
Water
200
(2013) 163 184 200 199 184 195 162 196 174 178
Total Water
Supply
2,096
(2003) 1,455 1,535 1,600 1,575 1,317 1,334 1,404 1,407 1,389 1,393 Note: All numbers are in acre-feet per Water Year.

Source: SVWD, Scotts Valley Water District Groundwater Management Plan Annual Report - Water Year 2020.

Groundwater Recharge
In July 2013, the Central Coast Water Quality Control Board adopted Order R3-2013-0032, which requires new and more stringent Post-Construction Requirements (PCRs) for proposed development projects. The PCRs mandate that development projects use Low Impact Development (LID) features and facilities to detain, retain, and treat site runoff. LID

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 92 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
incorporates and conserves on-site natural features, together with constructed hydrologic controls to more closely mimic pre-development hydrology and watershed processes.

All proposed future development projects would be subject to state PCRs, requiring the implementation of LID measures in conjunction with construction and operational phases of future development. A project’s Stormwater Control Plan would need to incorporate LID design elements which would allow for infiltration and replenishment of the groundwater basin.

Future Water Supply and Demand
The Joint SLVWS and SVWD’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP, 2020) projects future water supply and demand for normal, single, and multiple dry years taking into account both ground and recycled water use. By 2040, the SVWD projects a net surplus of 177 acre-feet per year during the normal year, 164 acre-feet per year during the single, and 160 acre-feet per year during the fifth year of a multiple dry-year event.

Based upon the SVWD 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, SVWD has adequate supply to meet demand during normal, single, and multiple-dry years. The incremental increase in water demand from future growth associated with implementation of the General Plan would not exceed the capacity of the water delivery system.

Recycled Water
In Water Year 2020 (WY20) SVWD supplied a total of 178 AF of tertiary treated water to 71 connections. Recycled water demand primarily occurs in the summer months for irrigation.

SVWD provides recycled water for irrigation at parks, schools, homeowners associations, landscaped medians, and businesses. The two largest SVWD recycled water customers within SVWD’s service area are the City and the School District, which make up approximately 33% of the total consumption. SVWD primarily serves customers within SVWD’s service area; however, it also provides recycled water to the Spring Lakes Mobile Home Park (Spring Lakes MHP), which is located withing SLVWD’s service area, to fill decorative ponds. The average demand for the Spring Lakes MHP over the last three years has been approximately 48 AFY.

Recycled water demand has been relatively flat for the last 9 years and it typically fluctuates based on the precipitation amount received in any given year. There has been an increase in recycled water customers over the years; however, the total demand has not increased significantly which is likely due to recycled water customers becoming more efficient like potable water customers.

Secondary treated water from the WRF that is not treated for recycled water or provided to the Pasatiempo Golf Course Tertiary Treatment Plant is discharged to the Pacific Ocean through the Santa Cruz ocean outfall.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 93
SVWD recognizes that recycled water continues to be an important and reliable source of supplemental supply for the region as the population increases and climate change negatively impacts the natural recharge in the watershed. SVWD has completed evaluations of existing and future recycled water demands throughout the service area and region. SVWD’s unique situation where groundwater is limited, and imported water is not available indicate that recycled water is an important element of SVWD’s water portfolio. The reliability of the recycled water resource of SVWD is unaffected by climactic conditions given that the source of recycled water is wastewater.

The Santa Margarita Groundwater Basin Regional Groundwater Replenishment Program Draft Facilities Planning Report (Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2016b) indicated that up to 286 AFY of additional recycled water demand for irrigation exists in SVWD’s service area. However, much of that demand is not likely to be served due to distance from recycled water infrastructure.

Based on recent trends SVWD has established a planning-level assumption that recycled water use within SVWD’s service area will moderately increase through 2045.

General Plan Implementation and Groundwater Use
As described in the Open Space & Conservation Element, Goal OSC-3 and associated policies seek to preserve surface and ground water supplies, reduce stormwater runoff, and improve and water quality in the Planning Area. Relevant policies include:

Policy OSC-3.4 Storm Drainage System would seek to maintain a storm drainage system which provides optimal flood protection and maximum groundwater recharge.

Policy OSC-3.6 Project Surface and Groundwater Supplies would maintain regulatory measures to protect streams, creeks, ponds, and aquifers from pollution due to toxic substances, and erosive forces.

Policy OSC-3.7 Development Impact to Groundwater Resources would, as part of the environmental review process, and in cooperation with the applicable water districts, require developers to evaluate the impact to local water resources. Where deemed appropriate, mitigation may include construction of recharge improvements.

Policy OSC-3.13 Water Use would encourage efficient water use methods such as the use of low-flow plumbing fixtures and water-wise landscaping in new and existing residences and businesses.

Policy OSC-3.17 Project Groundwater and Water Quality Impacts would require the City to use the environmental review process to determine potential groundwater and water quality impacts of new development.

Implementation of the above policies, enforcement of the local, State, and federal regulations, and on-going sustainable water management practices as implemented by the SVWD, the

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 94 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
SLVWD and the SMGWA would help to ensure that depletion of local groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge are minimized. Furthermore, while future development would result in moderate increase in water demand associated with residential and commercial use, it would not exceed groundwater supply and projections as identified by the SVWD and the SLVWD. Therefore, impacts to groundwater supply and recharge would be less than significant and no mitigation required.

Impact HYD‐2: Increase stormwater runoff due to the increase in impervious surfaces. This is a potentially significant impact.

The rate and amount of surface runoff is determined by multiple factors, including the amount and intensity of precipitation; amount of water that enters a watershed; and the amount of precipitation and water that infiltrates to the groundwater. Infiltration is determined by several factors, including soil type, antecedent soil moisture, rainfall intensity, the amount of impervious surfaces within a watershed, and topography. The rate of surface runoff is largely determined by topography and the intensity of rainfall over a given period of time.

Buildout of the General Plan would involve grading activities typical of development on relatively flat terrain. Implementation of the General Plan over time would result in the eventual conversion land to residential, industrial, commercial, and public uses. The conversion of this land would increase the amount of surface area impervious to water, such as pavement, roofing and walkways, and would increase runoff and alter existing drainage patterns. Grading activities may alter existing drainage patterns stormwater and lead to erosion and siltation.

In cases where a future development project would disturb more than one acre of land, the project applicant would be required to submit a Notice of Intent to the State Board and apply for coverage under the State NPDES General Permit for Construction Activities, prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and submit it for review and approval prior to commencing construction. In addition, the proposed project could create more (or less) impervious surface area and be subject to state Tier 4 PCRs, requiring the implementation of LID measures.

The SWPPP would detail the project site-specific BMPs to control erosion and sedimentation and maintain water quality during the construction phase of the proposed project. Potential erosion control plans could include silt fences, fiber rolls, drop inlet protection and curb inlet sediment barriers, and rocked construction site entrances. The SWPPP would also contain a summary of the structural and non-structural BMPs to be implemented during the postconstruction period, pursuant to the nonpoint source practices and procedures as required by the City Public Works Department. Once grading begins, the SWPPP must be kept on-site and updated as needed while construction progresses.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 95
As described in the Open Space & Conservation Element, Goal OSC-3 and associated policies seek to minimize stormwater runoff due to the increase in impervious surfaces in the Planning Area. Relevant policies include:

Policy OSC-3.5 Drainage Channels requires new development provide dedication of easements for natural drainage channels, where appropriate.

Policy OSC-3.14 Drainage Plans requires new development to protect water infiltration, purification, and retentive functions of natural systems that exist on the site.

Policy OSC-3.15 Impervious Surfaces requires new development to minimize the amount of impervious surfaces and shall be prohibited from having post-project peak stormwater runoff discharge rates exceeding the estimated pre-project rate.

Policy OSC-3.18 Water Quality Best Management Practices requires new development to implement best management practices that reduce stormwater runoff and water quality impacts associated with the construction and operation of the project.

Given the above policies, and the fact that local and state regulations require future projectspecific applicants to prepare and submit a project SWPPP for review and approval prior to construction activities occurring on the project site, as well as adhere to Tier 4 PCR requirements for operation, the impacts from stormwater runoff would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Impact HYD‐3: Substantially alter drainage patterns on- or off-site that would result in the storm water transport of contaminants, pollutants, bacteria, salts, and sediment into downstream facilities. This is considered a potentially significant impact.

As described in the Open Space & Conservation Element, Goal OSC-3 and associated policies seek to minimize stormwater transport of contaminants and sediment into downstream facilities in the Planning Area. Relevant policies include:

Policy OSC-3.1 Regional Collaboration – Stormwater requires the City to continue to partner with and support federal, state, and local agencies in regional planning and management initiatives to promote and enhance water quality in Scotts Valley and the region.

Policy OSC-3.8 Non-Point Source Pollution requires future development to minimize, avoid, or eliminate non-point source pollution by controlling stormwater runoff, polluted dry weather runoff, and other pollution, in compliance with Scotts Valley’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Stormwater Management Plan.

Policy OSC-3.9 Best Management Practices – Stormwater requires new development, public and private, to meet or exceed state stormwater requirements and incorporate best management practices.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 96 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
Policy OSC-3.12 City Property Water Quality Maintenance requires the City to design, construct, and maintain City properties in a manner that maximizes water quality protection.

Policy OSC-3.14 Drainage Plans requires new development to protect water infiltration, purification, and retentive functions of natural systems.

Policy OSC-3.16 Prevent Contaminant Settling recommends utilizing natural features supplemented by engineering designs to prevent contaminants from settling over recharge areas while allowing percolation of non-contaminated water into the aquifer.

Policy OSC-3.17 Project Groundwater and Water Quality Impacts requires using the environmental review process to determine potential groundwater and water quality impacts of new development.

Policy OSC-3.18 Water Quality Best Management Practices requires new development to implement best management practices that reduce stormwater runoff and water quality impacts associated with the construction and operation of the project.

Given these policies and City and State regulations described above, impacts that would substantially alter drainage patterns on- or off-site that would result in the storm water transport of contaminants would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 97

LAND USE & PLANNING
Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
State
California General Plan
Pursuant to California State (Government Code section 65040), each city and county in California must prepare a comprehensive, long-term general plan to guide its future. Seven elements are required by State law: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise and safety. By statute, the housing element must be updated every seven years. The City’s updated General Plan is the subject of this EIR, but does not include the Housing Element, which will be updated at the intervals prescribed by State law. Communities may also adopt area and community plans, which are part of the general plan.

Local
Local Agency Formation Commission
Pursuant to State law enacted in 1963 (Government Code Section 54773 et seq.), a Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) was established in each county to promote the orderly development of local government agencies, efficient provision of services, guide development away from prime agricultural land and discourage urban sprawl. In meeting its responsibility, LAFCO is required to review and approve or disapprove, with or without amendments, wholly, partially, or conditionally, governmental boundary change proposals with regards to Spheres of Influence, annexation, detachment, reorganization and/or extending a city’s water or sewer service area. In addition to the regulatory responsibilities of LAFCO referred to above, the Commission is empowered to initiate and to make studies of existing governmental agencies.

Such studies shall include but not be limited to inventorying such agencies and determining their maximum service areas and service capabilities.

Pursuant to State law, LAFCO must adopt a Sphere of Influence (SOI) for each governmental agency (including special districts. A sphere of influence means a plan for the probable future physical boundaries and service area of a local governmental agency that takes into account existing and future land uses, service needs and service capacities.

General Plan
The General Plan, as amended, establishes policies for the orderly growth and development of the City of Scotts Valley. Among other purposes, the plan identifies policies necessary to protect and enhance those features and services which contribute to the quality of life of the community in which it serves.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 98 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
The General Plan is a comprehensive policy plan which sets forth a series of written statements (goals, policies and objectives) defining the direction, character and composition of future land use development, and establishes guidelines (policies and actions) necessary to attain conformance with the plan.

City of Scotts Valley Municipal Code
The City regulates land development through the Municipal Code within the City limits through the permitting process. All projects proposed subsequent to adoption of the new General Plan would undergo review by the Planning Commission and City Council as appropriate, consistent with current process, including Title 17 – Zoning.

Specific Plans
As described in the Land Use Element, the Town Center, Gateway South, and Glenwood Specific Plans are located in the City limits. These Specific Plans include policies, development standards, and design guidelines that provide direction for future development in their respective areas including the type, location and intensity of uses, their design, and capacity of infrastructure.

Special Treatment Areas
As described in the Land Use Element, the Bethany Neighborhood and Gateway South Special Treatment Areas are located in the City limits and provide land use guidance and regulatory requirements regarding future development.

Habitat Conservation Areas
As described in the Open Space & Conservation Element, there are three designated conservation areas within the Planning Area that are managed to preserve their habitat and plant and animal species: the Santa Cruz Sandhills, Glenwood Preserve, and Polo Ranch.

The Sandhills Conservation and Management Plan: A Strategy for Preserving Native Biodiversity in the Santa Cruz Sandhills (McGraw, 2004) provides a comprehensive strategy for the maintenance of native biodiversity in the Santa Cruz Sandhills.

The Habitat Conservation Plan and Long-Term Management Plan for the Glenwood Preserve (approved December 2017) describes the long-term management and monitoring of these species while providing very limited passive recreation use (trails).

The Polo Ranch homeowner association owns the 100-acres of open space within the Polo Ranch subdivision. A land trust is the easement holder for the fenced protected habitat, which is managed by an open space manager.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 99
Impacts of the Project
Significance Criteria
An impact of the project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it would meet one of the following criteria:
 Physically divide an established community.
 Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Analysis Methodology
The evaluation of potential land use impacts is based on the updated General Plan and policy documents and the Scotts Valley Municipal Code.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact LU-1: Physically divide an established community. This is considered a less than significant impact.

The City of Scotts Valley is a compact urban community that is surrounded by natural barriers to outward expansion. As described in the Land Use Element, developable areas within the City limits are largely built out. As an established community, new development accommodated by the General Plan would be considered infill development, both on limited remaining vacant lands or intensification and/or redevelopment on underutilized parcels.

Furthermore, General Plan goals, policies and actions that limit potential expansion of the City’s boundaries. In particular Goal LU-2 and associated policies require the City to maintain a welldefined valley community with boundaries defined by the planning area’s natural features and environmental functions. Policy LU-2.2 requires the City to preserve open space and maintain development at the edge of the City limits compatible with surrounding Santa Cruz County land uses.

Therefore, because future development would be within an established community, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Impact LU-2: Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

This is considered a less than significant impact.

As shown in Figure LU-1: General Plan Land Use Designations, apart from minor updates to reflect past City approvals, the land use designations in the City of Scotts Valley and the Planning Area would remain the same as designated under the 1994 General Plan (as amended). The General Plan development capacity provides a reference point for how and

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 100 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
where such growth would be accommodated, and how the City and other public agencies would accommodate such growth, particularly with respect to infrastructure requirements (e.g., roads, water, sewer), and public services (e.g., police, fire, and parks & recreation).

As shown in Table LU-1: General Plan Buildout Summary, the General Plan assumes a more moderate growth rate that is less than the previous (1994) General Plan, and more consistent with actual growth trends over the past 20 + years, as well as projections as identified by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG).

The General Plan, by its definition, includes goals, policies, and actions that establish a framework for land use designations and orderly future development consistent with the General Plan’s Vision & Guiding Principles. The Scotts Valley Municipal Code provides further development standards that would be applicable to all future development applications.

Because no substantially new land use designations are proposed, and future development applications would be reviewed for consistency with this General Plan, other relevant City plans, and City and State regulations, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 101

NOISE & VIBRATION
Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
Federal
There are no federal noise requirements or regulations applicable to local actions. However, there are federal regulations that influence the audible landscape, where federal funding is involved. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requires abatement of highway traffic noise for highway projects through rules in the Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR Part 772), and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) each recommend thorough noise and vibration assessments through comprehensive guidelines for any mass transit or high-speed railroad projects that would pass by residential areas. For housing constructed with assistance from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, minimum noise insulation standards must be achieved (24 CFR Part 51, Subpart B).

State
California Government Code §65302(f)
California Government Code Section 65302(f) requires that each city and county general plan include a “noise element” that: “shall identify and appraise noise problems in the community”; “shall recognize the guidelines established by the Office of Noise Control”; and “shall analyze and quantify, to the extent practicable, as determined by the [city or county] legislative body, current and projected noise levels for all of the following sources:
 Highways and freeways,
 Primary arterials and major local streets,
 Passenger and freight on-line railroad operations and ground rapid transit systems,  Commercial, general aviation, heliport, helistop, and military airport operations, aircraft overflights, jet engine test stands, and all other ground facilities and maintenance functions related to airport operation,
 Local industrial plants, including, but not limited to, railroad classification yards, [and]  Other ground stationary noise sources, including, but not limited to, military installations, identified by local agencies as contributing to the community noise environment.”
The recommendations established by the Office of Planning and Research are shown in in Table SN-1: CA State Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Community Noise Environments of the Safety & Noise Element.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 102 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
“Noise contours shall be shown for all of these sources and stated in terms of community noise equivalent level (CNEL) or day-night average level (Ldn). The noise contours shall be prepared on the basis of noise monitoring or following generally accepted noise modeling techniques for the various sources identified in paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive.” These “noise contours shall be used as a guide for establishing a pattern of land uses in the land use element that minimizes the exposure of community residents to excessive noise.” Finally, “[t]he noise element shall include implementation measures and possible solutions that address existing and foreseeable noise problems, if any. The adopted noise element shall serve as a guideline for compliance with the state’s noise insulation standards.” The State of California establishes minimum noise insulation performance standards for hotels, motels, dormitories, apartment houses and dwellings other than detached single-family dwellings. Interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 db in any habitable room, measured in either the day-night average sound level (Ldn) or the community noise equivalent level (CNEL), consistent with the General Plan, although Ldn is preferred, as set forth in the California Building Code (Title 24, Chapter 12 Appendix Section 1207.11.2). The DayNight Average Sound Level (DNL) is a descriptor established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to represent a 24-hour average noise level with a penalty applied to noise occurring during the nighttime hours (10 PM - 7 AM) to account for the increased sensitivity of people during sleeping hours.

Local
City of Scotts Valley General Plan
The Safety & Noise Element contains specific goals, policies and regulations that address noise standards and guidelines. A summary of these is addressed in the impacts section below.

City of Scotts Valley Municipal Code
Section 17.44.020.C3 of the Municipal Code (SVMC) states:

Noise. At the lot line of all uses specified in Chapters 17.20, 17.22, 17.24, 17.26 and

17.28 of this title, the maximum sound generated by any user shall not exceed 75 dbA when adjacent users are industrial or wholesale users. When adjacent to offices or retail, the sound level shall be limited to seventy dbA. When users are adjacent or contiguous to residential, park or institutional uses, the maximum sounds level shall not exceed 60 dbA. Excluded from these standards are occasional noises which are specifically exempted under Section 5.17.030.

The noises exempted under Section 5.17.030 include the proper use of a siren or other alarm by a police, fire, or other authorized emergency vehicle, a stationary fire alarm operated by the Fire District, the use of emergency generators by privately owned

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 103
service facilities (up to a maximum of 75 dBA at the property line), and noise generated by City-permitted construction activities during authorized construction hours.

Impacts of the Project
Significance Criteria
An impact of the project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it would meet one of the following criteria:
 Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.  Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.  For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working the project area to excessive noise levels.

Analysis Methodology
The noise impact analysis is based on the Safety & Noise Element, the Scotts Valley Municipal Code, and measurement of existing and modelled future predicted roadway noise levels associated with implementation of the General Plan.

Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
Proximity to a Public or Private Airport
The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or private airport and therefore there would be no impact.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact N-1: Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. This is considered a potentially significant impact.

Temporary Noise Levels Due to Construction
Future development accommodated under the General Plan would result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels due to construction activities. Construction-related noise levels would vary throughout the day, depending on the type of equipment in use at any one

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 104 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
time and the distance to the receptors, and noise impacts from construction may vary greatly depending on the duration and complexity of the project. However, construction-related noise impacts are temporary and often of a short-term duration. Noise generated during construction could be considered a nuisance to some residents and/or employees in the proximity to such construction and may seem intolerable during construction phases with the loudest equipment/activities in operations.

Construction equipment can operate in two modes – stationary and mobile. Stationary equipment operates in one location for one or more days at a time, with either a fixed power operation (pumps, generators, compressors) or a variable noise operation (pile drivers, pavement breakers). Mobile equipment moves around the construction site with power applied in cyclic fashion (bulldozers, loaders), or to and from the site (trucks). As a result of the equipment mix for any given project, each phase has its own noise characteristics; some have higher continuous noise levels than others, some have high impact noise levels. These noise levels would decrease with distance from the construction site at a rate of approximately six dBA per doubling of distance (California Department of Transportation, November 2009).

Groundborne noise and other types of construction-related noise impacts would typically occur during initial site preparation (i.e., grading), which can create the highest levels of noise but has the shortest duration of all construction phases. High groundborne noise levels can occur during this phase by the operation of heavy-duty trucks, backhoes, and other heavy-duty construction equipment.

Noise-generating construction activity would be reduced by being restricted to daytime hours when sensitive receptors are the least sensitive to noise. The Scotts Valley Zoning Ordinance (Title 17.46.160) exempts noise sources associated with temporary construction activities, provided such activities occur between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM Monday through Friday; 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturday; but not on Sundays or federal holidays. While construction noise levels during these hours may temporarily exceed 80 dBA, such exceedances would be temporary, and would not be expected to result in average daytime noise levels that would exceed an 8-hour Leq of 80 dBA, which is the FTA’s recommended standard for adverse community reaction.

Furthermore, the Safety & Noise Element includes contains polices to reduce construction noise. Policy SN-7.15 requires the City to ensure that construction activities are managed to minimize overall noise impacts on surrounding land uses. Policy SN-7.16 requires that where appropriate, particularly when located adjacent to sensitive land uses, construction noise reduction measures to be included as part of project development plans to reduce the effects of construction noise.

Development projects are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and typical conditions of approval include limiting the day and times of day during which construction and/or heavy construction

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 105
can be conducted, provision of notification to neighbors regarding construction schedules, and implementation of a process to receive and respond to noise complaints. These are some of the types of measures that would be implemented by the City to manage and minimize construction noise impacts per proposed General Plan policies and City noise regulations described above.

In conclusion, adoption and implementation of the General Plan would result in construction of varying sound level and duration, which could be an annoyance to adjacent residents. With implementation of the General Plan and regulations that set forth measures to minimize exposure construction noise levels, the increase in temporary noise levels from constructionrelated activities would be considered less-than-significant and no mitigation is required.

Long-term Noise Levels
Future development could result in increased vehicular noise as well as project-level construction-related noise which would primarily occur on vacant and underdeveloped infill sites. As shown in Figure SN-7: Noise Contours, future noise levels adjacent to major roadways and Highway 17 were modelled based on traffic data developed for the EIR using the Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Noise Model, which calculates the traffic noise level based on input such as traffic volume, truck percentage and travel speeds. Generally speaking, noise conditions associated with buildout of the General Plan would remain relatively unchanged as compared to existing conditions, due to the fact that traffic is the most significant on-going contributor to ambient noise levels and minor increase in traffic associated with future development would not cause a significant change in noise levels.

Although some segments would experience noise levels above 70 dBA, they are limited to areas directly adjacent to Highway 17 and the eastern side of the Mt. Hermon Road / Highway 17 intersection. Areas directly adjacent to arterials within the City (i.e., Mt. Hermon Road and Scotts Valley Drive) would experience noise levels at 65 dBA or lower, which is the typical exterior noise level at which the state-mandated interior sound level of 45 dBA could be achieved without specialized structural noise attenuation.

Some future development would be located along these arterials roadways but would not be located in areas where future noise levels would exceed noise or land use compatibility standards.

If ambient noise levels in the area of a future development project would exceed “normally acceptable” thresholds as shown in Table SN-2: Noise Increase Standards of the Safety and Noise Element, the City would require a detailed analysis of feasible noise reduction requirements. Furthermore, as needed, noise insulation features must be included in the design of such projects to reduce exterior noise levels to meet the acceptable thresholds, or, for uses with no active outdoor use areas, to ensure maintenance of acceptable interior noise levels for the proposed land use.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 106 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
The Safety & Noise Element includes goals, policies and actions that set forth measures to avoid and minimize adverse impacts on noise. In particular, Goals SN-6 and SN-7 and associated policies require the City to minimize impacts associated with vehicle noise and annoying and/or harmful noise. As described in Policy SN-7.5, new developments that are conditionally acceptable or increase the day-night noise level by more than the levels shown in Table SN-2:

Noise Increase Standards are required to conduct a noise study to determine that the appropriate noise attenuation design measures have been incorporated to the City’s satisfaction. Policy SN-7.6 requires that new developments that are considered noise sensitive shall not be located in proximity to existing noise generating uses, unless the existing noise level can be made compatible, through mitigations, with the proposed new sensitive use. Finally, Policy SN-7.10 requires that in areas where the annual day-night noise level exceeds 60 dBA, the City shall require an acoustical engineering study for proposed new construction or renovation of structure(s) and recommend methods to reduce the interior day-night annual average noise levels to below 45 dBA for private dwellings, motels, hotels, office, and noise sensitive uses.

Denotation of a land use as “normally acceptable” implies that the highest noise level in that band is the maximum desirable for existing or conventional construction that does not incorporate any special acoustic treatment. In general, evaluation of land use that falls into the “normally acceptable” or “normally unacceptable” noise environments should include consideration of the type of noise source, the sensitivity of the noise receptor, the noise reduction likely to be provided by structures, and the degree to which the noise source may interfere with speech, sleep, or other activities characteristic of the land use. The objective of the noise compatibility guidelines is to provide the community with a means of judging the noise environment it deems to be generally acceptable. In instances where new development may be exposed to unacceptable noise levels, acoustical studies would be necessary to ensure that the building construction can meet state-required noise levels, as well as acceptable outdoor noise levels.

As described in the Safety & Noise Element, typical residential construction (i.e., light frame construction with sash windows) with closed windows and doors can result in an exterior-tointerior noise reduction of at least 20 dBA and approximately 15 dBA with windows partially open for ventilation. Buildings constructed of stucco or masonry with dual-glazed windows and solid core exterior doors can be expected to achieve an exterior to interior noise reduction of approximately 25-30 dBA. Further noise reduction could be achieved with mechanical air systems and/or other window designs for areas where the ambient noise level exceeds 65 dBA.

In conclusion, adoption and implementation of the General Plan would not directly result in new development, but future development would result increased traffic and exposure to vehicular noise. However, the General Plan includes goals and policies that set forth measures to avoid and minimize exposure to noise levels that exceed land use compatibility standards for noise exposure. With implementation of the General Plan, as well as future project-level

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 107
environmental review, exposure to noise would be considered less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Impact N-2: Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. This is considered a potentially significant impact.

Project construction can generate varying degrees of groundborne vibration, depending on the construction procedure and the construction equipment used. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The effect on buildings located in the vicinity of a construction site often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receiver building(s). The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Groundborne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures.

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations. In general, the FTA architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations (i.e., 0.2 inch/second) appears to be conservative. The types of construction vibration impact include human annoyance and building damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural.

Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This distance can vary substantially depending on the soil composition and underground geological layer between vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration generated by construction equipment. The vibration produced by construction equipment is shown in Table ER-N-1:

Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 108 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
Table ER-N-1: Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment
Approximate peak particle
velocity at 25 feet
(inches/second)
Approximate peak particle
velocity at 50 feet
(inches/second)
Approximate peak particle
velocity at 100 feet
(inches/second)
Large bulldozer 0.089 0.032 0.011
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.027 0.010
Small bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.000
Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.004
Notes:

1. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May 2006. Table 12-2.

2. Calculated using the following formula:

PPV equip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
where: PPV (equip) = the peak particle velocity in inch per second of the equipment adjusted for the distance PPV (ref) = the reference vibration level in inch per second from Table 12-2 of the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines
D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May 2006.

Groundborne vibration decreases rapidly with distance. As shown in Table ER-N-1: Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operation range from 0.003 to 0.089 inch-per-second peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet and 0.000 to 0.011 inch-per-second peak particle velocity (PPV) at 100 feet from the source of activity. At these distances, the proposed construction activities would be well below the 0.2 inch-per-second PPV significance threshold. Therefore, vibration impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 109

POPULATION & HOUSING
Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
State
California Housing Element Law
State law requires each city and county to adopt a General Plan for future growth. This plan must include a Housing Element that identifies housing needs for all economic segments and provides opportunities for housing development to meet that need. At the state level, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) estimates the relative share of California’s projected population growth that would occur in each county in the State, based on Department of Finance population projections and historic growth trends. Where there is a regional council of governments, HCD provides the regional housing need to the council. The council then assigns a share of the regional housing need to each of its cities and counties. The process of assigning shares provides cities and counties the opportunity to comment on the proposed allocations. HCD oversees the process to ensure that the council of governments distributes its share of the State’s projected housing need.

Each city and county must update its General Plan Housing Element on a regular basis (approximately every eight [8] years). Among other things, the Housing Element must incorporate policies and identify potential sites that would accommodate a city’s share of the regional housing need. Before adopting an update to its Housing Element, a city or county must submit the draft to HCD for review. HCD will advise the local jurisdiction whether its Housing Element complies with the provisions of California Housing Element Law.

Local
Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) assigns regional housing shares to the cities and counties within their region on a similar five‐year schedule. At the beginning of each cycle, HCD provides population projections to the councils of governments, who then allocate shares to their cities and counties. The shares of regional need are allocated before the end of the cycle so that the cities and counties can amend their Housing Elements.

Impacts of the Project
Significance Criteria
An impact of the project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it would meet one of the following criteria:

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 110 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
 Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).
 Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

Analysis Methodology
The development capacity in the Land Use Element and the goals and policies contained in the Housing Element, along with AMBAG growth projections for Scotts Valley were used as the basis for this analysis.

Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
Displace Substantial Number of Existing People or Housing Adoption and implementation of the General Plan would not directly result in new development. As an established community, new development accommodated by the General Plan would be considered infill development, both on limited remaining vacant lands or intensification and/or redevelopment on underutilized parcels. Thus, development would be within an established community and would not displace a substantial number of existing people or housing, and therefore there would be no impact.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact POP-1: Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. This is considered a less than significant impact.

The General Plan by its very nature is a long-term planning document that would be used by the City of Scotts Valley for orderly growth and development over the next 20 + years. Based on the General Plan’s Vision Statement and Guiding Principles (see Introduction) and development capacity analysis as described in the Land Use Element, the General Plan assumes a more moderate growth rate that is less than the previous (1994) General Plan, and more consistent with actual growth trends over the past 20 + years, as well as population, housing and employment projections as identified by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG).

The development capacity analysis provides a reference point for how and where such growth would be accommodated, and how the City and other public agencies would accommodate such growth, particularly with respect to infrastructure requirements (e.g., roads, water, sewer), and public services (e.g., police, fire, and parks & recreation).

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 111
Traffic and circulation, air quality, increases in noise, and demands upon public services are the primary population-based effects. These potential impacts are addressed in the respective environmental resource sections of this chapter.

Through local planning, as demonstrated in the Land Use Element, and implementation of ordinances, regulations, fees, system upgrades, and various environmental conservation measures, the physical environmental effects from population growth would be effectively reduced to less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 112 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN

PUBLIC SERVICES & UTILITIES
Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
Federal
Clean Water Act
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, more commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), regulates the discharge of pollutants into watersheds throughout the U. S. Under the CWA, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) implements pollution control programs and sets wastewater treatment standards.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program was established pursuant to the CWA to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the United States. Federal NPDES permit regulations have been established for broad categories of discharges, including point-source municipal waste discharges and nonpoint-source stormwater runoff. NPDES permits generally identify effluent and receiving water limits on allowable concentrations and/or mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge; prohibitions on discharges not specifically allowed under the permit; and provisions that describe required actions by the discharger, including industrial pretreatment, pollution prevention, selfmonitoring, and other activities.

Wastewater discharge is regulated under the NPDES permit program for direct discharges into receiving waters and by the National Pretreatment Program for indirect discharges to a sewage treatment plant.

In California, the federal requirements are administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and individual NPDES permits are issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs).

State
Local Agency Formation Commission
Pursuant to State law (Government Code Section 54773 et seq.) a Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) was established in each county to promote the orderly development of local government agencies and efficient provision of services, to guide development away from prime agricultural land and to discourage urban sprawl. Pursuant to State law, LAFCOs must adopt a Sphere of Influence (SOI) for each governmental agency (including special districts), which is the probable physical boundary and service area of a local government. LAFCO is required to review and approve or disapprove governmental boundary change proposals with

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 113
regards to spheres of influence, annexation, detachment, reorganization and/or extending services of a local agency.

The California Government Code Section 56430 requires LAFCOs to conduct Municipal Services Reviews (MSRs) that describe the municipal services provided by the agencies that are subject to LAFCO authority. MSRs are comprehensive studies designed to collect and analyze information about the governance structures and efficiencies of service providers, to estimate their ability to meet current and future service needs, and to identify opportunities for greater coordination and cooperation between providers. The Santa Cruz LAFCO completed its report in August 2005, and LAFCO approved the countywide service review in December 2007 (Resolution No. 2007-9). The review is a comprehensive overview of public services within Santa Cruz County and includes the four cities and over 80 special districts providing municipaltype services such as water, wastewater service, fire protection, police protection, recreation and parks and solid waste. Pertinent findings are provided below for each service.

Police Services
All law enforcement agencies within California are organized and operate in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Penal Code. This code sets forth the authority, rules of conduct, and training for police officers.

Fire Protection Services
The Uniform Fire Code published by the International Fire Code Institute and the Uniform Building Code (adopted in California as the California Building Standards Code) published by the International Conference of Building Officials both prescribe performance characteristics and materials to be used to achieve acceptable levels of fire protection. Amendments to the California Building Standards effective in 2008 increased the requirements for defensible space and require more fire-resistant building materials and design than prior codes in areas identified as having severe fire hazards.

Schools
Senate Bill (SB) 50 (1998), which is funded by Proposition 1A, limits the power of cities and counties to require mitigation of developers as a condition of approving new development and provides instead for a standardized fee. SB 50 generally provides for a 50/50 state and local school facilities match. SB 50 also provides for three levels of statutory impact fees. The application level depends on whether state funding is available; whether the school district is eligible for state funding; and whether the school district meets certain additional criteria involving bonding capacity, year-round schools, and the percentage of moveable classrooms in use.

California Government Code sections 65995–65998 set forth provisions to implement SB 50.

Specifically, in accordance with Section 65995(h), the payment of statutory fees is “deemed to

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 114 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization…on the provision of adequate school facilities.” The school district is responsible for implementing the specific methods for mitigating school impacts under the Government Code.

Pursuant to Government Code section 65995(i), “A state or local agency may not deny or refuse to approve a legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization as defined in Section 56021 or 56073 on the basis of a person’s refusal to provide school facilities mitigation that exceeds the amounts authorized pursuant to this section or pursuant to Section 65995.5 or 65995.7, as applicable.” California Education Code Section 17620(a)(1) states that the governing board of any school district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any construction within the boundaries of the district, for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities.

Water Supply
Senate Bill (SB) 610 amended the Public Resources and Water Codes as they pertain to consultation with water supply agencies and water supply assessments (WSA). SB 610 requires water supply assessments (WSAs) for “projects” as defined by Water Code Section 10912 which are subject to CEQA as a 500-unit or more residential development, or a project that would increase the number of the public water system's existing service connections by 10%.

Because the proposed project does not meet the definition of a “project” as specified in the Water Code, the preparation of a WSA in compliance with SB 610 is not required.

Whereas SB 610 requires a written assessment of water supply availability, SB 221 requires lead agencies to obtain an affirmative written verification of sufficient water supply prior to approval of certain specified subdivision projects. For this purpose, water suppliers may rely on an Urban Water Management Plan (if the proposed project is accounted for within the UWMP), a Water Supply Assessment prepared for the project, or other acceptable information that constitutes “substantial evidence.”
“Sufficient water supply” is defined in SB 221 as the total water supplies available during normal, single-dry and multiple-dry water years within the 20-year (or greater) projection period that are available to meet the projected demand associated with a proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses.

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA), enacted in October 2014, applies to all groundwater basins in the state. Pursuant to SGMA, local agencies had until June

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 115
30, 2017, to form a groundwater sustainability agency. To comply with this act, three public agencies (SVWD, SLVWD and Santa Cruz County) formed the Santa Margarita Groundwater Agency through a joint power’s agreement in June 2017.

The California Water Plan Update 2018 reaffirms the commitment to sustainable long-term water resource management. It provides recommended actions, funding scenarios, resource management strategies, and an investment strategy to bolster efforts by water and resource managers, planners, and decision-makers to overcome California’s most pressing water resource challenges. It reaffirms State government’s unique role and commitment to sustainable, equitable, long-term water resource management.

In 2018 two water conservation legislations were signed into law. SB 606 which requires an urban retail water supplier to calculate an urban water use objective no later than November 1, 2023, and by November 1 every year thereafter, and its actual urban water use by those same dates. AB 1668 require the State Water Resources Control Board, in coordination with the Department of Water Resources, to adopt long-term standards for the efficient use of water, as provided, and performance measures for commercial, industrial, and institutional water use on or before June 30, 2022.

See also Hydrology & Water Quality section above.

Wastewater
The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is the local division of the SWRCB that has oversight authority over the project. SWRCB is a State department that provides a definitive program of actions designed to preserve and enhance water quality and to protect beneficial uses of water in California. NPDES permits allow RWQCB to collect information on where the waste is disposed, what type of waste is being disposed, and what entity is disposing of the waste. RWQCB is also charged with conducting inspections of permitted discharges and monitoring permit compliance.

Solid Waste
California’s Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires that cities and counties divert 50 percent of all solid waste from landfills as of January 1, 2000, through source reduction, recycling, and composting. AB 939 also establishes a goal for all California counties to provide at least 15 years of ongoing landfill capacity.

To help achieve this goal, the Act requires that each city and county prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element to be submitted to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), a department within the California Natural Resources Agency, which administers programs formerly managed by the State’s Integrated Waste Management Board and Division of Recycling.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 116 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
As part of CalRecycle’s Zero Waste Campaign, regulations affect what common household items can be placed in the trash. Household materials—including fluorescent lamps and tubes, batteries, electronic devices and thermostats—that contain mercury are no longer permitted in the trash and must be disposed separately.

In 2007, SB 1016 amended AB 939 to establish a per capita disposal measurement system. The per capita disposal measurement system is based on a jurisdiction’s reported total disposal of solid waste divided by a jurisdiction’s population. CalRecycle sets a target per capita disposal rate for each jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction must submit an annual report to CalRecycle with an update of its progress in implementing diversion programs and its current per capita disposal rate.

The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 requires areas in development programs to be set aside for collecting and loading recyclable materials. The Act requires CalRecycle to develop a model ordinance for adoption by any local agency relating to adequate areas for collection and loading of recyclable materials as part of development projects. Local agencies are required to adopt the model, or an ordinance of their own, governing adequate areas in development programs for collection and loading of recyclable materials.

The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) came into effect for all projects beginning after January 1, 2011. Section 4.408, Construction Waste Reduction Disposal and Recycling, mandates that, in the absence of a more stringent local ordinance, a minimum of 50 percent of non-hazardous construction and demolition debris must be recycled or salvaged. The Code requires the applicant to have a waste management plan for on-site sorting of construction debris.

Senate Bill 1383
California’s Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction law, often called SB 1383, establishes methane reduction targets for California. SB 1383 i sets goals to reduce disposal of organic waste in landfills, including edible food. The bill’s purpose is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as methane, and address food insecurity in California. The law requires that, statewide, 20% of edible food that would otherwise be disposed of in the garbage or compost be recovered for human consumption by 2025.

Parks and Recreation
The Quimby Act (California Government Code §66477) was passed in 1975 and authorizes cities and counties to pass ordinances requiring developers to set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees for park improvements. This provision of the State Subdivision Map Act enables cities and counties to require the dedication of land and/or payment of in-lieu fees for parks and recreation purposes as a condition of approval of a tentative map or parcel map

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 117
subdivision. AB 1600 amended the Quimby Act in 1982 to hold local governments more accountable for imposing park development fees. The AB 1600 amendment requires agencies to clearly show a reasonable relationship between the public need for the recreation facility or park land and the type of development project upon which the fee is imposed.

Cities and counties are required to show a strong direct relationship, or nexus, between the park fee exactions and the proposed project. Local ordinances must include definite standards for determining the proportion of the subdivision to be dedicated and the amount of the fee to be paid by the developer. AB 2936 was adopted as an amendment to the Quimby Act in 2002 and allows counties and cities to spend up to 10% of their Quimby Act fees to prepare master plans for park and recreation facilities.

Local
City of Scotts Valley
In addition to the General Plan, the City of Scotts Valley has prepared a number of plans that address the provision of public services and utilities. These plans are addressed in the respective elements of this General Plan. The Scotts Valley Municipal Code also includes standards and regulations that address the provision of services including but not limited to development impact fees, dedication of land for parks and recreation, subdivisions, storm drainage, building standards, and the operation and maintenance of City services.

Impacts of the Project
Significance Criteria
An impact of the project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it would meet one of the following criteria:
 Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physical altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
o Fire protection
o Police protection
o Schools
o Parks
o Other public facilities

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 118 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
 Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
 Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years.  Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
 Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.  Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Analysis Methodology
The analysis of potential public services and utility impacts is based upon the review of the City of Scotts Valley and associated public service providers (e.g., Scotts Valley Water District, San Lorenzo Valley Water District, Scotts Valley Fire District), coordination with City and service providers staff, and information prepared for the respective General Plan elements.

Because the two water districts largely rely on groundwater, the impact analysis regarding water supply is addressed in the Hydrology & Water Quality section, above.

Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
None.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact PSU-1: Introduce in a new service population result in an indirect demand for police or fire facilities. This is considered a less than significant impact.

As shown in Table LU-1: General Plan Buildout Summary, the General Plan assumes a more moderate growth rate that is less than the previous (1994) General Plan, and more consistent with actual growth trends over the past 20 + years, as well as population, housing and employment projections as identified by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG).

Adoption and implementation of the General Plan would not directly result in new development, but new development would result in demands for police and fire protection services. However, there are adequate police and fire protection facilities to serve the very low projected growth associated with implementation of the General Plan, and no additional

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 119
equipment or facilities would be needed to maintain acceptable response times and service levels.

New development and growth accommodated by the General Plan would not reduce response times or require new or physically altered fire protection facilities that could result in significant physical impacts. Furthermore, Goal CSF-2 and associated policies of the Community Services & Facilities Element set forth measures to provide high-quality emergency services for Scotts Valley and avoid and minimize adverse impacts on police and fire protection services.

Given the modest population increase over time and implementation of these proposed policies, indirect impacts on police and fire protection services would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Impact PSU-2: Introduce in a new service population that would result in an indirect demand for parks and recreation facilities. This is considered a less than significant impact.

Implementation of the General Plan would result in additional development and population growth resulting in increased demands for park and recreational facilities. Goal CSF-3 and associated policies of the Community Services & Facilities Element set forth measures to provide ample, safe, and well-maintain park and recreation facilities and programs that serve the needs of the community. In particular, Policy CSF-3.17 Provision of Park Land and Facilities and Policy CSF-3.19 Construction of Trails and Bike Paths conditions new development requiring discretionary review to provide for the orderly completion of the City's comprehensive park system, including bicycle paths and hiking and trails.

The Parks and Recreation Commission has the responsibility of preparing a Parks Master Plan to plan for the acquisition, development, and improvement of park facilities in Scotts Valley. The City's Parks Master Plan (adopted March 1996) indicates the goal of five acres of developed parks per thousand (1,000) persons. This does not include undeveloped open space and natural resource areas.

Additionally, per Chapter 16.35 – Dedication of Land for Parks and Recreational Purposes, future development projects are required to provide private and common open space on the project site and/or pay in-lieu fees for the provision of recreational resources where deficient from project site open space.

Implementation of the General Plan would not result in the substantial deterioration of existing recreational facilities or parks and would not require the construction of new facilities or parks.

Therefore, indirect impacts on park and recreation facilities would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 120 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
Impact PSU-3: Introduce in a new service population that would result in an indirect demand for education facilities. This is considered a less than significant impact.

As shown in Table LU-1: General Plan Buildout Summary, the General Plan assumes a more moderate growth rate that is less than the previous (1994) General Plan, and more consistent with actual growth trends over the past 20 + years, as well as population, housing and employment projections as identified by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG). The development capacity projects a decrease of approximately 500 households and an increase of 100 people as compared to the existing 1994 General Plan.

Goal CSF-4 and associated polices set forth measures to provide high-quality educational and training facilities and programs. In particular, Policy CSF-4.3 Adequate School Facilities encourages communication and cooperation between the City, applicants for residential development projects, and appropriate educational districts and agencies to ensure that adequate, safe school facilities and services are planned to provide a quality educational environment for anticipated growth.

Furthermore, as required by State and City requirements (Chapter 3.32 – School Facilities Dedication and Fees), future development would be required to pay applicable SB 50 school impact fees for residential and commercial development. Payment of these fees and ongoing revenues from retail sales taxes, transient occupancy taxes, and annual real estate taxes, would help fund capital and operating costs associated with additional school services.

Under the provisions of SB 50, a project’s impacts on school facilities are fully mitigated via the payment of the requisite new school construction fees established pursuant to Government Code Section 65995. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Impact PSU-4: Require new or expanded water system facilities, wastewater system facilities, storm drainage infrastructure, or solid waste disposal facilities. This is considered a less than significant impact.

Water
According to the joint San Lorenzo Valley Water District and Scotts Valley Water District’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), metered water demand was 1,333 afy. 2020 water demand was 1,393 afy. By 2040, the SVWD projects a net surplus of 177 acre-feet per year during the normal year, 164 acre-feet per year during the single, and 160 acre-feet per year during the fifth year of a multiple dry-year event.

The annual yield for the Scotts Valley groundwater management area of the Santa Margarita Groundwater Basin is estimated at 2,600 afy and the yield is shared among SVWD, SLVWD, and other private well pumpers. Regardless, the projected SVWD 2035 demand uses the 1994

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 121
General Plan development capacity projections which are greater than the General Plan and would not exceed the demand of projections of the SVWD.

Regarding the capacity of the SVWD treatment and distribution system, SVWD currently owns six wells that have a combined capacity of 1,995 gallons per minute (gpm), or 2.87 million gallons per day (mgd), or 3,214-acre fee per year (afy). SVWD owns and maintains approximately 60 miles of potable mains, several potable water tanks and water treatment facilities that are designed to meet significantly higher demands that occurred in 1990s and 2000s and is sufficient to meeting future demands. Additionally, SVWD owns a recycled water distribution system that is further described in the Hydrology and Water Quality section.

Therefore, projected future water demand would not exceed the potable system capacity and no new infrastructure in support of the new development would be required.

Wastewater
Wastewater treatment is provided by the Scotts Valley Water Reclamation Facility, which has a remaining dry weather capacity of 0.714 mgd. Future wastewater demand would not exceed the capacity of the Reclamation Facility, and no new or expanded treatment plants would be required.

All future development associated with implementation of the General Plan would be subject the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) adopted Order R3-2013- 0032, which requires new and more stringent storm drainage Post-Construction Requirements (PCRs) for proposed development projects. The PCRs mandate that development projects use Low Impact Development (LID) features and facilities to detain, retain, and treat site runoff. LID incorporates and conserves on-site natural features, together with constructed hydrologic controls to more closely mimic pre-development hydrology and watershed processes.

Solid Waste
The City of Scotts Valley Uses GreenWaste Recovery, a private contractor, provides weekly collection of garbage, recyclable materials, and yard trimmings for residents and businesses.

Waste is transported to the Monterey Peninsula Landfill, which is operated by ReGen Monterey and is located in Marina in Monterey County. The landfill has a maximum capacity of 49,700,000 cubic yards of solid waste, with approximately 48,560,000 cubic yards of remaining capacity and is permitted to receive 3,500 tons of solid waste per day (CalRecycle, 2020).

According to ReGen, the landfill has enough capacity for more than 100 years of waste disposal.

CalGREEN Section 4.408, Construction Waste Reduction Disposal and Recycling, mandates that, in the absence of a more stringent local ordinance, a minimum of 50 percent of non-hazardous construction (and demolition) debris must be recycled or salvaged. Adherence to the Building Code would reduce total waste generated by demolition and construction, and the waste would be appropriately sorted disposed at landfills with adequate capacity.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 122 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
General Plan Goals and Policies
Goal CSF-1 and associated policies set forth measures to provide reliable and cost-effective water, wastewater, and solid waste management services that is sustainably managed. In particular, Policy CSF-1.4 Master Plans requires the City to conduct periodic updates to wastewater, and stormwater master plans and require all new development requiring discretionary review to be consistent with the current master plans and Policy CSF-1.5 Special District Management Plans requires the City to work cooperatively with the Scotts Valley Water District and San Lorenzo Valley Water District to update their Urban Water Management Plan and other water management related plans. Policy CSF-1.11 Wastewater Improvements requires the City to plan for necessary improvements and associated funding to ensure adequate levels of wastewater treatment are available to meet the demand of the service area.

In conclusion, the City and their affiliated service providers have adequate capacity to serve anticipated growth associated with the implementation of the General Plan. No new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities, storm drainage, or solid waste disposal facilities and impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 123

TRANSPORTATION
This section evaluates the potential effects of implementing the 2040 General Plan on the circulation system including vehicle miles traveled (VMT), transit, safety, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and emergency access.

Relative to Level of Service (LOS) analysis, Section 15064.3 was added to the State CEQA Guidelines effective December 28, 2018, as part of a comprehensive guidelines update and addresses the determination of significance for transportation impacts under CEQA. This section requires that transportation impact analysis be based on VMT instead of a congestion metric (such as LOS) and states that a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact. However, future development project may need to evaluate consistency with General Plan polices, in particular Policy M-3.9 Level of Service Standard, Policy M-3.10 Lower Level of Service, and Policy M-3.14 Traffic Impact Analysis, as prescribed in the City’s most recent version of the Guidelines for Preparing Traffic Impact Studies.

Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
Federal
Americans with Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 prohibits discrimination toward people with disabilities and guarantees that they have equal opportunities as the rest of society to become employed, purchase goods and services, and participate in government programs and services.

The ADA includes requirements pertaining to transportation infrastructure. The Department of Justice’s revised regulations for Titles II and III of the ADA, known as the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Designs, set minimum requirements for newly designed and constructed or altered State and local government facilities, public accommodations, and commercial facilities to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. These standards apply to accessible walking routes, curb ramps, and other facilities.

Surface Transportation Assistance Act Routes (STAA – Federal Designation) The Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982 allows large trucks, referred to as STAA trucks that comply with maximum length and wide requirements, to operate on routes that are part of the National Network. The National Network includes the Interstate System and other designated highways that were a part of the Federal-Aid Primary System on June 1, 1991; states are encouraged, however, to allow access for STAA trucks on all highways. Highway 17 is classified as an STAA route (Terminal Access).

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 124 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
State
Senate Bill 743 – Transportation Impacts
Adopted in 2013, Senate Bill (SB) 743 changes how transportation impacts are evaluated under CEQA. Previously, CEQA analysis was conducted using an LOS measurement that evaluated traffic delay. As specified under SB 743 and implemented under Section 15064.3 of the State CEQA Guidelines (effective December 28, 2018), VMT is the required metric to be used for identifying CEQA impacts and mitigation. In December 2018, OPR published a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts, including guidance for VMT analysis. The Office of Administrative Law approved the updated CEQA Guidelines and lead agencies were given until July 1, 2020, to implement the updated guidelines for VMT analysis.

VMT was chosen as the primary metric to better integrate land use and multimodal transportation choices, to encourage alternative transportation, promote greater efficiency, and reduce GHG emissions. The most recent technical guidance on analyzing the transportation impacts under CEQA, released by the Governor’s Office of Research and Planning (OPR) in December of 2018, provides recommendations regarding assessment of VMT, thresholds of significance, and mitigation measures. OPR offered a generalized recommendation of a 15 percent reduction below existing VMT as a threshold of CEQA significance.

For the VMT analysis, OPR recommends using a trip-based assessment of VMT that captures the full extent of the vehicle trip length – even the portion that extends beyond the jurisdictional boundary (trips that extend into another county). This differs from the traditional boundary- based assessment of VMT impacts that quantifies only the length of the vehicle trips that occurs within the boundaries of a jurisdiction.

Additionally, SB 743 also amended the State congestion management program statutes lifting the sunset clause for the designation of infill opportunity zones, where CMP LOS standards would no longer apply.

Assembly Bill 1266 - Traffic Control Devices: Bicycles (2019) Assembly Bill (AB) 1266 requires the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to provide guidance on the ways in which to notify bicyclists that they are allowed to traverse straight through an intersection when a right-turn-only lane requires vehicles to turn. Caltrans will be required to develop standards on lane striping, regulatory signage, and pavement markings in these scenarios.

Assembly Bill 2615 - State Highway System: Parks and Recreation: Accessibility for Bicycles and Pedestrians (2018)
AB 2615 adds Section 133 to the Streets and Highways Code, relating to State highways.

Existing law gives the Department of Transportation full possession and control of all State

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 125
highways, including property within any portion of a State Park. The new section mandated by AB 1615 would require, where feasible and to the full extent possible, the Caltrans to coordinate with appropriate public agencies, including but not limited to the Department of Parks and Recreation, any federal department or agency, regional, local or public entity to develop plans and strategies to improve accessibility for bicyclists and pedestrians to federal, State, regional, and local parks connected to or adjacent to the State highway system.

California Complete Streets Act of 2008
This act requires that the circulation elements of local general plans accommodate a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the jurisdiction. Users are defined to include motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods, and riders of public transportation.

California Transportation Development Act
The Mills-Alquist-Deddeh Act (SB 325) (also known as the Transportation Development Act [TDA]) was enacted in 1971 to improve public transportation services and encourage regional transportation coordination. This law provides funding to be allocated to transit- and nontransit-related purposes that comply with regional transportation plans. The TDA provides two funding sources: 1) the Local Transportation Fund (LTF), which is derived from a ¼ cent of the general sales tax collected statewide, and 2) the State Transit Assistance fund (STA), which is derived from the statewide sales tax on diesel fuel.

Local
VMT Implementation Guidelines
The Scotts Valley VMT Implementation Guidelines identifies significance thresholds and a methodology for analyzing a land use and transportation project’s potential impacts associated with Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT). It also includes travel demand management strategies to help mitigate VMT impacts.

Measure D
Measure D was a proposed ½ cent local sales tax increase included on the November 2016 ballot in Santa Cruz County. The Measure, which focuses on transportation safety upgrades, roadway repairs, traffic relief, and transit augmentation, was approved by voters via a super majority (over 67% voting “yes”).

Measure D provides steady and direct funding to Santa Cruz County and all cities within the County to improve the transportation network, including Highway 17. Transportation improvements include improvements of local streets, road maintenance, bicycle and pedestrian projects, transit, and paratransit service upgrades, as well as implementation of many other

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 126 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
projects and programs. These improvements are voter approved and by default law, must be implemented.

Scotts Valley Bicycle Transportation Plan (2012)
The City of Scotts Valley Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) assesses commuter needs, identifies funding sources and directs the future development of bicycle facilities in the City. It also seeks to carry out the Five Es used by the League of American Bicyclists to identify and rank Bicycle Friendly Communities; namely; 1) Evaluation, 2) Engineering, 3) Education, 4) Encouragement and 5) Enforcement.

It includes or expands upon the goals and objectives put forth in 2005 to improve network connectivity, address dangerous or hazardous areas, and increase education and bicycle resources. The BTP implements the policies and programs of the General Plan and is intended to aid City of Scotts Valley in prioritizing bicycle improvement projects with the goal of increasing bicycle commuting, recreation, tourism and safety.

Impacts of the Project
Significance Criteria
An impact of the project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it would meet one of the following criteria:
 Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?  Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? (See further clarification below)
 Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?  Result in inadequate emergency access?
For the purposes of VMT, implementation of the General Plan would have a significant transportation impact if it would result in VMT exceeding the thresholds as shown in Exhibit 5:

Scotts Valley VMT Thresholds of Significance for Land Use Projects of the City’s VMT Implementation Guidelines, which is shown below for reference.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 127
Exhibit 5: Scotts Valley VMT Thresholds of Significance for Land Use Projects Land Use VMT Threshold Basis
Residential 10.0 VMT/capita 1 15% below the existing City’s average VMT per capita.

Office 7.4 Work VMT/Employee 2 15% below existing Santa Cruz County-wide average Work VMT per employee.

Retail Net regional change Using Santa Cruz County as the basis.

Industrial 11.0 Work VMT/Employee 2 15% below existing county-wide average Work VMT per employee.

Other Employment Work VMT/Employee 2 15% below existing county-wide average Work VMT per employee for similar land uses.

Other Customer Net regional change Using Santa Cruz County as the basis.

Transportation
Projects Net increase to countywide VMT Using Santa Cruz County as the basis.

Notes:

1. Residential VMT specifically applies to all Home-Based trips residential trips as represented in the Travel Demand Model. Refer to Appendix A for additional information.

2. Work VMT specifically applies to commute trips as represented in the Travel Demand Model. Refer to Appendix A for additional information.

Source: City of Scotts Valley VMT Implementation Guidelines (Kimley-Horn & Associates).

Analysis Methodology
The analysis methodology used in this environmental review is described in the City of Scotts Valley VMT Implementation Guidelines (Kimley-Horn & Associates, August 2023).

Future Project-Specific VMT Analysis
The type and size of the project would determine the most appropriate mitigation strategies for VMT impacts. The methodology for analyzing VMT impacts is described in the City’s VMT Implementation Guidelines. For programmatic projects, such as general plans or specific plans, VMT mitigations should concentrate on the project’s density and land use mix, site design, regional policies, and availability of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. For project-level development projects, VMT mitigations may require the preparation of a transportation demand management (TDM) program. A TDM program is a combination of strategies to reduce VMT. The TDM program is created by an applicant for their land use project based on a list of strategies agreed to with the City of Scotts Valley. A list of possible strategies is described in Appendix B of the City’s VMT Implementation Guidelines.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 128 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
Conflict with a Program, Plan, Ordinance, or Policy
The Mobility Element of the General Plan is, by its nature, the overall policy document that guides mobility planning for the City. Associated plans, including the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan, is consistent with the intentions of the General Plan. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Substantially Increase Hazards
Adoption and implementation of the General Plan would not directly result in new development. The General Plan does not include new roads or road alignments, and thus, would not create or increase hazards due to a road or intersection design. Furthermore, Goal M-4 through Goal M-7 and associated policies requires the City to provide a roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities that enhances the community support safe and functional mobility.

This includes Policy M-4.2 Street Standards, Policy M-4.5 Traffic Calming, Policy, M-4.11 Scotts Valley Drive and Mt. Hermon Road Corridors, Policy M-4.12 Highway 17 Corridor, Policy M-6.4 Safety, Action M-6.6 Bike Safety, Policy M-7.1 Pathways, Policy M-7.3 Accessibility for All, and Policy M-7.6 Safety. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Emergency Access
Adoption and implementation of the General Plan would not directly result in new development. The proposed General Plan does not include new roads or road alignments, and thus, would not restrict emergency access. Per Section 17.50.030 Design Review Procedures, all future projects would be reviewed by the City and the Scotts Valley Fire District as part of design review to ensure adequate emergency access for each proposed project. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact T-1: Exceed VMT Thresholds? This is considered a less than significant impact.

The Land Use Element of the General Plan would accommodate future development, particularly on vacant and underdeveloped land and within existing urban areas. These are generally within existing urban residential, comical, and/or industrial use areas.

Forecasted VMT estimated travel is shown in Table ER-T-2: Scotts Valley Daily Estimated VMT 2040 Forecast Travel, which shows the increment of VMT change associated with the growth identified in the General Plan for each land use type. Note that the established thresholds for the Office and Industrial land uses in this table are regionally based, and therefore do not distinguish between incorporated and unincorporated growth. The analysis indicates that at a programmatic level, implementation of the General Plan would meet the VMT threshold for Residential and exceed the VMT threshold for Office and Industrial uses.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 129
Table ER-T-2: Scotts Valley Daily Estimated VMT 2040 Forecast Travel Residential 1 Office 2 Industrial 2
VMT Threshold 3 10.0 7.4 11.0
Baseline VMT Rate 11.7 10.0 15.9
2040 Scenario 10.9 9.1 14.6
2019 - 2040 Growth 4 10.0 9.4 14.3
2040 Scenario Compared to Threshold (%) 9.6% 23.1% 32.8% Growth Compared to Threshold (%) 0.7% 26.2% 29.8%
Note:

1. Per capita

2. Per employee

3. Retail land uses are based on net increase as compared to Santa Cruz County-wide existing VMT. 4 Per General Plan Buildout analysis.

Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, 2021.

The General Plan includes policies and programs designed to reduce VMT to a reasonable extent. In particular, Policy M-3.1 Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) requires the City to work in cooperation with the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission, the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, and Santa Cruz County to reduce VMT. Policy M-3.18 Vehicle Miles Traveled Standards and CEQA Evaluation and Policy M-3.19 Projects with Significant Vehicle Miles Travelled Impacts requires to City to evaluate General Plan land use designation changes, zone changes, and discretionary development for their individual (i.e., project-specific) and cumulative transportation impacts based on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and prohibit such projects unless: 1) There are no feasible mitigation measures available that would reduce the impact to a less than significant level; and 2). The City’s decision-making body, after balancing as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of the project against its unavoidable transportation impact and any other environmental risks, determines that the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts and adopt a statement of overriding considerations pursuant to CEQA.

Furthermore, the City’s VMT Implementation Guidelines identifies strategies to reduce VMT through a variety of methods. These include but are not limited to:
 Facilitating the efficient use of existing transportation facilities;  Striving to provide viable modal choices that make driving alone an option rather than a necessity;
 Supporting variable work schedules to reduce peak period VMT, and

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 130 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
 Providing more direct routes for pedestrians and bicyclists.

While the above referenced goals and policies, and the City’s VMT Implementation Guidelines, identifies strategies to reduce VMT, impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan would not be reduced to less than significant due to the increased development, new roadways, and increased use of the City’s and regional transportation system. While projectlevel impact mitigation shall be analyzed to reduce the significance of VMT-related impacts and the City VMT Implementation Guidelines will be continually improved and innovated to require VMT reduction to the extent feasible, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 131

WILDFIRE
Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
Federal
Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA)
In March 2003, FEMA became part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. FEMA's continuing mission is to lead the effort to prepare the nation for all hazards and effectively manage federal response and recovery efforts following any national incident. FEMA also initiates proactive mitigation activities, trains first responders, and manages the National Flood Insurance Program and the U.S. Fire Administration.

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
This Act (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] Section 5121) was signed into law to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. Section 5121-5207). Among other things, this legislation reinforces the importance of pre-disaster infrastructure mitigation planning to reduce disaster losses nationwide and is aimed primarily at the control and streamlining of the administration of federal disaster relief and programs to promote mitigation activities. Some of the major provisions of this Act include:
 Funding pre-disaster mitigation activities;
 Developing experimental multi-hazard maps to better understand risk;  Establishing state and local government infrastructure mitigation planning requirements;
 Defining how states can assume more responsibility in managing the hazard mitigation grant program; and
 Adjusting ways in which management costs for projects are funded.

The mitigation planning provisions outlined in Section 322 of this Act establish performancebased standards for mitigation plans and require states to have a public assistance program (Advance Infrastructure Mitigation [AIM]) to develop county government plans. The consequence for counties that fail to develop an infrastructure mitigation plan is the chance of a reduced federal share of damage assistance from 75 percent to 25 percent if the damaged facility has been damaged on more than one occasion in the preceding 10-year period by the same type of event.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 132 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
National Fire Plan
The National Fire Plan was a Presidential directive in 2000 as a response to severe wildfires that had burned throughout the United States. The National Fire Plan focuses on reducing fire impacts on rural communities and assurance for sufficient firefighting capacity in the future. It is a long-term investment that will help protect natural resources in addition to communities, as well as a long-term commitment based on cooperation and communication among federal agencies, states, local governments, tribes, and interested members of the public.

State
California Public Resources Code (PRC) 4290 and 4291
These regulations, which implement minimum fire safety standards related to defensible space, apply to the perimeters and access to all commercial, industrial, and residential building construction with a State Responsibility Area (SRA) 5 (approved after January 1, 1991), and within lands classified and designated as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (after July 1, 2021). The person(s) who control, lease, maintain, operate, or own said building in, upon, or adjoining a mountainous area, forest-covered lands, brush-covered lands, grass-covered lands, or land that is covered with flammable materials is required to preserve a defensible space of 100 feet from the perimeter of the building.
2016 California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14 SRA Fire Safe Regulations These regulations establish minimum wildfire protection standards in conjunction with building, construction and development in a State Responsibility Area. The future design and construction of structures, subdivisions and developments in a State Responsibility Area shall provide for basic emergency access and perimeter wildfire protection measures. These measures shall provide for emergency access; signing and building numbering; private water supply reserves for emergency fire use; and vegetation modification. 2016 California Fire Code, Chapter 49 Requirements for Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Fire Areas
This code provides minimum standards to increase the ability of a building or structure to resist the intrusion of flame or burning embers being projected by a vegetation fire and contributes 5 CalFire has a legal responsibility to provide fire protection on all SRAs. In context to this General Plan, the area located outside of the city limits but within the Planning Area are located in the SRA.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 133
to a systematic reduction in fire losses through the use of performance and prescriptive requirements. Buildings and structures located on unincorporated land designated as SRA Moderate, High, and Very High FHSZ; and land designated as Very High FHSZ by a city or other local agency, shall maintain the required hazardous vegetation and fuel management standards.
2016 California Fire Code
CCR Title 24, Part 9 (2016 California Fire Code) contains regulations relating to construction and maintenance of buildings, the use of premises, and the management of WUI areas, among other issues. The California Fire Code is updated every three years by the California Building Standards Commission and was last updated in 2016 (adopted January 1, 2017). The Fire Code sets forth regulations regarding building standards, fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as fire extinguishers and smoke alarms, high-rise building standards, and fire suppression training. It contains regulations relating to construction, maintenance, and use of buildings. Topics addressed in the code also include fire department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, provisions intended to protect and assist fire responders, industrial processes, and many other general and specialized fire-safety requirements for new and existing buildings and the surrounding premises. Development under the Project would be subject to applicable regulations of the California Fire Code.

Title 8 California Code of Regulations Sections 1270 and 6773 In accordance with CCR, Title 8 Section 1270 “Fire Prevention” and Section 6773 “Fire Protection and Fire Equipment,” the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA) has established minimum standards for fire suppression and emergency medical services. The standards include, but are not limited to, guidelines on the handling of highly combustible materials, fire hose sizing requirements, restrictions on the use of compressed air, access roads, and the testing, maintenance, and use of all firefighting and emergency medical equipment.
2016 California Building Standards Code
California building standards are published in the CCR, Title 24, also known as the California Building Standards Code (CBSC). The CBSC, which applies to all applications for building permits, consists of 12 parts that contain administrative regulations for the California Building Standards Commission and for all state agencies that implement or enforce building standards. Local agencies must ensure the development complies with the guidelines contained in the CBSC.

Cities and counties can adopt additional building standards beyond the CBSC including the CBSC Part 2, named the California Building Code which is based upon the 2016 International Building Code, and Part 11, named the California Green Building Standards Code, also called the CalGreen Code.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 134 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
California Health and Safety Code
State fire regulations are set forth in California Health and Safety Code Section 13000 et seq., and include provisions concerning building standards, fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices, and fire suppression training, as also set forth in the 2016 CBSC and related updated codes.

Emergency Mutual Aid Agreements (EMAA)
The EMAA system is a collaborative effort between city and county emergency managers in the Office of Emergency Services (OES) in the coastal, southern, and inland regions of the state.

EMAA provides service in the emergency response and recovery efforts at the Southern Regional Emergency Operations Center (REOC), local Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs), the Disaster Field Office (DFO), and community service centers. The purpose of EMAA is to support disaster operations in affected jurisdictions by providing professional emergency management personnel. In accordance with the EMAA, local and state emergency managers have responded in support of each other under a variety of plans and procedures.

California Governor’s Office of Emergency Management Agency (Cal-EMA) In 2009, the State of California passed legislation creating the Cal-EMA and authorizing it to prepare a Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) program (Title 19 CCR Section 2400 et seq.), which sets forth measures by which a jurisdiction should handle emergency disasters. Non-compliance with SEMS could result in the state withholding disaster relief from the non-complying jurisdiction in the event of an emergency disaster.

Cal-EMA serves as the lead state agency for emergency management in the state. Cal-EMA coordinates the state response to major emergencies in support of local government. The primary responsibility for emergency management resides with local government. Local jurisdictions first use their own resources and, as these are exhausted, obtain more from neighboring cities and special districts, the County in which they are located, and other counties throughout the state through the statewide mutual aid system. In California, the SEMS provides the mechanism by which local government requests assistance. Cal-EMA serves as the lead agency for mobilizing the state’s resources and obtaining federal resources; it also maintains oversight of the state’s mutual aid system.

AB 2911
Existing law requires a local agency to designate, by ordinance, Very High FHSZs in its jurisdiction within 120 days of receiving recommendations from the Director of Forestry and Fire Protection and exempts a local agency, as defined, from that requirement if ordinances of the local agency, adopted on or before December 31, 1992, impose standards that are equivalent to, or more restrictive than, specified state standards. Existing law authorizes a local agency, at its discretion, to exclude from specified requirements governing fire risk reduction an

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 135
area identified as a very high fire hazard severity zone by the director within the jurisdiction of the local agency, following a specified finding supported by substantial evidence that those requirements are not necessary for effective fire protection within the area (California Legislative Information, 2018).

Local
Scotts Valley Emergency Operations Plan
The Scotts Valley Emergency Operations Plan (2015) addresses the City’s responsibilities in emergencies associated with natural disaster (including wildfires), human-caused emergencies and technological incidents. It provides a framework for coordination of response and recovery efforts within the City in coordination with local, State, and federal agencies. The Plan establishes an emergency organization to direct and control operations during a period of emergency by assigning responsibilities to specific personnel.

Impacts of the Project
Significance Criteria
An impact of the project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it would meet one of the following criteria:
 Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
 Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
 Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?  Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Analysis Methodology
Local and state plans and regulations regarding wildfire management and emergency management plans, as well as policies contained in Chapter 6 Safety & Noise were use analyzed to potential wildfire impacts described below.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 136 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
Impair an Adopted Emergency Response/Evacuation Plan
Implementation to the General Plan does not propose any significant changes in land use.

Policy CSF-2.6: Emergency Preparedness Planning requires the City to maintain an emergency operations plan and emergency operations center to prepare for actual or threatened conditions of disaster or extreme peril. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Installation or Maintenance of Infrastructure That May Exacerbate Fire Risk Adoption and implementation of the General Plan would not directly result in new development. Development capacity described is the General Plan is very modest and less than the existing 1994 General Plan. No major installation or maintenance of infrastructure is envisioned, particularly outside of the urbanized areas in rural, more densely vegetated hillsides. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact WF-1: Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. This is considered a potentially significant impact.

Adoption and implementation of the General Plan would not directly result in new development. As an established community, new development accommodated by the updated General Plan would be considered infill development, both on limited remaining vacant lands or intensification and/or redevelopment on underutilized parcels. Thus, development would be within an established community. The surrounding hillsides and within the City limits are largely built out and were development could occur, it limited to very low-density residential development.

Furthermore, Goal SN-1 and associated policies set forth measures to human life and prosperity and to minimize injury, economic damage, and social dislocation resulting from disasters related to fire. In particular, Policy SN-1.6: Fire Protection Problem Areas requires that in fire protection problem areas, development shall be permitted only after mitigation measures satisfactory to the Scotts Valley Fire District are developed to prevent or control spread of fire and provide life safety to occupants as recommended by the fire district. Policy SN-1.1: Fire Protection Cooperative Agreement requires the City to maintain cooperative fire protection and fire prevention agreements with the Scotts Valley Fire District. Policy SN-1.7: Fire Protection Management requires the continued operation of California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) programs for fuel breaks, brush management, controlled burning, re-vegetation, and fire roads. Policy SN-1.13Fire Safety Systems requires the City, in cooperation with the fire district, to require that all buildings constructed include fire safety features, such as automatic fire sprinkler system, class “C” or better roof cover for structures in

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 137
the non-wildland fire hazard area/Local Responsibility Area (LRA), Class “B” or better roof covering for moderate or high wildland fire hazard area/ State Responsibility Area (SRA), fire detection, and alarm systems.

Given the fact that the City is an established urban community that is largely built out and that the General Plan includes goals and policies to minimize injury, economic damage, and social dislocation resulting from disasters related to fire, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Impact WF-3: Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. This is considered a less than significant impact.

Adoption and implementation of the General Plan would not directly result in new development. Furthermore, no new significant development is envisioned in the hillsides surrounding the City’s more urban valley floor.

Under extreme conditions such as a lightening fire, or severe fire conditions due to a prolonged drought, a fire(s) could occur in the hillsides within the Planning Area and cover a broad that could potentially result in downstream flooding or landslides, post-fire instability, or drainage changes. Such conditions would be monitored and managed by the Scotts Valley Fire District, Cal Fire, and Santa Cruz County, and are not a direct impact associated with future development under the General Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 138 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN

ALTERNATIVES
Requirements for Alternatives Analysis
CEQA requires that a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project be described and considered within an EIR. The alternatives considered should represent scenarios that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects. The purpose of this process is to provide decision makers and the public with a discussion of viable development options, and to document that other options to the proposal were considered during the planning process (CEQA Guidelines, §15126.6).

Relationship to Project Objectives
The objectives of any project provide an important benchmark in conducting the comparative alternatives analysis and the feasibility of each. An alternative is only meaningful for consideration if it can meet the basic objectives of the project as proposed. For the Scotts Valley General Plan, a programmatic planning document, the “project objectives” are comprised of the Vision Statement and Guiding Principles, and the related goals contained within each element.

Range of Alternatives Considered
The update to the General Plan is considered relatively minor as it does not propose any new or changed land use designations (apart from minor “clean up” revisions based on prior Council approvals).

Additionally, the City of Scotts Valley is a compact urban community that is surrounded by natural barriers to outward expansion. As described in the Land Use Element, developable areas within the City limits are largely built out. As an established community, new development accommodated by the updated General Plan would be considered infill development, both on limited remaining vacant lands or intensification and/or redevelopment on underutilized parcels.

Based on the community input during the General Plan update process and guidance and direction from the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC), no significant changes in land use designations were considered and in fact, the General Plan reflects a future development capacity that is less than 1994 General Plan.

As such, this EIR only considers two alternative, namely: 1) No Project and 2) Lower Intensity.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 139
Alternative 1 – No Project
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3) requires that a “no-project” alternative be evaluated as part of an EIR, proceeding under one of two scenarios: the project site remaining in its current state or, development of the project site under its current zoning designation. Alternative 1 considers the environmental effects of not approving the General Plan. In effect, this alternative would maintain the existing 1994 General Plan and its land uses for the next 20 years.

Comparative Analysis to the Proposed General Plan
This EIR concludes that the primary environmental impacts resulting from General Plan implementation are; air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, traffic, increased noise levels, and increased demands upon public services.

If the City were to maintain the existing 1994 General Plan as its primary land use and policy document, development would continue using existing land use designations and goal policies as the framework for analyzing future development projects.

The proposed General Plan updates the existing 1994 General Plan to be consistent with state law. It also includes new or revised goal, policies, and actions that place a greater emphasis on maintaining the community’s vision of a preserving and enhancing Scotts Valley’s safe, smalltown character and natural wooded setting and family-oriented way of life. Not updating the 1994 General Plan would therefore result in greater environmental impacts to those environmental resources listed above.

As such, the No Project Alternative would result in greater environmental impacts and would not attain the City’s stated goals and objectives as identified throughout the General Plan.

Alternative 2 – Lower Intensity
The intent of this alternative is to reduce impacts particularly on-air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, traffic, increased noise levels, and increased demands upon public services by reducing the development intensity (densities) of the City’s existing proposed General Plan land use designations. Given the fact that the City is largely built-out, this alternative assumes a conservative 20% reduction in future growth due to lower allowed densities, as shown in Table ER-A-1: Lower Intensity Alternative Buildout Assumptions.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 140 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
Table ER-A-1: Lower Intensity Alternative Buildout Assumptions Households Population 1 Employment
Comparison to Proposed General Plan
General Plan Buildout 6,000 15,400 1 8,400 2
Alternative 2 Lower Intensity 4,800 12,320 6,720
Difference (1,200) (3,080) (1,680)
Development Capacity
Existing (2020) 2 4,750 12,145 7,612
Alternative 2 Lower Intensity 4,800 12,320 6,720
Net Change 50 175
Notes:

1. Per US Census, assumes 2.68 persons per household, rounded to the nearest 100.

2. Per AMBAG 2018 Regional Growth Forecast (2015-2040).

Comparative Analysis to the Proposed General Plan
Reducing development densities would reduce impacts to those environmental resources listed above. For instance, impacts to VMT would be reduced, as would associated impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and demands upon public services. Given the fact that Scotts Valley is largely built out and the difference in buildout between the General Plan and Alternative 2 is relatively minor, no significant change in impacts would occur.

Conclusion
As Scotts Valley is a relatively a compact established community with natural features that generally prohibit a geographic expansion for growth, there are a limited number of “alternatives”, other than those discussed here, that would effectively reduce or otherwise avoid the significant environmental impacts as compared to the General Plan.

The Lower Intensity Alternative would reduce traffic volumes, reduce noise, reduce vehicle emissions, and create fewer demands on public services and utilities, including water demand and wastewater treatment. For these reasons, the Lower Intensity Alternative is considered the “environmentally superior alternative”. CEQA requires the identification of such an alternative as a component of the alternatives analysis.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 141

OTHER SECTIONS REQUIRED BY CEQA
Effects Not Found to Be Significant
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
There are no designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance by the State Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) in the Planning Area. No Williamson Act contract applies to the project site. The Planning Area does not contain any uses designated by the City as forest land and the General Plan does not propose any annexation of County land. Therefore, there would be no impacts to agricultural or forestry resources.

Energy
Energy consumption associated with future development would be temporary and short-term and would be required comply with State Building Energy Efficiency Standards, appliance efficiency regulations, and green building standards. Additionally, the project includes other design features such as EV charging stations, “cool” roofs, efficient lighting, and natural ventilation and lighting.

Future development would be required to be built to City and State energy efficiency standards and comply with existing regulations, including applicable measures from the City’s General Plan, or would be directly affected by the outcomes (vehicle trips and energy consumption would be less carbon intensive due to statewide compliance with future low carbon fuel standard amendments and increasingly stringent Renewable Portfolio Standards).

As such, General Plan implementation would not conflict with any other state-level regulations pertaining to energy, and single-occupancy traffic trips and design features to improve energy efficiency would continue to apply. Therefore, future development would comply with existing State energy standards and would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. There would be no impact to energy.

Mineral Resources
There are no active mines or quarries or known mapped oil or gas fields in the Planning Area.

Therefore, there would be no impact.

Irreversible Environmental Changes
CEQA Requirement
Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(2)(B) requires an EIR to include a statement setting forth any significant effects on the environment that would be irreversible if a project is implemented. Examples of irreversible environmental changes, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c), include the following:

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 142 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
 The project would involve a large commitment of non-renewable resources such that removal or non-use thereafter is unlikely;
 The primary and secondary impacts of a project would generally commit future generations to similar uses (e.g., a highway providing access to a previously inaccessible area);
 The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project; or  The phasing of the proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involves the wasteful use of energy).

A proposed project would result in significant irreversible effects if it is determined that key resources would be degraded or destroyed to the extent that there is little possibility of restoring them. Irreversible environmental changes should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c)).

Analysis
The Scotts Valley General Plan update and resulting subsequent development would result in an increased intensity of urbanization. A variety of non-renewable and limited resources would be irretrievably committed for project construction and maintenance, including, but not limited to, oil, natural gas, gasoline, lumber, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, water, land, energy, construction materials and human resources. In addition, the project would result in an increase in demand on public services and utilities, including groundwater.

An increase in the intensity of land uses within the City’s Planning Area would result in an increase in regional electric energy consumption to satisfy additional electricity demands from the project. These energy resource demands relate to initial project construction, transport of people and goods, and lighting, heating, and cooling of buildings.

Development to support urban uses may be regarded as a permanent and irreversible change.

Grading, utility extensions, drainage improvements, new and improved roadways, and construction of buildings would permanently alter the character of the City to one that is more urbanized. The General Plan would generally commit future generations to similar urban uses, since it is unlikely that the existing vacant and underdeveloped land would be reclaimed for non-urban uses once development occurs.

Growth Inducing Impacts
CEQA Requirement
Public Resources Code Section 21100(a)(5) requires that the growth-inducing impacts of a project be addressed in the EIR. A project may be growth-inducing if it directly or indirectly

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER - 143
fosters economic or population growth or additional housing, removes obstacles to growth, taxes community services facilities, or encourages or facilitates other activities that cause significant environmental effects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d)). Direct growth-inducing impacts result when the development associated with a project directly induces population growth or the construction of additional developments within the same geographic area. These impacts may impose burdens on a community or encourage new local development, thereby triggering subsequent growth-related impacts.

The analysis of potential growth-inducing impacts includes a determination of whether a project would remove physical obstacles to population growth. This often occurs with the extension of infrastructure facilities that can provide services to new development. Indirect growth-inducing impacts result from projects that serve as catalysts for future unrelated development in an area. Development of public institutions, such as colleges, and the introduction of employment opportunities within an area are examples of projects that may result in direct growth-inducing impacts.

CEQA provides no criteria for determining if induced growth is detrimental or beneficial.

Induced growth is considered a significant impact only if it directly or indirectly affects the ability of agencies to provide needed public services, or if it can be demonstrated that the potential growth could significantly affect the environment in some other way.

Analysis
As a General Plan, future development would induce new growth. This is one of the objectives of the General Plan, but to do so in a planned, efficient, and compact manner. General Plan implementation, based on General Plan goals, policies, and action, would result in the logical extension of utilities and services within the Planning Area boundaries. As the Planning Area is constrained geographically due to topography and County growth restrictions, it is unlikely that development consistent with the General Plan would cause, or remove barriers to, additional direct or indirect growth outside the Planning Area.

Although the General Plan does envision economic development and employment catalysts (such as commercial and limited industrial use), it is assumed that the residential components of the plan would balance and absorb the job-based growth-inducing tendencies of these uses.

As such, the growth-inducing effect of the General Plan beyond its planned growth area is predicted to be less than significant by CEQA standards.

Significant and Unavoidable Effects
Effects found to be significant and unavoidable as a result of General Plan implementation have been identified throughout this EIR and are listed below:
 Air Quality

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF - 144 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
 Transportation (VMT)
Please see the respective sections of the EIR for more detailed discussion of these issues.

Should the City Council certify the EIR and adopt the General Plan, specific findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required to weigh the relative merits of the proposal against the environmental consequences that may result.

Scotts Valley
General Plan Update
Final EIR
SCH # 2020070330
November 2023

City of Scotts Valley Scotts Valley General Plan Update Final EIR Table of Contents | Page i
11/3/23
Table of Contents
1 Introduction 1-1
2 Response to Comments on the Draft EIR 2-1
3 Changes to the Draft EIR 3-1
4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-1

City of Scotts Valley Scotts Valley General Plan Update Final EIR Introduction | Page 1-1Introduction | Page 1-1
Introduction | Page 1-1
11/3/23
1 Introduction
The Scotts Valley General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was circulated for a 45-day public review period from August 7, 2023 to September 21, 2023, as assigned by the State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and consistent with CEQA regulations. Copies of the document were distributed to state, regional, and local agencies, as well as organizations and individuals, for their review and comment.

This Scotts Valley General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and state and local CEQA Guidelines and represents the independent judgment of the City, as CEQA Lead Agency. This Final EIR, together with the DEIR, technical appendices, and other written documentation prepared during the EIR process, as those documents may be modified by the City Council at the time of certification, will constitute the Final EIR, as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132, and the City of Scotts Valley’s environmental document reporting procedures.

1.1 Document Organization and Framework
This Final EIR is organized as follows: Section 1 provides a brief introduction to this report.

Section 2 provides a list of agencies and interested persons commenting on the DEIR. This section also contains individual comments followed thereafter by responses. To facilitate review of the responses, an index number (e.g., 1-1, 1-2, 2-1) has been assigned to each comment and to its corresponding responses. Section 3 contains changes to the DEIR as a result of the comments by agencies and interested persons.

Because the general plan update was designed to be “self-mitigating,” there are no mitigation measures associated with the EIR and therefore there is no need for a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

City Staff has reviewed the comment letters, draft responses and information generated in the course of preparing the responses and determined that none of this material constitutes significant new information that requires a recirculation period for further public comment under CEQA Guideline Section 15088.5. None of this new material indicates that the project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the DEIR.

Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation as described in Section 15088.5.

1.2 CEQA Requirements Regarding Comments and Responses
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (a) outlines parameters for submitting comments and reminds persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of Draft EIRs should be, “on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated.

City of Scotts Valley Scotts Valley General Plan Update Final EIR Introduction | Page 1-2Introduction | Page 1-2
Introduction | Page 1-2
11/3/23
Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible, considering factors such as the magnitude of the project at issue, the severity of its likely environmental impacts, and geographic scope of the project.

CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.”

City of Scotts Valley Scotts Valley General Plan Update Final EIR Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-1
11/3/23
2 Response to Comments on the Draft EIR

2.1 Agency, Organization, and Individual Comments on the Draft EIR This section includes all written comments received on the DEIR and the City’s responses to each comment. Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and numbers for reference purposes. Where sections of the DEIR are excerpted in this document, the sections are shown indented. Changes to the DEIR text are shown in underline for additions and strikeout for deletions.

The following is a list of agencies and organizations that submitted comments on the Draft EIR during the public review period:

Table 2-1: List of Written Comments Received on the Draft EIR Comment Letter
No. Commenting Agency / Organization / Individual Date
Agencies
1 State of California, Department of Transportation, Caltrans District 5 September 21, 2023
2 Santa Cruz Local Agency Formation Commission September 20, 2023 Organizations
None
Individuals
None

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” CALTRANS DISTRICT 5
50 HIGUERA STREET | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401-5415
(805) 549-3101 | FAX (805) 549-3329 TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
September 21, 2023
SCr/17/Var
SCH#2020070330
Taylor Bateman
Community Development Director
City of Scotts Valley Planning Department
One Civic Center Drive
Scotts Valley, CA 95066

COMMENTS FOR THE SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) – SCOTTS VALLEY, CA
Dear Mr. Bateman:

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 5, Local Development Review, has reviewed the DEIR for the Scotts Valley General Plan Update which establishes goals, policies, and actions that will guide future land use and environmental protection decisions in Scotts Valley over the next 20 years. Caltrans offers the following comments in response to the DEIR:

1. Caltrans applauds the Scotts Valley General Plan’s efforts to ensure that infrastructure is seamlessly integrated, well-connected, and supports all modes and users through a balanced multimodal transportation network. These measures will help meet statewide goals of reducing vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions while supporting an equitable transportation network for all users.

2. We support General Plan Policy M-3.16 for Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees collecting fees from developers of new projects to construct various transportation and mobility improvements including bikeways, pedestrian pathways, and transit facilities. Integrating and connecting multiple modes, as well as addressing gaps in the existing transportation network, is essential to improving the convenience and reliability of travel throughout the area.

3. Caltrans looks forward to working with Scotts Valley on future transit and Complete Streets concepts located within State right of way. The State views all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access, and mobility for all users and recognizes bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral elements of the transportation network. Early coordination with Caltrans, in locations that may affect both Caltrans and Scotts Valley, is encouraged.

Taylor Bateman, Community Development Director
September 21, 2023

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

4. Future implementation of Highway 17 Access Management Plan concepts will help create a more efficient corridor with fewer conflict points, improved turning movements, and increased mobility options. Caltrans embraces working with our partner agencies to enhance the corridor for all residents and travelers.

5. Please be aware Caltrans is in the initial phases of developing a State Route 17 Resiliency and Adaptation Plan estimated to be completed in the winter of 2025.

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

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

City of Scotts Valley Scotts Valley General Plan Update Final EIR Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-2
11/3/23

2.2 Response to Comments

2.2.1 Response to Comment Letter #1: State of California, Department of Transportation, Caltrans District 5
1-1: Comment noted.
1-2: Comment noted.
1-3: Comment noted.
1-4: Comment noted.
1-5: Comment noted.

September 20, 2023
Mali LaGoe, City Manager
City of Scotts Valley
1 Civic Center Drive
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
Subject: Extraterritorial Service Agreements
Dear Ms. LaGoe,
Our records show that the City of Scotts Valley (City) has 11 extraterritorial service agreements (ESA) in place, with an additional ESA being considered during LAFCO’s October 4th Regular Commission Meeting. The existing ESAs were approved from 2001 to 2022 and allow the City to provide sewer services to parcels outside the City’s jurisdictional boundary in accordance with Government Code Section 56133. These agreements were approved to immediately address health and safety issues and are meant to be precursors to annexation in the future.

The first ESA was approved in 2001 to provide sewer services to nine parcels totaling two acres. The next eight ESAs, one for each single parcel, were approved between 2005 to 2021, ranging from 1 to 1.4 acres. The last two were approved in 2022 and both were approximately one acre in size. Attachments 1 and 2 show the location of the ESAs and provide additional information about each agreement. As the map shows, all 12 ESAs (including the most recent one being considered in October) are located within the City’s sphere, planning area, and immediately adjacent to the City’s jurisdictional boundary.

At present, the general plan update does not reference the provision of sewer service to areas outside the city limits under these ESAs. Therefore, LAFCO is requesting that the City identify, catalog, and reference the ESAs within their general plan to reflect the current service delivery to the affected parcels outside the City but within its existing sphere boundary and planning area. Including these ESAs into the general plan would allow the City to plan for future annexations, if and when appropriate. This general plan update may also be a good opportunity to update the City’s annexation policy. Our records show that the policy has not been updated since 1995.

Thank you again for this opportunity to discuss the City’s active ESAs and general plan update process. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. I can be reached by email at [email protected] or by phone at (831) 454-2055. I would also be happy to meet with you and your staff for more detailed discussions.

Sincerely,
Joe A. Serrano
Executive Officer
Attachment: Vicinity Map & List
Santa Cruz Local Agency Formation Commission
701 Ocean Street # 318D
Santa Cruz CA 95060
Phone: (831) 454-2055
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.santacruzlafco.org

¨
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
City of Scotts Valley
List of Extraterritorial Service Agreements
0 0.35 0.7 1.4 2.1 2.8
Miles
The City of Scotts Valley has 11 ESAs on file, with an additional ESA in the works.

These ESAs provide sewer services to 20 parcels totalling approximately 11 acres.

Legend
City of Scotts Valley
ESAs served by Scotts Valley
APN: 067-103-17 (Proposed ESA)
City of Scotts Valley Sphere Boundary
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin,
USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P,
NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri
China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri
APN: 067-103-17
(appx. 0.21 acres)
APN: 067-103-17
(appx. 0.21 acres)
ATTACHMENT 1

City of Scotts Valley
List of Extraterritorial Service Agreements
# of ESAs LAFCO Project No. Original Parcel No. Approval Year Size (Acres) 1 878 067-101-12, 11, 10, 09,
08, 07, 06, 05, & 04 2001 1.8
2 902 067-101-12 2005 0.2
3 916 068-282-01 2007 1.2
4 920 056-101-01 2007 1.0
5 935 067-561-04 2010 0.5
6 939 056-102-05 2011 1.1
7 942 067-281-08 2012 1.4
8 ESA 20-26 056-101-17 2020 1.0
9 ESA 21-06 056-101-11 2021 1.0
10 ESA 21-19 056-102-02 2022 0.414
11 ESA 22-02 056-131-09 2022 1.01
12* ESA 23-15 067-103-17 2023 0.21
Total Acreage 10.9
Footnote: The last ESA will be considered by LAFCO on 10/4/23; staff is recommending approval in accordance with GCS 56133(c) ATTACHMENT 2

City of Scotts Valley Scotts Valley General Plan Update Final EIR Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-3
11/3/23

2.2.2 Response to Comment Letter #2: Santa Cruz Local Agency Formation Commission 2-1: Comment noted. The 11 extraterritorial service agreements (ESAs) between 2001 and 2022 were approved by the Scotts Valley City Council to address health and safety issues associated with sewer service and are not meant to be precursors to future annexations.

While the City of Scotts Valley may in the future provide sewer service for certain properties requesting such services, they will be limited and done in the interest of health and safety concerns.

To clarify this, the General Plan has been amended to include the following additional policy:

Policy LU-2.2 Extension of City Services
In the interest solely for health and safety purposes, the City may provide infrastructure services (e.g., sewer) to parcels outside of the City limits and within the City’s Sphere of Influence. However, the extension of these services are not meant to serve as a precursor to annexation.

City of Scotts Valley Scotts Valley General Plan Update Final EIR Changes to the Draft EIR | Page 3-1
11/3/23
3 Changes to the Draft EIR
Changes to the Draft EIR are shown on the following pages in the order that they appear in the EIR. New text is shown in underline, and removed text is shown in strikethrough. These text changes do not constitute substantial new information and do not result in significant new impacts or the increase in severity of impacts already disclosed.

LAND USE
LU ‐ 30 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
Policy LU‐1.15 Coordination with Utility Providers
Work with utility providers to identify future utility expansion needs. Obtain easements from property owners to extend private utilities and/or promote cooperation between utility providers and property owners for acquiring easements or rights‐of‐way for utility expansions.

Policy LU‐1.16 Dedication of Park Land
Require new residential development to dedicate park land and/or to contribute park in‐lieu fees to the City that enable the purchase of additional park land, or to provide recreational facilities, or to maintain existing parks consistent with the Parks Master Plan.

Actions
Design Guidelines
Update the City’s Residential Design Handbook, Mount Hermon Design Guidelines, and Commercial and Industrial Design Review Guidelines to reflect more contemporary architecture and urban design standards.

Maintain a well‐defined valley community with boundaries defined by the planning area’s natural features and
environmental functions.

Policies
Regional
Policy LU‐2.1 Annexations
When determined by the City Council to be consistent with the Vision Statement and Guiding Principles of this General Plan, consider pursuing annexations in accordance with the requirements as set forth in the City’s Annexation Policy.

Policy LU‐2.1 Extension of City Services
In the interest solely for health and safety purposes, the City may provide infrastructure services (e.g., sewer) to parcels outside of the City limits and within the City’s Sphere of Influence. However, the extension of these services are not meant to serve as a precursor to annexation.

LAND USE
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | LU ‐ 31
Policy LU‐2.2
City
Policy LU‐2.2Policy LU‐2.3 Edge Boundaries
Preserve open space and maintain development at the edge of the city limits compatible with surrounding Santa Cruz County land uses.

Policy LU‐2.3Policy LU‐2.4 Preservation of Open Space
Preserve open space areas for the protection of public health and safety, provision of recreational opportunities and protection of natural resources.

Policy LU‐2.4Policy LU‐2.5 Preservation of Riparian Corridors During the development review period, require the preservation of riparian corridors consistent with state law and the policies described in the Open Space and Conservation element of this General Plan.

Neighborhood
Policy LU‐2.5Policy LU‐2.6 Neighborhood Characteristics Require new development to reinforce and be designed to support the unique natural qualities and environmental features in which it is located.

Policy LU‐2.6Policy LU‐2.7 Natural Features
Protect and enhance natural features, including trees, hillsides, natural habitat, and riparian areas, which contribute to the unique identity of individual neighborhoods.

Policy LU‐2.7Policy LU‐2.8 Bethany Neighborhood Special Treatment Area All future development in the Bethany Neighborhood Special Treatment Area shall be reviewed and considered under the Planned Development zoning regulations.

Project
Policy LU‐2.8Policy LU‐2.9 Land Sloped Less than 25%
Those areas of a parcel with slopes of less than 25% may be considered for construction consistent with sound development and planning principles.

LAND USE
LU ‐ 32 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
Policy LU‐2.9Policy LU‐2.10 Land Sloped 25% to 40%
Land sloped 25% or greater may be considered for a "density transfer" requiring the steeper slopes to be preserved with no disruption and "transferring" the units that would be allowed on the slopes of 25% or greater for construction on the more level portions of the parcel if these portions are otherwise suitable for higher densities.

Policy LU‐2.10Policy LU‐2.11 Land Sloped Over 40% ‐‐ Open Space Preservation Land over 40% slope shall be preserved as open space, with no construction of any kind, with the exception of quarry reclamation or remediation of natural slope failure. During the development of the site, the density for the 40% slopes may be transferred for construction into the areas with a slope of less than 25% if these areas are otherwise suitable for higher densities.

Policy LU‐2.11Policy LU‐2.12 Density Transfer Developments Any density transfer developments may be pursued under the Planned Development Ordinance.

Maintain a complementary balance of land uses throughout the city.

Policies
Region
Policy LU‐3.1 Jobs / Housing Incentives
Work with representatives from regional, State, and federal agencies to include Scotts Valley incentives programs that link housing to transportation and jobs.

Policy LU‐3.2 Jobs / Housing Balance
Work with the County and other agencies to develop strategies for improving the region’s jobs/housing balance and matching employment opportunities with housing costs.

City
Policy LU‐3.3 Balanced Land Use Patterns
Foster land use patterns that balance economic, housing, community, and environmental needs, and promote social diversity.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN | ER ‐ 7
determined to be less than significant due to the respective policies and action items described in this General Plan.

Significant Unavoidable Impacts
A significant and unavoidable impact was identified for Impact AQ‐2AQ‐3 regarding a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants. The most recent AMBAG 2018 Population, Housing Unit, and Employment Forecasts project population growth in five‐year increments to the year 2040. The 2040 population forecast for the City of Scotts Valley by AMBAG is 12,418 persons. Since the General Plan assumes a population buildout of 15,400 (see Table LU‐1:  General Plan Buildout Summary), the General Plan would be inconsistent with the AQMP. This inconsistency in population forecasts is considered to result in a cumulatively considerable significant air quality impact. Due to the projected population growth, regional emissions would remain significant, and the General Plan would likely remain inconsistent with the AQMP. No further mitigation is feasible to reduce this impact. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

A significant and unavoidable impact was identified for Impact T‐1 regarding the exceedance of VMT thresholds.  While Impact T‐1 identifies goals and policies in the Mobility Element, and the City’s VMT Implementation Guidelines identifies strategies to reduce VMT, impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan would not be reduced to less than significant due to the increased development, new roadways, and increased use of the City’s and regional transportation system. While project‐level impact mitigation shall be analyzed to reduce the significance of VMT‐related impacts and the City VMT Implementation Guidelines will be continually improved and innovated to require VMT reduction to the extent feasible, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

No other significant impacts were identified in this EIR.  This is due to the fact that this General Plan is a programmatic policy document and does not propose specific development projects.

Furthermore, where potential significant impacts were initially identified, additional policies were added to the General Plan to “pre‐mitigate” such impacts.  Lastly, the City of Scotts Valley is a compact urban community that is surrounded by natural barriers to outward expansion. As described in the Land Use Element, developable areas within the City limits are largely built out.

As an established community, new development accommodated by the General Plan would be considered infill development, both on limited remaining vacant lands or intensification and/or redevelopment on underutilized parcels.

Cumulative Impacts
CEQA Guidelines
CEQA requires that an EIR contain an assessment of the cumulative impacts that could be associated with the proposed project. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a), “an EIR shall discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF ‐ 10 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
 CA Department of Transportation (Caltrans) submitted a letter (8/11/2020) regarding the using vehicle miles travelled (VMT) as the basis for the transportation analysis, encouraging the use of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, and General Plan consistency with the Caltrans Highway 17 Access Management Plan.  CA Native Heritage Commission submitted a letter (7/20/2020) regarding CEQA compliance requirements with AB 52 and SB 18, as well as compliance with any other applicable laws.

Issues to be Resolved
Section 15123(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the summary section of an EIR to identify any "issues to be resolved including the choice among alternatives and how to mitigate significant effects."
The following major issues would be resolved by the City of Scotts Valley in its decision process:
 Determine whether the EIR adequately describes the environmental impacts of the project;
 Choose among alternatives;
 Determine whether the recommended mitigation measures should be adopted or modified; and
 Determine whether additional mitigation measures need to be applied to the project.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CSF ‐ 128 | SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
Conflict with a Program, Plan, Ordinance, or Policy
The Mobility Element of the General Plan is, by its nature, the overall policy document that guides mobility planning for the City. Associated plans, including the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan, is consistent with the intentions of the General Plan. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Substantially Increase Hazards
Adoption and implementation of the General Plan would not directly result in new development. The General Plan does not include new roads or road alignments, and thus, would not create or increase hazards due to a road or intersection design. Furthermore, Goal M‐4 through Goal M‐7 and associated policies requires the City to provide a roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities that enhances the community support safe and functional mobility.

This includes Policy M‐4.2 Street Standards, Policy M‐4.5 Traffic Calming, Policy, M‐4.11 Scotts Valley Drive and Mt. Hermon Road Corridors, Policy M‐4.12 Highway 17 Corridor, Policy M‐6.4 Safety, Action M‐6.6 Bike Safety, Policy M‐7.1 Pathways, Policy M‐7.3 Accessibility for All, and Policy M‐7.6 Safety. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Emergency Access
Adoption and implementation of the General Plan would not directly result in new development. The proposed General Plan does not include new roads or road alignments, and thus, would not restrict emergency access. Per Section 17.50.030 Design Review Procedures, all future projects would be reviewed by the City and the Scotts Valley Fire District as part of design review to ensure adequate emergency access for each proposed project. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact T‐1:  Exceed VMT Thresholds? This is considered a less than significantpotentially significant impact.

The Land Use Element of the General Plan would accommodate future development, particularly on vacant and underdeveloped land and within existing urban areas. These are generally within existing urban residential, comical, and/or industrial use areas.

Forecasted VMT estimated travel is shown in Table ER‐T‐2: Scotts Valley Daily Estimated VMT 2040 Forecast Travel, which shows the increment of VMT change associated with the growth identified in the General Plan for each land use type. Note that the established thresholds for the Office and Industrial land uses in this table are regionally based, and therefore do not distinguish between incorporated and unincorporated growth. The analysis indicates that at a

City of Scotts Valley Scotts Valley General Plan Update Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program | Page 4-1
11/3/23
4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

4.1 Public Resources Code
When approving projects with Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) that identify significant impacts, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires public agencies to adopt monitoring and reporting programs or conditions of project approval to mitigate or avoid the identified significant effects (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(1)). A public agency adopting measures to mitigate or avoid the significant impacts of a proposed project is required to ensure that the measures are fully enforceable, through permit conditions, agreements, or other means (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(b)). The mitigation measures required by a public agency to reduce or avoid significant project impacts not incorporated into the design or program for the project, may be made conditions of project approval as set forth in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The program must be designed to ensure project compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation.

Because the Scott Valley General Plan Draft EIR did not identify any significant impacts that required mitigation measures, an MMRP is not required.

AGENDA ITEM 2.

DATE: 11/29/2023
City of Scotts Valley

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: 11/29/2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Taylor Bateman, Community Development Director
APPROVED: Mali LaGoe, City Manager
SUBJECT: Consideration of a Planning Commission recommendation that the City Council establish a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Policy inclusive of establishing VMT as the appropriate metric for evaluating transportation related impacts under CEQA, establishing VMT thresholds of significance, establishing screening criteria, and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies.

SUMMARY OF ISSUE
In 2013, state law was changed with the passage of Senate Bill (SB) 743 (Steinberg) to update the way transportation impacts are analyzed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for new land use and transportation projects. Previously, transportation analyses had been based on automobile delay, typically measured as “Level of Service” or LOS. LOS is a measure of delay or congestion and measures a driver’s perception of convenience. “Vehicle Miles Traveled,” or VMT is a measure of the amount and distance people travel by car.

Switching from LOS to VMT changes the transportation impact analysis from people’s perception of convenience to an evaluation of the amount and distance that a project might cause people to drive, and the associated greenhouse gas emissions released into the environment.

The intent of SB 743 is to bring CEQA transportation analyses into closer alignment with other statewide policies regarding greenhouse gases, complete streets, and smart growth. As of July 1, 2020, automobile delays and LOS may no longer be used as the performance measure to determine the impacts of land development projects under CEQA.

The proposed VMT Policy (Analyzing Vehicle Miles Traveled for CEQA Compliance, City of Scotts Valley, November 2023) provides guidelines for how a land use or transportation project would be evaluated in accordance with SB 743 and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on evaluating transportation impacts. The proposed VMT Policy removes automobile delay as a significant impact on the environment and replaces it with a VMT threshold for all CEQA environmental determinations.

PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
On November 16, 2023, the Planning Commission reviewed the VMT Policy and recommended its adoption to the City Council. A discussion of the Policy is provided in the

attached Planning Commission staff report.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2041:

1. Approving a VMT Policy inclusive of establishing VMT as the appropriate metric for evaluating transportation-related impacts under CEQA, establishing VMT thresholds of significance, establishing screening criteria, establishing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies; and

2. Authorizing the Community Development Director to update the VMT thresholds of significance, screening criteria and TDM strategies for land use projects and plans as necessary; and

3. Finding approval of a VMT Policy, including the VMT Mitigation Banking Program is not a “project” under CEQA, or if a “project,” exempt under the “common sense” exemption (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3)).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Resolution No. 2041 - Adoption of a VMT Policy

2. Planning Commission Staff Report (November 16, 2023) includes VMT Policy: Analyzing VMT for CEQA Compliance

RESOLUTION NO. 2041

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY

ADOPTING A VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) POLICY INCLUSIVE OF

ESTABLISHING VMT AS THE APPROPRIATE METRIC FOR EVALUATING

TRANSPORTATION-RELATED IMPACTS UNDER CEQA, ESTABLISHING VMT

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE, ESTABLISHING SCREENING CRITERIA, AND

ESTABLISHING TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM)

STRATEGIES
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires public agencies responsible for approval of land use projects and construction of transportation projects to assess their anticipated environmental impacts and to select project alternatives or implement mitigation measure that lessen those impacts where feasible. Known as a “lead agency” under CEQA, a public agency with the discretionary authority to approve or deny a project (or to carry it out directly) generally must analyze the proposed project’s impacts to the physical environment, identify alternatives and mitigation measures, and approve a project alternative and/or mitigation measures that substantially reduce significant impacts, unless those measures are infeasible due to economic, social, or other conditions; and
WHEREAS, in 2013, state law was changed with the passage Senate Bill (SB) 743 (Steinberg) to update the way transportation impacts are analyzed under CEQA for new land use and transportation projects. Previously, transportation analyses had been based on automobile delay, typically measured as “level of service,” or LOS. SB 743 also required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop a new metric for evaluating transportation impacts other than LOS to more appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; and
WHEREAS, in 2018, OPR released updates to the state’s CEQA Guidelines to implement SB 743 by replacing LOS with VMT as the most appropriate measure of a project’s transportation impacts; this update was formally certified and adopted by the California Natural Resources Agency and codified as section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Simultaneously, OPR released a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. The Technical Advisory includes recommendations for thresholds of significance for evaluating impacts of office, residential and retail developments, and provides screening criteria for identifying the types of projects that can be presumed to have a less than significant impact; and
WHEREAS, as of July 1, 2020, all lead agencies are required to use VMT to measure transportation impacts, in accordance with section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, in order to comply with SB 743, the City of Scotts Valley joined the Cities of Capitola, Santa Cruz, and Watsonville and the County of Santa Cruz to collectively approach this new paradigm of measuring transportation impacts for the purposes of conducting environmental review. The Cities and County hired Kimley Horn & Associates, a transportation consulting firm, to assist with the necessary work, including updating

baseline traffic conditions, updating, and running the county-wide Travel Demand Model, creating screening maps, and producing thresholds of significance for the Santa Cruz region. This work forms the foundation of the City’s draft VMT Policy, and was used by other jurisdictions within our region that have adopted VMT thresholds of significance and SB 743 guidelines in conformance of with section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines and OPR’s Technical Advisory; and
WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines section 15064.7(b) allows lead agencies to adopt thresholds of significance for the lead agency’s general use in its environmental review process; and
WHEREAS, the City intends to adopt a VMT Policy, inclusive of establishing VMT thresholds of significance, screening criteria and transportation demand management (TDM) strategies, based on a data-driven evaluation, in order to meet the intent of State legislation; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1789, recommending adoption of the draft Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Policy inclusive of establishing VMT as the appropriate metric for evaluating transportation-related impacts under CEQA, establishing VMT thresholds of significance, establishing screening criteria, and establishing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies; and WHEREAS, the adoption of a VMT Policy, including the VMT Mitigation Banking Program, is not a “project” as defined in section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines and Public Resources Code section 21065, as this is not a “project” that may cause a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. The VMT Policy is an administrative activity of the City, providing guidance to property owners, project developers, applicants and proponents for determining the significance of transportation impacts of land use projects. The VMT Policy would not approve any specific development and would therefore not lead to any particular physical change to the environment. Moreover, even if found to be a “project,” the VMT Policy is exempt under the “common sense” exception (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3)) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the action of adopting the Policy would have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on November 29, 2023 on the proposed VMT Policy at which the public were granted the opportunity to provide oral and written testimony.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley as follows:

1. The City Council hereby adopts the draft VMT Policy including screening criteria and transportation demand management (TDM) strategies as set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein, inclusive of establishing VMT as the City’s thresholds of significance for transportation-related environmental impacts pursuant to CEQA, as follows:

Land Use VMT Threshold Basis
Residential 10.0 VMT/capita 1
15% below the existing City’s average VMT per
capita.

Office 7.4 Work VMT/Employee 2
15% below existing Santa Cruz County-wide
average Work VMT per employee.

Retail Net regional change Using Santa Cruz County as the basis.

Industrial 11.0 Work VMT/Employee 2
15% below existing county-wide average Work
VMT per employee.

Other Employment Work VMT/Employee 2
15% below existing county-wide average Work
VMT per employee for similar land uses.

Other Customer Net regional change Using Santa Cruz County as the basis.

Transportation
Projects
Net increase to countywide VMT Using Santa Cruz County as the basis.

Notes:

1. Residential VMT specifically applies to all Home-Based trips residential trips as represented in the Travel Demand Model.

2. Work VMT specifically applies to commute trips as represented in the Travel Demand Model.

2. The City Council authorizes the Community Development Director to update the VMT thresholds of significance for land use projects and plans, screening criteria and TDM strategies, as necessary and appropriate to reflect current conditions, provided any update is consistent with the intent of SB 743 and in compliance with procedural and substantive requirement of CEQA and all other applicable state and local laws.

The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley at a special meeting held on the 29th day of November, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Approved: _______________________
Jack Dilles, Mayor
Attest: ___________________________
Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk

1 | P a g e
Agenda Item No. 2
11/16/2023
City of Scotts Valley

PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
DATE: 11/16/2023
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Taylor Bateman, Community Development Director
REGARDING: Draft Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Guidelines

SUMMARY
SB 743 changed the way that transportation impacts are evaluated under CEQA. The City Council will need to adopt the proposed VMT Policy for analyzing VMT in accordance with SB 743 and CEQA, otherwise the State’s criteria for VMT analysis will need to be applied.

The proposed VMT Policy (Analyzing Vehicle Miles Traveled for CEQA Compliance, City of Scotts Valley, November 2023) provides guidelines for how a land use or transportation project would be evaluated in accordance with this state law and OPR’s Technical Advisory on evaluating transportation impacts. The proposed VMT Policy removes automobile delay as a significant impact on the environment and replaces it with a VMT threshold for all CEQA environmental determinations.

RECOMMENDATION
Recommend the City Council adopt a Resolution:

1. Approving a VMT Policy inclusive of establishing VMT as the appropriate metric for evaluating transportation-related impacts under CEQA, establishing VMT thresholds of significance, establishing screening criteria, establishing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies; and

2. Authorizing the Community Development Director to update the VMT thresholds of significance for land use projects and plans as necessary; and

3. Finding the approval of a VMT Policy, including the VMT Mitigation Banking Program is not a “project” under CEQA, or if a “project,” exempt under the “common sense” exception (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3)).

2 | P a g e

BACKGROUND
The California Environmental Quality Act requires public agencies responsible for approval of land use projects and construction of transportation projects to assess their anticipated environmental impacts and to select project alternatives or implement mitigation measures that lessen those impacts where feasible.1 Known as a “lead agency” under CEQA, a public agency with the discretionary authority to approve or deny a project (or to carry it out directly) generally must analyze the proposed project’s impacts to the physical environment, identify alternatives and mitigation measures, and approve a project alternative and/or mitigation measures that substantially reduce significant impacts, unless those measures are infeasible due to economic, social, or other conditions.1
In 2013, state law was changed with the passage Senate Bill (SB) 743 (Steinberg) to update the way transportation impacts are analyzed under CEQA for new land use and transportation projects. Previously, transportation analyses had been based on automobile delay, typically measured as “level of service,” or LOS. SB 743 also required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop a new metric for evaluating transportation impacts other than LOS to balance the needs of congestion management more appropriately with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

In 2018, after five years and over 200 public meetings and other outreach events, OPR released updates to the state’s CEQA Guidelines to implement SB 743 by replacing LOS with VMT as the most appropriate measure of a project’s transportation impacts; this update was formally certified and adopted by the California Natural Resources Agency and codified as section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines (Attachment 1).

Simultaneously, OPR released a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Attachment 2). The Technical Advisory includes recommendations for thresholds of significance for evaluating impacts of office, residential and retail developments, and provides screening criteria for identifying the types of projects that can be presumed to have a less than significant impact.

To comply with SB 743, the City of Scotts Valley joined the cities of Capitola, Santa Cruz, and Watsonville, and the County of Santa Cruz, to collectively approach this new paradigm of measuring transportation impacts for the purposes of conducting environmental review. The Cities and County hired Kimley Horn & Associates, a transportation consulting firm, to assist with the necessary work, including updating baseline traffic conditions, updating and running the county-wide Travel Demand Model, creating screening maps, and producing thresholds of significance for the Santa Cruz 1 Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21100 (state agencies), 21151 (local agencies); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21002.1 (project selection and feasibility).

3 | P a g e
region. This work forms the foundation of the City’s proposed VMT Policy and was used by other jurisdictions within our region that have adopted VMT thresholds of significance and SB 743 guidelines in conformance of with section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines and OPR’s Technical Advisory.

DISCUSSION
SB 743 Intent
The intent of SB 743 is to bring CEQA transportation analyses into closer alignment with other statewide policies regarding greenhouse gases, complete streets, and smart growth. As of July 1, 2020, automobile delay and LOS may no longer be used as the performance measure to determine the transportation impacts of land development projects under CEQA. Using VMT as a performance measure instead of LOS is intended to discourage suburban sprawl, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and encourage the development of smart growth, complete streets, and multimodal transportation networks. Previously, when using LOS, the environmental impact analysis process could impede infill and other beneficial projects.

In changing the way that transportation impacts are measured under CEQA, SB 743 is removing a hurdle to building new development in a way that allows Californians more options to drive less. This change should help achieve the state’s climate commitments, discourage greenfield development, preserve more of the environment, improve health and safety, and boost local economies by prioritizing co-located jobs, services, and housing. On average, it should also reduce the time spent driving to get places and foster more choices for how people travel, which would help to promote business, provide access to opportunity, and improve quality of life in one’s community and across the state.

LOS and VMT
“Level of service,” or LOS, is a measure of delay or congestion. It is based on a road’s volume-to-capacity and measures a driver’s perception of convenience. For example, a road that has free-flowing traffic (i.e., no delay) is given a LOS of “A”; whereas a road where drivers experience a delay of 80 second or more is graded LOS “F.” Previously, a project’s contribution to a roadway’s LOS was treated as an environmental impact. And if a project was determined to generate a large number of new trips, that say reduced the LOS of an intersection from “C” to “D,” it would often have to mitigate this impact by increasing the capacity of the intersection or nearby roadway segments.

Increasing a roadway’s capacity, however, has the unintended effect of often inducing further driving without reducing congestion because of pent up desire for travel known

4 | P a g e
as latent demand. 2 3
It should be noted that SB 743 allows the City of Scotts Valley to use LOS for other planning purposes outside the scope of CEQA. Adopting VMT thresholds does not preclude the City from continuing to conduct LOS analysis for project specific transportation analysis addressing delay, consistent with its General Plan policies and for the purpose of collecting traffic impact fees, consistent with the City’s Municipal Code and City policy. The City’s methodology for evaluating the need for traffic impacts improvements based on LOS outside of the CEQA requirements will remain unchanged, as defined in the latest version of the City’s Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies.
“Vehicle Miles Traveled,” or VMT, is a measure of the amount and distance people travel by car. Therefore, switching from LOS to VMT changes the transportation impact analysis from people’s perception of convenience to an evaluation of the amount and distance that a project might cause people to drive and the associated greenhouse gas emissions released into the environment.

VMT Policy
Now that the primary consideration in transportation environmental analysis under CEQA must be the amount and distance that the project might cause people to drive, any Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Negative Declaration circulated for public review are required to consider VMT when determining whether a project may cause a significant impact. Staff has proposed the VMT Policy document (Analyzing Vehicle Miles Traveled for CEQA Compliance, City of Scotts Valley, October 2023) (Attachment 3) setting forth guidelines for how the City shall implement SB 743 in compliance with the updated CEQA Guidelines (Attachment 1).

Thresholds of Significance
Lead agencies under CEQA may establish thresholds of significance for the purpose of determining whether a project may cause a significant effect. When adopting or using thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider recommendations by other public agencies or experts, provided that they are supported by substantial evidence.

For land use projects, the Technical Advisory states, “OPR recommends that a per capita or per employee VMT that is fifteen percent below that of existing development may be a reasonable threshold” based on substantial evidence related to the state’s 2 “Induced travel” refers to an increase in total vehicle mileage due to roadway improvements that increase vehicle trip frequency and distance, but exclude travel shifted from other times and routes. For more information, see Generated Traffic: Implications for Transport Planning by Todd Litman. 3 “Latent demand” refers to additional trips that would be made if travel conditions improve (i.e., less congested roads, higher design speeds, lower vehicle costs or tolls). For more information, see Generated Traffic: Implications for Transport Planning by Todd Litman.

5 | P a g e
greenhouse gas reduction goals. 4,
5 The proposed VMT Policy includes establishing
the following thresholds of significance based on OPR’s recommendations:
▪ Residential projects: 15% below existing (10.0 miles) city-wide average VMT per capita. 6
▪ Office projects: 15% below existing (7.4 miles) county-wide average Work VMT per employee. 7
▪ Retail projects: No net increase (based on county-wide VMT). 8 ▪ Other customers: No net increase (based on county-wide VMT for similar land uses)
▪ Other employment: 15% below existing county-wide average Work VMT per employee for similar uses.

If a project is not screened out with the criteria outlined, as further described below, then it is subject to a detailed VMT analysis. Should a project exceed the threshold of significance, a menu of accepted Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies are available to reduce the project’s VMT to an acceptable level, which are described in detail in Appendix B of the VMT Policy (Attachment 3). Since TDM 4 OPR (2018), OPR Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, p. 10. For additional information, refer to pages 10-12 in Attachment 2. 5 In its document California Air Resources Board 2017 Scoping Plan-Identified VMT Reductions and Relationship to State Climate Goals (2019), CARB assessed VMT reduction per capita consistent with its evidence-based modeling scenario that would achieve State climate goals of 40 percent GHG emissions reduction from 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent GHG emissions reduction levels from 1990 by 2050.

CARB found that overall, per-capita vehicle travel would need to be approximately 14.3 percent 6 OPR recommends using a 15 percent below existing VMT per capita as a threshold of significance, because a residential project measured in this way should not cumulatively exceed the population or number of units specified for Scotts Valley in the MTP/SCS. Conversely, projects that result in greaterthan-planned development above the city-wide threshold would undermine the VMT containment needed to achieve regional targets under SB 375. For additional information, refer to VMT Thresholds of Significance on page 8 in Attachment 3 and Recommended Numeric Thresholds for Residential, Office, and Retail Projects on page 15 in Attachment 2.
7 Similarly, OPR recommends using a 15 percent below existing VMT per employee as a threshold of significance, because office projects that would generate vehicle travel above this threshold would likely indicate a significant transportation impact. For additional information, refer to VMT Thresholds of Significance on page 8 in Attachment 3 and Recommended Numeric Thresholds for Residential, Office, and Retail Projects on page 16 in Attachment 2.
8 Because new retail development typically redistributes shopping trips rather than create new trips, basing a threshold of significance on the total change in VMT—i.e., the difference in total VMT in area affected with and without the project—is recommended by OPR as the way to analyze a retail project’s transportation impacts. For additional information, refer to Recommended Numeric Thresholds for Residential, Office, and Retail Projects on page 16 in Attachment 2.

6 | P a g e
measures may feasibly reduce VMT up to 15 percent, there will be times when a project will need additional options for mitigating its VMT impacts.

Screening Criteria
The proposed VMT Policy includes screening criteria for determining whether certain types of projects may be presumed to not result in a significant impact. Projects that meet one or more of these criteria based on; project size, maps transit availability, localserving retail, and the provision of affordable housing, would be “screened out” from having to conduct further detailed VMT analysis. These criteria were developed in accordance with OPR’s Technical Advisory on evaluating transportation impacts in CEQA and are shown in Exhibit 4: Screening Criteria of Attachment 3.

Travel Demand Management Mitigation Strategies
The proposed VMT Policy includes travel demand management (TDM) mitigation strategies along with the maximum VMT reduction, applicable land use application, and complementary strategies. The City of Scotts Valley’s VMT calculator tool includes the TDMs that are described in Appendix B of the VMT Policy document. Developers can propose additional mitigation measures with supporting documentation substantiating the effectiveness of the mitigation for consideration. All proposed TDMs are subject to approval by the City.

Additionally, staff will continue to monitor and consider the viability of additional VMT mitigation strategies and/or programs (e.g., regional VMT mitigation fee program).

Environmental Review
The proposed VMT Policy, including the VMT Mitigation Banking Program, is consistent with state law, in that it would allow the City to implement SB 743 in accordance with OPR’s technical guidelines on evaluating transportation impacts in CEQA. The adoption of a VMT Policy is not a “project” as defined in section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines and Public Resources Code section 21065, as this is not a “project” that may cause a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. The VMT Policy is an administrative activity of the City, providing guidance to property owners, project developers, applicants and proponents for determining the significance of transportation impacts of land use projects. The VMT Policy would not approve any specific development and would therefore not lead to any particular physical change to the environment. Moreover, even if found to be a “project,” the VMT Policy is exempt under the “common sense” exception (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3)) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the action of adopting the Policy would have a significant effect on the environment.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The VMT Policy would have no direct fiscal impact on the City. Indirect costs associated with staff time in coordinating the environmental review for land use projects would be covered under a reimbursement agreement with the developer.

7 | P a g e

ATTACHMENTS

1. Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines

2. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (OPR, December 2018)

3. Analyzing VMT for CEQA Compliance: SB 743 Implementation Guidelines (City of Scotts Valley, November 2023)

4. Draft Resolution No. 1789 (Planning Commission)

Association of Environmental Professionals 2020 CEQA Guidelines 154
Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083, 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21003, 21065, 21068, 21080, 21082, 21082.1, 21082.2, 21083, 21083.05, and 21100, Public Resources Code; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Center v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 608; Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112; Communities for a Better Environment v.

California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4th 1099; and Rominger v. County of Colusa (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 690.

SECTION 15064.3. DETERMINING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS (a) Purpose.

This section describes specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts.

Generally, vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. For the purposes of this section, “vehicle miles traveled” refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel. Except as provided in subdivision (b)(2) below (regarding roadway capacity), a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.
(b) Criteria for Analyzing Transportation Impacts.

Land Use Projects. Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact. (2) Transportation Projects. Transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional transportation plan EIR, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152.
(3) Qualitative Analysis. If existing models or methods are not available to estimate the vehicle miles traveled for the particular project being considered, a lead agency may analyze the project’s vehicle miles traveled qualitatively. Such a qualitative analysis would evaluate factors such as the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, etc. For many projects, a qualitative analysis of construction traffic may be appropriate. (4) Methodology. A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revisions to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.

CEQA Guidelines Association of Environmental Professionals 2020 155
(c) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply prospectively as described in section 15007. A lead agency may elect to be governed by the provisions of this section immediately.

Beginning on July 1, 2020, the provisions of this section shall apply statewide.

Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21099, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21099 and 21100, Public Resources Code; Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 413; Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 256; California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173.
15064.4. DETERMINING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS FROM GREENHOUSE GAS

EMISSIONS
(a) The determination of the significance of greenhouse gas emissions calls for a careful judgment by the lead agency consistent with the provisions in section 15064. A lead agency shall make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project. A lead agency shall have discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to:
(1) Quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project; and/or (2) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance based standards. (b) In determining the significance of a project’s greenhouse gas emissions, the lead agency should focus its analysis on the reasonably foreseeable incremental contribution of the project’s emissions to the effects of climate change. A project’s incremental contribution may be cumulatively considerable even if it appears relatively small compared to statewide, national or global emissions. The agency’s analysis should consider a timeframe that is appropriate for the project. The agency’s analysis also must reasonably reflect evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes. A lead agency should consider the following factors, among others, when determining the significance of impacts from greenhouse gas emissions on the environment:
(1) The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting;
(2) Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project.
(3) The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions (see, e.g., section 15183.5(b)). Such requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must reduce or mitigate the project’s incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project. In determining the significance of impacts, the lead agency may consider a project’s consistency with the State’s long-term climate goals or strategies, provided that substantial evidence supports the agency’s analysis of how those goals or strategies address the project’s incremental contribution to climate change and its conclusion that the project’s incremental contribution is not cumulatively considerable. (c) A lead agency may use a model or methodology to estimate greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project. The lead agency has discretion to select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate to enable decision makers to intelligently take into account the project’s incremental contribution to climate change. The lead agency must support its selection of a

ON EVALUATING TRANSPORTATION

IMPACTS IN CEQA

TECHNICAL ADVISORY
December 2018

Contents
A. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 B. Background ....................................................................................................................................... 2 C. Technical Considerations in Assessing Vehicle Miles Traveled......................................................... 4

1. Recommendations Regarding Methodology ................................................................................ 4 D. General Principles to Guide Consideration of VMT .......................................................................... 7 E. Recommendations Regarding Significance Thresholds.................................................................... 8

1. Screening Thresholds for Land Use Projects...............................................................................12

2. Recommended Numeric Thresholds for Residential, Office, and Retail Projects.......................15

3. Recommendations Regarding Land Use Plans............................................................................18

4. Other Considerations..................................................................................................................19 F. Considering the Effects of Transportation Projects on Vehicle Travel ...........................................19

1. Recommended Significance Threshold for Transportation Projects..........................................22

2. Estimating VMT Impacts from Transportation Projects .............................................................23 G. Analyzing Other Impacts Related to Transportation ......................................................................25 H. VMT Mitigation and Alternatives....................................................................................................26 Appendix 1. Considerations About Which VMT to Count .......................................................................29 Appendix 2. Induced Travel: Mechanisms, Research, and Additional Assessment Approaches ............32

1 | Page
December 2018
A. Introduction
This technical advisory is one in a series of advisories provided by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) as a service to professional planners, land use officials, and CEQA practitioners. OPR issues technical assistance on issues that broadly affect the practice of land use planning and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.). (Gov. Code, § 65040, subds. (g), (l), (m).) The purpose of this document is to provide advice and recommendations, which agencies and other entities may use at their discretion. This document does not alter lead agency discretion in preparing environmental documents subject to CEQA. This document should not be construed as legal advice.

Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, 2013), which was codified in Public Resources Code section 21099, required changes to the guidelines implementing CEQA (CEQA Guidelines) (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, Div. 6, Ch. 3, § 15000 et seq.) regarding the analysis of transportation impacts. As one appellate court recently explained: “During the last 10 years, the Legislature has charted a course of long-term sustainability based on denser infill development, reduced reliance on individual vehicles and improved mass transit, all with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Section 21099 is part of that strategy . . . .” (Covina Residents for Responsible Development v. City of Covina (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 712, 729.) Pursuant to Section 21099, the criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts must “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” (Id., subd. (b)(1); see generally, adopted CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.3, subd. (b) [Criteria for Analyzing Transportation Impacts].) To that end, in developing the criteria, OPR has proposed, and the California Natural Resources Agency (Agency) has certified and adopted, changes to the CEQA Guidelines that identify vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project’s transportation impacts. With the California Natural Resources Agency’s certification and adoption of the changes to the CEQA Guidelines, automobile delay, as measured by “level of service” and other similar metrics, generally no longer constitutes a significant environmental effect under CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21099, subd. (b)(3).) This advisory contains technical recommendations regarding assessment of VMT, thresholds of significance, and mitigation measures. Again, OPR provides this Technical Advisory as a resource for the public to use at their discretion. OPR is not enforcing or attempting to enforce any part of the recommendations contained herein. (Gov. Code, § 65035 [“It is not the intent of the Legislature to vest in the Office of Planning and Research any direct operating or regulatory powers over land use, public works, or other state, regional, or local projects or programs.”].) This December 2018 technical advisory is an update to the advisory it published in April 2018. OPR will continue to monitor implementation of these new provisions and may update or supplement this advisory in response to new information and advancements in modeling and methods.