Agenda packet — Scotts Valley City Council, December 20, 2023 (part 7 of 7)

requirements are a fair target. Everyone hates parking except when it is a challenge for them or their guests / customers to find a space. In MF and commercial developments, minimum parking requirements exist for clear and valid reasons. SV has other legacy development constraints (building heights, densities, commercial v residential percentages, etc.) that do not necessarily have such clear rationale, at least in a broad, one-size-fits-all sense; see also my comment on page C-3 below. The concept behind this program is worthwhile but the text is insufficiently ambitious. To say “if constraints are identified, adopt changes with(in) two years” will not lead to changes if those who have maintained the constraints are those who are now supposed to identify them. The Actions should identify both the process (who, how, and when) and specific objectives for the program. For example, the Planning Commission could be charged with identifying the nexus between the residential development standards and our planning objectives, and then making recommendations (within one year) for balancing these with our affordable housing goals.

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

Policy H-2.1 (property maintenance) – The Policy (and Program) statements refer to property maintenance standards, but it is not clear that local government has an enforceable role beyond issues associated with health and safety codes. Zoning and building codes are generally applied only during the permitting process. The H-2.1 Policy and Program (and its underlying actions) text may need clarification.

The City does not want neighbors with different aesthetic preferences to drag the City into squabbles over paint colors, landscaping, and similar conflicts that can arise and really need to be resolved between the parties.

Policy H-3.1 (special needs groups) – It is not clear whether the expansive identification of these groups (as discussed on pages B-15 through B-24) is defined by the State or just reflects the opinion of the authors. Large families, single parents, and college students have housing affordability challenges that seem quite similar to those of the general population. Identifying them as a “special needs group” dilutes our ability to focus on the unique affordability challenges of those dependent on special housing accommodations (such as seniors, disabled, and extremely low income). While page B-23 cites 2020 ACS data showing 1,267 college or grad school students living in SV (a full 10% of our population), it is likely that most live in their family home and have simply not yet reached financial independence. That doesn’t make them a special needs group. This policy should perhaps be less ambitious so the associated programs and actions can have better focus.

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

Page 367 of 412 ends

Program H-3.2 (fair housing) – The first sentence of the second paragraph is a bit garbled. The entire RCAA discussion (pages E-9 and E-10) tries to discuss patterns of discrimination but it just doesn’t work on the scale of SV. The data used here seems to have been gleaned from the 2015-2019 ACS which, as noted on B-24 (below), had some serious accuracy problems in this timeframe. The statement (page E10) that “RCAAs may represent a public policy issue to the extent that they have been created and maintained through exclusionary and discriminatory land use and development practices” is a charged accusation that seems reflective of our fraught political environment but it does nothing to help SV meet its housing goals. Appendix E overall fails to identify “racially concentrated areas of affluence” in SV, and there’s no reason given to “establish specific incentives for the development of affordable units in the RCAAs” rather than just city-wide. While some of this content may be legally required, it reads as an unnecessary and pointless distraction that looks to sound politically correct but is indecipherable in practice.

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

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

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

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

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

Page 368 of 412 ends

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

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

Page B-7 (economic characteristics) – This page has a typo where it states “The County of Santa Cruz’s median income for a household of four is $199,300, according to the 2022 State of California Income Limits for Santa Cruz County.” That correct number is $119,300 in accordance with https://www.hcd.ca.gov/docs/grants-and-funding/inc2k22.pdf (see page 12).

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

Tables C-3 (permitted residential densities) and C-5 (development standards) – these are the key constraints impacting SV’s ability to meet its diverse and affordable housing needs. The ‘very high density residential’ cap of 20 units per acre, 2100 sq ft/unit, and 35 ft building height have been in place since prior to the 1994 General Plan, when land was cheap and the driving force behind increased density was developer profitability. These constraints on multifamily developments promote two story, nicely spaced structures with plentiful recreational and landscape amenities, which are very nice. But such developments are quite low density relative to what is otherwise possible and palatable. We can and should allow significantly higher unit densities along the SV Drive and Mt. Hermon corridors, recognizing their more urban aesthetic along transportation corridors, the different needs of today’s younger, older, and non-traditional households, and the financial realities of providing housing for those with lower incomes.

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

Page 369 of 412 ends

housing in SV is the potential adverse impact to our sole-source water supply. Presenting the data showing how aquifer water levels have recovered since the early 2000s and discussing the relative water use rates between SF (with landscaping) vs MF units would go a long way towards making those discussions more rational and fact-based.

Page 370 of 412 ends

DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS FOR
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Introduction to Developmental Disabilities
California state law defines developmental disabilities as a disabling condition that emerged before age 18, is expected to be lifelong, and is a substantial disability attributable to major impairment of cognitive and/or social functioning. A substantial disability is defined as “significant functional limitations…in three or more of the following areas of major life activity, as appropriate to the person's age: Receptive and expressive language; Learning; Self-care; Mobility; Self-direction; Capacity for independent living; and/or Economic self-sufficiency”. Developmental disabilities include intellectual disability, autism, Down syndrome, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and other disabling conditions similar in their functional impact to an intellectual disability. A developmental disability by definition does not include conditions that are solely physical, psychiatric or learning disabilities (Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and Section 54000-54002 of the Code of Regulations). Under California’s Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act and the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1999 decision in Olmstead v. L.C., people with developmental disabilities are entitled to receive community-based services that allow them to live in the least restrictive setting of their choosing. In California these services are accessed through the state’s 21 Regional Centers and funded by the Department of Developmental Disabilities. The shift to de-institutionalization has led to the closure of the most restrictive segregated settings and to the requirement, under SB 812, that local jurisdictions in their Housing Elements assess and plan specifically for the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities who receive supportive services from the Regional Center in order to live in their home community. San Andreas Regional Center serves all of Santa Cruz County and while they are able to fund the services needed for consumers to live independently they are not able to provide funding for housing.

Demographic and Other Trends Affecting the Housing Needs of People with Developmental Disabilities
Lower Rate of Adults with Developmental Disabilities Living in City of Scotts Valley than County Overall. The City of Scotts Valley is home to 61 people with developmental disabilities of whom 61% are adults, lower than the County population overall where 71% of the population are adults. Instead a higher portion of the City of Scotts Valley population with developmental disabilities is under the age of 18 (39% vs 29%). This is most likely attributable to a lack of deeply affordable housing needed by adults with developmental disabilities wanting to live independently as compared to neighboring jurisdictions. 1

Page 371 of 412 ends

Table ___ City of Scotts Valley and Santa Cruz County Population with Developmental Disabilities Age City of
Scotts
Valley
City of Scotts
Valley Percent of
total
Santa Cruz
County
Santa Cruz
County % of
total
Under age 18 24 39% 407 29%
18 and older 37 61% 1009 71%
Total 61 100% 1416 100%
Note: The City of Scotts Valley population with developmental disabilities was provided by San Andreas Regional Center as of November 2021. The Santa Cruz County population with developmental disabilities is based on county-level data published by the Department of Developmental Services as of June 2021.

Living Arrangements of City of Scotts Valley Adults with Developmental Disabilities. Assessing the housing needs of adults with developmental disabilities is of particular importance because as they age the adults will require a residential option outside the family home, whereas the family home is the preferred living option for children with developmental disabilities. As of November 2021, San Andreas Regional Center (SARC) reported that 76% of Scotts Valley adults with developmental disabilities still lived in the family home. This is significantly higher than the County overall where only 62% of adults live at home. As discussed below, overreliance on aging parents to provide housing for adults with developmental disabilities puts them at greater risk of homelessness or displacement as they age in place. Due to the lack of deeply affordable housing in the City of Scotts Valley only 22% of adults with developmental disabilities have been able to transition from the family home into their own apartment with supportive services, lower than Santa Cruz County adults with developmental disabilities overall, 25% of whom have transitioned to independent living. In addition, fewer adults with developmental disabilities are able to transition into licensed care facilities (3%) in the City of Scotts Valley as compared to Santa Cruz County adults overall (12%) further reducing housing options available to Scotts Valley adults with developmental disabilities when aging parents can no longer provide housing. By increasing the production of inclusive affordable housing options for people with developmental disabilities, where they can live in the community along with people without disabilities rather than in segregated settings, the City of Scotts Valley can Affirmatively Further Fair Housing by reducing the number of adults with developmental disabilities being displaced from the community or falling in to homelessness.

Table ___ Living Arrangements of Adults with Developmental Disabilities in the City of Scotts Valley Compared to Santa Cruz County
Adult Living
Arrangements
City of
Scotts Valley
City of Scotts
Valley
Percent of Total Santa Cruz County
County Percent of
Total
In the family home 28 76% 630 62%
2

Page 372 of 412 ends

Own apartment with
supportive services 8 22% 248 25%
Licensed Facilities 1 3% 125 12%
Other 0 - 6 1%
Total Adults 37 100% 1009 100%
Note: The City of Scotts Valley population with developmental disabilities was provided by San Andreas Regional Center as of November 2021. The Santa Cruz County population with developmental disabilities is based on county-level data published by the Department of Developmental Services as of June 2021.

Decline in Licensed Care Facilities in Santa Cruz County. The Department of Developmental Services reports that between September 2015 and June 2021, there was a 7% decrease in the number of people with developmental disabilities able to be housed in licensed care facilities (including Community Care Facilities, Intermediate Care Facilities, and Skilled Nursing Facilities) in Santa Cruz County, even as the adult population in need of residential options outside the family home grew. This trend increases the need for affordable housing options coordinated with supportive services funded by the San Andreas Regional Center. The County’s reduced supply of licensed care facilities increases the likelihood that City of Scotts Valley adults with developmental disabilities will be forced out of the County when their parents are no longer able to house them--unless there is a significant improvement in access to affordable housing.

Table ___ Changes in Living Arrangements of Adults with Developmental Disabilities from 2015-2021 in Santa Cruz County
Adult Living
Arrangements 2015 2021 Percent Change
In the family home 477 630 32%
Own apartment with
supportive services 231 248 7%
Licensed Facilities 135 125 (-7%)
Other (including
homeless) 5 6 20%
Total Adults 848 1009 19%
Source: Department of Developmental Services Quarterly Report by County.

Note: These data assume that all people with developmental disabilities under age 18 live in the family home. The impact of this assumption, if incorrect, is to underestimate the number of adults living in the family home who may need other residential living options.

Increase of Autism Diagnosis Reflected in Increase in Adults in their 20s and 30s. Growth in the Santa Cruz County adult population with developmental disabilities correlates with a well-documented annual increase in the diagnosis of autism that began in the mid-1980s and did not level out until after 2015.

The cumulative impact of this trend is already seen in the growth of the Santa Cruz County population 3

Page 373 of 412 ends

aged 18 to 41 with developmental disabilities and will continue into the future. This trend has significant implications for housing needs among City of Scotts Valley adults with developmental disabilities during the period of the 2023-2031 Housing Element, as the population can be expected to continue to grow at a faster rate than the general population.

Table __ Changes in Age Distribution of Adult Population in Santa Cruz County Age 2015 Number 2021 Number % Change
18 to 31 395 484 23%
32 to 41 185 192 4%
41 to 52 103 135 31%
52 to 61 118 114 (-3%)
62 plus 47 84 79%
Total adults 848 1009 19%
Source: Department of Developmental Services data reported at the county level in June 2021 and September 2015 Longer Life Spans. Between September 2015 and June 2021, the Department of Developmental Services reports that the number of Santa Cruz County residents with developmental disabilities age 62 and older grew by 79% (Table __). This increase is generally attributable to well-documented gains in life span rather than migration of seniors into high cost Santa Cruz County. Longer life spans mean that more adults with developmental disabilities will outlive their parents and family members who are a major source of housing for people with developmental disabilities in the City of Scotts Valley. And because older adults currently occupying a licensed facility in Santa Cruz County are living longer, this reduced rate of occupant turnover, coupled with closing facilities, will make it more difficult for other adults who have been living with aging parents in the City of Scotts Valley to transition to licensed care when their parents pass away.

Displacement. Notwithstanding 19% growth in Santa Cruz County’s total population of adults with developmental disabilities, the Department of Developmental Services has documented a 3% decline in the age group 52 to 61 in Santa Cruz County between September 2015 and June 2021 (Table ___). In light of gains in life expectancy, this loss can reasonably be attributed to displacement from the county because of a lack of residential living options (either licensed care facilities or affordable housing) when an elderly family caregiver passes away or becomes unable to house and care for the adult. Due to increased reliance on the family home as a living arrangement (based on a 32% increase of adults remaining in the family home in Santa Cruz County between 2015-2021) this trend is expected to continue to worsen unless more inclusive affordable housing is developed during the 2023-2031 RHNA cycle. Displacement takes a particular toll on adults with developmental disabilities who depend on familiarity with transit routes and shopping and services, as well as support from community-based services and informal networks built up over years of living in the City of Scotts Valley. 4

Page 374 of 412 ends

Higher Rates of Physical Disabilities. People with developmental disabilities are more likely than the general population to have an accompanying physical disability. According to the Department of Developmental Services 26% of Santa Cruz County residents with developmental disabilities have limited mobility, 9% have a vision impairment and 4% have a hearing impairment. The need for an accessible unit coupled with the need for coordinated supportive services compounds the housing barriers faced by those with both cognitive and physical disabilities.

Ineligibility for Many Affordable Rental Units. Some adults with developmental disabilities depend on monthly income of around $1,000 from the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, pricing them out of many of the limited number of affordable housing units in the City of Scotts Valley. Those with employment tend to work part-time in the lowest paid jobs and also struggle to income-qualify for many of the affordable housing units now available for rent in the City of Scotts Valley.

Transit-Dependent. Most adults with developmental disabilities do not drive or own a car so rely on public transit as a means to integration in the larger community.

Best Practices for Inclusion of People with Developmental Disabilities in Typical Affordable Housing
As demonstrated by a growing number of inclusive affordable housing developments in neighboring jurisdictions, the City of Scotts Valley can meet the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities by adopting policies and programs to continue promoting their inclusion with coordinated services in typical affordable housing. The following considerations should guide the City of Scotts Valley in this pursuit:
● Integration in typical affordable housing is a priority in order to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing for a group that has historically experienced no alternatives to segregated living and also to counter the displacement of adults with developmental disabilities out of the City of Scotts Valley.
● Coordination of housing with onsite supportive services funded by the San Andreas Regional Center should be encouraged. These fully funded coordinated services provide a supported pathway for people with developmental disabilities to apply for and retain an affordable apartment and are often as essential to a person with a developmental disability as a physically modified unit is to a person with a mobility, vision, or hearing impairment. ● A mix of unit sizes at inclusive housing properties would address the needs of those who require live-in aides, want to live with roommates or partners, or have children. ● Location of housing near public transit would accommodate the transit-dependency of most adults with developmental disabilities.
● Deeply affordable housing is needed by people with developmental disabilities. Per HCD guidance, the City of Scotts Valley should plan for at least 196 Extremely Low Income (ELI) units, or 50% of its Very Low Income RNHA allocation. ELI units are particularly important to people with developmental disabilities, and some of the City’s planned production of ELI units should be subject to a preference for people with developmental disabilities. 5

Page 375 of 412 ends

Policy and Program Recommendations
The City of Scotts Valley has a responsibility not simply to assess the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities but also to create and implement policy, zoning, program and other changes that make it more feasible for affordable housing developers to include people with developmental disabilities in their housing plans. In order to meet the increasing needs of the City’s population of adults with developmental disabilities, policies and programs that explicitly promote inclusion of people with developmental disabilities in affordable housing with coordinated services provided by the San Andreas Regional Center are needed. Below are examples of programs and policies which can help to incentivize the development of more deeply affordable, inclusive housing in order to prevent homelessness or displacement of these vulnerable residents as well as to provide opportunities for people with developmental disabilities to live in the least restrictive setting of their choosing. ● Affirmatively Further Fair Housing by Producing More Extremely Low-Income Housing. Not only is disability the highest-ranked source of Fair Housing complaints in Santa Cruz County, a growing body of Santa Cruz County data indicates that Black, Indigenous and other People of Color (BIPOC) with disabilities experience higher rates of severe rent burden than either BIPOC without disabilities or whites with disabilities. Such disparities in the experience of severe rent burden, housing instability and displacement from the City of Scotts Valley are attributable to the shortage of housing priced to be affordable to Extremely Low Income (ELI) households with incomes below 30% of Area Median Income. Multiple barriers including high land and construction costs and limited funding make it difficult for developers to produce Extremely Low Income units that would help to reduce such disparities. Local zoning and other policies that lead to increased production of Extremely Low Income units, as well as city staff dedicated to implementing and overseeing those policies, will Affirmatively Further Fair Housing in the City of Scotts Valley and decrease displacement and homelessness for the most at-risk residents, including people with developmental disabilities.

Sample Language: The City of Scotts Valley’s plans to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing for Black, Indigenous and other People of Color, particularly those with disabilities, shall include policies designed to increase the production of Extremely Low Income units, as well as adequate staff capacity to implement and monitor the impact of these policies. ● Establish and monitor a quantitative goal. Tracking the City’s success in housing people with developmental disabilities is essential to determine whether policies and programs are having an effect in overcoming historic patterns of discrimination and exclusion of people with developmental disabilities from affordable housing. A goal of 20 new Extremely Low-Income housing units for City of Scotts Valley residents with developmental disabilities over the period of the 2023-2031 Housing Element would represent meaningful progress towards the total unmet housing need of this special needs group.

Sample Language: The City of Scotts Valley shall monitor progress towards a quantitative goal of 20 new Extremely Low Income housing units that are subject to a preference for people with 6

Page 376 of 412 ends

developmental disabilities needing the coordinated services provided by San Andreas Regional Center to live inclusively in affordable housing.
● Target City-Owned Land, Land Dedicated to Affordable Housing and City Housing Funds to Achieve City-Specific Priorities. City-owned land, land dedicated to affordable housing development through a land trust or under an inclusionary housing ordinance, and city housing funds are often essential to the development of affordable housing that is financially feasible. In creating guidelines for the scoring of any competitive proposals for these scarce resources, the City should grant additional points to affordable housing projects that address the housing needs of the residents who are most difficult to house under existing state and federal housing finance programs--for example, by prioritizing proposals with a higher number of Extremely Low Income units or that make a percentage of units subject to a preference for identified categories of special needs people who would benefit from coordinated onsite services, including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities who benefit from services of the San Andreas Regional Center. Example: City of San Jose Housing Department NOFA; San Mateo County Affordable Housing Fund NOFA
Sample Language: In publishing requests for competitive proposals for any city-owned land, land dedicated to affordable housing or city housing funds, the City of Scotts Valley shall grant additional points to proposals that address the city’s most difficult to achieve housing priorities, by, for example, providing a greater number of Extremely Low-Income units or committing to make a percentage of the units subject to a preference for people with special needs who will benefit from coordinated onsite services, such as people with developmental disabilities who receive services from the San Andreas Regional Center.
● Amend Density Bonus Program. Like many state and federal housing finance programs, the state density bonus program incentivizes the production of housing at the Low and Very Low Income level. But in counties like Santa Cruz County, with one of the highest Area Median Incomes in the state, these incentives have the effect of making much of the available affordable housing out of reach for residents on fixed incomes (including seniors and persons with disabilities) or who are working in low wage jobs and are thus unable to meet minimum income requirements to afford the rent assigned to the Very Low Income category. The City of Scotts Valley should update its density bonus program to conform with current state density bonus law which has increased the maximum density bonus allowed. In addition, the city should include in its updated density bonus program incentives which go above and beyond the state density bonus law to make it more responsive to the impact of Santa Cruz County’s high Area Median Income on the affordability of housing for Scotts Valley residents who are Extremely Low Income. The city should also include additional incentives for projects that make a percentage of units subject to a preference for identified categories of special needs populations who experience the greatest barriers to housing access including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities who benefit from services of the Golden Gate Regional Center. 7

Page 377 of 412 ends

Sample Language: In addition to implementing the California density bonus statute, the City shall provide an additional local density bonus, incentives, and/or concessions for housing projects that include at least 5% of the units for people at the Extremely Low-Income affordability level or commit to make a percentage of the units subject to a preference for people with special needs who will benefit from coordinated onsite services, such as people with developmental disabilities who receive services from the Golden Gate Regional Center. ● Amend Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to Apply Restrictions to Rental Housing. California law (AB 1505, the “Palmer Fix”) explicitly allows cities to adopt inclusionary housing ordinances that address a range of income levels from moderate-income to extremely low-income. The City should take advantage of this authority to make its ordinance more responsive to local needs by offering developers of rental housing a menu of options for including affordable units, for example, by setting a higher percentage of units priced for moderate income and a lower percentage of units priced for extremely low income or targeted to special needs populations.

Such a menu would address a broader range of the City of Scotts Valley’s housing needs, while giving developers more options for meeting the inclusionary requirement. Example: San Mateo County Inclusionary Affordable Housing Ordinance; Redwood City Affordable Housing Ordinance Sample Language: The City of Scotts Valley shall revise its inclusionary housing ordinance to require developers of rental housing units to restrict some units to moderate, low, very low, and/or extremely low-income households. In addition developers will be offered a menu of options for achieving affordability, adjusting the percentage of units required to be affordable depending on the degree of affordability achieved (moderate-income, low income, very low income, and extremely low income) or special needs groups targeted, including, for example, people with developmental disabilities who will benefit from coordinated onsite services provided by the San Andreas Regional Center.
● Extremely Low-Income Accessory Dwelling Units. As part of a larger plan to increase the supply of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), the City should consider creating a financing program for homeowners who build ADUs and rent them for at least 15 years at Extremely Low Income rent levels or that are subject to a preference for identified categories of special needs people who would benefit from coordinated onsite services, including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities who benefit from services of the San Andreas Regional Center.

Example: Portland System Development Charge Exemptions; LA Backyard Homes Project Sample Language: Subject to funding availability, the City shall devise a program of financing for Accessory Dwelling Units subject to rent restrictions for at least 15 years at Extremely Low-Income rent levels and/or that target special needs populations, such as people with developmental disabilities who will benefit from coordinated services provided by the San Andreas Regional Center.
● Reduce Parking Requirements for People with Developmental and Other Disabilities. Because most adults with developmental disabilities do not drive or own a car, the City should revise its 8

Page 378 of 412 ends

ordinances to limit parking required for affordable units for people with developmental disabilities to 0.5 space for each affordable studio or 1 bedroom unit and 1 space for an affordable 2 bedroom unit or larger. A similar reduction is recommended for affordable, physically accessible units. Example: Sunnyvale Parking Requirements for Special Housing Developments
Sample Language: The City of Scotts Valley shall encourage the inclusion of people with developmental and other disabilities in affordable housing by recognizing their transit dependence and establishing lower parking ratios for units targeted to people with developmental and other disabilities than would otherwise be required for affordable housing. ● Affirmative Marketing of Physically Accessible Units: Developers are allowed to affirmatively market accessible units to disability-serving organizations in Santa Cruz County (i.e. San Andreas Regional Center, Housing Choices Coalition for Persons with Developmental Disabilities, Central Coast Center for Independent Living and others) but rarely take this step. Affirmative marketing is particularly needed by people with developmental disabilities who, because of cognitive, communication and social impairment, often rely on housing navigation services funded by the San Andreas Regional Center to learn about and apply for affordable housing.

Sample Language: As a condition of the disposition of any city-owned land, the award of city financing, any density bonus concessions, or land use exceptions or waivers for any affordable housing project, the City of Scotts Valley shall require that the housing developer implement an affirmative marketing plan for state-mandated physically accessible units which, among other measures, provides disability-serving organizations adequate prior notice of the availability of the accessible units and a process for supporting people with qualifying disabilities to apply. 9

Page 379 of 412 ends

September 1, 2023
To: Clare Blackwell, Housing Policy Analyst, HCD
CC: Sarah Wikle, Senior Planner, Scotts Valley
RE: Scotts Valley Submitted Housing Element (July 2023) Santa Cruz YIMBY advocates for abundant housing at all levels of affordability to meet the needs of a growing population in Santa Cruz County. We support sustainable growth, including along transportation corridors and activity centers and a commitment to lower Vehicle Miles Traveled by housing people near services and jobs.

The following are our comments on the City of Scotts Valley’s submitted Housing Element of July 5, 2023.

Justification and Analysis of Low Income Targets
“The City of Scotts Valley has facilitated the building of market rate housing in recent years, but has made little effort to develop housing for low income workers.” 1 Scotts Valley is expecting that all sites identified for rezoning 2 will develop roughly
50% of their units for very-low, low, or moderate income families, while providing little to no evidence (historic or otherwise) that this level of affordability will be realistically produced. The city’s four pipeline projects consist of only 18% affordable units. We would like the city to explain why it expects to achieve this 50% target.

Most of the parcels in the Site Inventory under Rezones-Mixed Use are non-vacant, as is the largest one in the Town Center Specific Plan. The City has not described the realistic development potential of each site, including, as HCD recommends, “...the extent that the nonvacant site’s existing use impedes additional residential development, the jurisdiction's past experience converting existing uses to higher density residential development, market trends and conditions, and regulatory or 2 Housing Element, F24-26
1 Santa Cruz Civil Grand Jury - Housing Our Workers, page 18, Finding 9 Santa Cruz YIMBY Response to Scotts Valley Housing Element (July 2023) Page 1 of 6

Page 380 of 412 ends

other incentives or standards that encourage additional housing development on the nonvacant sites.”
3 This is compounded by the fact that these sites (Rezones-Mixed Use and the Town Center Specific Plan parcel) account for more than 50% of the lower income RHNA, so ” …the existing use is presumed to impede additional residential development, unless the housing element describes findings based on substantial evidence that the use will likely be discontinued during the planning period.” 4 The city has not
provided such findings aside from noting surface soil contamination in the process of remediation at the town center site.

If the city misses its target of 50% affordability on even just a few parcels (especially its larger sites), it faces the daunting task of identifying other sites to make up the difference under No Net Loss law. Additionally, there is only a 9% buffer for moderate income units, HCD recommends a buffer of between 15 and 30 percent 5 .

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

Pipeline Projects
A significant source of new units for the city during the 6th cycle will be from pipeline projects. For jurisdictions relying heavily on pipeline projects, HCD recommends
6 that “…the element should include programs with actions that commit to facilitating development and monitoring approvals of the projects, including the number of units and affordability (e.g., coordination with applicants to approve remaining entitlements, supporting funding applications, expediting approvals and monitoring of project progress, including rezoning or identification of additional sites, if necessary).”
In order to meet this recommendation by HCD, the city should create specific programs to monitor the progress of pipeline projects. This could include automatic entitlement extensions until midway through the 6th cycle and proactively reaching out to all pipeline project developers to confirm that there is still development interest.
6 City of Brisbane’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element, page 3 5 Housing Element Sites Inventory Guidebook, page 22
4 Housing Element Sites Inventory Guidebook, Page 27
3 Housing Element Sites Inventory Guidebook, Page 24
Santa Cruz YIMBY Response to Scotts Valley Housing Element (July 2023) Page 2 of 6

Page 381 of 412 ends

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

This plan has been in the works since at least 2008
7 and has not seen a significant
amount of the proposed housing be built in that time. According to the city, “...project applications have been submitted for the Plan, but development was not successful. Interest in developing the Town Center area has increased over recent years.”
8 The city also notes that “surface soil contamination has been an obstacle to development.” The City should include a program to ensure that the soil contamination remediation will be completed successfully and that the site will be developable after.

With nearly half of its very-low and low income units planned for through the Town Center Specific Plan, this single project not producing as many units as expected would subject the city to the No Net Loss law. It is imperative that the city demonstrate that these sites are appropriate to accommodate lower income RHNA.

Additionally, we would like the city to provide more detail on the affordability and development potential projections for the Kings Village parcel 9 as part of the Town
Center plan. While the other four parcels in this plan are publicly owned (by METRO or the city) this shopping center is privately owned. The city claims that this parcel will produce a 50% affordable project with 383 total units - almost 18% of the City’s RHNA. The only evidence cited is that “the City is currently reviewing two projects on sites that are over 10 acres.”
10 These two projects are on vacant land and have a 15% affordability component, whereas the Kings Village parcel is currently occupied by numerous commercial tenants and is projected to have a 50% affordability component. Without further evidence from the City to the contrary, it is hard to accept the cited pipeline projects as development interest in an occupied parcel’s conversion to 50% affordable housing.
10 Housing Element, F-22
9 Parcel #022-601-18
8 Housing Element, F-13
7 Scotts Valley Town Center Specific Plan EIR
Santa Cruz YIMBY Response to Scotts Valley Housing Element (July 2023) Page 3 of 6

Page 382 of 412 ends

Goal H-1 - Housing Production
With the city’s RHNA increasing nearly tenfold from the 5th cycle, we see significant need for policies and programs which enable, not restrict, development. The city has correctly identified significant commercial and parking requirements as barriers to development but does not go far enough to remove these constraints. We strongly disagree with the assertion that “...the City’s standards for lot size, setbacks, height, and site coverage are not considered [constraints]..”
11 To ensure the city makes appropriate progress towards its 6th cycle goals we would like to see a commitment in Program H-1.1 to a mid-cycle review or circuit-breaker language for progress beyond only ADUs (~3% of RHNA). Tying this to programs developed now would allow the city to quickly make up lost ground and minimize impacts of falling behind in the 6th cycle. Additional mid-cycle programs could include:
● Ministerial approval process for all site inventory projects ● SB10 upzoning of small sites to 10 units per parcel
● Automatic entitlement extensions for pipeline projects ● Tracking commercial occupancy, and if vacancy is too high, relaxing commercial requirements in favor of more residential, including live/work units
As mentioned, the city has accurately identified its limit of 50% residential in mixed-use developments to be a constraint and is rezoning select parcels along main corridors to increase this cap to 70%.
12 Based on feedback the city received from
local planning consultants and Scotts Valley property owners interested in development, this reduction still does not allow for development. 13 In Program H-1.7,
we would like to see the city commit to adopting a further reduction in residential square footage in mixed-use developments. This should occur if the proposed rezoning does not result in developer interest as evidenced within the first year by at least one formally submitted project application with a total unit count that meets or exceeds the units expected in the site inventory for the given site at all income levels.

With regards to parking, the city should go much further in reducing or even eliminating such requirements. Currently, Program H-1.6 does not commit to lowering parking requirements and has a timeframe of 2027. We would like to see this timeline moved up and a commitment to lowering requirements to no more than a space per unit, uncovered.
13 Ibid, Appendix G, Letters from Civil Consultants Group, Charles Eadie, and David Duquette 12 Ibid, F-19
11 Housing Element, C-25
Santa Cruz YIMBY Response to Scotts Valley Housing Element (July 2023) Page 4 of 6

Page 383 of 412 ends

There are other constraints that we believe the city should address to ensure that housing can be built as well.

In Program H-1.6, H-1.7, and H-1.8 the city should better explore to what extent its density restrictions are a constraint to development, especially of affordable housing.

With the city’s highest density residential zoning district capped at 20 du/acre, this is likely a significant barrier. We recommend the city expand its rezoning efforts to all ‘Very High Residential’ parcels at a minimum and allow up to 40 du/acre on such parcels. We recommend a higher base density than 40 du/acre for Mixed-Use parcels along transit corridors. These programs should also occur sooner than 2027, nearly halfway through the 6th cycle.

We expect projects to make use of State Density Bonus law for feasibility of development of affordable housing. Currently, Scotts Valley zoning code includes constraints and limitations that could limit affordable multifamily or mixed-use housing from achieving assumed base densities. These include but are not limited to building height, FAR, and parking requirements. Program H-1.7 should also include a “comprehensive study” on Mixed-Use development standards as constraints, as they are a different portion of the current zoning code.

Program H-1.8 should include undertaking a study to ensure expansion of this policy will enable development of additional housing, not chill it. This could take the form of a study similar to Capitola’s 2021 affordable housing fee assessment. 14 Creation of missing middle housing isn’t mentioned within the policy plan. Under Goal H-1, the City of Scotts Valley should seek to allow a wide variety of housing types including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and other multifamily project types throughout the City. Much of this could be achieved without an EIR thanks to Senate Bill 10
15 . This would be a significant addition to Program H-3.2. We recommend that the city develop objective standards for multi-family projects - this would fit into Program H-2.7 for SB35 streamlining.

Program H-2.6 and H-2.8 lack active language and do not commit the City to any changes which would enable large lot development or lot consolidation. These programs should be more specific and commit to specific actions as outlined in the description of each. There are a number of sites on the inventory which fall outside of the parcel size requirements for lower income housing set forth by AB 1397. 16 In
addition, the City has not included a sufficient analysis of these parcels. Despite this, all of these parcels are projected to provide lower income housing. 16 Housing Element Sites Inventory Guidebook, Page 16-17 15 SB 10 - California YIMBY
14 Capitola Affordable Housing Study 2021
Santa Cruz YIMBY Response to Scotts Valley Housing Element (July 2023) Page 5 of 6

Page 384 of 412 ends

Transit Oriented Development
Despite being home to the Cavallaro Transit Center (CTC), Scotts Valley lacks any current or planned high quality transit stops. In the 2040 MTP/SCS 17 the CTC was
identified as such a site, however, it was subsequently removed in the 2045

MTP/SCS
18 . We encourage the city to commit to working with AMBAG in the 2050 MTP/SCS (scheduled for June 2026) to designate the CTC as a planned high quality major transit stop. This designation would incentivise more sustainable, affordable, and equitable development in an area identified for a significant amount of new housing in the 6th RHNA cycle.

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

Scotts Valley includes no programs to promote development near transit.

Tenant Protections
As a city with a growing percentage of renters, it is important to have strong tenant protections. There are a number of programs we would like to see implemented or expanded in the city to protect tenants:
● Elimination of or cap on rental application fees
● Creation of a rental registry. This was recently passed by both Salinas 19 and
Monterey
20 ● Local preference for people employed in the county ● COPA
21 and TOPA22 programs
● Conduct a disparate impact analysis of non-high(est) resource areas 23 and
apply a live-work preference if if it matches county demographics 23 2023 CTCAC HCD Opportunity Map
22 EBCLC's Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA) - East Bay Community Law Center 21 Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA) | San Francisco 20 Monterey City Council moves ahead with rental registry 19 Salinas passes rental registry
18 AMBAG 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
17 AMBAG 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Santa Cruz YIMBY Response to Scotts Valley Housing Element (July 2023) Page 6 of 6

Page 385 of 412 ends

1 Galmiche, Ines
From: David Kellogg <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2022 6:23 PM
To: Housing Elements@HCD
Subject: Public Comment on Housing Element
Nov 18, 2022
On behalf of David Kellogg (a Contra Costa County resident), 350 Contra Costa, Greenbelt Alliance, CaRLA, Scott O’Neil (a resident of Palo Alto), Watson Ladd (a resident of Berkeley), Marven Normal (a resident of San Bernadino), Dara Dadachanji (a resident of San Francisco), and George Grohwin (a resident of San Francisco), we provide the following comment on the Housing Element from SCOTTS VALLEY.

Issue
 The Housing Element from SCOTTS VALLEY fails to adequately analyze compliance with one of the state’s fundamental streamlining laws.
 Under PRC 21080.1 & 21080.2, a lead agency must determine if a housing development is exempt from CEQA within 30 days of completeness, or if an EIR or other CEQA document will be required.  For CEQA-exempt housing, this CEQA determination then triggers a 60-day approval clock (with deemed approved remedies) under the Permit Streamlining Act. Thus, if state housing laws were followed, CEQA-exempt housing projects should generally receive approvals in about 120 days.

1. 30 days to determine completeness

2. 30 days for CEQA review

3. 60 days for approval.
 SCOTTS VALLEY does not appear to issue determinations of CEQA-exemption within 30 days of completeness. As a result, builders and the public are denied the right to the timely approval of housing. Additionally, the builders are forced into an unreasonable bargaining position, as they lack the “deemed approved” options they should have. This improperly empowers jurisdictions to treat builders arbitrarily in the entitlement process.
 Moreover, SCOTTS VALLEY has no apparent good-faith basis for delaying CEQA-exemption determinations beyond the allowance of Public Resources Code 21080.1 & 21080.2. In the vast majority of instances, these exemptions are uncontested and straightforward.

Recommendation
 The Housing Element from SCOTTS VALLEY should include an analysis of compliance in its approval process with PRC 21080.1 & 21080.2.
 The Housing Element from SCOTTS VALLEY should add a program to specify (i) who is responsible for making the CEQA determination of PRC 21080.1, specify (ii) that their decision will be made within the timeframe permitted by PRC 21080.2, and specify that (iii), when they determine a project is exempt

Page 386 of 412 ends

2 from CEQA, their determination triggers the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA) 60-day deadline (Gov. Code 65950(a)(5)). If existing local practices or regulations are incompatible with these state laws, the program should commit to enacting reforms necessary to achieve compliance within a reasonable and definite timeline.

HCD Technical Assistance Letter
 The CEQA issues mentioned herein are discussed in the June 3, 2022 Technical Assistance letter sent to Berkeley by Shannan West, Housing Accountability Unit Chief (copy included below).  In the letter, HCD notes that Berkeley had been issuing “recommendations” of CEQA-exemption and that the actual “determinations” were made more than 30 days beyond the completeness date. HCD notes that such practice was in violation of PRC 21080.1 & 21080.2 and “may act as a governmental constraint on housing.”

Page 387 of 412 ends

Page 388 of 412 ends

Page 389 of 412 ends

500 Chestnut Street, Suite 100 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 (831) 459-9992 Fax (831) 459-9998 www.swiftconsultingservice.com
Swift Consulting Services
9/18/2023
Sarah Wikle
City of Scotts Valley Planning Dept.

Sarah Wikle <[email protected]>
RE: 4850 Scotts Valley Drive-Potential Candidate Site for Housing Element The property at 4850 Scotts Valley Drive , APN 022-091-12 is an appropriate site to be included in the list of Candidate Sites for Mixed Use Development in the 6th Cycle Housing Element.

The property owners are interested in pursuing a mixed use commercial/residential redevelopment of this 39,209 S.F.; .9acre parcel. Currently the property is zoned C-2, Service Commercial. There is a small retail convenience/liquor store located at the front of the property along Scotts Valley Drive. The majority of the property , roughly 80% or 32,000 SF is located behind the existing commercial use and has been largely vacant or used for marginal outdoor storage for decades.

A portion of the rear of the property is within the flood plain. Residential units could be elevated above the flood plain by designing parking and storage at grade with housing above. The property is 100’ wide. This is sufficient width to provide access to a residential project in the rear of the property while maintaining a viable commercial use along the Scotts Valley Drive frontage. Additional access options to the rear of the property from Carbonero Way may be possible through the adjacent properties to the east and/or south which also appear to be underdeveloped .

There is a realistic potential for 30 or more residential units on this property in addition to maintaining a viable commercial use along Scotts Valey Drive. The land value of this property exceeds the current improvement/development value of the property. The property has excellent access to transportation and community resources. The owners of the property are interested and motivated to make a productive use of this land which has been underutilized for many years.

Please consider incorporating this property in the list of Potential Candidate Sites for mixed use development in the 6th Cycle Housing Element,
John Swift

Page 390 of 412 ends

1 Galmiche, Ines
From: Galmiche, Ines
Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 10:54 AM
To: Galmiche, Ines
Subject: FW: 6th cycle element redline comments
From: Corbett Wright <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2023 1:23 PM
To: Sarah Wikle <[email protected]>
Cc: Taylor Bateman <[email protected]>; Mali LaGoe <[email protected]> Subject: 6th cycle element redline comments

[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please convey the following to council for consideration.

Section H 1.10
The requirement states 25% minimum lower income households. This seems to be inconsistent with statement as to minimum 300 bmr on a gross development total.

Is the city anticipating 1,200 units on the town center parcels? 300 min bmr / 25% bmr = 1,200 gross du Please consider amending to 20% of gross units.

Additionally, it states that the requirement will be to enter into and agreement to build 300 below market rate units.

Please consider amending to 20% of the total units and provide the city discretion with the total mix of affordable vs market rate for the orderly economic development of the town center specific plan.

Corbett Wright
174 West Cliff Drive
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
1(408)205-7998
Sent from my iPhone. Please disregard typos.

Page 391 of 412 ends

1 Galmiche, Ines
From: Galmiche, Ines
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 12:48 PM
To: Galmiche, Ines
Subject: FW: Housing element - Public Comment
From: David Duquette <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 10:58 AM
To: Sarah Wikle <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing element
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Sarah,
Not that anyone will listen but I will reiterate what I have said all along. I have real concern and disapproval of the 30% requirement for commercial space on Scotts Valley Drive. With the expected larger footprint that 40 units per acre is going to bring, 30% is just not workable. Given all the existing vacant commercial/retail space up and down Scotts Valley drive, more space is not only unprofitable but not needed. I have been at every meeting regarding this Housing element and I did not hear one comment from the public or any official that did not support relaxing the commercial requirement in order to promote housing. I don't know why the city is still pushing for such a large commercial requirement. Lastly, relaxing the parking requirement is no help. Whether we like it or not, Scotts Valley is a mountain town that requires a large number of its residents to commute. Not requiring enough parking is going to only hurt the surrounding neighborhoods and jeopardize the success of any housing project. This is only magnified by the push for a larger amount of low income housing. Lower income households have a disproportionate larger number of cars. Lower income households typically have a larger number of working adults that require more cars to get to work and or school.

I personally own a low income apartment and I say this from experience. Lowering the parking requirement will only result in a failed project.

Dave Duquette

Page 392 of 412 ends

500 Chestnut Street, Suite 100 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 (831) 459-9992 Fax (831) 459-9998 www.swiftconsultingservice.com
Swift Consulting Services

October 16, 2023
Sarah Wikle
City of Scotts Valley Planning Dept.

Sarah Wikle <[email protected]>
RE: 4850 Scotts Valley Drive-Potential Candidate Site for Housing Element This letter is a follow up to my previous letter dated Sept 18,2023 regarding the property at 4850 Scotts Valley Drive , APN 022-091-12. This property is an appropriate site to be included in the list of Candidate Sites for Mixed Use Development in the 6th Cycle Housing Element.

In the City’s draft response to the HCD Oct. 3, 2023 comment letter , City staff describes the redevelopment factors that are considered in the selection of candidate sites as follows:

1. Land value is greater than the improvement value. 77 percent of non-vacant sites have land values that exceed the improvement values.

2. Existing structure was built prior to 1990 (it was built over 30 years ago). 95 percent of non-vacant sites have structures built at least 30 years ago, with the majority being well over 30 years.

3. Existing uses do not include housing units . 51 percent of non-vacant sites have no existing units.

4. City-owned. 5 percent of non-vacant sites are City-owned.

5. Development interest from a housing developer and/or property owner. 9 percent of non-vacant sites have stated developer or property owner interest.

All but four of 43 total parcels have at least two identified redevelopment factors and 17 have at least three.

The subject property at 4850 Scotts Valley Drive complies with 4 out of 5 of these factors. It is not a City owned property.

Interestingly only 9% of the candidate sites have owners that have indicated their interest in pursuing redevelopment of the property.

The owners of this property have clearly expressed their interest in redeveloping this property.

The land value clearly exceeds the improvement value.

The existing structure was built prior to 1990.

The existing uses do not include housing.

Page 393 of 412 ends

500 Chestnut Street, Suite 100 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 (831) 459-9992 Fax (831) 459-9998 www.swiftconsultingservice.com
My understanding of the proposed Mixed-Use policies is that only Candidate sites will be eligible for the 70/30 mix of residential uses to commercial uses. If a property in the C-S zone, subsequent to the adoption of the General Plan/Housing Element, is proposed to be developed with a mixed-use project it will be subject to the City’s current ratio of 50/50. Clearly this requirement is a disincentive for the redevelopment of these properties. The market realities of commercial uses will continue to make mixed use projects that are not designated as candidate sites unfeasible.

There is no guarantee that candidate sites will be proposed for redevelopment. There are many complicated factors, such as taxes, estate issues, interest rates, etc. that can influence a property owner’s decision to move forward with redevelopment. The property owners of 4850 Scotts Valley Drive are prepared to move forward with a mixed-use project that is expected to yield 30 or more housing units.

Such a project could maintain the commercial use or allow for a modernization of the commercial structure that currently exists at the property frontage of Scotts Valley Drive.

This property is over 140’ removed from the commercial/industrial uses located to the south along El Pueblo Drive and is separated by a creek and a City Water District owned parcel of land. The presence of these industrial uses is not a realistic constraint to the redevelopment of this property with residential uses.

This property has excellent access to transportation and community resources. The owners of the property are interested and motivated to make productive use of this land which has been underutilized for many years. Please consider incorporating this property in the list of Potential Candidate Sites for mixed use development in the 6th Cycle Housing Element, John Swift
Attachment: Sept. 18, 2023 letter to Sarah Winkle

Page 394 of 412 ends

Please consider incorporating this property in the list of Potential Candidate Sites for mixed use development in the 6th Cycle Housing Element,
John Swift

Page 395 of 412 ends

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

Page 396 of 412 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 397 of 412 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 398 of 412 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 399 of 412 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 400 of 412 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 401 of 412 ends

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

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

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

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

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

Parcel. A lot or tract of land.

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

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

Page 402 of 412 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 403 of 412 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 404 of 412 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 405 of 412 ends

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

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

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

Page 406 of 412 ends

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

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

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

Page 407 of 412 ends

November 21, 2023
To: Clare Blackwell, Housing Policy Analyst, HCD
CC: Taylor Bateman, Director, Community Development Department Sarah Wikle, Senior Planner
RE: Scotts Valley Submitted Housing Element (October 20, 2023) Santa Cruz YIMBY advocates for abundant housing at all levels of affordability to meet the needs of a growing population in Santa Cruz County. We support sustainable growth, including along transportation corridors and activity centers and a commitment to lower Vehicle Miles Traveled by housing people near services and jobs.

The following are our comments on the City of Scotts Valley’s submitted Housing Element of October 20, 2023 as they relate to HCD’s letter dated October 3, 2023 AFFH - General
HCD comment: Contributing Factors: The element identifies two contributing factors to fair housing issues. However, these issues and goals do not appear to be rooted in the AFFH analysis and do not appear adequate to facilitate the formulation of meaningful action to AFFH. The element should re-assess contributing factors upon completion of analysis and make revisions as appropriate Scotts Valley added more factors on Page E-53 and more analysis on E-57+. Without substantial changes to their site inventory or rezoning, Scotts Valley perpetuates segregation and exclusivity. In particular, they are not addressing housing mobility including in their Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence.

AFFH - Census Tract 1
HCD comment: Identified Sites and AFFH: The element analyzed the identified sites for various fair housing components including access to opportunity and segregation and integration of income.

However, the element states (p. E-11) that the City allocated a majority of its low- and very low-income Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) to Census Tract 1 since it has the lowest median income. The element must include analysis and reasoning about the location of sites and impact on current fair housing conditions. The element should discuss whether this strategy potentially isolates a significant number of the housing need for lower-income households and Santa Cruz YIMBY - Scotts Valley Housing Element dated October 2023

Page 1 of 5 ends

Page 408 of 412 ends

include actions as appropriate to promote inclusive communities and equitable quality of life throughout the City.

Scotts Valley added more explanation regarding Census Tracts 2 and 3. Census Tract 2 and 3 can be targeted for more housing, especially Missing Middle housing. ● Both Census Tract 2 and 3 have large portions of R-1-10 zoning with 10,000 sq foot min lot size. (See Figure C-5 on page C-15) Lots are big enough.

The City claims that both of these Census Tracts “...experience topographic conditions that make the development of housing, specifically affordable housing, more difficult. The topography of this portion of the City creates a financial constraint to the development of housing.”
● Much of Census 2 and 3 R1-10 zoning has slope of 0-15% (See page E-59) There is no Missing Middle housing mentioned in the Housing Element:
● Under Goal H-1, the City of Scotts Valley should commit to allowing a variety of housing types including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and other multifamily project types throughout the City.

They have not addressed housing mobility throughout the city.

Monitoring - Pipeline Projects
HCD comment: While the describes the status of each project, to fully demonstrate these units are expected to be constructed during the planning period, the element should provide information on anticipated remaining steps and any known barriers to development in the planning period. For example, the element could analyze infrastructure schedules, City’s past completion rates on pipeline projects, outreach with project developers, and should describe any anticipated timelines for final approvals. This is particularly important given that several of these projects were identified to accommodate the RHNA during the last planning period but have not yet been constructed.

In addition, given the element’s reliance on pipeline projects, the element should include a program that commits to facilitating development and monitoring approvals of the projects (e.g., coordination with applicants to approve remaining entitlements, supporting funding applications, expediting approvals, and monitoring of project progress, including rezoning or identification of additional sites, if necessary).

There is more language in Appendix F regarding the status and prospects of each of the pipeline projects. On page F-7: “Projects listed do not have any known constraints or barriers which may hold-up or delay the entitlement and/or permitting process. As such, these sites are included for their anticipated development in the planning period.” However, some pipeline projects have been around for a while, including in the last RHNA cycle. The Town Center project has been in discussion since at least 2008, La Madrona’s EIR was started in 2020, and Valley Gardens’ in 2021. In order to meet this recommendation by Santa Cruz YIMBY - Scotts Valley Housing Element dated October 2023

Page 2 of 5 ends

Page 409 of 412 ends

HCD, the city should create specific programs to monitor and expedite the progress of pipeline projects. This could include automatic entitlement extensions until midway through the 6th cycle and proactively reaching out to all pipeline project developers to confirm that there is still development interest.

Non Vacant sites - Lower Income
HCD comment: In addition, the housing element relies upon nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lower-income households. For your information, the housing element must demonstrate existing uses are not an impediment to additional residential development and will likely discontinue in the planning period (Gov. Code, §65583.2, subd. (g)(2).).

Absent findings (e.g., adoption resolution) based on substantial evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede additional residential development and will not be utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA
Scotts Valley’s “facilitation of affordable housing development” (Program H-1.8) is focused on the inclusionary zoning (IZ). They are not going to meet their targets using a 15% IZ citywide.

City-owned land - Lower Income (Town Ctr)
Program H-1.10 (Surplus Land): While the Program commits to surplus sites and comply with the surplus land act, it should include additional steps the City will take to encourage development in the planning period, including facilitating entitlements, assisting with funding, issuing building permits and taking alternative actions by a specified date if development will not occur in the planning period
Scotts Valley’s Surplus Land Act program (H-1.10) indicates that City-owned land is for affordable housing. Town Center (city-owned) is identified as all lower-income and is the APNs identified in the Timeframe objective. However the Timeframe in H-1.10 allows for only 25% for lower income.

The only reference to the Town Center Specific Plan is in Program H-1.1 and does not include alternative actions if development is not occurring in the planning period.

Constraints
HCD Comment: Finally, While the element provides a brief analysis of development controls, the analysis must address height limits, minimum lot size, setbacks, site coverage and maximum density requirements. The analysis should address any impacts on cost, supply, housing choice, affordability, timing, approval certainty and ability to achieve maximum densities and include programs to address identified constraints.

Santa Cruz YIMBY - Scotts Valley Housing Element dated October 2023

Page 3 of 5 ends

Page 410 of 412 ends

HCD Comment: In addition, while the element includes Program H-1.1 to increase the residential cap on R-H zoned sites from 50 percent to 70 percent, the commercial requirement may constrain residential development. The element should analyze the 30 percent commercial requirement as a constraint on multifamily development and add or modify programs as appropriate.

The city has correctly identified significant commercial and parking requirements as barriers to development but does not go far enough to remove these constraints. We strongly disagree with the assertion that “...the City’s standards for lot size, setbacks, height, and site coverage are not considered [constraints]..” (Page C-25) If this is the case, why hasn’t there been more housing built in the last cycle? ● In Program H-1.6, H-1.7, and H-1.8 the city should better explore to what extent its density restrictions are a constraint to development, especially of affordable housing.

With the city’s highest density residential zoning district capped at 20 du/acre, this is likely a significant barrier. We recommend a higher base density than 40 du/acre for Mixed-Use parcels along transit corridors. These programs should also occur sooner than 2027, nearly halfway through the 6th cycle.
● In Program H-1.7, the city should commit to adopting a further reduction in residential square footage in mixed-use developments if the proposed rezoning does not result in developer interest as evidenced by at least one formally submitted project application where total unit count meets or exceeds the units expected in the site inventory.
● Program H-1.7 should also include a comprehensive study on Mixed-Use development standards as constraints.
● Program H-1.8 should include undertaking a study to ensure expansion of the inclusionary zoning policy will enable development of additional housing, not chill it.

Consolidation - Small Sites
HCD Comment: Small Sites: Sites smaller than half an acre are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lower-income households unless it is demonstrated, with sufficient evidence , that sites of equivalent size and affordability were successfully developed during the prior planning period or other evidence demonstrates the suitability of these sites. The element mentions some parcels are located next to one another and under common ownership but should also discuss the potential for consolidation. For example, the element could evaluate the circumstances potentially leading to consolidation such as existing shared access, necessity for consolidation to share access, necessity for consolidation to promote financial feasibility, meet development standards or facilitate site planning. Based on the outcomes of this analysis, the element should Santa Cruz YIMBY - Scotts Valley Housing Element dated October 2023

Page 4 of 5 ends

Page 411 of 412 ends

add or modify actions (Program H-2.8) to encourage lot consolidation. For example, the element could consider graduated density as an additional incentive to promote lot consolidation.

There has been no change to Program H-2.8 which lacks active language and does not commit the City to any changes which would enable lot consolidation.

Large Lots
HCD Comment: Large Sites: Sites larger than ten acres in size are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lower-income housing unless it is demonstrated that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower-income housing units as projected for the site or unless the housing element describes other evidence to HCD that the site is adequate to accommodate lower- income housing (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(2)(A).). While the element mentions parceling is not necessary, it should also discuss how the site facilitate developments with units affordable to lower-income households, particularly how the level of affordability could be achieved as assumed in the inventory.

Alternatively, the element could adjust affordability assumptions similar to the application of inclusionary requirements.

Program H-2.6 (Development of Large Lots): The Program should commit to establish incentives to promote affordability on identified large sites as assumed in the inventory.

There has been no change to Program H-2.6 which lacks active language and does not commit the City to any changes which would enable large lot development.

Transit Oriented Development
Scotts Valley added language on Page F-31: “This parcel contains the METRO Cavallero transit center and the Scotts Valley Park and Ride center. The City has been in discussions with METRO about converting the site to affordable residential units with workforce components.

Redevelopment of the site would result in parking being moved underground or provided through a parking structure. This would allow for Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) to occur in partnership with the transit center.”
Despite being home to the METRO Cavallero transit center and the Scotts Valley Park and Ride center, Scotts Valley lacks any current or planned high quality transit stops. A high-quality transit stop can help Scotts Valley/affordable housing developers in securing additional funding, e.g. through grant programs that focus on transit-oriented development or reduction of green-house gasses.

We recommend Scotts Valley add a program objective::
“Scotts Valley will work with AMBAG in the 2050 MTP/SCS (scheduled for June 2026) to designate the METRO Cavallero transit center as a planned high quality major transit stop.” Santa Cruz YIMBY - Scotts Valley Housing Element dated October 2023

Page 5 of 5 ends

Page 412 of 412 ends

Scotts Valley City CouncilDecember 20, 2023

Scotts Valley City Council
December 20, 2023