City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 43
June 2025
The total new impervious area of 26,345 sf will replace the existing impervious area with an equivalent impervious area of 23,900 sf. The Total pervious and landscape areas will be approximately 18,898 sf (Stormwater Control Plan for Ridgewood West – Residential Development, CHC/Civil Consultants Group, 10/8/24).
The Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) identifies two drainage management areas (DMAs). DMA A (10,367 sf) consists of landscaping and will be self-treating. DMA B (34,876 sf) will include roofs, driveways (i.e., pavers), and other impervious areas and some landscaping. As shown in Figure 8 Stormwater Control Plan (Sheet C5.1, dated 10/3/24), storm drainage from DMA B would be conveyed via collector storm drainpipes to a series of underground infiltration chambers (HydroStor) located under the new private cul-de-sac, where it would be treated and released underground. During high stormwater flows, excess stormwater would be directed to the existing storm drain on Erba Lane. Peak stormwater management will be addressed by decreasing the total on-site impervious area by approximately 6,000 sf and thereby decreasing the onsite runoff to less than pre-development rates.
Because the Project would disturb more than one acre of land, the construction contractors would be required to adhere to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit, which mandates preparation and implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP would include detailed BMPs to provide erosion control and hazardous materials measures for all construction activities. The SWPPP must describe the type, location, and function of stormwater BMPs to be implemented during construction and must demonstrate that the combination of BMPs selected is adequate to meet the discharge prohibitions, effluent standards, and receiving water limitations contained in the Construction General Permit.
Furthermore, standard conditions of approval require the developer and construction contractor to implement best management practices to prevent sedimentation and discharge of contaminants off-site during project construction, including hazardous materials containment plan during the entire time construction activities are occurring. The hazardous materials containment plan shall contain the following elements:
Stationary equipment such as motors, pumps, welding equipment shall be placed over drip pans or other containment apparatus.
Construction materials shall not be stockpiled or stored where they could be accidently discharged downslope or into Scotts Valley Drive.
Any petroleum, lubricants or other hazardous materials used during; and, construction shall be stored in a special storage location equipped with double containment and this location shall be shown on the erosion control plan and approved by the agencies that review this plan.
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 44
June 2025
Implementation of recommendations as described in the SCP and preparation of a SWPPP for review and approval prior to construction activities would ensure that there would be no new impacts from stormwater runoff.
Floodplains, Seiche, Tsunami and Mudflow Related Hazards The property is not located within a floodplain. There is no possibility of a seiche or tsunami occurring that could affect the Project. The Project is not located on or near a lake or ocean coastline. Therefore, the Project would have no new impacts.
Findings
The Project is similar to the Bay Village Project with respect to hydrology and water quality.
Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, there are no new significant effects or other grounds that require preparation of a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration in support of further agency action on the Project and there would be no new impact.
Land Use and Planning
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Impact
Requiring
Mitigation
No New
Impact /
No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the Project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
X
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
X
Discussion
The Bay Village Project Initial Study determined that there would be no impacts to land use and planning.
Following is a brief discussion of the impacts to land use and planning conditions which remain unchanged with the proposed Project.
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 45
June 2025
Surrounding the Project site is the Scotts Valley Fire Department and single-family residential to the west, Scotts Valley City Hall, and MacDorsa Park to the north and east, and office buildings to the east between the Project site and Scotts Valley Drive. The corner of Erba Lane and Scotts Valley Drive is a landscape supply company.
The Project site is currently zoned Residential High Density (R-H). Additionally, the Project site is designated under the City of Scotts Valley General Plan as Residential High Density (R-H), which allows for 9 to 15 residential units.
Per State Density Bonus Law (SDBL), the Project Applicant is requesting to construct three additional deed restricted for sale units comprised of two (2) Low-Income and one (1) Moderate-Income units for a total of 19 units.
Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the existing zoning and General Plan land use designations and there would be no new impacts.
Findings
The Project is similar to the Bay Village Project with respect to land use and planning.
Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, there are no new significant effects or other grounds that require preparation of a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration in support of further agency action on the Project and there would be no new impact.
Mineral Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Impact
Requiring
Mitigation
No New
Impact /
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the Project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be
of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
X
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 46
June 2025
Discussion
The Bay Village Project Initial Study determined that there would be no impacts to mineral resources.
Following is a brief discussion of the impacts to mineral resource conditions which remain unchanged with the proposed Project.
The Project is not located in an area known to contain regionally significant mineral resources and would not result in the loss of the availability of a known mineral resource of regional value. Additionally, the Project site is not located in an area that has been identified by the City of Scotts Valley General Plan (2023) as a locally important mineral resource recovery site.
Therefore, there would be no new impacts.
Findings
The Project is similar to the Bay Village Project with respect to mineral resources. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, there are no new significant effects or other grounds that require preparation of a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration in support of further agency action on the Project and there would be no new impact.
Noise
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Impact
Requiring
Mitigation
No New
Impact /
No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the Project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the Project in
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
X
c) For a project located within the vicinity
of a private airstrip or an airport land use
X
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 47
June 2025
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Impact
Requiring
Mitigation
No New
Impact /
No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
Project expose people residing or
working in the Project area to excessive
noise levels?
Discussion
The Bay Village Project Initial Study determined that impacts from ambient noise levels would be less than significant.
No impacts were identified for noise levels located in the vicinity of an aviation facility.
Following is a brief discussion of the impacts to noise conditions which remain unchanged with the Project.
Short Term Noise Levels
Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase of construction (e.g. land clearing, grading, excavation, paving). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels. During construction, exterior noise levels could affect the residential neighborhoods surrounding the construction site. Project construction would occur adjacent to existing single-family residences on Erba Lane. However, construction activities would occur throughout the Project site and would not be concentrated at a single point near sensitive receptors.
Project construction would comply with the City’s Municipal Code Section 17.46.160, which states that all construction activity shall be limited to the hours between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9 a.m. through 5 p.m. on Saturday. No construction activity is allowed on Sunday. These permitted hours of construction are included in the code in recognition that construction activities undertaken during daytime hours are a typical part of living in an urban environment and do not cause a significant disruption. Construction would occur throughout the Project site and would not be concentrated or confined in the area directly adjacent to sensory receptors. Therefore, construction noise would be acoustically dispersed throughout the Project site and there would be no new impacts.
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 48
June 2025
Long Term Noise Levels
Scotts Valley General Plan (2023) Figure SN-7: Noise Contours indicates that the Project site is in an area with ambient noise levels that are less than 60dBA. The Noise Element of the Scotts Valley General Plan specifies that "exterior noise levels measured at the property line of proposed new residential developments shall be limited to or below an average annual day-night level of 60 dBA" (NA-454).
Implementation of the Project would create new sources of noise in the Project vicinity from residential sources, mechanical equipment, and landscape maintenance. These noise sources would be similar to those generated in other residential neighborhoods throughout the City.
Such noise would primarily occur during the “daytime” activity hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Furthermore, the residences would be required to comply with the noise standards set forth in the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code. Per General Plan Policies LP-38, NA-457, NO-441, and NA-444 land uses which include residential uses should not be allowed in areas with excessive noise. Therefore, there would be no new impact from long-term noise levels.
Exposure to Groundborne Vibrations
Because the Project would not require the use of heavy construction equipment, the residences located approximately 30 feet from the Project’s construction area would not be exposed to vibrations levels exceeding the FTA’s 0.20 in/sec PPV significance threshold vibrations.
Therefore, there would be no vibration impacts.
Future project residents may experience occasional groundborne vibrations from nearby traffic on Scotts Valley Drive when large trucks use the roadway. But this vibration is not expected to be frequent nor at high levels and therefore there would be no new impacts.
Airport or Private Airstrip Noise
the Project site is not located within any airport noise impact contours and not located within the vicinity of any private air strip, and therefore there would be no new impact.
Findings
The Project is similar to the Bay Village Project with respect to noise. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, there are no new significant effects or other grounds that require preparation of a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration in support of further agency action on the Project and there would be no new impact.
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 49
June 2025
Population and Housing
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Impact
Requiring
Mitigation
No New
Impact /
No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the Project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
Discussion
The Bay Village Project Initial Study determined that there would be no impacts to population and housing.
Following is a brief discussion of the impacts to population and housing conditions which remain unchanged with the proposed Project.
The Project would result in a relatively small increase in population (51 persons 4) that is well within the land use buildout capacity projections identified within the City of Scotts Valley General Plan (2023) as well as the Association of Monterey Bay Area Government’s 2022 Regional Growth Forecast for the City of Scotts Valley population of 11,868 by 2040. Therefore, there would be no new impact.
Findings
The Project is similar to the Bay Village Project with respect to population and housing.
Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, there are no new significant effects or other grounds that require preparation of a subsequent 4 . The average household size for Scotts Valley is 2.67 persons which estimates 51 persons for a project with 19 units.
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 50
June 2025
Mitigated Negative Declaration in support of further agency action on the Project and there would be no new impact.
Public Services
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Impact
Requiring
Mitigation
No New
Impact /
No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the Project result in:
a) Would the Project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection? X
iii) Schools? X
iv) Parks? X
v) Other public facilities? X
X
Discussion
The Bay Village Project Initial Study determined that there would be no impacts to public services.
Following is a brief discussion of the impacts to public services conditions which remain unchanged with the proposed Project.
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 51
June 2025
Fire Services
The Project is located in an existing urban area that is currently served by the Scotts Valley Fire Protection District. The closest fire station is located across the street from the Project site.
Therefore, there would be no new impact.
Police Services
The Project would add approximately 51 new residents to the City who would occasionally need police services. This type of additional service would not generate a demand beyond what the police department can accommodate. The Scotts Valley Police department is located west and adjacent to the Project site at City Hall. Therefore, there would be no new impact.
Schools
The Project would add approximately 51 new residents to the City, some of whom would be students attending schools within the Scotts Valley Unified School District. These additional students would not generate a significant demand on the area school system and therefore there would be no new impact.
Parks
The Project would add approximately 51 new residents to the City who would occasionally utilize City parks and recreational programs; however, this additional use would not generate a demand beyond what the City Parks Department can accommodate and no new additional park facilities would be required. Additionally, as a standard condition of the approval, the Project would be required to pay a parks and recreation in-lieu fee as part of their building permit.
Therefore, there would be no new impact.
Other Public Facilities
The Project does not have the potential to affect other public facilities, in excess of that previously considered by the General Plan. Therefore, there would be no new impact.
Findings
The Project is similar to the Bay Village Project with respect to public services. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, there are no new significant effects or other grounds that require preparation of a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration in support of further agency action on the Project and there would be no new impact.
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 52
June 2025
Recreation
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Impact
Requiring
Mitigation
No New
Impact /
No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the Project:
a) Would the Project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
X
b) Does the Project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
X
Discussion
The Bay Village Project Initial Study determined that there would be no impacts to recreation.
Following is a brief discussion of the impacts to recreation conditions which remain unchanged with the proposed Project.
Scotts Valley has a total of seven parks, ranging in size from a half-acre to 7.5 acres.
Recreational facilities are also available at local schools, the Scotts Valley Senior Center, and Scotts Valley Community Center. The proposed project would not require the construction of new or expanded recreational facilities and standard conditions require the developer pay an in-lieu park fee. Therefore there would be no new impact.
Finding
The Project is similar to the Bay Village Project with respect to recreation. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, there are no new significant effects or other grounds that require preparation of a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration in support of further agency action on the Project and there would be no new impact.
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 53
June 2025
Transportation
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Impact
Requiring
Mitigation
No New
Impact /
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the Project:
a) Conflict with a program plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
X
b) Would the Project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to
a geometric design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access? X
Discussion
The Bay Village Project Initial Study determined that there would be no impacts to transportation.
Following is a brief discussion of the impacts to transportation conditions which remain unchanged with the proposed Project.
Conflict with City Policies or Programs, Increase Hazards, Impair Emergency Access A new private cul-de-sac will be constructed from the southwestern half of the Project site, providing resident and emergency vehicle access. The design of this roadway would be consistent with City standards and subject to design review to ensure there is adequate emergency vehicle access. The frontage along Erba Lane would be improved with a sidewalk, curb and gutter, landscaping, and on-street parking; consistent with City standards.
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 54
June 2025
The Project would not conflict with City policies or programs regarding the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The Project would not cause a hazard nor impair emergency access.
Therefore, there would be no new impact.
Increase Vehicle Miles Travelled
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is a measure of total vehicular travel that accounts for the number of vehicle trips and the length of those trips. Scotts Valley’s Analyzing Vehicle Miles Traveled for CEQA Compliance (Kimley-Horn and Associates, December 2023) establishes VMT significance criteria for CEQA analysis.
The VMT Implementation includes screening criteria to avoid unnecessary analysis and findings for non-significant transportation impacts. Projects that provide at least 20% of the residential portion of a project as affordable (very low, low, and/or moderate income) are exempt from further VMT analysis. Per State Density Bonus Law (SDBL), the Project Applicant is requesting a 23% density bonus to construct three additional deed restricted for sale units comprised of two (2) Low-Income and one (1) Moderate-Income units for a total of 19 units. Because the Project would provide greater than 20% of the units as affordable, it is exempt from VMT and there would be no new impact.
Advanced Mobility Group (AMG) prepared a trip generation estimate for the Project (AMG, 12/21/24). Project trip generation was estimated by applying the proposed type of development to the appropriate trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual,11th Edition (2021). The ITE estimated rate for mid-rise multi-family housing is 6.74 average daily trips per household (ITE Code 220).
This would result in 128 trips per day for the 19 residential units. Upon issuance of the building permit, the project would be required to pay a City traffic impact fee.
Findings
The Project is similar to the Bay Village Project with respect to transportation. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, there are no new significant effects or other grounds that require preparation of a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration in support of further agency action on the Project and there would be no new impact.
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 55
June 2025
Tribal Cultural Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Impact
Requiring
Mitigation
No New
Impact /
No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the Project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources
Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the
size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and
that is:
X
i) Listed or eligible for listing in
the California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k)?
X
ii) A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources
X
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 56
June 2025
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Impact
Requiring
Mitigation
No New
Impact /
No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the
size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and
that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in
the California
Discussion
The Bay Village Project Initial Study determined that there would be no impacts to tribal cultural resources.
Following is a brief discussion of the impacts to tribal cultural resource conditions which remain unchanged with the proposed Project.
Section 21080.3.1(b) of the California Public Resources Code (AB 52) requires a lead agency to formally notify a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated within the geographic area of the discretionary project when formally requested.
As part of the Bay Village Project, no California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Santa Cruz County region have formally requested a consultation with the City of Scotts Valley (as Lead Agency under CEQA) regarding Tribal Cultural Resources.
This Initial Study serves as an Addendum to the Bay Village Project Initial Study. As such, further consultation is not required as there are no new significant effects and tribal cultural resources remain unchanged. Therefore, there are no new impacts.
Findings
The Project is similar to the Bay Village Project with respect to tribal cultural resources.
Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, there are no new significant effects or other grounds that require preparation of a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration in support of further agency action on the Project and there would be no new impact.
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 57
June 2025
Utilities and Service Systems
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Impact
Requiring
Mitigation
No New
Impact /
No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the Project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the Project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the Project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
Project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
X
Discussion
The Bay Village Project Initial Study determined that impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant, with the exception of solid waste, which was determined to have no impact.
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 58
June 2025
Following is a brief discussion of the impacts to utilities and service system conditions which remain unchanged with the proposed Project.
Water Treatment Facilities
The 19 proposed residential units would result in a daily water demand of 1,045 gallons per day or approximately two-acre feet per year (AFY).5 Therefore, the proposed residential use would cause only a minimal increase on the demand for water and wastewater service. The Scotts Valley Water District has reviewed the application and has determined that existing water resources would support the proposed development (SVWD Will Serve Letter, 2/7/24).
Therefore, there would be no new impact.
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Conservatively assuming that all of the project’s potable water use becomes wastewater, the project would generate approximately 1,045 gallons of wastewater per day (gpd). Wastewater from the project would gravity flow to an existing six-inch diameter sanitary sewer main that extends along Erba Lane and connects to a 10-inch diameter sewer main on Scotts Valley Drive.
Based on the City of Scotts Valley Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP, Carollo, December 2021), the City’s peak wet weather flow (PWWF) is estimated to increase from 5.40 mgd (2020) to 5.78 mgd by 2040, for an increase of 0.38 mgd (see SSMP Table 9.1). The capacity evaluation found that the lift stations and force mains have sufficient capacity through 2040.
The SSMP includes a capacity analysis to identify areas in the sewer system where flow restrictions occur or where pipe capacity is insufficient to convey design flows. The majority of the City sewers contain sufficient capacity to accommodate existing and future design flows without exceeding the established capacity criteria. However, there are a few exceptions where existing sewers were recommended to be replaced by larger diameter sewers, along with various lift station rehabilitation projects.
In particular, Project GM-2: Scotts Valley Drive Diversion identifies constructing a diversion structure that diverts flow from the 10-inch diameter sewer to a parallel 18-inch diameter sewer for approximately 60 feet along Scotts Valley Drive. This project is required because the flow within the existing 10-inch diameter gravity sewer causes upstream manholes to overflow under PWWF conditions. Additional study is recommended to determine the optimal location and construction cost for this project.
Given the increase in wastewater associated with the Project, a Condition of Approval has been included as part of the Project which requires that prior to connecting to the sanitary sewer main on Erba Lane, the Applicant shall construct a diversion structure connecting the existing 10-inch diameter situated on the Scotts Valley Drive southbound direction and an existing 18- 5 Daily Water Use Factor for High Density Residential is 55 (gallons per capita/day). (19 residents x 55 gallons/day) = 1,045 (gallons/day)
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 59
June 2025
inch diameter sewer mains running along Scotts Valley Drive northbound direction. An additional study must be completed prior to design to determine the optimal location for this structure.
Therefore, there would be no new impact.
Electric Power, Natural Gas, or Telecommunications
The Project would require new connections to PG&E for electricity and natural gas. In addition, the Project would require new telecommunication connections with the respective service providers. The Project site is surrounded by commercial development to the south, and east and single-family residential to the west, which are serviced by various dry utility providers.
Because these utilities would be readily extended from existing infrastructure adjacent to the Project site, there would be no new impact.
Solid Waste
The Project would generate approximately 232 pounds of daily solid waste. 6 This represents less than one percent of the daily permit capacities of Buena Vista and Monterey Peninsula landfills 7, respectively. Because both landfills have adequate capacity there would be no new impact.
Findings
The Project is similar to the Bay Village Project with respect to utilities and service systems.
Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, there are no new significant effects or other grounds that require preparation of a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration in support of further agency action on the Project and there would be no new impact.
Wildfire
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Impact
Requiring
Mitigation
No New
Impact /
No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project:
6 Daily Solid Waste Generation Rate for Residential Use is 12.23 pounds per day/unit (CalRecycle, 2019). (10 residential units x 12.23 pounds/day) = 232 pounds/day. 7 The Buena Vista Sanitary Landfill is permitted to receive 838 tons of solid waste per day. The Monterey Peninsula Landfill is permitted to receive 3,500 tons of solid waste per day.
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 60
June 2025
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Impact
Requiring
Mitigation
No New
Impact /
No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance
of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities)
that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
X
Discussion
The Bay Village Project Initial Study determined that there would be no impacts to wildfires.
Following is a brief discussion of the impacts to utilities and service system conditions which remain unchanged with the proposed Project.
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has mapped the relative wildfire risk in areas of large population by intersecting residential housing density with proximate fire threat according to three risk levels, namely Moderate, High, and Very High.
Wildfires are large-scale brush and grass fires in undeveloped areas.
In February of 2025, California issued a revised map identifying Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) in Local Responsibility Areas for the City of Scotts Valley. As shown in Figure 11 Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones, upland areas surrounding the more urbanized
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 61
June 2025
valley floor are identified as “High” or “Moderate” FHSZs and will require compliance with General Plan Policy SN-1.13 and other applicable City and State fire protection requirements. 8 The Project site is located within an urbanized area and is not within a “High” or “Moderate” FHSZ as mapped by CALFIRE. Additionally, the Project would incorporate all applicable fire safety code requirements, including fire protection devices in all residential units and appropriate fire-resistant landscaping on the Project site, as required by the Scotts Valley Fire District, and therefore there would be no new impact.
The project site is located in an existing, well-established urban setting. It is adjacent to Scotts Valley City Hall and a Scotts Valley Fire Protection District fire station is located across the street from the Project site. Pretty much an optimal location! As such it is reasonable to assume that the Project would not affect emergency response/evacuation plans, would not expose residents or structures to a wildfire risk, and would not exacerbate fire risk. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Findings
The Project is similar to the Bay Village Project with respect to wildfire. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, there are no new significant effects or other grounds that require preparation of a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration in support of further agency action on the Project and there would be no new impact.
Mandatory Findings of Significance
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Impact
Requiring
Mitigation
No New
Impact /
No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Does the Project:
a) Have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
X
8 Policy SN-1.13: Fire Safety Systems requires the City, in cooperation with the fire district, to require that all buildings constructed include fire safety features, such as automatic fire sprinkler system, class “C” or better roof cover for structures in the non-wildland fire hazard area/Local Responsibility Area (LRA), Class “B” or better roof covering for moderate or high wildland fire hazard area/ State Responsibility Area (SRA), fire detection, and alarm systems.
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 62
June 2025
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Impact
Requiring
Mitigation
No New
Impact /
No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the Project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
X
c) Does the Project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
X
Discussion
As discussed in the individual sections, the Project would not degrade the quality of the environment with the implementation of identified Standard Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures. As discussed in Bay Village Initial Study -- Biological Resources, mitigation measures MM BIO-1: Oak Riparian Woodland -Project Construction and MM BIO-2: Oak Riparian Woodland -Post Construction will no longer be required. This is because the proposed Project no longer encroaches into the coast live oak riparian woodland.
As described in the environmental resource sections of this Initial Study, the Project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
The Project would result in temporary air quality and noise impacts during construction. With the implementation of the identified Standard Conditions of Approval, and consistency with
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 63
June 2025
adopted City policies, construction impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level.
As described above, these impacts would be temporary and the Project would not have cumulatively considerable impacts on air quality and noise impacts in the Project area.
The Project would have a less than significant impact or no impact on the remaining environmental resources and would not contribute to cumulative impacts to these resources.
Therefore, the Project would not cause a cumulatively considerable impact and no mitigation is required.
Findings
No New Impact. The proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts.
Source: Google Earth, 2025
Figure 1 Regional Location
Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum Not to scale
Source: Nearearth, 2025
Figure 2 Project Vicinity
Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum Not to scale
Source: C2G Civil Consultants Group, Sheet C0.1, dated January 22, 2025
Figure 3 Site Plan
Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum Not to scale
Source: Hunt Hale Jones, Sheet MB 1.1, dated January 16, 2025
Figure 4 Color Rendering
Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum Not to scale
Source: Hunt Hale Jones, Sheet A1.1.1, dated January 16, 2025
Figure 5 Front Elevation
Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum Not to scale
Source: Hunt Hale Jones, Sheet A1.1.1, dated January 16, 2025
Figure 6 Rear Elevation
Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum Not to scale
Source: C2G Civil Consultants Group, Sheet C
2.1, dated January 21, 2025
Figure 7 Site Improvements
Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum Not to scale
Source: C2G Civil Consultants Group, Sheet C5.1, dated January 16, 2025
Figure 8 Stormwater Control Plan
Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum Not to scale
Source: Roach & Campbell Landscape Architects, Sheet L1.1, dated January 16, 2025
Figure 9 Conceptual Landscape Plan
Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum Not to scale
Source: HMH, Arborist Report, Exhibit A, dated March 2025
Figure 10 Existing Tree Map
Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum Not to scale
Source: Cal Fire, 2025
Figure 11 Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Not to scale
Project Site
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Appendices
June 2025
Appendix A
Bay Village Planned Development Negative Declaration and Initial Study (Kimley-Horn & Associates, May 2021)
City of Scotts Valley
Bay Village Planned Development Initial Study
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development Initial Study Table of Contents | Page i
3/22/21
Table of Contents
Background & Project Description ............................................................................................. 1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................................... 3 Environmental Checklist ............................................................................................................ 3 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................... 3 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ........................................................................................... 5 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................. 7 Biological Resources ................................................................................................................. 11 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................... 20 Energy ...................................................................................................................................... 22 Geology and Soils ..................................................................................................................... 23 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................................................... 26 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................... 27 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................................. 30 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................. 34 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................... 34 Noise ........................................................................................................................................ 35 Population and Housing ........................................................................................................... 38 Public Services .......................................................................................................................... 39 Recreation ................................................................................................................................ 40 Transportation ......................................................................................................................... 41 Tribal Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 43 Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................................... 45 Wildfire ..................................................................................................................................... 47 Mandatory Findings of Significance ......................................................................................... 48 Determination .......................................................................................................................... 50
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development Initial Study Table of Contents | Page ii
3/22/21
List of Figures
Figure 1: Regional Location
Figure 2: Project Vicinity
Figure 3: Site Plan
Figure 4: Project Rendering
Figure 5: Street View from Erba Lane
Figure 6: Grading Plan
Figure 7: Exterior Lighting Plan
Figure 8: Vegetation Types
Figure 9: Oak Riparian Woodland Habitat
Note: All figures are inserted at the end of the document.
List of Tables
None.
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 1
3/22/21
Initial Study
Background & Project Description
Project Title
Bay Village Planned Development
Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Scotts Valley
One Civic Center Drive
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
Contact Person and Phone Number
Paula Bradley, MCP, AICP
Contract Planner
831 345-5482
[email protected]
Project Location
As shown in Figure 1: Regional Location, and Figure 2: Project Vicinity, the project site is on two parcels (APN 22-481-18 and 22) on Erba Lane in the City of Scotts Valley.
Project Applicant/Sponsor
Charlie Eadie
Eadie Consultants
General Plan Designation
Residential High Density (R-H)
Zoning
Residential High Density (R-H)
Project Description
The proposed Bay Village Panned Development project (the project) would construct 10 residential units comprised of six single-family homes on a 45,245 sf parcel. As shown in Figure 3: Site Plan, the project site’s two existing lots that would be subdivided into ten lots and two common lots. The lots would range in size from 2,750 to 3,691 square feet (sf), with a common area for the riparian setback (Lot B – 10,681 sf) and a new lane (Lot A – 3,557 sf).
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 2
3/22/21
The project includes nine 3-bedroom homes, which range in size from 1,766 sf to 2,108 sf, and one 2,236 sf 4-bedroom unit. Each unit would include a two-car garage and a 20-foot deep driveway. A rendering of the subdivision is shown in Figure 4: Project Rendering.
To protect an existing oak riparian woodland habitat that extends along the eastern boundary of the project site, a split rail fence would be constructed outside of the riparian boundary.
Retaining walls would be constructed along the property lines in the southeast, south, northwest corner and between most of the lots to create level building pads on the sloped lot.
The retaining walls would be topped with wood.
Fronting Erba Lane, the project includes a five-foot sidewalk and six-foot landscaped planting strip. The project would construct a new 24 foot-wide private roadway, extending from Erba Lane, providing access to seven of the residential units (Lots 4 through 10). A street view from Erba Lane is shown in Figure 5: Street View from Erba Lane.
As shown in Figure 6: Grading Plan, grading for the project would require a cut of 1,155 cubic yards of soil (maximum cut of 4.9 feet), and fill of 1,870 cubic yards (maximum fill of 5.2 feet), for a net import of 715 cubic yards. Consistent with current conditions, stormwater would flow generally north to south across the project site.
Storm drainage from constructed impervious surfaces (e.g. roofs, driveways) would be conveyed via a series of collector storm drain pipes to underground (Stormtech) chambers located on Sam Lane where it would be retained and treated. Stormwater from Erba Lane fronting the project site would be collected via drainage inlets and directed to a newly constructed 18-inch storm drain for channel overflow along the southern boundary of the project site. A channel emergency overflow catch basin with riprap apron would be constructed on the southeast corner of the project site to control storm drain flows that would ultimately flow into the adjacent dry creek located in the existing oak riparian woodland corridor.
Water and sewer services would connect to an existing six-inch sanitary sewer and eight-inch water main located on Erba Lane.
Project-Related Approvals, Agreements and Permits
Planned Development Permit PD19-004
Minor Land Division MLD19-002
Design Review DR19-014
Environmental Assessment EA19-010
Environmental Review ND20-001
Cultural Resources Report Permit CR20-001
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 3
3/22/21
Other public agencies whose approval is required
None.
Environmental Setting
Background and Intent
The purpose of the project is to allow for the subdivision of the project site (Lots A and B and Lots 1 through 10) and the construction of 10 residential units as part of a Planned Development.
Project Site and Existing Facilities
The project site is currently vacant with partially paved surface parking. The General Plan designation is Residential High Density (R-H) and the zoning designation is Residential High Density (R-H).
Surrounding the project site is the Scotts Valley Fire Department and single-family residential to the west, Scotts Valley City Hall, and MacDorsa Park to the north and east, and office buildings to the east between the project site and Scotts Valley Drive. The corner of Erba Lane and Scotts Valley Drive is a landscape supply company.
Environmental Checklist
The discussion below analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the project per the criteria as described in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. For convenience, this analysis uses the Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines as a framework. Different from the standard CEQA checklist included in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines are the impact options included in this analysis.
Aesthetics
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
X
a) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to trees, rock
X
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 4
3/22/21
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
b) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is
in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
X
c) Create a new source of substantial light
or glare which would adversely affect day
or nighttime views in the area?
X
Discussion
Scenic Vista
The project site is currently used as a partially paved parking lot and is surrounded by a combination of commercial, industrial, office, and residential uses. The project site is relatively flat and would not block any scenic vista nor substantially change an important view from a scenic vantage point, and therefore there would be no impact.
Scenic Resources and Visual Character
The project site is not located along a state scenic highway or designated scenic corridor.
Although the project would represent a visual change from the existing conditions, it would be consistent with the type of development planned for this area in the General Plan. Additionally, the project is subject to design review, which would provide an opportunity for further evaluation that the project would not adversely impact the visual character of the area.
Because there are no scenic resources and the visual character would not be substantially altered, there would be no impact.
Light and Glare
Existing ambient sources of nighttime lighting include neon and fluorescent signs, lighting of building exteriors and architectural accents, illumination through windows, landscape lighting,
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 5
3/22/21
street lighting, parking lot lighting, and vehicle headlights. The project would include outdoor lighting on the site typical to a residential development. As shown in Figure 7: Exterior Lighting Plan, project plans provide details for exterior lighting for the proposed homes that include: 42- inch tall lighting bollards, wall mounted lights, and recessed 6-inch LED downlights. All fixtures would utilize light-emitting diode (LED) lighting with glare cutoffs and be dark sky-friendly certified by the International Dark-Sky Association.
Site and architectural lighting is subject to the City design review process which would provide an opportunity for further evaluation so that levels of luminance do not adversely affect the adjacent properties. To further minimize lighting effects on the surrounding area, a projectspecific conditions would require the project applicant to use no pole lights, and utilize downdirected fixtures on building exteriors with concealed light sources, consistent with City policies and design guidelines for lighting to be at the lowest level and carefully controlled for security, aesthetics, safety, and identification without interfering with nearby land uses. Implementation of these standard conditions of approval would reduce potential off-site light intrusion impacts to a less than significant level.
Findings
The project would not generate affect a scenic vista or scenic resource, would not change the visual character of the project area, and therefore there would be no impact. The project would not result in a substantial change to light and glare and therefore impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
X
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 6
3/22/21
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
X
Discussion
The property is not located on land that is classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resource Agency, and therefore no agricultural impacts would occur as a result of the project.
Findings
As described above, there would be no impact on agricultural resources. Therefore, no mitigation is required.
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 7
3/22/21
Air Quality
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
X
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
X
Discussion
Air Quality Plan and Air Quality Standards
The project site is located within the North Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB), which includes Monterey County, San Benito County, and Santa Cruz County, comprising an area of approximately 5,159 square miles along the central California coast. The Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) is responsible for local control and monitoring of criteria air pollutants throughout the NCCAB.
MBARD has developed the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan for the Monterey Bay Region (2012 AQMP) The 2012 AQMP is a transitional plan shifting focus of MBARD’s efforts from achieving the 1-hour component of the State ozone AAQS to achieving the 8-hour ozone requirement. The Plan includes an updated air quality trends analysis, which reflects both the 1- and 8-hour standards, as well as an updated emission inventory, which includes the latest information on stationary, area and mobile emission sources.
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 8
3/22/21
In March 2017, MBARD adopted the 2012-2015 Triennial Plan Revision, which assesses and updates elements of the 2012 AQMP, including the air quality trends analysis, emission inventory, and mobile source programs. The 2017 AQMP Revision only addresses attainment of the State ozone standard. In 2012, EPA designated the NCCAB as in attainment of the current national 8-hour ozone standard of 0.075 ppm1.
The following MBARD rules would limit emissions of air pollutants from construction and operation of residential development pursuant to the project:
Rule 400 (Visible Emissions) – Discharge of visible air pollutant emissions into the atmosphere from any emission source for a period or periods aggregating more than 3minutes in any 1 hour, as observed using an appropriate test method, is prohibited. Rule 402 (Nuisances) - No person shall discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other materials which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public; or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public; or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.
Rule 425 (Use of Cutback Asphalt) – The use of cutback asphalt (asphalt cement that has been blended with petroleum solvents) is restricted.
Rule 426 (Architectural Coatings) – This rule limits the emissions of ROGs from the use of architectural coatings.
The MBARD’s 2008 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provides criteria for determining cumulative impacts and consistency. The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines note that a project which is inconsistent with an Air Quality Plan would have a significant cumulative impact on regional air quality. Any emissions sources that would be generated as part of the project would be subject to the MBARD rules and regulations. The proposed development (the point source) does not include any processes or activities that would emit air pollutants. Therefore, the proposed use does not have the potential for significant impacts that would conflict with the AQMP.
Therefore, the project would be consistent with the AQMP for the Monterey Bay Region. Thus, the project would not make a considerable contribution to this existing, cumulatively significant impact. Impacts would be less than significant.
Construction
MBARD CEQA Guidelines state that construction activities (e.g., excavation, grading, on-site vehicles) that emit 82 pounds per day or more of PM10 would have a significant impact on local 1 On October 1, 2015, U.S. EPA adopted a new 8-hour ozone standard of 0.070 ppm. However, U.S. EPA has not yet reviewed recent NCCAB emissions to determine attainment with the current 0.070 ppm standard. Therefore, this attainment status is based upon U.S. EPA’s prior 0.075 ppm standard.
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 9
3/22/21
air quality when they are located nearby and upwind of sensitive receptors. Based on this emissions threshold, construction activity occurring on more than 2.2 acres per day may result in significant PM10 emissions (MBARD, 2015). Because development of the project would not result construction activity occurring on more than 2.2 acres per day, impacts would be less than significant.
However, grading activities during construction could cause dust accumulation in the project area. Implementation of the following standard conditions of approval would be required to ensure potential impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level for all construction activities on the project site.
Furthermore, standard conditions of approval require that development projects reduce dust generation from project grading and construction to minimal levels, the project proponent shall require the grading contractor to implement best management practices (BMPs) for dust control, including watering down exposed earth surfaces each non-rainfall day at intervals that attenuate dust problems. Any dirt tracked on to adjacent roadways shall be removed daily in a manner that does not create substantial airborne dust. The following BMPs shall be included in the construction contract for the project and be implemented during site grading:
Excavation of the site shall be done in phases by grading only those areas where immediate activity will take place, leaving the remaining areas in their original condition with ground cover.
A water truck, using recycled water, shall be available on a repeated basis each day throughout the grading phase of the project to spray exposed earth surfaces. In addition to regular water spraying, a biodegradable chemical palliative shall be sprayed on any graded areas that will remain exposed without additional grading for three or more days in succession.
The site entrance shall be base rocked to avoid or minimize tracking mud on roadways by construction vehicles.
Roadway(s) along the project frontage shall be mechanically swept at the end of each work day when any dirt or mud has been tracked on the street. No grading activities shall occur during days of high wind velocity. Finished graded areas that are designated as open space and landscape areas of project, shall be covered with an accepted erosion control substance such as straw mulch or hydro mulch with a tackifier.
Construction staff shall monitor daily all areas that have received a chemical palliative spray or application of mulch to determine if these areas remain in a dust-free condition and take corrective action as needed to maintain a dust-free environment.
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 10
3/22/21
Operational
The project would result in new long-term operational emissions from mobile sources (burning of fossil fuels in cars); energy sources (cooling, heating, and cooking); and area sources (landscape equipment and household products). Mobile source emissions constitute most operational emissions from this type of land use development project. However, emissions associated with buildout of this type of project is not expected to exceed any applicable MBARD thresholds. No stationary sources would be constructed that would be long-term permanent sources of emissions. Therefore, the project would not generate a significant level of operational emissions and impacts would be less than significant.
Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors in the vicinity include residents and patrons of nearby commercial/office establishments, located approximately 30 feet from the property boundaries of the proposed development.
Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generates diesel exhaust which is a known toxic air containment (TAC). The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has identified diesel exhaust particulate matter as a toxic air contaminant, and assessment of toxic air contaminant cancer risks is typically based upon a 70‐year exposure period. Project grading and construction activities that would utilize diesel‐powered equipment would expose receptors to possible diesel exhaust for a very limited number of days (approximately 10 days). Because exposure to diesel exhaust would be well below the 70‐year exposure period, and given the limited and short‐term duration of activities that would use diesel equipment, construction‐ related diesel emissions are not considered significant. Furthermore, the State is implementing emission standards for different classes of on‐ and off‐road diesel vehicles and equipment that applies to off‐road diesel fleets and includes measures such as retrofits. Additionally, Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations (section 2485(c)(1)) prohibits idling of a diesel engine for more than five minutes in any location.
Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Potential exposure of sensitive receptors to diesel emissions and associated risks is considered a less‐than‐significant impact, and no mitigation measures are required.
However, standard conditions of approval require that prior to issuance of any grading permit, the Director of Public Works and the Building Official shall confirm that the grading permit and specifications stipulate that all off‐road construction vehicles/equipment shall comply with the California Air Resources Board’s In‐Use Off‐Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation.
Odors
During construction activities, temporary odors from vehicles exhaust and construction equipment engine would occur. However, construction-related odors would be short-term and would cease upon completion. Therefore, no objectionable odors are anticipated from construction activities associated with the project and there would be no impact.
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 11
3/22/21
Land uses typically producing objectionable odors include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The project does not include any uses that would be associated with objectionable odors. Odor emissions from the project would be limited to odors associated with vehicle and engine exhaust and idling cars. The project does not include any known sources of objectionable odors associated with the long-term operational use and therefore there would be no impact.
Findings
A significant air quality impact is defined as any violation of an ambient air quality standard, any substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation, or any exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. As discussed above, the MBARD thresholds of significance have not been exceeded. Therefore, there would be no significant air quality impacts and no mitigation is required in addition to the City's standard conditions of approval for construction dust control at the time of development.
Biological Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or
by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 12
3/22/21
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
X
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
X
Discussion
A Biological Assessment was prepared for the project site in May of 2019 (Biotic Resources Group, May 2019), which was based on a previous site plan consisting of six single-family homes and three duplex homes (total of 12 units) (Erba Lane Housing, Site Plan, David Zulim, Inc. dated 8-3-18). An Addendum to the Biological Assessment was prepared in May 2020 based on a revised site plan which represents the proposed project (Biotic Resources Group, May 2020).
Similarly, a Preliminary Tree Inventory & Assessment was prepared for the previous site plan in November 2017 (Kurt Fouts, November 2017). A Preliminary Arborists Report, Preliminary Tree Inventory and Assessment (the Revised Arborists Report) was prepared in March 2020 based on the revised site plan (Kurt Fouts, March 2020).
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 13
3/22/21
The analysis below is based on the findings of these assessments, as revised.
Environmental Setting
The project area is located along an unnamed creek. The USGS map (Felton quadrangle) does not identify a stream at this location; however, the field inspection documented a defined bed and bank and evidence of seasonal water flow at the site.
As shown in Figure 8: Vegetation Types (which
shows the previous site plan), two plant
communities occur on the project site. Coast live
oak riparian woodland grows along the eastern
property line and this woodland extends further
eastward along the creek corridor on the City of
Scotts Valley property. The woodland is closely
associated with the creek, with many trees rooted
on the slope and along the top-of-bank. Mature
trees of coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) dominant
the woodland, with their canopies extending
outward from top-of-bank. Figure 9: Oak Riparian
Woodland Habitat illustrates the extent of the oak
riparian woodland in relation to the revised site
plan (May 12, 2020).
According to the arborists report (Kurt Fouts,
November 2017), 14 oak trees grow on the project
site; 26 oak trees are rooted on the adjacent Cityowned property. Within the woodland, native and non-native plant species are present, including
California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), poison oak
(Toxicodendron diversilobum), curly dock (Rumex
crispus), velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), French
broom (Genista monspessulana), sword fern
(Polystichum munitum), and young willows. The riparian woodland on the City property also supports willows (Salix sp.), which grow along the wetted channel.
In general, oak woodlands provide a high value habitat type for wildlife because acorns are important forage, the natural cavities in the oaks provide nesting opportunities for some birds and mammals, and downed decaying logs and limbs add to structural complexity of a moist microclimate and invertebrate food supply. The value of the oak riparian woodland to wildlife at this site is enhanced by the presence of water in the creek, which provides seasonal water sources for wildlife. Common wildlife expected to occur in this small patch of oak woodland include scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens), acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), chestnut-backed chickadee (Poecile rufescens), bushtit
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 14
3/22/21
(Psaltriparus minimus), spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus), and western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus).
The second plant community is non-native grasses and forbs dominate the southeast portion of the Erba Lane property, abutting the existing paved area. Evidence of previous fill/base rock materials was observed, suggesting previous disturbances to this area. Plant species are typical of such areas, with wild radish (Raphanus sativa), wild oat, Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), velvet grass, black mustard (Brassica nigra.), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), filaree (Erodium botrys), and rose clover (Trifolium repens) being common. Native plant species in this area are limited to California poppy (Eshscholzia californica) and telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora).
The use by wildlife of the grassland area is expected to include common species, such as mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), California towhee (Pipilo crissalis), white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), and house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus). Western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus), and Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) are also likely to occur in the grass habitat.
Applicable Regulations
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDFW classifies and ranks the State’s natural communities to assist in the determining the level of rarity and imperilment. Vegetation types are ranked between S1 and S5. For vegetation types with ranks of S1-S3, all associations within the type are considered to be highly imperiled.
If a vegetation alliance is ranked as S4 or S5, these alliances are generally considered common enough to not be of concern; however, it does not mean that certain associations contained within them are not rare (CDFW, 2007 and 2010). The oak-willow riparian woodland (CaCode
71.060.47) is ranked S4, yet some associations are of high priority (CDFW, 2010).
City of Scotts Valley Zoning Code
Streams and Drainage Courses
The City of Scotts Valley Zoning Code contains several references to streams and drainage courses. Section 17 requires structures to be located outside a 25-foot creek setback (measured outward from the top-of-bank). This review found the top of bank to be the break in slope from the flat terrace to the creek. Most of the oak trees are rooted at or just below this top-of-bank location, with the tree canopies extending into, and in some cases beyond, this 25-foot setback.
City Zoning Code 15.06 also addresses drainage facilities, requiring disturbances to natural drainageways be kept to a minimum and existing drainage courses shall not be obstructed or obliterated without mitigating measures installed that have been approved by the building official. Grading equipment is not to disturb or cross flowing streams unless absolutely necessary and only with prior approval from the building official. The code also states no construction materials or construction byproducts shall be discarded in any drainageway or
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 15
3/22/21
riparian zone. All streams, floodplains, channels, bodies of standing water, or other riparian areas shall be identified and delineated on the development plans and vegetative removal, land disturbances, or other development activities shall be conducted at a time, and in a manner that will provide and maintain an undisturbed vegetative filter strip. The code also states if it is determined that certain development activities in or near the riparian zones would be detrimental, those activities may be prohibited.
Tree Protection
The City of Scotts Valley Zoning Ordinance Section 17.44.080 regulates the removal of protected trees. Section 17.44.080 includes tree protection regulations. Protected trees are defined as:
Any tree having a main stem or trunk at least 8 inches or greater diameter at breast height (DBH) (25 inches in circumference), located in a hillside residential zone where the slope within 20 feet of where the tree is located exceeds 20 percent; Any single-trunk oak tree with a main stem or trunk at least 8 inches DBH (25-inch circumference), or any multi-trunk oak tree with an individual trunk over 4 inches DBH (12 inch circumference);
Any street tree (defined as any tree within five feet of a public or private street or right of way), regardless of size;
Any single-trunk tree with a 13-inch or greater DBH (40-inch circumference); Any multi-trunk tree with any trunk greater than or equal to 8-inch DBH (25-inch circumference);
Any tree, regardless of size, required to be planted or preserved as part of a permit approved by the Planning Department, Planning Commission or City Council, or required as a replacement tree for a removed tree; or
Any Heritage Tree, defined as a tree identified, because of unique quality and/or size, as among the most significant and noteworthy in the city and formally designated by the City Council.
Per SVMC Section 17.44.080(E)(4), tree removal request shall be included as part of the development application, including an arborist's report, and shall be approved by the planning commission or city council. The development review process shall seek to preserve healthy trees, trees that contribute to the overall aesthetic quality of an area, and to preserve significantly sized trees that are important to the overall landscape of an area.
Sensitive Natural Communities
A biological survey of the project site was conducted in May 2019 to determine the presence of special status plant and animal species. No special status plant species were observed and none are expected. The only special status wildlife species that may occur within or immediately adjacent to the project work area is the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat.
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 16
3/22/21
The project was evaluated as to potential direct and indirect impacts to sensitive biological resources. Examples of direct impacts are the removal of oak trees for construction of housing and associated lot development, and pathway construction in the riparian corridor. Examples of indirect impacts include potential disturbance to the oak riparian woodland and wildlife utilization of these areas from increased human uses on the property (e.g., residential uses, landscaping, lighting, pathway uses).
Based on the revised site plan dated May 12, 2020, the revised grading plan preserves most of the oak riparian woodland on the project site. The footprint of the residential buildings are located outside of the dripline of the oak riparian woodland and 25 feet from the “top of bank” of the 100-year storm flood boundary. Two Coast live oaks (T39 and T40), which are located outside of the oak riparian woodland on the southeast corner of Lot 7, would be removed, as discussed below. Additionally, some limited grading would occur within the dripline of oak trees that are to be retained. Some trees would require targeted clearance pruning for grading equipment and hand grading may be required near them to minimize impacts. Two additional protected oaks near lot 6 (T35 and T38) may not be retained.
To reduce construction and post-construction-period impacts to the riparian woodland, the Biological Assessment, as revised, the following mitigation measures would reduce impacts to the oak riparian woodland to a less than significant level.
MM BIO-1: Oak Riparian Woodland -Project Construction
Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City compliance with the following:
1.1 The outer edge of the riparian setback area should be demarcated by the placement of six-foot high plastic construction fencing (during the construction period) and a permanent six-foot high fence (after construction). The fence should have an opening to allow access to the existing pathway that crosses the intermittent drainage channel.
Fencing should be placed along the outside edge of the dripline of the tree or grove of trees. The construction fencing should be maintained in a functional manner throughout the site construction period and should be inspected periodically by the contractor and City of Scotts Valley personnel for damage and proper functioning. No equipment staging, vehicle parking or other activities shall occur within the protected riparian area.
1.2 To minimize sediments entering the intermittent creek, the project should implement best management practices, including:
Conduct construction activities within 20 feet of the riparian woodland during the dry season;
Incorporate measures to filter and entrap pollutants prior to their discharge into the creek or other downstream drainage features that lead to Carbonera Creek. Stabilize disturbed soils to minimize erosion and sediment input to the creek;
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 17
3/22/21
Implement erosion control measures to prevent sediment from entering the creek channel, including the use of silt fencing or fiber rolls to trap sediments; Conduct erosion control seeding of all disturbed areas as soon as practicable after disturbance following construction;
Monitor the effectiveness of the erosion control measures during the first year’s rainy season and implement remedial measures (e.g., reseeding, repair of silt fencing) if sedimentation or erosion is noted.
1.3 Occurrences of invasive, non-native plant species (i.e., French broom, bull thistle) should be removed from the riparian woodland prior to project completion.
MM BIO-2: Oak Riparian Woodland Post-Construction
Prior to issuance of the building permit, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City compliance with the following:
2.1 All lighting features shall be directed away from the oak riparian woodland, such that the woodland is not illuminated. Homeowners/tenants shall not be allowed to install night lighting that illuminates the riparian woodland.
2.2 Future landowners/tenants should not utilize invasive, non-native plant species for landscaping. Plant species that should not be used on the property include all plants recognized as exotic pest plants by Cal-IPC (see Exotic Pest Plants of Greatest Ecological Concern in California, www.cal-ipc.org). This list includes: all brooms (i.e., French broom, Spanish broom and Scotch broom), periwinkle (Vinca sp.), Cape (or German) ivy, English ivy, Algerian ivy, acacia (all kinds), eucalyptus (all kinds), all pines, cotoneaster, and pyracantha. If evidence of the fungus responsible for Sudden Oak Death (Phytophthora sp.) is detected on the property, the homeowners should implement measures to prevent/control the spread of this fungus both on and off-site. The homeowners should be responsible for implementing the most current disease-preventing measures for the use, storage and/or transporting of oak firewood as a means of minimizing the spread of the disease within the City, the County and the State of California. Preventative and treatment measures should also be implemented as recommended. Current information on this disease and recommended treatments is available through the California Oak Mortality Task Force, University of California Cooperative Extension, Sudden Oak Death website (http://cemarin.ucdavis.edu).
State and Federal Regulated Waterways and Federal Wetlands Development of the project would occur adjacent to regulated waterway. The project is located near California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) and Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (RWQCD) regulatory jurisdiction, however, proposed residential development is located outside of the oak riparian woodland dripline. As shown in Figure 9: Oak Riparian Woodland Habitat, construction would not require the removal of vegetation in the streambank, nor on
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 18
3/22/21
the top of the bank of the dry creek, within regulated areas by the CDFW and RWQCD.
Therefore, there would be no impact associated with regulated waterways.
Special Status Species, Wildlife Corridors, and Nursery Sites The only special status wildlife species that may occur within or immediately adjacent to the project site is the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat. The woodrats may be present in aboveground stick nests. Additionally, nesting birds may occur in or adjacent to the project work area.
No other special status wildlife species occur within the project area.
Because most nesting birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the project would implement the mitigation measure listed below to avoid potential impacts if any active bird nests are present during vegetation removal. The mitigation measure below would also reduce potential impacts to the woodrats and nesting birds. While none were identified during the May 2019 survey, the project site is suitable habitat for the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat. Therefore, implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce impacts associated with special status species and nursery sites to a less than significant level.
MM BIO-4: Protection of Sensitive Animal Species
Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City the following:
1. The landowner shall hire a qualified biologist to search for San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests. If any are found and impacts to the nests cannot be avoided, the applicant shall seek written approval from CDFW to implement a trapping and relocation program. Wood rat nests shall not be disturbed without prior written approval from CDFW.
2. If construction is scheduled to begin between March 1 and August 15 of any given year, the landowner shall hire a qualified biologist to conduct a search for active bird nests in the vicinity of the work site (following CDFW survey protocols). If active bird nests are observed, the work shall be postponed until the biologist determines that all chicks have fledge the nest(s).
Conflict with Local Polices, HCP or NCCP, or Other Conservation Plan As shown in Figure 6: Grading Plan, which reflects the revised site plan dated 5/12/2020, the revised Grading Plan preserves most of the oak riparian woodland on the property. The footprint of the buildings are located outside of the dripline of the oak riparian woodland and all but two oak trees (T39 and T40, located on the southeast corner of Lot 7) would be retained.
Some grading would occur within the dripline of oak trees that are to be retained. The Revised Arborists Report analyzed the revised grading plan relative to trees and found that up to six trees may be affected by the project. Some trees would still require targeted clearance pruning for grading equipment (T29 and T30) and hand grading may be required near them. Impacts to
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 19
3/22/21
two trees (T35 and T38), adjacent to Lot 6 may be greater, and would likely need to be removed. The Revised Arborists Report also indicated that the future growing conditions for most of the oaks would slightly improve, as more soil would be retained allowing for a larger rooting area.
The Revised Arborists Report recommended tree replacement to compensate for the removal and limbing of the identified trees at a 2:1 tree replacement using 15-gallon or 24-inch box size trees and identifies an open area east of Lot 7 be used for the tree replacement plantings. This recommendation is consistent with City regulations, as described above.
Standard conditions of project approval require the project applicant to implement all measures contained within the Revised Arborists Report for the protection of existing trees to remain, including but not limited to the required procedures and sequence, required tree replacement, tree preservation and protection, and appraised value of preserved trees in the report.
A habitat survey report for the endangered Mount Hermon June Beetle and Zayante Band Wing grasshopper was prepared by Entomological Consulting Services, Ltd., dated July 14, 2005. Due to the absence of indigenous sand parkland vegetation and sunlight, barren Zayante sandy soils, and habitat conditions, the report concluded that the project site was not suitable for the Zayante Band Wing grasshopper. Similarly, due to the absence of Ponderosa pines and Zayante sands, habitat conditions are not suitable for the Mount Hermon June Beetle.
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or applicable HCP’s and there would be no impact.
Findings
The project would comply with the City’s standard conditions of approval wherein protected tree removals are compensated at a minimum of 2:1 ratio. Additionally, through implementation of MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2, impacts associated with vegetation, wildlife, riparian woodland, and other biological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 20
3/22/21
Cultural Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical
resource pursuant to in § 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to
§ 15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries?
X
Discussion
Cultural Resources
The Scotts Valley 1994 General Plan, Figure OS-2 ("Archeological Sensitivity Zones"), indicates that the project site is located within areas of moderate and high archaeological sensitivity.
An Extended Phase I Archeological Assessment (Albion Environmental, Inc., March 2020) was prepared for the project site in 2020 (Albion Environmental, Inc., March 2020). After reviewing the record search results, Albion conducted an intensive pedestrian survey and limited trenching and auguring of the project area. Visual inspection surface and small-scale subsurface excavations revealed no evidence of intact prehistoric or historic-era archaeological deposits.
However, due to the proximity of archeological site SCR-177/H, it was recommended that archeological and Native American monitoring occur during all ground-disturbing activities.
Standard conditions of approval for development require that the project applicant and construction contractor ensure that any cultural resource, including archaeological, paleontological, or human remains are not destroyed if discovered during project grading or other subsurface work.
As part of the standard conditions of approval, the project applicant shall submit a copy of a contract with a qualified/registered archaeologist to conduct monitoring of all earth disturbing activities for review and approval by the Community Development Director, before grading
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 21
3/22/21
permit issuance. The project applicant shall include this requirement in the contract for all contractors involved with grading and subsurface work. The qualified/registered archaeologist shall monitor all earthwork activity as described below:
1. An archaeologist shall monitor the grading or excavation of soils at the development site in order to determine if important cultural remains are present. Such monitoring shall begin before and occur during subsurface earth moving activities;
2. The duration and period of archaeological monitoring of project development activities shall be at the discretion of the professional archaeologist. At a minimum, however, any activity that initially displaces or removes original soil from its present context shall be monitored by an archaeologist on a continuous basis;
3. Monitoring activities such as replacing soils in trenches, redistributing displaced soil elsewhere on the development site, or removing stockpiled excavated soil may not require monitoring;
4. Monitoring may include the periodic sampling and screening of soils in order to better determine if cultural remains are present; and,
5. If any cultural resources are discovered, the project contractor shall immediately stop all earth disturbing work within a 150-foot radius of the discovery to allow for inspection, evaluation, and potential recovery of resources by the supervising project archaeologist, before resuming any earth-disturbing construction activities. The project applicant shall also contact the Planning Department and Building Official as soon as work has been stopped. It may be necessary to resume grading or excavation activities under the direction of the supervising archaeologist in order to locate or expose cultural remains.
Standard conditions of approval require that the project applicant and construction contractor ensure that paleontological resources are not destroyed during project grading by implementing following measures:
1) Provide the project paleontologist with a copy of the final grading plans for review prior to any project grading;
2) Provide for daily monitoring during grading activities by the project paleontologist to determine if paleontological resources are encountered in excavated areas; 3) Allow for the recovery of any discovered paleontological resources according to a recovery plan/methods specified by the project paleontologist, including the donation of the recovered resources to a suitable repository (museum, school, etc.); 4) If recovery occurs, ensure that the project paleontologist prepare a recovery report that details the type of resources recovered and the repository locations where they were taken; and,
5) Specify in the construction contract with the project grading contractor(s), that grading personnel are to cooperate with and assist the project paleontologist during monitoring and any recovery activities, including assisting with recovery efforts if necessary.
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 22
3/22/21
Human Remains
No known human remains are located on the project site. Pursuant to section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, if human remains are discovered, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the discovery site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the project applicant has complied with the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e).
Findings
As discussed above, due to the proximity of archeological site SCR-177/H, archeological and Native American monitoring during all ground-disturbing activities would be required as a standard condition of approval, which would reduce any potential impacts associated with cultural resources to a less than significant level.
Energy
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or
operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
X
Discussion
Energy consumption associated with construction of the project would be temporary and shortterm. Project design and operation would comply with State Building Energy Efficiency Standards, appliance efficiency regulations, and green building standards. Additionally, the project includes other design features including efficient low-energy lighting, and natural ventilation systems.
The project would also be required to be built according to City and State energy efficiency standards. The project would be required to comply with existing regulations, including
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 23
3/22/21
applicable measures from the City’s General Plan. Vehicle trips and energy consumption would be less carbon intensive as compared to historic levels due to statewide compliance with future low carbon fuel standard amendments and increasingly stringent Renewable Portfolio Standards).
Findings
The project would comply with existing State energy standards and would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. There would be no impact to energy.
Geology and Soils
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
X
i) Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued
by the State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence
of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
X
ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking?
X
iii) Seismic-related ground
failure, including liquefaction?
X
iv) Landslides? X
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 24
3/22/21
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
X
Discussion
Earthquake Faults, Landslides, and Seismic Ground Shaking Project construction would subject the buildings and their inhabitants to periodic seismic shaking associated with the San Andreas Fault and other active faults within the Monterey Bay area. As part of any future Planned Development application submitted to the City of Scotts Valley, the project applicant would be required to submit plans that are in compliance with the latest California Building Code (CBC) standards consistent with Title 15 – Buildings and Construction of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code.
Prior to approval of any entitlements, City staff is required to review project plans and verify that the CBC Seismic requirements are printed on the plans. Building Division staff shall verify
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 25
3/22/21
that CBC standards are met prior to issuance of Building Permits. Building inspectors shall conduct site inspections to assure that construction occurs consistent with approved plans.
The Scotts Valley 1994 General Plan, Figure S-3 ("Liquefaction Potential") indicates that the project site is not in an area for liquefaction. Figure S-4 ("Landslide Deposits") indicates that the site is in an area containing landslide deposits. Figure S-5 ("Slopes"), indicate that the project site is not located within any mapped geological hazard areas. Per the earthquake hazard zones defined by the Alquist-Priolo map, the risk of earthquake-induced ground rupture occurring across the project site is moderately low.
A geotechnical investigation was prepared by Haro, Kasunich and Associates, Inc. (Haro, Kasunich & Associates, November 2005) determined that given the project site is generally level, the potential for seismically induced landslides are low. As a standard condition of approval, an updated geotechnical report would be required for review and approval by the City prior to issuance of a building permit.
Because compliance with Title 15 – Buildings and Construction of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code is required for all future project, potential impacts associated with earthquake-related ground rupture would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Soil Erosion
The project would involve the removal of landscape vegetation and grading activities associated with the construction of buildings, infrastructure, and roads. Grading would largely be limited to the project site, which would limit the amount of exposed soil area that would be subject to erosion. Measures to control erosion would be incorporated into the construction specifications pursuant to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements for construction. In addition, to comply with the NPDES requirements for construction, projects involving construction on sites that are one acre or more are required to prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that specifies how the discharger would protect water quality during construction activities. Compliance with the erosion control ordinances and acquisition of the NPDES General Permit for construction activities would ensure that soil erosion impacts associated with development pursuant to the project would be less than significant.
Sewage Disposal
The project would involve disposal of wastewater through the City’s existing sanitary sewer system, and there would be no septic systems constructed as part of the project. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Unique Geological Features and Paleontological Resources There are no known paleontological resources on the project site. However, development of the project could result in the discovery and disturbance of previously unknown or undiscovered paleontological resources. Should evidence of paleontological resources be
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 26
3/22/21
encountered during grading and construction, adherence to City, State, and Federal historic preservation laws, regulations, and codes related to archaeological and paleontological resources would ensure the adequate protection of historic and pre-historic resources. With implementation of existing regulations, the impact would be less than significant.
Findings
Compliance with Title 15 – Buildings and Construction of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code and NPDES requirements would reduce any potential impacts associated with geological and soil resources to a less than significant impact. Therefore, no mitigation is required.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
X
Discussion
Construction
Construction of the project would result in direct emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4 from the operation of construction equipment and the transport of materials. MBARD does not have a threshold for construction GHG emissions, which would be one-time, short-term emissions and therefore would not significantly contribute to long-term cumulative GHG emissions impacts of the project. In the absence of quantitative significance thresholds in CEQA guidance, this analysis turns to other programs. For example, the CARB Mandatory Reporting program requirements are triggered for sources of GHG emissions exceeding 2,500 MTCO₂e) per year.
AB 32 requires California agencies to take actions that reduce GHG emissions by 2020 to the levels of 1990, and then substantially further reduce emissions by 2050. Most individual projects do not generate sufficient GHGs to create a project-specific impact to significantly influence climate change; therefore this impact typically involves an analysis to determine if a
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 27
3/22/21
project’s GHG emissions are cumulatively considerable (significant cumulative impact). Once construction is complete, the generation of construction-related GHG emissions would cease.
The project is not expected to exceed the CARB Mandatory Reporting applicability level of 2,500 MTCO2e per year. As a result, the short‐term emission of GHG during construction would be less than significant
Operational
Operational or long-term emissions would occur over the project’s life. GHG emissions would result from direct emissions such as project generated vehicular traffic, on-site combustion of natural gas, and operation of any landscaping equipment. Operational GHG emissions would also result from indirect sources, such as off-site generation of electrical power over the life of the project, the energy required to convey water to, and wastewater from the project site, the emissions associated with solid waste generated from the project site, and any fugitive refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators. The project would meet CalGreen and CBC standards for energy efficiency standards including passive solar design and natural ventilation and natural lighting.
Additionally, the project includes water-efficient landscape, water-reducing features, and lowimpact development practices to reduce water use. The project is an example of “smart growth” strategies based on infill, density, and unit types. Energy use of the completed residential units would be less than similar units constructed in previous years because their construction is required to comply with the energy efficiency standards of the California Building Code. All these factors result in a project that would not significantly contribute to a cumulative GHG impact. Thus, impacts would be considered less than significant.
Findings
While some GHGs would be generated as a result of development of the project, its contribution to GHGs would not be cumulatively considerable and there would not be any significant impacts associated with GHGs. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
X
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 28
3/22/21
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on
a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 29
3/22/21
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
X
Discussion
Hazardous Substances
Regarding on-site hazards, the project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No records of the project site were found pertaining to open cases of LUSTs, toxic releases, or site cleanup requirements. The project site is located adjacent to a known hazardous materials site at 7 Erba Lane (southwest of the project site) due to diesel contamination2. Given the distance from the project site and the propensity for diesel to migrate downward and not laterally in sandy soils, impacts from the known hazardous site to the subject parcel and the proposed use are unlikely.
It is likely that oils, lubricants, and similar materials may be used to maintain and/or fuel construction vehicles and machinery during the construction phase of the project. Standard conditions of approval require the project applicant to have the construction contractor implement a best management practice/hazardous materials containment plan during the entire time construction activities are occurring. The hazardous materials containment plan shall contain the following elements:
Stationary equipment such as motors, pumps, welding equipment shall be placed over drip pans or other containment apparatus.
Construction materials shall not be stockpiled or stored where they could be accidently discharged downslope or in to Scotts Valley Drive.
Any petroleum, lubricants or other hazardous materials used during; and, construction shall be stored in a special storage location equipped with double containment and this location shall be shown on the erosion control plan and approved by the agencies that review this plan.
2 County of Santa Cruz, Environmental Health Department. Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Service files:
Search by Address. Accessed at
https://sccdocs.santacruzcounty.us/ENV/CustomSearch.aspx?SearchName=AllPrograms&repo=EnvironmentalHeal th. Accessed on February 9, 2021.
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 30
3/22/21
The project’s residential uses may involve use and storage of some materials that are considered hazardous, although these materials are typically limited to everyday use solvents, paints, chemicals used for cleaning and building maintenance, and landscaping supplies. These materials would not be substantially different from household chemicals and solvents already in use throughout the City. Therefore, impacts associated with hazardous substances would be considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Release of Substances Near Schools
The project is located within one-quarter mile of the Scotts Valley Unified School, approximately 700 feet south of the project site. However, project construction and operation would not involve the emission of hazardous materials, therefore impacts would be considered less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Emergency Response
General Plan Safety Element Figure S-6 “Evacuation Routes” shows Scotts Valley Drive as a primary evacuation route in the City’s Emergency Response Plan. Construction of the project would not change the function of Scotts Valley Drive as a primary evacuation route. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on emergency response.
Public Airport or Private Airstrip
The project site is not located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Wildland Fire
Refer to the Wildfire Section below for further discussion.
Findings
The project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites, nor would the residential use involve the use of hazardous materials that would require permitting by the Santa County Health Department and therefor impacts would be less than significant. The project would not impact the City’s primary evacuation routes, nor is it located within two miles of an airport, and therefore there would be no impacts. No mitigation is required.
Hydrology and Water Quality
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 31
3/22/21
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of
a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
X
i. Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site?
X
ii. Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite?
X
iii. Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
X
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? X
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 32
3/22/21
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X
Discussion
Groundwater Demand
According to the project plans, the project would use approximately 1,485 gallons per day (or two acre-feet of water per year) of water. The Scotts Valley Water District has reviewed the application and has determined that existing water resources would support the proposed development (SVWD Will Serve Letter, dated March 5, 2020). Therefore, there would be no impact.
Groundwater Recharge
The project is located in an area designated on the Scotts Valley General Plan Hydrological Resources Map, Figure OS-5, as a Potential Groundwater Recharge Area. Per the Open Space and Conservation Policy OSA-343 of the Scotts Valley General Plan, all proposed construction in a Potential Groundwater Recharge Area requires a detailed hydrological evaluation to mitigate the loss of recharge.
According to the Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan (Bowman & Williams, September 2018), the existing paved project site contains 32,280 sq. ft. of impervious surface area.
Redevelopment would reduce the amount of impervious surface area to 25.924 sq. ft. resulting in a net addition of impervious surface area by 4,345 sq. ft., resulting in an improvement to groundwater recharge as compared to existing conditions. Additionally, the project would incorporate various low impact development design strategies such as the use of permeable pavements, dispersal of runoff of pervious areas, and stormwater control measures that would assist in improving groundwater conditions. Therefore, there would be no impact and no mitigation is required.
Stormwater Runoff
The project applicant prepared a Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan (PSCP) (Bowman & Williams, 9/10/2018) to address potential impacts from stormwater runoff. The PSCP described
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 33
3/22/21
project site-specific best management practices (BMPs) to control erosion and sedimentation and maintain water quality in accordance with the current edition of the City of Scotts Valley Stormwater Technical Guide. The BMPs address the construction and maintenance of storm drain inlets, irrigation and use of pesticides, maintenance of hardscapes, and maintenance of underground stormwater facilities.
Furthermore, standard conditions of approval require the developer and construction contractor to implement best management practices to prevent sedimentation and discharge of contaminants off-site during project construction, including hazardous materials containment plan during the entire time construction activities are occurring. The hazardous materials containment plan shall contain the following elements:
Stationary equipment such as motors, pumps, welding equipment shall be placed over drip pans or other containment apparatus.
Construction materials shall not be stockpiled or stored where they could be accidently discharged downslope or in to Scotts Valley Drive.
Any petroleum, lubricants or other hazardous materials used during; and, construction shall be stored in a special storage location equipped with double containment and this location shall be shown on the erosion control plan and approved by the agencies that review this plan.
Implementation of recommendations as described in the PSCP and preparation of a SWPPP for review and approval prior to construction activities would ensure that impacts from stormwater runoff would be less than significant.
Floodplains, Seiche, Tsunami and Mudflow Related Hazards The property is not located within a floodplain. There is no possibility of a seiche or tsunami occurring that could affect the project. The project is not located on or near a lake or ocean coastline. Therefore, the project would have no impacts.
Findings
Implementation of recommendations as described in the PSCP and preparation of a SWPPP would reduce impacts on hydrology and water resources to a level of less than significant.
Therefore, no mitigation is required.
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 34
3/22/21
Land Use and Planning
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
X
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
X
Discussion
Surrounding the project site is the Scotts Valley Fire Department and single-family residential to the west, Scotts Valley City Hall, and MacDorsa Park to the north and east, and office buildings to the east between the project site and Scotts Valley Drive. The corner of Erba Lane and Scotts Valley Drive is a landscape supply company.
The project site is currently zoned Residential High Density (R-H). Additionally, the project site is designated under the City of Scotts Valley General Plan as Residential High Density (R-H), which allows for 9 to 15 residential units. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the existing zoning and General Plan land use designations.
Findings
The proposed future residential use of the site would be in keeping with surrounding land uses and the development pattern of the neighborhood. The project would have no impact and therefore no mitigation is required.
Mineral Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 35
3/22/21
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
X
Discussion
The Scotts Valley 1994 General Plan, Figure OS 4, indicates that there are no significant mineral deposits on the project site. The project is not located in an area known to contain regionally significant mineral resources and would not result in the loss of the availability of a known mineral resource of regional value. Additionally, the project site is not located in an area that has been identified by the City of Scotts Valley as a locally important mineral resource recovery site.
Findings
The project would have no impact and therefore no mitigation is required.
Noise
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary
or permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the
X
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 36
3/22/21
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
X
c) For a project located within the vicinity
of a private airstrip or an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
X
Discussion
Short Term Noise Levels
Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase of construction (e.g. land clearing, grading, excavation, paving). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels. During construction, exterior noise levels could affect the residential neighborhoods surrounding the construction site. Project construction would occur adjacent to existing single-family residences on Erba Lane. However, construction activities would occur throughout the project site and would not be concentrated at a single point near sensitive receptors.
Project construction would comply with the City’s Municipal Code Section 17.46.160, which states that all construction activity shall be limited to the hours between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9 a.m. through 5 p.m. on Saturday. No construction activity is allowed on Sunday. These permitted hours of construction are included in the code in recognition that construction activities undertaken during daytime hours are a typical part of living in an urban environment and do not cause a significant disruption. Construction would occur throughout the project site and would not be concentrated or confined in the area directly adjacent to sensory receptors. Therefore, construction noise would be acoustically dispersed throughout the project site and impacts would be less than significant.
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 37
3/22/21
Long Term Noise Levels
The Noise Contour Map for the City indicates that the project site is in an area of less than 60dBA. The Noise Element of the Scotts Valley General Plan specifies that "exterior noise levels measured at the property line of proposed new residential developments shall be limited to or below an average annual day-night level of 60 dBA" (NA-454).
Implementation of the project would create new sources of noise in the project vicinity from residential sources, mechanical equipment, and landscape maintenance. These noise sources would similar to those generated in other residential neighborhoods throughout the City. Such noise would primarily occur during the “daytime” activity hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Furthermore, the residences would be required to comply with the noise standards set forth in the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code. Per General Plan Policies LP-38, NA-457, NO-441, and NA-444 land uses which include residential uses should not be allowed in areas with excessive noise. Therefore, there would be no impact from long-term noise levels.
Exposure to Groundborne Vibrations
Because the project would not require the use of heavy construction equipment, the residences located approximately 30 feet from the project’s construction area would not be exposed to vibrations levels exceeding the FTA’s 0.20 in/sec PPV significance threshold vibrations.
Therefore, there would be no vibration impacts.
Future project residents may experience occasional groundborne vibrations from nearby traffic on Scotts Valley Drive when large trucks use the roadway. But this vibration is not expected to be frequent nor at high levels. This impact is less than significant.
Airport or Private Airstrip Noise
The project site is not located within any airport noise impact contours and not located within the vicinity of any private air strip, and therefore there would be no impact.
Findings
The project would not expose future residential uses to short-term construction nor long-term operational noise levels in excess of City standards. Noise generated during the construction phase is temporary and would be limited to Monday-Saturday daytime hours per compliance with the City’s Municipal Code Section 17.46.160. Therefore, no mitigation is required.
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 38
3/22/21
Population and Housing
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or
other infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
Discussion
The project would result in a relatively small increase in population (27 persons 3) that is well within the land use buildout capacity projections identified within the City of Scotts Valley General Plan (1994) as well as the Association of Monterey Bay Area Government’s 2018 Regional Growth Forecast for the City of Scotts Valley population of 12,418 by 2040. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Findings
There is no potential for a significant impact due to substantial growth either directly or indirectly. Therefore, the project would have a no impact and no mitigation is required. 3 . The average household size for Scotts Valley is 2.67 persons which estimates 27 persons for a project with 10 units
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 39
3/22/21
Public Services
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in:
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection? X
ii) Police protection? X
iii) Schools? X
iv) Parks? X
v) Other public facilities? X
Discussion
Fire Services
The project is located in an existing urban area that is currently served by the Scotts Valley Fire Protection District. The closest fire station is located across the street from the project site.
Therefore, there would be no impact.
Police Services
The project would add new residents to the City who would occasionally need police services.
This type of additional service would not generate a demand beyond what the police department can accommodate. The Scotts Valley Police department is located west and adjacent to the project site at City Hall. Therefore, there would be no impact.
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 40
3/22/21
Schools
The project would add approximately 27 new residents to the City, some of whom would be students attending schools within the Scotts Valley Unified School District. These additional students would not generate a significant demand on the area school system and therefore there would be no impact.
Parks
The project would add approximately 27 new residents to the City who would occasionally utilize City parks and recreational programs; however, this additional use would not generate a demand beyond what the City Parks Department can accommodate and no new additional park facilities would be required. Additionally, as a standard condition of the approval, the project would be required to pay a parks and recreation in-lieu fee as part of their building permit.
Therefore, there would be no impact.
Other Public Facilities
The project does not have the potential to affect other public facilities, in excess of that previously considered by the General Plan. Therefore, there would be no impact Findings
The project would have no impact on public services and therefore no mitigation is required.
Recreation
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
X
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 41
3/22/21
Discussion
Scotts Valley has a total of seven parks, ranging in size from a half-acre to 7.5 acres.
Recreational facilities are also available at local schools, the Scotts Valley Senior Center, and Scotts Valley Community Center. The proposed project would not require the construction of new or expanded recreational facilities and therefore there would be no impact. Additionally, standard conditions require the developer pay an in-lieu park fee.
Finding
No significant impacts to recreation and open space resources are expected. Thus, the thresholds of significance have not been exceeded. Payment of Park Impact fees would mitigate the incremental increase created by the project.
Transportation
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards due
to a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access? X
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 42
3/22/21
Discussion
Conflict with City Policies or Programs, Increase Hazards, Impair Emergency Access The project would involve the construction of a new 24 foot-wide private roadway that would provide access to six of the residential units. The design of the roadway would be consistent with City standards and subject to design review to ensure there is adequate emergency vehicle access. The frontage along Erba Lane would be improved with a sidewalk, curb and gutter landscaped buffer, and on-street parking; consistent with City standards. Therefore, there would be no impact
Increase Vehicle Miles Travelled
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is a measure of total vehicular travel that accounts for the number of vehicle trips and the length of those trips. Because the City of Scotts Valley has not formally adopted VMT significance criteria, this CEQA analysis uses guidance per the City of Scotts Valley’s VMT Implementation Guidelines (Kimley-Horn and Associates, July 2020).
The VMT Implementation include screening criteria to avoid unnecessary analysis and findings for non-significant transportation impacts. Small projects that generate less than 110 trips per day are exempt from VMT analysis.
Project trip generation was estimated by applying the proposed type of development to the appropriate trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition (2012). The ITE estimated rate for single-family housing is
10.67 average daily trips per household (ITE Code 210). This would result in 106.7 trips per day for the project, which is less than the City’s VMT Implementation Guidelines and as such, the project is exempt from further VMT analysis.
Furthermore, because the project would not generate more than 50 peak hour trips, it is exempt from preparing a traffic impact analysis per the City’s Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (2003).
Findings
The project would not conflict with City policies or programs regarding the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The project would not cause a hazard nor impair emergency access. The project is considered a “small project” per the City VMT Implementation Guidelines and is exempt to further analysis. Therefore there would be no impacts to transportation and no mitigation is required.
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 43
3/22/21
Tribal Cultural Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources
Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the
size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and
that is:
X
i) Listed or eligible for listing in
the California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k)?
X
ii) A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural
X
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 44
3/22/21
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
resource, defined in Public Resources
Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the
size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and
that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in
the California
Discussion
Section 21080.3.1(b) of the California Public Resources Code (AB 52) requires a lead agency formally notify a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated within the geographic area of the discretionary project when formally requested.
As of this writing, no California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Santa Cruz County region have formally requested a consultation with the City of Scotts Valley (as Lead Agency under CEQA) regarding Tribal Cultural Resources. As a result, no Tribal Cultural Resources are known to occur in or near the project area.
Findings
No California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Santa Cruz County region have formally requested a consultation with the City of Scotts Valley. Therefore, no impact to the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource is anticipated and no mitigation is required.
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 45
3/22/21
Utilities and Service Systems
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental
effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition
to the provider’s existing commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State
or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
X
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 46
3/22/21
Discussion
Water Treatment Facilities
The 10 proposed residential units would result in a daily water demand of 1,485 gallons per day or approximately two-acre feet per year (AFY).4 Therefore, the proposed residential use would cause only a minimal increase on the demand for water and wastewater service. The Scotts Valley Water District has reviewed the application and has determined that existing water resources would support the proposed development. Thus, impacts are be considered less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
The Wastewater Department has reviewed the proposed development and has determined that the existing wastewater treatment facilities would support the proposed development.
The project would not generate solid waste in excess of that typically generated by 10 residential units. Thus, impacts would be considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Electric Power, Natural Gas, or Telecommunications
The project would require new connections to PG&E for electricity and natural gas. In addition, the project would require new telecommunication connections with the respective service providers. The project site is surrounded by commercial development to the south, and east and single-family residential to the west, which are serviced by various dry utility providers.
Because these utilities would be readily extended from existing infrastructure adjacent to the project site, impacts from the project would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Solid Waste
The project would generate approximately 122 pounds of daily solid waste.5 The 122 pounds of daily solid waste generated by the project would represent less than one percent of the daily permit capacities of Buena Vista and Monterey Peninsula landfills6, respectively. Therefore, both landfills have adequate capacity. Thus, impacts would be considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4 Daily Water Use Factor for High Density Residential is 55 (gallons per capita/day). (27 residents x 55 gallons/day) = 1,485 (gallons/day)
5 Daily Solid Waste Generation Rate for Residential Use is 12.23 pounds per day/unit (CalRecycle, 2019). (10 residential units x 12.23 pounds/day) = 122.3 pounds/day 6 The Buena Vista Sanitary Landfill is permitted to receive 838 tons of solid waste per day (CalRecycle, 2019). The Monterey Peninsula Landfill is permitted to receive 3,500 tons of solid waste per day.
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 47
3/22/21
Findings
Existing utilities and service systems are available to serve the project and no new facilities would be required to be constructed. Therefore, the project would have less than significant or no impacts associated to utilities and service systems, and no mitigation is required.
Wildfire
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks,
and thereby expose project occupants
to, pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance
of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities)
that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
X
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 48
3/22/21
Discussion
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has mapped the relative wildfire risk in areas of large population by intersecting residential housing density with proximate fire threat according to three risk levels, namely Moderate, High, and Very High.
Wildfires are large-scale brush and grass fires in undeveloped areas. The project is within an urbanized area and not within a Very-High Fire Hazard Severity Zone as mapped by CALFIRE.
Additionally, the project would incorporate all applicable fire safety code requirements, including fire protection devices in all residential units and appropriate fire-resistant landscaping on the project site, as required by the Scotts Valley Fire District, and therefore there would be no impact.
Findings
The project would not affect emergency response/evacuation plans, would not expose residents or structures to a wildfire risk, and would not exacerbate fire risk. Therefore, the project would have no impact to wildfires, and no mitigation is required.
Mandatory Findings of Significance
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Does the project:
a) Have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major
periods of California history or
prehistory?
X
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 49
3/22/21
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
X
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
X
Discussion
As discussed in the individual sections, the project would not degrade the quality of the environment with the implementation of identified Standard Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures. As discussed in Biological Resources, mitigation measures MM BIO-1: Oak Riparian Woodland -Project Construction and MM BIO-2: Oak Riparian Woodland -Post Construction would reduce impacts to less than significant.
As described in the environmental resource sections of this Initial Study, the project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
The project would result in temporary air quality and noise impacts during construction. With the implementation of the identified Standard Conditions of Approval, and consistency with adopted City policies, construction impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level.
As described above, these impacts would be temporary and the project would not have cumulatively considerable impacts on air quality and noise impacts in the project area.
The project would have a less than significant impact or no impact on the remaining environmental resources and would not contribute to cumulative impacts to these resources.
Therefore, the project would not cause a cumulatively considerable impact and no mitigation is required.
City of Scotts Valley Bay Village Planned Development
Initial Study | Page 50
3/22/21
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X
I find that the project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the project MAY have a potentially significant or a potentially significant unless mitigated impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the project, nothing further is required. _________________________________ _____________________________ Paula Bradley, MCP, AICP Date
Contract Planner
Not to scale
Bay Village Planned Development Project
Source: Google Earth, 2021
Figure 1: Regional Location
Not to scale
Bay Village Planned Development Project
Source: Nearmaps, 2021
Figure 2: Project Vicinity
Legend
Project Site
MacDorsa Park
Scotts Valley City Hall
Erba Lane
Scotts Valley Drive
Civic Center Drive
Scotts Valley Fire Department
Not to scale
Bay Village Planned Development Project
Figure 3: Site Plan
Source: Bowman & Williams, 2020
24'-0" 20'-0" 40'-0" 18'-0"
TYP. BACKYARD 7'+/-
30'-3" 30'-3" 5' 5' 30'-3" 30'-3"
20'-0"
6'+/-
20-0"'
SETBACK
TOP OF BANK PER CITY
DEFINITION, AND 100 YEAR
STORM FLOOD BOUNDARY
25' SETBACK FROM
TOP OF BANK
FLOW LINE
(DRY) CREEK
TYP. EXIST. TREE
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
TYPICAL 2 CAR
PARKING AREA IN
FRONT OF EACH
2 CAR GARAGE
EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT
EXIST. 12" RCP
EXISTING 24" RCP
EXIST. 36" RCP
STANDPIPE
PROPERTY LINE
EXIST. VALLEY GUTTER
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
6' FENCE
L.S.
YARD
6' FENCE
6' FENCE
6' FENCE
PORCH PORCH PORCH
PORCH PORCH PORCH PORCH
3'
6' FENCE
6' F.6' FENCE
6' F.6' FENCE
6' FENCE
6' FENCE
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
DRIVE
24'-0"
5' 5' 28'-0" 5' 5' 28'-0"
20'-0" 51'-0"
51'-0" 20'-0"
20'-0"
5'
40'-0"
22.0' 5' 5' 46'-0" 5' 5' 46'-0" 5'
7'-6"
12'-0" 12'-0" 6' 9' 6'
LANE LANE WIDE
20-0"'20-0"'
5' SIDEWALK
6' LANDSCAPE STRIP L.S. 6' LANDSCAPE STRIP 6' LANDSCAPE STRIP 6' LANDSCAPE STRIP 5' SIDEWALK
50' WIDE
ERBA LANE
RIGHT-OF-WAY
20'-0"
TYP.9'-0"
TYP.
L.S.L.S.
5' SIDEWALK
YARD YARD DECK
25'-0"
24'-0"
5'
10'
10'-0"10'-0"
32'-0"32'-0"
3 SPACES 4 SPACES 3 SPACES
L.S. L.S.
3'-6" HIGH
OPEN SPLIT RAIL FENCE (S.R.F.)
ALONG BOUNDARY OF OAK
RIPARIAN WOODLAND
N 22 52' W 399.42'
S 40 00' 57" E 326.29'
S 60 00' 00" W 55 6. 5'
S 22 52' 00" E 80.05'
N 61 39' 50" E 152.
15'
6'
10' +/-
24'-0"
YARD
YARD
YARD
8'
8'
8'
36'-6"
PORCH 6'-6"
TYPICAL 2 CAR
PARKING AREA
IN FRONT OF
EACH 2 CAR
GARAGE
LOT B
LOT A
6' F.
YARD
YARD
YARD
YARD
12'
5'
YARD
8'+/-
18'
NO PARKING
NEW 2' VALLEY CURB/GUTTER
FULL LENGTH FENCE ON
TOP OF RETAINING WALL.
6'-0" HIGH FENCE AS
MEASURED IN BACKYARD.
RETAINING WALL HEIGHT
VARIES FROM 5'-8" TO 6'-6".
EXISTING PARKING LOT ON
ADJACENT PROPERTY
EXIST. EDGE OF PAVEMENT
OAK RIPARIAN WOODLAND
PER 2019 BIOTIC REPORT
12'
B
B B
L.S.
25' SETBACK FROM
TOP OF BANK
SAMS LANE
3 / 2 / 2
1,766 SF HOME
486 SF GARAGE
3 / 2 / 2
1,766 SF HOME
486 SF GARAGE
1,784 SF HOME
519 SF GARAGE
3 / 2 / 2
1,944 SF HOME
494 SF GARAGE
3 / 2 / 2
1,944 SF HOME
494 SF GARAGE
3 / 2 / 2
2,052 SF HOME
494 SF GARAGE
TYP. GAS
& ELECT.
METERS
3 / 2 / 2
1,944 SF HOME
494 SF GARAGE
3 / 2 / 2 DESIGNATES
# BEDROOMS / # BATHROOMS / 2 CAR GARAGE
3 / 2 / 2
3 / 2 / 2
2,108 SF HOME
529 SF GARAGE
2,108 SF HOME
529 SF GARAGE
3 / 2 / 2
4 / 2 / 2
2,236 SF HOME
532 SF GARAGE
A2
X
PUBLIC ART LOCATION
ON FACE OF RETAINING WALL.
CUSTOM MURAL FROM BAY PHOTO.
APPROX. 10' WIDE x 4' HIGH.
42" HIGH GUARDRAIL (GR.)
ON TOP OF RETAINING WALL.
6' F.
6' FENCE
6' FENCE 6' FENCE 6' FENCE 6' FENCE
6' F.
1' R.W.
18'-0"
BACKYARD
6' F.
6' F.
6' F.
6' F.
6' F.
L.S.
6' FENCE
3' R.W.
6' F.
3' R.W.
6 6' FENCE
6' F.
' FENCE
42" GR.
42" HIGH GUARDRAIL FENCE.
S.R.F.
S.R.F. S.R.F.
S.R.F.
S.R.F.
6' F.
42" GR. 42" GR.
S.R.F.
42" GR. 42" GR.
13'-0"13'-0"
11'-0"
10' +/-
15'-0" +/-
22' +/-
16'-0" +/-
LOT AREAS
LOT
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 3,329
8 2,750
9 2,750
10 3,037
SITE AREA = 45,244 S.F.
= 1.04 ACRES
A
B
3,441
3,080
3,116
3,691
3,235
2,772
3,562
10,483
SQUARE FOOTAGE
LOT
COVERAGE
36%
44%
44%
42%
40%
42%
42%
35%
40%
35%
10'-0"
FENCES ON TOP OF
RETAINING WALL.
6'-0" HEIGHT FROM
RETAINED GRADE.
3'-4" +/-
4'-6" +/-
4'-4" +/-
3' F.
NO FENCE
NO
FENCE
6' FENCE
NO FENCE
4'-5"
4'-5"
6"
6"
6"
3'-8"
6"
3'
6"
3'-8"
3'-0"
6"
6"
7'-8"
5'-6"
6"
4'-8"
6"
6'-6"
6"
1'
5'-8"
6"
L.S.
2 TREES TO BE REMOVED
PER ARBORIST REPORT.
T40 - 14" OAK
T39 - 14" OAK
Not to scale
Bay Village Planned Development Project
Figure 4: Proposed Project Rendering
Source: Bowman & Williams, 2020
Not to scale
Bay Village Planned Development Project
Figure 5: Proposed Street View
Source: Bowman & Williams, 2020
Z m )> -;
0 < :::0 :r
-1 0 m - r v, ;;o < "tl 0 ► m :::o %1 Bi O � )> � � � :E ;::o O � Z
Ool> G)
.,,m:om
► < -< :l:: z m -I OJ
-< 5 0 0 -;;o "tl )> C, Gi m Z iii
:;r:OOVl
-I .,, 0 - Vl Q <'. CJ
--; ;;o < m
I C Z l:; m IJ'\ m �
;;orr,00 m u, o:,m b o-< !::2
- ::;:; 0 Ci)
vi r- ►Z 2-< :$ yi
-I - 0 ►
m z "
z n !'.D :,:i
oON► mzCZ oz!::G)
o m s m
" cl - ;::
m-z m
.,,o 0 Z � z. � n � ► � -; - z -a
0 � 0 s;: m-t::'E�
-< I :r,: --
0 m - .,...
m vi n z r--o�O
<m:Ev,
m Q m ,:;r :::ti.,, ::ti m
-< iii m 0
:r O O :!! m -o m n :::0 ;::a Vl ► m O - -I o- c, 0-
�mz
· nm z -a O V, . ;-, =<
,, :i: m
)> n
-a :i:
m
-"
rJ'1
..,
�
�
<
...
�
Q
�
=i=
Q
3 �
r:,i
�
Q
3 t"f'j
..,
0-
�
:::. r a, �
II=
- �
,
I
"' 1"
'l" t
\!\l" ;A J �
ti
.!:,
f
t I" �i "'
)- \
1i
(\'\
� �
�
\
-
.....
\I\
"'
'
t
1-l ot••"['\1 f>IZ<-f" �l' 1, IN�
rt
I�
l
I
r
r i
I
ap i .r' i I;! i I •
i I t ' l I + '
I P'�/1111/f �\
r �I
�'--u
; l +-3'!' ;i :ii I, i
I· , \ , . I 1 I : I l ! , I I ' " ' I, l ,/1 I I \ i;ill� \ , ,1 ' \
<1 !� !
� I ./
{
)
-
1 I - 11
I� -
� --1 �1
-
I !
'S'
�
I -
�-
'4'<: \S' 'Fi -
\f(,
� "'-
it_
'
�a
u;,!'
ISl "'' -
\I\, \I\ �J_ -
f_
•
�
�-.'i
� \1\1 - • .,.
�
'
� � 1
I_
I�
�
I 3,_ I \l!
I
l,
'
I;}
+
\ 'sl � .'.}.. l' 1. \ti� 3. ·1 �
'7'--\ t �-
�-
z.
z..
.<:,
t
l=
"'
'
]:µ 1
'I ffl/111 � : r: i : �d §��'rf� �I _:j 1ib\
"'
�
- �
�
�I� i
t
.-
Q: ! -i
·
·.' .. - � J;di
"' f
�
II'
:J -i ���-
o/' c>t.1 -rll flU PW<-< l., IN �
f
--\
\)
X
w
c6
(1)
M"
f,?
0 M'
5·
:::,
@
r-
-" 0
"- M'
CD
� I I\)
-"
�-
�-
�
\'I_
t
� ,,�
-
z:
.1'
i� , •1
"'
- Ii\
J.f � _ __
f
� r,;f"y I, 11,J e.
l,o t?,;; E, ,:,f f'" µ1'� r'I'
t"rj
"'I
O'
�
r
�
=
�
� I \)_
1"
.:
4 0
1\
I""
... _ .. - A "
p""'"�
t --C,r-JE- t \S\ I. i
�� i
ll' 3.. ! � y.. I -
t �:
�
I.\_
_J "
-,□
blcdll-1D
WIIWJJ mmn
l I I I I
-.1□
--�
if� '- -
�
'
f?'�f . � I ,-Jr.-
� \ 4
1��1 �f
��
Not to scale
Bay Village Planned Development Project
Figure 6: Exterior Lighting Plan
Source: Bowman & Williams, 2020
SETBACK
TOP OF BANK PER CITY
DEFINITION, AND 100 YEAR
STORM FLOOD BOUNDARY
25' SETBACK FROM
TOP OF BANK
FLOW LINE
(DRY) CREEK
TYP. EXIST. TREE
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT
EXIST. 12" RCP
EXISTING 24" RCP
EXIST. 36" RCP
STANDPIPE
PROPERTY LINE
EXIST. VALLEY GUTTER
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
6' FENCE
L.S.
YARD
6' FENCE
6' FENCE
6' FENCE
PORCH PORCH PORCH
PORCH PORCH PORCH PORCH
6' FENCE
6' F.6' FENCE
6' F.6' FENCE
6' FENCE
6' FENCE
L.S. L.S. L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
5' SIDEWALK
6' LANDSCAPE STRIP L.S. 6' LANDSCAPE STRIP 6' LANDSCAPE STRIP 6' LANDSCAPE STRIP 5' SIDEWALK
L.S.L.S.
5' SIDEWALK
YARD YARD DECK
L.S. L.S.
N 22 52' W 399.42'
S 40 00' 57" E 326.29'
S 60 00' 00" W 55 6. 5'
S 22 52' 00" E 80.05'
N 61 39' 50" E 152.15'
YARD
YARD
YARD
PORCH
LOT B
LOT A
6' F.
YARD
YARD
YARD
YARD
YARD
NO PARKING
EXISTING PARKING LOT ON
ADJACENT PROPERTY
EXIST. EDGE OF PAVEMENT
OAK RIPARIAN WOODLAND
PER 2019 BIOTIC REPORT
B
B B
L.S.
25' SETBACK FROM
TOP OF BANK
SAMS LANE
3 / 2 / 2
1,766 SF HOME
486 SF GARAGE
3 / 2 / 2
1,766 SF HOME
486 SF GARAGE
1,784 SF HOME
519 SF GARAGE
3 / 2 / 2
1,944 SF HOME
494 SF GARAGE
3 / 2 / 2
1,944 SF HOME
494 SF GARAGE
3 / 2 / 2
2,052 SF HOME
494 SF GARAGE
3 / 2 / 2
1,944 SF HOME
494 SF GARAGE
3 / 2 / 2
3 / 2 / 2
2,108 SF HOME
529 SF GARAGE
2,108 SF HOME
529 SF GARAGE
3 / 2 / 2
4 / 2 / 2
2,236 SF HOME
532 SF GARAGE
6' F.
6' FENCE
6' FENCE 6' FENCE 6' FENCE 6' FENCE
6' F.
1' R.W.
6' F.
6' F.
L.S.
6' FENCE
6' F.
6 6' FENCE
6' F.
' FENCE
42" GR.6' F.
42" GR. 42" GR.
S.R.F.
42" GR. 42" GR.
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
OPEN SPLIT RAIL FENCE (S.R.F.)
ALONG BOUNDARY OF OAK
RIPARIAN WOODLAND
6' F. 3' F. L.S.
6' F.
S.R.F.
S.R.F. S.R.F.
S.R.F.
S.R.F.
8'-0" NOMINAL
6'-8" AT SIDE GARAGE DOORS
BETWEEN NEIGHBORS
FLOOR
WALL
EXTERIOR
GRADE
L.S. =
F. =
R.W. =
S.R.F. =
GR. =
LANDSCAPE.
FENCE. HEIGHT AS NOTED.
RETAINING WALL. SHOWN AS
SPLIT RAIL FENCE.
42" HIGH GUARDRAIL FENCE
ON TOP OF RETAINING WALL.
Not to scale
Bay Village Planned Development Project
Figure 7: Grading Plan
Source: Bowman & Williams, 2020 --/C
I
I
I
I
I_
I
I
•
-
/
I
LO A
'1.71
to
\
57'
�-
:;;
in
in
LEGEND
I
I
-. .
. .
. .........
D
----
-580--
--580--
INDICATES PERMEABLE PAVER ROAD SURFACE
INDICATES CONCRETE DRIVEWAYS, SIDEWALKS
AND WALKWAYS
INDICATES ASPHALT CONCRETE ROAD SURFACE
INDICATES RETAINING WALL
INDICATES PROPERTY LINE
INDICATES PROPOSED CONTOUR
INDICATES EXISTING CONTOUR
X INDICATES EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED
ABBREVIATIONS
•
BW
EG
EL
FF
FW
GS
HT
TW
INDICATES BACK OF WALL ELEVATION
INDICATES EXISTING GRADE ELEVATION
INDICATES ELEVATION
INDICATES FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION
INDICATES FACE OF WALL ELEVATION
INDICATES GARAGE SLAB ELEVATION
INDICATES HEIGHT OF WALL
INDICATES TOP OF WALL ELEVATION
EARTHWORK QUANTITIES
SITE
IMPORT
CUT (CUBIC YARDS)
1,155
FILL (CUBIC YARDS)
1,870 \
\
� • s:
57 574.41
. 0.
� • "
715*
*NOTE IMPORTED FILL QUANTITY DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR
MATERIAL SHRINKAGE DUE TO RE-COMPACTION. QUANTITIES
SHOWN ARE BASED ON COMPARISON OF MODELED EXISTING
GRADES AND FINISH GRADES ONLY.
570.05 567.2B
1 567.01
-------~
Not to scale
Bay Village Planned Development Project
Figure 8: Vegetation Types
Source: Biotic Resources Group, 2019
*Note: Previous site
plan shown below*
Not to scale
Bay Village Planned Development Project
Figure 9: Oak Riparian Woodland Habitat
Source: David B. Zulim Inc., 2019
Agenda Item No. 2
6/12/2025 PC Mtg.
City of Scotts Valley
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
Date: June 12, 2025
Applicant/
Property Owner: City Ventures/SV Housing LLC
Applications: Land Division LD24-002, Design Review DR24-004, SB330 Application, Environmental Assessment EA24-003,
Environmental Review MND24-002, Cultural Resources Alteration Application CRA24-002
Location: Erba Lane (no situs) / APNs 22-481-18 and -22 General Plan / Zoning: High Density Residential / R-H, Residential High Density Environmental Status: Addendum to “Bay Village Planned Development” Mitigated Negative Declaration
Request: Consideration of a Land Division, Design Review, SB330 Application, Environmental Review and Cultural Resources Alteration Application for the Ridgewood West development which includes demolition of an existing surface parking lot and construction of 19 townhome-style condominium units on a 1.04- acre project site (APNs 022-481-18, & -22) in the Residential High Density (R-H) Zoning District
Staff Planner: Susie Pineda, Contract Planner, (408) 331-7987 spineda@mgroup.us
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed project based on findings and conditions contained in the attached Resolution and Exhibit A (Attachment 1).
Planning Commission
June 12, 2025
BACKGROUND
In 2006 and 2015 General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes from Public/Quasi Public (PQ/P) to High Density Residential (HD-R) were approved for the two City-owned parcels.
The purpose of the General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes were to encourage the redesignation of non-residential parcels for residential use to meet housing needs and at higher densities along transportation corridors to encourage residential development. The subject site is adjacent to High Density Residential zoning and land uses and is situated near a public park.
In 2021, the City Council approved applications for the “Bay Village Planned Development,” at this site to accommodate six detached single-family dwellings and two attached, duet/ duplexes. On June 21, 2023, the property owner received approval for a two-year time extension, and since then a new applicant is pursuing the project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Location and Surrounding Neighborhood
The 1.04 acre project site consists of two existing vacant parcels that are partially paved and used for parking. The site gently slopes to the southeast towards Scotts Valley Drive where a new private access road will be located and where most of the site grading and infrastructure will occur.
Existing land uses on adjacent parcels include MacDorsa Park and the Scotts Valley City Hall to the west, an electronics company, office building and large parking lot to the south, a fire station and residential townhomes to the east, and Ridgecrest Lane and undeveloped land to the north. In addition, an existing oak riparian woodland habitat borders the eastern boundary of the project site (Attachment 2).
Project Summary
The proposed Project includes two parcels that will be subdivided to create 19 new condominium units. The new units range in size from 1,400 – 1,500 sf and would be located within three-story, townhome-style, condominium units housed in four separate buildings.
Each unit ranges in size between 1,400-1,500 sf and has three bedrooms and a two-car garage. The project also includes eight guest parking spaces, common open space and landscaping (Attachment 3, Sheet SP 1.1).
General Plan and Zoning Consistency
The Project has a current General Plan designation of Residential High Density and is zoned Residential High Density (R-H) which has a maximum allowed base density of 15 dwelling units per acre. With a project site of 1.04 acres,16 units are allowed. Per State Density Bonus Law, the Project Applicant is requesting a 23% density bonus to construct three additional deed restricted for sale units comprised of two (2) Low-Income and one (1) Moderate-Income units for a total of 19 units (Attachment 4, Applicant State Density Bonus Law Request).
Planning Commission
June 12, 2025
The project is also subject to the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance and the City Council will be reviewing the proposal for conformance with City regulations.
PROPOSED ENTITLEMENTS
The project requires the following planning permits:
1. Minor Land Division
2. State Bonus Density Law (SB330)
3. Design Review
4. Environmental Review
DISCUSSION
Design Review/State Density Bonus Law Waivers
The Design Review process is established to carry out the objectives of the City’s General Plan, related zoning regulations, and the Multi Unit Residential Design Guidelines. These goals, objectives and standards ensure high quality design and protect public health, safety and welfare.
While the City uses these documents to evaluate projects, the applicant is also utilizing the State Density Bonus Law (California Government Code Section 65915) which allows developers to increase the density of housing projects above the maximum allowed by local zoning, in exchange for providing affordable housing units.
Under State Density Bonus Law, an applicant can request a density bonus by agreeing to build a certain percentage of affordable housing units (for very low, low, or moderate-income residents) or by providing housing for specific groups like senior citizens, transitional foster youth, or students. In return, cities are required to grant a density bonus and potentially other incentives or concessions, such as reduced parking requirements or waivers of development standards. In addition to a density bonus, State Density Bonus Law provides three provisions that must be granted to qualifying projects:
1. One or more concession that provides cost reductions for the development. Under the law, a concession includes a reduction in site development standards and/or regulations when such regulations potentially make the project economically infeasible for the developer to build. These can include a reduction in site development standards or modification of zoning or architectural design requirements that exceed minimum building standards. The number of allowed concessions is determined on a sliding scale based on the percentage of units that will be set aside as affordable units and the household income category of those affordable units.
2. Waivers are reductions or modifications of any development standards and other regulations that would physically preclude the development of a project at the density permitted. Development standards include, but are not limited to, height limitations, setback requirements, open space requirements, or parking requirements that apply to
Planning Commission
June 12, 2025
a residential development pursuant to any ordinance, general plan element, policy, resolution, or regulation. There is no limit to the number of waivers an applicant can request through State Density Bonus Law.
3. Reductions in parking requirements based on the number of bedrooms in each unit.
The proposed project qualifies for a density bonus and all associated provisions under the State Density Bonus Law which will be discussed in further detail below.
Architecture and Site Design
The project includes nineteen new condominium units housed within four, 3-story townhomestyle buildings. The proposed building design represents contemporary traditional architecture incorporating peaked roofs, wood siding (board and batten, lap, and shingle) and stucco, with balconies, window trellises, and various other architectural details (Attachment 3, Sheets MB 1.1 and A1.1.1 - A1.1.3)
Private pedestrian circulation and amenity areas are oriented toward the preserved riparian woodland and include pockets of informal plantings. A common open space area would be constructed adjacent to the tree canopy and include picnic tables, seating, and a “no-mow” turf (Fescue) area. The existing informal trails within the woodland area would be preserved, and a new private path consisting of concrete outside of the tree canopy, and decomposed granite within the tree canopy would also be constructed (Attachment 3, Sheet SP 1.1).
In order to accommodate more units and make the project feasible, the applicant is seeking the following waivers under state density bonus law, as shown on the plan set, received May 9, 2025 and listed below:
a. SVMC Section 17.44.030(B)(2): Off street parking and loading requirements – Minimum Garage Size. The minimum size of a private garage garage size shall be 22’ x 22’ for two cars. The project is pursuing a waiver for undersized private garages. b. SVMC Section 17.10.040(E): Development Standards – Building Height. No structure shall exceed 35’ in height in the R-H districts. The project is pursuing a waiver for a maximum building height of approximately 43’ to allow a third floor, to maximize vertical space and increase the number of units without expanding the project footprint.
c. SVMC Section 17.10.040(C)(1): Development Standards – Front Yard. The minimum front yard shall be twenty feet. The project is pursuing a waiver for a reduced front yard to maximize the buildable area outside of the riparian area. d. SVMC Section 17.44.030(J)(2): Off Street Parking and Loading Requirements – Standards for Residential Parking Facilities. Driveways and parking spaces in any residential zone district shall not proportionately occupy more than three hundred square feet per each ten feet of required setback. The project is pursuing a waiver to provide more space for parking while prioritizing space for housing.
Planning Commission
June 12, 2025
e. Scotts Valley Multi-Unit Residential Design Standards, Part 2, Section IV.B.2 – Upper Story Setbacks. A building taller than 35 feet shall provide a stepback at the uppermost story on façades fronting public streets, publicly-accessible open spaces and property lines adjoining existing single-family uses (a) the required stepback shall be a minimum of 6 feet in depth (b) The stepback shall be required to extend for 80 percent of the building façade length. The project is pursuing a waiver to allow for more usable space on upper floors, increasing square footage. f. Scotts Valley Multi-Unit Residential Design Standards Part 2, Section III.B.6 – Perimeter Parking Lot Landscaping. Parking areas adjacent to a street shall include a landscaped planting strip between the street and parking area at least 4 feet wide or as required in the zoning district, whichever is greater. The planting strip shall contain a row of landscaping with a minimum planting height of 36 inches, (b) Trees shall be provided within the planting strip with a maximum distance of 30 feet between each tree. The minimum planting size for trees is 15-gallon. Tree species shall reach a mature height of at least 20 feet. Planting strip tree requirements are in addition to required interior parking lot trees (c) Landscaping shall comply with intersection and driveway vision clearance requirements in Zoning Code Section 17.46.110.E. The project is pursuing a waiver to allow more space for housing. g. Scotts Valley Multi-Unit Residential Design Standards Part 2, Section III.B.4. - Number of Driveways. No more than one driveway shall serve a development site less than 100 feet wide and no more than two driveways shall serve a site 100 feet wide or more. On corner lots, this rule applies separately to each of the two street-facing sides.
The project is pursuing a waiver to allow multiple driveways on Erba Lane. h. Scotts Valley Multi-Unit Residential Design Standards Part 2, Section III.B.1.b. (3) Parking Screening. The parking area shall be screened with a wall or fence located between the parking spaces and the landscaped planting strip required by Standard B.6 (Perimeter Parking Lot Landscaping). The project is pursuing a waiver to reduce the area allocated to landscaping to allow more space for housing. i. SVMC Section 17.10.040(C)(3): Development Standards – Rear Yard Setbacks. The rear yard shall be twenty percent of the depth of the lot, not more than 25’ or less than 15’, subject to the following exceptions (a) The rear yard may be reduced to not less than fifteen feet, provided, that one side yard is not less than twenty-five feet, (b) One foot shall be added to the rear yard for each two feet in height above which the top plate line exceeds twenty feet in height. The project is pursuing a waiver to help maximize buildable space around the riparian area.
j. SVMC 17.10.040(C)(2): Development Standards – Side Setbacks. The minimum side yard for a permitted use shall be ten percent of the width of the site; provided, that a side yard of more than ten feet shall not be required and a side yard of less than five feet shall not be permitted, subject to the following exceptions: (a) On the street side of a corner lot, the side yard shall be twenty percent of the width of the site; provided, that a side yard of more than twenty feet shall not be required and a side yard of less
Planning Commission
June 12, 2025
than eight feet shall not be permitted, (b) One foot shall be added to each side yard for each two feet of height above which the top plate line exceeds twenty feet in height, (c) One foot shall be added to the interior side yard for each five feet by which a wall of a structure within twenty-five feet of the side property line exceeds forty feet in length parallel or approximately parallel to the side property line, (d) A side yard providing access to more than one dwelling shall be not less than twelve feet. The project is pursuing a waiver to help maximize buildable space around the riparian area. k. Scotts Valley Multi-Unit Residential Design Standards, Part 2, Section VI.B.1.a – Private Open Space. Each dwelling unit shall have at least 100 square feet of private open space. The project is pursuing a waiver to provide more land for residential units.
l. Scotts Valley Multi-Unit Residential Design Standards, Part 2, Section VI.B.1.b.2 – Balcony Design Standards. Balconies shall have a minimum dimension of 6 feet in depth and width and a minimum floor area of 50 square feet. The project is pursuing a waiver to provide more land for residential units.
m. Scotts Valley Multi-Unit Residential Design Standards, Part 2, Section VI.B.1.b.3 – Patio Design Standards. Patios shall have a minimum dimension of 8 feet in depth and width and a minimum floor area of 64 square feet. The project is pursuing a waiver to provide more land for residential units.
Parking and Circulation
The proposed project includes nineteen units, eight that take access from Erba Lane and the remaining eleven via a proposed new cul-de-sac that intersects Erba Lane at the southwestern half of the project site. The proposed new cul-de-sac is consistent with City standards and has adequate emergency vehicle access and the frontage along Erba Lane would be improved with sidewalk, curb and gutter, and landscaping.
Per SVMC Section 17.44.030(F) each multi family unit shall have 2 parking spaces. Each of the 19 units includes an undersized 2 car garage, which the applicant is seeking a size waiver for, and the project provides a total of 38 parking spaces. The 8 units fronting on Erba Lane have driveway aprons that could allow parking for 2 additional vehicles. There is limited off street parking in the area immediately adjacent to the property.
In terms of guest parking, the zoning code requires that each multi family unit shall have 1 space per every 5 units. The project requires 4 guest parking spaces and exceeds that requirement, providing a total of 8 guest parking spaces including one ADA space. Three (3) of the guest spaces are located at the end of the proposed cul-de-sac and the remaining 5 spaces are accessible from Erba Lane (Attachment 3, Sheet SP 1.1). As a point of clarification, there is an error on the Project Overview Sheet, (Attachment 3 Sheet PO1) which states that the project includes a total of 10 guest parking spaces, while it only provides
8.
Planning Commission
June 12, 2025
Trees and Landscaping
The project site includes a total of forty-one trees, forty of which are classified as ordinancesized trees under the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance and would remain, as shown in the Conceptual Landscape Plan (Attachment 3, Sheet L1.1), Per SVMC 17.20.040, 10% of the site shall be landscaped. The proposed project includes 7,768 sf of landscaping, approximately 17% and would be owned and maintained by the homeowners association (HOA). A total of 37 trees would be planted and include a variety of species including Crape myrtle, Strawberry tree, Water gum, and Chinese Elm. Additional landscaping would include a variety of large evergreen shrubs, smaller accent shrubs and groundcover.
Riparian Woodland Protection
To protect the riparian woodland habitat, all structures (excluding decks) and impervious surfaces would be located outside of the riparian drip line (i.e., outside the tree canopy), as shown in Attachment 3, Sheet C2.1, and conform to the requirements outlined in the Biological Assessment prepared by Biotic Resources Group and peer reviewed by Monk & Associates. A concrete path is proposed adjacent to the drip line. Within the drip line, a decomposed granite path is proposed which will replace existing asphalt and provide a pervious surface that will minimize impact to the riparian tree root zone. The project also includes a mitigation measure that requires the applicant to conduct a search for active bird nests in the vicinity of the work should construction occur during the nesting season.
Park Access
Currently MacDorsa Park is accessible from Erba Lane through the project site and from the office building parking lot across the creek/drainage area. There are natural paths and an existing access leading towards the Police Department. A public access easement for pedestrians is shown on the Vesting Tentative Map, Attachment 3, Sheet CO.2. There is no plan in place to provide access at this time; the easement will allow for access at a future date and will require additional review and approval by the City at that time.
Cultural Resources
The project site is located in an area designated with moderate and high sensitivity for cultural resources. An Extended Phase I Archaeological Assessment was completed in March 2020 for the Bay Village project and concluded that there were no intact prehistoric or historic era archaeological deposits. Albion conducted an intensive pedestrian survey and limited trenching and auguring of the project area. In May 2021, the Cultural Resources Preservation Commission approved the Cultural Resources Alteration Application (CRA20- 001) recommending site monitoring during construction and standard conditions of approval.
An additional updated assessment was prepared dated January 7, 2025, and confirmed there were no intact prehistoric or historic era archaeological deposits on site and that standard conditions of approval for archaeological and paleontological resources will ensure there will be no potential impacts. The report concluded that there were no changes to the original assessment, therefore, no further action is required.
Planning Commission
June 12, 2025
Public art
Per Scotts Valley General Plan Policy LU-1.7, Public Art, consistent with the small-town valley concept or adopted design guidelines, should be incorporated into commercial and residential projects where feasible.
Since the project site slopes to the southeast, a 4’ tall retaining wall is required at the southern property line in order to create level building pads (Attachment 3, Sheet L1.2). To satisfy the public art requirement, the applicant intends to hire a local artist to design and install an approximately ten feet wide by four feet high tile mosaic on the wall. While the design has not been finalized, a condition of approval has been added to the project that would allow the final design to be approved by the Community Development Director.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared and adopted for the “Bay Village Planned Development” project on June 16, 2021. At that time, project related environmental impacts were identified and mitigation measures included to reduce the potential impacts to less than significant. With the implementation of two biological mitigation measures there will be no impacts to vegetation, wildlife or riparian woodland or any other biological resources.
The project would not degrade the quality of the environment or contribute to cumulative impacts to environmental resources. The MND was circulated for 30 days as required, from March 30, 2021 through April 30, 2021.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum to a Negative Declaration was prepared for this project and it has been determined that the proposed Project would not create any new or substantially more severe significant effects on the environment that were not previously analyzed in the Bay Village Planned Development Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting Initial Study (Attachment 5). The environmental analysis in the Addendum concludes that none of the conditions that had been analyzed in the Bay Village Project would change with adoption of the proposed Project.
Furthermore, no new information of substantial importance meeting the criteria listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 has been identified in the environmental analysis.
PUBLIC NOTICE & COMMENT
A public notice was posted on site and mailed to surrounding property owners within 300 feet pursuant to State law. As of the date of this staff report no public comments have been received on the proposed development.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The City has received a request from the applicant to revise the site plan that was discussed in this staff report. The alternative design was presented to City staff during the first week of June (Attachment 6). Given the limited time for analysis, it has not been formally reviewed by City Departments/Agencies, and it does not amend the proposed project but has only been
Planning Commission
June 12, 2025
attached for your consideration, as an informational item.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 1807 with Conditions of Approval
2. Location Map
3. Project Plans, received 05.09.2025
4. Applicant State Density Bonus Law Request
5. Draft Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum and Attached Reports
6. Additional Information
In addition to the too high unit density. I have concerns about how the development will affect the existing space.
1. what will happen to the creek that runs along the side of MacDorsa park?
1. This creek feeds directly into the San Lorenzo watershed during the winter and provides a forested area for the local wildlife.
2. Will there be a study to determine how the Mount Hermon June Beetle will be affected?
2. What will happen to access to MacDorsa park?
1. Currently there are multiple well established access routes to the park from Erba lane.
2. There is a footbridge to access the park at the northern end of the park, as well as a path at the southern end of the park that starts in the parking lot across from the fire station.
3. What is the plan for providing parking for 19 units? As these units are directly across from the fire station, ensuring that there are not going to be cars blocking the road / causing access issues to emergency services is critical.
1. We all know that families will have more than 1 car.
2. We also all know that its doubtful everyone will park their cars in their garage or have their guests park in their garage.
Thank you for reading my concerns.
I hope that we see a more sensible version of the development approved. -Eric Brune
Jun 11, 2025
City of Scotts Valley
1 Civic Center Drive
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
Re: Proposed Housing Development Project “Ridgewood West” By email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Dear Scotts Valley Planning Commission,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by all relevant state laws when evaluating the proposed 19-unit housing development project “Ridgewood West” at APNs 022-481-18, & -22, which includes two low-income units and one moderate-income unit. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”) and California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) guidelines.
The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding specific, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d), (j).) The HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would render the project infeasible (id. at subd. (d)) or reduce the project’s density (id. at subd. (j)) unless, again, such written findings are made. As a development with at least two-thirds of its area devoted to residential uses, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with local zoning code and the City’s general plan. Increased density, concessions, and waivers that a project is entitled to under the DBL (Gov. Code, § 65915) do not render the project noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan, for purposes of the HAA (Gov.
Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(3)). The HAA’s protections therefore apply, and the City may not reject the project except based on health and safety impacts that exceed written standards, as outlined above. Furthermore, if the City rejects the project or impairs its feasibility, it must conduct “a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.” (Id. at subd. (b).)
2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
www.calhdf.org
The site was also identified as a pipeline project in the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element, which included 20 total units planned for the site including 1 lower-income unit. Because it was included in the City’s Housing Element as a site for lower-income households, development on the site has greater protections pursuant to the HAA. (See, for example, Gov.
Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d)(5)(A).)
CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers and concessions with respect to private garage size, building height, front yard depth, off street parking standards, upper story stepbacks, landscaping, driveways, parking screening, rear yard setbacks, side setbacks, private open space, balconies, and patio dimensions. If the City wishes to deny requested waivers, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) requires findings that the waivers would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. If the City wishes to deny requested concessions, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) requires findings that the concessions would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law.
The City, if it makes any such findings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Of note, the DBL specifically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and concessions. (Id. at subd. (p).) Additionally, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.) Furthermore, the project is exempt from further state environmental review pursuant to section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines. Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v.
County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.)
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit; it will provide badly needed affordable housing; it will bring increased tax revenue, it will help the city’s businesses, and it will ease the competition for existing housing. While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law. 2 of 3
CalHDF is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households.
You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.
Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
3 of 3
Homeowners Ridgecrest Drive
Scotts Valley, August 3, 2025]
[Councilmember’s Name]
1 Civic Center Drive
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
Dear Councilmember [Last Name],
We are writing to express concerns about the proposed 19-unit residential community, Ridgewood West, located on Erba Lane. While we understand the need for more housing, the scale and density of this project are simply out of proportion with the surrounding neighborhood.
Placing 19 three-story units on such a small lot is dramatically denser and higher than anything currently on Erba Lane, where existing homes and town homes are two-story high. This kind of development would fundamentally alter the character of the area and dwarf the current neighbors.
Parking is also a serious concern. Based on the current plans, eight of the 19 planned units will have no driveways that accommodate parking, and the garages directly open onto Erba Lane. We see this as a dangerous traffic situation for cars accessing Ridgecrest Drive. In addition, the garages are not large enough to fit trucks and SUVs.
Furthermore, there is no meaningful street parking available on Erba Lane, aside from a handful of existing spaces. Without sufficient on-site parking, new residents will inevitably spill over into the neighborhood and compete for limited spaces or park illegally, which will inevitably impact our access to Ridgecrest Drive.
One possible solution to mitigate the parking strain could be to convert the small open lot across from the fire station into additional parking. However, even with such a measure, we respectfully urge you to advocate for a scaled-down version of the project that better reflects the density, scale, and parking realities of Erba Lane.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Signed by all members of Ridgecrest HOA or the Board?
City of Scotts Valley
Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
June 2025
Wiseman Planning Services
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Table of Contents | Page i
June 2025
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Statutory Authority and Requirements...................................................................................... 1 Purpose of an Initial Study ......................................................................................................... 3 Responsible and Trustee Agencies ............................................................................................ 4 Incorporation By Reference ....................................................................................................... 4 Initial Study ................................................................................................................................................. 7 Background & Project Description ............................................................................................. 7 Environmental Checklist .........................................................................................................................11 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................. 15 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ......................................................................................... 17 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................ 18 Biological Resources ................................................................................................................ 23 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................... 29 Energy Consumption ................................................................................................................ 31 Geology and Soils ..................................................................................................................... 33 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................................................... 36 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................... 38 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................................. 41 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................. 44 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................... 45 Noise ........................................................................................................................................ 46 Population and Housing ........................................................................................................... 49 Public Services .......................................................................................................................... 50 Recreation ................................................................................................................................ 52 Transportation ......................................................................................................................... 53 Tribal Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 55 Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................................... 57 Wildfire ..................................................................................................................................... 59 Mandatory Findings of Significance ......................................................................................... 61
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Table of Contents | Page ii
June 2025
List of Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location
Figure 2 Project Vicinity
Figure 3 Site Plan
Figure 4 Color Rendering
Figure 5 Front Elevation
Figure 6 Rear Elevation
Figure 7 Site Improvements
Figure 8 Stormwater Control Plan
Figure 9 Conceptual Landscape Plan
Figure 10 Existing Tree Map
Figure 11 Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones Note: All figures are inserted at the end of the document.
List of Tables
None.
Appendix
Appendix A: Bay Village Planned Development Negative Declaration and Initial Study (KimleyHorn & Associates, May 2021)
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Introduction| Page 1
June 2025
Introduction
Ridgewood West is a development project (the Project) proposed by City Ventures (Project Applicant) to construct 19 three-story townhome-style condominium residential units. Each unit will be solar, all electric, and range in size from approximately 1,400 to 1,500 square feet (sf). The units will have three bedrooms and two-car garages. The Project will also include eight guest parking spaces.
The City of Scotts Valley has determined that the Project is subject to the guidelines and regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has prepared this Addendum to the previously submitted Bay Village Planned Development project (described below).
Statutory Authority and Requirements
This environmental document has been prepared in conformance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.); CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.); and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementation of CEQA, as adopted by the City of Scotts Valley.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15051 and 15367, the City of Scotts Valley (City) is identified as the Lead Agency for the Project. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 (Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration) to explain the rationale for determining that the proposed Project would not create any new or substantially more severe significant effects on the environment that were not previously analyzed in the Bay Village Planned Development Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting Initial Study (Kimley-Horn & Associates, May 2021, see Appendix A) (the Bay Village Project).
In determining whether an Addendum is the appropriate document to analyze modifications to the Project, CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 states:
a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. b) An addendum to an adopted Negative Declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration have occurred.
c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted Negative Declaration. d) The decision-making body shall considerthe addendum with the final EIR or adopted Negative Declaration prior to making a decision on the Project.
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Introduction| Page 2
June 2025
e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration, the lead agency’s required findings on the Project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.
Since the Bay Village Planned Development Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study has been adopted (June 16, 2021), the environmental impacts of subsequent activities proposed underthe Bay Village Project must be examined in light of the impact analysisin the certified Mitigated Negative Declaration to determine if additional CEQA documentation must be prepared. One of the standards that applies is whether, under Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, there are new significant effects or other grounds that require preparation of a subsequent Negative Declaration in support of further agency action on the Project. Under these guidelines, a subsequent Negative Declaration shall be prepared if any of the following criteria are met:
a) When an EIR has been certified or Negative Declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the Project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and count not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
A. The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration;
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration would substantially reduce
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Introduction| Page 3
June 2025
one or more significant effects on the environment, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
As demonstrated in the environmental analysis contained herein in the Addendum, none of the conditions that had been analyzed in the Bay Village Project would change with adoption of the proposed Project. Furthermore, no new information of substantial importance meeting the criteria listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 has been identified in the environmental analysis.
The environmental documentation (supported by the Initial Study, below), which is ultimately selected by the City in accordance with CEQA, is intended as an informational document undertaken to provide an environmental basisforsubsequent discretionary actions relevant to the Project. The resulting documentation is not, however, a policy document and its approval and/or certification neither presupposes nor mandates any actions on the part of those agencies from whom permits and other discretionary approvals would be required.
Purpose of an Initial Study
The purposes of an Initial Study are to:
1. Identify environmental impacts;
2. Provide the lead agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or a Negative Declaration;
3. Enable an applicant or lead agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is required to be prepared;
4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of the Project;
5. Document the factual basis of the finding in a Negative Declaration that a project would not have a significant environmental effect;
6. Eliminate needless EIRs;
7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used for the Project; and
8. Assist in the preparation of an EIR or Negative Declaration, if required, by focusing the effects determined to be significant, identifying the effects determined not to be significant, and explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15063 identifiesspecific disclosure requirementsfor inclusion in an Initial Study. Pursuant to those requirements, an Initial Study shall include:
A description of the Project, including the location of the Project Identification of the environmental setting
Identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Introduction| Page 4
June 2025
method, provided that entries on a checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries Discussion of ways to mitigate significant effects identified, if any Examination of whether the Project is compatible with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls
The name(s) of the person(s) who prepared or participated in the preparation of the Initial Study
9. With regardsto the context of an Addendum, the Initial Study serves as the basis for substantial evidence that none of the elements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration are triggered.
Responsible and Trustee Agencies
Certain projects or actions undertaken by a Lead Agency require subsequent oversight, approvals, or permitsfrom other public agencies in order to be implemented. Such other agencies are referred to as Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15381 and 15386, as amended, Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies are respectively defined as follows:
“Responsible Agency” means a public agency, which proposesto carry out or approve a project, for which [a] Lead Agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or Negative Declaration. For the purposes of CEQA, the term “responsible agency” includes all public agencies other than the Lead Agency, which have discretionary approval power over the Project. (Section 15381) “Trustee Agency” means a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project, which are held in trust for the people of the State of California. Trustee Agencies include; The California Department of Fish and Wildlife, The State Lands Commission; The State Department of Parks and Recreation and The University of California with regard to sites within the Natural Land and Water Reserves System. (Section 15386) For this Project, the City of Scotts Valley isthe Lead Agency and hasthe sole responsibility of processing and approving the Project. There are no Responsible or Trustee Agencies that have oversight, approval, or permit responsibility associated with the Project, or require consultation with the City of Scotts Valley.
Incorporation By Reference
Pertinent documents relating to this Initial Study have been cited in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, which encourages incorporation by reference as a means of reducing redundancy and length of environmental reports. The following documents are hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study. Information contained within these documents
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Introduction| Page 5
June 2025
has been utilized for this Initial Study. These documents are available for review at the City of Scotts Valley Community Development Department, and online.
Bay Village Planned Development Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study An application for the Bay Village Project was submitted and reviewed by the City in 2021. The Bay Village Project proposed to construct 10 residential units comprised of six single-family homes on a 45,245 sf parcel. The Project site’s two existing lots were proposed to be subdivided into ten lots and two common lots. The lots would range in size from 2,750 to 3,691 square feet (sf), with a common area for the riparian setback (Lot B – 10,681 sf) and a new lane (Lot A – 3,557 sf).
The Project included nine 3-bedroom homes, which range in size from 1,766 sf to 2,108 sf, and one 2,236 sf 4-bedroom unit. Each unit was proposed to include a two-car garage and a 20-foot deep driveway.
The Bay Village Project Site Plan would have required the construction of a 42-inch high guardrail on top of a retaining wall within the 25-foot setback from the top of bank.
Additionally, up to six oak trees would have been affected. As a result, significant impacts were identified related to Sensitive Natural Communities (coast live oak riparian woodland) and Special Status Species, Wildlife Corridors, and Nursery Sites (SF dusky footed woodrat and nesting birds). Impacts were determined to be less than significant with mitigation.
Fronting Erba Lane, the Bay Village Project included a five-foot sidewalk and six-foot landscaped planting strip and construction of a new 24 foot-wide private roadway, extending from Erba Lane, providing access to seven of the residential units (Lots 4 through 10).
Water and sewer services would connect to an existing six-inch sanitary sewer and eight-inch water main located on Erba Lane.
A Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting Initial Study was adopted by the Scotts Valley City Council on June 16, 2021 and is incorporated by reference and can be found in Appendix A.
The application was subsequently withdrawn and the Project was not constructed.
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 7
June 2025
Initial Study
Background & Project Description
Project Title
Ridgewood West
Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Scotts Valley
One Civic Center Drive
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
Contact Person and Phone Number
Susie Pineda
Contract Planner
[email protected]
Project Location
As shown in Figure 1 Regional Location, and Figure 2 Project Vicinity, the Project site is on two parcels (APN 22-481-18 and 22) on Erba Lane in the City of Scotts Valley.
Project Applicant/Sponsor
City Ventures
General Plan Designation
Residential High Density (R-H)
Zoning
Residential High Density (R-H)
Project Description
Existing Project Area Conditions
West of the Project site is MacDorsa Park and the Scotts Valley City Hall. To the south is an electronics company office building and large parking lot. To the east across Erba Lane is a fire station (Scott Vally Fire District) and residential townhomes. To the north is an open lot and Ridgecrest Lane. Along the easterly boundary of the Project site is an existing oak riparian woodland habitat.
The total Project area is 1.04 acres (45,244 sf). The westerly side of the Project Site consists of an existing rolled curb that collect stormwater from Erba Lane, as well as the on-site asphalt parking area.
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 8
June 2025
The northern three-quarters of the site is raised higher than the southern paved area, and an approximately 5-10 foot hill between the paved areas. The Project site elevation ranges from approximately 581-620 feet in sea level.
Site Plan and Building
As shown in Figure 3 Site Plan, the proposed the Project would construct 19 three-story townhome-style condominium residential units in four separate buildings. Each unit will be solar, all electric, and range in size from approximately 1,400 to 1,500 square feet (sf). The units will have three bedrooms and two-car garages with driveways for two additional parking spaces. The Project will also include 10 guest parking spaces. A color rendering of a typical building is shown in Figure 4 Color Rendering. Typical building elevations are shown in Figure 5 Front Elevation and Figure 6 Rear Elevation.
Building design represent contemporary traditional architecture incorporating peaked roofs, wood siding (board and batten, lap, and shingle) and stucco, with balconies, window trellises, and various other architectural details.
The Project site’s two existing parcels that would be subdivided into a one lot subdivision for the purpose of subdividing airspace for the 19 condominium units.
State Density Bonus
The current zoning is Residential High Density has a maximum allowed base density of 15 dwelling units per acre. With a Project site of 1.04 acres, 16 units are allowed. Per State Density Bonus Law (SDBL), the Project Applicant is requesting a 23% density bonus to construct three additional deed restricted for sale units comprised of two (2) Low-Income and one (1) Moderate-Income units for a total of 19 units.
Bonus Density. Gov Code Section 65915(f) allows for a 23% Density Bonus when 12% of base units are dedicated to low income households. Per SB 330, the Project is eligible for waivers and reductions to development standards that have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development (per Govt. Code Section 65915(b)(1) and incentives or concessions (per Govt. Code Section 65915(d)(1) pursuant to SDBL. The Project Applicant has applied for various development standards waivers related to site and building design, parking, and open space as described in the Project plans (Sheet PI 1.3, dated January 16, 2025).
Riparian Woodland Protection
To protect the riparian woodland habitat, all structures (excluding decks) and impervious surfaces would be located outside of the riparian drip line (i.e., outside the tree canopy), as shown in Figure 7 Site Improvements (Sheet C2.1, dated 10/3/24).
A concrete path is proposed adjacent to the drip line. Within the drip line, a decomposed granite path is proposed which will replace existing asphalt and provide a pervious surface that will directly benefit the riparian tree root zone.
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 9
June 2025
Site Improvements
Fronting Erba Lane, the Project includes a five-foot sidewalk, parking aprons, and landscaping. A new private cul-de-sac will be constructed from the southwestern half of the Project site, providing resident and emergency vehicle access.
Grading for the Project would require a cut of 1,770 cubic yards of soil, and fill of 925 cubic yards, for a net export of 845 cubic yards. Consistent with current conditions, stormwater would flow generally north to south across the Project site.
The total new impervious area of 26,345 sf would replace the existing impervious area with an equivalent impervious area of 23,900 sf. The total pervious and landscape areas would be approximately 18,898 sf (Stormwater Control Plan for Ridgewood West – Residential Development, CHC/Civil Consultants Group, 10/8/24).
The Stormwater Control Plan identifies two drainage management areas (DMAs). DMA A (10,367 sf) consists of landscaping and will be self-treating. DMA B (34,876 sf) will include roofs, driveways (i.e., pavers), and other impervious areas and some landscaping. As shown in Figure 8 Stormwater Control Plan (Sheet C5.1, dated 10/3/24), storm drainage from DMA B would be conveyed via collector storm drainpipes to a series of underground infiltration chambers (HydroStor) located under the new private cul-de-sac, where it would be treated and released underground. During high stormwater flows, excess stormwater would be directed to the existing storm drain on Erba Lane. Peak stormwater management will be addressed by decreasing the total on-site impervious area by approximately 6,000 sf and thereby decreasing the onsite runoff to less than pre-development rates.
Water and sewer services would connect to an existing six-inch sanitary sewer and eight-inch water main located on Erba Lane.
Landscaping
There are 41 trees located on the Project site. Forty (40) of these trees are classified as ordinance-sized trees under the City of Scotts Valley Municipal Code Section 17.44.080 (Tree Protection Ordinance) and would remain (Arborist Report, HMH, Revised 3/21/25).
As shown in Figure 9 Conceptual Landscape Plan (Sheet L1.1,Conceptual Landscape Plan, dated 1/16/25), landscaping on the Project site would total approximately 7,768 sf and would be owned and maintained by the homeowners association (HOA). Private pedestrian circulation and amenity areas would generally be away from Erba Lane and oriented toward the preserved riparian woodland and include pockets of informal plantings. A common open space area would be constructed adjacent to the tree canopy and include picnic tables, seating, and a “no-mow” turf (Fescue) area. The exiting informal trails within the woodland area would be preserved and a new private path consisting of concrete outside of the tree canopy, and decomposed granite within the tree canopy would also be constructed.
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 10
June 2025
A total of 37 trees would be installed (10 of which will be 24-inch boxed size) with a variety of species including Crape myrtle, Strawberry tree, Water gum, and Chinese Elm. Additional landscaping would include a variety of large evergreen shrubs, and smaller accent shrubs and groundcover.
Project-Related Approvals, Agreements and Permits
Vesting Tentative Tract Map
SB330 (State Density Bonus) Waivers and Concessions
Design Review
Environmental Review
Cultural Resources Alteration Application CR24-002
Other public agencies whose approval is required
None.
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 11
June 2025
Environmental Checklist
In accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21178.1, this Initial Study has been prepared to analyze whether any new or more significant environmental impacts could occur from implementation of the Project. The purpose of this Initial Study is to inform the decision makers, affected agencies, and the public of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Project. This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the Project.
As demonstrated in Environmental Analysis Sections below, none of the conditions that had been analyzed in the Bay Village Planned Development Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting Initial Study (Kimley-Horn & Associates, May 2021, see Appendix A) (the Bay Village Project) would change with adoption of the proposed Project. Furthermore, no new information of substantial importance meeting the criteria listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 has been identified.
The Project (Ridgewood West) would result in a minor increase in density (10 to 19 units) in context to the City’s General Plan buildout of residential development, while also providing affordable housing to be integrated and constructed on the Project site.
Criteria used to analyze potential impacts associated with the Project including the following:
1) A finding of “New Potentially Significant Impact” means that the project may have a new potentially significant impact on the environment or a substantially more severe impact than analyzed in the previously approved or certified CEQA document that cannot be mitigated to below a level ofsignificance or be avoided. 2) A finding of “New Mitigation is Required” means that the project may have a new potentially significant impact on the environment or a substantially more severe impact than analyzed in the previously approved or certified CEQA document and that new mitigation is required to address the impact.
3) A finding of “No New Impact/No Impact” means that the potential impact was fully analyzed and/or mitigated in the prior CEQA document and no new or different impacts will result from the proposed activity. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No New Impact/No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No New Impact/No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sourcesshow that the impactsimply does not apply to projectslike the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No New Impact/No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 4) A finding of “Reduced Impact” means that a previously infeasible mitigation measure is now available, or a previously infeasible alternative is now available that will
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 12
June 2025
reduce a significant impact identified in the previously prepared environmental document.
5) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
6) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. a) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the proposed action.
b) Infeasible Mitigation Measures. Since the previous EIR was certified or previous ND or MND was adopted, discuss any mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible that would in fact be feasible or that are considerably different from those previously analyzed and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. c) Changes in Circumstances. Since the previous EIR was certified or previous ND or MND was adopted, discuss any changes in the project, changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken and/or "new information of substantial importance" that cause a change in conclusion regarding one or more effects discussed in the original document. 7) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances).
Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 8) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 9) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 10) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; b) differences between the proposed activity and the previously approved project described in the approved ND or MND or certified EIR; and c) the previously approved mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 13
June 2025
impact to less than significance.
New Significant Environmental Effects or Substantially More Severe Environmental Effects Compared to Those Identified in the Previous CEQA Document
The subject areas checked below were determined to be new significant environmental effects or to be previously identified effects that have a substantial increase in severity either due to a change in project, change in circumstances or new information of substantial importance, as indicated by the checklist and discussed below.
Aesthetics Land Use and Planning
Agriculture and Forestry Resources Mineral Resources
Air Quality Noise
Biological Resources Population and Housing
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Public Services
Energy Recreation
Geology and Soils Transportation
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Utilities and Service Systems
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Wildfire
Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 14
June 2025
Lead Agency Determination
On the basis of this evaluation:
No substantial changes are proposed in the project and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous approved ND or MND or certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Also, there is no "new information of substantial importance" as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3).
Therefore, the previously adopted ND or MND or previously certified EIR is adequately discusses the potential impacts of the project without modification.
X No substantial changes are proposed in the project and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous approved ND or MND or certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Also, there is no "new information of substantial importance" as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3).
Therefore, the previously adopted ND, MND or previously certified EIR adequately discussesthe potential impacts of the project; however, minor changes require the preparation of an ADDENDUM.
Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous ND, MND or EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is "new information of substantial importance," as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). However, all new potentially significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects are clearly reduced to below a level of significance through the incorporation of mitigation measures agreed to by the project applicant. Therefore, a SUBSEQUENT MND is required.
Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that willrequire majorrevisionsto the previous environmental document due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is "new information ofsubstantial importance," as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). However, only minor changes or additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project in the changed situation. Therefore, a SUPPLEMENTAL EIR is required.
Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that willrequire majorrevisionsto the previous environmental document due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is "new information ofsubstantial importance," as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, a SUBSEQUENT EIR is required.
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 15
June 2025
Aesthetics
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Impact
Requiring
Mitigation
No New
Impact /
No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
X
a) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
X
b) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the Project is
in an urbanized area, would the Project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
X
c) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
X
Discussion
The Bay Village Project Initial Study determined that scenic vistas, scenic resources, and visual character would not be affected therefore concluded there would be no impact. The Initial Study also concluded that impacts to light and glare would be less than significant.
Following is a brief discussion of the impacts to aesthetic conditions which remain unchanged with the proposed Project.
Scenic Vista
The Project site is relatively flat and is currently used as a partially paved parking lot and is surrounded by a combination of commercial, industrial, office, and residential uses. There are no scenic vistas in the vicinity of the Project site.
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 16
June 2025
Therefore, there would be no new impact to scenic vistas.
Scenic Resources and Visual Character
The Project site is not located along a state scenic highway or designated scenic corridor.
Although the Project would represent a visual change from the existing conditions, it would be consistent with the type of development planned for this area in the General Plan. Additionally, the Project is subject to design review, which would provide an opportunity for further evaluation that the Project would not adversely impact the visual character of the area.
Therefore, there would be no new impact to scenic resources or visual character.
Light and Glare
Existing ambient sources of nighttime lighting include neon and fluorescent signs, lighting of building exteriors and architectural accents, illumination through windows, landscape lighting, street lighting, parking lot lighting, and vehicle headlights. The Project would include outdoor lighting typical to a residential development. All lighting fixtures would be directed downward and shielded or recessed so that the lighting source is not directly visible from the public rightof-way or adjoining properties. All fixtures would utilize light-emitting diode (LED) lighting with glare cutoffs and be dark sky-friendly certified by the International Dark-Sky Association.
Site and architectural lighting is subject to the City design review process which would provide an opportunity for further evaluation so that levels of luminance do not adversely affect the adjacent properties. To further minimize lighting effects on the surrounding area, a projectspecific conditions would require the Project applicant to use no pole lights and utilize downdirected fixtures on building exteriors with concealed light sources, consistent with City policies and design guidelines for lighting to be at the lowest level and carefully controlled for security, aesthetics, safety, and identification without interfering with nearby land uses.
Therefore, there would be no new impact to light and glare.
Findings
The Project is similar to the Bay Village Project with respect to Aesthetics. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, there are no new significant effects or other grounds that require preparation of a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration in support of further agency action on the Project and there would be no new impact.
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 17
June 2025
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Impact
Requiring
Mitigation
No New
Impact /
No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the Project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production
(as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
X
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 18
June 2025
Discussion
The Bay Village Project Initial Study determined that there would be no impact to agriculture and forestry resources.
The Project site is not located on land that is classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resource Agency.
These conditions remain unchanged with the proposed Project and therefore there would be no new impact.
Findings
The Project is similar to the Bay Village Project with respect to agriculture and forestry resources. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, there are no new significant effects or other grounds that require preparation of a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration in support of further agency action on the Project and there would be no new impact.
Air Quality
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Impact
Requiring
Mitigation
No New
Impact /
No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the Project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan?
X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
X
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 19
June 2025
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Impact
Requiring
Mitigation
No New
Impact /
No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
X
Discussion
The Bay Village Project Initial Study determined that air quality impacts would be less than significant, with the exception of odors which was determined to have no impact.
Following is a brief discussion of the impacts to air quality conditions which remain unchanged with the proposed Project.
Air Quality Plan and Air Quality Standards
The Project site is located within the North Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB), which includes Monterey County, San Benito County, and Santa Cruz County, comprising an area of approximately 5,159 square miles along the central California coast. The Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) is responsible for local control and monitoring of criteria air pollutants throughout the NCCAB.
MBARD has developed the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan for the Monterey Bay Region (2012 AQMP) The 2012 AQMP is a transitional plan shifting focus of MBARD’s efforts from achieving the 1-hour component of the State ozone AAQS to achieving the 8-hour ozone requirement. The Plan includes an updated air quality trends analysis, which reflects both the 1- and 8-hour standards, as well as an updated emission inventory, which includes the latest information on stationary, area and mobile emission sources.
In March 2017, MBARD adopted the 2012-2015 Triennial Plan Revision, which assesses and updates elements of the 2012 AQMP, including the air quality trends analysis, emission inventory, and mobile source programs. The 2017 AQMP Revision only addresses attainment of the State ozone standard. In 2012, EPA designated the NCCAB as in attainment of the current national 8-hour ozone standard of 0.075 ppm1.
The following MBARD rules would limit emissions of air pollutants from construction and operation of residential development pursuant to the Project:
1 On October 1, 2015, U.S. EPA adopted a new 8-hour ozone standard of 0.070 ppm. However, U.S. EPA has not yet reviewed recent NCCAB emissions to determine attainment with the current 0.070 ppm standard. Therefore, this attainment status is based upon U.S. EPA’s prior 0.075 ppm standard.
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 20
June 2025
Rule 400 (Visible Emissions) – Discharge of visible air pollutant emissions into the atmosphere from any emission source for a period or periods aggregating more than 3minutes in any 1 hour, as observed using an appropriate test method, is prohibited. Rule 402 (Nuisances) - No person shall discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other materials which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public; or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public; or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.
Rule 425 (Use of Cutback Asphalt) – The use of cutback asphalt (asphalt cement that has been blended with petroleum solvents) is restricted.
Rule 426 (Architectural Coatings) – This rule limits the emissions of ROGs from the use of architectural coatings.
The MBARD’s 2008 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provides criteria for determining cumulative impacts and consistency. The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines note that a project which is inconsistent with an Air Quality Plan would have a significant cumulative impact on regional air quality. Any emissions sources that would be generated as part of the Project would be subject to the MBARD rules and regulations. The Project (the point source) does not include any processes or activities that would emit air pollutants and therefore does not have the potential for significant impacts that would conflict with the AQMP. The Project would be consistent with the AQMP for the Monterey Bay Region and would not make a considerable contribution to this existing, cumulatively significant impact.
Therefore, there would be no new impact.
Construction
MBARD CEQA Guidelines state that construction activities (e.g., excavation, grading, on-site vehicles) that emit 82 pounds per day or more of PM10 would have a significant impact on local air quality when they are located nearby and upwind of sensitive receptors. Based on this emissions threshold, construction activity occurring on more than 2.2 acres per day may result in significant PM10 emissions (MBARD, 2015). Because development of the Project would not result construction activity occurring on more than 2.2 acres per day, impacts would remain less than significant.
However, grading activities during construction could cause dust accumulation in the Project area. Implementation of standard conditions of approval (described below) would be required to ensure potential impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level for all construction activities on the Project site.
Furthermore, standard conditions of approval require that development projects reduce dust generation from project grading and construction to minimal levels, the Project proponent shall
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 21
June 2025
require the grading contractor to implement best management practices (BMPs) for dust control, including watering down exposed earth surfaces each non-rainfall day at intervals that attenuate dust problems. Any dirt tracked on to adjacent roadways shall be removed daily in a manner that does not create substantial airborne dust. The following BMPs shall be included in the construction contract for the Project and be implemented during site grading:
Excavation of the site shall be done in phases by grading only those areas where immediate activity will take place, leaving the remaining areas in their original condition with ground cover.
A water truck, using recycled water, shall be available on a repeated basis each day throughout the grading phase of the Project to spray exposed earth surfaces. In addition to regular water spraying, a biodegradable chemical palliative shall be sprayed on any graded areas that will remain exposed without additional grading for three or more days in succession.
The site entrance shall be base rocked to avoid or minimize tracking mud on roadways by construction vehicles.
Roadway(s) along the Project frontage shall be mechanically swept at the end of each workday when any dirt or mud has been tracked on the street. No grading activities shall occur during days of high wind velocity. Finished graded areas that are designated as open space and landscape areas of project, shall be covered with an accepted erosion control substance such as straw mulch or hydro mulch with a tackifier.
Construction staff shall monitor daily all areas that have received a chemical palliative spray or application of mulch to determine if these areas remain in a dust-free condition and take corrective action as needed to maintain a dust-free environment.
Therefore, there would be no new impact.
Operational
The Project would result in new long-term operational emissions from mobile sources (burning of fossil fuels in cars); energy sources (cooling, heating, and cooking); and area sources (landscape equipment and household products). Mobile source emissions constitute most operational emissions from this type of land use development project. However, emissions associated with Project buildout is not expected to exceed any applicable MBARD thresholds.
No stationary sources would be constructed that would be long-term permanent sources of emissions.
Therefore, the Project would not generate a significant level of operational emissions and there would be no new impact.
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 22
June 2025
Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors in the vicinity include residents and patrons of nearby commercial/office establishments, located approximately 30 feet from the property boundaries of the proposed development.
Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generates diesel exhaust which is a known toxic air containment (TAC). The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has identified diesel exhaust particulate matter as a toxic air contaminant, and assessment of toxic air contaminant cancer risks is typically based upon a 70‐year exposure period. Project grading and construction activities that would utilize diesel‐powered equipment would expose receptors to possible diesel exhaust for a very limited number of days (approximately 10 days). Because exposure to diesel exhaust would be well below the 70‐year exposure period and given the limited and short‐term duration of activities that would use diesel equipment, construction‐ related diesel emissions are not considered significant. Furthermore, the State is implementing emission standards for different classes of on‐ and off‐road diesel vehicles and equipment that applies to off‐road diesel fleets and includes measures such as retrofits. Additionally, Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations (section 2485(c)(1)) prohibits idling of a diesel engine for more than five minutes in any location. Therefore, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Furthermore, standard conditions of approval require that prior to issuance of any grading permit, the Director of Public Works and the Building Official shall confirm that the grading permit and specifications stipulate that all off‐road construction vehicles/equipment shall comply with the California Air Resources Board’s In‐Use Off‐Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation.
Therefore, there would be no new impact.
Odors
During construction activities, temporary odors from vehicles exhaust and construction equipment engine would occur. However, construction-related odors would be short-term and would cease upon completion. Therefore, no objectionable odors are anticipated from construction activities associated with the Project and there would be no new impact.
Land uses typically producing objectionable odors include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Project does not include any uses that would be associated with objectionable odors. Odor emissions from the Project would be limited to odors associated with vehicle and engine exhaust and idling cars. The Project does not include any known sources of objectionable odors associated with the long-term operational use and therefore there would be no new impact.
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 23
June 2025
Findings
The Project is similar to the Bay Village Project with respect to air quality. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, there are no new significant effects or other grounds that require preparation of a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration in support of further agency action on the Project and there would be no new impact.
Biological Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Impact
Requiring
Mitigation
No New
Impact /
No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
X
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
X
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 24
June 2025
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Impact
Requiring
Mitigation
No New
Impact /
No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
X
Discussion
The Bay Village Project Site Plan would have required the construction of a 42-inch high guardrail on top of a retaining wall within the 25-foot setback from the top of bank.
Additionally, up to six oak trees would have been affected. As a result, significant impacts were identified related to Sensitive Natural Communities (coast live oak riparian woodland) and Special Status Species, Wildlife Corridors, and Nursery Sites (SF dusky footed woodrat and nesting birds). Impacts were determined to be less than significant with mitigation.
No impacts were identified for wetlands or biologically-related policies and plans.
Monk & Associates (M&A) conducted peer review (dated 8/6/2024) of the Biological Assessment of the Bay Village Project prepared by Biotic Resources Group (dated 5/31/19). An Arborist Report for the Project was prepared by HMH (dated 3/21/25). The analysis below is based on the findings of these assessments.
A discussion of the impacts follows describing the changes to the Project and its effect in creating reduced impacts and eliminating the mitigation measures associated with impacts to coast live oak riparian woodland.
Special Status Species
Special-status species are those plants and animals that are legally protected under the California and Federal Endangered Species Acts (CESA and FESA, respectively) or other regulations, and species that are considered rare by the scientific community (for example, the California Native Plant Society [CNPS]). Special-status species also include plants and animals
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 25
June 2025
that meet the definition of endangered, rare, or threatened under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (14 CCR §15380) that may include species not found on either CESA or FESA lists.
The Biological Assessment includes lists of special-status plant and wildlife species known from the area and if there is suitable habitat on site for each of them. This was compared to an updated list created by M&A in 2024.
Sensitive Natural Communities
Bay Village Project Initial Study
The Bay Village Project Initial Study (see Appendix A) identified two significant impacts to sensitive the oak riparian woodland, both during construction and after construction. To reduce these impacts to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measures were identified:
MM BIO-1: Oak Riparian Woodland -Project Construction MM BIO-2: Oak Riparian Woodland Post-Construction
These mitigation measures were identified due to the fact that the Bay Village Project included limited improvements (a 42-inch high guardrail on top of a retaining wall) within the 25-foot setback from the top of bank. Additionally, up to six oak trees would have been affected. As noted in the Preliminary Arborists Report, Preliminary Tree Inventory and Assessment (Kurt Fouts, revised March 2020) (the Revised Arborists Report), some oak trees would have required targeted clearance pruning for grading equipment (T29 and T30) and hand grading near them.
Impacts to two oak trees (T35 and T38), adjacent to Lot 6 would have been greater, and would likely needed to be removed. The Revised Arborists Report recommended tree replacement to compensate for the removal and limbing of the identified trees at a 2:1 tree replacement using 15-gallon or 24-inch box size trees and identified an open area east of Lot 7 be used for the tree replacement plantings.
As described below, the proposed Project no longer includes these impacts.
Proposed Project
According to the Arborist Report (HMH, 3/21/25) and as shown on Figure 10 Existing Tree Map, there are 40 coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) and one Monterey cypress (Hespercyparis macrocarpa) on the Project site.
The dense coast live oak riparian woodland surrounds the unnamed creek to the east of the Project site. The mature coast live oak trees are both growing within the Project site, on the creek bank, and on the City’s property on the opposite side of the creek. Many of the trees growing on the opposite side of the bank lean onto the Project site.
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 26
June 2025
Within the woodland understory, though leaf litter was a dominant cover, the dominant plant species present are invasive French broom (Genista monspessulana), native poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobium) and California blackberry (Rubus ursinus). Other plant species present in the understory include dogtail grass (Cynosurus echinatus), rattlesnake grass (Briza maxima), sock destroyer (Torilis arvensis), slender wild oat, petty spurge (Euphorbia peplus), Italian thistle, ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus) and cranesbill (Geranium purpureum).
The coast live oak riparian woodland provides high value habitat for a variety of wildlife species, as described in the Biological Assessment prepared by Biotic Resource Group. Some of the wildlife observed in the riparian habitat during M&A’s 2024 site visit included Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus), Acorn Woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), Western Flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis), California Scrub Jay (Aphelocoma californica), Chestnut-backed Chickadee (Poecile rufescens), Oak Titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), Bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus) and California Towhee (Melozone crissalis).
The Biological Assessment provided an extensive search of special-status plants known within the vicinity of the Project site and determined that the potential for special-status plants on the project site is very low due to the lack of suitable habitat and the conditions of the site. As such, no measures related to special-status plants were recommended in the Biological Assessment.
M&A determined that most all the special-status plants in the area require more specialized habitats than the Project site supports, such as serpentine soil, chaparral habitat, mesic conditions, coniferous forests, bogs, or marshes.
There is very little suitable habitat for one species, bent-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris) on the Project site in the form of some suitable grassland and woodland habitat on site. Bentflowered fiddleneck is a CNPS Rank 1B.2 species (rare, threatened or endangered in California) but has no state or federal status. This annual member of the borage family is found in in open woods, coastal bluff scrub, and grassland habitats at elevations of 3 to 500 meters. Bentflowered fiddleneck blooms between March and June.
The Biotic Resources Group conducted a survey of the project site in May 2019 and M&A conducted a site visit in June 2024. Bent-flowered fiddleneck was not observed during either of these surveys when the plant would have been identifiable. As such, this species is not expected to be on the Project site and no impacts are expected.
M&A concurs with the Biological Assessment and no mitigation measures for sensitive natural communities are recommended pursuant to CEQA. Because the Project will no longer require construction (i.e., retaining walls and tree removal/pruning) resulting in a reduced impact.
State and Federal Regulated Waterways and Federal Wetlands Development of the Project would occur adjacent to a regulated waterway. The Project is located near California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) and Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (RWQCD) regulatory jurisdiction; however, the Project is located outside of the oak riparian woodland dripline. As shown in Figure 3: Site Plan, construction would not require
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 27
June 2025
the removal of vegetation in the streambank, nor on the top of the bank of the dry creek, within regulated areas by the CDFW and RWQCD.
Therefore, there would be no new impact.
Special Status Species, Wildlife Corridors, and Nursery Sites Bay Village Project Initial Study
The Bay Village Project Initial Study determined that the Project site provides suitable habitat for the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat and nesting birds. To protect these sensitive animal species, mitigation measure MM BIO-4: Protection of Sensitive Animal Species was identified to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level:
Proposed Project
The Biological Assessment provides a list of special-status wildlife species known in the Project area and determined the only special-status species that may occur onsite is the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens). There are no California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) occurrences of this species within three miles of the project site and M&A did not observe any of this rodent’s distinctive stick nests onsite.
M&A concurred with the Biological Assessment that there is some suitable habitat on the Project site for the woodrat. Although they were not observed during the Biotic Resources Group survey in 2019 or M&A’s survey in 2024, M&A recommends that preconstruction survey should be conducted prior to the start of any work within the riparian zone, should work in this area be proposed, to ensure that this special-status species has not moved onsite and could be impacted by site work/grading.
M&A also concurred with the Biological Assessment that there are no other special-status species likely to occur on the Project site due to the absence of suitable habitats. Many specialstatus wildlife species known from the area live in specialized habitats that are not present on the Project site.
M&A concluded that the recommended measures are sufficient for both the woodrat and nesting birds; however, M&A recommends nesting bird surveys be conducted earlier (February 1) than the Biological Assessment recommended as many bird species may begin nesting then.
Based on this recommendation, MM BIO4 is amended as follows:
MM BIO-4: Protection of Sensitive Animal Species
Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City the following:
1. The landowner shall hire a qualified biologist to search for San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests. If any are found and impacts to the nests cannot be avoided, the
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 28
June 2025
applicant shall seek written approval from CDFW to implement a trapping and relocation program. Wood rat nests shall not be disturbed without prior written approval from CDFW.
2. If construction is scheduled to begin between March 1 February 1 and August 15 of any given year, the landowner shall hire a qualified biologist to conduct a search for active bird nests in the vicinity of the work site (following CDFW survey protocols). If active bird nests are observed, the work shall be postponed until the biologist determines that all chicks have fledge the nest(s).
Implementation of this revised MM BIO-4 would result in a reduced impact.
Conflict with Local Polices, HCP or NCCP, or Other Conservation Plan The Bay Village Project Initial Study determined that there would be no conflicts with any local policies or applicable HCP’s and there would be no impact.
As shown in Figure 3: Site Plan, the Project would preserve all of the oak riparian woodland on the Project site and the footprint of the buildings and associated site improvements (e.g. pathways) are located outside of the dripline of the oak riparian woodland.
As described in the Bay Village Project Initial Study, a habitat survey report for the endangered Mount Hermon June Beetle and Zayante Band Wing grasshopper was prepared by Entomological Consulting Services, Ltd., dated July 14, 2005. Due to the absence of indigenous sand parkland vegetation and sunlight, barren Zayante sandy soils, and habitat conditions, the report concluded that the Project site was not suitable for the Zayante Band Wing grasshopper.
Similarly, due to the absence of Ponderosa pines and Zayante sands, habitat conditions are not suitable for the Mount Hermon June Beetle.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or applicable HCP’s and there would be no new impact.
Findings
Different from the Bay Village Project, the Project will remain outside of the City-required riparian setback and site development plans will conform to the requirements presented in the Biological Assessment prepared by Biotic Resources Group and peer reviewed by M&A, thereby avoiding impacts to the coast live oak riparian woodland. MM BIO-4 will extend the timeline by one month (from March 1 to February 1) to conduct a search for active bird nests in the vicinity of the work site should construction occur during this time period.
Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, there are no new significant effects or other grounds that require preparation of a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration in support of further agency action on the Project and there would be no new impact on biological resources.
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 29
June 2025
Cultural Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Impact
Requiring
Mitigation
No New
Impact / No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the Project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical
resource pursuant to in § 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to
§ 15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries?
X
Discussion
The Bay Village Project Initial Study determined there would be no impacts to cultural resources.
Following is a brief discussion of the impacts to cultural resource conditions which remain unchanged with the proposed Project.
Cultural Resources
The Scotts Valley General Plan (2023) Figure OSC-6 Cultural Resource Areas indicates that the Project site is located within areas of moderate and high archaeological sensitivity.
An Extended Phase I Archeological Assessment (Albion Environmental, Inc., March 2020) was prepared for the Project site in 2020 (Albion Environmental, Inc., March 2020). After reviewing the record search results, Albion conducted an intensive pedestrian survey and limited trenching and auguring of the Project area. Visual inspection surface and small-scale subsurface excavations revealed no evidence of intact prehistoric or historic-era archaeological deposits.
However, due to the proximity of archeological site SCR-177/H, it was recommended that archeological and Native American monitoring occur during all ground-disturbing activities.
Albion prepared a subsequent technical letter report (dated 1/7/25) to analyze potential impacts associated with the proposed Project. The report concurred with their previous
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 30
June 2025
assessment (March 2020) that there are no potentially significant cultural materials present in the Project area, and that monitoring should still occur during all ground-disturbing activities.
Standard conditions of approval for development require that the Project applicant and construction contractor ensure that any cultural resource, including archaeological, paleontological, or human remains are not destroyed if discovered during project grading or other subsurface work.
As part of the standard conditions of approval, the Project applicant shall submit a copy of a contract with a qualified/registered archaeologist to conduct monitoring of all earth disturbing activities for review and approval by the Community Development Director, before grading permit issuance. The Project applicant shall include this requirement in the contract for all contractors involved with grading and subsurface work. The qualified/registered archaeologist shall monitor all earthwork activity as described below:
1. An archaeologist shall monitor the grading or excavation of soils at the development site in order to determine if important cultural remains are present. Such monitoring shall begin before and occur during subsurface earth moving activities;
2. The duration and period of archaeological monitoring of project development activities shall be at the discretion of the professional archaeologist. At a minimum, however, any activity that initially displaces or removes original soil from its present context shall be monitored by an archaeologist on a continuous basis;
3. Monitoring activities such as replacing soils in trenches, redistributing displaced soil elsewhere on the development site, or removing stockpiled excavated soil may not require monitoring;
4. Monitoring may include the periodic sampling and screening of soils in order to better determine if cultural remains are present; and,
5. If any cultural resources are discovered, the Project contractor shall immediately stop all earth disturbing work within a 50-foot radius of the discovery to allow for inspection, evaluation, and potential recovery of resources by the supervising project archaeologist, before resuming any earth-disturbing construction activities. The Project applicant shall also contact the Planning Department and Building Official as soon as work has been stopped. It may be necessary to resume grading or excavation activities under the direction of the supervising archaeologist in order to locate or expose cultural remains.
Standard conditions of approval require that the Project applicant and construction contractor ensure that paleontological resources are not destroyed during project grading by implementing following measures:
1) Provide the Project paleontologist with a copy of the final grading plans for review prior to any project grading;
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 31
June 2025
2) Provide for daily monitoring during grading activities by the Project paleontologist to determine if paleontological resources are encountered in excavated areas; 3) Allow for the recovery of any discovered paleontological resources according to a recovery plan/methods specified by the Project paleontologist, including the donation of the recovered resources to a suitable repository (museum, school, etc.); 4) If recovery occurs, ensure that the Project paleontologist prepare a recovery report that details the type of resources recovered and the repository locations where they were taken; and,
5) Specify in the construction contract with the Project grading contractor(s), that grading personnel are to cooperate with and assist the Project paleontologist during monitoring and any recovery activities, including assisting with recovery efforts if necessary.
Therefore, there would be no new impacts.
Human Remains
No known human remains are located on the Project site. Pursuant to section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, if human remains are discovered, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the discovery site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the Project applicant has complied with the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e).
Therefore, there would be no new impacts.
Findings
The Project is similar to the Bay Village Project with respect to cultural resources. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, there are no new significant effects or other grounds that require preparation of a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration in support of further agency action on the Project and there would be no new impact.
Energy Consumption
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Impact
Requiring
Mitigation
No New
Impact /
No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the Project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
X
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 32
June 2025
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Impact
Requiring
Mitigation
No New
Impact /
No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or
operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
X
Discussion
The Bay Village Project Initial Study determined that there would be no impact on energy consumption.
Following is a brief discussion of the impacts to energy consumption conditions which remain unchanged with the Project.
Energy consumption associated with construction of the Project would be temporary and shortterm. Project design and operation would comply with State Building Energy Efficiency Standards, appliance efficiency regulations, and green building standards. Additionally, the Project includes other design features including efficient low-energy lighting, and natural ventilation systems.
The Project would also be required to be built according to City and State energy efficiency standards. The Project would be required to comply with existing regulations, including applicable measures from the City’s General Plan. Vehicle trips and energy consumption would be less carbon intensive as compared to historic levels due to statewide compliance with future low carbon fuel standard amendments and increasingly stringent Renewable Portfolio Standards.
Therefore, there would be no new impacts.
Findings
The Project is similar to the Bay Village Project with respect to energy consumption. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, there are no new significant effects or other grounds that require preparation of a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration in support of further agency action on the Project and there would be no new impact.
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 33
June 2025
Geology and Soils
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Impact
Requiring
Mitigation
No New
Impact /
No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
X
i) Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
X
ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking?
X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable
as a result of the Project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property?
X
City of Scotts Valley Ridgewood West CEQA Addendum
Initial Study | Page 34
June 2025
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Impact
Requiring
Mitigation
No New
Impact /
No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
X
Discussion
The Bay Village Project Initial Study determined that impacts to geology and soils would be less than significant, with the exception of soils being suitable for septic tanks, which was found to have no impact.
Following is a brief discussion of the impacts to geology and soil conditions which remain unchanged with the proposed Project.
Earthquake Faults, Landslides, and Seismic Ground Shaking Project construction would subject the buildings and their inhabitants to periodic seismic shaking associated with the San Andreas Fault and other active faults within the Monterey Bay area. As part of any future Planned Development application submitted to the City of Scotts Valley, the Project applicant would be required to submit plans that are in compliance with the latest California Building Code (CBC) standards consistent with Title 15 – Buildings and Construction of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code.
Prior to approval of any entitlements, City staff is required to review project plans and verify that the CBC Seismic requirements are printed on the plans. Building Division staff shall verify that CBC standards are met prior to issuance of Building Permits. Building inspectors shall conduct site inspections to ensure that construction occurs consistent with approved plans.
The Scotts Valley General Plan (2023), Figure SN-4: Liquefaction Potential indicates that the Project site is not in an area for liquefaction. Figure SN-5: Landslide Deposits indicates that the site is in an area containing landslide deposits. Figure OSC-1 Slopes, indicate that the Project site is not located within any mapped geological hazard areas. Per the earthquake hazard zones defined by the Alquist-Priolo map, the risk of earthquake-induced ground rupture occurring across the Project site is moderately low.